# President Donald Trump Thread (All Trump Discussion Here)



## Oda Nobunaga

:trump

The old thread was too cluttered and had too many posts. This is the new thread, so carry on the discussion here.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@Carte Blanche and @Roy Mustang, very well-made points.

In truth, :trump winning is the best possible thing that could happen to liberals' fear and loathing of working class and middle class whites. The continual disregard, mockery and, electorally, taking-for-granted that liberals and Democrats--and Republicans, by the way, especially from the establishment's haughty viewpoint--of those voters was leading to a rebellion sooner or later.

Five cops are executed in the streets of Dallas and the sitting president, who won in what is now apparently a "racist," "xenophobic," "bigoted" country brimming with racist white hicks, speaks of the need to recognize that many cops go too far against minorities _at their funeral_. The same president who called the Pennsylvanians who rejected Hillary last night as "bitter clingers" and whose jobs have been outsourced or removed, whole industries downsized, with nary a care about their lot or the lot of their children, from the U.S.'s political and financial elites, and who, along with many others who excited by :trump were declared "deplorables" and, to a large extent, "irredeemable" by Hillary Clinton. 

And those are just rhetorical scrapings off of the tip of the proverbial iceberg. As you two noted, the media assault upon Trump and Trump fans was unceasing and doubtless contributed to the feeling among those voting for Trump that they were fighting for the insurrectionist rebel and underdog. 

At a certain point, a backlash was inevitable. 

Liberals today should thank their lucky stars that this occurred because the sad truth is that if these people did not find a political voice, at some point in the future a genuinely dangerous and sincerely racist figure might show up instead. 

I've seen a litany of posts online from immigrants in the U.S. who, otherwise, I like, but who keep saying, "WHEN WILL THESE DEMOGRAPHICS CHANGE ALREADY? GO AWAY ******!" et. al. :lol I mean, I'm sorry, but a large grouping of whites have been feeling politically under siege with their kids taught to hate their ancestors' accomplishments for quite a while now. Is much of the resentment misdirected? Perhaps. Yet for one hundred years one of the most universally cherished concepts in the world is "the right to self-determination." It's what led to myriad complications and heartaches throughout the twentieth century and now the twenty-first. If, say, black South Africans have the sovereign right to attempt to control how many whites live there post-apartheid, for instance, do not populations of other countries get a say in their country's demographical future? 

Also, when 29% of Hispanics--apparently--vote for you, you are probably not the cartoon character Nordicist seeking unyielding racial purity of the _volk_. Also interested to see how blacks voted, as well as Asians (know a few of each group who voted for Trump!). As noted, would hardly be surprised to learn that Trump received more votes from blacks than any GOP nominee in many, many years.

Hillary's talk of Vladimir Putin pulling Trump's strings was of course demagogic, fear-mongering nonsense that apparently no one bought aside from a few Democrats here and there, but there is an interesting comparison between Trump and Putin. Trump's rhetoric is brined in civic nationalism. Just as Putin talks a tough game and promotes the church, etc., but allows Russia's considerable Muslim population feel a part of the Russian fabric, it's difficult to find anything in Trump's speechifying to suggest that he wishes to simply ostracize minorities so long as they are American citizens. Both men, based on their statements (because that is the only way by which to judge Trump thus far) are pragmatic, center-right civic nationalists who find the reigning globalist system which seems to now be teetering on a certain precipice deeply wanting. 



AryaDark said:


> *Odds are even if they did know they wouldn't care and that's a HUGE fucking problem as far as I'm concerned. That's what our political system has come to. Someone as corrupt as Hillary Clinton came this fucking close to winning a Presidential election.
> 
> I hate both of these fuckers but there's no way I'd vote for someone as corrupt as Hillary Clinton, I don't care who the fuck it is or who the fuck they are running against.
> 
> This is just more evidence that we need more than two parties in this system. We need more than two parties invited to debates and until enough people see the fucking light and stop voting for these fucking pricks and start voting for third parties it'll never happen. Democrats and Republicans are thick as thieves when it comes to this. They will do whatever it takes to keep other parties out of the debate system. Those that don't see this are simply delusional. *


:clap :clap :clap

You put that exceptionally well. 



Genking48 said:


> That's the beauty of social media, you don't have to imagine!
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796264321726685184
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796265040613675008
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796176331377516544
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796246189502959616
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796256623912251392
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796211749351550978
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796220439542439936












By the way, today is now, almost everywhere but where @Tater lives, November 9. On November 9, 1989, twenty-seven years ago, the Berlin Wall fell, one global order receding and retreating before the ascension of another one. With Brexit in Great Britain some months ago and the election of Trump in the U.S., with myriad European leaders and major finance ministers and bankers warning that the European Union project seems doomed, it would seem that yet another order is rising now.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

:trump

what a time to be alive


----------



## $id

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

one question is now that hes won, can the celebrities just wait before he fucks up to say all this?

I mean he won sad for you but just wait till he fucks up ateast.

edit:am talking mainly about katy pery saying we wont let hate led us


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Goku said:


> :trump
> 
> what a time to be alive


:trump


----------



## BornBad

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@CamillePunk the man pulling our strings, Vladimir Putin, is addressing the world on Russia Today! :woo 

How many rubles does each :trump voter get again? :woo (Not even sure if you voted for :trump *Camille*. :lol)


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796284354754396160
At least he can go back to Canada whenever he wants.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Twitter had me rolling. The stuff people said yesterday in relation to Donald Trump leading over Hillary Clinton. Time will tell whether these doomsayers are the only sane people in an insane world or they're just insane. :trump

I didn't want Trump or Hillary, but one of 'em had to win. All one can do is hope for the best now that it is over and wish whoever won good luck.


----------



## Death Rider

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

"Liberals today should thank their lucky stars that this occurred because the sad truth is that if these people did not find a political voice, at some point in the future a genuinely dangerous and sincerely racist figure might show up instead. "

This needed to happen for sure Row. The amount of regressive lefts who dismiss anyone who disagrees with them as a racist or a sexist is wrong and needs to stop. Like Trump may say some very how do I put this not very smart things at times but I doubt he is a racist or a sexist. 

People saying hilary did not get in cause she is a woman are fucking stupid. If she was a man she would not have even got as far as she did. 

I am curious to see what trade deals we strike with Trump as he was very anti-EU so this may end up helping the UK if our government can get it's shit sorted and start planning for BREXIT. Setting us good trade links with Trump would be a good start


----------



## Reggie Dunlop

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



$id said:


> one question is now that hes won, can the celebrities just wait before he fucks up to say all this?
> 
> I mean he won sad for you but just wait till he fucks up ateast.
> 
> edit:am talking mainly about katy pery saying we wont let hate led us


Let 'em wallow in their misery. 

Still, I'm sick to death of the racist and sexist categorizations, especially the latter, considering the legacy (and DNA samples) that Bill left behind.


----------



## BRITLAND

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Little off topic here but did Rhyno win his seat in Congress?


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

The calling of the election being rigged was a risky but smart move. Considering the fact the Democrats fucked over Bernie, committed election fraud and colluded with the media sealed their fate.

Who would question them committing election or voter fraud on the biggest stage? The awful reporting, lies from hillary and the fed debate questions screwed them even more. The questioning made the faulty voting machines which only seem to benefit democrats made people even more angry and vigilant. People were going to be heard!

The Democrats did themselves no favors with their shady behavior, getting celebs who are the 1% to shill for them and colluding with the media on half-baked bullshit on Trump. Like true "leftists" they'll eat each other, blame minorities and sexism and people will watch and laugh. How can you not when you have morons like Patton Oswald blaming it all on simply sexism?

The people aren't going to elect to make history nor fill your pc quota crap, they elect on issues. Remember that Democrats if your party even survives the year.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I think what this result shows is there is no more powerful motivator than the idea that you are a victim of injustice, and there are forces taking away what you love and care about, you need to fight and struggle to get back to an 'old better way of life' when everything was better, and if you don't you'll never be safe again. 

Trump and his side were able to push that message to the nth degree, and that combined with the patriotic, nationalistic, and especially nostalgic feel was what won it for Trump today. That appeared to override all the gaffes and deplorable language in the world.

Just my 2c anyway.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

​


yeahbaby! said:


> I think what this result shows is there is no more powerful motivator than the idea that you are a victim of injustice, and there are forces taking away what you love and care about, you need to fight and struggle to get back to an 'old better way of life' when everything was better, and if you don't you'll never be safe again.
> 
> Trump and his side were able to push that message to the nth degree, and that combined with the patriotic, nationalistic, and especially nostalgic feel was what won it for Trump today. That appeared to override all the gaffes and deplorable language in the world.
> 
> Just my 2c anyway.



One can argue that attacking Trump nonstop and colluding with the MSM which people don't trust anymore helped Trump.

Because of all the BS any actual problems got looked over as noise. Calling everything and everyone racist or sexist just made people listen less and sympathize with Trump.

You are 100% spot on!


----------



## Alco

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



DesolationRow said:


> By the way, today is now, almost everywhere but where @Tater lives, November 9. On November 9, 1989, twenty-seven years ago, the Berlin Wall fell, one global order receding and retreating before the ascension of another one. With Brexit in Great Britain some months ago and the election of Trump in the U.S., with myriad European leaders and major finance ministers and bankers warning that the European Union project seems doomed, it would seem that yet another order is rising now[/B].


First of all, Trump winning is extremely interesting for me, as I'm a political scientist by education and these sorts of massive events intrigue me to no end.

But to respond to what you quoted there regarding the European Union, I will not react positively to a potential fall of the European Union project. 

As negatively as it is perceived today, the European Union has two massive successes that so many people today fail to recognize and it concerns me: Peace and economic progress. A period of 50 years without major conflict (in Western Europe at least) on a continent that has been torn apart by war for over 2000 years and the ascension of Europe as the third largest economic bloc in the world is no small feat and I would not want to know what this continent will break down into if the European project falls apart into a blanket of nationalist regimes that all look inward and only have local/regional interests at heart.

Sorry to be talking about Europe in a thread about the US Elections, but I felt an urgent need to vent the concern above


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

They said he wasn't going to make a run for the White House. He did.

They said he wasn't going to be the GOP nominee. He did!

They said he wasn't going to win the general election. HE DID!











- Vic


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

polls :duck















































































































:duck


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Goku said:


> polls :duck
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :duck


I'll take a page from @deepelemblues and only say :heston




























































































Polls :heston


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



DesolationRow said:


> Liberals today should thank their lucky stars that this occurred because the sad truth is that if these people did not find a political voice, at some point in the future a genuinely dangerous and sincerely racist figure might show up instead.


This is what I've been saying all along. The USA rejecting the war mongering corporate sellout Democrats and giving Republicans complete control so they can wreck everything will be a good thing in the long run for those of us on the left, even if most of them do not realize it yet.


----------



## KingCosmos

Very interesting about the white voters that came out the woodwork to vote for Trump. The numbers are very telling. It shows that when they feel systematic white supremacy is threatened they will go out of the way to vote. No doubt the racial issues and riots in America has caused these people to act. They feel as if they are under attack. Which is ridiculous because systematic white supremacy would still be protected under Hilary. These people aren't the radical racist and some of them might not even realize they are white supremacist 

Then you have the for lack of a better term losers that voted for Trump because they feel that it is somehow giving the middle finger to the establishment and the elite These poor saps have been beaten down in life so much that they feel voting for Trump somehow gives them a sense of power. Ironically they are voting for one of the extreme elite and are blind to the fact that anything will really change. These suckers will stay poor and the rich will keep the money

Then let's not forget the Black people for Trump simply because they thought Hilary was a snake. Also the Black voters that are Uncle toms and fail to realize in the end supporting white supremacy does not spare you from injustice because at the end of the day your skin color will always get you shot.

Then you have the Anti Clinton crowd that voted and they would put Satan in the white house before another Clinton. 

Trump picked the perfect time to run for president. White people feel that their place st the top in society is threatened so they will flock naturally. This is the brutal honest truth about the people voted.


----------



## DoubtGin

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Is there any website where Trump's politics are presented in a rather neutral way?

I have really no idea about US politics so I'd like to know more about what he's doing.


----------



## ★Th0t Patr0L★

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Good to know the world has gone to shit and any future prospects I had in being a proud, working minority female has gone to shit. I'm genuinely ashamed of my country for letting the race come down to those two and now I absolutely despise majority of the voting country for who won.

Smh.


----------



## Death Rider

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



KingCosmos said:


> Very interesting about the white voters that came out the woodwork to vote for Trump. The numbers are very telling. It shows that when they feel systematic white supremacy is threatened they will go out of the way to vote. No doubt the racial issues and riots in America has caused these people to act. They feel as if they are under attack. Which is ridiculous because systematic white supremacy would still be protected under Hilary. These people aren't the radical racist and some of them might not even realize they are white supremacist
> 
> Then you have the for lack of a better term losers that voted for Trump because they feel that it is somehow giving the middle finger to the establishment and the elite These poor saps have been beaten down in life so much that they feel voting for Trump somehow gives them a sense of power. Ironically they are voting for one of the extreme elite and are blind to the fact that anything will really change. These suckers will stay poor and the rich will keep the money
> 
> Then let's not forget the Black people for Trump simply because they thought Hilary was a snake. Also the Black voters that are Uncle toms and fail to realize in the end supporting white supremacy does not spare you from injustice because at the end of the day your skin color will always get you shot.
> 
> Then you have the Anti Clinton crowd that voted and they would put Satan in the white house before another Clinton.
> 
> Trump picked the perfect time to run for president. White people feel that their place st the top in society is threatened so they will flock naturally. This is the brutal honest truth about the people voted.


So basically if they disagree with how you voted they are idiots or racist or racists who don't know they are racist? K


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Not sure if accurate but Russia wants a trade deal with the UK. Imagine if the UK and America can get a good deal all with each other! Peace and trade with Russia sounds great!


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



BRITLAND said:


> Little off topic here but did Rhyno win his seat in Congress?


Yup, @BruiserKC confirmed that Rhyno indeed won his race. :sk

Rhyno won
Medicial marijuana won in my home state of Florida
CROOKED HILLDEBEAST LOST

Feels pretty damn good, man. :trump


----------



## Death Rider

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> Not sure if accurate but Russia wants a trade deal with the UK. Imagine if the UK and America can get a good deal all with each other! Peace and trade with Russia sounds great!


This sounds like a good plan for the UK after leaving the EU and would put us in a very good position economically. Peace is always better then war and while Putin is far from perfect the hostility shown towards him is awful at times. A trade deal between US, UK and Russia may end up helping the UK after leaving the EU


----------



## 3MB4Life

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

This election's currently being called a "whitelash" against Obama, students across the country are screaming "Fuck Donald Trump", Clinton won't even give a speech to concede the election...

it's nice to know that the left can be so gracious in defeat. Can't wait for the riots, that should be fun.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



KingCosmos said:


> Very interesting about the white voters that came out the woodwork to vote for Trump. The numbers are very telling. It shows that when they feel systematic white supremacy is threatened they will go out of the way to vote. No doubt the racial issues and riots in America has caused these people to act. They feel as if they are under attack. Which is ridiculous because systematic white supremacy would still be protected under Hilary. These people aren't the radical racist and some of them might not even realize they are white supremacist
> 
> Then you have the for lack of a better term losers that voted for Trump because they feel that it is somehow giving the middle finger to the establishment and the elite These poor saps have been beaten down in life so much that they feel voting for Trump somehow gives them a sense of power. Ironically they are voting for one of the extreme elite and are blind to the fact that anything will really change. These suckers will stay poor and the rich will keep the money
> 
> Then let's not forget the Black people for Trump simply because they thought Hilary was a snake. Also the Black voters that are Uncle toms and fail to realize in the end supporting white supremacy does not spare you from injustice because at the end of the day your skin color will always get you shot.
> 
> Then you have the Anti Clinton crowd that voted and they would put Satan in the white house before another Clinton.
> 
> Trump picked the perfect time to run for president. White people feel that their place st the top in society is threatened so they will flock naturally. This is the brutal honest truth about the people voted.



The brutal truth is you're an idiot. Uncle Toms? White Supremacy at every turn? Everything is is racist? 

Lol fuck off with that thinking.

Guess white people voted for Obama's white half.


----------



## Morrison17

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

My congratulations to the world and USA.

Remember guys, it's better to have a clown as a president than 3rd world war.


----------



## ★Th0t Patr0L★

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Morrison17 said:


> My congratulations to the world and USA.
> 
> Remember guys, it's better to have a clown as a president than 3rd world war.


What makes you think we couldn't have WWIII with a clown as a leader?

Our country is a fucking joke and a laughing stock at this point, probably seen as easy pickings, too.


----------



## THE HAITCH

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

The Haitch knew Trump would grab elections by the pussy and make America great again-uhh.










Fuck Arnold though-uhh... He sold out.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

The best part are the celebrities who ate a shit sandwich with no bread tonght. Hope they back up their words. *#ByeFelicia*

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/catherinedunn/2016/09/08/these-10-celebrities-say-theyll-leave-the-country-if-trump-is-elected-n2215391

- Vic


----------



## Nightrow

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## KingCosmos

Miss Sally said:


> KingCosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very interesting about the white voters that came out the woodwork to vote for Trump. The numbers are very telling. It shows that when they feel systematic white supremacy is threatened they will go out of the way to vote. No doubt the racial issues and riots in America has caused these people to act. They feel as if they are under attack. Which is ridiculous because systematic white supremacy would still be protected under Hilary. These people aren't the radical racist and some of them might not even realize they are white supremacist
> 
> Then you have the for lack of a better term losers that voted for Trump because they feel that it is somehow giving the middle finger to the establishment and the elite These poor saps have been beaten down in life so much that they feel voting for Trump somehow gives them a sense of power. Ironically they are voting for one of the extreme elite and are blind to the fact that anything will really change. These suckers will stay poor and the rich will keep the money
> 
> Then let's not forget the Black people for Trump simply because they thought Hilary was a snake. Also the Black voters that are Uncle toms and fail to realize in the end supporting white supremacy does not spare you from injustice because at the end of the day your skin color will always get you shot.
> 
> Then you have the Anti Clinton crowd that voted and they would put Satan in the white house before another Clinton.
> 
> Trump picked the perfect time to run for president. White people feel that their place st the top in society is threatened so they will flock naturally. This is the brutal honest truth about the people voted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The brutal truth is you're an idiot. Uncle Toms? White Supremacy at every turn? Everything is is racist?
> 
> Lol fuck off with that thinking.
> 
> Guess white people voted for Obama's white half.
Click to expand...

No not everything is racist. A lot of it is White Supremacy tho. Intended or not but doing something that results in disenfranchising a group of people to the benefit of you is White supremacy. I love how you didn't address the points. You are naive if you think those aren't the reason people voted. Hence you are the problem for refusing to acknowledge systematic white supremacy in America


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

So I noticed Miss Sally has been banned. 

Damn it WF, we want Hilldog locked up, not her. 

EDIT: @Oda Nobunaga filled me on the details and while she didn't do anything that warranted jail time, it certainly fell under the rules for a temporary ban. Hopefully she comes back soon and drinks the tears of Hillary supporters instead of trying to bleed them to death via savage as fuck insults.


----------



## KingCosmos

Roy Mustang said:


> KingCosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very interesting about the white voters that came out the woodwork to vote for Trump. The numbers are very telling. It shows that when they feel systematic white supremacy is threatened they will go out of the way to vote. No doubt the racial issues and riots in America has caused these people to act. They feel as if they are under attack. Which is ridiculous because systematic white supremacy would still be protected under Hilary. These people aren't the radical racist and some of them might not even realize they are white supremacist
> 
> Then you have the for lack of a better term losers that voted for Trump because they feel that it is somehow giving the middle finger to the establishment and the elite These poor saps have been beaten down in life so much that they feel voting for Trump somehow gives them a sense of power. Ironically they are voting for one of the extreme elite and are blind to the fact that anything will really change. These suckers will stay poor and the rich will keep the money
> 
> Then let's not forget the Black people for Trump simply because they thought Hilary was a snake. Also the Black voters that are Uncle toms and fail to realize in the end supporting white supremacy does not spare you from injustice because at the end of the day your skin color will always get you shot.
> 
> Then you have the Anti Clinton crowd that voted and they would put Satan in the white house before another Clinton.
> 
> Trump picked the perfect time to run for president. White people feel that their place st the top in society is threatened so they will flock naturally. This is the brutal honest truth about the people voted.
> 
> 
> 
> So basically if they disagree with how you voted they are idiots or racist or racists who don't know they are racist? K
Click to expand...

I don't vote.Hilary and Trump are both awful choices. I wish more people would do that. But if you want to live in a bubble and act like those are not the reasons Trump was voted in then ok. White supremacist is the word I should emphasis more. I shouldn't have said racist. Maintaining white supremacy is the goal of many voters are you going to outright deny this? I see you didn't address the arguments and simply wanted to to say "hey you are calling people racist" There are many White Supremacist. Just on different levels. Some are KKK and some are as simple as voting for Trump because you feel threatened about a racial issue. I don't blame these people they are trying to maintain there place in society. But if doing so is to the detrimental to a group of people this is White supremacy. You are mistaking it for radical racism. White supremacy s a totally different issue. The real issue in America. And you know the worst thing. A white person will look at a neo Nazi or Klan member and say that's horrible. That's racism and I'm not that so I can't be racist. And they would be right. At the same time they practice systematic white supremacy without even noticing. The reason people are so offended when I say WHITE SUPREMACY os because I'm pointing the finger at the right subject. Racism and systematic White supremacy are two different things


----------



## biscotti

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Have to say as a English citizen I'm scared for America. Hopefully most of the things Trump was spouting in his campaign was just sensationalist to present himself as the non-PC candidate. But if not, I fear for you with riots, more indiscriminate killings in the streets and terrorist attacks to come. Hope I'm wrong.

I also hope he's been able to clone 5000 Chuck Norrises for bodyguards because otherwise he is going the same way as JFK


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

from an outside perspective, i envy the united states for your president elect. If only every country could have such a strong leader.

:trump


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



DoubtGin said:


> Is there any website where Trump's politics are presented in a rather neutral way?
> 
> I have really no idea about US politics so I'd like to know more about what he's doing.


I don't think anybody really knows what Trump will do. Campaign rhetoric and actual policies often don't resemble each other.

https://www.ft.com/content/01a377fa-a63c-11e6-8b69-02899e8bd9d1

Not really neutral if you consider them filthy liberal globalists like Trump supporters do but :shrug.

A Trump administration would likely be less environmentally conscious due to special interests, more protectionist in trade, cut corporate taxes to encourage job growth and repeal Obamacare. His foreign policy is up in the air because he seems clueless in that department. It would depend on who he hires as Secretary of State who probably will have more input there.


----------



## Kenny

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I followed the other thread mainly to see posts from my main man @DesolationRow and @CamillePunk but then I started to read more and more out of boredom and curiosity. I was even tempted to throw money on Trump winning because I just could not picture Hillary winning. I don't need to go into great detail because I'm sure the ones are wise enough here know what I'm referring to about her history. It felt as if people were voting for Hilary more because of their hate for Trump rather than for the "credentials" of Hilary - with main arguments solely based around the fact she's a woman. 

Well one thing is for sure, the memes will continue. :trump


----------



## MOX

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

My main takeaway from all this is that I have now seen both the future Queen of England's and the next First Lady's tits.

Now that's some high class creepin'.


----------



## notfairtoflair

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Just a serious question to anyone who voted for Trump:

Can you name at least 3 of his policies that will benefit the country as a whole and explain how's he's going to do it? I'm just trying to wrap my mind around what is it about this guy that you feel so confident about? Any sources, especially with audio/video proof of him explaining your claims would be greatly appreciated. 

Serious responses, please.


----------



## ThEmB0neZ

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Vic Capri said:


> The best part are the celebrities who ate a shit sandwich with no bread tonght. Hope they back up their words. *#ByeFelicia*
> 
> http://townhall.com/tipsheet/catherinedunn/2016/09/08/these-10-celebrities-say-theyll-leave-the-country-if-trump-is-elected-n2215391
> 
> - Vic


Dislike most on that list. Bet none leave though.Hypocrites.


----------



## LegendAS

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

The first WWE Hall of Famer to become President!


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



notfairtoflair said:


> Just a serious question to anyone who voted for Trump:
> 
> Can you name at least 3 of his policies that will benefit the country as a whole and explain how's he's going to do it? I'm just trying to wrap my mind around what is it about this guy that you feel so confident about? Any sources, especially with audio/video proof of him explaining your claims would be greatly appreciated.
> 
> Serious responses, please.


As an anti-Trumper, I can list a few.

His proposal of less regulations and more tax cuts could help encourage companies to stay.

His tough stance on immigration could help maintain racial demographic in certain states that might reduce racial tension there and reduce the appeal of real racists from spreading.

More infrastructure spending to fix existing deteriorating infrastructure to improve quality of life while also employing more working class men that felt left out by the new economy. The caveat is Hilary also proposed infrastructure spending that was more prudent in theory without also cutting massive amount tax revenue. But hey he still said it.


----------



## krtgolfing

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



notfairtoflair said:


> Just a serious question to anyone who voted for Trump:
> 
> Can you name at least 3 of his policies that will benefit the country as a whole and explain how's he's going to do it? I'm just trying to wrap my mind around what is it about this guy that you feel so confident about? Any sources, especially with audio/video proof of him explaining your claims would be greatly appreciated.
> 
> Serious responses, please.


Didn't want four more years of Clinton? What was Killary going to do that was so great? Oh wait... Both candidates were complete shit. It was choosing between a douche and a terd just like the South Park episode. Maybe Trump will keep the refugees out!


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@DesolationRow @CamillePunk @Tater @AryaDark @Carte Blanche

What a time to be alive.

Can I first say a big FUCK YOU to all of the polls who predicted a Hillary landslide. I said in my last post that they were stupid and I was proven right. Can anyone really take polls seriously anymore after this shocking result?

Secondly, this much like my reaction to Brexit is still taking time to sink in and this result in my opinion is much more shocking than Brexit. I personally thought with Brexit that it could go either way but I felt like Remain would ultimately win. I was proven wrong.

I thought Trump had an outside chance of winning but I had it at like 30%, I thought Hillary would hold on and win. I was dead wrong.

I was and still am a little hungover from last night so I was sleeping in bed and to be honest wanted to put off seeing who won the election. But then I got a message from my friend on what'sapp saying Trump had won. I thought he was trolling but then saw Milo Yiannopolous' page on facebook and couldn't believe it.

If there is one thing to take away from this on my initial reaction to Trump winning is that the meltdown's from all the liberals who supported Hillary on social media are fucking glorious. This was a big fuck you to the establishment and to all of the corruption, lies and deceit Hillary has projected throughout her entire career. This was a big fuck you to the mostly biased mainstream media who became a propaganda tool for Hillary and the Democrats who smeared Trump's campaign with all they could whilst blatantly ignoring all of the WikiLeaks that came out surrounding Hillary and the Democrats. Most of all this was a big fuck you and a potential wake up call to all of the hacks in Washington who have not only been complacent but have damn right worked against the interests of normal working American's and for the global elite, big money, big corporations and the big Central Banks.

Trump may not be the answer but he may be the catalyst for change. All of that is left to be seen.

The two big things however for me now is a sense of relief that we are less likely now to be going to war with Russia and that world foreign policy on the whole will hopefully go in a better direction and finally that it is going to be extremely entertaining as an outsider to watch all the shit unfold in the US with a Trump presidency.

All of this still feels utterly absurd and not real :lmao.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*












> Just a serious question to anyone who voted for Trump:
> 
> Can you name at least 3 of his policies that will benefit the country


Stronger military

Lower taxes

and a better health care system than failed Obamacare

Oh yeah, and avoiding World War III by being friends with Russia.

- Vic


----------



## The RainMaker

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Build the fucking wall.


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

White people have succeeded in taking back "their country", too bad in a few years this shit's going to look like Fury Road. Better start saving up your guzzoline and bullets.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> White people have succeeded in taking back "their country", too bad in a few years this shit's going to look like Fury Road. Better start saving up your guzzoline and bullets.


*How did all the ******* in Detroit let him win Michigan :sasha3*


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Legit BOSS said:


> *How did all the ******* in Detroit let him win Michigan :sasha3*


One city with 650,000 black people in a state with 11 million people.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> One city with 650,000 black people in a state with 11 million people.


*That'll do it, combined with record breaking lows for Black attendance in this election.*


----------



## 3ku1

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Biggest upset in US Election history. Hell the biggest upset in the history of the world. The biggest event since 911. No exagerration. The fact the polls, the pundits, basically everyone had been telling you for months, their was no way Trump was winning. It was a foregone conclusion, Hillary was winning. And to lose in such a decisive way too. Is incredible. To me the polls showed, flawed system, it lied. And fear. Trump exposed many people's long term agreivences, and economical fears particularly for years. He appealed to working class people. That is where the bulk of the votes came from. Every Day White, Working Class people. I well say most likely conciousley. People said Oh I am voting for Hillary. But they were lying obviousley, hence the polls favoring Hillary. Where subconcisouly some where along the line. Despite Trump being one of the most morally, and questionable human beings that has ever lived. Trumps message got under the nations skin. Subconciousley they agreed with his message. He awoken what has been frustrating middle america for decades. A Change of the Status Quo. Hillary also had a shitty campaign, she is one of if not the worst campaigner in the history of US Politics. She went about 200 days without having a press conference. She invited big time celebs to her rallys. Trump also raised more money at fundraisers, I read. It also a big Fuck You, to tradaitonal politics. Washington, the white house. Everything the US Democracy stood for. The USA would rather take a chance on some expierement, then take a chance on a 30 year old vet, who was the most qualified to be president ever. That shows to me your country is desperate, it is divided. And Trump has a HUGE uphill battle on his hands, to unify it. Pity Obama coulden't of taken a third term. But make no mistake about it, this ain't a term. This is a movement.


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Legit BOSS said:


> *That'll do it, combined with record breaking lows for Black attendance in this election.*


Barack inspired people, Hilary didn't. People weren't voting for her so much as voting against Trump and I think with polls and talking heads saying she'd win in a landslide, people felt like they could stay at home at everybody else would handle it.

What should be more alarming is 25% of Hispanics voting for Trump with his blatantly anti-Hispanic platform.


----------



## Irish Jet

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

It’s a truly astonishing achievement by Trump. He’s get portrayed as an idiot probably plays up to that image intentionally but you don’t accomplish what he has without being switched on. Amazing also when you consider the powers Clinton had behind her – Shows what a shocking candidate she was and the Democratic Party get everything they deserve for ensuring she got her turn. 

Trump has completely shown up the media. They labelled his movement as a one based on entirely on bigotry and intolerance when in reality there was a lot more to it – Made blatantly obvious by the results in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

The political establishment in Washington has prioritised it’s global agenda, trade deals and foreign wars while ignoring the decline in rural communities. Trump’s “isolationist” policies are considered a global threat to the establishment in the US and abroad (which we’re already hearing from European leaders) but would have been music to the ears of these voters. 

He has a lot to live up to. I hope he throws the political hand grenade into the corrupt system but I wouldn’t be shocked to see him tow the line when push comes to shove. They could always JFK him too.


----------



## Erik.

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Nightrow said:


>


Just for the record the Simpsons episode was not in 2000, it was 2015 ("Trumptastic Voyage"). The reason they look so eerily similar is that the Simpsons were directly copying the real world events, not the other way around.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*










And that, my friends, is how Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 Presidential election.

- Vic


----------



## Phaedra

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Will I be attacked to say I'm genuinely concerned and frightened? and everyone here is walking around in sheer puzzlement at why you would do this to yourself? I hope not because i'm genuinely concerned at what has happened here. 

Listen, I'm not going to tell you that you were stupid or racist or bigoted for voting for this man. It might be the case in a small amount of voters but people are so puzzled because so few of them have been left penniless and forgotten. What I take issue with is that a man like Donald Trump, by most accounts not a good man, has convinced the forgotten rural masses that he has their back. He wants to break a system he has no comprehension of putting back together again. There is no fucking doubting that the american system has problems. My father is from Durham County NC and he came to Scotland for a job because things were so bad and that was what the 70's? that's how long they've been forgotten. i know Durham county voted Dem but still, he knows people who voted for Trump and he knows why. The message was so alluring but the message was unfortunately false. The jobs are not coming back, they are gone. He is not going to do anything for their incomes or their rights as workers, he has promised to reverse womens rights to their own bodies and frankly the working classes are going to be worse off for believing what he said. 

Just look at the people who he is parading as endorsers, people who will undoubtedly be in his cabinet, Newt Gingrich as secretary of state (rumour) puts the fucking fear of god into me.

But over all I just feel worried and sad for those who have been forgotten and left behind for so long because nothing is going to change for them, and change is totally what is needed. 

I hope it works out, i fear it won't.


----------



## Alco

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Erik. said:


> Just for the record the Simpsons episode was not in 2000, it was 2015 ("Trumptastic Voyage"). The reason they look so eerily similar is that the Simpsons were directly copying the real world events, not the other way around.


There is an older episode though where Bart gets his future predicted and in said future, Lisa becomes president to clean up the mess made by President Trump.


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Irish Jet said:


> It’s a truly astonishing achievement by Trump. He’s get portrayed as an idiot probably plays up to that image intentionally but you don’t accomplish what he has without being switched on. Amazing also when you consider the powers Clinton had behind her – Shows what a shocking candidate she was and the Democratic Party get everything they deserve for ensuring she got her turn.
> 
> Trump has completely shown up the media. They labelled his movement as a one based on entirely on bigotry and intolerance when in reality there was a lot more to it – Made blatantly obvious by the results in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
> 
> The political establishment in Washington has prioritised it’s global agenda, trade deals and foreign wars while ignoring the decline in rural communities. Trump’s “isolationist” policies are considered a global threat to the establishment in the US and abroad (which we’re already hearing from European leaders) but would have been music to the ears of these voters.
> 
> He has a lot to live up to. I hope he throws the political hand grenade into the corrupt system but I wouldn’t be shocked to see him tow the line when push comes to shove. They could always JFK him too.


How's Trump the anti-establishment guy when his plan is to continue years 30-34 of ineffective trickle-down economics? Cut taxes, deregulate, the rich get significantly richer and create minimum wage jobs that don't grow the economy at a rate that outpaces inflation. It's been proven time and time again by economists to be a horse shit plan and it's the very definition of establishment politics.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*






My state ended up going to Hillary, but it was not in vain. Trump Tower in Las Vegas.

- Vic


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Vic Capri said:


> And that, my friends, is how Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 Presidential election.
> 
> - Vic


I thought it was because she felt like casually calling a shit-ton of her fellow Americans "delorables"?

:trump


----------



## Phaedra

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

And for the record, Brexit has NOT been good for this country, it has given rise to great uncertainty, job insecurity and the fall of our currency, not to mention that inflation is predicted to reach dangerous levels by the start of the new financial year. Commodity prices are just starting to rise and they will only continue to do so. It has also divided the people in a massive way that even when we want to have our representatives decide the terms of how we leave the EU the rule of law in this country and the structure of our political system is being attacked and undermined by people who don't understand it. It's sad, it's not some glorious departure, it's going to be very fucking tough. 

It's going to be a cold christmas here and it's nothing to do with the temperature.


----------



## Erik.

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*










Obama: "I used to be presi..."
Officer: "Yeah yeah yeah. Step outta the car Daquan"


----------



## Irish Jet

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> How's Trump the anti-establishment guy when his plan is to continue years 30-34 of ineffective trickle-down economics? Cut taxes, deregulate, the rich get significantly richer and create minimum wage jobs that don't grow the economy at a rate that outpaces inflation. It's been proven time and time again by economists to be a horse shit plan and it's the very definition of establishment politics.


I didn't say he was an anti-establishment guy. He just presented himself as one, incredibly effectively. A lot of what he was saying goes against the current system in place, whether he means it or now.

It's his opposition to the trade deals and the strict immigration policy that has resonated with voters. I fully expect him to fail miserably if he even tries to push some of his policies.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I just watched Trump's acceptance speech again. It sounded like a MLM dude trying to get you into the pyramid by promising you everything will be great. You will achieve all these great things just because. And if it was during the campaign, he would have added in that you can tell the establishment to suck it after you join with him just like MLM salespeople say you can tell you boss to suck it in a few years time. Then Trump paraded all the people who were part of his campaign so you can visualise people who joined him as successful people like MLM people often do to persuade new marks.

Good grief.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@DesolationRow @CamillePunk @AryaDark

http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/09/in-victory-speech-donald-trump-promises



> *Trump Gives Victory Speech, Liberals Rediscover Appeal of Limited Government *
> 
> Has there ever been a more powerful case for limited government?
> 
> President-Elect Donald Trump preached national unity and vowed to "reclaim our country's destiny," in his victory speech, which was delivered around 3:00 a.m. in New York City. Rival candidate Hillary Clinton had already called Trump to concede, he told the crowd.
> 
> Trump complimented Clinton on running a "hard-fought campaign."
> 
> "She fought very hard," he said. "Hillary has worked very long and hard over a long period of time, and we owe her a major debt of gratitude for her service to our country. I mean that very sincerely."
> 
> Trump then turned to the business of healing the vast political divide. He promised to be a president for all Americans.
> 
> "For those who have chosen not to support me in the past, of which there were a few people, I'm reaching out to you for your guidance and your help, so that we can work together and unify our great country," he said.
> 
> The president-elect claimed to have a "great" economic plan, though he offered no details. He closed by thanking his most vocal supporters—his family, Rudy Giuliani, Sen. Jeff Sessions, Ben Carson, and others—and assuring the American people that "you'll be so proud of your president" by the time his reign comes to an end.
> 
> Trump's election has sent shockwaves: the markets are in free-fall, Democratic voters are petrified, and the media has no idea what just happened.
> 
> Libertarians should be girding themselves for four years of the federal government trampling their freedoms—but of course, we've come to expect that regardless. As I wrote on Facebook earlier tonight, it's perhaps moments like this where the case for the libertarian vision of a constrained government is most powerful:
> 
> Robby Soave
> 5 hours ago
> Why am I libertarian? This election is why I am a libertarian. I favor constraints on the federal government precisely because I fear what a maniac like Trump could do with unchecked power. If you cheered the Bush and/or Obama misuses of executive authority and orders, if you excused them undermining federalism because you agreed with their decisions, well, now you live with the consequences of those precedents.
> 
> 'm watching MSNBC as I write this, and I just heard Lawrence O'Donnell say the following:
> 
> "The Constitution anticipated this. The Founding Fathers anticipated Donald Trump. They feared tyrants, they were overthrowing the rule of a king, and they designed a separation-of-powers government in which all of the true powers belonged to Congress, those can then be reviewed by the courts..."
> 
> That didn't take long: the left is interested in limited government again. Would have been nice to have them with us during Obama's eight years in office, but we'll take what we can get, I guess.


Very interesting and poignant article indeed. I doubt Liberals will ever come round to the idea of limited government however.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



L-DOPA said:


> Trump may not be the answer but he may be the catalyst for change.





Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> How's Trump the anti-establishment guy when his plan is to continue years 30-34 of ineffective trickle-down economics? Cut taxes, deregulate, the rich get significantly richer and create minimum wage jobs that don't grow the economy at a rate that outpaces inflation. It's been proven time and time again by economists to be a horse shit plan and it's the very definition of establishment politics.


People are fucking stupid and insist on learning things the hard way. They don't remember their history either, as we're basically repeating what happened 90 years ago. The past few decades of evidence that trickle down economics is complete horseshit isn't enough to convince them. The crash of 8 years ago didn't teach people their lesson. Democrats had their chance to fix things when Obama was elected but they instead chose to prop up the dying trickle down system. Trump is here to save us though. You can count on him and a Republican controlled Congress to wreck shit so badly that the USA won't have any choice but to start doing things differently.

:chrisholly


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

And so begins 4 years of incessant whining and claims of bigotry from one sat at another. This should be fun


----------



## Rex Rasslin

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Donald Trump, I salute your, Sir!

Turn the FED into a STATE INSTITUTION CONTROLLED and OWNED by the government - it is unbearable that the money of a whole nation is controlled by a few PRIVATE men who are ABOVE the LAW

Bring back HOME all US SOLDIERS and REMOVE all NATO bases around the globe and please sign PEACE CONTRACTS with GERMANY to finally END WWII and STOP the GENOCIDE of PALESTINE by ISRAEL


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

whys miss sally get banned?...


----------



## Erik.

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Alco said:


> There is an older episode though where Bart gets his future predicted and in said future, Lisa becomes president to clean up the mess made by President Trump.


Most probably around 1999 I think when Trump said he MAY run for President. Again it was a reference not a prediction.


----------



## MOX

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## Irish Jet

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> People are fucking stupid and insist on learning things the hard way. They don't remember their history either, as we're basically repeating what happened 90 years ago. The past few decades of evidence that trickle down economics is complete horseshit isn't enough to convince them. The crash of 8 years ago didn't teach people their lesson. Democrats had their chance to fix things when Obama was elected but they instead chose to prop up the dying trickle down system. Trump is here to save us though. You can count on him and a Republican controlled Congress to wreck shit so badly that the USA won't have any choice but to start doing things differently.
> 
> :chrisholly


2020 - Union of Soviet Socialist America is born.


----------



## Banez

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Stone Cold has hit a stunner at the president of the united states :austin


----------



## Erik.

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

The Rock for 2020.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Banez said:


> Stone Cold has hit a stunner at the president of the united states :austin


He sold that Stunner far worse than McMahon ever did. :lol


----------



## Banez

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Oda Nobunaga said:


> He sold that Stunner far worse than McMahon ever did. :lol


thats because :trump doesn't bend that way :lol


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Trump actually lost the popular vote by around 140,000 or so, last time I checked.


----------



## FROSTY

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Hillary won the state I live in, does that make her the president of Illinois :cena5


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> whys miss sally get banned?...


There's no room for a Latina in Trump's America. :troll


----------



## floyd2386

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Oda Nobunaga said:


> He sold that Stunner far worse than McMahon ever did. :lol


Hillary and half the nation sold Trump's stunner of a victory this morning pretty well I must say.:trump


----------



## CGS

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I still can't believe you fucking did it america. Jesus christ. Just when you think that the UK have made the biggest politicial fuck up of the year the USA have to swoop in and always be #1 at everything. 

I mean this is what it is I guess. Even looking at the voting patterns its quite telling that by the looks of things it came down more too who _don't _you want in the white house rather who do you want. In reality both candidates were pretty shit choices and personally I'm not a fan of either, if it came to it I guess I would have gone with Hillary over Trump simply because I find Trump to be a Grade A ass and even if he made good points I would struggle to look over his racist nature. Not to say that Hillary was a better candidate, she was just the better of two evils. Seems like that was the case very much across the board for many.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Phaedra said:


> And for the record, *Brexit has NOT been good for this country*, it has given rise to great uncertainty, job insecurity and the fall of our currency, not to mention that inflation is predicted to reach dangerous levels by the start of the new financial year. Commodity prices are just starting to rise and they will only continue to do so. It has also divided the people in a massive way that even when we want to have our representatives decide the terms of how we leave the EU the rule of law in this country and the structure of our political system is being attacked and undermined by people who don't understand it. It's sad, it's not some glorious departure, it's going to be very fucking tough.
> 
> It's going to be a cold christmas here and it's nothing to do with the temperature.


brexit hasn't happened yet :mj4


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I'm sorry but to all the people who thought trump would lose and not even come close to winning :ha :ha :ha 

You lose!!!!!! Bwhahahahhaha


----------



## Callisto

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Save us Kanye pls


----------



## Erik.

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/angry-trump-fan-called-james-obrien/

:lmao :lmao


----------



## Diavolo

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Proud to be Trump fan from day 1 but sadly I don't live in America to live this......


----------



## CGS

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Erik. said:


> http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/angry-trump-fan-called-james-obrien/
> 
> :lmao :lmao


What the actual fuck :lmao 



> Donnie then went on to insist that young people are too stupid to vote and that Jay-Z spewed hateful things while with Hillary Clinton. He added: "This is the woman that you would have as President. A woman who embraces rap stars who are the very antithesis of everything that is right in the family."
> 
> James hit back with a deadly line: "If you want to talk about family values, how do you feel about Donald Trump saying that he'd probably date his own daughter if he wasn't her father?"
> 
> Donnie's only response to that: "That was tongue-in-cheek."


:sodone


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CGS said:


> I still can't believe you fucking did it america. Jesus christ. Just when you think that the UK have made the biggest politicial fuck up of the year the USA have to swoop in and always be #1 at everything.
> 
> I mean this is what it is I guess. Even looking at the voting patterns its quite telling that by the looks of things it came down more too who _don't _you want in the white house rather who do you want. In reality both candidates were pretty shit choices and personally I'm not a fan of either, if it came to it I guess I would have gone with Hillary over Trump simply because I find Trump to be a Grade A ass and even if he made good points I would struggle to look over his racist nature. Not to say that Hillary was a better candidate, she was just the better of two evils. Seems like that was the case very much across the board for many.


No , you don't get to pull the bigotry card when you just openly stated you'd support Hillary over Trump.

She has

Joked that she saw Gandhi working at a gas station
Claimed Black youths are super predators 
She said she was against Gay marriage
She said her mentor was Robert Byrd, noted KKK member who created a charter in West Virginia 
Said she looked up to Margaret Sanger who spoke at KKK rally's and what she said about African Americans
She said she was against illegal immigration and even voted to build a wall on Mexico's border(btw Obama did too)
She made a joke about "colored people time"

She literally has gotten away with some ridiculous racist crap simply because she's a democrat.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Woke up and oh look the world is still here.


----------



## Rex Rasslin

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*






:trump


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Oda Nobunaga said:


> Trump actually lost the popular vote by around 140,000 or so, last time I checked.


If that holds true, just shows how broke the EC is because for the 2nd time in 16 years someone got more votes but still lost the presidency. And its really the 3rd time because Hillary had the popular vote against Obama in the primary in 2008 and she lost.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

If you cant understand why Trump was elected and why we on the right needed to give you this ass pounding, you have learned nothing.

WE WERE TIRED OF *YOU!*


----------



## TripleG

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I am speaking as someone who didn't like Trump or Hillary and wrote in a candidate when I voted yesterday. 

The psycho liberal left with their PC insanity dug their own grave and this is their own doing. The SJW types got so bad, that Trump's victory kind of brings me a small glimmer of joy because their rage makes me happy. That's how bad they are. 

A friend of mine who is a liberal and Hillary voter took to Facebook this morning and after expressing his disappointment and anger in the election results, he also made sure to place the blame where it belonged...on the liberal left themselves, more specifically the radical SJW types. 

He went on to say that the party was filled with mean assholes that used the term "white male" as an insult and refused to listen to any opinion that wasn't their own. The end result? Hillary lost any chance of winning white blue collar worker types, voters that went for Bill Clinton and Barack Obama in the past. These people are Americans too and have their own opinions and concerns and the left not only completely ignored them, but demonized them just for being white males with the SJW's equivalent of "Original Sin" called "White Male Privilege". When you have the college aged social media active youth, the news media, and the entertainment world all parroting these ideas, it is no wonder these voters turned to Trump. 

A year ago, I said that if Trump won, it would be the fault of the PC shit spewers. Well, here we are. The election has come and gone, and I can say that I was right.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



TripleG said:


> I am speaking as someone who didn't like Trump or Hillary and wrote in a candidate when I voted yesterday.
> 
> The psycho liberal left with their PC insanity dug their own grave and this is their own doing. The SJW types got so bad, that Trump's victory kind of brings me a small glimmer of joy because their rage makes me happy. That's how bad they are.
> 
> A friend of mine who is a liberal and Hillary voter took to Facebook this morning and after expressing his disappointment and anger in the election results, he also made sure to place the blame where it belonged...on the liberal left themselves, more specifically the radical SJW types.
> 
> He went on to say that the party was filled with mean assholes that used the term "white male" as an insult and refused to listen to any opinion that wasn't their own. The end result? Hillary lost any chance of winning white blue collar worker types, voters that went for Bill Clinton and Barack Obama in the past. These people are Americans too and have their own opinions and concerns and the left not only completely ignored them, but demonized them just for being white males with the SJW's equivalent of "Original Sin" called "White Male Privilege". When you have the college aged social media active youth, the news media, and the entertainment world all parroting these ideas, it is no wonder these voters turned to Trump.
> 
> A year ago, I said that if Trump won, it would be the fault of the PC shit spewers. Well, here we are. The election has come and gone, and I can say that I was right.


Holy fucking shit! You nailed it! 

"BUT--BUT *YOU GUYS* ARE THE ASSHOLES, Y-YOU ********! "


----------



## CALΔMITY

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I'm surprised at the outcome, but it is what it is I'm afraid. I didn't like either candidate, but I simply felt that Trump was not qualified for such a position and I generally just was not jiving with some of the things he'd say. So I went with Hillary, but I did not necessarily leave the voting booth feeling accomplished.

Not speaking for all liberals, but there is a lot of internal liberal fear mongering especially amongst some of the LGBT community and basically anyone who is non-white. This leads to demonizing all white people as a whole when even some of us whities voted Hillary. Liberal fear mongering amongst themselves is a strong weapon especially since a lot of my generation think with their emotions rather than logic.

All I can hope for is that we don't go up in flames.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I would also like to point out this is the first time since 1928 Republicans hold the House, the Senate AND the presidency.....






Oh and this guy got re-elected:








Brilliant speech.


----------



## samizayn

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

This is the fault of the American left.


----------



## Unorthodox

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I still find it unbelievable that he actually won, And I'm even more surprised by how many fucking people are happy about it and supporting him despite him being an absolutely disgusting human being with a clear agenda against minorities. People need to stop laughing at and targeting people who are upset about this on Twitter and stuff and really think about themselves and why they voted for this moron to be the leader of the free world, they are the people who should be laughed at but they are totally oblivious to it and clearly delusional.


----------



## Natecore

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> If that holds true, just shows how broke the EC is because for the 2nd time in 16 years someone got more votes but still lost the presidency. And its really the 3rd time because Hillary had the popular vote against Obama in the primary in 2008 and she lost.


 How can something be broken if it worked exactly how it was designed to work ?!?!?

You're not even using your brain here.


----------



## Green Light

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Trump, if you're reading this I've always liked you. Save me a spot in the bunker when the shit hits the fan pal :cudi


----------



## witchblade000

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I'm not a Trump supporter or any supporter of politics, but I was thinking about how awesome it would be if Trump threw a parade in NY and re enacted this scene, minus the poison filled balloons.


----------



## Punkhead

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Guam was wrong. Since 1980 Guam has correctly guessed all the election winners and they voted for Clinton this time.


----------



## Captain Edd

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

So he'll build that wall? Or has he dropped that idea?


----------



## 4everEyebrowRaisin

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Those retarded, pampered celebrities can fuck themselves with a rusty knife. How many of them who vowed to leave the US will actually do so now? Stick to their principles and give up the comfortable Hollywood lifestyle, or stay right where they are? What a joke. Every single one of the bastards should be deported.

Principles are a marketing ploy to those cunts. Being an overly liberal cuck is fashionable amongst people like that, but how many of them _genuinely_ vote Democrat? They have wealth to protect, man.


----------



## THE HAITCH

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Oda Nobunaga said:


> Trump actually lost the popular vote by around 140,000 or so, last time I checked.


Otunga-uhh, you need to go back to the Harvard Law school.

Crooked Hilary had 59,313,548 popular votes compared to Trump's 59,146,310 votes.

However, that was when they stopped counting, with 44 electoral votes still available.

In those states, like Alaska-uhh and Arizona-uhh, Trump was leading in all those with a high margin. 

Here's the thing-uhh... They didn't even need to count those votes as Trump already had crossed 270 electoral votes mark-uhh.

:trips2


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



THE HAITCH said:


> Otunga-uhh, you need to go back to the Harvard Law school.
> 
> Crooked Hilary had 59,313,548 popular votes compared to Trump's 59,146,310 votes.
> 
> However, that was when they stopped counting, with 44 electoral votes still available.
> 
> In those states, like Alaska-uhh and Arizona-uhh, Trump was leading in all those with a high margin.
> 
> Check it out: http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president
> 
> Here's the thing-uhh... They didn't even need to count those votes as Trump already had crossed 270 electoral votes mark-uhh.
> 
> :trips2


Otunga. :lmao

Anyway, thanks for the clarification.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Concession speech in about 10 mins time.


----------



## From Death Valley

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



In Vino Veritas said:


> Donald Trump, I salute your, Sir!
> 
> Turn the FED into a STATE INSTITUTION CONTROLLED and OWNED by the government - it is unbearable that the money of a whole nation is controlled by a few PRIVATE men who are ABOVE the LAW
> 
> Bring back HOME all US SOLDIERS and REMOVE all NATO bases around the globe and please sign PEACE CONTRACTS with GERMANY to finally END WWII and STOP the GENOCIDE of PALESTINE by ISRAEL


He's not going to bring the us soldiers back. Are you aware that although Trump might not make most of the decisions and just be there for media appearances he has a war monger in Pence as VP?


----------



## NoyK

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

*Remember what's next :mark:








*


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

:lol

My favorite part about all of this is waking up and seeing all my friends freak out on social media. They're acting like this is the end of the goddamn country. What happened to all those jokes everyone was making months ago? Nobody's laughing now. Dude went up against the political establishment, the media, Hollywood, and just about everybody else and he *STILL* won. I doubt he'll actually change much or follow through on all of his campaign promises, but it's great to see the left squirm over this.

He is President Donald John Trump. Fucking deal with it, haters.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



NoyK said:


> *Remember what's next :mark:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *


Black dude already got in once. Time for a Jew. Isn't that how it goes?


----------



## Phaedra

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Goku said:


> brexit hasn't happened yet :mj4


The whole process of it and the vote to do it has happened ... I live here, I'm damn well certain it hasn't happened yet thanks. But it will and it's tearing us apart


----------



## Malakai

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Can somebody, ANYBODY, please, PLEEEAAASE explain to me the good that will come from this presidency? 

I'm not saying this as a Trump hater, that moment has passed, I'm saying this as a serious as all hell freaked the fuck out American that needs at least one good thing to hold onto.


----------



## Screwball

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

You finally did good, (North) America. You ignored the media propaganda and you finally upgraded to the penthouse.

Stupendous, absolutely stupendous. :mark:

:trump


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Phaedra said:


> The whole process of it and the vote to do it has happened ... I live here, I'm damn well certain it hasn't happened yet thanks. But it will and it's tearing us apart


are you saying you think the vote to decide it shouldn't have happened?


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

*BAH GOD, ITS STEVEN CROWDER OUTA NOWHERE!!!*






SAVAGE! :lol


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Trump won because of sexism not racism. College educated men told pollsters one thing but voted another. TYT can't even pick the right SJW rhetoric to use.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@DesolationRow, @Ms. Sally, @CamillePunk, @L-DOPA



> (K.R.) If you went to sleep early last night and just woke up, Donald Trump is now the President-Elect of the United States of America. He pulled off a stunning upset of Hillary Clinton, who disappeared from public view when it became clear she was going to lose and refused to give a consolation speech.
> 
> There is a lot to discuss about why this happened, what this means, and what will happen going forward. We'll provide deeper analysis throughout the day, but here are the bullet points:
> 
> WHY THIS HAPPENED
> 
> • Trump upset Clinton by winning the states he had to (Florida, North Carolina, Ohio etc), and pulling away several Democratic swing states (Wisconsin, Pennsylvania).
> • This is a populist victory unlike any going back perhaps as far as Andrew Jackson. People voted for a man who promised policies that are very popular with the working class.
> *• Hillary Clinton ran almost entirely without any major platform other than "I'm not Donald Trump. There was almost no enthusiasm for a Clinton presidency. She spoke down to the American people and lied profusely to them. Their response to her: Go away.*
> • The elites essentially shut themselves off from the people, and didn't listen to their concerns, instead trying to rely on collaboration with the media and the power of government institutes such as the IRS and the Justice Department to compel a continuation of the status quo.
> *• Blacks began to question their allegiance to a party that has now failed them for generations. Rather than the unqualified support Democrats used to be able to count on from the African-American community, they stayed home, and many even voted Trump.*
> * • White America reestablished its primacy at the polls, after being pushed into the background by pundits who proclaimed the rise of the minority voter.*
> • Unions stayed home. The Rust Belt trended toward Republicans after Clinton's support for NAFTA, waffling on the Pacific Trade agreement, and opposition to the Keystone Pipeline.
> 
> WHAT THIS MEANS
> • The collapse of the media is now complete. Their coverage of this election has bordered on malpractice. The American public has now sent them a loud message: "You didn't listen to us, so we stopped listening to you."
> 
> • A whole new method of estimating public support must now be formulated. Pollsters got it wrong bigly this election. Their formulas could not accurately account for Trump's unorthodox coalition and the apparent unwillingness of people being polled to admit they were going to vote for him.
> 
> • Globalism has been rejected, it seems. *Trump and Sanders both received a lot of enthusiasm for their repudiation of trade deals.
> *
> • Wikileaks and the FBI investigation played a major role in the outcome, with revelations coinciding with Trump's surge in the last few months.
> 
> WHAT WILL HAPPEN GOING FORWARD
> *• The stock market's Dow Jones Index, which had at one point indicated it would open down almost 900 points, recovered to open nearly flat and is now actually in positive territory.*
> • Hillary Clinton will speak this morning, though her speech has been postponed several times.
> • Obama was one of the most active presidents when it came to bypassing congress with executive orders and regulations imposed by the FCC and EPA etc. Net "Neutrality", Carbon emission restrictions, etc. are now all subject to repeal by executive order of Trump.
> *• The Supreme Court may in fact shift RIGHT or toward more originalists, if Trump keeps his promise to appoint Constitutional Conservatives.*
> • There may actually be a wall, or at least much tighter security on our southern border.
> • Obamacare is now in danger of repeal.
> • Dodd/Frank may be modified or repealed.
> • If the establishment wants to survive this apparent revolution, they'll have to stop talking to each other and start talking to the American people. Populism may be set to explode upon American politics.
> • We now have a first lady unlike any in our history.
> No matter what else, the next four years will be interesting to say the least.


Cliff-notes.

The market did not even crash and is already recovering :kobelol


----------



## DGenerationMC

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

:lmao I can't stop laughing at this absurdity :lmao


----------



## phyfts

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

This reminds me how Erdoğan was elected here.


----------



## venkyrenga

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## CGS

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Stinger Fan said:


> No , you don't get to pull the bigotry card when you just openly stated you'd support Hillary over Trump.
> 
> She has
> 
> Joked that she saw Gandhi working at a gas station
> Claimed Black youths are super predators
> She said she was against Gay marriage
> She said her mentor was Robert Byrd, noted KKK member who created a charter in West Virginia
> Said she looked up to Margaret Sanger who spoke at KKK rally's and what she said about African Americans
> She said she was against illegal immigration and even voted to build a wall on Mexico's border(btw Obama did too)
> She made a joke about "colored people time"
> 
> She literally has gotten away with some ridiculous racist crap simply because she's a democrat.


I Wouldn't "support" her tbh. Like I said I thought both were pretty shit but for me I could deal with Hillary a lot more than Trump. 

Like I said before both options in this election were god awful and far as i'm concerned neither should have been giving this option. When it came down to it for me it wouldn't have come to do "who would I prefer to be elected president" but rather "Which one would I least want to see be elected president" and the answer to that was Trump.


----------



## -XERO-

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



NoyK said:


> *Remember what's next :mark:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *





Callisto said:


> Save us Kanye pls



*OR....*








__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/758153710786740224


Erik. said:


> The Rock for 2020.





Banez said:


> Stone Cold has hit a stunner at the president of the united states :austin


I want The Rock to hit a figurative Rock Bottom on him in 2020.


----------



## Gift Of Jericho

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Seeing the people react to this on the news pisses me off, they act like they're wiser than everyone and that their vote means more than anyone elses. Despite not knowing life beyond a classroom.

How long till they do what they did over here after brexit and start demanding a new vote because they're too dumb to grasp the concept of Democracy.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Concession speech finally.


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Hillary's about to give her concession speech. This ought to be interesting.


----------



## Walking Deadman

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I woke up this morning to see countless post from my peers acting like all the rights of every minority were taken away, and that sexual assault will be rampant, and acceptable now. It seems like a lot of fear mongering.


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

*"Big government tramples on people of all walks of life" - Rand Paul


People need to remember that... too bad they wont and this shit will happen again.*


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Walking Deadman said:


> I woke up this morning to see countless post from my peers acting like all the rights of every minority were taken away, and that sexual assault will be rampant, and acceptable now. It seems like a lot of fear mongering.


The sexual assault thing is fear mongering. Horny predatory assholes exist before Trump and will exist after Trump. The rights of minorities is a real concern because of Mike Pence as VP who is a staunch conservative.

The Supreme court will continue to lean conservative now which could deal a blow to abortion rights and gay marriages.


----------



## Iapetus

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Today was a wake-up call to how much racism, sexism, and overall hatred still exist in this country. Today I learned that American people want a leader who shows contempt for Hispanics/Latinos and Muslims, who disrespects women, African Americans, veterans, and LGBT, who mocks the disabled, who has no experience, who has ZERO qualification, who has no plan for the country, who has no clue about anything happening in Middle Eastern countries, has no clue about war strategy, who scams his way out of paying federal income taxes, and who most of all is a Russian pawn that America has turned a blind eye to.

As an American I am truly embarrassed and ashamed, and as an African American I am heartbroken and afraid. This country just proved how deep hatred and discrimination run in it. I refuse to be apart of that. This is not on me, this is not on the people who voted against him, and for that reason he is #NotMyPresident.


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

That was actually a pretty classy concession speech. She gets props for that.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The Absolute said:


> That was actually a pretty classy concession speech. She gets props for that.


They probably spent all night writing that. I think they didn't have a concession speech ready last night so had to postpone it till the morning.


----------



## Headliner

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Iapetus said:


> As an American I am truly embarrassed and ashamed, and as an African American I am heartbroken and afraid. This country just proved how deep hatred and discrimination run in it. I refuse to be apart of that. This is not on me, this is not on the people who voted against him, and for that reason he is #NotMyPresident.


Stay safe at all times. You know what's about to happen. You share the sentiments of many. Understand that many do not see things from our perspective because they've never worn our shoes and never will so your opinion is not understood on here by most. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796249464826687488
"Our" people. The white nationalist movement is serious. Be safe bruh.


----------



## Stipe Tapped

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## Death Rider

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



TripleG said:


> I am speaking as someone who didn't like Trump or Hillary and wrote in a candidate when I voted yesterday.
> 
> The psycho liberal left with their PC insanity dug their own grave and this is their own doing. The SJW types got so bad, that Trump's victory kind of brings me a small glimmer of joy because their rage makes me happy. That's how bad they are.
> 
> A friend of mine who is a liberal and Hillary voter took to Facebook this morning and after expressing his disappointment and anger in the election results, he also made sure to place the blame where it belonged...on the liberal left themselves, more specifically the radical SJW types.
> 
> He went on to say that the party was filled with mean assholes that used the term "white male" as an insult and refused to listen to any opinion that wasn't their own. The end result? Hillary lost any chance of winning white blue collar worker types, voters that went for Bill Clinton and Barack Obama in the past. These people are Americans too and have their own opinions and concerns and the left not only completely ignored them, but demonized them just for being white males with the SJW's equivalent of "Original Sin" called "White Male Privilege". When you have the college aged social media active youth, the news media, and the entertainment world all parroting these ideas, it is no wonder these voters turned to Trump.
> 
> A year ago, I said that if Trump won, it would be the fault of the PC shit spewers. Well, here we are. The election has come and gone, and I can say that I was right.


Sums it up so well. 



Goku said:


> are you saying you think the vote to decide it shouldn't have happened?


Yes it should have happened but the tories should have made a clear plan for what happens after in BOTH CASES. However they only did it to win votes to get elected and then thought the people who just listen to them without saying why we should have stayed. 

Then the uncertainty over brexit is causing the economy to suffer over here and it atm though I blame it on Cameron and the tories more so then leaving the EU. If we actually had a plan for leaving the EU this would not be as much of a problem. 

Also both sides should have not spent so much time using fear and actually using reasons why you should vote a certain way instead of FEAR FEAR FEAR from BOTH sides



FriedTofu said:


> Trump won because of sexism not racism. College educated men told pollsters one thing but voted another. TYT can't even pick the right SJW rhetoric to use.


Dear god get a grip. Hilary only came close to even being president cause she has a pussy


----------



## Born of Osiris

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Walking Deadman said:


> I woke up this morning to see countless post from my peers acting like all the rights of every minority were taken away, and that sexual assault will be rampant, and acceptable now. It seems like a lot of fear mongering.


Trump is *LITERALLY* Hitler bruh :bosque


----------



## Unorthodox

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

The people saying trump will be a different person now that he's been elected are deluded to be honest, The man just doesn't know how to keep his mouth shut he can't help himself. Like during the debates when Hillary questioned him about not paying his taxes and he goes "it's because I'm smart" like what the fuck man? He's saying he's smart because he dodges his taxes instead of just laughing it off and keeping stupid gob shut, He will be the exact same way when his policies are called in to question. Also how do you think Jay-Z & Beyoncé feel about their girl not getting elected? Stupid cunts are not the power couple they seem to think they are.


----------



## Walking Deadman

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The Son Shala said:


> Trump is *LITERALLY* Hitler bruh :bosque


I never said he was good. Frankly I didn't care much for either one.


----------



## Phaedra

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Goku said:


> are you saying you think the vote to decide it shouldn't have happened?


I'm saying that we live in a parliamentary democracy we elect representatives, of the people from the people. We don't vote in a govt, we don't vote a pm. So when it comes to big decisions if something this absolutely massive is put to a referendum I believe that our representatives have the right of law to protect absolutely everyone's interests. Brexit is happening but the people who are sent to the House of Commons with mandate from the people should have say in the terms. 
Do I think such a monumentus decision like this should be left solely to a referendum? The jury's out for me because some decisions are just way too important to leave it to, and in not being undemocratic, the general public. Because after all we have representatives of the people sent from the people to take these decisions and advise the govt of the ruling party. But the people we send seem to have forgotten their role and the trust between people and representative has been broken so lol yeah I don't know. 


What I do know and what I am living through is the fallout from such a decision and the vote which has noised up way too many people. I gave t even mentioned how it's going to destabilise medical research and other university PhD and research programmes. And yet we're not to be consulted about the transition because it's somehow secret and the sole responsibility of a closed door cabinet office.


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Roy Mustang said:


> Dear god get a grip. Hilary only came close to even being president cause she has a pussy


*Absolutely true. But to make it more accurate she is in the political position she is in because she is Bill Clinton's wife. She would not have won anything if she was Hillary Smith. Every single election she's won is because she's Bill's wife.*


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I firmly believed that, due to ever changing demographics, I would never live to see another Republican president. While Trump wasn't my first choice, nevertheless I hope he does well in office. This was truly an incredible upset.


----------



## Marv95

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

LOL at the butthurt liberals online and the media. Sucks doesn't it?

Congratz to the Don. Don't get me wrong; he's gotta prove himself to me after it's official in January. I voted for him, now he's gotta pay me back somehow. Hold him accountable. He has a Repub congress.

Last night was our Brexit. In more ways then 1. Hopefully the PC society erodes due to this.


----------



## LaraCroft

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

AMERICA GOING TO BE WESTEROS


----------



## Dub

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Goodbye taco trucks, my God you were delicious :jose


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I solemnly swear to watch *EVERY* late night talk show this week. These left-wing mouthpieces spent several months tearing Trump down and preaching the propaganda of the Clinton campaign. Can't wait to hear what those assholes have to say now that their false idol has fallen. (*ESPECIALLY* Samantha Bee, John Oliver, Trevor Noah, and Seth Meyers.)


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

*#TeamHILARYDUFF2020









*


----------



## Sephiroth

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I'd just like to say "Good Job WF" for being not douchebags the last couple nights. There have definitely been a lot of uproar and excitement, but there were very little times where I would check the election thread and cringe due to personal attacks or some extremely negative or hateful stuff aimed towards other users. Most people kept it about the politics and argued points or counterpoints and most didn't resort to "you're a fucking moron for voting for (whoever)" without a single cohesive thought or argument why your opinion might matter or why you might be someone worth not putting on the ignore list.

And then there was birthday_massacre. I don't think I saw anyone act like a dumbass or hyperbolically hateful unless it stemmed from you saying something to them first. You personally attack everyone and barely cohesively argue whatever nonsense you think you know.

I'm going to be honest and say I didn't want Trump to win, but I'm not attacking others. You make Democrats, or anyone who has a differing view, facepalm by your stupidity and how hateful you can be. Grow up, you're a 40 year old man arguing with 20 somethings about politics. Log off the internet and go help campaign or participate in a local gathering instead of flinging insults at everyone and justifying everyone when they say you are a giant troll.

Edit: This message is also in part due to the rant in Rants about him and all the other stupid racist/sexist things I've heard him say in front of me, Calarhart, and Soupbro.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

An excellent speech by RAND, @AryaDark and @L-DOPA! :mark:



THE MAN said:


> I firmly believed that, due to ever changing demographics, I would never live to see another Republican president. While Trump wasn't my first choice, nevertheless I hope he does well in office. This was truly an incredible upset.


Agreed. I thought the demographic shifting of the electorate had already reached a point of no return and that George W. Bush was going to be the last Republican president.

As it stands today, however, one has to wonder. 

Trump ended up winning 42.4% of "female voters" to Hillary Clinton's 54.0% (based on the count thus far); 29.3% of Hispanic voters" (thus outperforming Mitt Romney) to Hillary's 65.0%; and 40.1% of "first time voters" versus Hillary's 56.3% of the same.

56.4% of "white female" broke for Trump. 

13.4% of "black male voters" went for Trump, and 8.3% of black voters overall, evidently. 

This is a fabulously informative tweet:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796243185739632640
White Democrats and independents who were practically in love with Obama in both 2008 and 2012 broke dramatically toward Trump in states such as Iowa, Michigan and Wisconsin. She underperformed everywhere in just about every category, and it destroyed her in those states as well as in Pennsylvania. 

Anyway, @CamillePunk was right, and Scott Adams was right. I was wrong. :lol

Rudy Giuliani is rumored to be the first choice for the U.S. Attorney General, which, I suppose, is all right. 

Less appealing is Newt Gingrich being floated as Secretary of State. Argh. Difficult to see how he could muck it up to the extent Hillary did, though. :side:

Have to agree with you, @The Absolute. Hillary Clinton almost seemed like a fully formed human being in her concession speech. It's strange how she finally delivered a pretty darned good speech that actually said something and it was her concession speech today. :lol 

Some craziness hitting California after the results last night. :lol These silly kids. :aryha http://abc7.com/news/anti-trump-protests-form-across-state-after-election-results/1597889/ More serious are rumors swirling of "planned riots" for several different California locales tonight. Hope they don't happen. :no:


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



THE MAN said:


> I firmly believed that, due to ever changing demographics, I would never live to see another Republican president. While Trump wasn't my first choice, nevertheless I hope he does well in office. This was truly an incredible upset.


Well, this election proved that the change in demographics either hasn't happened, or was over-represented due to pollster and analyst bias.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

After all of that analysis and all of the thinking that :trump could not possibly win without Florida...

He would have won had Florida gone to Hillary Clinton.

Almost unbelievable. Surreal. Considering the disadvantage of a Republican nominee with the electoral map these days, this was a total blowout. 

Wisconsin turning after Hillary did not even deign to visit it following the wrapping up of the primary season truly speaks to how much the Democratic Party and its nominee became disconnected from the majority of voters.

Historically, Republican Senate candidates get wiped out in presidential election cycles, but instead the GOP had a tremendous night with its myriad Senate candidates with incumbents mostly winning fairly easy races. This is an utterly unique trend for the Republican Party since the late 1920s.


----------



## Ghost Lantern

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I maybe wrong (have been before) but just watching the spin on this post-election is frustrating.

The Dems are acting like this was some sort of "white-lash", or racist manifesto. I have even seen the "this was about our unwillingness to accept a strong female leader"....No

I believe this was a.) simply a rejection of Hillary as a candidate b.) Obama care hit a lot of rural Americans hard, or the ones I know. Just my opinion.


----------



## -XERO-

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



AryaDark said:


> *#TeamHILARYDUFF2020
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *


I've kinda had an on-and-off thing for her for years now. :evil

Gonna walk up to her in the White House (I live about 45 minutes away) like....










And then, I'm gonna get apprehended or shot :batista3 lol


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Now the waiting game begins... if it had been Hillary, at least we know what we would be getting. Now, well, which Trump shows up in January? 

I still wish we had better candidates than what we got.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



AryaDark said:


> *#TeamHILARYDUFF2020
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *


ANOTHER HILLARY?! :CENA


----------



## downnice

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

First off let me say that I am not a fan of Trump but voting for Clinton is a vote for the same garbage that got us in this situation in the first place. Hopefully Trump can level out and be a true populist which would be good for the world IMO

Also in the pure stat side, the Dems are in deep shit, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, Iowa are only going to get more red and if he does a good job at president and does continue to get support of union workers there well then the Democrats are going to be in a hole because the GOP will start off with 223 Electoral votes (the consenus might change it a bit but still) So that means the Dems are going to need due what the GOP did and turn states like Arizona and Georgia to have a realistic chance in future elections


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



> Liberal students across the nation watched in shock as Donald Trump clinched victory from Hillary Clinton to become the 45th president of the United States.
> 
> But some wiped their tears, and pulled themselves together enough to ask their professors to cancel their exams because they were so upset by the results.
> 
> And one Yale economics professor heard the cry, and decided to protect his snowflake charges by making the test optional.
> 
> 
> Subscribe
> He wrote to them saying: “I am getting many heartfelt notes from students who are in shock over the election returns” and “fear, rightly or wrongly for their families” and are “requesting that the exam be postponed.”
> 
> It isn’t clear who the professor was, but Yale publishes a list of its economics faculty members here.
> 
> 
> John Victor, editor of the Yale News, published the extraordinary message, and noted that many more snowflake students were demanding similar treatment:
> 
> View image on Twitter
> View image on Twitter
> Follow
> Jon Victor @jon_victor_
> BREAKING: Yale Econ 115 professor makes midterm exam optional after students write in expressing shock about presidential election:
> 11:40 PM - 8 Nov 2016 · New Haven, CT, United States
> 208 208 Retweets 226 226 likes
> Follow
> Jon Victor @jon_victor_
> Other students continue to request dean's excuses, extensions given tonight's election results pointing toward a Donald Trump victory
> 11:42 PM - 8 Nov 2016 · New Haven, CT, United States
> 2 2 Retweets 2 2 likes
> The professor, in charge of the Econ 115 “introductory microeconomics” unit, acknowledges that many students sacrificed their time preparing for it, and were welcome to take it anyway.
> 
> But he said that said anybody who could not face going it that day could skip it with no consequences.
> 
> Apparently not everybody was so lucky, though:
> 
> View image on Twitter
> View image on Twitter
> Follow
> Jon Victor @jon_victor_
> Meanwhile, BIO 114 will have a midterm tomorrow, despite pleas from students to cancel it in light of the election's "emotional toll:"
> 12:02 AM - 9 Nov 2016 · New Haven, CT, United States
> 10 10 Retweets 12 12 likes


https://heatst.com/culture-wars/yale-professor-cancels-exam-for-snowflake-students-distraught-at-election-result/


----------



## CGS

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Kinda hope Trump shows himself to be a true politician and go back on every word he said in the lead up to this :draper2


----------



## TripleG

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Well this is certainly interesting. If Trump had been a Democratic candidate, the feminists would be going ga-ga over this development. 

http://theweek.com/speedreads/660809/kellyanne-conway-becomes-first-woman-successfully-run-presidential-campaign


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@virus21 Bunch of kids throughout the San Francisco Bay Area are supposedly saying they cannot tolerate attending school today for the terrible gravity of :trump winning last night. :hglol

A major number of Russian-Americans in San Francisco are cheering, as are Serb-Americans and Hungarian-Americans, groups who broke for Trump and all had considerable distaste for Hillary Clinton. :lol


----------



## TripleG

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



DesolationRow said:


> @virus21 Bunch of kids throughout the San Francisco Bay Area are supposedly saying they cannot tolerate attending school today for the terrible gravity of :trump winning last night. :hglol


The ultimate triggering! 

Goddamn it, there I go again. 

I didn't even vote for Trump, but it is so sickeningly satisfying to watch these nutballs freak out over it.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



TripleG said:


> Well this is certainly interesting. If Trump had been a Democratic candidate, the feminists would be going ga-ga over this development.
> 
> http://theweek.com/speedreads/66080...-woman-successfully-run-presidential-campaign


I was just praising her earlier in the chatbox. Incredibly well managed campaign with far fewer resources than clinton's to get him over the line in so many states. Taking into account the number of fail-safe paths he actually wound up with, the ground game had to have been impeccable (not to mention the polling and modelling).


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



TripleG said:


> Well this is certainly interesting. If Trump had been a Democratic candidate, the feminists would be going ga-ga over this development.
> 
> http://theweek.com/speedreads/660809/kellyanne-conway-becomes-first-woman-successfully-run-presidential-campaign


Trump has been quoted as saying that he has a great deal of respect for women who make it to the preeminent roles of business, saying that one of the characteristics that impresses him and others is that they "just do it," they don't make a show out of their being a woman. 

Sadly those for whom identity politics matter most do not seem to understand this line of thinking at all. :lol :aryha @AryaDark please tell *MrMr* that he was, as I thought at the time of his saying so, absolutely right about Kellyanne Conway. She was brilliant, and I found myself happy for her sense of relief and contentment last night after Trump won since she was clearly putting in ridiculous hours and trying to control this madman to the point of taking his phone away from him so he couldn't keep tweeting crazy things at all hours of the day. :lol

Indeed @Goku.

Hillary Clinton spent $10.00 per vote she received. :trump paid $5.00 for each vote he received. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796421037122584576


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



DesolationRow said:


> @virus21 Bunch of kids throughout the San Francisco Bay Area are supposedly saying they cannot tolerate attending school today for the terrible gravity of :trump winning last night. :hglol


Maybe they can spend time cleaning up the human shit and needles that are all over the streets of their city


----------



## CALΔMITY

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Seph opcorn




DesolationRow said:


> @virus21 Bunch of kids throughout the San Francisco Bay Area are supposedly saying they cannot tolerate attending school today for the terrible gravity of :trump winning last night. :hglol


There are people legit saying they'll kill themselves if Trump wins. Doesn't surprise me that after the fact some people would claim to be so heavily affected. Our generation and younger are far too over emotional.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@Tater

Trump's win cost Mexico's richest man $5.1 billion
 1:09 p.m. ET 






  PEDRO PARDO/AFP/Getty Images

 Donald Trump's victory was bad news for more than just Hillary Clinton's supporters. _Bloomberg_ reported that, at the opening bell Wednesday morning, the collective wealth of the world's billionaires was down $41 billion as the shock of Trump's win roiled the markets. Earlier in the week, when Clinton looked poised for a victory, the world's richest saw their wealth increase by a collective $57 billion.
Carlos Slim, Mexico's richest man and the fifth-richest person in the world, was hit particularly hard by the news of Trump's impending victory. As the peso plummeted "as much as 12 percent on the news" of Trump's win, _Bloomberg_ reported that Slim lost $5.1 billion — about 9.2 percent of his wealth.
In brighter news, the markets opened higher than expected Wednesday after taking a nosedive Tuesday night. And as _Money_ magazine pointed out, the losses of the world's wealthiest weren't as bad as they were after the U.K.'s Brexit vote, when their collective wealth plunged $212 billion. _Becca Stanek_


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CGS said:


> I Wouldn't "support" her tbh. Like I said I thought both were pretty shit but for me I could deal with Hillary a lot more than Trump.
> 
> Like I said before both options in this election were god awful and far as i'm concerned neither should have been giving this option. When it came down to it for me it wouldn't have come to do "who would I prefer to be elected president" but rather "Which one would I least want to see be elected president" and the answer to that was Trump.


Look, I'm not saying people shouldn't support or even vote for Hilary, all I'm saying is people need to stop trying to justify their vote by using a "moral high ground" that simply doesn't exist. The lesser of two evils depends entirely on who is voting, and people voted for Trump this time around. Unfortunately, false narratives will only continue for the next 4 years


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Greenlawler said:


> I maybe wrong (have been before) but just watching the spin on this post-election is frustrating.
> 
> The Dems are acting like this was some sort of "white-lash", or racist manifesto. I have even seen the "this was about our unwillingness to accept a strong female leader"....No
> 
> I believe this was a.) simply a rejection of Hillary as a candidate b.) Obama care hit a lot of rural Americans hard, or the ones I know. Just my opinion.


The "white-lash" thing is bullshit. USA Today says Trump won 8% of the black vote, compared with 6% of the black vote earned by Romney in 2012. Hillary was a shitty candidate and the Democrats ought to be ashamed of themselves for throwing Bernie under the bus and forcing this woman on us. Too many progressives & liberals rejected their party's candidate because they saw her as a neo-con in disguise. No amount of bullshitting could cover up her crimes or how untrustworthy she is. People from both sides of the political spectrum saw right through her.

The Dems have no one but themselves to blame for this defeat. (That and the fact that they lost touch with most of the country.) They should accept this L, regroup, and focus on the mid-terms in 2018.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

This feels like Labour V Tories, we picked the biggest fucking dud cunt for a candidate but still looked like we'd pull out a win because of the dumb fucking polls and then get royally clobbered. 

I feel happy that as a Brit I am about to get 4 years of pure memeworthy shit out of the mouth of Trump, and I get to see the first lady a lot, shes fine. Ultimately though, with Brexit and this, I feel completely at a loss with politics, clearly the momentum has swung away from us liberal come socialists for now.


----------



## RenegadexParagon

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Irish Jet said:


> 2020 - Union of Soviet Socialist America is born.







( ͡☭ ͜ʖ ͡☭)


----------



## Smarkout

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Bu... Bu.... The polls! 


Republicans have every branch of government now if I am not mistaken, don't mess this up!


----------



## Cooper09

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Kabraxal said:


> Now the waiting game begins... *if it had been Hillary, at least we know what we would be getting.* Now, well, which Trump shows up in January?
> 
> I still wish we had better candidates than what we got.


Yep, an all out pointless war with Russia that would have killed millions.


----------



## Ghost Lantern

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The Absolute said:


> That's bullshit. *USA Today says Trump won 8% of the black vote, compared with 6% of the black vote earned by Romney in 2012. Hillary was a shitty candidate and the Democrats ought to be ashamed of themselves* for throwing Bernie under the bus and forcing this woman on us. Too many progressives & liberals rejected their party's candidate because they saw her as a neo-con in disguise. No amount of bullshitting could cover up her crimes or how untrustworthy she is. People from both sides of the political spectrum saw right through her.
> 
> The Dems have no one but themselves to blame for this defeat. (That and the fact that they lost touch with most of the country.) They should accept this L, regroup, and focus on the mid-terms in 2018.


Okay so perhaps I read your response wrong, but it sure sounds like you disagreed, insulted my point and got two people to like your post,.....I said the main reason they lost was a rejection of Hillary, and that is was not racist. 

of course I could be mis-reading your response, but I sure as heck agreed with what you posted.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



virus21 said:


> https://heatst.com/culture-wars/yal...flake-students-distraught-at-election-result/


Showed this to my wife and she goes maybe I should try that with my professors :kobelol 

Students. We all know you don't really believe in this shit. You just want whatever excuse you can get to not have to turn in your homework on time.

I think that in a few years we will discover that the entire college SJW safe-space movement was just a massive ruse to get easier assignments or none at all.


----------



## JM

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Goku said:


> polls :duck
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :duck


Polls were actually pretty accurate.

Hillary did win the popular vote as the polls suggested she would.


----------



## TakerFreak

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Trump won hahahaha! Look at all the butt hurt on the internet is fun.


----------



## skypod

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Smarkout said:


> Bu... Bu.... The polls!
> 
> 
> Republicans have every branch of government now if I am not mistaken, don't mess this up!



I'm Scottish so not sure how this works, but what does this mean for social issues? Are you going to go back to backdoor abortion clinics, preaching teen abstinence in schools and complete regression of gay rights?


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Greenlawler said:


> Okay so perhaps I read your response wrong, but it sure sounds like you disagreed, insulted my point and got two people to like your post,.....I said the main reason they lost was a rejection of Hillary, and that is was not racist.
> 
> of course I could be mis-reading your response.


*I liked his post because of the overall point in which I absolutely agree with which is why I also liked your post. The Democrats have absolutely no one to blame but themselves. The writing should have been on the wall with what Hillary did to Bernie. She didn't think that shit would come back and haunt her? Sheeeeeeiiiiiiiiit.*


----------



## Screwball

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## KingCosmos

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Stinger Fan said:


> No , you don't get to pull the bigotry card when you just openly stated you'd support Hillary over Trump.
> 
> She has
> 
> Joked that she saw Gandhi working at a gas station
> Claimed Black youths are super predators
> She said she was against Gay marriage
> She said her mentor was Robert Byrd, noted KKK member who created a charter in West Virginia
> Said she looked up to Margaret Sanger who spoke at KKK rally's and what she said about African Americans
> She said she was against illegal immigration and even voted to build a wall on Mexico's border(btw Obama did too)
> She made a joke about "colored people time"
> 
> She literally has gotten away with some ridiculous racist crap simply because she's a democrat.


The Clinton administration no doubt has a proven record of White supremacy. But to act like Trump isn't a clear white supremacist is ridiculous. He has documented history of disenfranchising Black people. His housing discrimination situation is clear as day. There is simply no denying that he is a White supremacist. Why the hell won't people be honest and say they voted for a White Supremacist, instead they deflect and point the finger at anything. Then they claim you are pulling the racism card. And then they claim that you are racist. But what it boils down to is minority racism boils down to just name calling, while White supremacy ACTUALLY has a affect on the life's of minorities. People are so afraid to admit Trump is a White supremacist because they will feel bad about themselves but just be honest


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Greenlawler said:


> Okay so perhaps I read your response wrong, but it sure sounds like you disagreed, insulted my point and got two people to like your post,.....I said the main reason they lost was a rejection of Hillary, and that is was not racist.
> 
> of course I could be mis-reading your response, but I sure as heck agreed with what you posted.


:lol

Yeah I wasn't calling you out, I was agreeing with you. My post was mainly directed at the Dems who claimed this was a "white-lash". Strange to call it that since Trump got more black votes than Romney. Apologies if my post was misinterpreted.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

DADDY'S home.

:trump DADDY.

How many South American dudes' insides did Milo paint last night? I'm going with 8.


----------



## KO Bossy

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> People are fucking stupid and insist on learning things the hard way. They don't remember their history either, as we're basically repeating what happened 90 years ago. The past few decades of evidence that trickle down economics is complete horseshit isn't enough to convince them. The crash of 8 years ago didn't teach people their lesson. Democrats had their chance to fix things when Obama was elected but they instead chose to prop up the dying trickle down system. Trump is here to save us though. You can count on him and a Republican controlled Congress to wreck shit so badly that the USA won't have any choice but to start doing things differently.
> 
> :chrisholly


Pardon my interruption, but would this be the same Republican party that, under Reagan, instituted trickle down economics in the first place? And the same Republican party that "wrecked shit so badly" that it was the one who caused the crash 8 years ago? Or is it totally going to be different now because someone else is in charge?

I'm not a fan of Trump, but I can see why people are. He's a cowboy who kinda marches to his own beat. Hillary wasn't a good candidate, way too much baggage. And I hate the SJW types, as well. My issues with Trump, racism and whatnot aside, mainly stem from him being...stupid. Above all else, I'm anti-stupid. So its a bit disconcerting that a guy who denies climate change, threatens to start world wars by attacking other countries' ships when they mock American sailors, that he's going to build a giant wall to keep Mexicans out, etc. gets elected.

Unfortunately, people voted for Trump because they saw him as the best chance for real change. They think that because he's not a product of that political system that he's going to be able to get things done and really make a difference. Problem is, from everything I see, Trump is a product of another dangerous system-American economics and finance. The one that tells you that the almighty dollar is everything. And we've seen what the pursuit of the power the comes with money can lead to...a great example happened 8 years ago. Shit, just look at Wells Fargo recently. 

Is it going to happen with Trump? Nobody can say for sure. But it certainly doesn't inspire hope when the new President-elect is the defendant in several lawsuits after being accused of bilking a lot of people out of their money in exchange for real estate training. Or leaving investors holding the bag on projects of his that they invested in while he got out early before things fell apart. Or not paying contractors/suppliers for work they've done. Or declaring bankruptcy six times. Money is the man's lifeblood. So...why do Americans think he's going to make the country great again? Because from all the evidence, it seems like he's gonna make America great...for himself and people like him, otherwise known as the upper 1% (who themselves are the ones blue collar Americans wanted to bring down). Not Joe Six-Pack working out in Ohio at a factory. He doesn't give a fuck about people like that.

But ultimately, choosing Hillary was a really dumb decision. 

Well America, you've made your bed. All the rest of us can do is watch what unfolds. The best analogy I can make is that right now, you've put a shady looking dude with TNT in his hand in the White House. Things won't necessarily go badly, but they could very possibly. And what happens in the US tends to affect the rest of the world, so...it'd be great if you guys could not fuck this up so that we can remain not-fucked up, too.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

All these people crying about whites do realize that Hillary Clinton is white, right?

Right?


----------



## -XERO-

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tomodachi said:


>












Re: Will WWE acknowledge that a HOFer is now President?



-PerfectDarkness- said:


> *Yes, EASILY.*
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796267743033036800
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796387868813955072


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Of COURSE JBL voted for Bloomberg :heston


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



JM said:


> Polls were actually pretty accurate.
> 
> Hillary did win the popular vote as the polls suggested she would.


No she didn't. They stopped counting once Trump won the electoral votes therefore the claim that she won the popular vote is iffy at best and more of a consolation prize which isn't really an established victory.


----------



## JM

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> No she didn't. They stopped counting once Trump won the electoral votes therefore the claim that she won the popular vote is iffy at best and more of a consolation prize which isn't really an established victory.


What?

They were still counting as of this morning. They declared the winner when appropriate, but they keep counting. There's other things to be decided.


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



JM said:


> Polls were actually pretty accurate.
> 
> Hillary did win the popular vote as the polls suggested she would.


:duck


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

:trump could have won the popular vote if he'd campaigned in California and New York at all.

But he would have lost the electoral college if he'd done that.

:trump decided actually winning > fake winning and spent his last days campaigning in the "Rust Belt" instead and that delivered him the White House.


----------



## JM

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Goku said:


> :duck


Would you like to expand on that?

Polls are stupid to begin with because they don't reflect that actual voting method in the US. All they do is encourage people not to vote and mislead people.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*






So glad certain hypocritical leftists got their asses handed to them today, as much as I feel Trump will be a disaster :lol.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



JM said:


> Would you like to expand on that?
> 
> Polls are stupid to begin with because they don't reflect that actual voting method in the US. All they do is encourage people not to vote and mislead people.


are you going to pretend like all the polls weren't predicting a blowout victory for clinton? Unless you want to show me all the polls that had trump winning the electoral majority.

the popular vote is a meaningless metric. If the popular vote was ever in play, the campaigns would not be designed as they are as candidates would have to strategise differently.

Even if clinton wins the popular vote, the polls didn't predict clinton would win the popular vote alone. They ran state by state polls and concluded she was going to get a landslide victory.


----------



## JM

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Goku said:


> are you going to pretend like all the polls weren't predicting a blowout victory for clinton? Unless you want to show me all the polls that had trump winning the electoral majority.
> 
> the popular vote is a meaningless metric. If the popular vote was ever in play, the campaigns would not be designed as they are as candidates would have to strategise differently.
> 
> Even if clinton wins the popular vote, the polls didn't predict clinton would win the popular vote alone. They ran state by state polls and concluded she was going to get a landslide victory.


When did I say the polls showed Trump winning? The polls indicated the Clinton would get the popular vote, which she did.

Like I said, polls are stupid and all they do is given people a reason not to go out in vote. They are just there to give media something to blab about.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



JM said:


> What?
> 
> They were still counting as of this morning. They declared the winner when appropriate, but they keep counting. There's other things to be decided.


Aah. I didn't know that. Looking further into it. The margin is 200k with absentee votes still remaining. 

---- 

Not meant for you JM, but for others who may be taking exception to the Electoral College at this point and why it remains superior to the popular vote.

http://presidentelect.org/art_whyec.html



> On election night the big colorful map of the United States will once again dominate our TV screens. The network anchors will explain the "archaic way" we elect presidents while analysts will tell us why this "anachronistic process" needs to be eliminated in favor of direct popular elections. There will undoubtably be numerous mentions of all the times the "system has failed". What you won't hear is any defense of the Electoral College. And that is a shame, because if you can look past the populist appeal of the popular vote there are tangible benefits the current electoral process has over direct elections.
> 
> The United States is a hugely diverse country. We have a diversity of races, religions, nationalities, politics, and ideas. But we also have diversity in our geography. We have big states vs little states, north vs south, urban areas vs rural areas, and east coast vs west coast vs "fly-over country". Unlike the popular vote which takes all that diversity, throws it out the window, and mashes everybody into one monolithic number of about 100 million, the Electoral College tries to look at the nation as a whole while still respecting our differences -- especially when there is not a lot of agreement -- when choosing our president. How so? By forcing candidates to make their appeal broader than they would need to in a popular vote election. I know a lot of people are scoffing at this and I admit that this may not have been the intent at its founding. But after over 200 years of elections the evidence shows that that is what the Electoral College system has become. Need some examples?
> 
> *The Electoral College discourages candidates from pandering to specific regions of the country.* In 1888, Grover Cleveland basically ran a one issue campaign that was only popular in the south. He swept that region during the election in stunning fashion. In fact in six southern states he received over 65% of the vote! The rest of the country in the north, mid-west, and west supported Benjamin Harrison. Cleveland ended up just beating Harrison in the popular vote by about 90,000 votes -- less than 1 percent of the 11 million cast. But without the votes of those six southern states, Harrison won the other thirty-two states by over 300,000 votes. Harrison ended up handily winning the electoral vote 233-168 because his appeal was to a much wider swath of the country, while Cleveland limited his to a specific area with an issue that would bring them out in larger numbers. *The popular vote didn't reflect the real will of the country as much as it represented an overly zealous region. The Electoral College rewards candidates who draw votes from around the county rather than in a limited area. *
> 
> *In a related vein, the Electoral College forces the candidates to fight for votes rather than "preach to the choir".* Why is that a good thing? It is why Barrack Obama is in Virginia talking about tax cuts and John McCain is in Pennsylvania talking about regulating businesses! In almost every state the person who gets the most votes wins all that states' electoral votes. So there is no benefit to Obama to campaign in Illinois where he is winning by 20 points or for McCain to do the same in Utah. They have those states sewn up and they move on to where the undecideds are.* And there they, once again, have to make a broader appeal to reach those voters who have not made up their minds. This is in contrast to what would happen in a direct election. If the popular vote were all that mattered why would Obama, for example, spend any time moderating his views and spending a lot of money and time for some extra undecided votes when he can just stay in a Democratic heavy area, not worry about how his positions might play to the middle, and spend less time and money getting more Democratic voters to the polls?* As partisan as things are now, without the Electoral College things would be much worse as candidates would spend the entire election catering to their base rather than working to get a more inclusive set of voters into their tent.
> 
> *The current electoral system protects minority interests and opinions from being overpowered by a simple majority, or worse, what the founders called a "tyrannical majority". In a direct election, if 55% of voters are pro-choice no candidate needs to worry about the other 45% in the minority since he can win without them. However, in the Electoral College system even if the nation at large is 55% for an issue the one state a candidate may need to win could be 55% against it. Therefore candidates must at least acknowledge the concerns of the minority rather than run roughshod over them.* This can apply to other types of minorities as well, such as racial or vocational. About 13% of the country is black. Less than 2% of the country are farmers. Can you discard their opinions and needs in a popular vote election? Maybe. But that is even less possible under our current system. African-Americans make up 25% or more of the population in several states. And farmers are an important constituency in certain parts of the country. You ignore them at your own peril in the Electoral College as a minority's influence can be greater within the smaller pool of voters in individual states.
> 
> *Another way the Electoral College reflects the will of our population as a whole better than a direct election is by limiting the number of viable candidates to two or three that best represent the different views of the country. *
> 
> A fringe candidate would have a lot of trouble winning a single state, let alone enough votes to win the presidency under our current system. (For example, in 1992, Ross Perot -- a candidate who was not that extreme at all -- won an impressive 19% of the popular vote but didn't win a single state anywhere.) Political parties know they need to find candidates that have widespread appeal in order to be able to win in the Electoral College and therefore their winners, after going through a national primary process, usually are not that far out of the mainstream.
> 
> *Under a popular vote election this party system falls apart. That may sound like a good thing with all the partisan rhetoric being hurled around this election season. But things could actually be worse. In a direct election why would candidates go through primaries to eliminate themselves from contention? That would become a thing of the past as everyone would decide to take their chances in the general election where all their supporters can vote directly for them. You think partisan mud-slinging is bad now? Imagine the intra- party battles that would occur if, for example, McCain had to fight not only Obama for independent voters but also Mike Huckabee for voters of his own party all the way into November! If every faction of the Democratic and Republican parties ran a candidate you could end up with maybe six major candidates running for president and fracturing the popular vote. And that's where the biggest danger lies. With so many people splitting the vote the door opens for an extreme candidate most of the country would never want leading them actually winning. One large national direct election would encourage more candidates to run, while the smaller 50 state (and DC) Electoral College elections limit it to a smaller field of more representative candidates. *
> 
> These are just a few of the arguments that support our current system, but there are others. And this is not to say there aren't any problems with the Electoral College. But in a country as large as ours -- geographically and population-wise -- no one could come up with a perfect way to elect a president. The system we use now does a better job of the complicated task of reflecting the will of the people as a whole than resorting to a simple popular vote.


----------



## Bret Hart

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796284354754396160
> At least he can go back to Canada whenever he wants.


Sami can fuck off, Germany, USA or Canada... He'll always be seen as a cab driver.


----------



## InexorableJourney

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Looks like half of America is going through the DT's about now.


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

*The Huffington Post had Hillary's chances of winning at 98 percent. :lmao A totally fabricated number that they just plucked out of thin air. A main stream media newspaper does this shit. Anyone surprised? :maisie2*


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

^ nyt had something like clinton 95% to start with before finally ending up at trump 95 to finish.



JM said:


> When did I say the polls showed Trump winning? The polls indicated the Clinton would get the popular vote, which she did.


you started by saying "the polls were pretty accurate" ignoring the fact that popular vote polls are usually just aggregated totals of state polls all of which had trump losing.

Indicating clinton would win the popular vote is irrelevant (which is not even confirmed afaik). Polls were grossly inaccurate, they predicted the outcome 100% wrongly. Why do you think a lot of global markets collapsed? Why do you think dow jones plummeted?

All the leading predictions failed. And a lot of people lost money for it (inevitably somebody else gained that money). You should take a read through the final pages of the previous trump thread (before the counting began) to see all the polls and models that were listed.


----------



## CenaBoy4Life

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

All these sjw liberal tears taste so good. so salty, and fresh yum.


Is birthday_massacre on suicide watch yet?


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

http://www.statisticbrain.com/voting-statistics/

Only 9% of registered Democrats voted for Hillary Clinton.


----------



## Seb

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Goku said:


> you started by saying "the polls were pretty accurate" ignoring the fact that popular vote polls are usually just aggregated totals of state polls all of which had trump losing.
> 
> Indicating clinton would win the popular vote is irrelevant (which is not even confirmed afaik). Polls were grossly inaccurate, they predicted the outcome 100% wrongly. Why do you think a lot of global markets collapsed? Why do you think dow jones plummeted?
> 
> All the leading predictions failed. And a lot of people lost money for it (*inevitably somebody else gained that money*). You should take a read through the final pages of the previous trump thread (before the counting began) to see all the polls and models that were listed.


That would be me, learnt my lesson after Brexit that the (heavily biased) polls mean jack shit.

I'm already a winner :trump


----------



## JM

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Goku said:


> you started by saying "the polls were pretty accurate" ignoring the fact that popular vote polls are usually just aggregated totals of state polls all of which had trump losing.
> 
> Indicating clinton would win the popular vote is irrelevant (which is not even confirmed afaik). Polls were grossly inaccurate, they predicted the outcome 100% wrongly. Why do you think a lot of global markets collapsed? Why do you think dow jones plummeted?
> 
> All the leading predictions failed. And a lot of people lost money for it (inevitably somebody else gained that money). You should take a read through the final pages of the previous trump thread (before the counting began) to see all the polls and models that were listed.


I said the polls were pretty accurate because they showed Clinton being favoured by a majority, which the popular vote did reflect. Maybe it's not 100% confirmed yet as you said, but everything I've seen/read/head have indicated that she won the popular vote. 

I think polls are STUPID, especially in the US. They just give networks like CNN something to fill time while the general American public just gets mislead. People will chose to not vote because of polls and that is a shame. Trump very well could have won this election because of the polls. 

I am in no way saying that any merit should be given to the popular vote tally as well btw. I'm merely saying it's a thing and Clinton won that. I have no problem with the electoral system.


----------



## Hencheman_21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Trump: Making America Hate Again

For those hoping for the first female president hang in there. This opens the door for it to happen. Kardashian 2020. (assuming Kim does not get confused by the banners and thinks it is talking about her vision)


----------



## Stipe Tapped

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

This might just be the best thing to come out of this whole election:


----------



## MillionDollarProns

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

To me, the best part of this, is it shows how little power the social justice media has. Buzzfeed, Teen Vogue/Vogue, every tumblr, twitter, and so on and so forth slammed Trump daily for _years_. Now, just like with the Ghostbusters reboot, we learned how little college-aged slacktivists and professional protesters actually matter in the grand scheme of things.

Speaking of the liberal media, I've been a subscriber to Rolling Stone Magazine since 2008 (I got a lifetime gift subscription from a relative) and I was eager, and not disappointed, to see the damage control they'd run after having blasted Trump and the GOP bi-weekly for the past two years.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/how-donald-trump-became-president-w449563



Rolling Stone Website said:


> 1) Third-party protest votes helped assure the Trump victory. In each of these three states, Trump's margin of victory is a fraction of Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson's vote total. Green Party nominee Jill Stein currently has more votes than Clinton's deficit in both Wisconsin (31,000) and Michigan (51,000).
> 
> 2) The Clinton camp's attempts to "expand the map" – with a go-for-broke effort in North Carolina and a foray into Arizona – look like hubris in the rearview. Despite a prodigious TV ad budget of more than $200 million, according to Bloomberg, Clinton barely touched the airwaves in Wisconsin or Michigan. Her first ad buy in Wisconsin launched on October 28th. She didn't announce a Michigan TV campaign until November 1st. Would earlier advertising have been decisive? It's hard to say with confidence: She roundly outspent Trump in Pennsylvania, but lost there as well.
> 
> 3) Huge Obamacare premium hikes, announced in late October, may have had an impact. In Pennsylvania, rates for people in the private insurance market spiked an average of 55 percent. In Wisconsin, the cost of private plans jumped 16 percent. (Michigan's rise was a more modest 7 percent.)
> 
> 4) James Comey. The FBI director's bombshell announcement of renewed scrutiny of the Clinton email case clearly had an impact at the margins, where these elections were decided.
> 
> 5) Cracks in the Obama coalition. While Trump's victory was keyed by a blowout among the white working class, he also peeled off important percentages of the Latino, African-American and youth vote, which moved 8, 7 and 5 points toward Trump, respectively.


----------



## 307858

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Well now that Clinton is done, can we delete her WWE analog Stephanie McMahon! These women are the worst - not because they are women, but because they leech of social movements they had no part in, go on power trips by playing the Ghostbusters sequel woman card, and are both in it for the money.


----------



## Iapetus

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Headliner said:


> Stay safe at all times. You know what's about to happen. You share the sentiments of many. Understand that many do not see things from our perspective because they've never worn our shoes and never will so your opinion is not understood on here by most.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796249464826687488
> "Our" people. The white nationalist movement is serious. Be safe bruh.


Thanks man. You stay safe too. For the past year I've asked myself why the majority here is like this. I always forget the historical demographics of wrestling fans lol.

I know it's not a normal thing, but I've always been a person who could empathize with basically anyone. I am not a woman, I am not Hispanic/Latino, I don't know any veterans or Jews, and I am not close to any Muslims, illegal immigrants, disabled, or LGBT people. And I don't know how I managed to have that isolated of an existence, but I've always felt for, supported, and defended those people regardless. Discrimination, oppression, and disrespect of people based off gender, race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, sexuality, mental status, etc is utterly despicable, and before last night, I thought we as a people were headed in the right direction. And it's not just about who won. Trump could've lost and the numbers he got still would've been eye-opening to how many people support that kind of person. 

Around 120 million people voted this election so essentially a little over 1/3 of the country. Trump got around half of those, which means that 1 out of every 6 people supports his behavior and ideals. And no I'm not saying that every Trump supporter is a flat out racist, misogynistic, xenophobic, piece of shit. But the fact that someone would want to support someone who disrespects and despises you or me means they don't respect you or me either. So I take this election very personally.

And this all ignoring the fact that we had a foreign, practically enemy nation interfering in our election for this man, hacking the democratic side of the government, recruiting and hijacking non-partisan organizations to skew the election, and even needing the FBI to interfere to win and people are still ok with that. 

Today is an absolutely disturbing day, but ya know, sometimes you need to be told the truth. This is our reality, where hate wins, the most unqualified of people can become president, Russia runs our elections, and a third of white women and Hispanics support their own mistreatment. So the first road to recovery is admitting we have a problem. We DEFINITELY have a problem bigger than a lot us thought we did. The question is, what do we do now?

There's always December 13th I guess. That judge better come through. 

Sorry this is wordy. I'm feeling a lot of feelings right now.


----------



## NotGuilty

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## Stall_19

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Donald Trump is going to be President. What a fucking embarrassment. Is this really the best we can do?


----------



## Hencheman_21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Ladies and gentlemen, your next President of the United States of America....


----------



## venkyrenga

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

So the American president is a WWE fan :vince5


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Zydeco said:


> This might just be the best thing to come out of this whole election:












LOW ENERGY cocksuckers, the whole lot of them. :trump


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I'm seeing a lot of 'I was right' and 'I told you so's' from people who before yesterday had clearly begrudgingly had accepted Trump wasn't going to win. This was a major shock result to most as far as I could see in the other thread, the least some of you can do is be honest with yourselves.

I still think this comes back to back to simple nostalgia and flag waving patriotism that so many Americans appear to have been weaned on, like Hogan coming back in the red and yellow, wrapped in the stars and stripes and getting a mega pop.


Edit: Lol at Miss Sally's banning. Was she illegal, perhaps Trump's plan is already in effect?


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Calling third party votes "protest votes" really pisses me off. It's a democracy. People shouldn't be guilt tripped into voting for anyone.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Judging from some reactions this is America now:






What are they gonna do when America is still basically the same and isn't a heap of smoldering rubble in four years?



> Discrimination, oppression, and disrespect of people based off gender *[unless they're male]*, race *[unless they're white]*, religion *[unless they're Christian]*, ethnicity *[unless they're white]*, nationality *[unless they're American]*, sexuality *[unless they're heterosexual]*, mental status *[working class whites are crazy stupid racists]*, etc is utterly despicable, and before last night, I thought we as a people were headed in the right direction.


We are headed in the right direction. The United States last night repudiated the idea that it's okay to be bigoted assholes towards white heterosexual Christians, especially male ones.

America has course corrected and is now back on track to having equality for everyone, not the "some animals are more equal than others" equality the so very many bigots who have run this country for the last 8 years have practiced and are now losing their shit because they're losing their power to discriminate, oppress, and disrespect based on their bigotry.

Did these people really think they could shit on whites in explicitly racist fashion for years without consequence? Oops. _They done fucked up._

*Hubris always gets its Nemesis in the end.*


----------



## Stall_19

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I think more than getting mad at the what? 3-4% of the third party voters, they should be mad at the 46% of eligible people that didn't vote.


----------



## TripleG

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Cipher said:


> Calling third party votes "protest votes" really pisses me off. It's a democracy. People shouldn't be guilt tripped into voting for anyone.


THNAK YOU!


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*






Love this woman for this video


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



deepelemblues said:


> Judging from some reactions this is America now:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are they gonna do when America is still basically the same and isn't a heap of smoldering rubble in four years?
> 
> 
> 
> We are headed in the right direction. The United States last night repudiated the idea that it's okay to be bigoted assholes towards white heterosexual Christians, especially male ones.
> 
> America has course corrected and is now back on track to having equality for everyone, not some animals are more equal than others equality.


It's pretty crazy that apparently the right has basically hijacked the former language of the left, except they've replaced 'minorities' with 'white heterosexual christians'.


----------



## KO Bossy

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



MillionDollarProns said:


> To me, the best part of this, is it shows how little power the social justice media has. Buzzfeed, Teen Vogue/Vogue, every tumblr, twitter, and so on and so forth slammed Trump daily for _years_. Now, just like with the Ghostbusters reboot, we learned how little college-aged slacktivists and professional protesters actually matter in the grand scheme of things.
> 
> Speaking of the liberal media, I've been a subscriber to Rolling Stone Magazine since 2008 (I got a lifetime gift subscription from a relative) and I was eager, and not disappointed, to see the damage control they'd run after having blasted Trump and the GOP bi-weekly for the past two years.
> 
> http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/how-donald-trump-became-president-w449563


Well of course. As I've said many times on this site, the new social justice has nothing to do with social justice. That involves getting off your ass and doing something, which these people don't. They live to complain and score internet points with how PC they are. Hence, shit doesn't get done. Slacktivism indeed.

Although I must say, it is a bit disheartening to see all the people happy at the chaos. Its sad that we've regressed so far as a species to take pleasure in the pain of others. Schadenfreude at its best...


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

http://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the...-for-more-than-intelligence-grace-or-decency/

Best story EVAR

Salon is saying Trump had high votes in women because they were afraid their husbands would beat them if Trump lost


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



stevefox1200 said:


> http://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the...-for-more-than-intelligence-grace-or-decency/
> 
> Best story EVAR
> 
> Salon is saying Trump had high votes in women because they were afraid their husbands would beat them if Trump lost


Perfect example of what I'm talking about.

Can't shit on people over and over again for years without consequences whether they're white, black, yellow, or green and purple polka-dotted. Shouldn't do it period because it's wrong to treat people that way but especially because it will bite you in the ass eventually.



yeahbaby! said:


> It's pretty crazy that apparently the right has basically hijacked the former language of the left, except they've replaced 'minorities' with 'white heterosexual christians'.


Never would have happened if the 'demography is destiny' and social justice crowds hadn't been so blinded with hubris and hate. They really thought there was nothing anyone could do about it so they might as well release all the bitter hatred they have in their hearts. Oops turns out there was something someone could do about it.


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



stevefox1200 said:


> http://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the...-for-more-than-intelligence-grace-or-decency/
> 
> Best story EVAR
> 
> Salon is saying Trump had high votes in women because they were afraid their husbands would beat them if Trump lost



Nice to see that they won't learn from their mistakes. They're gonna double down instead.

Seeing all the threats of violence from the "Love trumps hate" crowd against Trump and his supporters is fucking hysterical.


... and by the way, it's nice to know that a lot of people in the US don't give a fuck about what Katy Perry, Beyonce or Lady Gaga thinks. I guess Hillary hanging out with every fucking celebrity willing to whore themselves out was not appealing to the average Joe. Who could have predicted that?


----------



## KO Bossy

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Oh also, 2 other things:

1) People saying they're moving to Canada if Trump gets elected. Fuck off. What, Canada isn't good enough normally? You're lucky to get to come here period, we're not taking castaways. 

2) Martin Shkreli trolling said people who claimed they'd move to Canada if Trump won. People are laughing at his trolling, being all buddy buddy and shit...this is the same little cocksucker who fucked people over by raising the price of life saving medication 5556% for his pharmaceutical company to make more money. And he's under indictment for securities fraud. This guy is a complete scumbag and perfect representation of everything Trump was supposedly elected to combat...why are his supporters being all chummy and shit with him?


----------



## nyelator

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Yes Yes Yes he did it


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



KO Bossy said:


> 2) Martin Shkreli trolling said people who claimed they'd move to Canada if Trump won. People are laughing at his trolling, being all buddy buddy and shit...this is the same little cocksucker who fucked people over by raising the price of life saving medication 5556% for his pharmaceutical company to make more money. And he's under indictment for securities fraud. This guy is a complete scumbag and perfect representation of everything Trump was supposedly elected to combat...why are his supporters being all chummy and shit with him?


Because standards are low when it comes to celebrating how you just crushed your enemies, drove them before you, and heard the lamentations of their women. 

Probably.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



deepelemblues said:


> Never would have happened if the 'demography is destiny' and social justice crowds hadn't been so blinded with hubris and hate. They really thought there was nothing anyone could do about it so they might as well release all the bitter hatred they have in their hearts. Oops turns out there was something someone could do about it.


Therefore can we expect the right to rise above, quit putting the boot in to other side and gloating about victory, and actually start doing something to make everything great again? I wager most of them wouldn't know what to do with themselves if they couldn't play the victim card and cry foul against the other team.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Therefore can we expect the right to rise above, quit putting the boot in to other side and gloating about victory, and actually start doing something to make everything great again? I wager most of them wouldn't know what to do with themselves if they couldn't play the victim card and cry foul against the other team.


That's a common failing of humanity in general :draper2

And yeah it's just a slight bit ridiculous to start lecturing people on how they shouldn't gloat less than 24 hours after they won. Just a real little slight bit. It bespeaks a certain butthurt and desperation to find a way to still feel superior.

If :trump DADDY had lost there'd certainly be no such clear-eyed perspective on the future going on from the winning side. There'd be nothing but HAHAHA YOU RETARDED TRUMPKIN LOSERS NOBODY CARES ABOUT YOUR STUPID SHIT SHUT THE FUCK UP AND DEAL WITH IT YOU DUMB BUTTHURT RACIST WOMAN HATING FUCKS HOW MUCH ARE YOU CRYING RIGHT NOW THAT A WOMAN IS GONNA BE IN CHARGE AFTER A BLACK MAN HAHAHA etc.


----------



## KO Bossy

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



deepelemblues said:


> Because standards are low when it comes to celebrating how you just crushed your enemies, drove them before you, and heard the lamentations of their women.
> 
> Probably.


Fucking social media, man.


I'm so glad I don't have twitter and don't use facebook or anything like that. The internet has been the ultimate look glass for showing how people really are. Just take a cruise through social media and see how horrible people are to each other, and then tell me you don't want a comet to come and wipe this shitty race out. We are inherently rotten as a species.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



KO Bossy said:


> Fucking social media, man.
> 
> 
> I'm so glad I don't have twitter and don't use facebook or anything like that. The internet has been the ultimate look glass for showing how people really are. Just take a cruise through social media and see how horrible people are to each other, and then tell me you don't want a comet to come and wipe this shitty race out. We are inherently rotten as a species.


We're also inherently wonderful.

Remember your Socrates, one good quality does not erase a bad one, and vice versa.


----------



## Dr. Middy

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Well, color me surprised as all hell. I expected it would be pretty close all things considered, but I never expected Trump to actually win the presidency. And here we are.

All I can say is that it'll be a very interesting next few years, and I wonder if he really is up to the job of being president and the incredible responsibilities that go along with that. I don't care for the man at all, but I do understand that clearly A LOT of people want to see change, so much so that they would put a guy who probably is not the right guy to go with in that situation. 

I respect everybody's choice in voting no matter what, because everybody is entitled to their own decision. That being said, I'm feeling a mixture of intrigue, shock, and general uncertainty with this choice. We'll just have to see where it goes...


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Excuse me if this has already been posted, but...


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

As a fan of irony I love that Kellyanne Conway was massively instrumental in this Trump victory. She saw tons of things no one/very few did.


Also I find it very interesting that Trump's overall vote is comparable to Romney and McCain. Last I checked, he's actually under their totals. The Dems just didn't have the right candidate. I'm not saying Bernie or Biden would've won, and we'll certainly never know this, but I find it interesting to contemplate.


----------



## KO Bossy

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



deepelemblues said:


> We're also inherently wonderful.
> 
> Remember your Socrates, one good quality does not erase a bad one, and vice versa.


I find there to be a lot more bad out there, than good. 

I wonder when human guilt is going to become a thing? Some people already feel guilty for being white, seems like the next logical step.


----------



## Horsetooth Jackass

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



KO Bossy said:


> Oh also, 2 other things:
> 
> 1) People saying they're moving to Canada if Trump gets elected. Fuck off. What, Canada isn't good enough normally? You're lucky to get to come here period, we're not taking castaways.
> 
> 2) *Martin Shkreli *trolling said people who claimed they'd move to Canada if Trump won. People are laughing at his trolling, being all buddy buddy and shit...this is the same little cocksucker who fucked people over by raising the price of life saving medication 5556% for his pharmaceutical company to make more money. And he's under indictment for securities fraud. This guy is a complete scumbag and perfect representation of everything Trump was supposedly elected to combat...why are his supporters being all chummy and shit with him?



He is a problem, don't get me wrong but man we have *MUCH MUCH* bigger problems in the medication world than Martin Shkreli. He's working under some major crooks.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Also big thanks to WF for being mostly civil with each other. I know this shit is hard to take for some.


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



MrMister said:


> As a fan of irony I love that Kellyanne Conway was massively instrumental in this Trump victory. She saw tons of things no one/very few did.
> 
> 
> Also I find it very interesting that Trump's overall vote is comparable to Romney and McCain. Last I checked, he's actually under their totals. *The Dems just didn't have the right candidate.* I'm not saying Bernie or Biden would've won, and we'll certainly never know this, but I find it interesting to contemplate.




This has never been more appropriate.

Sabotaging Bernie to push Queen Hillary... Dear Dems:


----------



## samizayn

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



MillionDollarProns said:


> To me, the best part of this, is it shows how little power the social justice media has.


You are wrong, it has great power. The regressive new-left and its dogmatic intolerance hateful rhetoric has made the crack between two sides open to a chasm. I brush them off misguided and naive but I never realised just how deep the damage they have dealt to America was.


KC Armstrong said:


> Excuse me if this has already been posted, but...


Extremely crass to speak of people being "butthurt" right now when a great deal of people's livelihoods hang in the balance. You're not witty or edgy for trying to act the fool.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Wolf fucking Blitzer just had the nerve to ask "Is it time we look over how we elect the President?" in the wake of Hillary continuing the now 16 year old trend of winning the popular vote yet losing the general election.

Yeah, because *now* is the perfect opportunity to bring up the relevancy and legitimacy of the political embarrassment that is the electoral college. Where the hell were you and this little question of yours when Dubya got in not once, but twice, you solemn old bastard? :lol


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Don't fuck with my electoral college, there's nothing wrong with it except people who either don't understand what it's there for or are naive about the unintended consequences removing it would cause.


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Cooper09 said:


> Yep, an all out pointless war with Russia that would have killed millions.


Didn't say it would be pretty or nice... just predictable. No one actually knows what Trump is going to do. Probably not even him.


----------



## FatherJackHackett

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Trump got a higher percentage of blacks voting for him than Romney did, and many whites _who previously gave Obama their vote_ rolled on his party because they believe he failed them as their President. This clearly isn't about race, but why would the Media break the habit of an entire election season and report on the facts when there's the low-hanging fruit of race-baiting and identity politics dangling in front of them.

As predicted, my social media feeds are saltier than the Dead Sea, full of people looking for something or someone else to blame but themselves. I have seen the collective finger being pointed at women who voted Trump ("like Jews voting for Hitler") and the people who went out and voted for Harambe lol) along with others just generally going on a tirade against the perceived misogyny, stupidity and 'racism' of an electorate who had previously voted in a black man not once but fucking twice.

In other posts I see Clinton supporters asking where the Trump voters have all come from. They genuinely didn't know that these people existed let alone what their motivations are, which perfectly encapsulates why the election went the way it did. Too long have the working classes watched prominent individuals in Washington, Hollywood and the Media's liberal back-slapping and circle jerking, taking every chance they can get to denounce the working class as racist neanderthals and idiots who don't know what's best for them. Piss them off at your peril, and PA in particular proved that.

The Clinton campaign and their bought cronies in the Media really shat the bed. They should have known that the public trust them less than ever before, so should have covered this race with at least some semblance of neutrality and fairness. No, instead (apart from Hannity) they go full-on rabid anti-Trump while covering as little of Clinton's multitude of scandals as possible. Thankfully the public saw right through their reprehensible bias and hyperbole. As they debate, however, on whether they went 'too easy' on Trump, I can see that they still don't get it, and probably never will.

To think immediately before the voting began the only thing they were considering was how many Clinton would win by. After the count is in, the Republicans have swept the board for the first time since the 1920s. What a crazy day.


----------



## KO Bossy

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



KC Armstrong said:


> Excuse me if this has already been posted, but...


The video itself is amusing, but holy shit the comments...again, when's that comet coming?



Baba Boo-Hai said:


> He is a problem, don't get me wrong but man we have *MUCH MUCH* bigger problems in the medication world than Martin Shkreli. He's working under some major crooks.


Won't argue with that...I just find it puzzling how people don't ostracize him, considering what a vile piece of shit he is.



MrMister said:


> Also big thanks to WF for being mostly civil with each other. I know this shit is hard to take for some.


Yeah, props to everyone...because otherwise, it could become like the YouTube comment section I mentioned:



> I want to use their tears as lube for when I jerk off.
> This is too good.﻿





> Best part,we'll be milking these tears for the next 4 years.﻿





> I sincerely hope the Trump deniers go down as an hero﻿


For those unaware, an hero is internet slang given to people who commit suicide.


And generally reveling in Trumps win, flaming liberals and being genuinely happy that other people are sad/upset/in pain. Again, comet please.


----------



## Larry Davis

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I didn't vote for either. Two reasons: One, my state was already going to swing one way anyway, so my vote was especially useless, and two, neither candidate is anywhere close to electable in my opinion.

That said, even when both options are awful, it's truly astounding that the American populace is stupid enough to elect the clearly worse and more unqualified choice. At the same time, I can understand the thinking behind it... 

Root for the underdog, not the career politician. 

Vote for change. 

Show Washington that the "silent majority" does exist. 

But none of that excuses casting a vote for a racist, sexist, disgusting human who should not be anywhere near any form of public office, let alone the highest-ranking position in the goddamn country. We've finally elected our first meme, which is the most terrifying prospect I can imagine. The worst thing is that this sets a fairly disturbing precedent of stunt campaigns that miraculously succeed in the future. 

At the same time, this result can't be placed squarely on the shoulders of the voters. We have both parties to thank, each reaching deep down into their writhing masses of barely-human talking heads, and producing the worst they have to offer as their singular, shining gems. That's what should really be explored -- what, exactly, led the Democrats to push on with Hillary despite overwhelming evidence that nobody fucking likes her? Despite the fact that she does not even come close to embodying many traits that Democratic voters like? How did the Dems manage to lose the Rust Belt for the first time in like 30 years? This election has been a shit sundae from top to bottom, and the final result is just the cherry on top.

Truly, the only winning choice was not to play.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I suspect :trump will assemble a cabinet and staff of conservatives like Sessions and the type of aggressive and loyal mid and upper level management people he seemed to like on The Apprentice and for his various businesses in general. And his campaign. Kellyanne Conway is a fucking genius and should and presumably will occupy a high spot in the :trump Administration.

Hopefully Pence will be a very influential VP in the mold of first-term Cheney (but he won't make the mistakes Cheney did). 

I also suspect that :trump will give the broad goals and delegate ways and means to his team with Pence as a kind of COO. :trump has final say of course but Pence is the one who rolls up his sleeves and gets his hands dirty. Well I hope that's what he does because that would be the best way to minimize mistakes, friction with Congress (and even though GOP controls both chambers there is going to be plenty of friction with Congress) and general :trump grandiose emotional craziness.


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*










:reneelel


----------



## amhlilhaus

So glad i was wrong.

If trump does half of what he said, awesome.

He thanked the SECRET SERVICE AGENTS in his acceptance speech. 

Trump is a alpha dog, lets see how he does


----------



## ecclesiastes10

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

where's the know it all and his long complex sentences and polls analysis...


----------



## The5star_Kid

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

There's a key point I wanted to highlight here. From the numbers coming through in the US, more of the people who earned less than 50 thousand dollars voted Clinton than Trump. people earning more than 50k a year voted Trump.

So there goes the myth that you have to be working class to vote for Trump.


----------



## Larry Davis

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



KC Armstrong said:


> :reneelel


I'll take "Things That Didn't Happen" for 400.


----------



## Warlock

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Trump got about the same support from white males(and males in general) as Romney did. Within ~1 point difference. White vote also dropped 2 points from the overall voting demographic from 4 years ago.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/09/polit...ericans-latinos-women-white-voters/index.html

According to CNN.. it looks like young, latinos and black voters increased/maintained their support for trump and didn't show up for clinton like they had for Obama in 2012. If you want a reason for why clinton lost, look there first.


----------



## The5star_Kid

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Larry Davis said:


> I didn't vote for either. Two reasons: One, my state was already going to swing one way anyway, so my vote was especially useless, and two, neither candidate is anywhere close to electable in my opinion.
> 
> That said, even when both options are awful, it's truly astounding that the American populace is stupid enough to elect the clearly worse and more unqualified choice. At the same time, I can understand the thinking behind it...
> 
> Root for the underdog, not the career politician.
> 
> Vote for change.
> 
> Show Washington that the "silent majority" does exist.
> 
> But none of that excuses casting a vote for a racist, sexist, disgusting human who should not be anywhere near any form of public office, let alone the highest-ranking position in the goddamn country. We've finally elected our first meme, which is the most terrifying prospect I can imagine. The worst thing is that this sets a fairly disturbing precedent of stunt campaigns that miraculously succeed in the future.
> 
> At the same time, this result can't be placed squarely on the shoulders of the voters. We have both parties to thank, each reaching deep down into their writhing masses of barely-human talking heads, and producing the worst they have to offer as their singular, shining gems. That's what should really be explored -- what, exactly, led the Democrats to push on with Hillary despite overwhelming evidence that nobody fucking likes her? Despite the fact that she does not even come close to embodying many traits that Democratic voters like? How did the Dems manage to lose the Rust Belt for the first time in like 30 years? This election has been a shit sundae from top to bottom, and the final result is just the cherry on top.
> 
> Truly, the only winning choice was not to play.


I agree with this as an outside observer. I have family over in the US and many of them didn't even want to vote Clinton, although they've voted Democrat their whole life. 

However, what scares me and also intrigues me is something that only the American people can answer: How did you allow your country to get to a stage where the two candidates up for the biggest job in the US (outside of various top slots in the CIA and mega corporations of course) were two terrible, despicable human beings? 

I mean, both of these so called people are warmongering, backwards, intolerant bigots.
When you had a genuine alternative in Sanders, why did he not get the democratic vote? 

What has gone so wrong in American society that it has led to bigots on both sides. You have had a political system, for as long as I can remember (I remember every election campaign since 2000) that has been based on division, rich v poor, black/hispanic/asian/muslim v rich and white, man v woman and so on. Why has a country that supposedly moved forward in the 70s in a progressive, modern agenda, sloped back to the 19th century? 

You've had a President literally talk about starting a Crusade, which he did. Then you had a President carry out assassinations of his own citizens and of others from other nations and now you have a President who has the mental capacity of a spoiled. 15 year old rich kid.

What has gone so wrong?


----------



## Chloe

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

People truly think that America would elect a racist, sexist, bigoted yada yada instead of thinking maybe they don't know the actual definition of what they are saying and just jump on the popular, accepted, media-fuelled definition. 

:mj4


----------



## southrnbygrace

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I can't wait to help all those idiots that are 'leaving if Trump wins' pack so they can get the hell out of my country. I don't like Trump. I didn't vote for Trump (or Hillary) but people like that are beyond stupid in my book. They're like 2 year olds crying when they don't get their way. 

Bye Kanye. Bye Whoopie. Bye Rosie. etc etc Don't let the border hit ya where the good Lord split ya.


----------



## KO Bossy

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The5star_Kid said:


> I agree with this as an outside observer. I have family over in the US and many of them didn't even want to vote Clinton, although they've voted Democrat their whole life.
> 
> However, what scares me and also intrigues me is something that only the American people can answer: How did you allow your country to get to a stage where the two candidates up for the biggest job in the US (outside of various top slots in the CIA and mega corporations of course) were two terrible, despicable human beings?
> 
> I mean, both of these so called people are warmongering, backwards, intolerant bigots.
> When you had a genuine alternative in Sanders, why did he not get the democratic vote?
> 
> What has gone so wrong in American society that it has led to bigots on both sides. You have had a political system, for as long as I can remember (I remember every election campaign since 2000) that has been based on division, rich v poor, black/hispanic/asian/muslim v rich and white, man v woman and so on. Why has a country that supposedly moved forward in the 70s in a progressive, modern agenda, sloped back to the 19th century?
> 
> You've had a President literally talk about starting a Crusade, which he did. Then you had a President carry out assassinations of his own citizens and of others from other nations and now you have a President who has the mental capacity of a spoiled. 15 year old rich kid.
> 
> What has gone so wrong?


Because a frightening number of Americans are completely fucking stupid. Worse still, they're HAPPY being stupid.

For god's sake, about a quarter of Americans still think THE SUN REVOLVES AROUND THE EARTH. Forget the 19th century, we're going back to the 1600s here.

http://time.com/7809/1-in-4-americans-thinks-sun-orbits-earth/








A stupid system run by stupid people makes stupid decisions, like electing other stupid people for office or nominating them for presidency.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Its funny that people talk about how SHOCKING IT is when coverage is a damn near text book republican 

The spread looks just like Nixon's take the south and rural areas and knock over the few swing cites to take the whole state that the Republicans have been using for 50 years


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



deepelemblues said:


> Don't fuck with my electoral college, *there's nothing wrong with it* except people who either don't understand what it's there for or are naive about the unintended consequences removing it would cause.


Except for rendering the popular vote moot, rendering voter turnout largely irrelevant outside of swing states and weakening the importance of third parties.

It's a joke of an institution that needs to be significantly retooled (though not totally abolished), brah.


----------



## KingCosmos

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I wonder what Trump will attempt to do for minorities. Especially since he has a history of showing his White Supremacy with the housing discrimination. Also a bit worried that we have such a idiotic person in office that has such dumb views on Abortion. Also someone that thinks climate change is a hoax. His clear racism aside why would people elect a retard


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Trump if you put Newt in I will kick your ass 

He is the fuck of the right that wanted to get rid of for decades

Bury the hatchet with Romney for fucks sake and take his cabinet


----------



## Reggie Dunlop

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> This is what I've been saying all along. The USA rejecting the war mongering corporate sellout Democrats and giving Republicans complete control so they can wreck everything will be a good thing in the long run for those of us on the left, even if most of them do not realize it yet.


That's pretty much what we said about Obama. And we were right. Remember the change in power in the house in the middle of his first term. That's only partly why we now have Trump. The real reason is that enough people are finally fed up with the thriving elitists that the Clintons epitomize. Of course even if Trump does have any degree of success in straightening out any of this shit, _you on the left_ will never acknowledge it anyway. You'll see things how you see things, that everybody should get handouts from the evil wealthy class, and all Republicans are hood-wearing bigots and misogynists. Keep spreading that good word because that's what's going to reunite this country and make everything all wonderful with flowers and bubbles and rainbow-farting unicorns again.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*






He called it 16 years ago. wow. Wow. WOW! 

- Vic


----------



## Larry Davis

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The5star_Kid said:


> I agree with this as an outside observer. I have family over in the US and many of them didn't even want to vote Clinton, although they've voted Democrat their whole life.
> 
> However, what scares me and also intrigues me is something that only the American people can answer: How did you allow your country to get to a stage where the two candidates up for the biggest job in the US (outside of various top slots in the CIA and mega corporations of course) were two terrible, despicable human beings?
> 
> I mean, both of these so called people are warmongering, backwards, intolerant bigots.
> When you had a genuine alternative in Sanders, why did he not get the democratic vote?
> 
> What has gone so wrong in American society that it has led to bigots on both sides. You have had a political system, for as long as I can remember (I remember every election campaign since 2000) that has been based on division, rich v poor, black/hispanic/asian/muslim v rich and white, man v woman and so on. Why has a country that supposedly moved forward in the 70s in a progressive, modern agenda, sloped back to the 19th century?


Because "We the people" do not have an actual say in who becomes the nominee. Primaries are more symbolic than anything else, and there to weed out the obviously unfit. The candidates are chosen by their respective parties when the pool is narrowed down, and by all accounts both sides truly believed these two chucklefucks were their best shots at winning. 

If Trump had been up against pretty much _anyone_ else, I have a hard time believing he would have even come close to winning, but Hillary had already been preordained to be the 2016 nominee years ago. It was a foregone conclusion, and no amount of evidence that people hate her was going to sway them from steering their ship right into an iceberg.

I wasn't super hot on Sanders either, as I felt many of his stated goals were unrealistic at best, and pipe dreams at worst, but I at least would have been able to vote for him.

Another thing contributing to this is that the electoral college is a supremely fucked-up system that should have been abolished decades ago. Hillary lost many states due to filibusters from third parties, including Florida, Pennsylvania, and I believe Michigan. Why we don't simply operate on popular vote is beyond me.


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8h_JYNUaMw

This video describes this election perfect. Trump is Edge, Clinton is Cena, and RVD is Obama


----------



## Hencheman_21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Except for rendering the popular vote moot, rendering voter turnout largely irrelevant outside of swing states and weakening the importance of third parties.
> 
> It's a joke of an institution that needs to be significantly retooled (though not totally abolished), brah.


The problem with the EC is some states do not understand why it was put in and make their state an all or nothing EC votes. If states would have their electors split based on the way the people in the state vote, ie a %, then the EC would work the way it was intended. By being all in with the electors it messes up the EC and makes certain states more important than others.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Iapetus said:


> Today was a wake-up call to how much racism, sexism, and overall hatred still exist in this country. Today I learned that American people want a leader who shows contempt for Hispanics/Latinos and Muslims, who disrespects women, African Americans, veterans, and LGBT, who mocks the disabled, who has no experience, who has ZERO qualification, who has no plan for the country, who has no clue about anything happening in Middle Eastern countries, has no clue about war strategy, who scams his way out of paying federal income taxes, and who most of all is a Russian pawn that America has turned a blind eye to.
> 
> As an American I am truly embarrassed and ashamed, and as an African American I am heartbroken and afraid. This country just proved how deep hatred and discrimination run in it. I refuse to be apart of that. This is not on me, this is not on the people who voted against him, and for that reason he is #NotMyPresident.


No. No, you didn't learn any of those things. You SHOULD have learned that we are tired of people like you classifying anything you don't wanna hear as evil.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

For those that get a kick out of SJWs getting butthurt from Trump's victory, enjoy:


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> No. No, you didn't learn any of those things. You SHOULD have learned that we are tired of people like you classifying anything you don't wanna hear as evil. You didn't though, so now you will suffer for it with your own tears.


Don't bait like you did in the last sentence of your post. Thanks.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



MrMister said:


> Don't bait like you did in the last sentence of your post. Thanks.


Was not a bait attempt though. I apologize that you took it that way. perhaps i'll edit it. I'd rather not, but i will.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Shots of Hillary's campaign HQ does make me feel kind of sad

Its like a surprise party and then the birthday boy dies in car crash on the way there


----------



## KO Bossy

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

You know what else saddens me? I see tons of responses in this thread and its hitting me over the head how divided America is...and its beyond the election. I think it hit me when I read The Cleaner's post.



> You'll see things how you see things, that everybody should get handouts from the evil wealthy class, and all Republicans are hood-wearing bigots and misogynists.


Just the idea about getting handouts from the evil wealthy class...like its somehow a bad thing that those who can afford more should be expected to pay and contribute more to helping the country run via taxes. America is a nation of individual citizens. Not a country. In a country, you all work together to thrive and create a home. America is all about mistrust and being selfish. "Why should I help out other people? What have they done for me? I'm not going to support parasites!" The hatred and avarice is really quite disturbing, as well as lack of empathy for your fellow man. Its sad because it doesn't matter who you elect or put in charge, you can't rehab this. Until this is solved, America won't be great again. I don't see much changing. The rich will continue dominating, the middle class will continue dying and the poor will continue wanting, which will breed more hatred.

How bleak.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



KO Bossy said:


> You know what else saddens me? I see tons of responses in this thread and its hitting me over the head how divided America is...and its beyond the election. I think it hit me when I read The Cleaner's post.
> 
> 
> 
> Just the idea about getting handouts from the evil wealthy class...like its somehow a bad thing that those who can afford more should be expected to pay and contribute more to helping the country run via taxes. America is a nation of individual citizens. Not a country. In a country, you all work together to thrive and create a home. America is all about mistrust and being selfish. "Why should I help out other people? What have they done for me? I'm not going to support parasites!" The hatred and avarice is really quite disturbing, as well as lack of empathy for your fellow man. Its sad because it doesn't matter who you elect or put in charge, you can't rehab this. Until this is solved, America won't be great again. I don't see much changing. The rich will continue dominating, the middle class will continue dying and the poor will continue wanting, which will breed more hatred.
> 
> How bleak.


With as much respect as i can muster, you are completely wrong.


----------



## Larry Davis

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



KO Bossy said:


> How bleak.


Now you're getting it!


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



> I thought it was because she felt like casually calling a shit-ton of her fellow Americans "delorables"?


That played a part, but she didn't expect her comments on coal miners to come bite her in the ass as evidenced by Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania (a state that hasn't gone red since Ronald Reagan!).




> Shots of Hillary's campaign HQ does make me feel kind of sad


More like Hillary's funeral.

- Vic


----------



## KO Bossy

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> With as much respect as i can muster, you are completely wrong.


What am I wrong about? That Americans are selfish? I think its pretty evident that they are. We as a race are selfish.

Am I wrong that America can't change? Hell I'd love it if I was.

Am I wrong that more hatred will be bred? Doubtful. People will find something to hate about each other.


This isn't even about Trump.



Beatles123 said:


> No. No, you didn't learn any of those things. You SHOULD have learned that we are tired of people like you classifying anything you don't wanna hear as evil.


You mean like how Republicans deny facts such as climate change existing and the Earth being more than 6000 years old? Oh wait, they classify it as "untrue". 

Fact is, when it comes to sticking your head into the ground like an ostrich to avoid hearing things you don't want, both sides are guilty...

Who is "we" by the way? Working class? White people? Republicans? I'm genuinely curiously, not trolling.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Personally?

I feel so happy...all of this just feels so cathartic. My vote mattered.

I needed this.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



KO Bossy said:


> What am I wrong about? That Americans are selfish? I think its pretty evident that they are. We as a race are selfish.
> 
> Am I wrong that America can't change? Hell I'd love it if I was.
> 
> Am I wrong that more hatred will be bred? Doubtful. People will find something to hate about each other.
> 
> 
> This isn't even about Trump.


You're making generalizations about the problem. its not "Evil rich people" its the fact that the left had 8 years of supremacy and spent it acting like dickwads to the rest of us. Read TripleG's post.

As for handouts? Believe me, its not nearly the picture of the grumpy guy refusing the poor innocent latino like you think it is. Im sorry, but it isn't.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



KO Bossy said:


> Just the idea about getting handouts from the evil wealthy class...like its somehow a bad thing that those who can afford more should be expected to pay and contribute more to helping the country run via taxes.


Giving to those less fortunate isn't bad, and many Americans choose to do so voluntarily. Ours is the most charitable nation in the world. What you're describing is not charity though, but rather forced income redistribution. The force makes it theft, which is immoral. No amount of feelings or double-think can change that reality.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> You're making generalizations about the problem. its not "Evil rich people" its the fact that the left had 8 years of supremacy and spent it acting like dickwads to the rest of us. Read TripleG's post.
> 
> As for handouts? Believe me, its not nearly the picture of the grumpy guy refusing the poor innocent latino like you think it is. Im sorry, but it isn't.


It's tough to win this argument with people who've been indoctrinated from child-birth to buy into the social welfare mindset and can only perceive a government as the only solution to charity and welfare. I don't really fault people who are of this mindset. The best way to create subservience is to convince people that their subservience is for the greater good. 

I love to make this point, but not a single social welfare state has industries anywhere as big as the non-welfare states do. None of the social welfare states have the kind of entrepreneurial spirit non-welfare states do. 

Yes, there is a balance to be found with regards to welfare and capitalism, but what we as Americans are against is mandated welfare where the government acts like a mafia which forces us to give them money to protect ourselves from the government. 

We can and do have a great amount of welfare and charity in this country without the involvement of the government. The fact that people advocate against government mandated welfare doesn't make them people who aren't willing to contribute or be charitable. It just means that they don't want this middle-man involved in philanthropy because how can you trust the government to spend the money the right way. 

The government takes enough money and wastes it as it is. Keeping on giving them money is stupid. 

If people want to be charitable, nothing stops them. We don't need a government to do it for us.


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

*Being divided isn't necessarily a bad thing. We certainly don't want to be a hive mind. People should be different and have different views. I see nothing wrong with that and I don't foresee that ever changing and if it does then we become merely robots. Let people have differing opinions, differing tastes, differing outlooks on what we are or what we should be. I think that's healthy for us. 

What's unhealthy, for us, is how we handle different opinions and different life style choices and what-not. There are complete assholes on any side of that equation you want to look at. The better of us try to not be that way, however. And for whatever reason it seems those that claim to be the most "tolerant" are the first to throw names at people...to label people. That fascinates me. You don't see the things the way I see them? You're a racist. You're homophobic. You're sexist. It's baffling at times. 

Throwing around labels as if they are arguments might work amongst your friends but it certainly doesn't work in the real world. We found that out with this election.*


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Malakai said:


> Can somebody, ANYBODY, please, PLEEEAAASE explain to me the good that will come from this presidency?


Putting Republicans in charge of the incoming global economic meltdown will be a good thing in the long run.



KO Bossy said:


> Pardon my interruption, but would this be the same Republican party that, under Reagan, instituted trickle down economics in the first place? And the same Republican party that "wrecked shit so badly" that it was the one who caused the crash 8 years ago? Or is it totally going to be different now because someone else is in charge?


Sorry but that's bullshit. Dubya played his part in the crash of 8 years ago and half the blame goes on Republicans but it was Clinton who deregulated Wall Street and got rid of Glass-Steagall. HW Bush might have signed NAFTA but it was Clinton who got it through Congress. Dubya might have given massive tax breaks to the rich but he didn't have the political capital to make them permanent. That took a Democrat with a Democratic Congress. It might have been Reagan and the Republicans who started trickle down but it's the Democrats who took it and ran with it and forced Republicans even further right in response. If Democrats had any interest in ending trickle down bullshit, they would have done it 8 years ago when they had the chance. Instead, they chose to side with their donors and continue pushing our government even further right.



The Cleaner said:


> The real reason is that enough people are finally fed up with the thriving elitists that the Clintons epitomize. Of course even if Trump does have any degree of success in straightening out any of this shit, _you on the left_ will never acknowledge it anyway. You'll see things how you see things, that everybody should get handouts from the evil wealthy class, and all Republicans are hood-wearing bigots and misogynists.


Don't confuse me with the SJW regressive left "liberal" class retards. I'd be the first person to cheer on Trump if he does any of the populist stuff he campaigned on. I'm a leftist libertarian and I don't want a big government welfare state either. I'm opposed to all centralized forms of power and anyone telling others how to live their lives, whether they be on the left or the right, can fuck right off. Yes, Clinton lost because her and her elitist Democrats have fucked over the working class for far too long but make no mistake about it, Republicans are no friend of the working class either. Trump may have gotten elected thanks to his anti-establishment rhetoric but Congress is in establishment Republican hands and you are out of your fucking gourd if you think they are going to let him push through all of his populist ideas. That's even if he tries to, because that's something I highly doubt as well.

If Trump was the populist anti-establishment and anti-war guy that he claims to be, he wouldn't be hiring Goldman-Sachs alums to run the economy and neocons like John Bolton to advise him on foreign policy.


----------



## Lady Eastwood

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Vic Capri said:


> Ronald Reagan!


Oh Ronnie, how I miss thee <3


I have enjoyed the angry reactions of Hillary supporters who are outraged before giving the man a chance to do anything.


First of all, people need to stop being stupid fucks and think that, just because we support Trump, we support his ignorant way with words at times and his pussy grabbing. 

NO.

I support Trump because I liked a lot of his views and I think if he actually sticks to them, America CAN be great again, or at least put on the path to be.

He isn't going to build a fucking wall, people.

He is angry at Mexico for unfair trade practices. Do people really blame him?

He wants to get rid of ILLEGAL (a word people seem to be skimming over a lot) immigrants, have them get their proper paperwork, and then re-enter. The problem here is what again?

He wants to provide jobs to AMERICANS, not everyone else.

Fuck the middle east, honestly, just fuck it. It's a shame that the innocent people there have to suffer through garbage every single day, but, allowing all these fucking immigrants from those countries (that Clinton is FRIENDS with) come in to the country, you are just allowing terrorists to slip right the fuck in and chill right in our house. I understand how people are offended by this, as an entire group of people is being grouped together, however, if you don't want the disease to spread, you stop it in it's nucleus.

Trump wants to make America about the American people.

Home is where the heart is, and, Trump's heart is in America. I am glad there is someone who will say yes, I will help the American people before I go about helping others in the world. It sounds selfish, but, why would you let your own people live in poverty, yet, help people in another country? No one in America should be living in poverty, absolutely no one, and you're just a pretty awful person if you would rather have the people living in America suffer while helping the outside.


I am glad he won and I think people should give him a chance instead of letting their hate take over. He very well may end up being a terrible President, but, I don't think he will be as bad as people think. He deserves a chance, just like I would have given Hillary if she had won.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



AryaDark said:


> *Being divided isn't necessarily a bad thing. We certainly don't want to be a hive mind. People should be different and have different views. I see nothing wrong with that and I don't foresee that ever changing and if it does then we become merely robots. Let people have differing opinions, differing tastes, differing outlooks on what we are or what we should be. I think that's healthy for us.
> 
> What's unhealthy, for us, is how we handle different opinions and different life style choices and what-not. There are complete assholes on any side of that equation you want to look at. The better of us try to not be that way, however. And for whatever reason it seems those that claim to be the most "tolerant" are the first to throw names at people...to label people. That fascinates me. You don't see the things the way I see them? You're a racist. You're homophobic. You're sexist. It's baffling at times.
> 
> Throwing around labels as if they are arguments might work amongst your friends but it certainly doesn't work in the real world. We found that out with this election.*


labels are fun

once you stapled a "negative" one on someone you give everyone permission to ignore them and it suddenly makes everything they say "invalid"

No one wakes up in the morning and goes "I think I will be evil/wrong today"


----------



## Super Sexy Steele

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I didn't vote for Trump or Clinton. They ain't my cup of tea. But Trump is the president-elect now. And I hope he does the best job possible for all of the American people.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-election-russia-putin-idUSR4N1D800D?c?

opcorn


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

All I'm seeing is *"NOT MY PRESIDENT!!!!!"* on my feed. Reminds me of the Republican reaction when Obama got elected in '08. What happened to all that open-mindedness, tolerance, and acceptance everyone preaches about today? Trump will be our president whether you like it or not. Can the SJW lynch mob just wait till he takes office and give him a fucking chance before they get the rope?


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The Absolute said:


> All I'm seeing is *"NOT MY PRESIDENT!!!!!"* on my feed. Reminds me of the Republican reaction when Obama got elected in '08. What happened to all that open-mindedness, tolerance, and acceptance everyone preaches about today? Trump will be our president whether you like it or not. Can the SJW lynch mob just wait till he takes office and give him a fucking chance before they get the rope?


SJW's giving anyone who doesn't think like them? Surely you jest


----------



## ManiacMichaelMyers

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

*We're all going to regret this. *

Once the victory parades are over and 'The Donald' is sworn in, I fully expect him to get our nation into a lot of hot water. He's a loose cannon with no filter. I predict not only will he continue to upset minorities and fringe groups in the U.S., but he will upset leaders abroad. And after that... 

Thanks for playing.



MillionDollarProns said:


> http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/11/rachel-maddow-slams-people-who-didnt-vote-clinton-or-trump.html
> 
> 
> So booty blasted they're trying to blast 3rd party voters smh senpai


Hard to take "booty blasting" comments seriously, but people have been critical of voting 3rd party since...it's inception. This isn't unique to Maddow whatsoever.



Catalanotto said:


> He wants to provide jobs to AMERICANS, not everyone else..


Really? Because it's way cheaper for a businessmen like Trump to outsource or exploit illegals. It should be interesting to see if Trump goes against his own business interests here. I have seen first hand businesses exploit illegal workers because they know they don't have to pay them fair wages. They can underpay them illegally, give them substandard housing, etc...because there is no trail. 

Every company that hires illegals or outsources takes advantage of the fact that non-citizens will work for less and exploit that. It's not that "they're stealin our jobs!" it's that the corrupt businessmen don't feel like paying their own homeland's people what they deserve because they want more in their own pockets.


----------



## MillionDollarProns

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/11/rachel-maddow-slams-people-who-didnt-vote-clinton-or-trump.html



Rachel Maddow said:


> “If you vote for somebody who can’t win for president, it means that you don’t care who wins for president.”



So booty blasted they're trying to blast 3rd party voters smh senpai


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



MillionDollarProns said:


> http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/11/rachel-maddow-slams-people-who-didnt-vote-clinton-or-trump.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So booty blasted they're trying to blast 3rd party voters smh senpai


This is the person who once fired back at Nick Gillespie on Bill Maher "Dude, I'm not even a Democrat!" 

Sure you aren't, Rachel. :mj


----------



## karkar

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Will there be a "The Rise & Fall of The USA" DVD?


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*










This sums up the SJW left in a nutshell.


----------



## Reggie Dunlop

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



KO Bossy said:


> You know what else saddens me? I see tons of responses in this thread and its hitting me over the head how divided America is...and its beyond the election. I think it hit me when I read The Cleaner's post.
> 
> 
> 
> Just the idea about getting handouts from the evil wealthy class...like its somehow a bad thing that those who can afford more should be expected to pay and contribute more to helping the country run via taxes. America is a nation of individual citizens. Not a country. In a country, you all work together to thrive and create a home. America is all about mistrust and being selfish. "Why should I help out other people? What have they done for me? I'm not going to support parasites!" The hatred and avarice is really quite disturbing, as well as lack of empathy for your fellow man. Its sad because it doesn't matter who you elect or put in charge, you can't rehab this. Until this is solved, America won't be great again. I don't see much changing. The rich will continue dominating, the middle class will continue dying and the poor will continue wanting, which will breed more hatred.
> 
> How bleak.


Study some history and maybe a little macroeconomics. Forced redistribution of wealth doesn't work. I'm not saying to let the wealthy off scot-free. In fact I'm all for closing up loopholes that allow people making 10 times more than me to pay a fraction of the taxes that I do. Do it right and you can effectively lower the tax rate for everybody. But any increases should be used to LOWER taxes for the rest of the working stiffs, and not to fund more public assistance. Resources need to be used to get people back to work and off the public doles. I am in no way suggesting not to help people in need. I'm saying let's do all we can to reduce the number of those people in need. That's conservative economics.


----------



## MillionDollarProns

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



L-DOPA said:


> https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/14947671_1373142292720189_8822542780218112667_n.png?oh=b541a15dcf8d4c4cfa6d7a671d81dcd0&oe=58D2D87F
> 
> This sums up the SJW left in a nutshell.


"FUCK YOU WHITE AMERICA" - White American, 2016


----------



## Trivette

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

:banderas


----------



## Rick_James

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



ManiacMichaelMyers said:


> Really? Because it's way cheaper for a businessmen like Trump to outsource or exploit illegals. It should be interesting to see if Trump goes against his own business interests here. I have seen first hand businesses exploit illegal workers because they know they don't have to pay them fair wages. They can underpay them illegally, give them substandard housing, etc...because there is no trail.
> 
> Every company that hires illegals or outsources takes advantage of the fact that non-citizens will work for less and exploit that. It's not that "they're stealin our jobs!" it's that the corrupt businessmen don't feel like paying their own homeland's people what they deserve because they want more in their own pockets.


To be honest any smart business that can exploit illegals for cheap labor is smart, and ultimately saving money just leads to more success. The left has no problem with these folks being exploited though because they vote for them. It's ultimately up to our politicians to intervene here, which under Obama and the rest, they clearly have not done enough. If people want the exploitation to stop, start encouraging people to learn english and come in legally - then they'd be treated just like everyone else.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



MrMister said:


> As a fan of irony I love that Kellyanne Conway was massively instrumental in this Trump victory. She saw tons of things no one/very few did.
> 
> 
> Also I find it very interesting that Trump's overall vote is comparable to Romney and McCain. Last I checked, he's actually under their totals. The Dems just didn't have the right candidate. I'm not saying Bernie or Biden would've won, and we'll certainly never know this, but I find it interesting to contemplate.


Kellyanne Conway was considerably influential in assisting Donald Trump in appealing to white women in the suburbs. Issues such as security, the economy, trade, the awfulness of Obamacare, the feckless federal involvement in education, et. al., resonated. Trump reached out in certain speeches and in particular venues toward black voters (Milwaukee, the Detroit church) and that was partly about assuring these women that Trump was, in his own way, compassionate, to use one of Karl Rove's favorite buzzwords. 

It's true, the general vote was down by several percentage points. The sheer negativity of the campaign had a great deal to do with it with the two most unpopular candidates ever matched up against one another. 

Would Bernie Sanders have won? He would have been better for the Democrats than Hillary, and the youth would have turned out more than they did for Hillary. Hillary arrogantly took Democrats for granted, and Trump came alone and scooped up millions of "Reagan Democrat" votes throughout the Rust Belt and elsewhere. Sanders would probably have underperformed Hillary with minorities, though, based on all of the primary data that is available. 

So it's sort of impossible to know what would have happened with Sanders. He was probably a controlled candidate all along, and as wikileaks revealed, Hillary and the Podestas, et. al., had "leverage" over him. He was, in a sense, politically blackmailed, based on what has been revealed. 

Also, Trump cut into the Democrats' voting base by appealing to Catholics based on his stance on what is euphemistically referred to as "partial-birth abortion" versus Hillary's stance as gone over in the final presidential debate. Plus the "spirit cooking" story from wikileaks, whatever one thinks of it, probably had a small impact in the final days of the election; a San Diego Catholic church said that people voting for Hillary and Democrats are going to hell. :lol More importantly, the story received a fair bit of "social media" play in those final days (happened to see some black voters online say that they were not going to vote for Hillary because of the story, too, with some even saying they were voting for Trump solely because of that). 

Of course, the greatest reason Trump won over Catholics because "Reagan Democrats" have, to a large extent, always been heavily Catholic. Michigan, for instance, was arguably the crown jewel of the "Reagan Democrat" coalition of states, and Wisconsin and Pennsylvania also turned in large part because of this. In 2008 Obama won 9 percent more of Catholics than McCain, and in 2012 he won more of Catholic votes than Romney by about 2.5 percent. 

Trump flipped them and won the Catholic vote by 7 percent, 52 to Hillary's 45.

Ultimately, it's unmistakably accurate that Hillary was the wrong candidate. Her campaign was defined by a sense of narcissism, as @AryaDark's shared video from "Secular Talk" noted, particularly defined by the insipid "I'mWithHer" incantation of a slogan. And as Kyle Kulinski pointed out, it gave Trump the opening to say, "I'm With _You_," referring to the electorate. Hillary, as the ultimate insider politician, was ill-suited to face the withering fire of this populist uprising on either the left or the right as personified by Sanders and Trump in 2016. Between her positions and her rhetoric, her campaign seemed more out of 1996 than 2016. 

For all of the talk of "dog whistles" and "white nationalism" Trump actually underperformed Romney in one critical area, receiving 58% of the white vote versus Romney's 59% of the white vote. (Plus, as I pointed out earlier, he outperformed the 2012 GOP nominee with the share of the black and Hispanic votes respectively.) 

There were times during the campaign where I contended that Trump's best bet was a somewhat low turnout general election and it was. Hillary just could not enthuse many Democrats and independents, and Trump's "monster vote" turned out to be a real, living creature in certain states most directly impacted by the globalization of the past thirty-forty years, most especially following the passing of NAFTA. 



Catalanotto said:


> Oh Ronnie, how I miss thee <3
> 
> 
> I have enjoyed the angry reactions of Hillary supporters who are outraged before giving the man a chance to do anything.
> 
> 
> First of all, people need to stop being stupid fucks and think that, just because we support Trump, we support his ignorant way with words at times and his pussy grabbing.
> 
> NO.
> 
> I support Trump because I liked a lot of his views and I think if he actually sticks to them, America CAN be great again, or at least put on the path to be.
> 
> He isn't going to build a fucking wall, people.
> 
> He is angry at Mexico for unfair trade practices. Do people really blame him?
> 
> He wants to get rid of ILLEGAL (a word people seem to be skimming over a lot) immigrants, have them get their proper paperwork, and then re-enter. The problem here is what again?
> 
> He wants to provide jobs to AMERICANS, not everyone else.
> 
> Fuck the middle east, honestly, just fuck it. It's a shame that the innocent people there have to suffer through garbage every single day, but, allowing all these fucking immigrants from those countries (that Clinton is FRIENDS with) come in to the country, you are just allowing terrorists to slip right the fuck in and chill right in our house. I understand how people are offended by this, as an entire group of people is being grouped together, however, if you don't want the disease to spread, you stop it in it's nucleus.
> 
> Trump wants to make America about the American people.
> 
> Home is where the heart is, and, Trump's heart is in America. I am glad there is someone who will say yes, I will help the American people before I go about helping others in the world. It sounds selfish, but, why would you let your own people live in poverty, yet, help people in another country? No one in America should be living in poverty, absolutely no one, and you're just a pretty awful person if you would rather have the people living in America suffer while helping the outside.
> 
> 
> I am glad he won and I think people should give him a chance instead of letting their hate take over. He very well may end up being a terrible President, but, I don't think he will be as bad as people think. He deserves a chance, just like I would have given Hillary if she had won.


Excellent post! 

My only note of contrariness is that, one way or another, Trump will have to "secure the border" with Mexico, whether that means a literal wall or a figurative, metaphorical one. It's definitely one of the central elements of his platform, along with repealing Obamacare and standing against the TPP agreement in its present iteration. Nevertheless, I completely agree with the thrust of your post, and it explains what Trump was going after.

As funny as it may be for some to envision it, Trump's campaign was, among a host of other things, Aristotelian. We care about the people we particularly love as family and friends than acquaintances, acquaintances more than people we see in the movements of everyday living in our neighborhoods, villages, towns, et. al., we care more about our town than another town, our polity, county, state, more than the nation, and the nation more than other nations, and so on, all the way out like the outstretching, yawning shadow of a great tree. 

We can feel sorrow and compassion for Syrian refugees, perhaps, but the well-being of your countrymen should naturally come first. Heads of state and the diplomats they send on their behalf--the old saying goes that a diplomat is a man who goes abroad lying on behalf of his country--should be guardians of honest friendship and, as Trump himself put it last night, common ground rather than hostility. 

Speaking of which, this is a good little article:

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/20...ved-about-republican-win-over-clinton-n681616 (full article with the link)



> Trump Victory: Russians Relieved About Republican Win Over Clinton
> 
> by Lucy Kafanov and Alexey Eremenko
> 
> MOSCOW — He may have called for "bombing the hell out of ISIS" and refused to rule out dropping a nuclear bomb on Europe, but many Russians have come to see President-elect Donald Trump as their best hope for peace.
> 
> According to this world view, which is reinforced by state-controlled television, America is seen as an aggressor that uses its military and soft power to promote regime change across the globe. Hillary Clinton was portrayed as a dangerous candidate who favored foreign interventions in the name of democracy while Trump was described as a bulwark against a possible war with the United States.
> 
> "I hope it will be less [of a chance of war], because bad things are happening in the Russian Army," said Alexei Kolin, 21, who was recently discharged from the army.
> 
> "The new draftees … are told that Americans are evil and taught to kill," he told NBC News. "I think if [Trump] won, the chance of war will be less — it's very big now."
> 
> This is a view expressed frequently by commentators on Russian television channels, including Vladimir Zhirinovsky, a flamboyant lawmaker and a nationalist ally of President Vladimir Putin. As Americans cast their ballots on Tuesday, Zhirinovsky portrayed Trump as the only person able to deescalate dangerous tensions between Moscow and Washington.
> 
> "Trump wants peace, he doesn't want war and couldn't care less about Ukraine or Syria" Zhirinovsky said on Russia's state-owned channel Rossiya-24.
> 
> Others said they hoped that the U.S. and Russia could steady a relationship that has hit a rough patch.
> 
> "Two countries such as Russia and America have to be friends regardless of anything," said Sergei, a 45-year-old unemployed resident of Moscow. He refused to give his last name to an American media outlet.


----------



## amhlilhaus

The Absolute said:


> All I'm seeing is *"NOT MY PRESIDENT!!!!!"* on my feed. Reminds me of the Republican reaction when Obama got elected in '08. What happened to all that open-mindedness, tolerance, and acceptance everyone preaches about today? Trump will be our president whether you like it or not. Can the SJW lynch mob just wait till he takes office and give him a fucking chance before they get the rope?


No, they cant. Ironically, a lot of college kids stand to benefit greatly if he can get businesses to bring jobs back.

Course they still wont like him, hes not gonna offer free college. They will have to pay for it, like everybody else did.


----------



## Larry Davis

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

To be honest, I don't think Trump will even make it to January... In whatever form that takes.

I actually agree that it would be pretty hilarious if he actually turned out to be a competent president, but the way his cabinet appears to be shaping up now... I dunno. I had always taken solace in the idea that if he was somehow elected, he would at least surround himself with great minds to actually run the joint. If fucking Gingrich gets in there, that idea flies out the window.


----------



## witchblade000

Fringe said:


> :banderas


This needs to be a actual book with special edition copies for the celebrities who claim to be leaving the US.


----------



## SnapOrTap

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Haha Newt Gingrich as Secretary of State.

Cut me.


----------



## ManiacMichaelMyers

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Rick_James said:


> To be honest any smart business that can exploit illegals for cheap labor is smart, and ultimately saving money just leads to more success. The left has no problem with these folks being exploited though because they vote for them. It's ultimately up to our politicians to intervene here, which under Obama and the rest, they clearly have not done enough. If people want the exploitation to stop, start encouraging people to learn english and come in legally - then they'd be treated just like everyone else.


You can view it as a 'smart' business decision or a morally wrong one that screws over the American worker as well as underpays the illegal. The only one that benefits is the greedy businessman. 

For the record, I am in favor of correcting this injustice. The exploitation and greed is wrong. My point was it'll be interesting if Trump goes against a system that he's benefitted from as a business owner. Sure he'll claim he had no knowledge of hiring undocumented workers but why would he admit that in the first place? 

Do away with this corrupt system that uses illegal workers at the expense of American citizens and restore fair wages for all Americans!



Larry Davis said:


> but the way his cabinet appears to be shaping up now... I dunno.


Ladies and Gentleman, I present to you!
Attorney General Scott Baio!


----------



## skypod

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The Cleaner said:


> Study some history and maybe a little macroeconomics. Forced redistribution of wealth doesn't work. I'm not saying to let the wealthy off scot-free. In fact I'm all for closing up loopholes that allow people making 10 times more than me to pay a fraction of the taxes that I do. Do it right and you can effectively lower the tax rate for everybody. But any increases should be used to LOWER taxes for the rest of the working stiffs, and not to fund more public assistance. Resources need to be used to get people back to work and off the public doles. I am in no way suggesting not to help people in need. I'm saying let's do all we can to reduce the number of those people in need. That's conservative economics.


How is this money spent getting people back to work though? I think then entrepreneurial spirit of America and every individual doing their best only works if everyones on an even playing field. But that's simply not reality. Look at the area someone grew up in, their health, any disability they may have, education levels etc. How do you make sure these people are included? 

Add to the fact that Black people are still playing catch up with the culture from slavery and Jim Crow laws and it really paints a picture that only a certain portion of mostly white middle class will benefit from this thinking. And when you have a Republican dominance who will only put forward more policies that allow businesses to refuse services and equal rights to the LBGT community and no wonder people don't feel equal in America right now.


I think there's all this throwing racist, homophobic, sexist labels around to the right because nobody gets the impression they actually care about equal rights for ALL. For decades now you've let your party because the crazy right wing Christian party and not done anything about it, because while you probably don't particular want to segregate minority groups, you don't really care about building them up or making sure they're treated equally. If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem. Watch theRright stand idly by over the next 4 years when we see a clamp down on social policies and shrug their shoulders and not do anything about it, because deep down you simply don't care about them.


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Okay so the income disparity will increase, entitlements and social welfare will decrease, education will decrease, the military will increase, whatever, America will survive that, we always do. The scary thing is what will happen to social progress with a bigoted sociopath in office blindly supported by a red Supreme Court, House and Senate?


----------



## Rick_James

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



ManiacMichaelMyers said:


> You can view it as a 'smart' business decision or a morally wrong one that screws over the American worker as well as underpays the illegal. The only one that benefits is the greedy businessman.
> 
> For the record, I am in favor of correcting this injustice. The exploitation and greed is wrong. My point was it'll be interesting if Trump goes against a system that he's benefitted from as a business owner. Sure he'll claim he had no knowledge of hiring undocumented workers but why would he admit that in the first place?
> 
> Do away with this corrupt system that uses illegal workers at the expense of American citizens and restore fair wages for all!


The problem is that businesses really don't have to adhere to any sort of moral code. They do have to listen to the government though. Hence, why I feel personally, the government has been far too lenient on illegal immigration and they are ultimately the ones responsible for the issues here.

As for Trump, as a business man, his goal first and foremost is to make money. If you take someone like Hillary though, her goal is first and foremost to uphold the law. Hillary basically took an oath that the Donald has not. I think that's the major difference.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I am surprised how few protestest there has been 

its mostly college kids and Oakland (which to be fair is always on fire)


----------



## KO Bossy

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> Giving to those less fortunate isn't bad, and many Americans choose to do so voluntarily. Ours is the most charitable nation in the world. What you're describing is not charity though, but rather forced income redistribution. The force makes it theft, which is immoral. No amount of feelings or double-think can change that reality.


Except when left up to the rich to give back of their own volition...they didn't. That's why trickle down failed. If anything, income inequality worsened, the rich grew richer and the poor got it even worse.




Carte Blanche said:


> It's tough to win this argument with people who've been indoctrinated from child-birth to buy into the social welfare mindset and can only perceive a government as the only solution to charity and welfare. I don't really fault people who are of this mindset. The best way to create subservience is to convince people that their subservience is for the greater good.
> 
> I love to make this point, but not a single social welfare state has industries anywhere as big as the non-welfare states do. None of the social welfare states have the kind of entrepreneurial spirit non-welfare states do.
> 
> Yes, there is a balance to be found with regards to welfare and capitalism, but what we as Americans are against is mandated welfare where the government acts like a mafia which forces us to give them money to protect ourselves from the government.
> 
> We can and do have a great amount of welfare and charity in this country without the involvement of the government. The fact that people advocate against government mandated welfare doesn't make them people who aren't willing to contribute or be charitable. It just means that they don't want this middle-man involved in philanthropy because how can you trust the government to spend the money the right way.
> 
> The government takes enough money and wastes it as it is. Keeping on giving them money is stupid.
> 
> If people want to be charitable, nothing stops them. We don't need a government to do it for us.


So then, what do you propose? Because I can tell you that 90% of people won't give if they don't have to. If it was an honor system where the government said "OK, just give us money if you're able to", most would just keep what they have and ignore the poor. At that point, what happens? Do we just tell the poor "good luck and god speed" and send them on their way?



The Cleaner said:


> Study some history and maybe a little macroeconomics. Forced redistribution of wealth doesn't work. I'm not saying to let the wealthy off scot-free. In fact I'm all for closing up loopholes that allow people making 10 times more than me to pay a fraction of the taxes that I do. Do it right and you can effectively lower the tax rate for everybody. But any increases should be used to LOWER taxes for the rest of the working stiffs, and not to fund more public assistance. Resources need to be used to get people back to work and off the public doles. I am in no way suggesting not to help people in need. I'm saying let's do all we can to reduce the number of those people in need. That's conservative economics.


Its a nice fantasy, man. Unfortunately, it never seems to work out this way. In a perfect world, yeah, this would happen. Tax the rich more, lower them for working class guys, get people back to work and off society's teat, etc. Its all great. And yet when does this actually happen? It doesn't. That's because its not that easy. So as I already asked, what's the viable alternative that can realistically happen? Because if it was so easy, it would have happened by now.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

It really scares me that infowars or Breibart might be given the same credentials as MSM under a Trump administration. The next white house correspondent dinner will be interesting to say the least, considering almost none of them endorsed Trump.

The only silver lining is most of the elites from both parties know Trump is a screw up and finally start to work together to get things done and prevent some of Trump more simplistic ideas from being passed.


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



stevefox1200 said:


> I am surprised how few protestest there has been
> 
> its mostly college kids and Oakland (which to be fair is always on fire)


There's two big ones happening in Portland and NYC right now. Check out this live video feed: https://www.facebook.com/WKYC.Channel3/videos/10154801600459274/


----------



## ManiacMichaelMyers

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Rick_James said:


> The problem is that businesses really don't have to adhere to any sort of moral code. They do have to listen to the government though. Hence, why I feel personally, the government has been far too lenient on illegal immigration and they are ultimately the ones responsible for the issues here.
> 
> As for Trump, as a business man, his goal first and foremost is to make money. If you take someone like Hillary though, her goal is first and foremost to uphold the law. Hillary basically took an oath that the Donald has not. I think that's the major difference.


I feel there will be a cold, harsh reality that business owners will find themselves in if Trump fixes the problem of undocumented persons in the U.S. With no one to exploit, they will have to pay more to actual American workers than they ever wanted to...and how can they not resent that? I have no doubt, some will actually want the old system that they took advantage of to return.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Some Celeb tweets regrading the results

https://www.yahoo.com/celebrity/celebs-react-to-donald-trumps-presidential-victory-074528103.html

Some of these are just some of the most pathetic overreacting ever.


----------



## witchblade000

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I wonder what will Trump do about the cost of living in the US. Make rent for upscale apartments affordable. Too many people are out here working 2-3 jobs just to pay for rent and other things. I'm even looking for a 2nd job to get out of my apt and into a nice neighborhood.


----------



## ManiacMichaelMyers

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

You can't even get a job as a McDonalds manager with no experience. 
This will go so well...
:lol :/


----------



## Rick_James

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

There is a lot of irony in this victory, the liberal media and celebrities IMO helped Trump more than they hurt.

There was such a large disconnect between what democrat voters want and care about and what the media tried to portray as "the real issues". People don't give a shit if Jay Z or Katy Perry want to hang out with Hillary lol. That shit impresses the morons who don't own cars and that stay home on election day, it doesn't impress people that are responsible and actually go vote. Every time Hillary or the media pretended that Trump was "over the line" and "too offensive", most people didn't think it was a big deal. The media pretended that Americans were "excited about the first female President"... the reality is that most people don't want to vote for someone just because they have a vagina. The media is so used to feeding their opinions that they ignored the fact that people weren't buying it this time.

That and the growing disdain for the political correctness crowd is what really helped out the Donald the most. It really hasn't even been about the dude's policies. In today's world, people will try to get you fired from your job just because they disagree with you politically. People are afraid to even post their opinions on facebook. Seeing someone who didn't give a shit about political correctness, or it's consequences, is a pretty refreshing thing. After all, it's only a matter of time before that political correctness ends up being used against those that initial support it. People have been tired of that shit and if Donald Trump even only temporarily stops the PC era, it's well worth having him in office.


----------



## Martins

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> Okay so the income disparity will increase, entitlements and social welfare will decrease, education will decrease, the military will increase, whatever, America will survive that, we always do. The scary thing is what will happen to social progress with a bigoted sociopath in office blindly supported by a red Supreme Court, House and Senate?


Scary?

Those all sound like positives for the Trump crowd :trump


----------



## FITZ

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



amhlilhaus said:


> No, they cant. Ironically, a lot of college kids stand to benefit greatly if he can get businesses to bring jobs back.
> 
> Course they still wont like him, hes not gonna offer free college. They will have to pay for it, like everybody else did.


Not quite the way everyone else did. When my mother was 18 and graduated from high school she could have paid for a semester of college by saving up during her summer job. 

When I went to college I would have needed to make about $60,000 a year to pay for school and support myself. If I could have made that much money I wouldn't have been in college. I've graduated from law school and I don't make that much now.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Oh God , Liberal cry babies are the fucking worst. All this doom and gloom shit has me sick. The world is not going to end, blacks aren't going to become slaves, illegal or legal immigrants aren't going to disappear from the country, women aren't goign to be forced to be stay at home and get their rights removed and gay's aren't going to be prosecuted. Chill the fuck out


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



KO Bossy said:


> So then, what do you propose?* Because I can tell you that 90% of people won't give if they don't have to. *If it was an honor system where the government said "OK, just give us money if you're able to", most would just keep what they have and ignore the poor. At that point, what happens? Do we just tell the poor "good luck and god speed" and send them on their way?


What if the truth is that social welfare programs which are dependent on high taxation (which shrinks wealth and growth overall) is responsible for both keeping people unemployed and therefore poor as well as keeping employed people who are over-burdened by taxes in a shrunken economy from being charitable. 

If we never change our economic strategies at all, how would we come to the best solution?



Stinger Fan said:


> Oh God , Liberal cry babies are the fucking worst. All this doom and gloom shit has me sick. The world is not going to end, blacks aren't going to become slaves, illegal or legal immigrants aren't going to disappear from the country, women aren't goign to be forced to be stay at home and get their rights removed and gay's aren't going to be prosecuted. Chill the fuck out


Big cities = Democrat strongholds
Democratic strongholds = Where most minorities live
Where most minorities live = Greater levels of poverty, crime, "systematic racism"

From my perspective, I actually think that maybe it's about time the inner city individual realizes that the real slavers are the democrats that run their cities :shrug


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## TripleG

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



L-DOPA said:


> This sums up the SJW left in a nutshell.


Yes it does. We need to unify! Oh and fuck all those people that disagree with me. LOL. 

I'll say it again, people like Laci Green. Yeah, this is your fault. Your SJW nonsense caused this. 

Also, somebody sent me this clip that I missed from last night. Gave me a good chuckle.


----------



## ManiacMichaelMyers

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Not a huge Seth fan but...


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796210127376261122

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796261404646903808


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Stinger Fan said:


> Oh God , Liberal cry babies are the fucking worst. All this doom and gloom shit has me sick. The world is not going to end, blacks aren't going to become slaves, illegal or legal immigrants aren't going to disappear from the country, women aren't goign to be forced to be stay at home and get their rights removed and gay's aren't going to be prosecuted. Chill the fuck out


Isn't it the same as the conservative cry about the 2nd amendment all the time because they were brainwashed by the NRA? Except you know, the VP-elect has enacted laws that penalised gays and women when he was governor. Most of these liberals lives probably won't be affected as the blue states will not care for such BS. But it might hurt those minorities that live in red states.


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Man IMO these protesters are really coming off as sore losers.


----------



## Ham and Egger

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Trump has officially grabbed America by the pussy!


----------



## Larry Davis

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Catalanotto said:


> First of all, people need to stop being stupid fucks and think that, just because we support Trump, we support his ignorant way with words at times and his pussy grabbing.
> 
> NO.
> 
> I support Trump because I liked a lot of his views and I think if he actually sticks to them, America CAN be great again, or at least put on the path to be.


I've been seeing this a lot, and here's the thing -- we don't think you voted for him _specifically because_ of his lovable pussy-grabbing ways, but a vote for a candidate is a tacit endorsement of everything that they've made public at that point.

For example, if shit like that or his talk about rapist Mexicans had come out _after_ he was elected, that can't be held against you. Voting for him when that's all very well-known? That's on you. That's supporting it. 

It goes the other way, too. People who ignore the extremely anti-LGBT stuff Hillary has said in the past, only recanted very recently to shore up some votes, are just as bad. It all goes back to what I said earlier: both candidates were raging garbage fires that never should have been in that position to begin with.



Stinger Fan said:


> gay's aren't going to be prosecuted.


One, you mean "persecuted", and two, you should maybe look at Pence's term as Governor.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Ham and Egger said:


> Trump has officially grabbed America by the pussy!


Considering the rise of SJW's, more like he grabbed the pussies in America and tossed them aside


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



virus21 said:


> Considering the rise of SJW's, more like he grabbed the pussies in America and tossed them aside


More like you can't change what we all heard on tape, and if the tables were turned you and the rest of Team Trump would be calling her a sexual offender in addition to war monger, career criminal etc. Can you even admit that?


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> More like you can't change what we all heard on tape, and if the tables were turned you and the rest of Team Trump would be calling her a sexual offender in addition to war monger, career criminal etc. Can you even admit that?


You do realize that I was joking.


https://www.yahoo.com/news/congressional-gop-pledges-swift-action-trumps-agenda-202129123--election.html


----------



## skypod

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Stinger Fan said:


> Oh God , Liberal cry babies are the fucking worst. All this doom and gloom shit has me sick. The world is not going to end, blacks aren't going to become slaves, illegal or legal immigrants aren't going to disappear from the country, women aren't goign to be forced to be stay at home and get their rights removed and gay's aren't going to be prosecuted. Chill the fuck out


So are you going on the record that in 4 years time absolutely nothing is going to change in terms of abortion, gay rights etc? Even though the right has been seemingly obsessed with dipping their nose into these issues for over 20 years? 

If nothings going to be put forward and nothings regressed, it's all cool. But the problem is when they do try to put something forward, I'm betting you'll stand silently by and not do anything about it when the far right religious side try to enact their beliefs upon the American public.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> Isn't it the same as the conservative cry about the 2nd amendment all the time because they were brainwashed by the NRA? Except you know, the VP-elect has enacted laws that penalised gays and women when he was governor. Most of these liberals lives probably won't be affected as the blue states will not care for such BS. But it might hurt those minorities that live in red states.


Not at all, crying that you're "unsafe" because someone was elected is absurd and stupid. Claiming that some how minorities , women and gays will have all their rights removed because of actual brainwashing that Republicans = racist, sexist, homophobe, islamaphobe and whatever "phobe" or"ist" word you can name. Democrats fear monger more than anyone and its because of that, that they lost the election. 





Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> Okay so the income disparity will increase, entitlements and social welfare will decrease, education will decrease, the military will increase, whatever, America will survive that, we always do. The scary thing is what will happen to social progress with a bigoted sociopath in office blindly supported by a red Supreme Court, House and Senate?


Instead of blindly following CNN for all your news, why not try breaking out of your bubble and actually, you know do some research into what you're criticizing ? The Republicans are not blindly following Trump by any means and several have spoken out against him. He doesn't have full support, nor does he even have the popular vote. He isn't going to be someone who just walks in and does what he wants, no president does that nor would anyone allow a president to do that. You're falling for more false narratives. Also, don't bring up "bigotry" and completely overlook Hillary Clinton and how often she's said some of the most racist and stereotypical bullshit about black people and her known KKK affiliations and admiration for white supremacists. Not to mention her comments on Natives and Gandhi. As I said before, you cannot claim moral high ground when there isn't any. 

The fact that Donald had more Latinos, Blacks and women vote for him than Mitt Romney should tell you that maybe, just maybe Trump isn't this evil "Hitler 2.0" that people want him to be,oh and lets not forget taht Hilary's female support went down and the people who voted for Obama voted for Trump, so you can cut the bullshit about bigotry being the key factor.. One last thing, Hilary actually has several political policies similar to Hitler

Not an endorsement of Trump, but please stop listening to just CNN.



Larry Davis said:


> One, you mean "persecuted", and two, you should maybe look at Pence's term as Governor.


Hilary opposed gay marriage oh and....


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

All these people still fighting the last war :deanfpalm

The last war ended last night. You lost. Get over it already. Still saying all the same shit you've been saying for six months and it failed yet you're still saying it. Time to write a new page in your book of why your side is full of virtuous fairies and the other side is a bunch of gross trolls.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



> Thousands of New Yorkers have taken to the streets to join the nationwide anti-Trump protests.
> 
> Chanting "Not my president!" and "Racist, sexist, anti-gay, Donald Trump has got to go, hey hey," New Yorkers marched from Union Square, holding signs and dressed in American flags, to their final destination — the president-elect's Trump Tower in Midtown. Many also shouted "F— Donald Trump!" and "F— the wall" as they headed toward Trump's main residence and campaign headquarters in Manhattan.
> 
> Facebook events for demonstrations in both Union Square and Columbus Circle were posted on Wednesday morning, with the group Socialist Alternative NYC sharing the start time of the rally at 6 p.m. in Union Square and the anti-racism group Answer Coalition posting about Columbus Circle.
> 
> More than 10,000 Facebook users responded that they would attend.
> 
> By 7 p.m., the droves of protesters moved from the sidewalk and into the streets, causing a traffic jam at the busy 23rd Street intersection with Broadway and Fifth Avenue. The light rain didn't deter the crowd, who grew louder and louder with their chants as they began to stop traffic. Bystanders stopped to film and take pictures of the protesters as they walked by. At the time, the protests appeared to be peaceful.
> 
> 
> Follow
> Jackie Strause ✔ @jackiedstrause
> #NotMyPresident march moves from the sidewalks into the streets as thousands chant and march from Union Square up to Trump Tower in NYC
> 6:07 PM - 9 Nov 2016
> 10,268 10,268 Retweets 11,976 11,976 likes
> "Build a movement to fight racism, sexism, and Islamophobia!" read the Socialist Alternative NYC Facebook invite, which listed the following issues: "No Border Wall! Stop the deportations of undocumented immigrants! - Black Lives Matter! Stop the Dakota Access Pipeline -- Green Jobs now! -- #NoDAPL. Fight sexism, rape culture, and all attacks on women! Tax the super rich like Trump! Fund healthcare for all! Make college free!"
> 
> The scene on the streets in Oakland on Tuesday.
> READ MORE
> Trump Protesters Set Fires, Smash Glass in Oakland
> The post continued, "The Democratic Party has proven they are incapable of stopping Trump. The Democratic Party has failed. This is the result of the Democratic Party leadership backing Hillary Clinton instead of Bernie Sanders. It is time to build a new party of the 99 percent."
> 
> The page encouraged smaller protests to contact them so they could link up throughout their march.


http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/anti-trump-protesters-thousands-hit-streets-nyc-chanting-not-my-president-945947?utm_source=twitter


----------



## Ronzilla

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

People are protesting..for what..who knows..why, idk apparently they have no jobs to attend to or a family to take care of


----------



## KO Bossy

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> What if the truth is that social welfare programs which are dependent on high taxation (which shrinks wealth and growth overall) is responsible for both keeping people unemployed and therefore poor as well as keeping employed people who are over-burdened by taxes in a shrunken economy from being charitable.
> 
> If we never change our economic strategies at all, how would we come to the best solution?


So you're saying that high taxes keep the employed bitter at having to support the poor? I can understand that.

I don't quite understand how high taxation keeps people unemployed and poor, though. I mean, I don't know a lot about economics. Partly why I'm in here is to learn more. So I'm not flaming, I genuinely want an answer. Is it because welfare and support means that people feel that because they're covered, they don't need to work and grow lazy? Or what is it?



I've also gotta stop reading YouTube comments, people are really fucking horrible (not that I didn't know that, but still). Calling Rachel Maddow a "disgusting, maggot bag lesbian", or "a raging Jewess", or criticizing her looks, as well as her "persistent, aggressive jewfaggotry". And someone questioned me earlier on why I avoid social media...because of this. Life is hard enough without having to endure how unbelievably ruthless human beings are to each other. If anything, I think it speaks not just to how awful humans are by nature, but also how much some like to revel in others' pain so they can feel "right" and good about themselves. Its quite sickening.


----------



## Rodzilla nWo4lyfe

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I can't believe no one posted Ja Rule's thoughts on this.

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796292264649756677


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## skypod

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Stinger Fan said:


> Hilary opposed gay marriage oh and....



See, I don't think any gay person is under the impression Hillary genuinely cares about gay marriage. She switched her position because of politics. But at least there'd be a feeling when she got in she wouldn't actually put effort into regression on social issues because she's not that hardcore a religious fanatic. She would have nothing to gain by regression these issues.

Fact is, the right side of the party have been the ones obsessing with these issues for years because those individuals genuinely care about taking away those rights amongst others. Not all are like Trump, who I believe doesn't really care about gay marriage either but will tread the line with the Right to save face. Which means he'll turn a blind eye to any changes in the next 4 years because he has something to gain from doing so.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



skypod said:


> So are you going on the record that in 4 years time absolutely nothing is going to change in terms of abortion, gay rights etc? Even though the right has been seemingly obsessed with dipping their nose into these issues for over 20 years?
> 
> If nothings going to be put forward and nothings regressed, it's all cool. But the problem is when they do try to put something forward, I'm betting you'll stand silently by and not do anything about it when the far right religious side try to enact their beliefs upon the American public.


Are you telling me, Donald Trump is going to remove womens rights even though KellyAnne Conway is his campaign manager or that he paid women more than Clinton did, not to mention he has a proven track record of hiring women.Are you telling me, blacks will get worse education, live in worse conditions and or have more poverty? You're telling me he's going to remove gay marriage? Even though Hilary took money from the middle east which, how well do they treat gays there? You're telling me, he's going to deport legal immigrants like the media claim he would? 

You're telling me that's all going to happen under a Trump reign? That's just ridiculous , the fear mongering needs to end. There will be change, but not this ridiculous "witch hunts" people are buying into.


----------



## Ghost Lantern

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Do people actually think Gary Johnson cost Hillary the election? 

From my experience Libertarian's almost always siphon votes from GOP candidates. 

What's the theory here?


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



> As the reality of President-elect Donald Trump settled in very early Wednesday morning, MSNBC’s Chris Hayes summed up an explanation common to many on the left: The Republican nominee pulled ahead thanks to old-fashioned American racism.
> 
> But the attempt to make Trump’s victory about racism appears to be at odds with what actually happened on Election Day. Consider the following facts.
> 
> Twenty-nine percent of Latinos voted for Trump, per exit polls. Remarkably, despite the near-ubiquitous narrative that Trump would have deep problems with this demographic given his comments and position on immigration, this was a higher percentage of those who voted for GOP nominee Mitt Romney in 2012. Meanwhile, African Americans did not turn out to vote against Trump. In fact, Trump received a higher percentage of African American votes than Romney did.
> 
> [Donald Trump wins the presidency in stunning upset over Clinton]
> 
> And while many white voters deeply disliked Trump, they disliked Democrat Hillary Clinton even more. Of those who had negative feelings about both Trump and Clinton, Trump got their votes by a margin of 2 to 1. Votes for Trump seemed to signal a rejection of the norms and values for which Clinton stood more than an outright embrace of Trump. He was viewed unfavorably, for instance, by 61 percent of Wisconsinites, but 1 in 5 in that group voted for him anyway.
> 
> The most important divide in this election was not between whites and non-whites. It was between those who are often referred to as “educated” voters and those who are described as “working class” voters.
> 
> The reality is that six in 10 Americans do not have a college degree, and they elected Donald Trump. College-educated people didn’t just fail to see this coming — they have struggled to display even a rudimentary understanding of the worldviews of those who voted for Trump. This is an indictment of the monolithic, insulated political culture in the vast majority our colleges and universities.
> 
> Clinton supporters react to Trump's win with sadness, anger Play Video1:25
> Anti-Trump protests took place near some college campuses on Election Night. (Monica Akhtar/The Washington Post)
> [How Donald Trump broke the old rules of politics — and won the White House]
> 
> As a college professor, I know that there are many ways in which college graduates simply know more about the world than those who do not have such degrees. This is especially true — with some exceptions, of course — when it comes to “hard facts” learned in science, history and sociology courses.
> 
> But I also know that that those with college degrees — again, with some significant exceptions — don’t necessarily know philosophy or theology. And they have especially paltry knowledge about the foundational role that different philosophical or theological claims play in public thought compared with what is common to college campuses. In my experience, many professors and college students don’t even realize that their views on political issues rely on a particular philosophical or theological stance.
> 
> Higher education in the United States, after all, is woefully monolithic in its range of worldviews. In 2014, some 60 percent of college professors identified as either “liberal” or “far-left,” an increase from 42 percent identifying as such in 1990. And while liberal college professors outnumber conservatives 5-to-1, conservatives are considerably more common within the general public. The world of academia is, therefore, different in terms of political temperature than the rest of society, and what is common knowledge and conventional wisdom among America’s campus dwellers can’t be taken for granted outside the campus gates.
> 
> [World gasps in collective disbelief following Trump’s election]
> 
> While some of the political differences between educated and working-class voters is based on a dispute over hard facts, the much broader and more foundational disagreements are about norms and values. They turn on first principles grounded in the very different intuitions and stories which animate very different political cultures. Such disagreements cannot be explained by the fact that college-educated voters know some facts which non-college educated voters do not. They are about something far more fundamental.
> 
> Think about the sets of issues that are often at the core of the identity of the working-class folks who elected Trump: religion, personal liberty’s relationship with government, gender, marriage, sexuality, prenatal life and gun rights. Intuition and stories guide most working-class communities on these issues. With some exceptions, those professorial sorts who form the cultures of our colleges and universities have very different intuition and stories. And the result of this divide has been to produce an educated class with an isolated, insular political culture.
> 
> [Considering what America’s choice of Donald Trump really means]
> 
> Religion in most secular institutions, for instance, is at best thought of as an important sociological phenomenon to understand — but is very often criticized as an inherently violent, backward force in our culture, akin to belief in fairies and dragons. Professors are less religious than the population as a whole. Most campus cultures have strictly (if not formally) enforced dogmatic views about the nature of gender, sexual orientation, a woman’s right to choose abortion, guns and the role of the state as primary agent of social change. If anyone disagrees with these dogmatic positions they risk being marginalized as ignorant, bigoted, fanatical or some other dismissive label.
> 
> 
> Sometimes the college-educated find themselves so unable to understand a particular working-class point of view that they will respond to those perspectives with shocking condescension. Recall that President Obama, in the midst of the 2012 election cycle, suggested that job losses were the reason working-class voters were bitterly clinging “to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them.” The religious themselves, meanwhile, likely do not chalk their faith up to unhappy economic prospects, and they probably find it hard to connect with politicians who seem to assume such.
> 
> Thus today’s college graduates are formed by a campus culture that leaves them unable to understand people with unfamiliar or heterodox views on guns, abortion, religion, marriage, gender and privilege. And that same culture leads such educated people to either label those with whom they disagree as bad people or reduce their stated views on these issues as actually being about something else, as in Obama’s case. Most college grads in this culture are simply never forced to engage with or seriously consider professors or texts which could provide a genuine, compelling alternative view.
> 
> [Trump’s victory has enormous consequences for the Supreme Court]
> 
> For decades now, U.S. colleges and universities have quite rightly been trying to become more diverse when it comes to race and gender. But this election highlights the fact that our institutions of higher education should use similar methods to cultivate philosophical, theological and political diversity.
> 
> These institutions should consider using quotas in hiring that help faculties and administrations more accurately reflect the wide range of norms and values present in the American people. There should be systemwide attempts to have texts assigned in classes written by people from intellectually underrepresented groups. There should be concerted efforts to protect political minorities from discrimination and marginalization, even if their views are unpopular or uncomfortable to consider.
> 
> 
> The goal of such changes would not be to convince students that their political approaches are either correct or incorrect. The goal would instead be educational: to identify and understand the norms, values, first principles, intuitions and stories which have been traditionally underrepresented in higher education. This would better equip college graduates to engage with the world as it is, including with their fellow citizens.
> 
> The alternative, a reduction of all disagreement to racism, bigotry and ignorance — in addition to being wrong about its primary source — will simply make the disagreement far more personal, entrenched and vitriolic. And it won’t make liberal values more persuasive to the less educated, as Trump victory demonstrates.
> 
> It is time to do the hard work of forging the kind of understanding that moves beyond mere dismissal to actual argument. Today’s election results indicate that our colleges and universities are places where this hard work is particularly necessary.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/11/09/trump-won-because-college-educated-americans-are-out-of-touch/


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Stinger Fan said:


> Are you telling me, Donald Trump is going to remove womens rights even though KellyAnne Conway is his campaign manager or that he paid women more than Clinton did, not to mention he has a proven track record of hiring women.Are you telling me, blacks will get worse education, live in worse conditions and or have more poverty? You're telling me he's going to remove gay marriage? Even though Hilary took money from the middle east which, how well do they treat gays there? You're telling me, he's going to deport legal immigrants like the media claim he would?
> 
> You're telling me that's all going to happen under a Trump reign? That's just ridiculous , the fear mongering needs to end. There will be change, but not this ridiculous "witch hunts" people are buying into.


KellyAnne passed the pussy grabbing test and the unwanted kissing test, in that order, and she 'shhhhshd' Trump before he even had a chance to explain he had Melania's approval. That's the only reason she's there.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Ronzilla said:


> People are protesting..for what..who knows..why, idk apparently they have no jobs to attend to or a family to take care of


Because the left only cares about democracy if their candidate wins. I think they'd prefer everyone just voted for the same person every election a la North Korea.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

And now, part 2


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@Stinger Fan

Republicans were afraid to support him because they thought he'd lose, now that they've seen the effectiveness of his demagoguery they aren't at risk of pissing off their constituents by supporting his policies. 

I've seen and heard the bigoted things Trump has said, I've not seen or heard anything bigoted from Hilary. Assuming this things are actually out there, which I only have your word to go on, perhaps it's a symptom of an inequality in our media that they weren't put in the spotlight, however my problem isn't that Trump is a bigot, as all people have their biases, my problem is how brazenly open he is with it. I don't have to look far or hard to hear something repugnant from Trump; I don't even have to follow the liberal media, I could just watch a Trump rally. If Hilary is a bigot she closets that shit like every other decent American.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Stinger Fan said:


> Not at all, crying that you're "unsafe" because someone was elected is absurd and stupid. Claiming that some how minorities , women and gays will have all their rights removed because of actual brainwashing that Republicans = racist, sexist, homophobe, islamaphobe and whatever "phobe" or"ist" word you can name. Democrats fear monger more than anyone and its because of that, that they lost the election.


Tell me how often have your heard about democrats taking away 2nd amendment rights, are anti-police, Islam is evil, deficit spending will end the country etc. from republicans? How electing a democrat/liberal will destroy the country and this is the last chance election? That is less fear mongering than the democrats? Now that Trump is elected, the left are using the same message and you and your ilks are laughing at them for mirroring what conservatives have been saying since Obama was elected 8 years ago.

If anything, Democrats lost this election because they didn't have a powerful positive message that stick to rally around the unlikeable Hillary because they tried to appeal to too many constituents while Trump's 'make America great again' made it easier for reluctant voters to vote for that message instead of the nominee.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



KO Bossy said:


> So you're saying that high taxes keep the employed bitter at having to support the poor? I can understand that.
> 
> I don't quite understand how high taxation keeps people unemployed and poor, though. I mean, I don't know a lot about economics. Partly why I'm in here is to learn more. So I'm not flaming, I genuinely want an answer. Is it because welfare and support means that people feel that because they're covered, they don't need to work and grow lazy? Or what is it?


Not an economist myself, just an old MBA so my knowledge is limited. 

Let's take this like chain of events type of thing: 

- The goal of any entrepreneur is to make money in order to make more money and in order to make more money they need to continue to expand their market share. In order to expand your market share you need to either eat into your competitor's market share or expand the market overall. How do you expand the market, through technological or other forms of innovation. How do you innovate. Through investing in R&D ... who does the R&D and what happens when companies expand .. There's employment. The entrepreneur makes more money and there's more investment and more growth etc etc. The cycle is good for everyone. This is what should ideally happen. 

(Now I'm not going to throw in things like corporate greed or CEO entitlement etc because in a perfect economy the competition would render an organization that mismanges its finances unprofitable and therefore that organization will cease to exist.) 

Now throw in government regulation or taxes. 

- The goal of any entrepreneur is still the same. He's still selling about 100 widgets and making 1000 simoleans. But now he has to pay the government some money and his wage labor rate is fixed therefore his profits are being limited. His profits being limited means there's less room for him to expand and unlikely to innovate and therefore unlikely to grow. 

Now times this by 100 organizations stuck in the same huddled economical system. 

More taxes
Less expansion. 
Less growth
Less employment

More people unemployed. More people in poverty 

So on and so forth. 

What governments - especially social welfare governments keep doing over time is increasing the tax pressure on organizations that cannot sustain that tax pressure to fund their social welfare programs ... and at the same time add regulations limiting their expansion abilities (like the carbon tax for example) .. while also forcing the minimum wage rate to try to force their people from living sub-standard lives. 

In effect, however, what they're doing is disrupting the normal mechanism where without interference the company's goal of maximizing profits makes sure that company keeps growing --- and so do other companies .... Yes, in this system some companies still fail .. some employees still lose their jobs .. but that's now a result of mismanagement. Therefore in order to ensure profitability and survival, the companies have to innovate and work more efficiently. 

In economies where government intervention is high, in order to survive companies then lobby governments for special favors which encourages oligarchies or worse monopolies where there's less competition etc. Where one company becomes so powerful that it breaks away from the traditional market forces. This is what we see in the American Healthcare industry which is so protected by the government and so prone to monopolization (simply because it provides a necessity service) that it has driven prices astronomically high ... The sort of thing that happens in cartels. 

This is why I'm an advocate of laissez faire economics. I probably haven't explained it to you as well as someone else might - but I think I got the jist of it right. 

Anyways, the last thing is that when we're in a system where there's greater wealth, there's always lower employment and overall better earnings. There is obviously still a huge gap in wealth between the capitalist and the worker - but that gap shrinks mainly as a result of population growth and other natural forces than greed usually ... 

But in that situation, governments stepping in and increasing taxes basically starts the process of resulting in lowering wealth for the capitalist which eventually leads to greater levels of unemployment. 

If you hurt the richest class, you definitely hurt the middle class. You don't help them. It only seems like you are because you're simply taking someone else's money (the person who can actually create wealth) to someone else who doesn't create wealth. The person who creates wealth will benefit more people more if he's allowed to continue to create wealth.


----------



## Ghost Lantern

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> Tell me how often have your heard about democrats taking away 2nd amendment rights, are anti-police, Islam is evil, deficit spending will end the country etc. from republicans? How electing a democrat/liberal will destroy the country and this is the last chance election? That is less fear mongering than the democrats? Now that Trump is elected, the left are using the same message and you and your ilks are laughing at them for mirroring what conservatives have been saying since Obama was elected 8 years ago.
> 
> If anything, Democrats lost this election because they didn't have a powerful positive message that stick to rally around the unlikeable Hillary because they tried to appeal to too many constituents while Trump's 'make America great again' made it easier for reluctant voters to vote for that message instead of the nominee.


Right

And every election it's the same thing. Seriously? Have we not figured this out. The partisan's of each side are passionate and they will use all the tools at their disposal to discredit their opponents.

In the end bottom line, Hillary was unelectable.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Greenlawler said:


> Do people actually think Gary Johnson cost Hillary the election?
> 
> From my experience Libertarian's almost always siphon votes from GOP candidates.
> 
> What's the theory here?


As the most popular third party he is just an easy target

They can't target Jill because there is still the hopes of hooking in her supporters for 2020 but Johnsons supporters will never vote blue so there is no risk in alienating and belittling them


----------



## Larry Davis

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



stevefox1200 said:


> As the most popular third party he is just an easy target
> 
> They can't target Jill because there is still the hopes of hooking in her supporters for 2020 but Johnsons supporters will never vote blue so there is no risk in alienating and belittling them


I thought Johnson had a pretty good chunk of angry Sanders supporters who refused to vote Hillary. Granted, they probably never paid any attention to his actual policies (or lack thereof, as the case may be) but it seems like that was the only way he could even get as much traction as he did.

Rage-voting is the worst kind of voting.


----------



## -XERO-

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Despite the Eminem song link in my sig (and partially, that Shield gif)....I'm not actually that mad or worried about Trump right now, UNLESS something bad really does happen under his presidency, caused by the man himself.

I do know that there's been a few hate crimes towards Hispanics & Muslims going on lately by Trump supporters, which is sad. I also know about the protests.

But I also just saw these 2 articles posted on my Twitter feed (I live in Baltimore County, RIGHT NEXT to the City)....


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796517485679886336

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796525282693763072


----------



## Larry Davis

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Anyone who's seen anything David Simon has made knows Baltimore's a disaster.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Larry Davis said:


> I thought Johnson had a pretty good chunk of angry Sanders supporters who refused to vote Hillary. Granted, they probably never paid any attention to his actual policies (or lack thereof, as the case may be) but it seems like that was the only way he could even get as much traction as he did.
> 
> Rage-voting is the worst kind of voting.


I don't see how Sanders supporters could vote for Johnson unless they had no idea who he is and what his party was

on paper he is the exact opposite of Bernie's 

if that's true they had to be unique of ignorant, to be informed enough to know he exists but know nothing else about him, that's like reading half an instructions manual


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## Larry Davis

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



stevefox1200 said:


> I don't see how Sanders supporters could vote for Johnson unless they had no idea who he is and what his party was
> 
> on paper he is the exact opposite of Bernie's
> 
> if that's true they had to be unique of ignorant, to be informed enough to know he exists but know nothing else about him, that's like reading half an instructions manual


Yeah, that sounds about right. "Well, I'm not voting for CROOKED HILLARY but I can't vote Republican, so there's this other guy!"

They know to press A to jump, but can't figure out what button throws a fireball.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Greenlawler said:


> Right
> 
> And every election it's the same thing. Seriously? Have we not figured this out. The partisan's of each side are passionate and they will use all the tools at their disposal to discredit their opponents.
> 
> In the end bottom line, Hillary was unelectable.


I hate it. It has gotten so disgusting that a candidate's biggest strength is now framed as their worst weakness. And their worst weakness is spun into their biggest strengths.

Hillary is unelectable only because she is an establishment candidate with three decades of dirt to throw at her, in a country that has always resented the establishment. There have been Republicans in office with personal email servers. There have been politicians that deleted emails before leaving office before her. There have been mistakes made in foreign policies. These were issues of public service blown way out of proportions to attack Hillary because the Clintons built up a strong political machine that made her an easy target to lend credibility to her attackers to stay in office in lieu of actual accomplishments.


----------



## KO Bossy

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Not an economist myself, just an old MBA so my knowledge is limited.
> 
> Let's take this like chain of events type of thing:
> 
> - The goal of any entrepreneur is to make money in order to make more money and in order to make more money they need to continue to expand their market share. In order to expand your market share you need to either eat into your competitor's market share or expand the market overall. How do you expand the market, through technological or other forms of innovation. How do you innovate. Through investing in R&D ... who does the R&D and what happens when companies expand .. There's employment. The entrepreneur makes more money and there's more investment and more growth etc etc. The cycle is good for everyone. This is what should ideally happen.
> 
> (Now I'm not going to throw in things like corporate greed or CEO entitlement etc because in a perfect economy the competition would render an organization that mismanges its finances unprofitable and therefore that organization will cease to exist.)
> 
> Now throw in government regulation or taxes.
> 
> - The goal of any entrepreneur is still the same. He's still selling about 100 widgets and making 1000 simoleans. But now he has to pay the government some money and his wage labor rate is fixed therefore his profits are being limited. His profits being limited means there's less room for him to expand and unlikely to innovate and therefore unlikely to grow.
> 
> Now times this by 100 organizations stuck in the same huddled economical system.
> 
> More taxes
> Less expansion.
> Less growth
> Less employment
> 
> More people unemployed. More people in poverty
> 
> So on and so forth.
> 
> What governments - especially social welfare governments keep doing over time is increasing the tax pressure on organizations that cannot sustain that tax pressure to fund their social welfare programs ... and at the same time add regulations limiting their expansion abilities (like the carbon tax for example) .. while also forcing the minimum wage rate to try to force their people from living sub-standard lives.
> 
> In effect, however, what they're doing is disrupting the normal mechanism where without interference the company's goal of maximizing profits makes sure that company keeps growing --- and so do other companies .... Yes, in this system some companies still fail .. some employees still lose their jobs .. but that's now a result of mismanagement. Therefore in order to ensure profitability and survival, the companies have to innovate and work more efficiently.
> 
> In economies where government intervention is high, in order to survive companies then lobby governments for special favors which encourages oligarchies or worse monopolies where there's less competition etc. Where one company becomes so powerful that it breaks away from the traditional market forces. This is what we see in the American Healthcare industry which is so protected by the government and so prone to monopolization (simply because it provides a necessity service) that it has driven prices astronomically high ... The sort of thing that happens in cartels.
> 
> This is why I'm an advocate of laissez faire economics. I probably haven't explained it to you as well as someone else might - but I think I got the jist of it right.
> 
> Anyways, the last thing is that when we're in a system where there's greater wealth, there's always lower employment and overall better earnings. There is obviously still a huge gap in wealth between the capitalist and the worker - but that gap shrinks mainly as a result of population growth and other natural forces than greed usually ...
> 
> But in that situation, governments stepping in and increasing taxes basically starts the process of resulting in lowering wealth for the capitalist which eventually leads to greater levels of unemployment.
> 
> If you hurt the richest class, you definitely hurt the middle class. You don't help them. It only seems like you are because you're simply taking someone else's money (the person who can actually create wealth) to someone else who doesn't create wealth. The person who creates wealth will benefit more people more if he's allowed to continue to create wealth.


That makes some sense, but the wildcards really seem to be corporate greed and CEO entitlement...and sadly, those seem to be rather rampant. And until those go away, it still seems like this is an ideal that really isn't entirely feasible. Its one of those "in a perfect world" sort of things.


----------



## save_us_spike 2

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> White people have succeeded in taking back "their country", too bad in a few years this shit's going to look like Fury Road. Better start saving up your guzzoline and bullets.


what a accurate description of that whole movie.


----------



## Ghost Lantern

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> I hate it. It has gotten so disgusting that a candidate's biggest strength is now framed as their worst weakness. And their worst weakness is spun into their biggest strengths.
> 
> Hillary is unelectable only because she is an establishment candidate with three decades of dirt to throw at her, in a country that has always resented the establishment. There have been Republicans in office with personal email servers. There have been politicians that deleted emails before leaving office before her. There have been mistakes made in foreign policies. These were issues of public service blown way out of proportions to attack Hillary because the Clintons built up a strong political machine that made her an easy target to lend credibility to her attackers to stay in office in lieu of actual accomplishments.


Wait seriously?

Well I don't want to get into a debate about Hillary, but let's just say as a southerner who has been around the Clinton's for decades...there's a lot more dirt and skeletons than "just an easy target". 

I really don't want to start a debate seriously. I have had enough. Just look up her record yourself.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Really at this point its all speculation 

Trump could be the greatest president of all time 

he could be a disaster 

he could go down as Rutherford B Hayes where the election is the most memorable thing about him 

he has 4 years to impress me, better get started


----------



## KingCosmos

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Trump knows Jackshit about politics no doubt Pence and his people will handle a lot of things and he is a evangelical fuck tard that will no doubt have his completely wacked out religious bullshit influence his decisions. Thanks fucking idiots of America. I can just see Government money being used for Religion


----------



## Mister Abigail

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## Ghost Lantern

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



KingCosmos said:


> Trump knows Jackshit about politics no doubt Pence and his people will handle a lot of things and he is a evangelical fuck tard that will no doubt have his completely wacked out religious bullshit influence his decisions. Thanks fucking idiots of America. I can just see Government money being used for Religion


Bring on the red rep because this is the single most idiotic post I have seen here in ages. 

Seriously.


----------



## KingCosmos

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Greenlawler said:


> Bring on the red rep because this is the single most idiotic post I have seen here in ages.
> 
> Seriously.


I don't give a fuck about Rep. And you honestly believe Pence won't influence Trump. ? Unless you are a religious and agree with Pence's ideals.


----------



## Ghost Lantern

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



KingCosmos said:


> I don't give a fuck about Rep. And you honestly believe Pence won't influence Trump. ? Unless you are a religious and agree with Pence's ideals.


I just don't think you understand alot, no offense. You cannot be from America.


----------



## KingCosmos

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Greenlawler said:


> I just don't think you understand alot, no offense.


I don't think you understand a lot. The fact that the President elect is a White supremacist that has documented history of disenfranchising Black people. And Pence and his ideals will creep over in to decisions which will be way easier to implement now with the Republicans in control of most forms of government. I can just see those good ol Christian values fucking America up.


----------



## Ghost Lantern

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



KingCosmos said:


> I don't think you understand a lot. The fact that the President elect is a White supremacist that has documented history of disenfranchising Black people. And Pence and his ideals will creep over in to decisions which will be way easier to implement now with the Republicans now in control of most forms of government. I can just see those good ol Christian values fucking America up.


"I don't understand a lot" Maybe you are right, as an actual American with a Poli Sci B.A. I have no clue 

I mean.... you are the one using words like f***tard in today's world. 

Seriously examine your worth as a living breathing human. 

But seriously there is no way religion has the effect on politics you project. That's just stupid fear mongering.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



KingCosmos said:


> Trump knows Jackshit about politics no doubt Pence and his people will handle a lot of things and he is a evangelical fuck tard that will no doubt have his completely wacked out religious bullshit influence his decisions. Thanks fucking idiots of America. I can just see Government money being used for Religion


Government money won't be used for religion to maintain a degree of separation of church and state. But Pence will likely push for tax-exempt religious money to be used for politics by repealing the Johnson Amendment so the religious right have more say in politics.


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

These protesters that are on CNN now 

:ha

Set of fucking losers. Send in the army and open fire i say


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*










"my next few weeks are going to suck"


----------



## Ghost Lantern

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> Government money won't be used for religion to maintain a degree of separation of church and state. But Pence will likely push for tax-exempt religious money to be used for politics by repealing the Johnson Amendment so the religious right have more say in politics.


Not sure about that, I just can't see him changing things that much, I do think Pence can help defend the tax exempt status of the church, which I am okay with.


----------



## MillionDollarProns

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

http://prntscr.com/d5d8j2
http://on.abc10.com/2fDMCRS

The scene in Oakland, CA tonight.


----------



## Rick Sanchez

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I'd probably vote for Hilary Duff before I would Hillary Clinton. At least one of them isn't a serial killer.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Rowdy Yates said:


> These protesters that are on CNN now
> 
> :ha
> 
> Set of fucking losers. Send in the army and open fire i say


Fucking losers indeed. We lost. Fight him in the courts and make him accountable for his actions. Not this entitlement crying.



Greenlawler said:


> Not sure about that, I just can't see him changing things that much, I do think Pence can help stem the tide of over-turning the tax exempt status of the church, which I am okay with.


I don't like it. You need less money in politics, not more.


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

The last 24 hours been so fun (except if you're a pink-haired hipster) and what makes it even sweeter is the delicious taste of tears coming from all these celebrities. And Sami Zayn. He can take his flatcap and fuck off. 

Very disappointed in Springsteen and Bon Jovi. I will give them the benefit of the doubt that they were there only for the money. Not going go name all these douchebag celebrities but how dare Emma Watson tell Americans who to vote for. Read a comment somewhere that Madonna was offering to give blowjobs to get Hillary votes - I want this story to be true.

Special resentment is left for Lady Gaga. Cunt goes on stage with an outfit that has a suspicious Nazi theme to it but hey it's ok because Gaga panders to the LGBT community and other weirdos. She tweets #blacklivesmatter, poses with a key figure from BLM and then bleats on about racism. Are all these leftist celebrities hypocrites or are they just _that_ stupid?

also Hail to the Chief :trump



Rowdy Yates said:


> These protesters that are on CNN now
> 
> :ha
> 
> Set of fucking losers. Send in the army and open fire i say


They're zombies so the troops should aim for the head


----------



## Ghost Lantern

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> Fucking losers indeed. We lost. Fight him in the courts and make him accountable for his actions. Not this entitlement crying.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like it. You need less money in politics, not more.


Tell that to a struggling pastor trying to help people. Seriously I don't think people understand that most of these "pastors" are seriously trying to help. The Jim Bakers, and Paul Potts of the world are the exception not the rule.


----------



## KingCosmos

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Greenlawler said:


> "I don't understand a lot" Maybe you are right, as an actual American with a Poli Sci B.A. I have no clue
> 
> I mean.... you are the one using words like f***tard in today's world.
> 
> Seriously examine your worth as a living breathing human.
> 
> But seriously there is no way religion has the effect on politics you project. That's just stupid fear mongering.


The language is use doesn't invalidate my points, nice deflection tho. Your degree clearly makes you smarter than the vast majority for us please forgive me for speaking out of term since you are clearly superior to me.

If you seriously don't think religion has an affect on politicians you are lost.


----------



## samizayn

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The Ultimate Warrior said:


> And Sami Zayn. He can take his flatcap and fuck off.


Well I don't imagine he's too keen on being banned from the country.

Also, why do you care about what the celebrities think so much?


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



> Originally Posted by Chris JeriG.O.A.T View Post
> White people have succeeded in taking back "their country", too bad in a few years this shit's going to look like Fury Road. Better start saving up your guzzoline and bullets.


I think this is what Hollywood has done to the national and global psyche, all these disaster movies which is basically at least 50% of movies these days, every superhero movie + alien invasion movies + Godzilla type movies + natural disaster apocalypse movies + stuff like The Walking Dead has made the fragility of society seem quite fragile indeed. 

The basic thing to shit not hitting the fan is is there enough food and shelter and diseases aren't killing off big fractions of the population. You take care of that you're pretty straight. It's gonna take a lot more than :trump being president for civil society and public order to break down. 



> I don't think you understand a lot. The fact that the President elect is a White supremacist that has documented history of disenfranchising Black people. And Pence and his ideals will creep over in to decisions which will be way easier to implement now with the Republicans in control of most forms of government. I can just see those good ol Christian values fucking America up.


Yeah well when you think religion is an ignorant fairy tale that makes people stupid and violent you're believing in a fairy tale yourself. Freedom of religion already means you can have freedom from religion in your personal conscience and dignity if you want. The United States of America had a pretty good record of being a successful nation at home and abroad, including many fundamental advancements in recognizing the equality of all human dignity when good ol Christian values had much more influence in politics. Because good ol Christian values are way more than not liking homosexuality and they are mostly about unconditional love and forgiveness and those beliefs are way more important to a believing Christian than "dude on dude is bad." Something people like you always ignore or don't know. The record of the good ol US of A is in many respects pretty lame as shit ever since Mammon's values started replacing Jehovah's. Mammon in all things. Not saying the government should favor any religions in any way because freedom of religion means none of that too, but raging against the deep roots and influence of Christianity in the development of American culture and political culture isn't going to achieve anything. The fuck does acting like Christians are ticking time bombs accomplish really.



> Originally Posted by FriedTofu View Post
> I hate it. It has gotten so disgusting that a candidate's biggest strength is now framed as their worst weakness. And their worst weakness is spun into their biggest strengths.
> 
> Hillary is unelectable only because she is an establishment candidate with three decades of dirt to throw at her, in a country that has always resented the establishment. There have been Republicans in office with personal email servers. There have been politicians that deleted emails before leaving office before her. There have been mistakes made in foreign policies. These were issues of public service blown way out of proportions to attack Hillary because the Clintons built up a strong political machine that made her an easy target to lend credibility to her attackers to stay in office in lieu of actual accomplishments.


Let's get serious here.

Hillary turned out to be unelectable because she came off as a venal greedy dishonest person who thought too highly of herself, because her words seemed too often to not fit her past actions, because her accomplishments were not seen as much of a much by too many people, and because it is true that she has been around for 25 years and failed to fix or even try to fix many of the problems she talked about as if she were the solution. And, because, did I mention the greed? She came off as an incredibly selfish person. 

Meanwhile :trump managed to create the popular impression, as he had for some time well before he got into politics, that he has spent the last 30-40 years WINNING. This explains I think all these people coming out to take a chance on him. :trump 's own campaign underestimated rural turnout of :trump votes by 10%. That's a lot of people. Plus a lot of turnout in suburbs around Democratic cities, suburbs that usually split more evenly, went heavily Republican and did a lot to help offset the huge Democratic vote advantages in those cities. Particularly in Florida, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, North Carolina and Ohio. Those suburbs added to the rural vote helped :trump almost steal Virginia too. 

If he weren't such a boor and such a base individual, all other things being equal, he would have won in a landslide. 

At the end of the day :trump is a dealmaker. He will act as if he is holding the whip hand at first (because he is) but I expect Pence and Giuliani - yes, Rudy, I'll explain - to get him to conserve his ammunition at times. Rudy is a loose cannon himself with his mouth but he had consummate political instincts when he was running New York City. He will know when :trump is banging his head up against what the people want and will I hope tell :trump when he is.

:trump will want to make deals. I fully expect him to nominate some conservative wet dream for the Supreme Court in return for Republican acquiescence to big-time infrastructure spending. Things like that. With the Democrats, too. If the negotiating table is truly fully open for everybody he could have a fairly decent presidency.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Greenlawler said:


> Tell that to a struggling pastor trying to help people. Seriously I don't think people understand that most of these "pastors" are seriously trying to help. The Jim Bakers, and Paul Potts of the world are the exception not the rule.


I think we are talking about different things. I was talking about not allowing tax-exempt organisations from endorsing politicians. You seem to be talking about repealing the tax-exempt status on churches.

I don't have issues with churches being tax-exempt as long as they aren't cults like scientology.  My issue is with more money in politics.


----------



## Ghost Lantern

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



KingCosmos said:


> The language is use doesn't invalidate my points, nice deflection tho. Your degree clearly makes you smarter than the vast majority for us please forgive me for speaking out of term since you are clearly superior to me.
> 
> If you seriously don't think religion has an affect on politicians you are lost.


a.) Thank You, you are correct.

b.) Sure it does, but not like you think....

Why don't you refrain from American politics and stick with your own, champ.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I wish there was a line between "protesting" and "burning effigies" cause the second one makes you look fucking nuts


----------



## Ghost Lantern

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> I think we are talking about different things. I was talking about not allowing tax-exempt organisations from endorsing politicians. You seem to be talking about repealing the tax-exempt status on churches.
> 
> I don't have issues with churches being tax-exempt as long as they aren't cults like scientology.  My issue is with more money in politics.


Fair enough


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

:lmao calxit is a thing?

2016 is bizaro world where California and not Texas is asking for secession. :wtf


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> :lmao calxit is a thing?
> 
> 2016 is bizaro world where California and not Texas is asking for secession. :wtf


If they do that I will be opening a water export company in Nevada

ONLY 15.99 caliopies a bottle (exchange rates are a bitch)


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> :lmao calxit is a thing?
> 
> 2016 is bizaro world where California and not Texas is asking for secession. :wtf


It's as much a thing as Texit. So not really a thing at all.

The United States and not just the government would simply not allow it and yes up to the point of forcing the state to remain in or rejoin the Union.

A serious attempt at secession would cause a big-time resurgence of old-time For the Union nationalism.


----------



## KingCosmos

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Greenlawler said:


> a.) Thank You, you are correct.
> 
> b.) Sure it does, but not like you think....
> 
> Why don't you refrain from American politics and stick with your own, champ.


Nothing I have said was wrong so I can stick with whatever I want. My comment about Goverment money being used with Religion was a snide comment but nearly half of the American population thinks differently and actually agree with that.
We have idiots like these that think fetus' have souls in politics. Massive influence


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

:lmao These anti-Trump protests happening in cities right now. Reminds me of the RNC protests back in July. Literally nothing productive will come of this.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## Overcomer

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Congratulations to him, I hope he will have a successful presidency. What else can you really say/hope for? The amount of butthurt i've seen on social media today is so fucking sad. If the shoe was on the other foot they'd be talking so much shit like when Obama won against Mitt Romney. I remember when Romney supporters voiced displeasure they were told to quit crying and get over it. Funny how it doesn't work that way now. Hillary lost because she is a crooked & corrupt unlikable hag who can't even follow basic email protocol. The Democrats really screwed up when they decided to sabotage Bernie to make her the face of their party this election, so so sad.


----------



## Ghost Lantern

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



KingCosmos said:


> Nothing I have said was wrong so I can stick with whatever I want. My comment about Goverment money being used with Religion was a snide comment but nearly half of the American population thinks differently and actually agree with that.
> We have idiots like these that think fetus' have souls in politics. Massive influence


You really have no clue.


----------



## KingCosmos

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Greenlawler said:


> You really have no clue.


And yet you can't disprove what I'm saying.


----------



## Ghost Lantern

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



KingCosmos said:


> And yet you can't disprove what I'm saying.


What the heck have you actually said? Except for American money will go toward promoting religion?


----------



## The Hardcore Show

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Should all the people who did not support Trump be Lucile'd (Walking Dead reference) and thrown out of the country?


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



KingCosmos said:


> Nothing I have said was wrong so I can stick with whatever I want. My comment about Goverment money being used with Religion was a snide comment but nearly half of the American population thinks differently and actually agree with that.
> We have idiots like these that think fetus' have souls in politics. Massive influence


Why would they have any interest in dealing with you when your opening position is 'what you believe is idiotic.'


----------



## KingCosmos

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



deepelemblues said:


> Why would they have any interest in dealing with you when your opening position is 'what you believe is idiotic.'


Boo hoo oh well. My stance on their ideals doesn't matter. What matters and should be the topic of discussion of the undeniable fact that politics has growing religious influence


----------



## KingCosmos

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Greenlawler said:


> What the heck have you actually said? Except for American money will go toward promoting religion?


You already conceded to my points. So you know what I said.


----------



## FITZ

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


>


Even CNN was saying this. The election guy was showing all of the different rural counties that Trump was able to flip from Obama's 2 elections. 


Democrats shouldn't be too upset. If things go well with Trump they come out ahead because it means the country is doing well. If things go poorly then this could go down as the last stand of the modern Republican Party. Demographics are changing and I don't see how last night's results are going to be repeatable for many more years. If Trump can't bring more democrats to his side it's over for the Republicans in a few years.


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



samizayn said:


> Well I don't imagine he's too keen on being banned from the country.
> 
> Also, why do you care about what the celebrities think so much?


Why would he be banned? Is he a criminal? A fugitive?

I don't care what celebrities say however when they're wheeled out and lecture on who you should vote for, like they know better than the real people, I find that to be condescending. I'm sure Lady Gaga and the Avengers cast will really feel the pinch of a Trump presidency unk2


----------



## Ghost Lantern

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



KingCosmos said:


> You already conceded to my points. So you know what I said.


No I don't. How exactly have I conceded my points? I really don't see that. I am truly wondering how you came to that conclusion.


----------



## Slickback

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

So now I'm seeing flag burning by Trump protesters all over my Facebook along with a bunch of fucking morons supporting that. Burning the American flag in protest because Hillary Clinton wasn't elected... by a bunch of self absorbed assholes with zero life experience and a strong sense of superiority over expected norms and statutes they never understood in the first place... Unbelievable. What the actual fuck are you complaining about? You voted, you lost. The country was split right down the middle and that's how it is and that's how it goes.

How do any of you know how Trump is going to do until he takes the job???


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Hm. Only 19% of my fellow millennials voted.


----------



## The Hardcore Show

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Machiavelli said:


> So now I'm seeing flag burning by Trump protesters all over my Facebook along with a bunch of fucking morons supporting that. Burning the American flag in protest because Hillary Clinton wasn't elected... by a bunch of self absorbed assholes with zero life experience and a strong sense of superiority over expected norms and statutes they never understood in the first place... Unbelievable. What the actual fuck are you complaining about? You voted, you lost. The country was split right down the middle and that's how it is and that's how it goes.
> 
> How do any of you know how Trump is going to do until he takes the job???


A lot of the people he surrounded himself with during the election. Pence is viewed by many as a crazy person, its looking like he will bring in trash like Newt or Rudy Giuliani which will not help matters.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Machiavelli said:


> So now I'm seeing flag burning by Trump protesters all over my Facebook along with a bunch of fucking morons supporting that. Burning the American flag in protest because Hillary Clinton wasn't elected... by a bunch of self absorbed assholes with zero life experience and a strong sense of superiority over expected norms and statutes they never understood in the first place... Unbelievable. What the actual fuck are you complaining about? You voted, you lost. The country was split right down the middle and that's how it is and that's how it goes.
> 
> How do any of you know how Trump is going to do until he takes the job???


There is nothing more American than flag burning

Freedom of speech and the flag manufactures and wal-mart make a mint

Giving the man money to show how much you hate him


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796258910617370624
:lmao


----------



## Ghost Lantern

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Because Newt or Rudy don't give a care about the future of America?

Just give the guy a chance and the people he surrounded himself with. 

You don't agree with them, that's fair. But the winners take the spoils. In four years you can take "your" America back. 

And if it is best for the country well that's fine, but today the election is over and America has spoken.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@Sincere 










:sodone


----------



## Stall_19

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Machiavelli said:


> How do any of you know how Trump is going to do until he takes the job???


Because he's a piece of shit. We don't know for sure what he's going to do but we've heard what he said in the past, we see what he stands for and we can make a judgement of what kind of person he is. This is the man that a former KKK member is cheering for. Who questioned Obama's citizenship with absolutely no proof. We're not fucking idiots. He's the worst human being that has been elected president in my lifetime and I'm embarrassed that I have to live with that for at least the next 4 years.


----------



## Cipher

Stall_19 said:


> Because he's a piece of shit. We don't know for sure what he's going to do but we've heard what he said in the past, we see what he stands for and we can make a judgement of what kind of person he is. This is the man that a former KKK member is cheering for. Who questioned Obama's citizenship with absolutely no proof. We're not fucking idiots. He's the worst human being that has been elected president in my lifetime and I'm embarrassed that I have to live with that for at least the next 4 years.


I see everyone bringing up Trump's KKK stuff, but why does Hillary get a pass for calling a Klansmen, Senator Rob Byrd, her mentor?

Again. I have no side, just playing devils advocate.


----------



## Ghost Lantern

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Stall_19 said:


> Because he's a piece of shit. We don't know for sure what he's going to do but we've heard what he said in the past, we see what he stands for and we can make a judgement of what kind of person he is. This is the man that a former KKK member is cheering for. Who questioned Obama's citizenship with absolutely no proof. We're not fucking idiots. He's the worst human being that has been elected president in my lifetime and I'm embarrassed that I have to live with that for at least the next 4 years.


He has made mistakes and so has Hillary. If you cannot accept that then fair enough. 

As far as the KKK endorsing him. Seriously how large is the KKK in 2016? Do you really have a clue? For decades the KKK endorsed Democrats. Not a peep came out of that. Mainly because the Democrats control the US media.

It sucks that a white supremacist group endorses the man but does that mean he endorses them? Seriously? 

Hillary lost because she herself was involved in enough scandal to make America second guess her. That is what this whole thing boils down to.

A vote for Trump was a vote against Hillary and Obama care. That's it IMO. It had very little to do with racism, male dominance or any hatred. Hundreds Of thousands of middle to lower class Americans found themselves in financial trouble because of Obamacare.

The "Wal-Mart" vote spelled her doom. Call them uneducated. I call them uninsured. Middle class America spoke loudly. 

If you actually think Trump carried the election because whites hate homosexuals, immigrants, or women then you are stereotyping,.....

Stereotyping the very thing your party is supposed to stand against.

Why then did Trump win because African Americans did not turn out in droves for Hillary?


----------



## Stall_19

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

oops,meant to edit, not double post


----------



## Stall_19

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Cipher said:


> I see everyone bringing up Trump's KKK stuff, but why does Hillary get a pass for calling a Klansmen, Senator Rob Byrd, her mentor?
> 
> Again. I have no side, just playing devils advocate.


I'm in now way satisfied with Hillary. She's a politician through and through and will follow whatever agenda the Democrats have. I voted for her but that was definitely more an anti-Trump vote and in no way a pro-Hillary vote. But 100 out 100 times would I subject myself to the status quo than go down whatever road Trump is going to lead us down. The man is an egotistical jackass who will only work to benefit people like him. I'm going to lose my healthcare next year and I have to deal with that. But that's nothing compared to what must be going through the minds of American Muslims, Gays...etc

I know what kind of person Hillary is and I know what kind of person Trump is and I'd rather deal with a career politician than the horrible human being that is Trump.


----------



## Ghost Lantern

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Stall_19 said:


> has. I voted for her but that was definitely more an anti-Trump vote and in no way a pro-Hillary vote. But 100 out 100 times would I subject myself to the status quo than go down whatever road Trump is going to lead us down. The man is an egotistical jackass who will only work to benefit people like him. I'm going to lose my healthcare next year and I have to deal with that. But that's nothing compared to what must be going through the minds of American Muslims, Gays...etc
> 
> I know what kind of person Hillary is and I know what kind of person Trump is and I'd rather deal with a career politician than the horrible human being that is Trump.


"I'm going to lose my healthcare"

How do you know? What about the millions of Americans who suddenly had their healthcare jacked up beyond their means because of Obamacare? 

Seriously, tell me. I am not trying to start a fight. I am an open minded voter who does not understand lots of things. I only know what I see around me, and Obamacare totally screwed just about everyone of my peers.

And can we just stop about the stupid KKK rhetoric? That's just a simple fear mongering left campaign.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



> *Projections and Forecasts (2016)*:
> 
> Sam Wang (electoral vote):
> 2016 (final projection: HC 323 to DT 215)
> 
> Nate Silver (electoral vote):
> 2016 (final projection: HC 302 to DT 235)
> 
> Huffington Post (electoral vote):
> 2016 (current projection: HC 323 DT 215)
> 
> NY Times Upshot (electoral vote):
> 2016 (current projection: HC 322)
> 
> Drew Linzler (electoral vote):
> 2016 (current projection: HC 323 DT 215)


Good times. :lol

- Vic


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Stall_19 said:


> has. I voted for her but that was definitely more an anti-Trump vote and in no way a pro-Hillary vote. But 100 out 100 times would I subject myself to the status quo than go down whatever road Trump is going to lead us down. The man is an egotistical jackass who will only work to benefit people like him. I'm going to lose my healthcare next year and I have to deal with that. But that's nothing compared to what must be going through the minds of American Muslims, Gays...etc
> 
> I know what kind of person Hillary is and I know what kind of person Trump is and I'd rather deal with a career politician than the horrible human being that is Trump.


I feel for a lot of working class people, Obama Care going up double digits right before the election may have just been the final straw. There is two sides to the coin after all.

Trump denounced the KKK support. Hillary called a guy who founded a chapter of the KKK her friend and mentor. If anything Trump was a fool for not bringing that up front and center. I just cannot possibly see how people glaze over that. 

I'm bisexual myself, but I wasn't really worried about Trump in that regard until he picked Pence as his VP. Up until that point, Trump was by a considerably wide margin the most pro-LGBT GOP candidate. 

However, the VP only has as much power as the President allows, time will tell if that is the case with Trump. The VP's only real power is to preside over the Senate and be a tie breaker in case needed. I just hope it's not a repeat of Cheney/Bush, because Cheney was basically the one running the show for a while.

I do not think this will be the end of the world, no matter who won. Trump was socially liberal his entire life until he decided to run for President, I don't think he woke up one day and decided to be conservative. He needed to get his foot in his door and now he's about to be standing in the White House.

Again, it's worth noting that only 19% of millennials, to which I am apart of, actually voted. I wonder how many of them out there protesting right now voted for Hillary yesterday?


----------



## Stall_19

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Greenlawler said:


> "I'm going to lose my healthcare"
> 
> How do you know? What about the millions of Americans who suddenly had their healthcare jacked up beyond their means because of Obamacare?


Because the only reason I have healthcare is because of Obamacare and he says he's going to repeal it. My employer sure isn't going to give it to me.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

So apparently it's looking like a pretty low voter turnout?

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/9/13573904/voter-turnout-2016-donald-trump



> The US Elections Project estimates that 128.8 million Americans cast a ballot in 2016, out of 231 million eligible voters — a turnout rate of 55.6 percent. This is still just a preliminary estimate, and states are still finalizing tallies, so check back for updates. But if those numbers hold, that would be the lowest turnout since the Bush-Kerry election in 2004.


Make of that what you will, it's kind of a shame the fact the damn thing is on a working day and some polling places are few and far between that some people don't vote.

I guess it doesn't affect the almighty EC though.


----------



## Ghost Lantern

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Stall_19 said:


> Because the only reason I have healthcare is because of Obamacare and he says he's going to repeal it. My employer sure isn't going to give it to me.


And seriously, hundreds of thousands of Americans are paying what they cannot afford to "give" people healthcare. I mean the people who have been hit the hardest by Obamacare are those trying to provide for their families. I work with guys and girls who suddenly have had their healthcare doubled. They walk into the office one day making an okay living for their family and then suddenly they have to find another job, or eat rice and beans, because the gov't decides they should pay more just to get the same healthcare they had last week. Ridiculous. 

Maybe you should look for an employer who provides healthcare, or find a career that pays enough to help?


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> @Sincere
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :sodone


:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao 

OMFG. It has happened. The circle is now complete. To finally be able to throw that incessantly regurgitated shit right back in their statist faces. I never imagined it would be this satisfyingly glorious, and surprisingly fitting, too. The gift of Trump keeps on giving. 

He was right. There is so much winning, that it is actually becoming rather excessive and overwhelming.






:sodone


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

These late night pundits trying to put a spin on this.

:lmao :lmao :lmao

Tears almost filled Seth Meyers' eyes during his monologue tonight. Poor guy. All those months making Trump look like a court jester, yet he still became king. But he was classy enough to congratulate Trump & his supporters on the victory.

As expected, Colbert was also a bit somber and he tried his best to comfort Clinton supporters. The Daily Show seems like the most pissed off talk show so far. Long story short, their entire episode tonight was basically *"GODDAMN IT!!!!!!!!! HOW THE FUCKING FUCK DID THIS HAPPEN??!!!!!"* So that was fun to watch. Can't wait for John Oliver on Sunday and Samantha Bee on Monday.


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

The collective meltdown of the left has been nothing short of marvelous to witness, and it has only been a day. The dude isn't even in office yet. He doesn't even have a cabinet. The truly hilarious part is it still doesn't seem to have registered to them why they not only lost, but got absolutely raped, because they're continuing to make the same mistakes that inevitably lead to said rape. The lack of self-awareness is reaching profound new heights. And they still don't seem to have a clue. They seem to lack the capacity to understand the reality they currently occupy beyond their insular, disconnected echo chambers.


----------



## Rick Sanchez

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## TheLooseCanon

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Bernie or bust motherfuckers. Democrats had to learn. Looks like we went 'or bust'.

I can't give a fuck less who won (especially these 2, a self centered Billionaire parading around as a Populist or a Corporatist parading around as a Democrat), we need to clean out both parties.


----------



## KingCosmos

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Greenlawler said:


> "I'm going to lose my healthcare"
> 
> How do you know? What about the millions of Americans who suddenly had their healthcare jacked up beyond their means because of Obamacare?
> 
> Seriously, tell me. I am not trying to start a fight. I am an open minded voter who does not understand lots of things. I only know what I see around me, and Obamacare totally screwed just about everyone of my peers.
> 
> And can we just stop about the stupid KKK rhetoric? That's just a simple fear mongering left campaign.


How is mentioning the KKK fear mongering. Surely he can't help if a idiot endorses him bu Trump not only is a White supremacist but HAS PUT IN TO PRACTICE SYSTEMIC WHITE SUPREMACY with housing discrimination this is a FACT. Is it unreasonable for a person to be afraid of that? The difference between Hilary and Trump is that her White supremacy is harder to decipher.


----------



## Ghost Lantern

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



KingCosmos said:


> How is mentioning the KKK fear mongering. Surely he can't help if a idiot endorses him bu Trump not only is a White supremacist but HAS PUT IN TO PRACTICE SYSTEMIC WHITE SUPREMACY with housing discrimination this is a FACT. Is it unreasonable for a person to be afraid of that? The difference between Hilary and Trump is that her White supremacy is harder to decipher.


My point was that the tie between the KKK and Trump was a re-direct. 

The KKK voted Democrat for years, how do you not understand that fact? There are literally thousands of less KKK members today than there were during the Kennedy administration when they solidly voted Democrat. It is a simple matter of understanding history. 

I bet you believe the KKK is a southern thing? You do know the KKK was strongest in northern states right? Indiana in the 60's was the KKK's stronghold. I live in the south, where the population of "Black Americans" is the highest density. You know what that taught us? To get along or die trying. 

White supremacy had nothing to do with this election, and that's the fact you need to understand. Black voters actually sided with Trump more so than the last election. Don't let the media tell you what reality is. After all they were the ones who said Hillary would win in a landslide.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I'm not getting involved in the shouting matches. There's a witch hunt going on for anybody that did not vote for Hillary Clinton, whether they voted for Trump or _not_. I stress the _not_ because even 3rd Party voters are feeling the heat from Hillary's camp.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796257688795561984
Based ROSEANNE :mark:


----------



## KingCosmos

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Greenlawler said:


> My point was that the tie between the KKK and Trump was a re-direct.
> 
> The KKK voted Democrat for years, how do you not understand that fact? There are literally thousands of less KKK members today than there were during the Kennedy administration when they solidly voted Democrat. It is a simple matter of understanding history.
> 
> I bet you believe the KKK is a southern thing? You do know the KKK was strongest in northern states right? Indiana in the 60's was the KKK's stronghold. I live in the south, where the population of "Black Americans" is the highest density. You know what that taught us? To get along or die trying.
> 
> White supremacy had nothing to do with this election, and that's the fact you need to understand. Black voters actually sided with Trump more so than the last election. Don't let the media tell you what reality is. After all they were the ones who said Hillary would win in a landslide.


I very well know the KKK voted democrat so i don't know why you are bringing that up. I'm very tired of Blacks voting out of tradition, i wish the Black populace didn't vote so it had some merit so politicians would actually fix the issues. My issue isn't the KKK, it's white supremacy which doesn't even generally have to be overtly racist. It's the system that has been put in place to benefit a group of people to another's detriment. No doubt a lot of the white populace feel attacked by the sjw's, BLM people a lot of it was like they said "Taking their country back". Also some people felt they were giving the finger to the establishment but they fail to realize the establishment was,is and will always be in place. The only reason i am talking about Trump is because he won, Hilary would be getting the same treatment from me if she won because i know how crooked she is I've been to Haiti and seen how she has taken advantage of the people over there. People like to think race isn't a issue but it very so much is. it influences our decisions on a sub-conscious level and unfortunately a big part of the Country. The reality is the divide against the people is the biggest issue in America and it all boils down to what Class, Race, Gender or Sexuality you have.


----------



## Ghost Lantern

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



KingCosmos said:


> I very well know the KKK voted democrat so i don't know why you are bringing that up. I'm very tired of Blacks voting out of tradition, i wish the Black populace didn't vote so it had some merit so politicians would actually fix the issues. My issue isn't the KKK, it's white supremacy which doesn't even generally have to be overtly racist. It's the system that has been put in place to benefit a group of people to another's detriment. No doubt a lot of the white populace feel attacked by the sjw's, BLM people a lot of it was like they said "Taking their country back". Also some people felt they were giving the finger to the establishment but they fail to realize the establishment was,is and will always be in place. The only reason i am talking about Trump is because he won, Hilary would be getting the same treatment from me if she won because i know how crooked she is I've been to Haiti and seen how she has taken advantage of the people over there. People like to think race isn't a issue but it very so much is. it influences our decisions on a sub-conscious level and unfortunately a big part of the Country. The reality is the divide against the people is the biggest issue in America and it all boils down to what Class, Race, Gender or Sexuality you have.


Well that was a very well thought out response, and if you had led with this I doubt we would have had much beef. While I still maintain this had very little to do with race. The main problem I had was with what I perceived to be your attack and stereotyping of the people who actually voted for Trump in protest to a misguided system.


----------



## Punkhead

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

All these people protesting, it's ridiculous. Such immature cunts, unable to accept defeat. They're currently in denial, saying "not our president". Soon it'll be anger, maybe the protests will turn violent, then bargaining, then depression and finally acceptance. I wonder how long the whole process will take.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Punkhead said:


> All these people protesting, it's ridiculous. Such immature cunts, unable to accept defeat. They're currently in denial, saying "not our president". Soon it'll be anger, *maybe the protests will turn violent*, then bargaining, then depression and finally acceptance. I wonder how long the whole process will take.


I hope it doesn't come to that, but truthfully, I wouldn't be surprised.


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

*Shoe the GOAT





*


----------



## Natecore

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Trump tells South Korea he isn't removing troops and military help.

Trump already breaking campaign promises. He's being a good little foreign policy lapdog.
http://news.antiwar.com/2016/11/09/report-trump-backtracks-on-calls-for-south-korea-to-pay-more-for-their-own-defense/


----------



## KingCosmos

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Greenlawler said:


> Well that was a very well thought out response, and if you had led with this I doubt we would have had much beef. While I still maintain this had very little to do with race. The main problem I had was with what I perceived to be your attack and stereotyping of the people who actually voted for Trump in protest to a misguided system.


Trumps best course of action is to calm people down. People are legit scared of him and what they think he will do. I have seen people that actually believe we will be living in another form of Nazi Germany. In all honesty Trump won't change the system. I assume now that he is in office he will tone himself down a bit and go with the status quo. His promises of changing the system was a ploy to just get him elected in my opinion


----------



## The Dazzler

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



KingCosmos said:


> I very well know the KKK voted democrat so i don't know why you are bringing that up. I'm very tired of Blacks voting out of tradition, i wish the Black populace didn't vote so it had some merit so politicians would actually fix the issues.


Trump says he's going to do good by the black community and unite people. Democrats have had how many chances now? It could all be lies, but at least give him a chance.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Oda Nobunaga said:


> I'm not getting involved in the shouting matches. There's a witch hunt going on for anybody that did not vote for Hillary Clinton, whether they voted for Trump or _not_. I stress the _not_ because even 3rd Party voters are feeling the heat from Hillary's camp.


Somebody gotta be to blame and it surely can't be all the good people like Hillary Clinton or her supporters or anything.

It's gotta be those damn libertarians who wouldn't have voted for Hillary anyway or Jill Stein voters who wouldn't have voted for Hillary either. Nearly all of them would have stayed home if :trump and Hillary were their only choices. And besides, you had Bill Weld the Libertarian VP candidate essentially endorsing Hillary multiple times in the last two weeks of the campaign. Johnson was more circumspect but both of them basically went in the tank for her. What more should they have done, come right out and openly said "If you're going to vote for us, don't; vote for Hillary instead"?

If these tilted losers wanna blame someone blame the #NeverTrumpers, they failed entirely to split the Republican vote. :trump got 90% of Republican votes aka right on what the Republican candidate usually gets.


----------



## Ghost Lantern

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



KingCosmos said:


> Trumps best course of action is to calm people down. People are legit scared of him and what they think he will do. I have seen people that actually believe we will be living in another form of Nazi Germany. In all honesty Trump won't change the system. I assume now that he is in office he will tone himself down a bit and go with the status quo. His promises of changing the system was a ploy to just get him elected in my opinion


Well I do think he believes in changing the system, and by that I mean changing Obamacare mainly. But seriously you came here insulting Trump supporters and calling people "f***tards". You were the one who brought up the misguided KKK tie.... If you had arrived on the scene with post like your last two maybe it would have gone easier for both of us


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



deepelemblues said:


> Somebody gotta be to blame and it surely can't be all the good people like Hillary Clinton or her supporters or anything.
> 
> It's gotta be those damn libertarians who wouldn't have voted for Hillary anyway or Jill Stein voters who wouldn't have voted for Hillary either. Nearly all of them would have stayed home if :trump and Hillary were their only choices.
> 
> If these tilted losers wanna blame someone blame the #NeverTrumpers, they failed entirely to split the Republican vote. :trump got 90% of Republican votes aka right on what the Republican candidate usually gets.


It's a madhouse! As said by THE GOAT.


----------



## KingCosmos

The Dazzler said:


> Trump says he's going to do good by the black community and unite people. Democrats have had how many chances now? It could all be lies, but at least give him a chance.







This goes for every Politician



Greenlawler said:


> Well I do think he believes in changing the system, and by that I mean changing Obamacare mainly. But seriously you came here insulting Trump supporters and calling people "f***tards". You were the one who brought up the misguided KKK tie.... If you had arrived on the scene with post like your last two maybe it would have gone easier for both of us


Obama care was always a disaster and would have been changed eventually


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Oda Nobunaga said:


> I'm not getting involved in the shouting matches. There's a witch hunt going on for anybody that did not vote for Hillary Clinton, whether they voted for Trump or _not_. I stress the _not_ because even 3rd Party voters are feeling the heat from Hillary's camp.


what?


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Goku said:


> what?


They're burning and hanging people. :side:

What I mean is if you didn't support Clinton, they'd place the blame on you and call you all sorts of garbage, even if you didn't vote for Trump. This is just anecdotal, though, from my own experiences on social media. Plus, if I supported neither Clinton or Trump, why would I be involved in the shouting matches?


----------



## ShiningStar

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I for one welcome our Russian overlords and can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their Underground Sugarcaves.

Not only that if your reading this Vladimir I can introduce you to some of the best tasting cuisine in Puerto Rico and some of the most beautiful beaches.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Natecore said:


> Trump tells South Korea he isn't removing troops and military help.
> 
> Trump already breaking campaign promises. He's being a good little foreign policy lapdog.
> http://news.antiwar.com/2016/11/09/report-trump-backtracks-on-calls-for-south-korea-to-pay-more-for-their-own-defense/


You wanted him to go to war on DAY ONE?!?!


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Oda Nobunaga said:


> They're burning and hanging people. :side:
> 
> What I mean is if you didn't support Clinton, they'd place the blame on you and call you all sorts of garbage, even if you didn't vote for Trump. This is just anecdotal, though, from my own experiences on social media. Plus, if I supported neither Clinton or Trump, why would I be involved in the shouting matches?


yeah, I can imagine that. Trump supporters are probably used to it at this point, but I can see how it's uncomfortable for third party voters and non-voters.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



L-DOPA said:


> I would also like to point out this is the first time since 1928 Republicans hold the House, the Senate AND the presidency.....


And we got the great depression and WW2 out of it. 

Anyway as we learned during the early Obama years when the Dems controlled all three, its meaningless because of filibusterers unless you have a super-majority in the senate, which I'm pretty sure the republicans don't.


----------



## Alco

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I've never protested in my life and it'll take a major injustice for me to really get out on the street for whatever (I was going to participate in a "march for peace" in Brussels after the attacks, but it got cancelled  ), but I can sort of understand where these people are coming from. Sure, they appear butthurt and not able to accept defeat, but there is a feeling (justified or not) that the candidate who got the majority of votes got snubbed. So, in essence, the "not our president" is true in that sense. 

I'm sure these protests will fizzle out in a couple of days/weeks and life will go back to normal soon enough.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Alco said:


> I've never protested in my life and it'll take a major injustice for me to really get out on the street for whatever (I was going to participate in a "march for peace" in Brussels after the attacks, but it got cancelled  ), but I can sort of understand where these people are coming from. Sure, they appear butthurt and not able to accept defeat, but there is a feeling (justified or not) that the candidate who got the majority of votes got snubbed. So, in essence, the "not our president" is true in that sense.


but that's just silly, changing the metric after the vote. The metric was always electoral votes same way goals are the metric in a football game. Saying the losing team then had more shots or possession is irrelevant considering that is not the relevant metric.

Both candidates, all the participants (voters, campaigners) knew beforehand what the metric was. Popular vote is just a byproduct aggregate, it does not matter.

If you want it to matter, then campaign for legislation to be passed for that. Protesting the outcome of an election, which you partook in fully knowing the relevant metric is stupid.


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Who are the deplorables, again? :aries2


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796605837389266944


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Oda Nobunaga said:


> They're burning and hanging people. :side:
> 
> What I mean is if you didn't support Clinton, they'd place the blame on you and call you all sorts of garbage, even if you didn't vote for Trump. This is just anecdotal, though, from my own experiences on social media. Plus, if I supported neither Clinton or Trump, why would I be involved in the shouting matches?


This is my experience on a California college campus. All day I heard third party voters maligned for "giving Trump the election", with people lamenting how immature and selfish people were for voting third party "in this of all elections". It seems to me that liberals are all for democracy if you're voting for their candidate. As I remarked earlier, they seem to have a very North Korean vision of the entire process. 

I don't and never would have begrudged anyone for voting Johnson, Stein, Castle, or any other third party candidate. Trump isn't entitled to anyone's vote, based on his own merits or for simply not being Hillary Clinton (whom I view as a warmongering merchant of death who would lead all of western civilization toward it's ruination through a variety of means which I've rattled on about ad nauseam for many moons already). Clinton voters, most of them from my admittedly anecdotal personal experiences, have a very different view. 

All of this, of course, is the result of the liberal media's strategy since Trump's campaign began. Smear him as a racist, sexist, misogynist, xenophobic, fascist, and whatever else sticks (and his very unfortunate and clumsy way of speaking has done him no favors in discrediting these accusations), the consequences should he win be damned. Now that those tactics have failed to deliver them the Clinton presidency they wanted, there seems to be a bit of scrambling among the liberal media. Some have taken a conciliatory tone, while others are doubling down on destroying our civilization because it's not the one they wanted. I'm really hoping more choose the former path, and it spills over to the impressionable and passionate youths who at this moment are so sure the world is on the brink of ruin because of all they have been told about Donald Trump.


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

*We actually need MORE people voting third party :draper2*


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Alco said:


> I've never protested in my life and it'll take a major injustice for me to really get out on the street for whatever (I was going to participate in a "march for peace" in Brussels after the attacks, but it got cancelled  ), but I can sort of understand where these people are coming from. Sure, they appear butthurt and not able to accept defeat, but there is a feeling (justified or not) that the candidate who got the majority of votes got snubbed. So, in essence, the "not our president" is true in that sense.
> 
> I'm sure these protests will fizzle out in a couple of days/weeks and life will go back to normal soon enough.


The protests are stupid. They are literally protesting because someone they hated won when no irregularities have been found. That's some third world banana democracy logic. They are doing exactly what Trump was threatening to do that smart people said was dangerous for American democracy. They are undermining the appeal of democracy, which was what Putin wanted when Russia interfered in this elections.

Legit reasons to protest against Trump are still there down the line with the numerous lawsuits he is involved in and how he is going to sign off his businesses off to a blind trust. Being a racist or sexist isn't one of them.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

So, The ultra Lib pope has already suggested he likes Trump.

Unity, folks.


----------



## MillionDollarProns

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*






Don't worry guys, Chris-Chan's got this.


----------



## Born of Osiris

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Sincere said:


> Who are the deplorables, again? :aries2
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796605837389266944


But yet Pro-Trump people are the ones that I should be worried about? :lmao :lmao :lmao 

Fucking immature geeks. Can't handle a different opinion so they resort to violence. And then have the audacity to fucking speak FOR ME as a minority. Get the fuck out of here.

Fuck them.


----------



## ShiningStar

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Alco said:


> I've never protested in my life and it'll take a major injustice for me to really get out on the street for whatever (I was going to participate in a "march for peace" in Brussels after the attacks, but it got cancelled  ), but I can sort of understand where these people are coming from. Sure, they appear butthurt and not able to accept defeat, but there is a feeling (justified or not) that the candidate who got the majority of votes got snubbed. So, in essence, the "not our president" is true in that sense.
> 
> I'm sure these protests will fizzle out in a couple of days/weeks and life will go back to normal soon enough.


I think this is more they worry literally that their gay friends and family members will lose their right to marry,people will harasss Latinos and Muslims and tell get to stepping wher you coming from or that the George Zimmerman's and Rudy Guiliani's of the world will now be emboldened and less about the popular vote. This wasn't just like losing in 2000this was a Reality Star who got off on being a heel running the kind of Presidential Campaign Pat Buchanan would have and winning the EV. Like when you hear about high school kids who are Latino having the opposing team at high school games having build that wall shouted at them it's pretty frightening. Maybe I live in a bubble but I do not remember things like that existing 10-20 years ago or at least thinking it only happened some small town in The South or Wyoming or something. Up until a few years ago that's the kind of things I only thought still existed in like Period movies set in the 50s and 60s.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> So, The ultra Lib pope has already suggested he likes Trump.
> 
> Unity, folks.


You took that from a obligatory congratulatory message from the Pope?


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



AryaDark said:


> *We actually need MORE people voting third party :draper2*


You need preferential voting like Aus. Here you can say 1. Stein 2. Johnson 3. Hillary 4. Trump and your vote will go to each of those candidates in that order until they're knocked out. 

Under the American system a vote for a third party is effectively wasted.


----------



## ShiningStar

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Goku said:


> but that's just silly, changing the metric after the vote. The metric was always electoral votes same way goals are the metric in a football game. Saying the losing team then had more shots or possession is irrelevant considering that is not the relevant metric.
> 
> Both candidates, all the participants (voters, campaigners) knew beforehand what the metric was. Popular vote is just a byproduct aggregate, it does not matter.
> 
> If you want it to matter, then campaign for legislation to be passed for that. Protesting the outcome of an election, which you partook in fully knowing the relevant metric is stupid.


He won and that's what the rules are that they both were playing under so no one is questioning the validity of the election, but what we have is not 1 vote 1 person. Imagine if football had the Electoral College and we said John Elway only gets 5 points after he throws a TD pass because his birth state is California and Steve Youung your TD pass is worth 7 because you are from Utah. That is ultimately what we.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Did anyone else think Trump look horrified as he walked to the podium to give his victory speech?


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



ShiningStar said:


> He won and that's what the rules are that they both were playing under so no one is questioning the validity of the election, but what we have is not 1 vote 1 person. Imagine if football had the Electoral College and we said John Elway only gets 5 points after he throws a TD pass because his birth state is California and Steve Youung your TD pass is worth 7 because you are from Utah. That is ultimately what we.


i'm sorry, i meant fitba.

i have no idea what you just said.


----------



## MillionDollarProns

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



MrMister said:


> Did anyone else think Trump look horrified as he walked to the podium to give his victory speech?


 I was more distracted by his Bruce Wayne in Gotham-ass son falling asleep during it.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



MrMister said:


> Did anyone else think Trump look horrified as he walked to the podium to give his victory speech?


In the original Trump / Hillary thread, me (on a number of occasions) and Crewz (before he was banned) pointed out that Trump wasn't in the race to win, but rather for the sake of a shit-ton of publicity.

It was only after the revelation that him having a phone call with Bill mere weeks before his campaign announcement that I connected the dots and came to the conclusion that he was in the race for both the publicity and to help Hillary win by crippling the republican party with shenanigans that are typically associated with the right, albeit cranked up to basically parodic levels.

But yet here we are. The chess piece has become the chessmaster, the puppet has become the puppeteer, the outrageous candidate who has skeletons in his closet has defeated the calculative candidate who has a fucking graveyard in hers.


----------



## ShiningStar

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Goku said:


> i'm sorry, i meant fitba.
> 
> i have no idea what you just said.


We basically have a system that says certain peoples votes matter more then others. If you live in a swing state or small state your vote counts more then someone in Mississippi or California.

That's 40% of the election this century where the person who had more people vote for them loses the election. If John Kerry literally flipped 2% of voters in Ohio he would have won the Presidency in 2004 and 60% of our elections would have gone to someone who got the 2nd most amount of votes in the election.

Imagine adapting this electoral college system everywhere else. Seth Rollins,Roman Reigns and Dean Ambrose because they live in swing state Iowa,Florida and Ohio only have to get a 2.5 count to win a wrestling match. And John Cena and Mark Henry have to get a 3.5 count.


----------



## Punkhead

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

About these protesters, imagine if Trump had lost and it was his supporters doing that. The media would be quick to demonize them, namecalling. Now, watching CNN, didn't hear anything bad said about those hooligans.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Also inb4 Trump and Obama become buds.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@DesolationRow @Reaper @Sincere @L-DOPA @Pratchett @AryaDark @Fringe @Beatles123 @Goku @MrMister

Absolutely essential wrap-up discussion about this election with an eye looking forward to the fallout by Stefan Molyneux and his co-host. You won't understand what just happened over the last year and a half and who the important players truly were if you don't listen to this conversation:


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/796447927728295936

*TRUMP ALREADY MAKING THE ECONOMY GREAT!!! BAH GOD ALMIGHTY!* 

:trump :trump :trump :trump :trump :trump :trump :trump :trump :trump :trump :trump :trump :trump :trump


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



ShiningStar said:


> We basically have a system that says certain peoples votes matter more then others. If you live in a swing state or small state your vote counts more then someone in Mississippi or California.
> 
> That's 40% of the election this century where the person who had more people vote for them loses the election. If John Kerry literally flipped 2% of voters in Ohio he would have won the Presidency in 2004 and 60% of our elections would have gone to someone who got the 2nd most amount of votes in the election.
> 
> Imagine adapting this electoral college system everywhere else. Seth Rollins,Roman Reigns and Dean Ambrose because they live in swing state Iowa,Florida and Ohio only have to get a 2.5 count to win a wrestling match. And John Cena and Mark Henry have to get a 3.5 count.


I don't know enough about the system to say whether it's beneficial or hindering. My point is that the electoral college is not a new system brought out for this race. This has been the rules of the game for a very long time. If your problem is with the system, then it was always with the system. The result of this election has nothing to do with it.

If the people want it changed, there are surely measures for that. Donald Trump won in the relevant metric b/c that was what his aim was. No telling how he would have positioned himself if the aim was to win the popular vote.



CamillePunk said:


> @DesolationRow @Reaper @Sincere @L-DOPA @Pratchett @AryaDark @Fringe @Beatles123 @Goku @MrMister
> 
> Absolutely essential wrap-up discussion about this election with an eye looking forward to the fallout by Stefan Molyneux and his co-host. You won't understand what just happened over the last year and a half and who the important players truly were if you don't listen to this conversation:


sorry, too busy watching the young turks


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*











BRUTAL! :lol


----------



## Alco

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Goku said:


> but that's just silly, changing the metric after the vote. The metric was always electoral votes same way goals are the metric in a football game. Saying the losing team then had more shots or possession is irrelevant considering that is not the relevant metric.
> 
> Both candidates, all the participants (voters, campaigners) knew beforehand what the metric was. Popular vote is just a byproduct aggregate, it does not matter.
> 
> If you want it to matter, then campaign for legislation to be passed for that. Protesting the outcome of an election, which you partook in fully knowing the relevant metric is stupid.


Oh yeah I totally agree with you. Just saying that I can see where these protests are coming from.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Goku said:


> I don't know enough about the system to say whether it's beneficial or hindering. My point is that the electoral college is not a new system brought out for this race. This has been the rules of the game for a very long time. If your problem is with the system, then it was always with the system. The result of this election has nothing to do with it.
> 
> If the people want it changed, there are surely measures for that. Donald Trump won in the relevant metric b/c that was what his aim was. No telling how he would have positioned himself if the aim was to win the popular vote.
> 
> 
> 
> sorry, too busy watching the young turks


The electoral college was set up to basically give all states some voice and its people some say in the election process. People love to throw the word "disenfranchised" around quite a bit...if you go to the popular vote then the candidates will stay in the larger cities only and won't pay one bit of attention to rural communities (which were big in getting Trump elected). For example, where I live Iowa was in play and was considered important enough that both the Clinton and Trump camps canvassed here the last few weeks and people got the chance to see and talk to them. Popular votes mean they stay in Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, etc...there's no incentive to go into the small towns where people were feeling the pinch.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I'm sure most in here hate Colbert, but I think this is him being a pretty good loser. The point about drinking the poison is pretty damn poignant. Apologies if already posted.


----------



## InexorableJourney

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

HELLO...


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## amhlilhaus

As for Trump, as a business man, his goal first and foremost is to make money. If you take someone like Hillary though, her goal is first and foremost to uphold the law. Hillary basically took an oath that the Donald has not. I think that's the major difference.[/QUOTE]

Hillary upholds the law?

We know people are upset, lord knows wed be upset if she won but....

We wouldnt be here saying trump was a paragon of virtue.

Hillary upholds the law? The reason she LOST is because shes so criminal. Not her gender, not her political affiliatiin, her behavior.

Upholds the law?


----------



## amhlilhaus

yeahbaby! said:


> I'm sure most in here hate Colbert, but I think this is him being a pretty good loser. The point about drinking the poison is pretty damn poignant. Apologies if already posted.


Didnt listen, dont need to.

Lies he says constantly is one, of many reasons college kids are so upset they demanded days off of school.

Ridiculous


----------



## amhlilhaus

BruiserKC said:


> Goku said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know enough about the system to say whether it's beneficial or hindering. My point is that the electoral college is not a new system brought out for this race. This has been the rules of the game for a very long time. If your problem is with the system, then it was always with the system. The result of this election has nothing to do with it.
> 
> If the people want it changed, there are surely measures for that. Donald Trump won in the relevant metric b/c that was what his aim was. No telling how he would have positioned himself if the aim was to win the popular vote.
> 
> 
> 
> sorry, too busy watching the young turks
> 
> 
> 
> The electoral college was set up to basically give all states some voice and its people some say in the election process. People love to throw the word "disenfranchised" around quite a bit...if you go to the popular vote then the candidates will stay in the larger cities only and won't pay one bit of attention to rural communities (which were big in getting Trump elected). For example, where I live Iowa was in play and was considered important enough that both the Clinton and Trump camps canvassed here the last few weeks and people got the chance to see and talk to them. Popular votes mean they stay in Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, etc...there's no incentive to go into the small towns where people were feeling the pinch.
Click to expand...

With a president trump, the electoral college will be safe, for another generation at least. Getting rid of it, so the cities could control everything is basically what started the civil war.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I figured, seeing as how I was one of the most vocal anti-Trump voices here (although it came from the fact I'm more right-wing then many of those critics here plus even further to the right then our President-elect himself) that I come clean at this point. 

I was wrong...I didn't think he had a chance to get elected. He said and did shit that would have killed any other campaign and sent any other candidate running for cover. He tapped into the anger that many people in this country have felt over the direction of our country over the past eight years. The economy is still not the best and when it comes to foreign policy our taking a back seat in issues has not exactly worked out in our favor. He said and did all the right things that the people wanted to hear and see him do...it paid off. This was a huge election, one that will shape the direction of this country for at least the next generation. And the people spoke. 

There are many people nationwide today who are scrambling to kiss the ring and trying to act like nothing happened. They are acting like they were for him all along and that they wanted him to be elected. I'm not going to say that, and I'm not taking back my criticisms of the man. My criticisms are legitimate concerns as I still have questions on where he intends to take the United States. I want to see a leader who adheres to the Constitution and not rule exclusively by executive order. While I don't need to see the US get involved everywhere, we do need to play a role on the world stage from a position of strength as that benefits our security and the world in general if done right. There are a shitload of things, domestically and internationally, that President Trump will have to deal with when he takes the oath. So...my criticisms stay the same. Plus, at this point, for me to apologize and act like I was for him all along would be disingenuous at best. I don't blow smoke up anyone's ass, I won't piss down someone's leg and tell them it's raining. 

But...I understand the will of the people and that this is what they want (with the exception of obnoxious shitheads who are taking to the streets and protesting the result plus walking out of classes because their will not be done). I am willing to give him a chance and try my best to keep an open mind to see what he does. For now, I will give him the benefit of the doubt and the chance to get things done.

Now...I will warn you all ahead of time...I can tell you right meow that I will not completely give Trump a rubber stamp for everything to get done. I will give him credit when he does the right thing, but I will make sure to let you know that if he does something I'm not in favor of or what I feel is not in our best interests. There are those who will cheer everything Trump does, those people are every bit as annoying and stupid as those who cheered everything Obama did. If I don't agree, I'm going to make my voice heard. Again, I want to make clear that I'm a patriot, not a nationalist. Under no circumstances will I blindly go along with EVERYTHING that my leaders say or do. That will NEVER happen. I hope all of you that pounded the pavement for Trump to do the same. After all, I said earlier in this campaign...the real work starts November 9 and it's not just about talking about making America great again and then sitting back. Now you need to stay involved and politically active. 

That being said, I defer and will give Trump the chance to start working on things and see what happens.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

^Goes without saying. 

If Trump starts acting like every other candidate I despise, I will probably be one of the first people to turn on him. 

This was an election about change and heading in a different direction. The outcome of that direction is an unknown, but the goals are in place. 

Deviation from that will get criticism from both sides and I'm pretty sure a lot of people in here that have supported him through this election are going to do the same. I don't think that everyone that supported him will just sit idly by and stop keeping an eye on his actual policies. 

The next 2 years will be very interesting.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I would hold the Trump voters to that. If he starts to fuck up and/or his policies don't exactly align with what he campaigned with, I'd hope to expect some dissent, disappointment, and criticism. :mj


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



> *Californians are calling for a 'Calexit' from the US — here's how a secession could work*
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.businessinsider.com/calexit-explainer-california-plans-to-secede-2016-11
> 
> 
> 
> A fringe political group in California wants to opt out of a Donald Trump presidency by leaving the union.
> The Yes California Independence Campaign aims to put a referendum on a 2018 ballot that, if passed, would make California an independent country.
> Far-fetched as it may sound, the plan started gathering steam after Tuesday night's surprising vote. The movement has an impressive backer in Shervin Pishevar, a well-known angel investor who offered to bankroll the campaign.
> "As the sixth largest economy in the world, California is more economically powerful than France and has a population larger than Poland. Point by point, California compares and competes with countries, not just the 49 other states," Yes California wrote in a statement.
> Louis Marinelli, an outspoken political activist and president of Yes California, envisions California as a sovereign entity within the US, much like Scotland in the United Kingdom.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no clear path for how California might appeal to the federal government so that it may leave. The US Constitution lays out procedures for how a new state may enter the union, but there are no pre-existing protocols for a nation to exit.
> Marinelli, however, sees a workaround.
> The process most likely with a ballot measure passed by California voters.
> In 2015, Marinelli  paid $200 each to get nine initiatives related to secession on a statewide ballot, according to The Los Angeles Times. None garnered the nearly 400,000 signatures necessary to appear on the ballot. So Marinelli and his followers are forced to start over.
> Yes California now aims to gather enough signatures to put a referendum on the 2018 ballot, when Californians will choose their next governor.
> 
> 
> 
> Should a clear majority declare their support for a Brexit-style departure, the group may follow down one of two paths. Both lean on a significant case argued before the US Supreme Court in 1869 — Texas v. White — which  touched on a state's ability to seceded.
> 
> 
> 
> Here's option 1, as  described in a statement from Yes California:
> "*A member of the California federal delegation to Washington would propose an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution allowing the State of California to withdraw from the Union.* The Amendment would have to be approved by 2/3 of the House of Representatives and 2/3 of the Senate. If the Amendment passed it would be sent to the fifty state legislatures to be considered (to satisfy the "consent of the states" requirement in _Texas v. White_). It would need to be accepted by at least 38 of the 50 state legislatures to be adopted.
> Alternatively:
> "*California could call for a convention of the states* (which is currently being organized to tackle other constitutional amendments as we speak) *and the Amendment granting California its independence would have to be approved by 2/3 of the delegates to this convention.* If it passed, the Amendment would be sent to the fifty state legislatures to be considered and 38 of the 50 states would have to approve the measure in order for it to be adopted."
> No state has ever seceded from the union, despite  Texas' best efforts earlier this year.
> 
> "The legality of seceding is problematic,' Eric McDaniel, associate professor of government at the University of Texas at Austin,  told the Texas Tribune in June, at the height of Brexit hysteria. "The Civil War played a very big role in establishing the power of the federal government and cementing that the federal government has the final say in these issues."
> Marinelli acknowledges the road ahead is long.
> "What's going on in the US politically and culturally is so different from what's happening here," Marinelli  told the LA Times in 2015. "I want California to be all it can, and our group feels the political and cultural connection to the US is holding us back from our potential."


 @CamillePunk; @DesolationRow 

:kobelol 

Weren't Californians first in line in mocking Texans for wanting to secede after Obama became president?


----------



## Genking48

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Fucking riots man, need the rooftop Koreans to return!


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Over the last 24 hours i decided to see what all the fuss is is about regarding CNN and the biased left supporting views it offers. I have never watched CNN in my life up until yesterday

Some of the things i have heard on CNN include

Whitelash, Whitelash, Whitelash.(Some ridiculously racist black analyst) 

President Obama showed what a fantastic guy he is by rising above the hate and insisting a peaceful transition of power must take place despite the disgusting things Trump has said about him. (Because Obama has said nothing bad at all about Trump in the last few months has he)

The protesters have every rite to be angry (After effigies Of Trumps head and American flags were being burned)

White Supremacy has won and is on the rise again in the USA :lmao

Already big problems for Trump as he is struggling to fill positions in his cabinet. He has been turned down by many of the people he has approached. :lmao

White racists have won this election for Trump

:lmao :lmao :lmao

These fuckers actually make Sean Hannity and Fox news look fair and balanced


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Rowdy Yates said:


> Over the last 24 hours i decided to see what all the fuss is is about regarding CNN and the biased left supporting views it offers. I have never watched CNN in my life up until yesterday
> 
> Some of the things i have heard on CNN include
> 
> Whitelash, Whitelash, Whitelash.(Some ridiculously racist black analyst)
> 
> President Obama showed what a fantastic guy he is by rising above the hate and insisting a peaceful transition of power must take place despite the disgusting things Trump has said about him. (Because Obama has said nothing bad at all about Trump in the last few months has he)
> 
> The protesters have every rite to be angry (After effigies Of Trumps head and American flags were being burned)
> 
> White Supremacy has won and is on the rise again in the USA :lmao
> 
> Already big problems for Trump as he is struggling to fill positions in his cabinet. He has been turned down by many of the people he has approached. :lmao
> 
> White racists have won this election for Trump
> 
> :lmao :lmao :lmao
> 
> These fuckers actually make Sean Hannity and Fox news look fair and balanced


late night satires and talk shows should be your next stop.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*






More bullshit from The Young Turks. Fucking Democratic/Hillary shills.

#FuckTYT


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> @CamillePunk; @DesolationRow
> 
> :kobelol
> 
> Weren't Californians first in line in mocking Texans for wanting to secede after Obama became president?


Let the fuckers go then. California is such a bizarro world compared to the rest of the country. Though, where are they going to get their power from since they are buying it from Arizona


----------



## Genking48

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Ha, fucking Ethan, huge public figure.


----------



## TripleG

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Oh wow, has anyone seen this? 






Oh...man...oops.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



> *How Donald Trump Filled the Dignity Deficit*
> 
> *Over the past half century, the percentage of working-age men outside the workforce doubled.*
> 
> By Arthur C. Brooks
> 
> Updated Nov. 9, 2016 6:34 p.m. ET  257 COMMENTS
> 
> Tuesday’s election results stunned pollsters and pundits. But to observers who have been watching deeper trends across America, the outcome was hardly incomprehensible. It didn’t register in every survey, but an acute crisis has been rolling through working-class America. Neither the conventional left nor the conventional right has fully grasped it.
> 
> For decades, progressives have emphasized the “income gap” separating rich and poor. Their cries have only grown louder since the financial crisis. They contended that income inequality would ignite a new class struggle, causing unprecedented political turmoil.
> 
> This was half right. There is indeed a gap in this country, and it has now led to a political revolution, a significant realignment in American politics. But the relevant gap wasn’t income. It was dignity.
> Too many Americans have lost pride in themselves. We sense dignity by creating value with our lives, through families, communities, and especially work. That is why American leaders so frequently talk about dignity in the context of labor. As Martin Luther King Jr. taught, “All labor that uplifts humanity has dignity and importance and should be undertaken with painstaking excellence.” Conversely, nothing destroys dignity more than idleness and a sense of superfluousness—the feeling that one is simply not needed.
> 
> That is the circumstance in which millions of Americans find themselves today. Best-selling books over the past few years such as Charles Murray’s “Coming Apart” and J.D. Vance’s “Hillbilly Elegy” tell the story. The U.S. is bifurcating into a nation of economic winners and losers, and this distinction is seeping into American culture. The dignity gap grows every time those who lose out start hearing, “We don’t need you anymore.”
> 
> Who falls on the wrong side of this dignity gap? These days it is working-class men. In his new book “Men Without Work,” my colleague Nick Eberstadt shows that between 1965 and 2015 the percentage of working-aged men outside the workforce increased to 22% from 10%. Many millions more are underemployed. The employment-to-population ratio for men aged 25-54 is 6.8% lower today than it was in 1930, in the teeth of the Great Depression.
> 
> These secular trends were amplified by the nonrecovery that most Americans experienced after the Great Recession. Only about the top fifth of the economy saw positive income growth for most of the Obama presidency, Census Bureau data show, while most others averaged no growth at all. This stagnation has decimated middle-aged men without a college education, especially in rural areas.
> 
> Men without work are much less likely than working men to be married with families, Mr. Eberstadt also shows, further compounding the problem. Does modern society tell many working-class men they are needed and valued as husbands and fathers? This question answers itself.
> 
> Life without dignity can produce shocking results. In a 2015 paper, Princeton economists Anne Case and Angus Deaton showed that the mortality rates of middle-aged American whites have actually increased since 1999. They are the only demographic group for whom this is true. The main reasons? Cirrhosis of the liver (up 50% since 1999 among this group), suicide (up 78%), and poisonings due to drugs and alcohol (up 323%). These trends are mostly driven by those with less education.
> 
> Many of these Americans didn’t bother voting in the past. Others threw their lot in with President Obama or his traditional opponents. But they were ready for an outsider who promised to blow up the old ways of doing business. When he appeared, they didn’t hesitate to embrace him.
> 
> Many people from all walks of life voted for Donald Trump, but the demographic core of his support matches the vulnerable group that Mr. Eberstadt, Ms. Case, and Mr. Deaton identify. Exit polls show Mr. Trump expanded significantly on Mitt Romney’s advantage with white men, without forsaking the limited support that Mr. Romney received from African-American and Hispanic men. These new voters were key to flipping the 230-plus counties that went blue in 2012 but landed in Mr. Trump’s column on Tuesday.
> 
> What precisely did Mr. Trump offer these voters? Snake oil, say critics. Most economists predicted that policies built on Mr. Trump’s anti-immigration and antitrade rhetoric would hardly help unemployed, working-class people in places like Kentucky and West Virginia. But where these experts heard incoherent specifics, many voters heard a consistent deeper theme: A promise to work hard at restoring left-behind Americans’ dignity by bringing back jobs and striking back at the cultural elites who disdain them.
> 
> This story is not merely crucial for understanding this extraordinary election. It is also the lodestar for cultural renewal and better politics, no matter one’s place on the ideological spectrum. Leaders on both sides will likely take issue with some parts of Mr. Trump’s agenda. But all must contend with the central reality he has unearthed—the hunger for dignity in communities where it is most absent.
> _Mr. Brooks is the president of the American Enterprise Institute._


http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-donald-trump-filled-the-dignity-deficit-1478734436

I hope this energizes the young male population to not just sit and expect the government/Trump to bring jobs back, but work just a little bit harder and take personal responsibility for helping their chosen candidate as well :shrug


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



TripleG said:


> Oh wow, has anyone seen this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...man...oops.


He brought it up on his latest show himself which is why that channel uploaded it. Even admitted he was wrong about the Cubs in the same bit.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*










President Donald Trump will support & protect the gay community!

*Re: Racist Nation*

Yeah, because two blue states that went red are suddenly racist! Give me a fucking break! :lol



> Oh wow, has anyone seen this?


He then became so obsessed with Trump, he made a 20 minute video bashing him. I'm so glad him and his liberal masters got humbled on Tuesday night.



> Did anyone else think Trump look horrified as he walked to the podium to give his victory speech?


Deep down inside, he probably didn't think he was going to win. Seriously, he had like EVERYBODY against him.

- Vic


----------



## Natecore

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



MrMister said:


> Also inb4 Trump and Obama become buds.


I hope not. Establishment politics needs some real hatred between Presidents. We need a rivalry, damnit.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Natecore said:


> I hope not. Establishment politics needs some real hatred between Presidents. We need a rivalry, damnit.


Obama should start a movement to badger Trump to release his tax returns. Then badger him to disclose all his foreign business ties. And continue do cast doubt on anything Trump release. Just need the same catchy name like the birther movement.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

*Here's some hypocrisy of Trump supporters that has yet to be pointed out: Why is it that they can declare BLM AS A WHOLE to be a terrorist group based on the destructive acts of a minority that doesn't represent the foundation of the movement that's based on peaceful protest, yet we're somehow wrong for generalizing them as a group of racist hate mongerers when he was endorsed by the Klan and they're out here marching in celebration of his election, threatening minorities, and telling them to leave the country? You can't have it both ways. If we see Trump supporters being racist scumbags, then according to your own logic, that represents his entire constituency.*


----------



## dashing_man

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*










:lmao :lol

that COP dude though :mj


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Wrong thread


----------



## Chloe

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Legit BOSS said:


> *Here's some hypocrisy of Trump supporters that has yet to be pointed out: Why is it that they can declare BLM AS A WHOLE to be a terrorist group based on the destructive acts of a minority that doesn't represent the foundation of the movement that's based on peaceful protest, yet we're somehow wrong for generalizing them as a group of racist hate mongerers when he was endorsed by the Klan and they're out here marching in celebration of his election, threatening minorities, and telling them to leave the country? You can't have it both ways. If we see Trump supporters being racist scumbags, then according to your own logic, that represents his entire constituency.*


That just means the Klan are just as good at taking things out of context and believing everything they as Trump haters like yourself. Oh wait, there's no evidence that the Klan are actually marching and you're just coming up with exaggerations and ducktales for argument's sake, well it wouldn't be the first time. Eat your L in silence boy, this ain't AGL.


----------



## The Hardcore Show

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

*I guess at this point only people who support Trump should be allowed to live in the US. If your life is hurt in anyway by the things he will do the only answer is to die because most of his supporters will think they will deserve it in the first place. Maybe they can be the ones to pull the trigger. *


----------



## Warlock

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I would like to have seen a 3rd party reach the 5%, but wasn't to be.



Alkomesh2 said:


>


Even more proof this was more about people not showing up for Hillary than it was about trump getting a sudden surge of voters. Looks like the republican party has been fairly consistent over the last three elections(with this election being the lowest turnout over that period). It wasn't about racism, sexism, homophobia, etc(or at least not moreso than the previous elections) that drove more people to vote for trump in a newly termed 'whitelash', but the lack of support that Hillary got. 

Kudos to seth for his post election monologue. Didn't exactly know these would turn out, but at least starting on the right foot.

Its so funny to see so many people do 180s on their position on various things after the election flipped from the expected result. It makes their original comments sound so condescending.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Legit BOSS said:


> *Here's some hypocrisy of Trump supporters that has yet to be pointed out: Why is it that they can declare BLM AS A WHOLE to be a terrorist group based on the destructive acts of a minority that doesn't represent the foundation of the movement that's based on peaceful protest, yet we're somehow wrong for generalizing them as a group of racist hate mongerers when he was endorsed by the Klan and they're out here marching in celebration of his election, threatening minorities, and telling them to leave the country? You can't have it both ways. If we see Trump supporters being racist scumbags, then according to your own logic, that represents his entire constituency.*


Not only did the BLM movement get founded on false narratives and flat out lies, its inspiration was Assata Shakur. This is a woman who is on the top 10 America's most wanted list as a terrorist after escaping prison when she was convicted of killing police officers. And you want people to blindly support them? Typically, people who create groups that idolize terrorists , who incite violence and cause riots aren't exactly considered a "peaceful group". Also, remember this most race riots happen in democratic run states, you know the political party thats meant to be "for" African Americans?

Here's why you're the perfect person to blindly believe anything they're fed to them as long as they're from the Liberal media. Donald Trump rejected the KKK several times but because the KKK support him that makes him a white supremacist ? How does that make sense? On top of that, you're trying to paint Donald Trump as some white supremacist all while ignoring Hilary Clinton(and her many racist remarks about blacks) has actual ties to the KKK . Her mentor Robert Byrd who created his own charter and recruiting over 100 people to join him. Not only that but she looks up to Margaret Sanger, a woman who spoke at KKK rallies and a woman who looks at black people like they're weeds who need to be exterminated. 

You're also ignoring that more blacks,and more Latino's voted for Trump in this election, than they did for Mitt Romney in 2012 and he was another candidate that was labelled a bigot. Isn't it strange to you that if you're a Republican, you immediately get labelled racist? Especially coming from a political party that was created by the KKK(the democratic party was)


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Flay said:


> There's no evidence that the Klan are actually marching.



*You mean besides their own website?

http://www.kkkknights.com










This is why I don't take you seriously. Feel free to continue shouting nonsense while doing no research. Someone else might actually take your weak bait :cena*


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Turns out Samantha Bee did have a show last night. Spoiler alert: she blamed white people. Here's her monologue:


----------



## The Hardcore Show

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The Absolute said:


> Turns out Samantha Bee did have a show last night. Spoiler alert: she blamed white people. Here's her monologue:


She should be kicked out of this country along with anyone else who did not support Trump at this point. There is sadly no room for them anymore, over the wall they go. At this point only Trump supporters and voters are citizens of the US. Hate to say it but it's true.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Legit BOSS said:


> *Here's some hypocrisy of Trump supporters that has yet to be pointed out: Why is it that they can declare BLM AS A WHOLE to be a terrorist group based on the destructive acts of a minority that doesn't represent the foundation of the movement that's based on peaceful protest, yet we're somehow wrong for generalizing them as a group of racist hate mongerers when he was endorsed by the Klan and they're out here marching in celebration of his election, threatening minorities, and telling them to leave the country? You can't have it both ways. If we see Trump supporters being racist scumbags, then according to your own logic, that represents his entire constituency.*


I know this is a sensitive topic but I'll try and give as honest of an answer as I can give. I'm not a Trump supporter at all but there is a bit of a difference between the two here. For one, the KKK and confederates have always supported the Republican party because think about it, are they gonna support the democrats who have for decades positioned themselves as the most socially liberal party out of the two? With the Republicans, there is still a sense of social conservatism within the party which plays more into the world view of these social groups. Of course, due to Trump's immigration policy they have backed him more openly but there has been no doubt an overreaction to Trump in terms of him being "racist, bigoted, sexist" etc. when that wasn't his entire platform. Even pro-BLM supporters like Secular Talk recognize this as Trump's message of being against the corporate trade deals, bringing back jobs from overseas and changing the establishment in Washington have been just as big if not in some cases a bigger message than the immigration policies in regards to Muslims and Mexicans. Just look for example at Trump's final argument ad, the vast majority of it is what I am talking about:






I think the biggest difference between Trump supporters and Black Lives Matter essentially comes from the top and the influence. Trump has many immigration policies, a lot which is too extreme for me personally which has to a lot of people come across as racist and bigoted even if I were to personally argue that his policies in those regards aren't necessarily racist but that Trump more often than not isn't careful enough about the way he comes across and therefore many people see it as inciting hatred. That has unfortunately given Trump the support of some horrible white nationalist groups. But that isn't all of Trump's policies and his entire campaign isn't stirred by his extreme immigration promises, a lot of it is right wing populism and a very protectionist backlash against globalism. With the leadership and structure of BLM however it is different.

Now, I'm not saying that the Black Lives Matter group is only comprised of domestic terrorists and race baiters because many of them are peaceful protesters and are speaking up about issues which deserve to be talked about, but if you look at the structure of the BLM it's own ideological base is centered around Assata Shakur, who is a convicted cop killer and is on the FBI's most wanted list. She is the cultural and ideological inspiration behind the founding of the Black Lives Matter group and it's leaders look up to her as their guiding light.

The co-founder of BLM Alicia Garza wrote the following about her: 



> “When I use Assata’s powerful demand in my organizing work, I always begin by sharing where it comes from, sharing about Assata’s significance to the Black Liberation Movement, what its political purpose and message is, and why it’s important in our context."


http://www.thefeministwire.com/2014/10/blacklivesmatter-2/

Shakur was one of the founders of the Black Liberation Army who were movement born out of the Black Panther movement that carried out a series of bombings, murders, robberies and prison breaks. She joined the Black Liberation Army because the Black Panther's "weren't violent enough". That is who the BLM's founders cite as the ideological guru behind the movement, a convicted cop killer who carried out a series of domestic terrorist attacks. The BLM itself may have largely peaceful protesters but it's most extreme element happen to come from the very top of it's hierarchy. This isn't a few offshoot nutjobs, these are people who know what they are doing and know what they want to commit and carry out.

It is not coincidence that at many of BLM's rallies there are calls to kill all cops and the infamous "Pigs in a Blanket, Fry em' like Bacon!" because that is the type of beliefs both the founders of BLM and it's main inspiration also believe. When you take that into consideration, it is little wonder why the events of Dallas for example occured. You have a large peaceful element of the BLM who are being led by a very hateful and violent leadership AT LEAST in terms of what they project and how they have influenced these violent riots and killings among members of their group.

I really do not sit on either side of the fence fully when it comes to the policing problem with African Americans, I happen to believe police brutality is a huge problem but it also happens to not only white people but a large group of hispanics too. Yet I never really see BLM condemn it, they only focus on the killings by cops on African Americans which is heavily covered by the media (who are just as much to blame for the racial tensions as anyone). African Americans certainly have a lot to be angry about and deserve vindication for the history of what you have been through as well as recent events. Not only that but in terms of the troubled neighborhoods, the poverty and crime in which the conditions of the inner cities and the left behind counties have really had a negative impact on the African American community and people as a whole.

I just do not believe the Black Lives Matter group is the answer.


----------



## TripleG

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Yes, those blue collar white voters that voted for Obama last time have magically become racist. 

Yes, that's EXACTLY what happened.


----------



## Chloe

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Legit BOSS said:


> *You mean besides their own website?
> 
> http://www.kkkknights.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why I don't take you seriously. Feel free to continue shouting nonsense while doing no research. Someone else might actually take your weak bait :cena*


'Research' :mj4

And that poster advertises for a march taking place for the 3rd of December, which hasn't happened yet in case you were wondering. So no, they aren't 'out here marching' like you said. You just made it seem like they were for your argument which has no credibility. Congratulations, you played yourself. In regards to the actual march, I just said the KKK obviously have taken Trump out of context and have taken gulps and gulps of the mainstream media's excrement that they've pushed out of their ass ever so hard just as you have. You have been indoctrinated to think the way you think and if you weren't such a deplorable then I might feel some regret.

But once again you come with the typical BBR post of ignore the rebuttal, use smileys and gifs because you have too much trouble with using actual words to make your point and think you've won a debate. The real world doesn't work like that little man. If people want to read something of substance, they read novels, not picture books like kids do, kiddo. You 30 years old having the mentality of a 3 year old, the fuck you doin?

:duck


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Brexit. Trump Winning The Election.

The biggest "fuck you" KO combo ever sent to the establishment (globalism, government, media, politicians, lobbyists) in the modern era of politics. Holy fuck.

The Democrats and the media deserve this loss. They have earned it greatly.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@L-DOPA 
*Thanks for the well thought out response. I'll explain why I agree with the first half and disagree with the second half when I get home. It would take an hour on the phone.*


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-russia-trump-idUSKBN1351RJ

So Russia has leaked out to say they had contacts with Trump campaign during the election after he won. But to be fair there are claims that Russia reached out to both campaigns. This can't be a coincidence so soon after Trump's victory to sow even more discord.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

^^^^Believing mainstream media at this point after greatly botching this entire election.

Yeah, I'll call bull on that one.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Left media now spinning "foreigner", "father was communist" narrative "who wore WHITE" on Melania Trump meanwhile democrat women calling her all sorts of things because she suffers from internalized mysoginy and has a rapist for a husband and looks the other way .... But of course, they're more credible and virtuous than Fox News and extreme right-wingers ... 

:kobelol


----------



## Larry Davis

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



WINNING DA BASED GAWD said:


> Brexit. Trump Winning The Election.
> 
> The biggest "fuck you" KO combo ever sent to the establishment (globalism, government, media, politicians, lobbyists) in the modern era of politics. Holy fuck.
> 
> The Democrats and the media deserve this loss. They have earned it greatly.


You're right, every decision should be made out of anger and as a thoughtless anti-establishment gesture.


----------



## samizayn

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The Ultimate Warrior said:


> Why would he be banned? Is he a criminal? A fugitive?
> 
> I don't care what celebrities say however when they're wheeled out and lecture on who you should vote for, like they know better than the real people, I find that to be condescending. I'm sure Lady Gaga and the Avengers cast will really feel the pinch of a Trump presidency unk2


He's muslim lol

I see that. I was thinking when you said you're disappointed in whoever it was, that it was coming from a place of fandom


----------



## Omega_VIK

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Rodzilla nWo4lyfe said:


> I can't believe no one posted Ja Rule's thoughts on this.
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796292264649756677


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Larry Davis said:


> You're right, every decision should be made out of anger and as a thoughtless anti-establishment gesture.


Woosh.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



> Brexit. Trump Winning The Election.


And the Cubs won the World Series. What a year 2016 has been!

- Vic


----------



## samizayn

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



TripleG said:


> Yes, those blue collar white voters that voted for Obama last time have magically become racist.
> 
> Yes, that's EXACTLY what happened.


Most of them have probably been called as much by kids my age tbh. The regressive left got a lot bigger and a lot more out of control since Obama's second run, which didn't necessarily cause a rise in the number of actual racists, but IMO certainly did cause a rise in the number of people that have been accused of that on a whim.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



samizayn said:


> He's muslim lol
> 
> I see that. I was thinking when you said you're disappointed in whoever it was, that it was coming from a place of fandom


Trump has gone back on his Muslim ban stance and changed it to a relatively more palatable anti-refugee (which would probably not hold up in the supreme court and cannot be implement on a state level without extreme opposition) and extreme vetting during immigration proceedings stance. Extreme vetting is something I myself support because as it stands the American immigration system could do with a little tweaking. 

TBH, I think Muslims should have given him the benefit on the doubt on his anti-war promise (which I admit could turn out to be false) but optimism should suggest that a person who's promising to be anti-war is still a much better candidate than someone who's been implicated in forcing bloody regime changes and is already a part of the military industry complex.


----------



## Death Rider

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

This stupid white people blame needs to stop. Fuck off. People have every right to vote who they want and calling everyone who disagrees a fucking racist is part of the reason Trump got in so carry on stereotyping everyone who disagrees without listening to a fucking word anyone says. 




Carte Blanche said:


> T*rump has gone back on his Muslim ban stance and changed it to a relatively more palatable anti-refugee* (which would probably not hold up in the supreme court and cannot be implement on a state level without extreme opposition) and extreme vetting during immigration proceedings stance. Extreme vetting is something I myself support because as it stands the American immigration system could do with a little tweaking.
> 
> TBH, I think Muslims should have given him the benefit on the doubt on his anti-war promise (which I admit could turn out to be false) but optimism should suggest that a person who's promising to be anti-war is still a much better candidate than someone who's been implicated in forcing bloody regime changes and is already a part of the military industry complex.


This I did not know and was one of main problem with him. This seems like a much more fair and reasoned response. Curious to know when he said it cause the media did not seem to mention it over here for sure.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Roy Mustang said:


> This I did not know and was one of main problem with him. This seems like a much more fair and reasoned response. Curious to know when he said it cause the media did not seem to mention it over here for sure.


He took it back a while ago (the muslim ban one). The MSM intentionally kept harping on it, practically lying about it throughout the cycle though. Especially in the UK, Canada and all over the muslim world. They never clued into the fact that he had changed his policy probably intentionally to influence the local multicultural vote; which is another reason why I'm anti-globalism as immigrants and foreign born citizens continue to consume foreign media and widely remain ignorant of the local political landscape. 

Also why it never came up during the debates because they were aware that he had changed it, but made it seem like he didn't. 

He also updated his anti-refugee stance to "decreasing the amount we're taking in". 

Finally, the only thing he's been firm on is his deportation of current illegals in America. However, short of a holocaust there is no way he can do that (there are about a million illegals at least) so I'm expecting there to be some uptake in deportations, BUT by and large there would be some sort of compromise made in the end and most of them will continue to stay. 

The one thing I will firmly hold him to is shoring up the border towns with increased law and order and improved border security as well as reducing the flow of muslims into the country. That's about it.


----------



## Death Rider

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I think increasing border security will help but from the show adam ruins everything it is more tricky then that. I need to find the episode to get the figure but the main issue illegal immigrants wise is people who came in legally but their VISAS are up. Also the immigration courts have got not enough judges to handle the work flow as well as other issues. I do like the fact he has climbed down on his stance which shows he can comprise and come up with better solutions.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Roy Mustang said:


> I think increasing border security will help but from the show adam ruins everything it is more tricky then that. I need to find the episode to get the figure but the main issue illegal immigrants wise is people who came in legally but their VISAS are up. Also the immigration courts have got not enough judges to handle the work flow as well as other issues. I do like the fact he has climbed down on his stance which shows he can comprise and come up with better solutions.


It's not impossible though. Those people are easier to find than those who hop the fence. They're already in the system and many of them continue to have legit addresses. They're not as hard to deport either. The choice should be simple, find a legit job, get the paperwork done or get out imo. What Hillary was doing wrong was making it seem like she's going to let them all stay (which wasn't the actual Democrat policy anyways). 

The deportations have always been happening. Obama's administration actually deported more people than Bush did (IIRC - but I could be wrong). The thing that would satisfy me as a Trump supporter is a relative increase in that number if not dragged down to a complete 0. 

As for border security, the border towns have been begging for it for decades, but they're grossly overlooked. Most of those border towns are actually populated by legals but they've been ignored until now which is why a lot of legal immigrants that live on those towns or have lived in those towns and conditions were finally pushed to vote Trump ... Pretty much the same way Trump was able to turn some of the black vote that's fed up of inner city ghettos.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## Death Rider

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> It's not impossible though. Those people are easier to find than those who hop the fence. They're already in the system and many of them continue to have legit addresses. They're not as hard to deport either. The choice should be simple, find a legit job, get the paperwork done or get out imo. What Hillary was doing wrong was making it seem like she's going to let them all stay (which wasn't the actual Democrat policy anyways).
> 
> The deportations have always been happening. Obama's administration actually deported more people than Bush did (IIRC - but I could be wrong). The thing that would satisfy me as a Trump supporter is a relative increase in that number if not dragged down to a complete 0.
> 
> As for border security, the border towns have been begging for it for decades, but they're grossly overlooked. Most of those border towns are actually populated by legals but they've been ignored until now which is why a lot of legal immigrants that live on those towns or have lived in those towns and conditions were finally pushed to vote Trump ... Pretty much the same way Trump was able to turn some of the black vote that's fed up of inner city ghettos.


Agreed the ones who hop over the fence will be a lot harder to find. Yeah it is not a hard choice but it is also something not many people realise with immigration. Heck I only learned it recently. 

Oh they have for sure but the system has gotten a lot worse with more work being placed on a small number of judges so they rush people through even deporting people who legally should be in the USA. Fixing immigration will involve fixing those as well to make sure the system is fair. 

Yeah i can't disagree with that. I have never lived in an area like that but that would explain where a lot of the minority vote came from. The myth that just racists care about immigration is pretty anarchic. The borders needs better strengthen though building a giant wall is unseemly and just waaaaaay too expensive plus it would cost so much to maintain.


----------



## The Boy Wonder

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Here's a point that not many are making when it comes to those who are threatening to leave the United States:

*Why don't you move to one of the many swing states that Hillary lost?* Ohio, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Florida? People need to think logically and not be so quick to make decisions based on emotion.

Listening to Trump over the last few days (and seeing his body language) I can already tell he won't do much of things he said he was going to do that pissed off liberals. 

• They won't build a wall, but they will definitely make the immigration laws tougher. 
• He'll continue Obamacare but make adjustments so it doesn't completely scrap Obama's biggest accomplishment
• He'll stay away from social issues which is one of the reasons why he got elected


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Roy Mustang said:


> Yeah i can't disagree with that. I have never lived in an area like that but that would explain where a lot of the minority vote came from. The myth that just racists care about immigration is pretty anarchic. The borders needs better strengthen though building a giant wall is unseemly and just waaaaaay too expensive plus it would cost so much to maintain.


Pretty sure he's dropped the wall idea and at least most of Trump's learned base is aware of this. 

Though I do expect that a lot of people who want him to build that wall and voted for him for that alone are going to be fucking disappointed and pissed off as hell.


----------



## Death Rider

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Pretty sure he's dropped the wall idea and at least most of Trump's learned base is aware of this.
> 
> Though I do expect that a lot of people who want him to build that wall and voted for him for that alone are going to be fucking disappointed and pissed off as hell.


You would know better then me man. Tbh over here when people talk about Trump most people remember his comments about the wall more then anything. Heck half the jokes on my feed have been about it


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

This guy deserves more subs:


----------



## Oxidamus

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Roy Mustang said:


> This stupid white people blame needs to stop. Fuck off. People have every right to vote who they want and calling everyone who disagrees a fucking racist is part of the reason Trump got in so carry on stereotyping everyone who disagrees without listening to a fucking word anyone says.


This is why I find it hard to agree with America's freedom of speech and all citizens being able to vote.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The Boy Wonder said:


> Here's a point that not many are making when it comes to those who are threatening to leave the United States:
> 
> *Why don't you move to one of the many swing states that Hillary lost?* Ohio, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Florida? People need to think logically and not be so quick to make decisions based on emotion.
> 
> Listening to Trump over the last few days (and seeing his body language) I can already tell he won't do much of things he said he was going to do that pissed off liberals.
> 
> • They won't build a wall, but they will definitely make the immigration laws tougher.
> • He'll continue Obamacare but make adjustments so it doesn't completely scrap Obama's biggest accomplishment
> • He'll stay away from social issues which is one of the reasons why he got elected


You get it. Most of the idiots that are claiming to leave however are already living in blue states so none of anything Trump has said will ever personally effect them. 

Personally, I am fully expecting a repealing of the mandated tax/penalty around not buying insurance. It's one of my personal biggest issue with this - and I'm going to be pretty pissed if that doesn't happen. 












Roy Mustang said:


> You would know better then me man. Tbh over here when people talk about Trump most people remember his comments about the wall more then anything. Heck half the jokes on my feed have been about it


I expect the wall issue to remain one of Trump's most hotly contested issues and this isn't going to go away soon. It has the potential to make or break his presidency in its entirety. That and his anti-war promises (for me personally). 

The things he promised minorities like myself to gain his support have to be implemented otherwise next time around when I can finally vote I'm staying as far away from either the GOP or Democrats as I possibly can.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

:trump DADDY needs to build the wall.

People didn't vote for him for president for him to give in all to the whiny bitches saying "But you can't build a wall it's impossible! You can't repeal Obamacare it's impossible!"

Think about that Obamacare part for a second. Does that sound like a free country to you? Oh well people want this law gone and you were elected in part because you promised it would be gone but the people who wrote and passed the law did so in such a way that it's "impossible" to do away with it. The fuck? That's not the way a free country is supposed to work. 

:trump needs to build the wall and completely repeal Obamacare because doing so will restore faith in the ability of the American government to actually take decisive action that the elite says is "impossible" solely because they don't want it to happen. Fuck off all you bitches I see on the network news telling me how "impossible" it will be to repeal Obamacare. It most certainly is not "impossible." It is extremely possible. All that is needed is the requisite congressional majorities and the right president, and some goddamn guts.

Oh and thanks for all the cute quotes from the Federalist Papers and the other writings of the Founders that you dusted off and have been putting up on my screen on the nightly news on Wednesday. Separation of powers, the Founders intended for gridlock to happen and this is a good thing... all things we never heard the last 8 years while you advocated incessantly for Obama to act like a King and ignore the separation of powers "to get things done."

A Republican wins the presidency and all of a sudden separation of powers and gridlock in Congress and checks and balances are a very good thing. Fucking so transparent in your hypocrisy you assholes.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

_The De-Hitlerization Of Your Brain_, by Scott Adams: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/152998516891/the-de-hitlerization-of-your-brain

If you're freaking out about President Trump, read this.


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/9/dc-mourns-candlelight-vigil-hug-after-trump-win/



> Stunned by the election of Donald Trump as president, D.C.-area residents organized a series of events Wednesday aimed at providing an outlet for voters to mourn, reflect and organize.
> 
> A candlelight vigil is scheduled from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. Wednesday in Lafayette Park outside the White House, meanwhile a “solidarity hug-in” was set for 6 p.m. in Dupont Circle.


:lmao :lmao :lmao

*VIGILS??!!!!! HUG-INS???!!! THEY'RE LITERALLY TREATING THIS LIKE A NATIONAL TRAGEDY!!!! THE TEARS OF THESE FUCKING HIPPIES ARE SO DELICIOUS!!!!!!!*


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The Absolute said:


> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/9/dc-mourns-candlelight-vigil-hug-after-trump-win/
> 
> 
> 
> :lmao :lmao :lmao
> 
> *VIGILS??!!!!! HUG-INS???!!! THEY'RE LITERALLY TREATING THIS LIKE A NATIONAL TRAGEDY!!!! THE TEARS OF THESE FUCKING HIPPIES ARE SO DELICIOUS!!!!!!!*


I heard about a "Cry-in" happening at some university too. 

A fucking Cry-in. 

You know, the thing your toddler does when she doesn't get the doll she wants.


----------



## El Dandy

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Hug-in? Cry-in?

The state of this generation SMH


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I hate Trump, but the tears afterwards have been absolutely delightful, have some fucking respect, I mean feel free to bitch like I did after brexit but stop being so rdiculous.


----------



## The Boy Wonder

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Apparently Hillary's campaign paid these protesters on Craigslist.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## The Hardcore Show

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Should the people like myself who did not vote for Trump have are citizenship to the US revoked? I feel like anyone like myself who did not vote for him should not be allowed to live in this country anymore.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-signal-more-stock-gains-on-trump-policy-bets
https://www.yahoo.com/news/asia-shares-rebound-trump-turnaround-astonishes-004057955.html

:heston

The Smartest and Best Among Us are wrong again :heston


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



virus21 said:


>


Good god, the schizophrenia is real.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## Café de René

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

This is French TV live coverage of the election. It's in French (obviously) but it's too amazing not to share. Basically, the host (one of the biggest liberals on French TV) announce Trump's victory in Ohio as if it was the most horrible thing ever, then there's an awkward mix of silence and mumblings where both the host and the guests struggle to comment on what's happening. At this point, they start showing crowd reactions where there's people actually crying.

The hysteria is international, folks.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Café de René said:


> This is French TV live coverage of the election. It's in French (obviously) but it's too amazing not to share. Basically, the host (one of the biggest liberals on French TV) announce Trump's victory in Ohio as if it was the most horrible thing ever, then there's an awkward mix of silence and mumblings where both the host and the guests struggle to comment on what's happening. At this point, they start showing crowd reactions where there's people actually crying.
> 
> The hysteria is international, folks.


Given how the president of France conducts himself, the French have much bigger problems than Trump





I can't help but agree with most of this


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

So apparently liberals are now boycotting New Balance and burning their shoes because they support Donald Trump's anti-TPP trade policy (you know, the same position Bernie had and Hillary pretended to have), as "the only major shoe company" that makes their products in the US (NB's claim). 

The stupidity is all too much sometimes.


----------



## Mifune Jackson

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

As a staunch independent, every President starts at zero with me, so I'm not going to complain about President Trump until he proves to have a negative effect. If he does.

The weird things is, I don't really agree with any of my "conservative" or "liberal" friends right now. A lot of my friends on the left believe she lost "because she was a woman," which is kinda bullshit. She lost because "Dey took er jerbs."

Either way, Trump's the President-elect now. The Clintons are no longer the establishment, Trump is. I just hope my conservative friends hold him accountable if and when he fucks up, because I remember the Bush years, and that's not how I saw that play out, which is why you got Obama in the first place.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I'm okay with voting for Trump because if he fails, I'll own it.

- Vic


----------



## KingCosmos

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Roy Mustang said:


> This stupid white people blame needs to stop. Fuck off. People have every right to vote who they want and calling everyone who disagrees a fucking racist is part of the reason Trump got in so carry on stereotyping everyone who disagrees without listening to a fucking word anyone says.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This I did not know and was one of main problem with him. This seems like a much more fair and reasoned response. Curious to know when he said it cause the media did not seem to mention it over here for sure.


So wait you mean the reason white people voted for Trump is because they feel threatened about their whiteness from other groups of people? White supremacy at it's finest. You are describing a text book version of white supremacy. Have you been to a Trump rally? I have been just near one and seen the ridiculousness. The people you are describing basically feel that my Whiteness and willing to support Trump is somehow being threatned, so i need to get him in office so we can "take our country back" is it unreasonable to think someone might be a suspected white supremacist for supporting a DOCUMENTED white supremacist, this is not liberal fear mongering, he has actually been sued for his discrimination, FACT. Maybe these people should be honest about Trump being a white supremacist instead of trying to be smug by saying "Your racist because you think I'm racist" "Maybe that's the reason Trump got in to office you people always point the finger"


----------



## TomahawkJock

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I'm pissed Trump won but at the same time, we need to be united right now and support him. The St. Louis Blues played the Chicago Blackhawks (big rivals for those who arent fans of hockey) and before the game, all the fans and players sang national anthem together. It was a joyous sight to see and we need more things like that right now.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*










Live Stream of protests. You guys should watch this. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3Ao7pZm3nI


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



KingCosmos said:


> So wait you mean the reason white people voted for Trump is because they feel threatened about their whiteness from other groups of people? White supremacy at it's finest. You are describing a text book version of white supremacy. Have you been to a Trump rally? I have been just near one and seen the ridiculousness. The people you are describing basically feel that my Whiteness and willing to support Trump is somehow being threatned, so i need to get him in office so we can "take our country back" is it unreasonable to think someone might be a suspected white supremacist for supporting a DOCUMENTED white supremacist, this is not liberal fear mongering, he has actually been sued for his discrimination, FACT. Maybe these people should be honest about Trump being a white supremacist instead of trying to be smug by saying "Your racist because you think I'm racist" "Maybe that's the reason Trump got in to office you people always point the finger"


Dear Lord didn't the utter failure of doing what you're doing at preventing :trump 's election teach you anything? Anything at all? What you're saying has been said ad nauseum for the last 12 months and it _failed._


----------



## KO Bossy

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/11/10/die-whites-die-anti-trump-rioters-vandalize-nola-monuments/













Well, this is...disturbing.

Helter Skelter, anyone?


----------



## KingCosmos

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



deepelemblues said:


> Dear Lord didn't the utter failure of doing what you're doing at preventing :trump 's election teach you anything? Anything at all? What you're saying has been said ad nauseum for the last 12 months and it _failed._


I wasn't trying to prevent anything. Hilary and Trump are both white supremacist it's just that Trump's is easier to find out about. Im actually glad Trump won so my people can wake up and see how white supremacy is massively supported. Even if I was trying to prevent something does that invalidate anything that I said? Trump is a documented White supremacist, FACT. Not just plain ol racsim by calling someone the n word, BUT PUT IN TO PRACTICE SYSTEMATIC WHITE SUPREMACY by disenfranchising peopel.That doesn't magically change since he won the election. The people that voted for him because they feel the need to take their country back and feel like whiteness is being threatned don't magically end up cured from their white supremacist mindset. Jesus why the hell isn't anybody honest about it. Just admit you voted for a White supremacist. Doesn't mean you are KKK or a Neo-Nazi just means you practice some forms of white supremacy. White supremacist tactic number 1 is deflection and people keep deflecting except talking about the issue, case in point you addressed none of my points you just tried to say trump is in office as if that somehow made what I was saying wrong


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



KO Bossy said:


> http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/11/10/die-whites-die-anti-trump-rioters-vandalize-nola-monuments/


The rape of the anarchy symbol with a fascist claim for ethnic genocide is what I find more disgusting tbh.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

A race war would be a very bad thing and it has about a .00000000001% chance of happening anyway.

Some number of stupid racist attacks is an inevitability but those do not a race war make.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*










- Vic


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



deepelemblues said:


> A race war would be a very bad thing and it has about a .00000000001% chance of happening anyway.
> 
> Some number of stupid racist attacks is an inevitability but those do not a race war make.


If there is a race war, I'll sign up to defend you white people from the dozens of them.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



KO Bossy said:


> http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/11/10/die-whites-die-anti-trump-rioters-vandalize-nola-monuments/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, this is...disturbing.
> 
> Helter Skelter, anyone?


Shit like this one of the reasons Trump won in the first damn place. Cut the welfare and see what happens


----------



## KO Bossy

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> The rape of the anarchy symbol with a fascist claim for ethnic genocide is what I find more disgusting tbh.


That's what I was referring to, as well. I mean...on the surface, its just vandalism, that shit is everywhere. But its the message of "DIE WHITES DIE" that bothers me. Yes, a race war is highly unlikely, but...I'm hoping this isn't a forecasting of backlash against white people in the US or anywhere else because of a broad declaration of racism painted onto an entire ethnicity. I'm not even American, but I don't want people getting hurt. Violence won't solve anything at this point, what's done is done, make the best of it and move forward. 


Sadly, the violence has already occurred and I don't think we're quite done with it yet, which is really a shame. One anger has been temporarily quelled and given rise to the anger of others.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Ok if someone is "subconsciously racist" how do you "fight" that?

The only way I can see is communist style reeducation camps for decades at a time 

A racist only being "subtly" racist is the best kind because it not like you can "fix" that, all you can do is stigmatize it so he won't act on it in fear of public mockery 

You can't force people to be tolerant, you can't "make them feel your pain" or make them "walk a mile in your shoes" becouse they will have the same reaction you had, define and malice


----------



## KO Bossy

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



virus21 said:


> Shit like this one of the reasons Trump won in the first damn place. Cut the well-fare and see what happens


I dare say that that might give them more reason to revolt...Besides, there's no indication that the people who wrote that message are even on welfare. Still, its a volatile time, and further rocking the boat probably isn't a smart move.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



KO Bossy said:


> Sadly, the violence has already occurred and I don't think we're quite done with it yet, which is really a shame. One anger has been temporarily quelled and given rise to the anger of others.


This is a direct result of the brainwashing the federal government committed to 8 years ago. The violence and calls to death we're seeing are from the younger generation .. you know, the one that grew up in schools with federally administered cirriculums and colleges where the federal government has freely subsidized self-interest groups that promote the intersectional feminist propaganda. 

This is Obama's legacy. It'll take time to erase it, but I'm hoping that the next 8 years of republican rule will at least delay it if not prevent it entirely.



stevefox1200 said:


> Ok if someone is "subconsciously racist" how do you "fight" that?
> 
> The only way I can see is communist style reeducation camps for decades at a time


It's already been happening in our public schools and colleges for at least 8 years which is why you're seeing the outcry in the first place. One of the chunks of Trump's voters is the anti-PC crowd. 

This is why it was so important for us to vote for Trump because hopefully free speech advocates might gain enough power to put an end to the democrat run public curriculum or at least those parts of it which have brainwashed people like kingcosmos.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

the msm painted trump as this massive villain the first female pres could overcome to unite the country behind her knowing how unfavourable she was. With Trump winning, their narrative is flipped on its head. Are the people they instigated no longer their champions of good?


----------



## skypod

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Yeah I don't know what people are talking about. Blacks, gays and women have always had it good in the US for hundreds of years and anyone that disagrees with that is a SJW pussyfied pussy.


----------



## KO Bossy

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> This is a direct result of the brainwashing the federal government committed to 8 years ago. The violence and calls to death we're seeing are from the younger generation .. you know, the one that grew up in schools with federally administered cirriculums and colleges where the federal government has freely subsidized self-interest groups that promote the intersectional feminist propaganda.
> 
> This is Obama's legacy. It'll take time to erase it, but I'm hoping that the next 8 years of republican rule will at least delay it if not prevent it entirely.
> 
> 
> 
> It's already been happening in our public schools and colleges for at least 8 years which is why you're seeing the outcry in the first place. One of the chunks of Trump's voters is the anti-PC crowd.
> 
> This is why it was so important for us to vote for Trump because hopefully free speech advocates might gain enough power to put an end to the democrat run public curriculum or at least those parts of it which have brainwashed people like kingcosmos.


While I agree that this ultra PC stuff needs to end...let's just say that the last time there were 8 years of Republican rule, it didn't turn out very well...so based on that, I'm still keeping on my guard. When Trump proves things won't turn into another Dubya, then I'll be more accepting.


----------



## KingCosmos

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



stevefox1200 said:


> Ok if someone is "subconsciously racist" how do you "fight" that?
> 
> The only way I can see is communist style reeducation camps for decades at a time
> 
> A racist only being "subtly" racist is the best kind because it not like you can "fix" that, all you can do is stigmatize it so he won't act on it in fear of public mockery
> 
> You can't force people to be tolerant, you can't "make them feel your pain" or make them "walk a mile in your shoes" becouse they will have the same reaction you had, define and malice


I don't care for his racism. Racism doesn't really bother me at all racism sometimes just results in name calling boohoo they called you something. My problem is Systemic institutionalized racism that plagues America. Say Trump called a few people the N-word, i wouldn't really care, but he has practiced Systemic racism that actually affects someones life by denying housing. This goes beyond the good ol name calling racism that we are used to.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



skypod said:


> Yeah I don't know what people are talking about. Blacks, gays and women have always had it good in the US for hundreds of years and anyone that disagrees with that is a SJW pussyfied pussy.


Well, the ones that got off their ass and worked hard certainly have had it great for at least the last 20-30 years :shrug 

Oh and no one is taking any gay rights away. Trump has always been pro-LGBT :lol 

Plus the states are fucking sovereign. Even before the federal government made it legal nation-wide there were plenty of states with legalized gay marriage :kobelol

I've only lived here for almost 2 and a half years and I already know more about how your country works than some of you do.

Name 1 thing that the FEDERAL government can legally do to circumvent existing STATE sovereignty and laws with respect to social liberties. Just 1.


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Lol at the petition going around online to get the electoral college to reverse the decision


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

NVM lol. I was horribly wrong about this one :lol


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



wwe9391 said:


> Lol at the petition going around online to get the electoral college to reverse the decision


So some of the same mind set that happened after Brexit. Funny how these people only like democracy only if it results in the outcome they like.


----------



## skypod

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Well, the ones that got off their ass and worked hard certainly have had it great for at least the last 20-30 years :shrug
> 
> Oh and no one is taking any gay rights away. Trump has always been pro-LGBT :lol
> 
> Plus the states are fucking sovereign. Even before the federal government made it legal nation-wide there were plenty of states with legalized gay marriage :kobelol
> 
> I've only lived here for almost 2 and a half years and I already know more about how your country works than some of you do.
> 
> Name 1 thing that the FEDERAL government can legally do to circumvent existing STATE sovereignty and laws with respect to social liberties. Just 1.



Republican platform this year

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/19/opinion/the-most-extreme-republican-platform-in-memory.html?_r=0



> The platform rejects attempts to ban ‘gay cure’ therapy for minors, claiming “parents should be free to make medical decisions about their children without interference”.
> On equal marriage, it insists: “Natural marriage between a man and a woman is most likely to result in offspring who do not become drug-addicted or otherwise damaged.”
> It calls for the Supreme Court ruling on equal marriage to be reversed, opposes transgender rights legislation, and calls for ‘religious freedom’ laws to permit anti-LGBT legislation.





> Also significantly, President-elect Trump has pledged to sign the Republican-backed First Amendment Defence Act, a law that would permit forms of anti-LGBT discrimination on the grounds of religion.
> In a speech to Catholic interest groups, Mr Trump confirmed he would not veto the law, which bans the government from taking any “action against a person on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognised as the union of one man and one woman”





> Trump said when asked about same-sex marriage: “It has been ruled upon, it has been there.
> “[But] if I’m elected I would be very strong in putting certain judges on the bench that maybe could change things.
> “At some point they have to get back down to business, but there’s no question about it, I wish it was done by the state.
> 
> “I disagree with the Supreme Court from the standpoint it should be a states’ rights issue. And that’s the way it should have been ruled on, not the way they did it. I can see changes coming down the line, frankly.”
> When host Chris Wallace asked point-blank whether he would appoint new justices in order to overturn the ruling, Trump said: “I would strongly consider that, yes.”


Maybe Trump doesn't know how the country works then.

Not even wanting to make this a whole gay issue, but to deny all this rhetoric from the Right is insane. Trump could have picked somebody fairly sane and moderate for VP. He had enough personality his VP was never going to matter. Instead he picks fucking Pence. A coffin dodging grump who believes in conversion therapy and has been against any positive gay movement in the last 20 years.


I don't agree with people trying to overturn this election or rioting in the streets. But to say anyone bringing up any issue about race, gender, sexuality as being a time wasting millennial is completely fascist. How are you ever going to know if you're doing something wrong if nobodys holding the mirror up?


----------



## KingCosmos

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> *Well, the ones that got off their ass and worked hard certainly have had it great for at least the last 20-30 years* :shrug
> 
> Oh and no one is taking any gay rights away. Trump has always been pro-LGBT :lol
> 
> Plus the states are fucking sovereign. Even before the federal government made it legal nation-wide there were plenty of states with legalized gay marriage :kobelol
> 
> I've only lived here for almost 2 and a half years and I already know more about how your country work than some of you do.
> 
> Name 1 thing that the FEDERAL government can legally do to circumvent existing STATE sovereignty and laws with respect to social liberties. Just 1.


This shows massive misunderstanding of America and it's history. Being oppressed for centuries and just recently barely 50 years mind you people that have been systematically crippled by the government are supposed to just flourish? oh wait we have a few gems that managed to escape so that makes everything alright. America has just supposedly become enlightened which means my father for example has suffered injustice and put in a system of poverty that has been perpetuated by the government mind you is supposed to just get up one day and be successful. Oh wait it's being lazy right? Well unfortunately when a certain group of minorities started establishing a economic base it ends up getting bombed by the government(Tulsa Oklahoma). In turn me as his son i luckily ended up getting out of poverty which mind you is massive luck,this being one generational leap mind you. And you think every single person is offered the same opportunity to get out of said system but they can't because of laziness? The same system that offers welfare to try to "help people but only does so if a father isn't present in the home which in turn creates a form of government help that encourages family break down alienating a great deal of people(without a stable family , the poverty is perpetuated). These very same people who's children are subjected to abysmal education systems which in turn leaves them unqualified for higher education are simply just to lazy too learn anything better than what is being taught. The same situation of poverty the government has created has had people turn to crime to support themselves. Let's just say you have that one person by your account that isn't "Lazy" and actually wants to do better. Well unfortunately they are met with conditions and circumstances that make it a highly unlikely. And if by the amazing chance they do become successful they have to deal with the discrimination and injustices that make getting a job or career very difficult. So lazy


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



skypod said:


> I don't agree with people trying to overturn this election or rioting in the streets. But to say anyone bringing up any issue about race, gender, sexuality as being a time wasting millennial is completely fascist. How are you ever going to know if you're doing something wrong if nobodys holding the mirror up?


i think you have no idea what fascism actually is because telling people they are wasting their time being bitchy SJW assholes is not fascism sorry

and it's pretty narcissistic to appoint yourself as moral mirror holder


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@AryaDark @Beatles123 @CamillePunk @Carte Blanche @DA @deepelemblues @Fringe @Goku @Pratchett @Sincere @Sweenz @virus21

Looks like :trump is projected to win the popular vote. :trump


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796812440369528832
About 30 minutes into that Molyneux video, *Camille*. Thanks! :trump


----------



## Iapetus

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> No. No, you didn't learn any of those things. You SHOULD have learned that we are tired of people like you classifying anything you don't wanna hear as evil.


Tired of hearing what? Racism? Sexism? Religious intolerance?

Are you saying those things AREN'T evil???


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Iapetus said:


> Tired of hearing what? Racism? Sexism? Religious intolerance?
> 
> Are you saying those things AREN'T evil???


We're saying we're tired of people like you reflexively labelling everything and everyone you don't like as racist because you're intellectually lazy and incurious and ignorant and doing so allows you to be intolerant cunts because it's okay to be intolerant cunts towards people you've decided are intolerant. It's not about calling out, confronting, and ending bigotry. It's about giving you an excuse to think and talk about other people in the most assholeish ways you can come up with.

You've defined racism down so much and defined it so broadly that the word doesn't really mean anything anymore. That's your fault. Not ours. You've done the same thing with misogyny.


----------



## TripleG

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The Absolute said:


> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/9/dc-mourns-candlelight-vigil-hug-after-trump-win/
> 
> 
> 
> :lmao :lmao :lmao
> 
> *VIGILS??!!!!! HUG-INS???!!! THEY'RE LITERALLY TREATING THIS LIKE A NATIONAL TRAGEDY!!!! THE TEARS OF THESE FUCKING HIPPIES ARE SO DELICIOUS!!!!!!!*


Oh my God. I can't...even...WHAT THE FUCK?!?!? 

I mean, this is the most hilariously sad thing I have ever heard in my life. 

I hate to sound like a macho jock here, but this is what happens when you raise kids with participation awards and the mind set that "Everyone is a winner". No. There are winners and loses, and there are times when you aren't going to get your way.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

When do we get the final result on the popular vote?

- Vic


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



DesolationRow said:


> @AryaDark @Beatles123 @CamillePunk @Carte Blanche @DA @deepelemblues @Fringe @Goku @Pratchett @Sincere @Sweenz @virus21
> 
> Looks like :trump is projected to win the popular vote. :trump
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796812440369528832
> About 30 minutes into that Molyneux video, *Camille*. Thanks! :trump


:lmao

If he wins the popular vote, too... just... :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao 

So much winning. When will it ever cease? What will the left reach for to rationalize their infantile tantrums next? Let me guess, they'll go with "the system is rigged" and take irony to impressive new heights?


----------



## DoolieNoted

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



dashing_man said:


> :lmao :lol
> 
> that COP dude though :mj


The cop needs to be a smiley.


----------



## -XERO-

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Omega_VIK said:


>


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



DesolationRow said:


> @AryaDark @Beatles123 @CamillePunk @Carte Blanche @DA @deepelemblues @Fringe @Goku @Pratchett @Sincere @Sweenz @virus21
> 
> Looks like :trump is projected to win the popular vote. :trump
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796812440369528832
> About 30 minutes into that Molyneux video, *Camille*. Thanks! :trump


So now Hillary lost the popular vote too? Interesting. I can't tell you how many people I saw online who complained about the electoral college and said "B-b-but Hillary won the popular vote so she deserved to be president." Now they don't even have that going for them. No more excuses. Her failure is now complete. No amount of signatures on that petition will prevent the Trump presidency from happening.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Its been two days and Trump is winning so much its making me tired of him winning

I gotta play some mousetrap or something so I can win a few things (I only got 2 write in votes for county coroner this time)


----------



## DoolieNoted

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I wonder if Hillary is asking to pay the Saudis back in installments?


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



stevefox1200 said:


> Its been two days and Trump is winning so much its making me tired of him winning


A :trump DADDY campaign promise fulfilled already.

He did say we would get sick of how much WINNING there was going to be.

:trump


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



stevefox1200 said:


> Its been two days and Trump is winning so much its making me tired of him winning


He warned us about this.


----------



## Iapetus

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



KO Bossy said:


> http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/11/10/die-whites-die-anti-trump-rioters-vandalize-nola-monuments/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, this is...disturbing.
> 
> Helter Skelter, anyone?


Did you literally just post a Breitbart link? That's literally a white supremacist news outlet...

Oh, and—


































You were saying?:ambrose2


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



DesolationRow said:


> @AryaDark @Beatles123 @CamillePunk @Carte Blanche @DA @deepelemblues @Fringe @Goku @Pratchett @Sincere @Sweenz @virus21
> 
> Looks like :trump is projected to win the popular vote. :trump
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796812440369528832
> About 30 minutes into that Molyneux video, *Camille*. Thanks! :trump


I'm not sure if that's correct or just bad site design. :lol CNN has posted articles since suggesting Hillary will win the popular vote. Who knows.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796813709964410881


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

My friend made this video from his home in Oakland last night. I picked him and his wife and daughter up about three or four minutes later after driving across the Bay Bridge from downtown San Francisco. Turns out it was a good thing because a mob destroyed a good deal property right outside later in the night.  @AryaDark @CamillePunk

http://web.mail.comcast.net/service/home/~/?auth=co&loc=en_US&id=611618&part=1


----------



## Eva MaRIHyse

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Murica.

From the outside American politics just looks like two cults slandering each other.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Iapetus said:


> Did you literally just post a Breitbart link? That's literally a white supremacist news outlet...


This is what we're talking about. You can't post a single quote from any Breitbart *article* or *video* that is white supremacist in nature yet you'll slander them and by extension anyone who reads them* as white supremacists.

It's not based on evidence, it's based on an a priori standard. I've decided that it is an axiom that X is racist (in most cases this axiom is incorrect), and Y likes/supports/agrees with X, thus Y is racist. 

*You could certainly argue that some number of Breitbart readers are white supremacists as their comments sections proves that at least.

btw I think Jim Cornette's tears are the best tears I've tasted since Tuesday night.






SO BITTER JIM NOMNOMNOM MOAR TEARS PLS you self-satisfied cunt. I've listened to a lot of Jim Cornette shoot speeches he's always talking about what a badass he is towards people but the one consistency is that when he's being such a badass he was either threatening to shoot someone or he was talking shit with a 6'8" 330 pound wrestler behind him who would beat up whoever Jim was reaming out if Jim said so.

A real tough guy Jim Cornette is :heston


----------



## The Hardcore Show

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I just want Trump to get on with hurting everyone including myself who did not vote for him. Why wait until January just get on with it start acting like a fucking king and let the people who did vote for him have the right to kill or rape all the people who don't belong here anymore which are non Trump voters and supporters


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Breitbart is white supremacist :lmao

:done


----------



## RenegadexParagon

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



KingCosmos said:


> This shows massive misunderstanding of America and it's history. Being oppressed for centuries and just recently barely 50 years mind you people that have been systematically crippled by the government are supposed to just flourish? oh wait we have a few gems that managed to escape so that makes everything alright. America has just supposedly become enlightened which means my father for example has suffered injustice and put in a system of poverty that has been perpetuated by the government mind you is supposed to just get up one day and be successful. Oh wait it's being lazy right? Well unfortunately when a certain group of minorities started establishing a economic base it ends up getting bombed by the government(Tulsa Oklahoma). In turn me as his son i luckily ended up getting out of poverty which mind you is massive luck,this being one generational leap mind you. And you think every single person is offered the same opportunity to get out of said system but they can't because of laziness? The same system that offers welfare to try to "help people but only does so if a father isn't present in the home which in turn creates a form of government help that encourages family break down alienating a great deal of people(without a stable family , the poverty is perpetuated). These very same people who's children are subjected to abysmal education systems which in turn leaves them unqualified for higher education are simply just to lazy too learn anything better than what is being taught. The same situation of poverty the government has created has had people turn to crime to support themselves. Let's just say you have that one person by your account that isn't "Lazy" and actually wants to do better. Well unfortunately they are met with conditions and circumstances that make it a highly unlikely. And if by the amazing chance they do become successful they have to deal with the discrimination and injustices that make getting a job or career very difficult. So lazy


You brave soul. Trying to talk to conservatives about the effects of systemic racism is like talking to a brick wall. It's not going to go anywhere. They've already made up their minds that the system is fair and black Americans are just lazy welfare queens. Just let it go. The ideology is too strong.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Rated R Maryse said:


> Murica.
> 
> From the outside American politics just looks like two cults slandering each other.


At this point, pretty much on the mark


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



DesolationRow said:


> My friend made this video from his home in Oakland last night. I picked him and his wife and daughter up about three or four minutes later after driving across the Bay Bridge from downtown San Francisco. Turns out it was a good thing because a mob destroyed a good deal property right outside later in the night.  @AryaDark @CamillePunk
> 
> http://web.mail.comcast.net/service/home/~/?auth=co&loc=en_US&id=611618&part=1



*@DesolationRow The link is not working for me.*


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> Breitbart is white supremacist :lmao
> 
> :done


Well you know it's true because CNN and his buddies told him so :shrug


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Ok

The KKK, Neo-Nazis and White nationalists are three different groups of people who don't like each other

Anyone who is putting KKK next to a swastika is just trying to be "OMG OFFENSIVE" and has nothing to do with any of them

The KKK are small government, pro-white, rural traditional christian life-style, anti-communist, believe the races should not mix, and have a USA by birth first stance (the KKK would HATE Russia)

The Neo-Nazi's are large government, EXTREMELY anti-communist, believe that whites are genetically superior and other races need to be removed, tend to be more pseudo science founded than religious (traditional Nazis dislike religion), and will support any nation that they feel is supporting their ideals (there is a large Nazi following in Russia)

The two are incompatible and don't like each other


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

*Chelsea Handler is currently the front-runner for the best "Hillary lost" reaction in all of late night TV!* Here's her monologue from the day before the election where she confidently rallies for Hillary:






I really like how the video ends with her gleefully saying "It's gonna be an exciting time, everybody! Things are gonna get good!" And here's what she had to say after the results:






From giddiness to bursting to tears and wearing all black like she's at a funeral. The contrast is real.

EDIT: Here's her Instagram video where she does a 180 and announces that she will not be leaving the country. I suspect she's the first of many celebrities who will renege on that promise: https://www.instagram.com/p/BMooZEjg1Oj/


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The Hardcore Show said:


> I just want Trump to get on with hurting everyone including myself who did not vote for him. Why wait until January just get on with it start acting like a fucking king and let the people who did vote for him have the right to kill or rape all the people who don't belong here anymore which are non Trump voters and supporters


The free helicopter ride will be highly memorable, though, so it's not a total loss.

And goodness yes I'm just kidding. Melodramatic comments occasionally deserve icy satirical responses.


Ahhh, too bad, @AryaDark. Most of it is just of cop cars, ambulances and fire engines' sirens roaring, their blue and red lights exploding as a mob in the distance protests. :lol


----------



## The Hardcore Show

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

This sucks I just want Trump to revoke my rights as a human being as anyone who did not vote for him or like him is by default a SJW. Let him be US president for life.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



> WESTERN DEMOCRACY WINTER
> Hillary Clinton Destroyed Her Own Campaign
> Despite all the odds being in her favor, Clinton managed to sabotage her quest for the White House.
> Betsy Woodruff
> BETSY WOODRUFF
> 
> 11.09.16 1:50 AM ET
> In the early hours of Wednesday morning, a woman stood in between a row of satellite trucks and a concrete wall outside the Javits Center in New York City—the Hillary Clinton’s “victory party”—sobbing and screaming into her cellphone, “How are we losing?!”
> The answer on the other end was received by a wail.
> And later that morning, the world learned that despite all the polling, all the momentum, and a second-to-none campaign operation, Hillary Clinton lost to a flaxen-haired maybe-billionaire best known for starring in an NBC reality-television show.
> 
> The Clinton campaign had hoped that the glass ceiling of the Javits Center would become the night’s enduring symbol. But instead, its basement cafeteria became a microcosm of the Clinton campaign.
> Late into the night, grim Clinton supporters huddled around televisions on folding chairs, watching with blank faces as cable news commentators delivered blow after blow. And when Kelly Clarkson’s “What Doesn’t Kill You Makes You Stronger” anthem played over the speakers, it sounded more like a taunt than a battlecry. Many supporters didn’t want to talk. Instead, they hunched over their iPhones and beers.
> Lani Brandon, an environmental attorney from Attica, New York, drank Barefoot cabernet sauvignon from a tiny plastic bottle as the results rolled in. She volunteered on Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, and recalled her response to that loss with admiration.
> “Even when she was conceding, she did it with class and elegance,” Brandon said. “This election alone, with him running, it has created—or maybe made people aware of—the hatred that already existed.”
> Many were visibly misty-eyed.
> “You’ve gotta make it quick,” said New Yorker Frank Capalbo when approached, “because I’m about to break out in tears.”
> ADVERTISEMENT
> 
> inRead invented by Teads
> 
> 
> He loved Clinton for her brain, her guts, and her effectiveness, he said. His thoughts on a Trump win?
> “A descent into fascism,” he said, “and America going over the precipice once and for all. And it scares the living daylights out of me.”
> Clinton’s loss to Donald Trump marks the end of a decidedly tumultuous campaign season for Clinton, who faced a host of setbacks, many of her own making. Early exit polls from CNN showed 58 percent of the white vote went to Trump. White men and women voted for Trump 63 and 53 percent, respectively. He won whites with college degrees (49 percent) and without (67 percent).
> There was trouble before she even entered the race when The New York Times ran a front-page story on March 2, 2015, reporting that she used a personal email server for State Department business as secretary of State.
> Emails—both those released through Freedom of Information Act requests and the hacked emails belonging to campaign chairman John Podesta throughout the election—dogged her through the campaign.
> As shown by emails that WikiLeaks published, Clinton’s team immediately knew this was a disaster—and that she was handling it horribly. In an exchange shortly after the story was published, top Clinton ally Neera Tanden bemoaned the situation.
> GET THE BEAST IN YOUR INBOX!
> 
> Enter your email address
> By clicking "Subscribe," you agree to have read the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy
> SUBSCRIBE
> “This is a cheryl special,” Tanden wrote, referring to Clinton’s longtime attorney, Cheryl Mills. “Know you love her, but this stuff is like her Achilles heel. Or kryptonite. she just can’t say no to this shit. Why didn’t they get this stuff out like 18 months ago? So crazy.”
> “Unbelievable,” John Podesta, now Clinton’s campaign chairman, replied.
> “I guess i know the answer,” Tanden wrote back. “they wanted to get away with it”
> But they didn’t. And the email scandal metastasized over the course of the campaign, damaging independent voters’ view of her trustworthiness and highlighting her penchant for secrecy.
> Controversies surrounding the Clinton Foundation also didn’t do her any favors. The fact that the organization took contributions from foreign governments while Clinton was secretary of State—violating its own commitment, as well as State Department protocol—fueled the perception that big corporations could influence Clinton’s decisions at State by giving to the group. And though evidence of direct quid pro quos never emerged, there were plenty of examples of corporations finding favor with the State Department after giving to the foundation.
> Those liabilities became nuclear when WikiLeaks, the hacking group, started releasing troves of emails it says it hacked from Podesta’s Gmail account. The Clinton campaign never confirmed or denied the validity of those emails. And the emails revealed that Chelsea Clinton worried the Clinton Foundation had made serious ethical missteps, and that Doug Band—a top aide to Bill Clinton—thought the former president himself had conflicts of interest involving the foundation’s corporate backers.
> The fact that the FBI investigated Clinton’s email set-up didn’t help. But on July 5, FBI Director James Comey announced that he wouldn’t recommend the Department of Justice press charges against Clinton. So the Clinton campaign was out of the woods—that is, until Oct. 28, when Comey wrote a letter to members of Congress who oversee the FBI announcing that the bureau had reopened its investigation of Clinton. Finally, on Nov. 6, Comey announced that the second round of investigating also hadn’t turned up anything.
> But the damage was done.
> And things could get worse. Trump promised on the campaign trail that he would appoint an attorney general who will try to find a way to convict and incarcerate Clinton. And crowds at his rallies have been chanting “Lock her up!” for months. In the second presidential debate, Trump even promised that if he were president, Clinton would be in jail.
> His win would be viewed in some quarters as a mandate for more investigation of her foundation and email use.
> It seems impossible that Clinton, after being cleared of wrongdoing, would be jailed.
> But then again, Trump’s rise seemed improbable as well and there’s no clear picture of what he will do to deliver on his promise to “Make America Great Again.”


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/11/09/hillary-clinton-destroyed-her-own-campaign.html


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Now people are blaming white women for Hillary's loss. I swear they have more sub-genres of blame than rock and metal.


----------



## KingCosmos

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RenegadexParagon said:


> You brave soul. Trying to talk to conservatives about the effects of systemic racism is like talking to a brick wall. It's not going to go anywhere. They've already made up their minds that the system is fair and black Americans are just lazy welfare queens. Just let it go. The ideology is too strong.


It's just ridiculous, I have seen people say Obama is president therefore systemic racism doesn't exist. I'm so glad Trump is president, because people are being more honest about how they feel and people will be slapped in the face with reality. If Hilary won people wouldn't be as open about it. But now people can see things for what they really are


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



DesolationRow said:


> The free helicopter ride will be highly memorable, though, so it's not a total loss.
> 
> And goodness yes I'm just kidding. Melodramatic comments occasionally deserve icy satirical responses.


The rare Deso savaging. :sodone


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Cipher said:


> Now people are blaming white women for Hillary's loss. I swear they have more sub-genres of blame than rock and metal.


Of course they are. Its just a blame game with them.


----------



## DoolieNoted

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The Hardcore Show said:


> This sucks I just want Trump to revoke my rights as a human being as anyone who did not vote for him or like him is by default a SJW. Let him be US president for life.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Apparently, my aunt who's a PhD in philsosophy who has been the dean of a philosophy department at her own Alma Mater just posted a Slate article shaming women voting for Trump. 

:sodone 

I used to have a lot of respect for her, but it's maddening that the horrendous narrative around this campaign has forced a woman who has upheld the values of critical thinking all her life to completely abandon it to irrationality ... 

Weren't philosophers the ones that gave us the rules of critical thinking in the first place? Or am I completely wrong about this ...

A PhD Dean of Philosophy is agreeing with practically an uneducated child compared to her ladies and gentlemen ... 

This is their brains on feminism. 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_facto..._voting_for_trump.html?wpsrc=sh_all_dt_fb_bot

Excerpt from the article: 



> What leads a woman to vote for a man who has made it very clear that he believes she is subhuman? Self-loathing. Hypocrisy. And, of course, a racist view of the world that privileges white supremacy over every other issue.
> 
> For a taste of the self-loathing that propels white female Trump voters, read _New York_’s interview with a woman who was planning on voting for Trump last week. “I heard that he said something about groping women, and I’m thinking, _Okay, No. 1, I think that’d be great. I like getting groped!_” There are still women who think like this—who buy the misogynist lie that sexual assault is a compliment, that any woman who gets groped must have wanted it, that men’s desire for sex is more important that women’s desire for safety and bodily integrity.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796711122158186496

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796845140472016897


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RenegadexParagon said:


> You brave soul. Trying to talk to conservatives about the effects of systemic racism is like talking to a brick wall. It's not going to go anywhere. They've already made up their minds that the system is fair and black Americans are just lazy welfare queens. Just let it go. The ideology is too strong.


Could you please provide a quote of anyone here saying anything like that.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I'll take the bait. 

I think some blacks are lazy welfare queens. 

I also think that some whites are lazy welfare queens. In fact, my personal impression is that more whites are welfare queens than blacks. 

And I think that some hispanics are lazy welfare queens too. 

And I think that there might even be some lazy asians on welfare as well. 

:shrug

I've already been accused of being a white supremacist so much that now it's essentially as meaningless as a toddler calling me a doodoohead.


----------



## Larry Davis

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Is that Hardcore guy parodying the overreactions or is he legitimately stupid

I mean, a lot of those people in that "SJWs react" video are very clearly acting (and badly at that) so I would guess he is too


----------



## RenegadexParagon

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



deepelemblues said:


> Could you please provide a quote of anyone here saying anything like that.


Only if you say pretty please I might consider engaging in conversation with you. I'd rather save my self from the hassle of explaining how thinly veiled racism is still racism, I know that's hard for conservatives to wrap their heads around.


----------



## DoolieNoted

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Larry Davis said:


> Is that Hardcore guy parodying the overreactions or is he legitimately stupid


He needs Bob Backlund to make him great again.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Larry Davis said:


> Is that Hardcore guy parodying the overreactions or is he legitimately stupid
> 
> I mean, a lot of those people in that "SJWs react" video are very clearly acting (and badly at that) so I would guess he is too


I think he's trolling/baiting and probably should be banned from this thread for one or the other.

I'm aware that will only lead to more hysterical melodrama on his part and it would be fun to watch that :shrug


----------



## Larry Davis

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> I think he's trolling/baiting and probably should be banned from this thread for one or the other.
> 
> I'm aware that will only lead to more hysterical melodrama on his part and it would be fun to watch that :shrug


Let's send him on the train to Krakow like he wants.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RenegadexParagon said:


> Only if you say pretty please I might consider engaging in conversation with you. I'd rather save my self from the hassle of explaining how thinly veiled racism is still racism, I know that's hard for conservatives to wrap their heads around.


It's actually very easy to wrap my head around it just as it is easy for me to wrap my head around why some people believe that the earth is flat. It's a theory - doesn't mean it has any legitimacy to it because the standards of evidence required to convert it into irrefutable fact for the people who believe it is simply too low or non-existent for those who oppose it.

In fact, if you can prove to me with sufficient data that thinly veiled racism is omnipresent amongst conservatives (as that's what I understand your claim to be), I might actually change my mind.


----------



## KingCosmos

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RenegadexParagon said:


> Only if you say pretty please I might consider engaging in conversation with you. I'd rather save my self from the hassle of explaining how thinly veiled racism is still racism, I know that's hard for conservatives to wrap their heads around.


Exactly it's a tactic many of them use. They will hide the racism in vague statements or say I think some blacks are like that but not all. One of the number one things they like to do is play the victim, as if you are somehow wrong for calling them out on those sly statments when we know all to well what the hell they meant when they said something.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



KingCosmos said:


> Exactly it's a tactic many of them use. *They will hide the racism in vague statements or say I think some blacks are like that but not all. *One of the number one things they like to do is play the victim, as if you are somehow wrong for calling them out on those sly statments when we know all to well what the hell they meant when they said something.


:heston

I'm glad I took the bait. 

:heston


----------



## Iapetus

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



deepelemblues said:


> We're saying we're tired of people like you reflexively labelling everything and everyone you don't like as racist because you're intellectually lazy and incurious and ignorant and doing so allows you to be intolerant cunts because it's okay to be intolerant cunts towards people you've decided are intolerant. It's not about calling out, confronting, and ending bigotry. It's about giving you an excuse to think and talk about other people in the most assholeish ways you can come up with.
> 
> You've defined racism down so much and defined it so broadly that the word doesn't really mean anything anymore. That's your fault. Not ours. You've done the same thing with misogyny.


:eyeroll So you insult my intelligence yet you can't comprehend the definition of simple concepts such as racism and misogyny. Look, the only reason people say that stuff to y'all is because that's what y'all do or are. Don't be or do the things people keep trying to tell you you are or are doing and then nobody will say shit.:jericho2

You got some nerve talking about "we're tired". All you're tired of is having people reading you right. You know what I'm tired of? I'm tired of worrying am I'm going to murdered by a random cop everytime I go out. I'm tired of watching my mother work a job for the past 12 years getting paid significantly less than men even at a lower position than her. I'm tired of being looked at as an exception to the statistics. I'm tired of my nieces and nephews going to schools where they can get suspended for defending themselves from bullies and have slave related math questions and even school plays. I'm tired of being able to trace my white genetics back to France, England, and Ireland, but getting got nowhere past 1842 because guess what? They didn't bring the genealogical records on the slave boats. WE are tired of being crammed into fund drained urban areas. We are tired of all being labeled as "thugs", "hoes", "ghetto" whenever we exercise our right to our own culture. We are tired of systematic racism, hatred, and oppression. And I haven't even cracked the tip of the iceberg in what WE'RE tired of or what women, other minorities and LGBT are tired of.

After 500 years of running the country, you seriously think we actually care about what y'all are "tired" of?
:duck
Yeah ok. lmao 
:eyeroll2


----------



## KingCosmos

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> :heston
> 
> I'm glad I took the bait.
> 
> :heston


Funny because you did just that, let's be honest you made a ridiculous statement about minorities being lazy and you got called out on it.Now you wanna backtrack and say "oh well I think some whites are welfare queens too" Your mindset is clear stop playing games and be honest about it. You make sly comments and then try to cover it up.


----------



## Clique

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Rated R Maryse said:


> Murica.
> 
> From the outside American politics just looks like two cults slandering each other.


It's unsettling just how divided this country is right now.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Listen

no one has any problem someone looking out for their demographics interests

my question is how do you fix it?

you can't FORCE people to like you


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

You can't make this stuff up! *#Irony*

The Democrats refuse to follow the the democratic process of America.

:lol

- Vic


----------



## Larry Davis

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Iapetus said:


> After 500 years of running the country,


:hmm


----------



## TheLooseCanon

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Someone just got had. :heston Drain the swamp they said. Run Anti-establishment, fill your cabinet with establishment. Classic politician.



> List reveals Sarah Palin and Chris Christie as well as oil tycoons and bankers in Donald Trump's possible cabinet


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ich-rudy-guliani-chris-christie-a7409126.html


----------



## skypod

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

LOL Sarah Palin, Chris Christie and Mike Pence. Tell me again how the far right aren't going to take America back to the stone age in the next 4 years. I'd say take us to the old testament but they just pick and choose the rules they want from it.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



KingCosmos said:


> Funny because you did just that, let's be honest you made a ridiculous statement about minorities being lazy and you got called out on it.Now you wanna backtrack and say "oh well I think some whites are welfare queens too" Your mindset is clear stop playing games and be honest about it. You make sly comments and then try to cover it up.


I know plenty of middle-aged rich white women who would pay you a handsome amount for reading their minds. 

:heston


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RenegadexParagon said:


> Only if you say pretty please I might consider engaging in conversation with you. I'd rather save my self from the hassle of explaining how thinly veiled racism is still racism, I know that's hard for conservatives to wrap their heads around.


Nice shitpost



> So you insult my intelligence yet you can't comprehend the definition of simple concepts such as racism and misogyny.


I comprehend the meanings of both words very well. I am arguing that the definitions of both have been changed by some people and that accusations of each have been made so often that they are cheapened and have lost their stigma to some degree, which is unfortunate.



> Look, the only reason people say that stuff to y'all is because that's what y'all do or are. Don't be or do the things people keep trying to tell you you are or are doing and then nobody will say shit.


Nice shitposting here too

How would you feel if someone said the only reason people say blacks are lazy is because they are. If they weren't lazy they wouldn't be called lazy.

You'd be pretty pissed off right because that's a horrible condescending and hateful thing to say.

Yet you're just fine with declaring that the only reason people cry racist is when there is racism. That's not a charge that can be leveled falsely, for self-interested gain? Really?



> You got some nerve talking about "we're tired". All you're tired of is having people reading you right.


We're tired of people who don't know us acting like they have a crystal clear view into our hearts and minds. The same way you are. 



> You know what I'm tired of? I'm tired of worrying am I'm going to murdered by a random cop everytime I go out.


Yet you're not tired of having 6,000 of you killed every year in senseless crime. The violent lawlessness pervading too many of your neighborhoods that causes so many to be killed doesn't get you more tired than the 400 or so killed a year by cops. That's the biggest problem that your energy and time and despairing rage (not mocking it at all) must be focused on. 



> I'm tired of watching my mother work a job for the past 12 years getting paid significantly less than men even at a lower position than her.


Sounds like she should have found a different job? That sounds callous but if you're being treated like shit then you gotta make the change yourself for yourself. 



> I'm tired of being looked at as an exception to the statistics.


You know who is to blame for them right? No not you or black people in general because you're black. Because you've made mistakes in who you have given political power over your communities to.



> I'm tired of my nieces and nephews going to schools where they can get suspended for defending themselves from bullies and have slave related math questions and even school plays.


Who's fault is that? 



> I'm tired of being able to trace my white genetics back to France, England, and Ireland, but getting got nowhere past 1842 because guess what? They didn't bring the genealogical records on the slave boats.


I can't change your genetics and neither can anyone else.



> WE are tired of being crammed into fund drained urban areas.


Who's fault is that? 

Let's be real clear: it is the fault of you, and your parents, and your grandparents, for electing shit Democratic politicians to run your cities and schools for the last 50 years. Republicans in particular and whites in general haven't run the politics of those areas for decades. The mayors, the city councils, the school boards, they're all completely dependent on the black vote. They've failed you and failed you and failed you and they're still failing you but instead of blaming them you blame white Republicans who have zero say in the running of your neighborhoods and your schools. White Republicans aren't electing the school boards that have power over schools where 50-75% of the students score several grades behind on math and reading. They aren't electing the mayors and city councils that have done nothing to bring economic development to your areas. They aren't making the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons rich as fuck. You are. 

Get rid of all the dumb greedy fucks you've had running things for 50 years and you'll be amazed at how the life of the black man and woman in this country improves. 



> We are tired of all being labeled as "thugs", "hoes", "ghetto" whenever we exercise our right to our own culture.


Please. Don't try to act like you bear no responsibility for the consumerist frenzy that drove "ghetto culture" (through music mainly) or that that contrived money-making machine did not rest on a foundation of glorifying violence and demeaning women. 



> We are tired of systematic racism, hatred, and oppression.


We're tired of being blamed for things we don't think, feel, or do.



> And I haven't even cracked the tip of the iceberg in what WE'RE tired of or what women, other minorities and LGBT are tired of.


Then stop electing shit politicians who give you shit schools so you're assured of never rising out of poverty and being seen as equal because you've got disposable income people want you to give to them. Fastest route to making racists not racists is to make the race they hate a race with money. Racists want money like anybody else. Less likely to get it from people you're racist towards.


----------



## KingCosmos

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> I know plenty of middle-aged rich white women who would pay you a handsome amount for reading their minds.
> 
> :heston


And I know plenty of smug people that keep perpetuating a system of injustice constantly and pass it off casually like it's nothing


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



KingCosmos said:


> And I know plenty of smug people that keep perpetuating a system of injustice constantly and pass it off casually like it's nothing


Except the majority of blacks have been voting their own in their own areas being ruled by liberal democrats for decades. 

So even if this racial system exists that keeps ya'all down, it ain't the Republicans nor a white majority (since urban city councils and local government is as diverse as its electorate) and hasn't been for decades.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Trump...

this is just to you from me, don't. put. failed. Republicans. in. your. cabinet.

If you want to draw from the established right wing but are afraid of the people you ran against draw from the hopefuls of 2012 that aren't Newt or Rick

For fucks sake, I didn't vote for Trump but I am optimistic BUT SOMETIMES MOTHERFUCKERS MAKE IT HARD


----------



## KingCosmos

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Iapetus said:


> :eyeroll So you insult my intelligence yet you can't comprehend the definition of simple concepts such as racism and misogyny. Look, the only reason people say that stuff to y'all is because that's what y'all do or are. Don't be or do the things people keep trying to tell you you are or are doing and then nobody will say shit.:jericho2
> 
> You got some nerve talking about "we're tired". All you're tired of is having people reading you right. You know what I'm tired of? I'm tired of worrying am I'm going to murdered by a random cop everytime I go out. I'm tired of watching my mother work a job for the past 12 years getting paid significantly less than men even at a lower position than her. I'm tired of being looked at as an exception to the statistics. I'm tired of my nieces and nephews going to schools where they can get suspended for defending themselves from bullies and have slave related math questions and even school plays. I'm tired of being able to trace my white genetics back to France, England, and Ireland, but getting got nowhere past 1842 because guess what? They didn't bring the genealogical records on the slave boats. WE are tired of being crammed into fund drained urban areas. We are tired of all being labeled as "thugs", "hoes", "ghetto" whenever we exercise our right to our own culture. We are tired of systematic racism, hatred, and oppression. And I haven't even cracked the tip of the iceberg in what WE'RE tired of or what women, other minorities and LGBT are tired of.
> 
> After 500 years of running the country, you seriously think we actually care about what y'all are "tired" of?
> :duck
> Yeah ok. lmao
> :eyeroll2


Very well said, they are so tired? Why because they said something slick and got called out on it? Fine, let's say they got read wrong, you are complaining about simple name calling. You being called racist doesn't force you in to a system of complete stress where you have to figure out how to support your family, it doesn't make you fear for your life when getting pulled over by a cop. What in the hell do you have to be tired about just because someone called you out on a smug ass comment


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



KingCosmos said:


> Very well said, they are so tired? Why because they said something slick and got called out on it? Fine, let's say they got read wrong, you are complaining about simple name calling. You being called racist doesn't force you in to a system of complete stress where you have to figure out how to support your family, it doesn't make you fear for your life when getting pulled over by a cop. What in the hell do you have to be tired about just because someone called you out on a smug ass comment


Is being racist bad or not?

Because you say it is then you say being called racist really isn't that big a deal.

Which is it? Whatever serves your emotional need to feel morally superior at that moment?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



skypod said:


> LOL Sarah Palin, Chris Christie and Mike Pence. Tell me again how the far right aren't going to take America back to the stone age in the next 4 years. I'd say take us to the old testament but they just pick and choose the rules they want from it.


Yeah. I read the cabinet list today and walked away from it severely disappointed ... 

Carson is up for the education ministry :sodone


----------



## RenegadexParagon

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> ]In fact, if you can prove to me with sufficient data that thinly veiled racism is omnipresent amongst conservatives (as that's what I understand your claim to be), I might actually change my mind.


I have no data to offer (nor do I intend to change anyone's mind, because that's not going to happen regardless  ) other than my own experience speaking to conservatives and strategy the Republican party has used for quite some time (see: "Southern strategy" and similar tactics. This propaganda and appeals to racism have no doubt affected how many American conservatives see racial issues). I also never intended to claim all conservatives are racists, I have indeed met conservatives that are not so ignorant about race relations (however rare that may be) and are much more sympathetic. I'm sorry if that's what you got out of my comment. If that has deeply offended you, I am truly sorry. I plan on making this up to you and all other conservatives on here. I will revert back to my safe space and convince my Judeo-Bolshevik peers that perhaps we should read Atlas Shrugged together with a more open mind as a form of sincere apology.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*





Such anger


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RenegadexParagon said:


> I have no data to offer (nor do I intend to change anyone's mind, because that's not going to happen regardless  ) other than my own experience speaking to conservatives and strategy the Republican party has used for quite some time (see: "Southern strategy" and similar tactics. This propaganda and appeals to racism have no doubt affected how many American conservatives see racial issues). I also never intended to claim all conservatives are racists, I have indeed met conservatives that are not so ignorant about race relations (however rare that may be) and are much more sympathetic.


Did conditions improve for African Americans when the liberals dominated the federal government for nearly a decade or did they remain the same?

Maybe you guys are looking at the wrong form of government to help you. Federal governments barely have much power to influence the lives of americans directly. American lives are much more dependent on local state and municipal governments.


----------



## KingCosmos

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Except the majority of blacks have been voting their own in their own areas being ruled by liberal democrats for decades.
> 
> So even if this racial system exists that keeps ya'all down, it ain't the Republicans nor a white majority (since urban city councils and local government is as diverse as its electorate) and hasn't been for decades.


Even if the system exists? wow ok. Both parties perpetuate the system of injustice so don't pass it off as "hey its the Democrats , they aren't doing anything for you". The fact that you think it's as simple as that is so funny.And the fact you just used the blacks are in politics card is ridiculous. You think having a couple of black people in political positions is going to change the integral system of systemic injustices that this country thrives on?


----------



## RenegadexParagon

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Did conditions improve for African Americans when the liberals dominated the federal government for nearly a decade or did they remain the same?


I don't believe I made any claims that liberals are better.



> Maybe you guys are looking at the wrong form of government to help you. Federal governments barely have much power to influence the lives of americans directly. American lives are much more dependent on local state and municipal governments.


Bruh, you're talking to an anarchist. This isn't too relevant to me.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RenegadexParagon said:


> I have no data to offer (nor do I intend to change anyone's mind, because that's not going to happen regardless  ) other than my own experience speaking to conservatives and strategy the Republican party has used for quite some time (see: "Southern strategy" and similar tactics. This propaganda and appeals to racism have no doubt affected how many American conservatives see racial issues). I also never intended to claim all conservatives are racists, I have indeed met conservatives that are not so ignorant about race relations (however rare that may be) and are much more sympathetic. I'm sorry if that's what you got out of my comment. If that has deeply offended you, I am truly sorry. I plan on making this up to you and all other conservatives on here. I will revert back to my safe space and convince my Judeo-Bolshevik peers that perhaps we should read Atlas Shrugged together with a more open mind as a form of sincere apology.


That's a very loose view of the Southern Strategy 

It was Nixon's brainchild and he was very leftest (he was the first person to try universal health care in the US)

JFK had made the democrats very popular with the youth and college crowd (up to that point the democrats had largely been seen as "old money" and the republicans as "self-made men")

Nixon and Regan were the only two who really pulled if off as intended


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



KingCosmos said:


> Even if the system exists? wow ok. Both parties perpetuate the system of injustice so don't pass it off as "hey its the Democrats , they aren't doing anything for you". The fact that you think it's as simple as that is so funny.And the fact you just used the blacks are in politics card is ridiculous. You think having a couple of black people in political positions is going to change the integral system of systemic injustices that this country thrives on?


Oh. So the liberal democrats weren't for you. The republicans aren't for you. Black politicans don't matter. White politicians don't matter. 

And yet these are the people responsible for creating these systems .. or is it a third party creating this system .. or is it just white people creating this system .. or is it black people in cohoots with white people that are creating these systems. 

Who's creating these systems and what exactly are these systems and what is the evidence of the existence of these systems. 

How do the blacks that break through these systems break through it if these systems are designed to hold them back and keep them from succeeding. 

What is so unique and special about them that they can make their way to the top of their respective fields in a society that has systems in place to ensure that blacks just don't succeed --- and in many fields actually dominate in representation as well as financial and social success?

If these systems exist, then they certainly aren't proving to be very effective, are they?


----------



## KingCosmos

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



deepelemblues said:


> Is being racist bad or not?
> 
> Because you say it is then you say being called racist really isn't that big a deal.
> 
> Which is it? Whatever serves your emotional need to feel morally superior at that moment?


Hmmm it seems you haven't been reading anything I said at all.You just don't get it do you. Systemic racism at its core is the problem. There is is always going to be racism but when you have a system in place where IT AFFECTS A LIFE that is what needs to be dealt with. Someone can call me the n word and I can go on living, but when there is a system put in place where I have to worry about my life and how I can feed my family THAT IS A PROBLEM. Is you being called racist going to disenfranchise you or your family? You are just mad because someone called you out on your BS which justifies the very system we live in


----------



## RenegadexParagon

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



stevefox1200 said:


> That's a very loose view of the Southern Strategy
> 
> It was Nixon's brainchild and he was very leftest (he was the first person to try universal health care in the US)
> 
> JFK had made the democrats very popular with the youth and college crowd (up to that point the democrats had largely been seen as "old money" and the republicans as "self-made men")
> 
> Nixon and Regan were the only two who really pulled if off as intended


:lol 

Wew lad. I think you need to do more reading on Leftism before you declare Nixon as a Leftist.


----------



## The5star_Kid

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



KO Bossy said:


> Because a frightening number of Americans are completely fucking stupid. Worse still, they're HAPPY being stupid.
> 
> *For god's sake, about a quarter of Americans still think THE SUN REVOLVES AROUND THE EARTH. Forget the 19th century,* we're going back to the 1600s here.
> 
> http://time.com/7809/1-in-4-americans-thinks-sun-orbits-earth/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A stupid system run by stupid people makes stupid decisions, like electing other stupid people for office or nominating them for presidency.


lol cmon thats not true is it?

In terms of the system, I feel we have similar problems in the UK and the people running it are not stupid, they are cold and calculating but they do feed off of the stupidity of the general populous.


----------



## SovereignVA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Obama was spouting a lot of good SOUNDING ideas in 2008 but 8 years later you can definitely say his reign was trash.

The nation is sooo divided right now yet EVERYONE feels like they're being under attack, to the point where they voted an idiot with no political background.....and are PROUD of it because he's different.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RenegadexParagon said:


> :lol
> 
> Wew lad. I think you need to do more reading on Leftism before you declare Nixon as a Leftist.


Ok he was leftest for a rightist which i guess makes him a centralist but he was far more left leaning than most cold war politicians with the exception of Carter who was so leftest it turned out to hurt him 

Nixon would likely consider himself a "don'tgiveafuckist"


----------



## The5star_Kid

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Larry Davis said:


> Because "We the people" do not have an actual say in who becomes the nominee. Primaries are more symbolic than anything else, and there to weed out the obviously unfit. The candidates are chosen by their respective parties when the pool is narrowed down, and by all accounts both sides truly believed these two chucklefucks were their best shots at winning.
> 
> If Trump had been up against pretty much _anyone_ else, I have a hard time believing he would have even come close to winning, but Hillary had already been preordained to be the 2016 nominee years ago. It was a foregone conclusion, and no amount of evidence that people hate her was going to sway them from steering their ship right into an iceberg.
> 
> I wasn't super hot on Sanders either, as I felt many of his stated goals were unrealistic at best, and pipe dreams at worst, but I at least would have been able to vote for him.
> 
> Another thing contributing to this is that the electoral college is a supremely fucked-up system that should have been abolished decades ago. Hillary lost many states due to filibusters from third parties, including Florida, Pennsylvania, and I believe Michigan. Why we don't simply operate on popular vote is beyond me.


I agree, all democracies should operate on a popular vote but if something so simple and so "good" was the norm, then the truly rich and despicable would lose their power base.

In terms of Sanders, I honestly don't believe his ideas were that impossible. It's just that we're too busy thinking small because that's what we've become used to.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RenegadexParagon said:


> Bruh, you're talking to an anarchist. This isn't too relevant to me.


More of a libertarian myself ... But given that we live in a society that is governed by a large government it is still my responsibility to make sure that while I'm in this society I vote for the person whose policies and policy promises align closest to mine. Exercise the power with the vote all the way from the top to the bottom in every election and every position of power. 

As an anarchist, how do you propose we bring about self-governance in a country like America ... The most we can do is try to vote for individuals and people that are for small government. To me that's what the republican party represents and that's why I went republican this year - but also vary that campaign promises are flimsy.


----------



## KingCosmos

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Oh. So the liberal democrats weren't for you. The republicans aren't for you. Black politicans don't matter. White politicians don't matter.
> 
> And yet these are the people responsible for creating these systems .. or is it a third party creating this system .. or is it just white people creating this system .. or is it black people in cohoots with white people that are creating these systems.
> 
> Who's creating these systems and what exactly are these systems and what is the evidence of the existence of these systems.
> 
> How do the blacks that break through these systems break through it if these systems are designed to hold them back and keep them from succeeding.
> 
> What is so unique and special about them that they can make their way to the top of their respective fields in a society that has systems in place to ensure that blacks just don't succeed --- and in many fields actually dominate in representation as well as financial and social success?
> 
> If these systems exist, then they certainly aren't proving to be very effective, are they?


Jesus Christ so much ignorance in one post . No one is in cohoots god i can't believe i'm even explaining this. America at it's inception was created from systemic racism, it never left the system has been in place ever since so there isn't some evil white man finding new ways to hurt black people which is what your twisted mind is warping it in to. The problem is that it's so casual and it integrated in to every day society and hasn't been changed. The prison industrial complex, housing discrimination, stop and frisk, this isn't even a fraction of the things i can go on and on. 

How do Blacks break through the system? Are you kidding me right now. You are using the whole look at this Black person he is doing well so there must not be racism argument. I'm not even addressing this it's so ridiculous and is the number 1 white supremacist tactic to deny racism.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*






Best video on why Trump won.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



KingCosmos said:


> Jesus Christ so much ignorance in one post . No one is in cohoots god i can't believe i'm even explaining this. America at it's inception was created from systemic racism, it never left the system has been in place ever since so there isn't some evil white man finding new ways to hurt black people which is what your twisted mind is warping it in to. The problem is that it's so casual and it integrated in to every day society and hasn't been changed. The prison industrial complex, housing discrimination, stop and frisk, this isn't even a fraction of the things i can go on and on.


The only one with a warped view of reality is you because the majority of the claims you're making that you've myopically attributed to being faced only by blacks is applicable to the majority of poverty stricken americans regardless of race. Much of this "discrimination" is class-based due to wealth gaps as opposed to racism. 

The only thing I am willing to give you is that there is a disproportionate amount of police force directed at blacks but that isn't a system that's based on race, but rather a result of higher rates of violence. 

Poor whites face housing discrimination as well. Stop and frisk is restricted to urban areas where crime rates are high and it correlates with high rates of crime along racial lines. 

You should see the kind of police brutality and aggression poor whites face in the crime-riddled white ghettos where drug related crimes are high. The difference is that white ghettos don't have a gang/murder epidemic that plagues inner city african american ghettos - which again also doesn't have anything to do with race innately, but just happens as a matter of fact at higher levels. 

Outside of inner city ghettos, african americans are and have done very well for themselves in various pockets of the country. To assume that there is systematic racism in place is to deny them their success. 



> How do Blacks break through the system? Are you kidding me right now. You are using the whole look at this Black person he is doing well so there must not be racism argument. I'm not even addressing this it's so ridiculous and is the number 1 white supremacist tactic to deny racism.


The real reason why you and no one actually wants to talk about black excellence is because it shatters the systematic racism narrative. 

No one denies the existence of racism. No one denies the existence of violence against blacks by racist whites and racist cops when it happens. I wouldn't do that and I don't do that. 

However, when a refutable claim is made about "systematic racism" then it's a claim that needs to be backed up by evidence - and the continued rise in income as well as number of successful blacks flies in the face of the systematic racism argument.

What blacks should be doing instead is what those blacks did to subvert "systematic racism" and succeed.


----------



## glenwo2

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



KingCosmos said:


> Very interesting about the white voters that came out the woodwork to vote for Trump. The numbers are very telling. It shows that when they feel systematic white supremacy is threatened they will go out of the way to vote. No doubt the racial issues and riots in America has caused these people to act. They feel as if they are under attack. Which is ridiculous because systematic white supremacy would still be protected under Hilary. These people aren't the radical racist and some of them might not even realize they are white supremacist
> 
> Then you have the for lack of a better term losers that voted for Trump because they feel that it is somehow giving the middle finger to the establishment and the elite These poor saps have been beaten down in life so much that they feel voting for Trump somehow gives them a sense of power. Ironically they are voting for one of the extreme elite and are blind to the fact that anything will really change. These suckers will stay poor and the rich will keep the money
> 
> Then let's not forget the Black people for Trump simply because they thought Hilary was a snake. Also the Black voters that are Uncle toms and fail to realize in the end supporting white supremacy does not spare you from injustice because at the end of the day your skin color will always get you shot.
> 
> Then you have the Anti Clinton crowd that voted and they would put Satan in the white house before another Clinton.
> 
> Trump picked the perfect time to run for president. White people feel that their place st the top in society is threatened so they will flock naturally. This is the brutal honest truth about the people voted.


Hilary and Trump were the choices.

Whomever the "white people" voted for and their reasons, have zero to do with White Supremacy. Nice Post, btw.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Connecting with BM's post


----------



## KingCosmos

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> The only one with a warped view of reality is you because what you said about this is applicable to the majority of americans regardless of race. Much of this "discrimination" is class-based due to wealth gaps as opposed to racism.
> 
> The only thing I am willing to give you is that there is a disproportionate amount of police force directed at blacks but that isn't a system that's based on race, but rather a result of higher rates of violence.
> 
> Poor whites face housing discrimination as well. Stop and frisk is restricted to urban areas where crime rates are high and it correlates with high rates of crime along racial lines. You should see the kind of police brutality poor whites face in the crime-riddled white ghettos where drug related crimes are high. The difference is that white ghettos don't have a gang/murder epidemic that plagues inner city african american ghettos - which again also doesn't have anything to do with race innately, but just happens as a matter of fact at higher levels.
> 
> Outside of inner city ghettos, african americans are and have done very well for themselves in different pockets of the country.
> 
> The real reason why you and no one actually wants to talk about black excellence is because it shatters the systematic racism narrative.
> 
> No one denies the existence of racism. No one denies the existence of violence against blacks by racist whites and racist cops when it happens. I wouldn't do that and I don't do that.
> 
> However, when a refutable claim is made about "systematic racism" then it's a claim that needs to be backed up by evidence - and the continued rise in income as well as number of successful blacks flies in the face of the systematic racism argument.


You are not getting anything. I'm not addressing the successful blacks argument because in the post where you called minorities lazy, i went in to great detail about systemic racism explainig the system and how the government has even bombed successful Black places that flourish, and a Black person being lucky doesn't deny the fact that there is still racism(you completely avoided the points that post btw because it destroyed anything you had to say). Of course there is going to be successful people of all races but that doesn't mean there isn't injustice, Jesus it's basically the Obama is President so racism doesn't exist argument.


----------



## KingCosmos

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



glenwo2 said:


> Hilary and Trump were the choices.
> 
> Whomever the "white people" voted for and their reasons, have zero to do with White Supremacy. Nice Post, btw.


Nice reading comprehension i see you ignored the other parts of my post where i mentioned other typed of voters. And if you think that wasn't a factor then the naivety is strong.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Best video on why Trump won.


> Network of the fat water buffalo and the screaming bitch :lol


----------



## Heath V

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

The people have spoken and Trump won, finally we can get this country back on track!!


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



KingCosmos said:


> You are not getting anything. I'm not addressing the successful blacks argument because in the post where you called minorities lazy, i went in to great detail about systemic racism explainig the system and how the government has even bombed successful Black places that flourish,* and a Black person being lucky doesn't deny the fact that there is still racism(you completely avoided the points that post btw because it destroyed anything you had to say)*. Of course there is going to be successful people of all races but that doesn't mean there isn't injustice, Jesus it's basically the Obama is President so racism doesn't exist argument.


That essentially just boils down to the existence of racism .. *not *existence of *systematic racism*. 

No one denies the existence of racism that blacks or members of any race (even whites can) face. 

However, much of the systematic racism simply draws its "evidence" from the existence of class-based discrimination and struggles and tries to pass it off as evidence for racism. 

Class-based struggles and discrimination is not evidence of systematic racism because the ultimate measure (poverty) is where black poverty is actually significantly lower than white poverty ... No one takes into account the millions of white people that are well below the poverty line in this country and their numbers are higher than other races. 

Ultimately when it boils down to government decisions around welfare, whichever government reduces welfare pretty much always ends up impacting more whites - and that's because poor whites are double the number of poor blacks. 

It's one hell of a failure of a system don't you think if it doesn't benefit white people while holding blacks down? Because it's not about race, it's about social class and poverty.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Iapetus said:


> Tired of hearing what? Racism? Sexism? Religious intolerance?
> 
> Are you saying those things AREN'T evil???


You had one shot...

Ya blew it.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

edit

goddammit, wrong thread again


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Heath V said:


> The people have spoken and Trump won, finally we can get this country back on track!!


Back on track like this you mean


https://twitter.com/i/moments/796417517157830656

and yes the people spoke, Hillary got 250,000 more votes than Trump. Let's just remember that. 

And before you speak, Trump said a few years ago the EC is a disaster for democracy. 




Beatles123 said:


> > Network of the fat water buffalo and the screaming bitch :lol


Did you even watch the video? Just curious. He makes a lot of great points and Jordan is 100x more level headed than Cenk.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Back on track like this you mean
> 
> 
> https://twitter.com/i/moments/796417517157830656
> 
> and yes the people spoke, Hillary got 250,000 more votes than Trump. Let's just remember that.
> 
> And before you speak, Trump said a few years ago the EC is a disaster for democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you even watch the video? Just curious. He makes a lot of great points and Jordan is 100x more level headed than Cenk.


He's going to overtake her count now.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



L-DOPA said:


> I know this is a sensitive topic but I'll try and give as honest of an answer as I can give. I'm not a Trump supporter at all but there is a bit of a difference between the two here. For one, the KKK and confederates have always supported the Republican party because think about it, are they gonna support the democrats who have for decades positioned themselves as the most socially liberal party out of the two? With the Republicans, there is still a sense of social conservatism within the party which plays more into the world view of these social groups. Of course, due to Trump's immigration policy they have backed him more openly but there has been no doubt an overreaction to Trump in terms of him being "racist, bigoted, sexist" etc. when that wasn't his entire platform. Even pro-BLM supporters like Secular Talk recognize this as Trump's message of being against the corporate trade deals, bringing back jobs from overseas and changing the establishment in Washington have been just as big if not in some cases a bigger message than the immigration policies in regards to Muslims and Mexicans. Just look for example at Trump's final argument ad, the vast majority of it is what I am talking about:


*
That is a valid position to take, however, it doesn't change that, as you mentioned, his irresponsible rhetoric is being used as ammunition for awful, racist extremists who are out here right now boldly spreading their hate: https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/na...white-power/PdBHZlaRx4VkpdcXZwjX0J/story.html
http://qz.com/833607/us-election-a-...en-out-in-the-us-after-donald-trumps-victory/

I'm seeing many more cases of racially motivated threats and attacks against Middle Eastern and Black people, both in the news and on my social media timelines, since the results of the election were announced. Let these examples be presented to hypocritical Trump supporters and they'll go to their situational defense of the media sensationalizing everything. Now wait a minute: why is the media only sensationalizing things when it comes to Trump, but you blindly believe everything negative you read about Black Lives Matter? It doesn't work that way. Don't pick and choose when the media is twisting facts to fit your own deluded narrative. If you can say BLM is a terrorist group, based on the destructive acts of individuals we don't support, then Trump can be considered a tool of empowerment for racists, and his supporters shouldn't be surprised when they're labeled as such.*




> Now, I'm not saying that the Black Lives Matter group is only comprised of domestic terrorists and race baiters because many of them are peaceful protesters and are speaking up about issues which deserve to be talked about, but if you look at the structure of the BLM it's own ideological base is centered around Assata Shakur, who is a convicted cop killer and is on the FBI's most wanted list. She is the cultural and ideological inspiration behind the founding of the Black Lives Matter group and it's leaders look up to her as their guiding light.


*
You do realize she beat 4 bogus charges prior to that including kidnapping, two robberies, and attempted murder, right? They were doing anything they could to throw her in jail, and she was convicted under false pretenses. Neurosurgeon Dr. Arthur Turner Davidson and pathologist Dr. David Spain both testified that it's anatomically impossible for her to have fired a weapon after being shot with her hands in the air. The X-rays determined her hands were in the air in spite of the officer's lies, because it would again be impossible for her to have been shot in the clavicle with her arms down. Her wrongful conviction is only reinforcement of her anti-establishment ideals, and the BLM leaders have every reason to support her.*



> Shakur was one of the founders of the Black Liberation Army who were movement born out of the Black Panther movement that carried out a series of bombings, murders, robberies and prison breaks. She joined the Black Liberation Army because the Black Panther's "weren't violent enough".


*
This is wrong. She left because of the overly macho behaviors of males in the Black Panther party, and because there was a lack of focus on Black history. "The basic problem stemmed from the fact that the BPP had no systematic approach to political education. They were reading the Red Book but didn't know who Harriet Tubman, Marcus Garvey, and Nat Turner were. They talked about intercommunalism but still really believed that the Civil War was fought to free the slaves. A whole lot of them barely understood any kind of history, Black, African or otherwise. That was the main reason many Party members, in my opinion, underestimated the need to unite with other Black organizations and to struggle around various community issues."

That's a direct quote from her autobiography.*



> That is who the BLM's founders cite as the ideological guru behind the movement, a convicted cop killer who carried out a series of domestic terrorist attacks.


*Who was acquitted of a series of domestic terrorist attacks and convicted on false evidence**



> The BLM itself may have largely peaceful protesters but it's most extreme element happen to come from the very top of it's hierarchy. This isn't a few offshoot nutjobs, these are people who know what they are doing and know what they want to commit and carry out.


*
This is a complete diversion from the topic at hand. Assata Shakur isn't the leader; only the inspiration. Until Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi are convicted of domestic terror crimes, you have no argument for them being the source of these violent protests, and you can't blindly accuse them of inciting riots when they've never advocated for anything like that.*



> It is not coincidence that at many of BLM's rallies there are calls to kill all cops and the infamous "Pigs in a Blanket, Fry em' like Bacon!" because that is the type of beliefs both the founders of BLM and it's main inspiration also believe. When you take that into consideration, it is little wonder why the events of Dallas for example occured. You have a large peaceful element of the BLM who are being led by a very hateful and violent leadership AT LEAST in terms of what they project and how they have influenced these violent riots and killings among members of their group.


*
There is not one "pig" mention in the herstory article you just linked. There is only reference to police brutality. However, I've linked multiple cases of Trump's irresponsible rhetoric being used to empower and enable racist hate groups above.*



> I really do not sit on either side of the fence fully when it comes to the policing problem with African Americans, I happen to believe police brutality is a huge problem but it also happens to not only white people but a large group of hispanics too. Yet I never really see BLM condemn it, they only focus on the killings by cops on African Americans which is heavily covered by the media (who are just as much to blame for the racial tensions as anyone). African Americans certainly have a lot to be angry about and deserve vindication for the history of what you have been through as well as recent events. Not only that but in terms of the troubled neighborhoods, the poverty and crime in which the conditions of the inner cities and the left behind counties have really had a negative impact on the African American community and people as a whole.
> 
> I just do not believe the Black Lives Matter group is the answer.


*
What people don't understand is Black Lives Matter doesn't mean our lives matter and yours doesn't; it means Black Lives Matter, too. Emphasis needs to be placed on Black lives because of how inconsequential the police shootings of these individuals are. The movement is a reminder that we deserve due process like everyone else, and it shouldn't be okay to just kill our people, get paid administrative leave until the media gets bored of covering the unjust murder, and going back to work like nothing happened. This occurs far too often, and these women have created the movement to inspire change and raise awareness of these injustices.*


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> He's going to overtake her count now.


No he is not. He is 250,000 votes behind her. but either way half the country is against Trump. But he won the EC college and that is all that matters. If the EC is to be abolished it has to start now before the next election.


so did you watch that video? If so what do you disagree with what he said in the video


----------



## glenwo2

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



KingCosmos said:


> Nice reading comprehension i see you ignored the other parts of my post where i mentioned other typed of voters. And if you think that wasn't a factor then the naivety is strong.


Your "hate" is stronger, though. :shrug

"White people" shouldn't have to apologize for voting for whom they want to vote for, imo. You make it as if it's a crime that they voted at all. 

And this coming from someone who, as you said, did not vote. Hey...that's your decision but others have their own decisions to make and many won't be the same as yours. Different Strokes for Different Folks, you know?


----------



## KingCosmos

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



glenwo2 said:


> Your "hate" is stronger, though. :shrug
> 
> "White people" shouldn't have to apologize for voting for whom they want to vote for, imo. You make it as if it's a crime that they voted at all.
> 
> And this coming from someone who, as you said, did not vote. Hey...that's your decision but others have their own decisions to make and many won't be the same as yours. Different Strokes for Different Folks, you know?


Did i say they had to apologize for anything, people don't apologize for White supremacy anyway. They simply deflect and cry reverse racism to defend their views. i was just making an assessment.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> No he is not. He is 250,000 votes behind her. but either way half the country is against Trump. But he won the EC college and that is all that matters. If the EC is to be abolished it has to start now before the next election.
> 
> 
> so did you watch that video? If so what do you disagree with what he said in the video


You don't watch Molyneux, I don't have to watch TYT.


----------



## Warlock

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



KingCosmos said:


> Did i say they had to apologize for anything, people don't apologize for White supremacy anyway. i was just making an assessment.


Your assessment is wrong tho. The same amount of "white people" voted for trump as they always do for that party. Noone came out of the woodwork. He actually increased his numbers with both latino and black. So all the excuses of white supremacy being more threatened, racist backlash, etc this time around falls flat on its face.

The reason hillary lost wasnt cause trump got more of anything, but that hillary got less of what made barack successful.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> You don't watch Molyneux, I don't have to watch TYT.


that is what I thought you did not even watch it. Well you should since he made a lot of great points and actually complemented Trump and bashed the DNC.

But ok


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

SAVE US MODS

SAVE US FROM OURSELVES

and don't be assholes about it please


----------



## KingCosmos

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Sweenz said:


> Your assessment is wrong tho. The same amount of "white people" voted for trump as they always do. Noone came out of the woodwork. He actually increased his numbers with both latino and black. So all the excuses of white supremacy being more threatened, racist backlash, etc this time around falls flat on its face.


The white people voting for Trump are the same ones that voted for Obama also. It's just that they can identify with Trump because they feel whiteness is being threatened.Now why would some of the people that vote for Obama vote for Trump? Well that's easy, when the chips are down and whitness is feeling threatned people revea their true nature. Have you not seen all the outcry of white people feeling threatened or are you blind to it. Trump is a documented white supremacist, this isn't a debate it's fact. He is shown practicing it. So if people vote for him of course i will question them. Hilary is a white supremacist too but this information requires a little more research therefore the masses that vote for her might not know it


----------



## Warlock

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



KingCosmos said:


> The white people voting for Trump are the same ones that voted for Obama also. It's just that they can identify with Trump because they feel whiteness is being threatened. People are just revealing their true nature. Have you not seen all the outcry of white people feeling threatened or are you blind to it. Trump is a documented white supremacist, this isn't a debate it's fact. So if people vote for him of course i will question them


The stats dont really back that up. White vote only increased 1 point, while black increased 2 and latino also increased 2 (latter is from some fuzzy memory). 

Outcry, feelings, etc are trumped (pun intended) by facts.

Edit: My black and latino numbers were off(i undershot them). Knew I should of waited before going off memory. Link posted on reply 690 for the data.


----------



## Hencheman_21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Here is a thought I had today. What if some of the electoral voters decide to follow the will of the people and not out of whack state rules and vote for Hillary instead of Trump? I am not sure what if any legal ramifications they would face and to be honest I think the ones sent belong to political parties so unlikely they cross lines but it sure could be interesting. Heck if only 37 that are supposed to vote for Trump decide to vote for someone else, not even Hillary but maybe a 3rd party nominee, Trump would not have the majority and really throw a wrench in the works. Considering how crazy this election has been from the start it would somehow seem fitting >


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

what we got here is a failure to communicate 

no really, there is lack understanding of why peoeple supported who they did so we assume malice or greed because that makes it easier to hate

I recommend stating your points in a list format with no passive aggressiveness and/or sarcasm


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Trump's 100-day plan (mostly for the democrats that obviously haven't read it). 



It's very unrealistic. That's all I have to say about it. Obviously I don't agree with everything. 



http://www.npr.org/2016/11/09/501451368/here-is-what-donald-trump-wants-to-do-in-his-first-100-days




> * FIRST, propose a Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress;
> * SECOND, a hiring freeze on all federal employees to reduce federal workforce through attrition (exempting military, public safety, and public health);
> * THIRD, a requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated;
> * FOURTH, a 5 year-ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government service;
> * FIFTH, a lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government;
> 
> * SIXTH, a complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections.
> On the same day, I will begin taking the following 7 actions to protect American workers:
> * FIRST, I will announce my intention to renegotiate NAFTA or withdraw from the deal under Article 2205
> * SECOND, I will announce our withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership
> * THIRD, I will direct my Secretary of the Treasury to label China a currency manipulator
> * FOURTH, I will direct the Secretary of Commerce and U.S. Trade Representative to identify all foreign trading abuses that unfairly impact American workers and direct them to use every tool under American and international law to end those abuses immediately
> * FIFTH, I will lift the restrictions on the production of $50 trillion dollars' worth of job-producing American energy reserves, including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal. * SIXTH, lift the Obama-Clinton roadblocks and allow vital energy infrastructure projects, like the Keystone Pipeline, to move forward
> * SEVENTH, cancel billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs and use the money to fix America's water and environmental infrastructure
> Additionally, on the first day, I will take the following five actions to restore security and the constitutional rule of law:
> * FIRST, cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by President Obama
> * SECOND, begin the process of selecting a replacement for Justice Scalia from one of the 20 judges on my list, who will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States
> * THIRD, cancel all federal funding to Sanctuary Cities
> * FOURTH, begin removing the more than 2 million criminal illegal immigrants from the country and cancel visas to foreign countries that won't take them back
> * FIFTH, suspend immigration from terror-prone regions where vetting cannot safely occur. All vetting of people coming into our country will be considered extreme vetting.
> 
> 
> Next, I will work with Congress to introduce the following broader legislative measures and fight for their passage within the first 100 days of my Administration:
> 
> 
> Middle Class Tax Relief And Simplification Act. An economic plan designed to grow the economy 4% per year and create at least 25 million new jobs through massive tax reduction and simplification, in combination with trade reform, regulatory relief, and lifting the restrictions on American energy. The largest tax reductions are for the middle class. A middle-class family with 2 children will get a 35% tax cut. The current number of brackets will be reduced from 7 to 3, and tax forms will likewise be greatly simplified. The business rate will be lowered from 35 to 15 percent, and the trillions of dollars of American corporate money overseas can now be brought back at a 10 percent rate.
> End The Offshoring Act. Establishes tariffs to discourage companies from laying off their workers in order to relocate in other countries and ship their products back to the U.S. tax-free.
> American Energy & Infrastructure Act. Leverages public-private partnerships, and private investments through tax incentives, to spur $1 trillion in infrastructure investment over 10 years. It is revenue neutral.
> School Choice And Education Opportunity Act. Redirects education dollars to give parents the right to send their kid to the public, private, charter, magnet, religious or home school of their choice. Ends common core, brings education supervision to local communities. It expands vocational and technical education, and make 2 and 4-year college more affordable.
> Repeal and Replace Obamacare Act. Fully repeals Obamacare and replaces it with Health Savings Accounts, the ability to purchase health insurance across state lines, and lets states manage Medicaid funds. Reforms will also include cutting the red tape at the FDA: there are over 4,000 drugs awaiting approval, and we especially want to speed the approval of life-saving medications.
> Affordable Childcare and Eldercare Act. Allows Americans to deduct childcare and elder care from their taxes, incentivizes employers to provide on-side childcare services, and creates tax-free Dependent Care Savings Accounts for both young and elderly dependents, with matching contributions for low-income families.
> End Illegal Immigration Act Fully-funds the construction of a wall on our southern border with the full understanding that the country Mexico will be reimbursing the United States for the full cost of such wall; establishes a 2-year mandatory minimum federal prison sentence for illegally re-entering the U.S. after a previous deportation, and a 5-year mandatory minimum for illegally re-entering for those with felony convictions, multiple misdemeanor convictions or two or more prior deportations; also reforms visa rules to enhance penalties for overstaying and to ensure open jobs are offered to American workers first.
> Restoring Community Safety Act. Reduces surging crime, drugs and violence by creating a Task Force On Violent Crime and increasing funding for programs that train and assist local police; increases resources for federal law enforcement agencies and federal prosecutors to dismantle criminal gangs and put violent offenders behind bars.
> Restoring National Security Act. Rebuilds our military by eliminating the defense sequester and expanding military investment; provides Veterans with the ability to receive public VA treatment or attend the private doctor of their choice; protects our vital infrastructure from cyber-attack; establishes new screening procedures for immigration to ensure those who are admitted to our country support our people and our values
> Clean up Corruption in Washington Act. Enacts new ethics reforms to Drain the Swamp and reduce the corrupting influence of special interests on our politics.
> On November 8th, Americans will be voting for this 100-day plan to restore prosperity to our economy, security to our communities, and honesty to our government.
> This is my pledge to you.
> And if we follow these steps, we will once more have a government of, by and for the people.


----------



## KingCosmos

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Federal prison for Illegals? *sigh* just wasting tax dollars


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



stevefox1200 said:


> what we got here is a failure to communicate
> 
> no really, there is lack understanding of why peoeple supported who they did so we assume malice or greed because that makes it easier to hate
> 
> I recommend stating your points in a list format with no passive aggressiveness and/or sarcasm


I appreciate your peacemaking efforts, but the amount of deaf ears in here would make a hundred necklaces for Dolph Lundgren in Universal Soldier.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*










Who's laughing now, fucker? :lol

*#HUMBLED*

- Vic


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Vic Capri said:


> Who's laughing now, fucker? :lol
> 
> *#HUMBLED*
> 
> - Vic


We'll see who has the last laugh after Trump shows his true colours pal. I daresay the likes Obama and other notable dems have taken defeat very well, better than I imagine some of the more hysterical Repubs would've. Moot point though.


----------



## Mifune Jackson

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Vic Capri said:


> Who's laughing now, fucker? :lol
> 
> *#HUMBLED*
> 
> - Vic


Obama. It's not his fault anymore. Trump's about to find out what it's like. And it's not likely that the Republicans lose Senate or Congress, so it'll be even more his fault in 4 years.


----------



## GeniusSmark

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## Ghost Lantern

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Alkomesh2 said:


> And we got the great depression and WW2 out of it.
> 
> Anyway as we learned during the early Obama years when the Dems controlled all three, its meaningless because of filibusterers unless you have a super-majority in the senate, which I'm pretty sure the republicans don't.


So now Republicans are responsible for WWII? Wow.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

my 12 points

1. I am going to stay out of this till Trump announces his cabinet (I will kick his ass if Newt is there) or until he orders all Muslims to wear the star of Islam on their shirt 

2. I don't view myself as racist and if I am somehow "subconsciously racist" for preferring Romney over Obama than I am sorry but I am not going to put myself through reeducation till my thinking pattern reaches your approval 

3. I can see why people would fear "great again" because some groups have it better than ever now and this vague "again" era could not be such a glorious age for them, for instance the 90s that people rave were so great were not if you lived in Eastern Europe 

4.Some times you get the cat and sometimes the cat gets you, in an election some times the person or idea you support does not win but that is how democracy works, be proud even if you lost as you still put your voice out with what you believed in (I wrote in in this election so I should know) 

5.No one makes "bad choices" on purpose, if you don't know why people made the choice they did or respond with blind rage than you will never understand them and will never be able to "beat them"

6. "You will never understand so STFU" is self destructive and encourages elitism and echo chambers 

7. people have the right to be angry and everyone's views is justified by their life experiences, no one is "ignorant" or "asleep" 

8. supporting the growth of your demographic does not make you greedy and choosing to support yourself over your demographic does not make you a "traitor"

9. If you have to harm other people or make other peoples lives worse to show how "angry you are" than you are automatically in the wrong and deserve to be ignored like angry child wrecking their things for attention (if you have an internet connection you have better and more effective options)

10. Reserve your admiration and disdain for individuals not groups, they are a blind mass and there is always a psycho in every party 

11. Always know someone will suffer for your good fortune, there is a limited amount of karma and its all down to luck, some kids are born perfectly healthy to loving parents and some kids die in the womb to rare birth-defects so be happy with what you have

12. I swear to god I will break all these points if I have to drive up to the white house and kick ass for putting Newt in


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

So...how long before deficit hawks rebel against Trump's proposals?


----------



## Warlock

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Exit polls: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html

Feel free to peruse and decide for yourself. This video sums it up for me tho.


----------



## FITZ

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



KingCosmos said:


> Federal prison for Illegals? *sigh* just wasting tax dollars


This is already a thing. I'm pretty sure the law just doesn't carry a mandatory minimum. If you are deported and illegal come back to the US you are committing a felony. This is nothing new. There are already thousands of people in prison for this. The logic behind it makes sense. We kick you out, tell you that if you come back we're going to put you in prison, and then kick you out again. This is already the law, Trump wants to change. 

It doesn't seem like the best use of money but I understand why we want to deter people from coming back after we kick them out.


----------



## KingCosmos

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FITZ said:


> This is already a thing. I'm pretty sure the law just doesn't carry a mandatory minimum. If you are deported and illegal come back to the US you are committing a felony. This is nothing new. There are already thousands of people in prison for this. The logic behind it makes sense. We kick you out, tell you that if you come back we're going to put you in prison, and then kick you out again. This is already the law, Trump wants to change.
> 
> It doesn't seem like the best use of money but I understand why we want to deter people from coming back after we kick them out.


I know it's already a thing but a 2 year minimum is ridiculous. Illegals are going to keep coming, even with the risk of of a 2 year mandatory. These people think that getting to America is a must to better their lives


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

If we are looking at this whole situation regarding immigration...I think we're going about this all wrong. We need to look at the INS. That agency is a complete mess. We have people that have been waiting for years to become citizens legally and there is a shitload of red tape to have to go through to get even to that point. No wonder people would rather just jump the fence to come here. 

If I was President...on day one I'm instituting a six-month freeze on ALL immigration. I am overhauling the INS and giving the new head of the agency 120 days to give me a plan on how to handle legal immigration. We need to find a way to make the system more efficient, while giving everyone that comes in a proper vetting.


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

For some of these illegals, wouldn't spending a couple years in prison be better than the life they are fleeing from?

I don't see how this is a deterrent. :hmm:


----------



## Jzone

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Kinda interesting: How trump's victory will affect property markets

https://tranio.com/world/news/what-trumps-victory-means-for-the-us-property-market_5219/


----------



## RocksPie

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Congrats to Trump! He will make America great again!


----------



## Ghost Lantern

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



DesolationRow said:


> @Carte Blanche and @Roy Mustang, very well-made points.
> 
> In truth, :trump winning is the best possible thing that could happen to liberals' fear and loathing of working class and middle class whites. The continual disregard, mockery and, electorally, taking-for-granted that liberals and Democrats--and Republicans, by the way, especially from the establishment's haughty viewpoint--of those voters was leading to a rebellion sooner or later.
> 
> Five cops are executed in the streets of Dallas and the sitting president, who won in what is now apparently a "racist," "xenophobic," "bigoted" country brimming with racist white hicks, speaks of the need to recognize that many cops go too far against minorities _at their funeral_. The same president who called the Pennsylvanians who rejected Hillary last night as "bitter clingers" and whose jobs have been outsourced or removed, whole industries downsized, with nary a care about their lot or the lot of their children, from the U.S.'s political and financial elites, and who, along with many others who excited by :trump were declared "deplorables" and, to a large extent, "irredeemable" by Hillary Clinton.
> 
> And those are just rhetorical scrapings off of the tip of the proverbial iceberg. As you two noted, the media assault upon Trump and Trump fans was unceasing and doubtless contributed to the feeling among those voting for Trump that they were fighting for the insurrectionist rebel and underdog.
> 
> At a certain point, a backlash was inevitable.
> 
> Liberals today should thank their lucky stars that this occurred because the sad truth is that if these people did not find a political voice, at some point in the future a genuinely dangerous and sincerely racist figure might show up instead.
> 
> I've seen a litany of posts online from immigrants in the U.S. who, otherwise, I like, but who keep saying, "WHEN WILL THESE DEMOGRAPHICS CHANGE ALREADY? GO AWAY ******!" et. al. :lol I mean, I'm sorry, but a large grouping of whites have been feeling politically under siege with their kids taught to hate their ancestors' accomplishments for quite a while now. Is much of the resentment misdirected? Perhaps. Yet for one hundred years one of the most universally cherished concepts in the world is "the right to self-determination." It's what led to myriad complications and heartaches throughout the twentieth century and now the twenty-first. If, say, black South Africans have the sovereign right to attempt to control how many whites live there post-apartheid, for instance, do not populations of other countries get a say in their country's demographical future?
> 
> Also, when 29% of Hispanics--apparently--vote for you, you are probably not the cartoon character Nordicist seeking unyielding racial purity of the _volk_. Also interested to see how blacks voted, as well as Asians (know a few of each group who voted for Trump!). As noted, would hardly be surprised to learn that Trump received more votes from blacks than any GOP nominee in many, many years.
> 
> Hillary's talk of Vladimir Putin pulling Trump's strings was of course demagogic, fear-mongering nonsense that apparently no one bought aside from a few Democrats here and there, but there is an interesting comparison between Trump and Putin. Trump's rhetoric is brined in civic nationalism. Just as Putin talks a tough game and promotes the church, etc., but allows Russia's considerable Muslim population feel a part of the Russian fabric, it's difficult to find anything in Trump's speechifying to suggest that he wishes to simply ostracize minorities so long as they are American citizens. Both men, based on their statements (because that is the only way by which to judge Trump thus far) are pragmatic, center-right civic nationalists who find the reigning globalist system which seems to now be teetering on a certain precipice deeply wanting.
> 
> 
> 
> :clap :clap :clap
> 
> You put that exceptionally well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, today is now, almost everywhere but where @Tater lives, November 9. On November 9, 1989, twenty-seven years ago, the Berlin Wall fell, one global order receding and retreating before the ascension of another one. With Brexit in Great Britain some months ago and the election of Trump in the U.S., with myriad European leaders and major finance ministers and bankers warning that the European Union project seems doomed, it would seem that yet another order is rising now.


Deso, best post of the year. Well done.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Jzone said:


> Kinda interesting: How trump's victory will affect property markets
> 
> https://tranio.com/world/news/what-trumps-victory-means-for-the-us-property-market_5219/


While it gives a macro-look at the overall big picture regarding property markets...our Commander In Chief really has minimal effect regarding the value of property markets. Although I'm interested in seeing how if he can simplify the tax code what that will mean regarding many deductions people will take advantage of especially in regards to home ownership (such as mortgage interest and remodeling). 

Property values are more impacted at the local level...as they say..."Location, location, location."


----------



## Oxidamus

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Someone I went to school with shared (and obviously signed) this:
http://www.change.org/p/electoral-c...make-hillary-clinton-president-on-december-19

How fuckin' stupid is that? fpalm


Look I don't know the ins and outs of the US voting system but I understand the electoral college is a problem when pop votes are also counted. I get some people want to change it. But let's say it changed tomorrow; it isn't going to affect the past election because that would be utterly fucking stupid to base something in the past, on a completely new set of rules... right?


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*






Left fearmongering and hatemongering doing its work.


----------



## RenegadexParagon

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> More of a libertarian myself ... But given that we live in a society that is governed by a large government it is still my responsibility to make sure that while I'm in this society I vote for the person whose policies and policy promises align closest to mine. Exercise the power with the vote all the way from the top to the bottom in every election and every position of power.
> 
> As an anarchist, how do you propose we bring about self-governance in a country like America ... The most we can do is try to vote for individuals and people that are for small government. To me that's what the republican party represents and that's why I went republican this year - but also vary that campaign promises are flimsy.


From the anarchist perspective, anarchism is a revolutionary ideology, not reformist. We don't want to reform capitalism or the state and we're not going to beg the ruling class for change. We would go about achieving our goals by educating workers/communities, spreading our own propaganda to popularize anarchism, organizing unions, forming cooperatives, taking a staunch stance against all forms of oppression and social hierarchy, and perhaps forming militias. Essentially building and organizing our own autonomous communities as a viable alternative.


----------



## Ghost Lantern

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Aido Get Laido said:


> Someone I went to school with shared (and obviously signed) this:
> http://www.change.org/p/electoral-c...make-hillary-clinton-president-on-december-19
> 
> How fuckin' stupid is that? fpalm
> 
> 
> Look I don't know the ins and outs of the US voting system but I understand the electoral college is a problem when pop votes are also counted. I get some people want to change it. But let's say it changed tomorrow; it isn't going to affect the past election because that would be utterly fucking stupid to base something in the past, on a completely new set of rules... right?


Yes,

a.) It is a ridiculous notion that the electoral college is outdated and unimportant. It is just as important today as it was yesterday. Without it the larger portion of the United States would be irrelevant to candidates. 

b.) if Trump had won the popular election and lost the electoral college would we hear a peep? I doubt it. 

This outrage has more to do with the protest culture's candidate losing more than anything. In fact I seem to think they are happy they lost, gives them a chance to riot.


----------



## Oxidamus

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Greenlawler said:


> Yes,
> 
> a.) It is a ridiculous notion that the electoral college is outdated and unimportant. It is just as important today as it was yesterday.
> 
> b.) if Trump had won the popular election and lost the electoral college would we hear a peep? I doubt it.
> 
> This outrage has more to do with the protest culture's candidate losing more than anything. In fact I seem to think they are happy they lost, gives them a chance to riot.


I completely agree. I was just asking a hypothetical though. I can imagine the voting process being reformed sometime in the future but I highly, highly doubt that it would change the outcome of a past election, or even force a new one.


----------



## Headliner

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Sincere said:


> Left fearmongering and hatemongering doing its work.


If you're going to post that, then you need to post what's been happening on the flip side. Let's not do one narrative while ignoring the obvious shall we?


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Headliner said:


> If you're going to post that, then you need to post what's been happening on the flip side. Let's not do one narrative while ignoring the obvious shall we?


Yeah there's stupid assholes on both sides beating people up or being assholes in other ways. There's always gonna be stupid assholes on every side.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Muslim students admit to lie about being attacked by Trump supporters after Trump wins presidency, Louisiana police say: 

http://wgno.com/2016/11/10/police-l...g-robbed-of-wallet-hijab-by-trump-supporters/










kek


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Trump's 100-day plan (mostly for the democrats that obviously haven't read it).
> 
> 
> 
> It's very unrealistic. That's all I have to say about it. Obviously I don't agree with everything.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.npr.org/2016/11/09/501451368/here-is-what-donald-trump-wants-to-do-in-his-first-100-days



Quick thoughts on the list:

- The term limits for Congress is a very good idea. I don't think it'll be enough to fix Congress, but it should help. 
- A blanket freeze on employment sounds silly to me, but it's part of an ideological approach and at least he isn't firing people. 
- The regulations thing is dumb. I don't know how else to put that. Sure too much regulation is bad and we need to cull regulation every now and again, but that sort of blanket rule is just weird and will cause problems.
- The lobbying bans sound sensible. I'd like that in Australia too.
- I doubt he'll be able to renegotiate Nafta, if only because he already has a bad relationship with the Pres of Mexico and Trudeau will get a mass of votes for just opposing Trump for the sake of opposing Trump, also I'm not sure if he can pull out of Nafta without the approval of Congress (I know in America Congressional approval is required to enter treaties, but I don't know about leaving them) and I don't know that even a Republican Congress would go for that.
- The TPP is dead, and that's sad if you support free trade. 
- China is a currency manipulator and everyone knows it, they're pretty open about it, what good is "labeling" them that going to do?? 
- None of Obama's executive actions etc were unconstitutional, if they were unconstitutional they would have been struck down by the Republican controlled Supreme Court fairly quickly. Obama was a constitutional law professor, and they weren't. So I guess he'll do nothing? 
- Hopefully his Supreme Court appointment is down to get rid of Citizens United. 
- "Reforms will also include cutting the red tape at the FDA: there are over 4,000 drugs awaiting approval" nice shout out to his pals in Big Pharma here. Remember he isn't saying he is going to get those drugs either approved or not approved by hiring more people to do the approvals, he is going to make it easier to get stuff approved. This sounds like a disastrous idea frankly. 
- He's still going with "I'm going to build a wall and Mexico is going to pay for it" lol, he really needs to start walking back on this asap, there is no way to make Mexico pay short of a war. I highly doubt they have the money for one thing. Which is besides the whole points of why would they?


----------



## Jabez Makaveli

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Now that Trump is our next president, my advice is to start managing your money more carefully now because he's going to fuck up the economy way more than it is now. These will be the darkest four years in presidential history.


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Headliner said:


> If you're going to post that, then you need to post what's been happening on the flip side. Let's not do one narrative while ignoring the obvious shall we?


You're free to post anything you like. I'm only posting a small fraction of the garbage that is taking place, anyway, and I don't see why I should be obligated to post anything more than what I choose to post, nor do I see why my posts should suddenly be conditional upon some arbitrary concept of balance.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Sincere said:


> Left fearmongering and hatemongering doing its work.


Well there is this from Trump supporters

what do you think of that?


https://twitter.com/i/moments/796417517157830656




Sincere said:


> You're free to post anything you like. I'm only posting a small fraction of the garbage that is taking place, anyway, and I don't see why I should be obligated to post anything more than what I choose to post, nor do I see why my posts should suddenly be conditional upon some arbitrary concept of balance.


the funny thing is when ever a Trump fan in the past posts something like you just did and makes comments like you did. I post example of Trump supporters doing the same thing, then Trump supporters claim oh you are just deflecting .

the whole thing on both sides is getting out of hand. Anyone causing violence against others should get a police record and if its warrant even some time in jail. these violence people need to be made an example out of. Police need to strat enforcing the law, if you assault someone, you will be charged


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



> - He's still going with "I'm going to build a wall and Mexico is going to pay for it" lol, he really needs to start walking back on this asap, there is no way to make Mexico pay short of a war. I highly doubt they have the money for one thing. Which is besides the whole points of why would they?


Garnish remittances. Mexicans illegally in the US send large amounts of money back to Mexico every year and most of it is transferred back through conventional financial institutions. Pass a law requiring those institutions to garnish the remittances and give the amount garnished to the federal government for the purpose of building a wall.

Mexico pays for it and there's jack shit the Mexican government can do about it.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Well there is this from Trump supporters
> 
> what do you think of that?
> 
> 
> https://twitter.com/i/moments/796417517157830656


Looks like a typical day on the leftist part of social media to me except that the targets of the hate comments are different from leftist targets...

Getting in a pissing contest about who said the largest amount of hateful things or which side has beat up the most people is pointless since at the end of the day they are still fairly rare; they are not being committed all over the place all the time by any side.


----------



## Mifune Jackson

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Here we go. This is my brain right now.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



deepelemblues said:


> Garnish remittances. Mexicans illegally in the US send large amounts of money back to Mexico every year and most of it is transferred back through conventional financial institutions. Pass a law requiring those institutions to garnish the remittances and give the amount garnished to the federal government for the purpose of building a wall.
> 
> Mexico pays for it and there's jack shit the Mexican government can do about it.


This is different to what he's said he'll do and going to this plan would constitute walking back what he's said earlier.

Also I think you're substantially underestimating the cost of building a wall. It would take decades at best to fund it through this mechanism.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



deepelemblues said:


> Looks like a typical day on the leftist part of social media to me except that the targets of the hate comments are different from leftist targets...
> 
> Getting in a pissing contest about who said the largest amount of hateful things or which side has beat up the most people is pointless since at the end of the day they are still fairly rare; they are not being committed all over the place all the time by any side.


IMO they should not allow any posts like those in this thread. Just let this thread be about Trump's presidency and how he is doing. There is no point in getting bogged down in that stuff.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Gainn_Damage said:


> The cop needs to be a smiley.














TheLooseCanon said:


> Someone just got had. :heston Drain the swamp they said. Run Anti-establishment, fill your cabinet with establishment. Classic politician.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> List reveals Sarah Palin and Chris Christie as well as oil tycoons and bankers in Donald Trump's possible cabinet
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ich-rudy-guliani-chris-christie-a7409126.html
Click to expand...

I've been pointing this out for months and it basically gets ignored around here. Trump has surrounded himself with the worst of the worst neocons and bankers and establishment Republicans. Anyone retarded enough to believe Trump is going to be anti-establishment is going to be in for an even bigger shock than those "liberals" who believed Obama's hope and change rhetoric 8 years ago. It's going to be the Bush Era on steroids and I'll be :lmao as it all comes crumbling down.



BruiserKC said:


> If we are looking at this whole situation regarding immigration...I think we're going about this all wrong. We need to look at the INS. That agency is a complete mess. We have people that have been waiting for years to become citizens legally and there is a shitload of red tape to have to go through to get even to that point. No wonder people would rather just jump the fence to come here.


The USA has always tackled the illegal immigration problem in the wrong way. It would be easy to fix if the politicians actually wanted to do it. All they would have to do is go after the employers and make it impossible for illegal immigrants to find work. If they can't get jobs, there wouldn't be nearly as many of them trying to come into the country. It's much easier to eliminate the reason illegal immigrants have to come here than it is to actually keep them out. But, of course, fixing illegal immigration is not something the politicians want to do because it's not something their donors want them to do. Their donors make too much money from illegal immigration to ever allow the government to effectively deal with the problem.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Alkomesh2 said:


> This is different to what he's said he'll do and going to this plan would constitute walking back what he's said earlier.
> 
> Also I think you're substantially underestimating the cost of building a wall. It would take decades at best to fund it through this mechanism.


Has he really given a plan other than 'Mexico's gonna pay for it *somehow* lol

Increased border security was never going to be funded solely through *somehow* getting the Mexican government to hand over a lot of pesos anyway.



Tater said:


> I've been pointing this out for months and it basically gets ignored around here. Trump has surrounded himself with the worst of the worst neocons and bankers and establishment Republicans. Anyone retarded enough to believe Trump is going to be anti-establishment is going to be in for an even bigger shock than those "liberals" who believed Obama's hope and change rhetoric 8 years ago. It's going to be the Bush Era on steroids and I'll be :lmao as it all comes crumbling down.


Who was :trump gonna bring in, the list of bloggers at Zero Hedge :heston

Saying he won't renominate Yellen for the Fed is a rather auspicious start anyway :draper2 

If he gets James Grant as head of the Fed BY GAWD HE MIGHT ACTUALLY BREAK (A LOT OF) THE ELITE IN HALF 

And you can't really predict just how much :trump will ride herd on his cabinet or not ride herd on it


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Alkomesh2 said:


> He's still going with "I'm going to build a wall and Mexico is going to pay for it" lol, he really needs to start walking back on this asap, there is no way to make Mexico pay short of a war. I highly doubt they have the money for one thing. Which is besides the whole points of why would they?


May already be in the works



http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-wall-idUSKBN135175

"Congress won't fund the kind of wall Trump promised, and Mexico won't pay for it. But to save face, President Trump and congressional leaders will likely agree to a modest extension of the existing border fence," Legomsky predicted."


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Amazing Atheist with a hot take on the election as he rips liberal crybabies on Twitter:


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> Amazing Atheist with a hot take on the election as he rips liberal crybabies on Twitter:


"What if they're bald? What if someone's like 'I wanna assassinate :trump but according to this ****** on twitter I gotta have greasy hair'"

:lmao


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

VotCastr (Projected vs Actuals) http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/elect...16-presidential-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/

Here are the final VoteCastr vote total estimates, compared with the final vote totals as compiled by The Associated Press, via The New York Times.
*FLORIDA:*
Clinton (VoteCastr): 4,959,569
Clinton (Actual): 4,485,745
Trump (VoteCastr): 4,644,007
Trump (Actual): 4,605,515
In Florida’s case, VoteCastr was close to the the mark, overshooting the actual amount by less than 40,000 votes, or just under one percent. In Clinton’s case, however, VoteCastr missed by a mile, assigning her 473,824 additional votes, almost 11 percent more than she actually received.

*IOWA*: 
Clinton (VoteCastr): 659,498
Clinton (Actual): 650,790
Trump (VoteCastr): 645,935
Trump (Actual): 798,923
In Iowa’s case, the situation was the reverse of Florida. VoteCastr nailed Clinton’s result, missing high by only 1.3 percent. But Trump blew the VoteCastr model out of the water in Iowa, racking up 152,988 more votes than the data firm estimated — 19 percent of his total.
@BruiserKC - Any insight into what you think happened in Iowa? 

*NEVADA: *
Clinton (VoteCastr): 504,108
Clinton (Actual): 537,753
Trump (VoteCastr): 496,633
Trump (Actual): 511,319
Nevada is the one state — pending a final result from New Hampshire — where VoteCaster correctly predicted the winner. The model also performed respectably in estimating the Nevada final tally underestimating on Trump by just three percent, Clinton by six percent. 

*NEW HAMPSHIRE* Clinton (VoteCastr): 311,833
Clinton (Actual): 348,126
Trump (VoteCastr): 289,125
Trump (Actual): 345,598 
VoteCastr overestimated Clinton’s support in the Granite State by a full 10 percent, while guessing low on Trump by over 16 percent. While VoteCastr picked Clinton to win in New Hampshire and she currently holds a lead of just 0.3 percent, the votes have still not been tabulated. The New York Times gives her an 86 percent chance to win there, so it appears likely that the final result will at least validate VoteCastr’s pick.
*
OHIO:*
Clinton (VoteCastr): 2,534,965
Clinton (Actual): 2,317,001
Trump (VoteCastr): 2,516,534
Trump (Actual): 2,771,984
In a state where final polling showed Trump with a slim lead of a single percentage point, he ended up trouncing Clinton by almost nine. But VoteCastr estimates showed a narrow Clinton victory. In this case, the new data service overestimated Clinton’s total by more than nine percent, while undershooting on Trump by approximately the same margin.
*
PENNSYLVANIA:*
Clinton (VoteCastr): 2,557,627
Clinton (Actual): 2,844,705
Trump (VoteCastr): 2,401,513
Trump (Actual): 2,912,941
Pennsylvania polling leading up to the election pointed to Clinton’s having Pennsylvania sewn up. She held a five-point lead. VoteCastr saw it tighter, forecasting a 2.8 point win for Clinton.
In reality, VoteCastr missed low on Clinton’s total by 10 percent — but undershot Trump’s final total by nearly 18 percent. Trump eked out a narrow victory of 1.2 points, capturing Pennsylvania’s crucial 20 electoral votes.
*
WISCONSIN:*
Clinton (VoteCastr): 1,366,876
Clinton (Actual): 1,382,210
Trump (VoteCastr): 1,193,322
Trump (Actual): 1,409,467
Finally, in Wisconsin where pollsters saw Clinton taking the state off the “battleground” board with an six point advantage, and VoteCastr’s election day estimates seeing Clinton’s predicted win in similar terms, by 6.8 points. 
But when the votes were counted, Trump won the state by a single point. VoteCastr missed low on his final tally by 15 percent. VoteCastr shot a near bullseye with Clinton, however, missing low by a tick over one percent.


----------



## Neuron

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796967296069672960
Looks like the agitators didn't learn from their mistakes.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

They're really trying to make Oregon go Red in 2020, aren't they?


----------



## Neuron

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> They're really trying to make Oregon go Red in 2020, aren't they?


He's not even in office and they're already making Trump 2020 look good to me.


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Well there is this from Trump supporters
> 
> what do you think of that?
> 
> 
> https://twitter.com/i/moments/796417517157830656


I'm not going to go through every one of those items and investigate, judge, or comment on each.

Generally? I think legitimate justice is blind and indiscriminate. I think vandalism, or any form of destruction of property that does not belong to you is morally wrong. More broadly, and briefly, I adhere to the moral principle of non-aggression that essentially judges all initiations of violence, force, and coercion against another person or their property as wrong.

More specifically? After taking a cursory scan through some of these items, many of them seem to lack sufficient context/evidence, and are either unconfirmed, unverifiable, or highly suspect, thus I don't think much of those.

Take the first image, for instance, with what appears to be "Trump!" written on some door in black marker. With absolutely no context, I don't think much it. I don't know whose property that is. I don't know where that picture came from. I don't know who wrote "Trump" on it. I don't know when it was taken. So I don't have much to think or say about it. In terms of severity, even if it is legitimate, I find it rather insignificant and scarcely even worth taking note of, especially given some of the infinitely more heinous things taking place. 

As mentioned, a lot of these items have similar contextual deficiencies as well. I have no reason to believe many of these stand-alone tweets that allege something random and/or anecdotal, especially given how there have been quite a few hoaxes and false flags going around.

Example:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796408766518292480
And then there are others that are highly suspect of being largely or perhaps even entirely fabricated, such as this, which I came across on my own earlier today.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796450126546030592
Relatively? From the few I scanned through, even including some of the unverifiable anecdotal Tweets, much of it seems fairly minor and/or insignificant, and most of it is not very comparable to some of the much more compelling video footage of the actual violence, arson, vandalism, and destruction that is coming directly out these anti-Trump 'protests' for the past couple of days. Though, to be fair, I'm sure there's a lot of outside influence at play in these protests, too (i.e. Soros and his ilk). A lot of this list, even if we assume that everything posted in this list is 100% legitimate, just seems like kids being their typical asshole selves in relatively unremarkable ways. 

Incidentally, a couple of the more outstanding items in this list that I came across were not even arguably from Trump supporters, but quite the opposite:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796554667748716545
and


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796417669222141952
:draper2

I don't doubt there are some people out there doing some of the shit being alleged in this list, but I do doubt they're in significant numbers, and they certainly aren't congregating in large organized mobs and taking over streets, as we see on the so-called flip side. Luckily, it seems like at least some of these idiots are being held accountable where possible. I only wish I could say the same about a lot of these 'protesters.' I think they're all fucking morons on both sides, quite frankly, and they're all doing nothing but feeding off each others bigotry in a giant collective, embarrassing abortion of rationality. But I'm not at all surprised given the ongoing years of hate and fear mongering, particularly throughout this election cycle, that the left, especially, has propagated.

That's what I think of that. :shrug


----------



## $id

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Has it really become that bad as the tweets suggest have people started telling folks to get out of the country??


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

The biggest problem I have and it's even bigger than the problem of rioters is that the so-called corporatist MSM is to be blamed for what's happening right now. Pretty much exclusively. 

The amount of irrational and fake spin they had to put into trying to destroy Trump in order to prop up the WORST Democratic nominee in several decades basically made people believe and buy into a reality about Trump and republican voters that is nowhere near the actual truth. Nowhere at all. 

People only respond like this more so out of fear than out of hate. Every mob throughout history has fear at its core. 

It may seem like hate to some of us Trump supporters, but it's really fear that's converted the extreme left into a lynch mob in some places so I think my approach would be to start educating the democrats in my life about the truth of Trump's and republican policies and why they make sense and why he isn't the second coming of Hitler.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Thank you kindly, @Greenlawler.  

Well said, @Carte Blanche! 

http://www.yahoo.com/news/mexico-says-ready-modernize-nafta-trump-181527988.html



> Canada PM says ready to renegotiate NAFTA with Trump
> 
> Ottawa (AFP) - Canada and Mexico agreed Thursday to US President-elect Donald Trump's demand to have a fresh look at their tripartite 22-year-old free trade pact, fearing they could be shut out of the US market.
> 
> But the two US allies diverged on the level of changes to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) each was willing to accept, with Mexico taking a harder line.
> 
> The 1994 trade pact became a source of friction with America's neighbors during the campaign when Trump called NAFTA the worst trade deal the United States has ever signed.
> 
> The Republican president-elect's protectionist notions to repatriate American jobs lost to free trade sent shockwaves through Canada and Mexico's economies, which both rely heavily on exports to the United States.
> 
> "I think it's important that we be open to talking about trade deals," Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau -- a fierce defender of free trade -- said Thursday.
> 
> "If the Americans want to talk about NAFTA, I'm more than happy to talk about it," he said.
> 
> Mexico's Foreign Minister Claudia Ruiz Massieu, meanwhile, said her government was willing to seek to "modernize" NAFTA with Trump's incoming administration and Canada, but not ready to start from scratch.
> 
> "We are willing to talk about this with the new government and with Canada as well," Ruiz Massieu told CNN.
> 
> "We think it is an opportunity to think if we should modernize it -- not renegotiate it, but to modernize it," she insisted.
> 
> Ruiz Massieu said NAFTA would be discussed with Trump's transition team in the coming months.
> 
> Trump has also agreed to meet with Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto, possibly before the New York billionaire's inauguration in January.
> 
> Trudeau has meanwhile pledged to work closely with the new US leader.
> 
> - 530 million consumers -
> 
> NAFTA created a continental market with 530 million consumers in Canada, the United States and Mexico.
> 
> Two-way trade in goods between Mexico and the United States totalled about US$1.5 billion daily in 2015, while bilateral trade crossing the US-Canadian border amounted to $1.8 billion daily.
> 
> The United States, however, is a net loser in both cases, posting $15 billion and $58 billion trade deficits with Canada and Mexico, respectively, last year.
> 
> Ruiz Massieu said Mexico "believes in free trade" and the governments "have the challenge to make sure that the opportunities created by NAFTA are more inclusive and that more people in the three countries feel the benefit of this integration agreement."
> 
> Trudeau said also that it was important to periodically reassess trade deals to ensure that they continue to be of benefit to the middle class.
> 
> Some analysts predict a drop in trade if Trump follows through with protectionist measures, and even possibly a recession in Canada, whose exports to the United States account for 20 percent of its GDP.
> 
> Others insist the United States would never seek to curb trade with Canada and Mexico since their economies are so heavily intertwined.
> 
> Whether or not NAFTA actually helped generate thousands of jobs and reduce income disparities across North America, or caused huge job losses in the United States as companies moved production to lower cost Mexico -- as Trump has suggested -- is up for debate.
> 
> In 2015, the US Congressional Research Service summarized several studies this way: "In reality, NAFTA did not cause the huge job losses feared by the critics or the large economic gains predicted by supporters."
> 
> "The net overall effect of NAFTA on the US economy," it concluded, "appears to have been relatively modest, primarily because trade with Canada and Mexico accounts for a small percentage of US GDP."
> 
> The report acknowledged there were corporate and employee costs associated with the transition to more open trade.
> 
> It also noted that NAFTA has served as a template for all subsequent free trade agreements negotiated by the United States.


As for how Trump will get "Mexico" to "pay for the Wall," my first guess was always that he would ensure that NAFTA would be renegotiated, and that a new trade agreement which did not result in such eye-popping trade deficits with Mexico would be the way by which "Mexico" would "pay for the Wall." After all, he never specifically said that the Mexican government would send him a check. There are myriad other ways this may be tackled, too.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Trump's 100-day plan (mostly for the democrats that obviously haven't read it).
> 
> 
> 
> It's very unrealistic. That's all I have to say about it. Obviously I don't agree with everything.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.npr.org/2016/11/09/501451368/here-is-what-donald-trump-wants-to-do-in-his-first-100-days


Homie, the whole ELECTION was unrealistic. Don't doubt him! Have you not learned? :trump

(Im actually serious.)


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> Homie, the whole ELECTION was unrealistic. Don't doubt him! Have you not learned? :trump
> 
> (Im actually serious.)


Oh, it's not him I'm doubting. As a businessman I'm sure he's used to maximum efficiency and this is exactly the sort of plan I'd expect a businessman to have. 

It's the system that's in place that's going to fail him. He will still face opposition both from the democrats and from some members within his own party. 

That's to me is the best part of a democracy ... I'd rather things be done slowly and with deliberation rather than a firm hand ... If Trump forces his policies through without debate, then he'd be no better than the man he just replaced. So let's not lose sight of that part of our goal here either


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> Homie, the whole ELECTION was unrealistic. Don't doubt him! Have you not learned? :trump
> 
> (Im actually serious.)


Honestly, looking over Trump's proposed "100 Days" checklist, most of it seems reasonably doable. 

The Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on members of Congress would probably go nowhere but he can certainly propose it, ha. The requirement concerning federal regulations would appear plausible. The five-year ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they have left the government is probably extremely farfetched, especially as an item to be enacted within those first one hundred days, as well as the other bans on certain forms of lobbying. 

All of it is dizzyingly ambitious, though to be sure.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> The biggest problem I have and it's even bigger than the problem of rioters is that the so-called corporatist MSM is to be blamed for what's happening right now. Pretty much exclusively.


Yeah...no. The rioters are just sore losers. Maybe blame them instead of MSM spin. The spin on social media was much worse, both on the left and on the right than whatever the MSM spin was. 



> The amount of irrational and fake spin they had to put into trying to destroy Trump in order to prop up the WORST Democratic nominee in several decades basically made people believe and buy into a reality about Trump and republican voters that is nowhere near the actual truth. Nowhere at all.


Pot kettle black. You have Trump friendly media saying Hillary and Obama are literally the devil. You have conservative talk radio telling their audience that the nation will be dead if Hillary won. Many voted for Trump in spite of him because of the doomsday talk about Supreme Court being forever lost.

Thiel said it best, "The media took Trump literally but not seriously, while his voters took him seriously but not literally." How is it irrational spin when they are quoting Trump's literal words?



> People only respond like this more so out of fear than out of hate. Every mob throughout history has fear at its core.


And Trump shamelessly leverage that fear on the right to the presidency. The loser is just following the winner.



> It may seem like hate to some of us Trump supporters, but it's really fear that's converted the extreme left into a lynch mob in some places so I think my approach would be to start educating the democrats in my life about the truth of Trump's and republican policies and why they make sense and why he isn't the second coming of Hitler.


His policies made wildly optimistic assumptions. Even you realise they are unrealistic. We have seen how Trump reacts during the campaign when things don't go his way. Who knows what Trump will do when his base become restless when he can't fulfil on his campaign rhetoric?


----------



## Death Rider

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



KingCosmos said:


> So wait you mean the reason white people voted for Trump is because they feel threatened about their whiteness from other groups of people? White supremacy at it's finest. You are describing a text book version of white supremacy. Have you been to a Trump rally? I have been just near one and seen the ridiculousness. The people you are describing basically feel that my Whiteness and willing to support Trump is somehow being threatned, so i need to get him in office so we can "take our country back" is it unreasonable to think someone might be a suspected white supremacist for supporting a DOCUMENTED white supremacist, this is not liberal fear mongering, he has actually been sued for his discrimination, FACT. Maybe these people should be honest about Trump being a white supremacist instead of trying to be smug by saying "Your racist because you think I'm racist" "Maybe that's the reason Trump got in to office you people always point the finger"


I am left and would not have voted Trump as I do not agree with a lot of his polices however people have every right to vote for whoever they want without constantly being branded stupid or racist. Do you actually think people will listen to you if you call them stupid or racist or a cuck or ignorant. 

If you want people to change their mind how about you explain WHY you disagree not be a cunt and call everyone racists. 

I am not going to lie looking into Trump for myself I would not vote for him and don't think he will do a good job. Now is he Hitler? Fuck no he is a bit of a loudmouth who does not have a filter on the stuff he says which at times can be fucking stupid but Hilary was probably going to cause world war 3 so fuck it put the loudmouth in power. 

Watch this video you might learn something kid:








Vic Capri said:


> - Vic


OK that actually makes a lot of sense. Still think the winner takes all of the seats part is a little flawed is there a reason for that?



Iapetus said:


> :eyeroll So you insult my intelligence yet you can't comprehend the definition of simple concepts such as racism and misogyny. Look, the only reason people say that stuff to y'all is because that's what y'all do or are. Don't be or do the things people keep trying to tell you you are or are doing and then nobody will say shit.:jericho2
> 
> You got some nerve talking about "we're tired". All you're tired of is having people reading you right. You know what I'm tired of? I'm tired of worrying am I'm going to murdered by a random cop everytime I go out. I'm tired of watching my mother work a job for the past 12 years getting paid significantly less than men even at a lower position than her. I'm tired of being looked at as an exception to the statistics. I'm tired of my nieces and nephews going to schools where they can get suspended for defending themselves from bullies and have slave related math questions and even school plays. I'm tired of being able to trace my white genetics back to France, England, and Ireland, but getting got nowhere past 1842 because guess what? They didn't bring the genealogical records on the slave boats. WE are tired of being crammed into fund drained urban areas. We are tired of all being labeled as "thugs", "hoes", "ghetto" whenever we exercise our right to our own culture. We are tired of systematic racism, hatred, and oppression. And I haven't even cracked the tip of the iceberg in what WE'RE tired of or what women, other minorities and LGBT are tired of.
> 
> After 500 years of running the country, you seriously think we actually care about what y'all are "tired" of?
> :duck
> Yeah ok. lmao
> :eyeroll2


This kind of post is why people voted trump. All you have done is called people racist and sexist for voting Trump. Sure some people who did are but if you think only sexists and racists voted trump you are very ignorant yourself. 

So all the people who voted Obama suddenly became racist?




Sweenz said:


> Your assessment is wrong tho. The same amount of "white people" voted for trump as they always do for that party. Noone came out of the woodwork. He actually increased his numbers with both latino and black. So all the excuses of white supremacy being more threatened, racist backlash, etc this time around falls flat on its face.
> 
> The reason hillary lost wasnt cause trump got more of anything, but that hillary got less of what made barack successful.


Nah it is clearly cause everyone is a racist....

Tanks you sweenz for posting this. I ain't a fan of Trump and my god his cabinet looks fucking terrible if that list is true for gay rights even if Trump is Pro-gay rights but he did not get in because everyone is fucking racist and anyone foolish enough to say shit like that should just stop posting and leave debating to people who can actually understand different viewpoints without insults. K thx bye



BruiserKC said:


> If we are looking at this whole situation regarding immigration...I think we're going about this all wrong. We need to look at the INS. That agency is a complete mess. We have people that have been waiting for years to become citizens legally and there is a shitload of red tape to have to go through to get even to that point. No wonder people would rather just jump the fence to come here.
> 
> If I was President...on day one I'm instituting a six-month freeze on ALL immigration. I am overhauling the INS and giving the new head of the agency 120 days to give me a plan on how to handle legal immigration. We need to find a way to make the system more efficient, while giving everyone that comes in a proper vetting.


This I agree with a lot. Building a wall is too simple and expensive. Even if Mexico did pay for it the maintenance for years to come will cost loads and loads. There are waaaaay cheaper and better ways to control immigration. The wall should just be a metaphor as the wall could come back to be an expensive burden for many years to come if Trump builds it when there are ways to control immigration that are much better and cost effective. 

Also prison spaces in America are overflowing or is that a myth? 



Beatles123 said:


> Homie, the whole ELECTION was unrealistic. Don't doubt him! Have you not learned? :trump
> 
> (Im actually serious.)


It is tough though cause there will be people who will fight back against him on some issues. Still don't see a giant wall being built as happening either and coming back to bite americans in the future maintenance wise.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



DesolationRow said:


> As for how Trump will get "Mexico" to "pay for the Wall," my first guess was always that he would ensure that NAFTA would be renegotiated, and that a new trade agreement which did not result in such eye-popping trade deficits with Mexico would be the way by which "Mexico" would "pay for the Wall." After all, he never specifically said that the Mexican government would send him a check. There are myriad other ways this may be tackled, too.


If you think America could have a free trade deal with Mexico that wouldn't result in a massive trade deficit (which just means they buy more off you than you buy off them, it doesn't mean they're benefiting more at all) then you simply don't understand free trade. 

Any such deal wouldn't be free trade. And if you support the existence of such a deal you don't support free trade.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Roy Mustang said:


> OK that actually makes a lot of sense. Still think the winner takes all of the seats part is a little flawed is there a reason for that?


http://www.fairvote.org/how-the-electoral-college-became-winner-take-all



> The election of 1824 is most famous for the "corrupt bargain," a deal in the House of Representatives that gave John Quincy Adams the presidency despite his winning fewer popular and electoral votes than Andrew Jackson. But 1824 was also significant for another reason: it was the first election in which the majority of states used a statewide winner-take-all voting method for choosing their presidential electors.
> It is a system that now seems like a fundamental part of the American democracy. Presidential candidates compete to win states, which is how they get votes in the Electoral College. The U.S. Constitution does not mandate that system, however. Instead, it is left up to the states to determine how they select their representatives in the Electoral College. For the first 13 presidential elections, spanning the first four decades of the history of the United States, states experimented with many different electoral systems.
> 
> The shift to statewide winner-take-all was not done for idealistic reasons. Rather, it was the product of partisan pragmatism, as state leaders wanted to maximize support for their preferred candidate. Once some states made this calculation, others had to follow, to avoid hurting their side. James Madison's 1823 letter to George Hay, described in my earlier post, explains that few of the constitutional framers anticipated electors being chosen based on winner-take-all rules.
> 
> The graph below charts the use of each major method of choosing presidential electors during this formative period. An explanation of each system and a timeline of important developments in presidential elections follows.


Checks and balances. The electoral college may have hiccups every now and then, but this is the best way to ensure that if the voters that represent a minority interest don't get completely ignored when it comes time to voting.

Technically, the EV should have actually prevented Trump from winning the presidency since he was the populist candidate in this election (seemingly). However as it turned out in the blue wall that he broke, he was the one that was looking out for the interests of the people more than Clinton and ought to be rewarded for that. 

However, the key to this election were the voters in MI, WI and PA. The thing of note here is that they switched sides mainly because of Trump's ground game there and his message getting out to the disenfranchised democrats in those states. The candidates who speak to the majority should be allowed to win the states where they did manage to get the vote in their favor. 

Ultimately Trump won the ground game in the States that Hillary neglected. The EV is designed SPECIFICALLY to benefit candidates who manage to succeed where other candidates fail. It accomplishes a change in government otherwise a populist vote and splitting the EV would still lead to the minority interests not being addressed by the new government. 

The EV and all-in is designed to protect minority interests and keep the government from running further and further away from issues that matter to that group.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> The USA has always tackled the illegal immigration problem in the wrong way. It would be easy to fix if the politicians actually wanted to do it. All they would have to do is go after the employers and make it impossible for illegal immigrants to find work. If they can't get jobs, there wouldn't be nearly as many of them trying to come into the country. It's much easier to eliminate the reason illegal immigrants have to come here than it is to actually keep them out. But, of course, fixing illegal immigration is not something the politicians want to do because it's not something their donors want them to do. Their donors make too much money from illegal immigration to ever allow the government to effectively deal with the problem.


Then it should make you happy that Trump's plan to take away the federal funding of Sanctuary cities is at least expected to do just that :trump 

Sanctuary cities are a huge part of the problem when it comes to illegal immigration and something does need to be done about them. 

I don't know if taking away federal funding is the best solution though.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

http://supremepatriot.com/2016/11/1...rst-official-appointment-liberals-panic-mode/


GLOBAL WARMING BTFOOOOOOOOOOO!!! :lol

Trump already getting it in! :trump


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> http://supremepatriot.com/2016/11/1...rst-official-appointment-liberals-panic-mode/
> 
> 
> GLOBAL WARMING BTFOOOOOOOOOOO!!! :lol
> 
> Trump already getting it in! :trump


They should panic. 

While I know that global warming is proven science, at the same time I also know that China, India, Russia and plenty of other countries are contributing to it a great deal and no one in the west has the guts to tell them to contribute billions while feeling absolutely entitled to American money at the same time. 

The message is clear: American money is American money. Let the rest of the world foot the bills for a change.


----------



## Magic

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I hope this does not set a precedent to cut funding towards other science related projects and simply declare them a waste of money that prevent the generation of money.


Because god knows history is full of those mistakes.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> They should panic.
> 
> While I know that global warming is proven science, at the same time I also know that China, India, Russia and plenty of other countries are contributing to it a great deal and no one in the west has the guts to tell them to contribute billions while feeling absolutely entitled to American money at the same time.
> 
> The message is clear: American money is American money. Let the rest of the world foot the bills for a change.


The message is clear: Time to reward special interests backing my campaign.


----------



## Magic

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Well there is this from Trump supporters
> 
> what do you think of that?
> 
> 
> https://twitter.com/i/moments/796417517157830656


A lot of those come off fake and anyone reporting anything without evidence(because everyone has a camera on their phone) are not to be believed. You can claim just about anything on the internet, doesn't mean any of it actually happened. :toomanykobes


----------



## Rick_James

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Best video I've seen to explain why Trump won:


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



LUCK said:


> I hope this does not set a precedent to cut funding towards other science related projects and simply declare them a waste of money that prevent the generation of money.
> 
> 
> Because god knows history is full of those mistakes.


One of my personal biggest worries is the defunding of NASA. They've accomplished some great things in the last 8 years and that would be absolutely devastating.

So far Trump hasn't said much about it though ... however the GOP have been traditionally anti-NASA and I don't expect that to change.


----------



## Stipe Tapped

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

The best thing about all this is the fact that the liberals are still hurling baseless accusations of racism and misogyny at Trump voters, unaware of the fact that that's precisely the reason Trump won. You can't paint regular decent people as evil bigots with no evidence and expect them to sit there and take it. Poke the bear enough and it'll fight back. The riots and temper tantrums epitomise the "everybody gets a medal" generation. It's indicative of a movement in its death throes. 

This authoritarian brand of liberalism that's become prominent in recent years is done. The mainstream media has lost all credibility. No-one cares what some idiot celebrities have to say about politics. The longer the rage goes on, the funnier it'll be when they eventually have to accept the reality of the situation. Here's to two terms!


----------



## The Boy Wonder

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

*These people aren't having a protest — they're having a tantrum.*


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The Boy Wonder said:


> *These people aren't having a protest — they're having a tantrum.*


They're also rioting. So it's all three. 

TBH, when unpopular presidents get voted in, there's always rioting in Third World Countries. 

We might as well accept this label ...


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Roy Mustang said:


> This I agree with a lot. Building a wall is too simple and expensive. Even if Mexico did pay for it the maintenance for years to come will cost loads and loads. There are waaaaay cheaper and better ways to control immigration. The wall should just be a metaphor as the wall could come back to be an expensive burden for many years to come if Trump builds it when there are ways to control immigration that are much better and cost effective.


I'm not ruling out that we will need some type of border security at some point...wall or otherwise. The number one rule to all this is SECURE THE BORDER. The number two rule should be refer to rule 1. But I have noticed that with all the talk about the wall that other parts are being forgotten about. The INS needs to have its swamp drained, clean all the shit out, then flush it down the toilet and revamp it entirely. And if we can get the system in place that properly vets everyone coming in while allowing a timely transition from immigrant to citizen, then we have that part of the problem fixed. 

Honestly, that was one of the few things I agreed on with Trump at the start (and I happen to be further to the right than him) is that I wouldn't object to all illegals being deported. I am not anti-immigration...I am anti-ILLEGAL immigration. Huge difference. I want people to come here to make a life for themselves, we still have it good enough that many people around the world still want to come here. But if you are here illegally, you are breaking the law and need to be shown the door. If you tried to sneak into Mexico, they catch you, fine you, throw you in prison, then throw you back across the border. Their hypocritical stance on immigration is amusing to me. 

But...secure the border and overhaul the INS and streamline the process. Then we can work it out from there. 



Tater said:


> The USA has always tackled the illegal immigration problem in the wrong way. It would be easy to fix if the politicians actually wanted to do it. All they would have to do is go after the employers and make it impossible for illegal immigrants to find work. If they can't get jobs, there wouldn't be nearly as many of them trying to come into the country. It's much easier to eliminate the reason illegal immigrants have to come here than it is to actually keep them out. But, of course, fixing illegal immigration is not something the politicians want to do because it's not something their donors want them to do. Their donors make too much money from illegal immigration to ever allow the government to effectively deal with the problem.


We need to make sure the E-Verify program is fully funded and fully enforced. And make the penalties extremely severe if we find that you have illegals on your payroll. If you make the fines, sanctions, etc...a horrible nightmare, then you will go a long way in deterring businesses to hire illegals just to save a few bucks in labor costs.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> VotCastr (Projected vs Actuals) http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/elect...16-presidential-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/
> 
> *IOWA*:
> Clinton (VoteCastr): 659,498
> Clinton (Actual): 650,790
> Trump (VoteCastr): 645,935
> Trump (Actual): 798,923
> In Iowa’s case, the situation was the reverse of Florida. VoteCastr nailed Clinton’s result, missing high by only 1.3 percent. But Trump blew the VoteCastr model out of the water in Iowa, racking up 152,988 more votes than the data firm estimated — 19 percent of his total.
> @BruiserKC - Any insight into what you think happened in Iowa?


The rural vote here carried the day. Just like on most political maps...cities tend to run blue, rural areas more red. With the exception of Sioux City (in the heart of Rep. Steve King's district), the cities here are predominantly Democrat. When you got outside the cities, there was much stronger support for Trump in the rural communities. In my wife's hometown (a small town right in between Des Moines and Omaha), you saw a ton of Trump signs and supporters. Trump went to those people...he went to the towns like Newton (been hurting for 10 years ever since Maytag left town). Hillary Clinton stayed in the cities and college towns. She was in Des Moines, Cedar Rapids, Waterloo, etc. Those that are really feeling the pinch and disenfranchised are the folks in the smaller towns who are watching their jobs shrivel up and go away, and their communities being ignored by the government.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Vic Capri said:


> - Vic


The EC is broken. You can win with only getting 23% of the popular vote. If would win just 11 states and then get zero votes in the other 39 and become president. 

How exactly is that fair? To put that in perspective , if 10 million votes were cast to keep it simple, someone with only 2 million votes could beat someone with 8 million votes and become president.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



BruiserKC said:


> The rural vote here carried the day. Just like on most political maps...cities tend to run blue, rural areas more red. With the exception of Sioux City (in the heart of Rep. Steve King's district), the cities here are predominantly Democrat. When you got outside the cities, there was much stronger support for Trump in the rural communities. In my wife's hometown (a small town right in between Des Moines and Omaha), you saw a ton of Trump signs and supporters. Trump went to those people...he went to the towns like Newton (been hurting for 10 years ever since Maytag left town). Hillary Clinton stayed in the cities and college towns. She was in Des Moines, Cedar Rapids, Waterloo, etc. Those that are really feeling the pinch and disenfranchised are the folks in the smaller towns who are watching their jobs shrivel up and go away, and their communities being ignored by the government.


Exactly the same as Florida then. When Trump came to our small city the entire city went absolutely nuts. 25k people showed up to his rally and we're a city of only 70k people in the middle of a thunderstorm on a weekday. That was when I knew trump was winning this city. 

Trump's ground game was far stronger than Hillary's. And that's really what won the day. 

Thanks for responding.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> http://supremepatriot.com/2016/11/1...rst-official-appointment-liberals-panic-mode/
> 
> 
> GLOBAL WARMING BTFOOOOOOOOOOO!!! :lol
> 
> Trump already getting it in! :trump


Please tell me you don't think global warming is a myth.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

The picture is starting to get and clearer on what happened in this election and why Trump got voted in. 

It has become increasingly irrefutable *fact *that there was indeed* NO *white-lash in this election* whatsover. 
*
- No upsurge in white voters
- No upsurge in white male voters
- Switch in allegiance of middle-class whites from democrats to republican *(That voter simply is not racist because he's the same guy that voted Obama)*
- Significantly lower turn out of democrat millennials and democrat blacks that voted for Obama (which is basically a vote against democrats and not just Hillary)
*- *Swing in minority vote towards republican 
- Hillary was not able to sway the female vote towards herself 
- White millennials turned up for Trump but did not turn up for Hillary (this I'm attributing to the rise of PC culture and free speech advocates that support Trump on those two things alone and not much else)*

No matter how you look at the exit poll data there is simply no way to interpret it as racism and sexism having anything to do with Trump's win AT ALL. 

As for the KKK voter, they always vote republican anyway and their numbers haven't increased as the data does not show that increase. 

Hillary lost because she lost Obama's black and white voter-base both to lower turnout as well as switched alliances and as usual the entitled millennial Hilary supporter stayed home. 
*
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...ps_astounding_victory_how_and_why_132320.html


> Astounding. That's the best word to describe the tumultuous election night and the (to most people) surprise victory of Donald Trump. Hillary Clinton hoped to win with votes of Northeasterners, including those who have moved south along Interstate 95 to North Carolina and Florida (44 electoral votes). Instead, Trump won with votes along the I-94 and I-80 corridors, from Pennsylvania through Ohio and Michigan to Wisconsin and Iowa (70 electoral votes).
> 
> 
> This approach was foreseen by RealClearPolitics analyst Sean Trende in his "Case of the Missing White Voters" article series in 2013. Non-college-educated whites in this northern tier, once strong for Ross Perot, gave Barack Obama relatively high percentages in 2008 and 2012. Many grew up in Democratic union households and were willing to vote for the first black president.
> 
> 
> Now they seem to have sloughed off their ancestral Democratic allegiance, much as white Southerners did in 1980s presidential and 1990s congressional elections. National Democrats no longer had anything to offer them then. Hillary Clinton didn't have anything to offer northern-tier non-college-educated whites this year.
> 
> 
> It didn't help that Clinton called half of Trump supporters "irredeemable" and "deplorables" and infected with "implicit racism." They may have been shy in responding to telephone or exit polls, but they voted in unanticipatedly large numbers, at a time when turnout generally sagged.
> 
> 
> At the same time, Clinton was unable to reassemble Obama's 2012 51 percent coalition. Turnout fell in heavily black Philadelphia, Cleveland, Detroit and Milwaukee. Millennial generation turnout was tepid, and Trump carried white millennials by 5 points. Unexpectedly, Trump won higher percentages of Hispanics and Asians than Mitt Romney did in 2012.
> 
> 
> Trump's surprise victory, owing much to differential turnout, resembles the surprise defeats, defying most polls, of establishment positions in 2016 referendums in Britain and Colombia. In June, 52 percent of Britons voted to leave the European Union -- the so-called Brexit, opposed by most major-party leaders and financial elites. In October, 50.2 percent of Colombia's voters rejected the peace plan with FARC terrorists negotiated by their president.
> 
> 
> In both cases, the capital city's metro area and distinctive peripheries -- Scotland, the Caribbean coast -- voted with the establishment. But the historical and cultural hearts of these nations -- England outside London, the central Andes cordillera in Colombia -- rejected and defeated the establishment position.
> 
> 
> Something like that seems to have happened here. If you take the pro-establishment coasts -- the Northeast except Pennsylvania, the West Coast -- the vote as currently tabulated was 58-38 percent for Clinton. That's similar to Obama's 60-38 percent margin in these states in 2012.
> 
> 
> But the heartland -- roughly the area from the Appalachian ridges to the Rocky Mountains, with about two-thirds of the national vote -- went 52-44 percent for Trump. Trump didn't do much better than Romney, who got 51 percent there. But Clinton got only 44 percent of heartland votes, down from Obama's 47 percent. The Republican margin doubled, from 4 to 8 percent.
> 
> 
> British elites responded to Brexit with scorn for their heartland's voters. Those voting for Brexit were "poorly educated, nativist, unsophisticated, racist and unfashionable." You can hear similar invective hurled by American coastal elites (though not, to their credit, Clinton and Obama) at their fellow citizens beyond the Hudson River and the Capital Beltway. "Deplorable" is the least of their insults.
> 
> 
> They take glee in noting that Trump ran behind previous Republican nominees among college graduates but well ahead among non-college-educated whites. There's an echo here of Rush Limbaugh's scorn for "low-information voters." But the people who complain about less educated whites voting as a bloc have no complaints about the even larger percentages received by the candidates they favor from black voters. The better approach is to show respect for each voter's decision, however unenlightened you may consider it.
> 
> 
> Trump's victory undercuts crude projections based on the sophisticated analysis of journalist Ron Brownstein and Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg -- namely, that increasing percentages of nonwhites and millennial generation voters will result in an "ascendant" majority producing inevitably Democratic victories. In a closely divided country, election victories are contingent on issues, events and candidates' characteristics.
> It would be a mistake also to suppose that Trump's Electoral College victory means that Democrats are doomed to defeat because they lost their hold on non-college-educated whites this year. That depends on decisions and events that have not yet occurred.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> The picture is starting to get and clearer on what happened in this election and why Trump got voted in.
> 
> It has become increasingly irrefutable *fact *that there was indeed* NO *white-lash in this election* whatsover.
> *
> - No upsurge in white voters
> - No upsurge in white male voters
> - Switch in allegiance of middle-class whites from democrats to republican *(That voter simply is not racist because he's the same guy that voted Obama)*
> - Significantly lower turn out of democrat millennials and democrat blacks that voted for Obama (which is basically a vote against democrats and not just Hillary)
> *- *Swing in minority vote towards republican
> - Hillary was not able to sway the female vote towards herself
> - White millennials turned up for Trump but did not turn up for Hillary (this I'm attributing to the rise of PC culture and free speech advocates that support Trump on those two things alone and not much else)*
> 
> No matter how you look at the exit poll data there is simply no way to interpret it as racism and sexism having anything to do with Trump's win AT ALL.
> 
> As for the KKK voter, they always vote republican anyway and their numbers haven't increased as the data does not show that increase.
> 
> Hillary lost because she lost Obama's black and white voter-base both to lower turnout as well as switched alliances and as usual the entitled millennial Hilary supporter stayed home.
> *
> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...ps_astounding_victory_how_and_why_132320.html


She also lost because of the voter suppression by the GOP but that is another story. But its fitting Hillary lost the general the same way she won the primary but voter suppression.

The Video I posted yesterday from Joran of TYT, also gave a lot of good points why Trump won.

One last thing. Hillary should be embarrassed she lost to Trump. Trump basically flew by the seat of his pants, did not even know what a groud game was, beat Hillary Clinton who ran a perfect ground game, only problem is, she is a robot and most people did not believe her BS.

Maybe if she would have tried to talk like a regular person, she would have won.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> The EC is broken. You can win with only getting 23% of the popular vote. If would win just 11 states and then get zero votes in the other 39 and become president.
> 
> How exactly is that fair? To put that in perspective , if 10 million votes were cast to keep it simple, someone with only 2 million votes could beat someone with 8 million votes and become president.


It isn't meant to be fair. It is broken but not in the way you describe. It was meant to allow the states with less population to have some say in the presidential elections. But overtime has made the elections only about a few battleground states instead and skew campaigning norms. Trump broke away from that this year and won by flipping blue states red appealing to rural voters. The EC worked as intended this time round when rural voters made their voices heard and decided the winner. The government will have to take them more seriously than before.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...-hillary-clinton-editorials-debates/93609562/

A national popular vote brings it own set of issues. If you think waiting for the election results until 2am was a chore, wait till they have to count EVERY vote before declaring the results before calling a county/state.

Trump sucks, the world are in for 4 years of a wild ride. We can only hope that there isn't any permanent damage from his time in office. The only silver lining is the elites have been shaken this year and will stop being complacent about addressing issues their electorate are concerned with that allowed demagogues like Trump and Sanders to hijack the system.


----------



## The Boy Wonder

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I'd be OK with changing the rules on the electoral college if...

• We break California into three states (North California, Central California, South California)
• We break Texas into two states (Texas, Mexas — which would include San Antonio, Houston, and everything below)
• We break Florida into two staes (North Florida, South Florida)

Then we'd have 57 states bama3


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The Boy Wonder said:


> I'd be OK with changing the rules on the electoral college if...
> 
> • We break California into three states (North California, Central Valley, South California)
> • We break Texas into two states (Texas, Mexas — including San Antonio, Houson, and everything below)
> • We break Florida into two staes (North Florida, South Florida)
> 
> Then we'd have 57 states bama3


Why would that even matter? You would still have the same number of people, you would just move where the state lines are.

It would just be a shell game.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> She also lost because of the voter suppression by the GOP but that is another story. But its fitting Hillary lost the general the same way she won the primary but voter suppression.
> 
> The Video I posted yesterday from Joran of TYT, also gave a lot of good points why Trump won.


Fair enough. I'll give you this one. 

Just another point I want to add, the upsurge in white millennials for Trump is a group of normal people who voted because of the "basket of deplorables" shamers. The democrats need to start reconciling with this group through a serious dialogue about what racism and sexim really is and start listening to each other. Build bridges so to speak. 

The more this SJW shaming culture keeps up, the more democrats will keep losing ground and they will lose more of their own white voters who are on the fence and obviously don't see themselves as "deplorables". 

If you agree with this next point we can shake hands like men and move on from here.


----------



## The Boy Wonder

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Why would that even matter? You would still have the same number of people, you would just move where the state lines are.
> 
> It would just be a shell game.


California has 55 electoral votes
Texas has 38
Florida has 29

If you look at California Hillary dominated in the south, Trump won the north, and Hillary edged him out in the middle. Trump won handily in North/Central Florida while Hillary carried the south. Hillary won SA, Houston and most of the south in Texas. 

So they could just break the electoral votes then.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Fair enough. I'll give you this one.
> 
> Just another point I want to add, the upsurge in white millennials for Trump is a group of normal people who voted because of the "basket of deplorables" shamers. The democrats need to start reconciling with this group through a serious dialogue about what racism and sexim really is and start listening to each other. Build bridges so to speak.
> 
> The more this SJW shaming culture keeps up, the more democrats will keep losing ground and they will lose more of their own white voters who are on the fence and obviously don't see themselves as "deplorables".
> 
> If you agree to this next point we can shake hands like men and move on from here.


Another thing to add is, Hillarys biggest issue was she never attacked Trump on his issues. 90% of her attacks were about his character. That was her biggest failing. If she would have attacked more of the "crazy" things he wants to put into place she probably would have won.

She did nothing to show why her policies are better than his and by keeping it personal, it was a huge mistake given all the ammo at about her personally.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The Boy Wonder said:


> I'd be OK with changing the rules on the electoral college if...
> 
> • We break California into three states (North California, Central California, South California)
> • We break Texas into two states (Texas, Mexas — which would include San Antonio, Houston, and everything below)
> • We break Florida into two staes (North Florida, South Florida)
> 
> Then we'd have 57 states bama3


Wouldn't it be just 54 states? 50 - 3 + 7

Anyway make it 56 states so that Joey is right and I'm with you.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The Boy Wonder said:


> California has 55 electoral votes
> Texas has 38
> Florida has 29
> 
> If you look at California Hillary dominated in the south, Trump won the north, and Hillary edged him out in the middle. Trump won handily in North/Central Florida while Hillary carried the south. Hillary won SA, Houston and most of the south in Texas.
> 
> So they could just break the electoral votes then.


but if you are just going by the popular vote none of that matters. Unless you meant keep the EC but have 57 states like the way you outlined.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Another thing to add is, Hillarys biggest issue was she never attacked Trump on his issues. 90% of her attacks were about his character. That was her biggest failing. If she would have attacked more of the "crazy" things he wants to put into place she probably would have won.
> 
> She did nothing to show why her policies are better than his and by keeping it personal, it was a huge mistake given all the ammo at about her personally.


Character shaming definitely hurt her really fucking bad. It hurt her amongst not just whites and white men, but also amongst minorities on the fence. People like me who are well aware that Trump's an asshole, but the kind of asshole that's mostly talk and is actually a softy who was mischaracterized.

Finally, I don't think that Hillary's policies were necessarily better ... they were better in the eyes of those who support those kinds of policies meanwhile we cannot ignore those people who consider many of Trump's policies better. 

That said, policy discussion for this election is a completely moot point because it never came down to policies at all. I'm pretty sure the majority of candidates on both sides went in and voted based on the cult of personality and not for policies. This is probably the first time in my living years that I've witnessed an election where both candidates were populists and not policy-makers. Though it can be argued that Hillary would have run a better campaign against a more principled Republican. 

Ultimately, I accept that even though the candidate I support won, a lot of policies that I didn't agree with also won .. However, that is a game of win and lose for everyone no matter whose side wins when it comes to democracies and that will never change.


----------



## krtgolfing

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

People still pissed over this??? I am sorry your candidate did not win.. Not really. But do you think protesting and rioting and beating the shit out of innocent people is okay?? Well in about 3 months Mr Trump will #BeYourPresident unless you move of the this country. I heard Syria is a great place to live in. :gtfo


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Character shaming definitely hurt her really fucking bad. It hurt her amongst not just whites and white men, but also amongst minorities on the fence. People like me who are well aware that Trump's an asshole, but the kind of asshole that's mostly talk and is actually a softy who was mischaracterized.
> 
> Finally, I don't think that Hillary's policies were necessarily better ... they were better in the eyes of those who support those kinds of policies meanwhile we cannot ignore those people who consider many of Trump's policies better.
> 
> That said, policy discussion for this election is a completely moot point because it never came down to policies at all. I'm pretty sure the majority of candidates on both sides went in and voted based on the cult of personality and not for policies. This is probably the first time in my living years that I've witnessed an election where both candidates were populists and not policy-makers. Though it can be argued that Hillary would have run a better campaign against a more principled Republican.
> 
> Ultimately, I accept that even though the candidate I support won, a lot of policies that I didn't agree with also won .. However, that is a game of win and lose for everyone no matter whose side wins when it comes to democracies and that will never change.


Well I think its more of what policies Trump is going to undo. Especially with things like the EPA, FDA, marriage equality, abortion rights, planned parenthood, net neutrality, etc. he could blow up the whole Iran deal which would be a disaster, and him not believing in global warming, ignoring it for 4 years and blowing up all the treaties is also going to be disastrous. 

Trump is going to just undo all of the good Obama did just to spite him. 

I dont put Obamacare into that because that is not perfect. If he repeals citizen united then that would be some good.

but a lot of what he wants to really could be very bad.


----------



## Cashmere

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Is it okay for someone who absolutely knows shit about politics to be kinda scared, while seeing an unpredictable cheeto-face loose cannon of a human being that takes enjoyment of arguing with beauty pageants on Twitter who now has his finger on the button? Good.

I know how much his dick is probably getting hard at the possibilities, but just... Don't break anything of importance. And don't fuck with the wrong people, Trump. Because it's other people who live on this planet too. 

Having said that, I wonder which side of the Earth is going to end up getting nuked first...


----------



## Cliffy

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Rick_James said:


> Best video I've seen to explain why Trump won:


fantastic vid

he's spot on about the left, sums up the British left pretty well aswell


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Well I think its more of what policies Trump is going to undo. Especially with things like the EPA, FDA, marriage equality, abortion rights, planned parenthood, net neutrality, etc. he could blow up the whole Iran deal which would be a disaster, and him not believing in global warming, ignoring it for 4 years and blowing up all the treaties is also going to be disastrous.
> 
> Trump is going to just undo all of the good Obama did just to spite him.
> 
> I dont put Obamacare into that because that is not perfect. If he repeals citizen united then that would be some good.
> 
> but a lot of what he wants to really could be very bad.


Just some small notes: 

- EPA is something that I'm torn on because ultimately there's been absolutely no accountability of what's being done with the federal money when it comes to its global impact. While I support some form of regulations on corporations to go cleaner, I'm also vary that none of what Obama did actually helped with regards to having any impact on global warming at all. So there has to at least be some measure of accountability there. 

- I think what Trump wants out of the FDA is to not limit its powers but to assess why it takes so long for them to approve drugs. Sounds more like realistically it'll be a reassessment of the bureaucracy as opposed to a complete undoing. 

- Gay marriage isn't going anywhere. At MOST what might happen is that federal control over sovereign states might be repealed (or someone might try to get it done), but I don't think it's happening. It was a supreme court decision and those are not that easy to overturn. 

- Abortion rights aren't going anywhere. That's something people vote on and even in the more conservative states abortion rights are routinely expanded since the majority of people are now pro-choice. The federal government won't even try to touch that one. Even a good chunk of republicans themselves are pro-choice. 

- Planned Parenthood will be fine with local charity and philanthropy support. I suggest the democrats start funding it with their personal charity. Clinton something like 20 times more for her personal foundation than was being donated to PP by the feds ... and that should tell you about where the feds priorities really lay. 

- He's not planning to blow up any treaty. He's planning to re-negotiate them. A good businessman doesn't just walk into a negotiation where there's mutual benefit and just leaves money on the table entirely. He makes it such that it benefits him more, or both mutually. At this point it's favoring mexico more than it is Americans (in his eyes) and maybe once he actually sits down and looks at the numbers, he may come up with a better solution. We should wait on that. 

And yes, I agree that Obamacare in its entirety just needs to go. Period.



Cashmere said:


> Is it okay for someone who absolutely knows shit about politics to be kinda scared, while seeing an unpredictable cheeto-face loose cannon of a human being that takes enjoyment of arguing with beauty pageants on Twitter who now has his finger on the button? Good.
> 
> I know how much his dick is probably getting hard at the possibilities, but just... Don't break anything of importance. And don't fuck with the wrong people, Trump. Because it's other people who live on this planet too.
> 
> Having said that, I wonder which side of the Earth is going to end up getting nuked first...


Lol No. 

The government is run by thousands of politicians and not just one man. Same with other countries. If Pakistan and India of all places haven't nuked each other to high heaven, do you really think that a NY Liberal (I'm not using this in the same sense as @BruiserKC uses it) who's never even been accused punching someone is going to just start a nuclear war :heston 

The worst I see is the military industrial complex getting to Trump and he goes back on his middle east non-interference promise, but that's about it.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Exactly the same as Florida then. When Trump came to our small city the entire city went absolutely nuts. 25k people showed up to his rally and we're a city of only 70k people in the middle of a thunderstorm on a weekday. That was when I knew trump was winning this city.
> 
> Trump's ground game was far stronger than Hillary's. And that's really what won the day.
> 
> Thanks for responding.


He didn't have a ground game at first...that came with time and with the persuasion of the RNC. It worked for him during the primaries, he didn't need to and the media gave him all the attention he wanted so he didn't have to. However, when the focus shifted to the general election and he no longer could count on the media to give him all the publicity he wanted, he got himself a ground game. It really paid off in the last couple of weeks when he really needed to make up votes and get back into the race. 



birthday_massacre said:


> She also lost because of the voter suppression by the GOP but that is another story. But its fitting Hillary lost the general the same way she won the primary but voter suppression.
> 
> The Video I posted yesterday from Joran of TYT, also gave a lot of good points why Trump won.
> 
> One last thing. Hillary should be embarrassed she lost to Trump. Trump basically flew by the seat of his pants, did not even know what a groud game was, beat Hillary Clinton who ran a perfect ground game, only problem is, she is a robot and most people did not believe her BS.
> 
> Maybe if she would have tried to talk like a regular person, she would have won.


With Trump...the GOP now has hit the reset button. The Democrats believed that when Obama came into being that they had their reset. Many weren't that excited about her back in 2008, either. The same folks who would have followed Obama to the ends of the earth won't follow Hillary across the street to Starbucks. The flash wasn't there. Obama had that charisma, the chutzpah, that pizzazz that people gravitated to. 



FriedTofu said:


> It isn't meant to be fair. It is broken but not in the way you describe. It was meant to allow the states with less population to have some say in the presidential elections. But overtime has made the elections only about a few battleground states instead and skew campaigning norms. Trump broke away from that this year and won by flipping blue states red appealing to rural voters. The EC worked as intended this time round when rural voters made their voices heard and decided the winner. The government will have to take them more seriously than before.
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...-hillary-clinton-editorials-debates/93609562/
> 
> A national popular vote brings it own set of issues. If you think waiting for the election results until 2am was a chore, wait till they have to count EVERY vote before declaring the results before calling a county/state.
> 
> Trump sucks, the world are in for 4 years of a wild ride. We can only hope that there isn't any permanent damage from his time in office. The only silver lining is the elites have been shaken this year and will stop being complacent about addressing issues their electorate are concerned with that allowed demagogues like Trump and Sanders to hijack the system.


The Founding Fathers knew this, that's why the EC was developed. We are a republic more so than a democracy. A popular vote would mean the candidates would stay in the larger cities. For example...where I live. Des Moines, Iowa...the most recent MRSA lists this area as about 600,000 people (city and surrounding suburbs and communities). New York City...nearly 20 million (including Newark and Jersey City). Where are they going to go to get the votes they need then? 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One thing I am taking away from this, the more I look into it, is that maybe Trump actually gets it (I hope he does, anyway). Early on in the campaign, Ted Cruz referred to Trump's "New York values." I thought along those same lines. I could not imagine how someone who lived in a penthouse in downtown Manhattan could identify with someone like me in a modest house in the middle of the country. It is two entirely different worlds. My idea of a good meal would be a plate of wings and a beer. I thought Trump's idea of slumming it is a $40 hamburger at Peter Luger's. 

As the campaign went on, I didn't see anything that changed my mind. People around me were getting excited and said, "Trump is going to make America great again!" I didn't believe it, I just saw a New York liberal Democrat. Again, my thought was...we bitch and moan that our government doesn't understand us, so we are going to nominate someone who has run in those circles? I kept waiting for the bottom to drop. 

On Election night, I started to watch the results...when Florida polls closed, I watched to see if they were going to call it or Clinton. Many feel if that had happened, it would be possible it would be over pretty early then as he needed that state. She's ahead, still too early to call. She's still ahead but the lead is shrinking. Then...he took the lead. I'm thinking...is this really going to happen? No...just an abomination. Once she gets the votes from the Miami area it's game, set, match. But it didn't happen. Then, he took Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Minnesota? Don't be surprised about Minnesota, really. It's make-up is a lot like Iowa. You have the Twin Cities, but a lot of rural and blue-collar communities like Moorhead and Duluth. 

Then, I realized that in the last few weeks....Trump picked up his ground game. He started to really get out there among the people. The veterans, the workers who are afraid for their jobs, the little child dressed up who would prefer to stay on stage with him then go back to his parents. He started to get out there among the regular, everyday, working-class folks. He went to the small towns, where places had lost jobs and were wondering what was next. We throw around the term "disenfranchisement" regarding African-Americans, Hispanics, etc...but some that were really feeling disenfranchised were small-town America. They were pissed off and feeling ignored. 

People rip on Senator Grassley and Congressman King a lot, but one of the big reasons Iowa supports them and keeps sending them back to Washington is that they come out among the people and talk to us. Every year, Grassley visits and holds town hall meetings in every county. King has visited every single community in his district every year also. I have met Grassley and Senator Ernst as well...they are very approachable and very gracious with their time. They don't act like it's a chore, they actually appreciate and want to talk to us. They talk to us, not down to us. If more politicians did that, the revolution would not be taking place. 

Out here, I talk about limited government and more freedoms for the people. However, that doesn't mean the government just sits back and let us go crazy. It's somewhat of a a balancing act. I do that as a manager...I don't micro-manage but I'm not one that stays holed up in my office all week either. I try to come out twice a day and talk to my supervisors and working bees. I see how things are going, and then let them know if they need something to come to my office or call me on my cell if I will be out. Ideally, that's what I want our government to do. Handle the basics, leave us alone for the most part, but check with us every so often to see how we're doing and if there's anything we need. 

Our government is unique, unlike just about anything that is out there now. It's not perfect, but it's truly great to see in action when working right. Hopefully, we have woken up to the fact that we need to take that back from the people who don't have our best interests. And...most importantly...we will continue to hold those in power accountable. That even includes Donald J Trump. If the Trump train is going off the tracks by something he wants to do, I hope you question him with the same ferocity that you have supported him. 

"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."- Thomas Jefferson


----------



## Ghost Lantern

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> Amazing Atheist with a hot take on the election as he rips liberal crybabies on Twitter:


wow I am on the same page with this guy.....who knew?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I have an explanation for the upsurge in the minority vote for Trump that none of the pundits that I've read or listened to have even mentioned at all (I'm sure someone else might have) and it should be highlighted here if no where else. 

When Hillary and the SJW's went on their whites are racist warpath, *they completely and utterly forgot about us interracial couples who are an ignored, but very large voter group in America as well*. When they drew their campaign along racial lines, they simply could not breach the bonds minorities and whites have. They assumed that all minorities are *completely *in their camp to the point where the personal rights (and feelings) were literally being trampled upon by the deplorable declaration.

I'm married to a white girl who has helped me beyond belief in the last 5 years, and I'm damned sure there are hundreds of thousands of minorities across America who are in relationships with whites as spouses, adopted siblings, employers, employees, colleagues, friends. These whites are incredibly hospitable and socially liberal, but they too were being lumped in this basket of deplorables.

Now, my wife wasn't a support of Trump, but my mother in law was and if any democrat thought that I wouldn't take an attack on my mother in law who's not even slightly racist (as she took a homeless black man into her home for nearly a year to give him a chance in life) that I wouldn't start taking Trump more seriously after that were very misguided. 

The fact is that democrats have gotten so used to their entitlement to the minority because they loved Obama (they didn't necessarily love the democrats) that they forgot about those minorities that love whites for whatever reason. They drove us minorities away. I'm just one example - and I'm sure there's hundreds of thousands more. Even Asians voted Trump more than they voted Romney and that's really saying something. 

Democrats should *NEVER* make the mistake of speaking over minorities or for minorities ever again. They need to learn to speak to Americans again if they ever hope to win another election again.


----------



## NoChanceInHell95

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Vince scheming vigorously in headquarters for another trump mania appearance*


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/10/celebrities-change-their-minds-after-vowing-leave-/



> Miley Cyrus, Chelsea Handler and Amy Schumer now have a different message after vowing to leave the country if Republican Donald Trump won the presidency: Never mind.
> 
> “Yesterday my staff reminded me that voices and platforms like mine are needed more than ever; leaving the country is quitting #keepfightin,” said Ms. Handler on Twitter.
> 
> Meanwhile, the comedian Schumer dismissed Tuesday her pre-election comment on BBC about moving to Europe, saying it was made “in jest,” and blasted those calling for her to take a hike.
> 
> Ms. Cyrus, who said on Instagram in March that “I am moving if he is president” and “I don’t say things I don’t mean,” posted messages on social media indicating that she would accept Mr. Trump as president.
> 
> “If we want Donald Trump to accept us … we must be accepting towards his presidency & his promise to ‘unify’ our country and ‘make America great,’” said the pop singer, a judge on NBC-TV’s “The Voice,” in an Instagram post Wednesday.


And the celebrity backpedaling continues. :kobelol


----------



## DoolieNoted

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Is there any truth to the rumour that FEMA are sending out emergency salt rations for Hillary supporters?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The Absolute said:


> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/10/celebrities-change-their-minds-after-vowing-leave-/
> 
> 
> 
> And the celebrity backpedaling continues. :kobelol


Do republican really not understand what hyperbole is.


----------



## DoolieNoted

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Do republican really not understand what hyperbole is.


If you want to lay a small amount of blame on anyone it's these celebricunts that said they'd leave the country if :trump got in. (whether they meant it or not)

I'd lay a large sum on those comments tipping some undecideds over to the D.


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Do *republicans really not understand what hyperbole is.


Hey bb, nice of you to drop by. While Ms. Schumer may very well have been joking, both Ms. Cyrus and Ms. Handler seemed quite serious in their vow to leave.



> Ms. Cyrus, who said on Instagram in March that “I am moving if he is president” and “I don’t say things I don’t mean,” posted messages on social media indicating that she would accept Mr. Trump as president.


And here's an article on Handler: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/chelsea-handler-will-leave-us-892929



> [Chelsea Handler], whose new late night series debuted on Netflix early Wednesday morning, has previously said that she has a house in Spain that will be ready right after the election in case she needs to leave, but she indicated on Wednesday's Live With Kelly and Michael that that's not just talk.
> 
> "I did buy a house in another country just in case, so all of these people that threaten to leave the country and then don't, I will leave the country," she said.


These things don't sound like hyperbole to me.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*










Came across this. Spot on for President Trump's Cabinet. Only addition I would make is having Gov. Jesse Ventura as the Press Secretary to put the dishonest media in their place for the lulz. :lol

- Vic


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Vic Capri said:


> Came across this. Spot on for President Trump's Cabinet. Only addition I would make is having Gov. Jesse Ventura as the Press Secretary to put the dishonest media in their place for the lulz. :lol
> 
> - Vic


You see what a joke that cabinet is and how it will set the country back 50 years.





The Absolute said:


> Hey bb, nice of you to drop by. While Ms. Schumer may very well have been joking, both Ms. Cyrus and Ms. Handler seemed quite serious in their vow to leave.
> 
> 
> 
> And here's an article on Handler: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/chelsea-handler-will-leave-us-892929
> 
> 
> 
> These things don't sound like hyperbole to me.


All these people that are saying oh if Trump won they would leave the country. What they should be doing is moving to a swing state.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

If these protesters wanna protest whatever, but violence against both people and property at the protests is increasing and they need to chill the fuck out. They've reached the point of diminishing returns here. Stay out in the streets screaming your heads off and breaking shit and assaulting people much longer and you're gonna turn people against you and not just :trump supporters by any means.


----------



## DoolieNoted

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Vic Capri said:


> Came across this. Spot on for President Trump's Cabinet. Only addition I would make is having Gov. Jesse Ventura as the Press Secretary to put the dishonest media in their place for the lulz. :lol
> 
> - Vic


Change it to Rhyno as SecDef and Austin as secretary of State.. Just imagine... >


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> All these people that are saying oh if Trump won they would leave the country. What they should be doing is moving to a swing state.












You them Hollywood types though. The hookers & cocaine in California & New York are too abundant. Why leave Xanadu to live among the commoners?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> You see what a joke that cabinet is and how it will set the country back 50 years.


While I disagree with their social conservatism, other than that 50 years ago was great for most of America. 

- Housing was affordable
- Cars were affordable
- Gas was affordable
- College was cheap. Text books didn't cost 200 bucks a pop
- High school education standards were higher
- The middle class was bigger
- Purchasing power of the dollar was greater
- Single-income families that could afford to be such and still buy a house, car and save for their children's college fees were the norm not the exception
- There were fewer unwanted children
- There were less dead-beat dads
- There were more children growing up in 2 parent homes
- There were more jobs and fewer people on welfare

As long as they don't set the blacks back financially (which none of their policy positions indicate that they will), going back to what America was 50 years ago is *exactly *what Trump meant by "Make America Great Again"

:draper2

PS> Before someone misunderstands me and points out all the social stuff that I'm not talking about, understand that I'm well aware of it and I can totally understand why "Make America Great Again" does not speak to those people because for a lot of people America wasn't great. You won't get any disagreement from me on that at all.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Gainn_Damage said:


> Change it to Rhyno as SecDef and Austin as secretary of State.. Just imagine... >


Stone Cold Steve Austin as Secretary of Education. 

"OMG AUSTIN 3:16 THEY'RE TRYING TO FORCE RELIGION IN SCHOOLS"


----------



## El Dandy

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> All these people that are saying oh if Trump won they would leave the country. What they should be doing is moving to a swing state.


Yup, but we all know they're not going from Malibu to Michigan :lmao


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/797132288949485569


----------



## DJHJR86

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

The longer these protests go on and the more violent they get the more excuse they give :trump to give everyone to the Left of Jim Webb the finger.

Right up their buttholes.

And the more support he'll have for doing it.


----------



## krtgolfing

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

#


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



deepelemblues said:


> The longer these protests go on and the more violent they get the more excuse they give :trump to give everyone to the Left of Jim Webb the finger.
> 
> Right up their buttholes.
> 
> And the more support he'll have for doing it.


Shhh... let them shit the bed again, if that's what makes them happy. (They'll just end up giving Trump another 4 years :lmao)


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Ed Klein: Hillary Couldn't Stop Crying, Told Friend She Blames Comey and Obama For Loss

Well, that explains why she left her supporters high and dry on Tuesday night. :lol

- Vic


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Perspective: Obama's legacy is President Donald J. Trump

:beckylol


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Do these idiots not realize that their behavior is actually going to make it MORE likely of a retaliatory actions? Jesus Christ, at this rate the rest of us are going to be caught between the extreme idiots on both sides as they burn this country to the ground in their moronic hatred.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ayed-demonstrations-erupt-across-us/93633154/



> For the third night in a row, anti-Donald Trump demonstrators took to the streets in several big cities and on college campuses across the United States, including an outburst of smashed windows and a dumpster fire in Portland that police countered with pepper spray and flash-bang devices.


"When they go low, we go high."

:con2


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



virus21 said:


>


I'd give Assange, Manning and Snowden a bullet in the neck cus that's what they deserve.

Manning and Snowden are traitors period and Assange has made it his life's work to destroy the US's ability to act beyond its borders, fuck all three of em :draper2


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Vic Capri said:


> Ed Klein: Hillary Couldn't Stop Crying, Told Friend She Blames Comey and Obama For Loss
> 
> Well, that explains why she left her supporters high and dry on Tuesday night. :lol
> 
> - Vic


No surprise...the Obamas and the Clintons don't get along. There is a lot of animosity going back to the '08 campaign.


----------



## amhlilhaus

birthday_massacre said:


> Vic Capri said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Vic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How exactly is that fair?
Click to expand...

Heres a kernal of truth. Only a kernal, and hopefully it doesnt blow your heads off:

Life isnt fair


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> While I disagree with their social conservatism, other than that 50 years ago was great for most of America.
> 
> - Housing was affordable
> - Cars were affordable
> - Gas was affordable
> - College was cheap. Text books didn't cost 200 bucks a pop
> - High school education standards were higher
> - The middle class was bigger
> - Purchasing power of the dollar was greater
> - Single-income families that could afford to be such and still buy a house, car and save for their children's college fees were the norm not the exception
> - There were fewer unwanted children
> - There were less dead-beat dads
> - There were more children growing up in 2 parent homes
> - There were more jobs and fewer people on welfare
> 
> As long as they don't set the blacks back financially (which none of their policy positions indicate that they will), going back to what America was 50 years ago is *exactly *what Trump meant by "Make America Great Again"
> 
> :draper2
> 
> PS> Before someone misunderstands me and points out all the social stuff that I'm not talking about, understand that I'm well aware of it and I can totally understand why "Make America Great Again" does not speak to those people because for a lot of people America wasn't great. You won't get any disagreement from me on that at all.


I was speaking more on social issues. Do you really want someone like Carson running education when he thinks the pyramids are made to store grain? He thinks being gay is a choice, he thinks judges should be allowed to be removed by congress if those judges are for marriage equality and he thinks the earth was literally made in 6 days.

You want Rudy in charge of homeland one of the most racist people I have ever seen. Oh yeah lets bring back stop and frisk for the whole country. 

Net was SOS, he is a bigger war monger than Hillary Clinton.

Oh yeah that cabinet will be great.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> It isn't meant to be fair. It is broken but not in the way you describe. It was meant to allow the states with less population to have some say in the presidential elections. But overtime has made the elections only about a few battleground states instead and skew campaigning norms. Trump broke away from that this year and won by flipping blue states red appealing to rural voters. The EC worked as intended this time round when rural voters made their voices heard and decided the winner. The government will have to take them more seriously than before.
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...-hillary-clinton-editorials-debates/93609562/
> 
> A national popular vote brings it own set of issues. If you think waiting for the election results until 2am was a chore, wait till they have to count EVERY vote before declaring the results before calling a county/state.
> 
> Trump sucks, the world are in for 4 years of a wild ride. We can only hope that there isn't any permanent damage from his time in office. The only silver lining is the elites have been shaken this year and will stop being complacent about addressing issues their electorate are concerned with that allowed demagogues like Trump and Sanders to hijack the system.


the EC makes it so depending on the state you live in your vote can count more or less than another voter from another state. That is not democracy. 

It should not matter how long we have to wait for the votes to be counted, if it gave us the real winner. that would prove every single vote matters. With the EC every vote does not matter, just the key 11-15 states they need to win via the EC.

Also the EC can still flip their votes, what would happen with they do that and instead give it to Hillary? What kind of shit storm would this stir up?


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



> Oh yeah lets bring back stop and frisk for the whole country.


Rudy only made it 2x as safe to be a black man living in New York City as it was before his mayoral terms with his racist policies :draper2

He also made NYC particularly Times Square a tourist destination again which has put a lot of money into the pockets of small business and new entrepreneurs with his racist policies :draper2


----------



## amhlilhaus

I bet trump suprises people on social issues, ie he leaves them alone.

He will ENFORCE immigration laws, which too many will lump with social issues, but he wont take away rights.

I think hes going to focus on jobs. We will see


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> the EC makes it so depending on the state you live in your vote can count more or less than another voter from another state. That is not democracy.
> 
> It should not matter how long we have to wait for the votes to be counted, if it gave us the real winner. that would prove every single vote matters. With the EC every vote does not matter, just the key 11-15 states they need to win via the EC.
> 
> Also the EC can still flip their votes, what would happen with they do that and instead give it to Hillary? What kind of shit storm would this stir up?


Just for example, how does having the most EVs in the land, almost 2x as many as the next largest state, make Californian's votes matter less? A Californian's vote is far more weighty than that of someone in Idaho. 55 well > 3. 

You have it completely backwards. It is without the EC that you only need to rack up big vote totals in 7-10 states to win.

Nobody is going to give two shits about Delaware's 675,000 registered voters without the electoral college. Or Wyoming's 200,000 or so registered voters.

Here's what happens if you get rid of the EC: rural areas get neglected more, rural voters get more pissed off, eventually they do something about it. Shouldn't you have learned from 3 days ago it's probably a bad idea to dismiss rural voters?


----------



## El Dandy

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Also the EC can still flip their votes, what would happen with they do that and instead give it to Hillary? What kind of shit storm would this stir up?


It could probably start a civil war tbh. It would be that serious of a deal.

Not gonna happen, tho. These are mostly just pathetic cries to a dis-interested God.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

"Fairness was invented so children and idiots would have something to argue about." - Scott Adams


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/us/politics/hillary-clinton-campaign.html

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/hillary-clinton-aides-loss-blame-231215



> And some began pointing fingers at the young campaign manager, Robby Mook, who spearheaded a strategy supported by the senior campaign team that included only limited outreach to those voters — a theory of the case that Bill Clinton had railed against for months, wondering aloud at meetings why the campaign was not making more of an attempt to even ask that population for its votes. It’s not that there was none: Clinton’s post-convention bus tour took her through Youngstown, Ohio, as well as Pittsburgh and Harrisburg, where she tried to eat into Trump’s margins with his base. In Scranton and Harrisburg, the campaign aired a commercial that featured a David Letterman clip of Trump admitting to outsourcing manufacturing of the products and clothes that bore his logo. And at campaign stops in Ohio, Clinton talked about Trump’s reliance on Chinese steel.
> 
> But in general, Bill Clinton’s viewpoint of fighting for the working class white voters was often dismissed with a hand wave by senior members of the team as a personal vendetta to win back the voters who elected him, from a talented but aging politician who simply refused to accept the new Democratic map. At a meeting ahead of the convention at which aides presented to both Clintons the “Stronger Together” framework for the general election, senior strategist Joel Benenson told the former president bluntly that the voters from West Virginia were never coming back to his party.


It's a sad thing when the diseased old pervert is the only one in your campaign with any brains. 

Sure don't even try to get the votes of the people who ended up giving the election to :trump . Oh you see rural whites and Catholic whites, they aren't the voters we're looking for, we don't really need them anymore because we've got this super-diverse super kewl coalition that can never be defeated because demography is destiny! 

Oops.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



deepelemblues said:


> Just for example, how does having the most EVs in the land, almost 2x as many as the next largest state, make Californian's votes matter less? A Californian's vote is far more weighty than that of someone in Idaho. 55 well > 3.
> 
> You have it completely backwards. It is without the EC that you only need to rack up big vote totals in 7-10 states to win.
> 
> Nobody is going to give two shits about Delaware's 675,000 registered voters without the electoral college. Or Wyoming's 200,000 or so registered voters.
> 
> Here's what happens if you get rid of the EC: rural areas get neglected more, rural voters get more pissed off, eventually they do something about it. Shouldn't you have learned from 3 days ago it's probably a bad idea to dismiss rural voters?


No you have it completely backwards. CA is one of the biggest states in the country and their votes pretty much never matter in the elections. During the elections all of the focus is always mostly on the swing states
They always tend neglect the states they know they have locked up .

With the EC that stuff happens now, no one cares about VTs or RIs small EC votes. No one ever gives a shit about Alaska. Everything you are claiming is true of the EC.

Going by the popular vote you have to target all of the American people to get all of their votes. The EC just causes them to focus on the key states needed to win.

you have it so backwards its not even funny

No one should be able to win by just getting 23% of the popular vote or winning just 11 states out of 51 (counting DC)


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



deepelemblues said:


> Rudy only made it 2x as safe to be a black man living in New York City as it was before his mayoral terms with his racist policies :draper2
> 
> He also made NYC particularly Times Square a tourist destination again which has put a lot of money into the pockets of small business and new entrepreneurs with his racist policies :draper2


Stop and frisk had nothing to do with that


http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/22/politics/reality-check-stop-and-frisk/


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> No you have it completely backwards. CA is one of the biggest states in the country and their votes pretty much never matter in the elections. During the elections all of the focus is always mostly on the swing states
> They always tend neglect the states they know they have locked up .
> 
> With the EC that stuff happens now, no one cares about VTs or RIs small EC votes. No one ever gives a shit about Alaska. Everything you are claiming is true of the EC.
> 
> Going by the popular vote you have to target all of the American people to get all of their votes. The EC just causes them to focus on the key states needed to win.
> 
> you have it so backwards its not even funny
> 
> No one should be able to win by just getting 23% of the popular vote or winning just 11 states out of 51 (counting DC)


Republicans always win more states than the Democrats do you do know this right

No one cares about VT or RI's electoral votes because no one but a Democrat is going to win them for forever.

:trump has 47.4% of the popular vote to Clinton's 47.7. 

Now if you're talking about as a percentage of all registered voters or all citizens over the age of 18... again, :trump and Clinton's percentage is almost identical.

If CA doesn't matter in an election try to figure out how the Democrats would EVER win a presidential election without California. You can't. No California, no Democratic presidents. Period. Whether the system is electoral college OR direct popular vote.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



deepelemblues said:


> Republicans always win more states than the Democrats do you do know this right
> 
> No one cares about VT or RI's electoral votes because no one but a Democrat is going to win them for forever.
> 
> :trump has 47.4% of the popular vote to Clinton's 47.7.
> 
> Now if you're talking about as a percentage of all registered voters or all citizens over the age of 18... again, :trump and Clinton's percentage is almost identical.
> 
> If CA doesn't matter in an election try to figure out how the Democrats would EVER win a presidential election without California. You can't. No California, no Democratic presidents. Period. Whether the system is electoral college OR direct popular vote.


So you admit that the EC causes them to ignore states like VT and RI. You just proved the flaw of the EC. It causes them to ignore states they know they have no chance winning.

Where as with the popular vote every vote would matter.


let me ask you this. What if they tweaked the EC and instead of making it winner take all they did it like in the primaries where its based on the percent of votes you got in each state.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Stop and frisk had nothing to do with that
> 
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/22/politics/reality-check-stop-and-frisk/


This is pure and utter nonsense and a perfect example of lying with statistics.

The idea that the percentage rise in stop-and-frisk encounters should match precisely with the percentage decrease in violent crime or otherwise stop-and-frisk gets no credit is sooooooooooooooooo stupid.



> So you admit that the EC causes them to ignore states like VT and RI. You just proved the flaw of the EC. It causes them to ignore states they know they have no chance winning.


When have VT and RI been ignored the way the Rust Belt has? The Rust Belt has a lot more votes than VT or RI yet those voters have been totally ignored since at least 2004. Dubya was the last candidate who gave a shit about rural voters until :trump



> Where as with the popular vote every vote would matter.


Pure nonsense. California, Texas, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Florida, New York, Michigan, North Carolina, Virginia, and Wisconsin would matter in a direct popular vote election. The rest of the country? Who cares. Not enough voters. 




> let me ask you this. What if they tweaked the EC and instead of making it winner take all they did it like in the primaries where its based on the percent of votes you got in each state.


That would likely ensure no Democrat was ever elected president again so sure!


----------



## A-C-P

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

The only change I would make to the electoral college is having it go by district and not all or nothing for each state (which a couple states do now Maine and Nebraska I believe) So take my state of Wisconsin fo example in this system Trump would have gotten 7 electoral votes from WI and Clinton would have got 3...


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Deepenemablues is the type of Trump supporter I disavow completely btw. Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden are not traitors but rather patriots, and Julian Assange's work is invaluable in keeping people informed of the corruption in their government. Hopefully we will continue to see many such whistle-blowers and leaks during Trump's administration to try and keep him honest, and keep us citizens informed when the government would rather keep us in the dark.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



A-C-P said:


> The only change I would make to the electoral college is having it go by district and not all or nothing for each state (which a couple states do now Maine and Nebraska I believe) So take my state of Wisconsin fo example in this system Trump would have gotten 7 electoral votes from WI and Clinton would have got 3...


It never made any sense why it was winner take all. You could technically win a state by just one vote and you would get all the EC votes. 

I disagree with going by districts because the GOP loves gerrymandering and they are always fucking with the district lines.

Just go with the overall vote count for the state then divide up the EC votes as a percent.


----------



## Warlock

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Would rather have preferential voting over EV proportional allocation.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Sweenz said:


> Would rather have preferential voting over EV proportional allocation.


The run off voting? that would be a good compromise too and people could claim their votes are being wasted.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I wonder if the Hillary voters crying about the Electoral College would be crying about it if the shoe was on the other foot?


----------



## The Boy Wonder

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I think a lesson could be learned here for celebs and CEOs: keep your political opinions private. Why alienate half of your fans or consumers? Perhaps before this election they arrogantly believed Trump supporters only made up 30-40% of the nation. But after Tuesday that's not the case.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Oda Nobunaga said:


> I wonder if the Hillary voters crying about the Electoral College would be crying about it if the shoe was on the other foot?


You mean like this?


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I think people pissed and moaned about the electoral college in 2000 too. It's not going anywhere.

All these new people thinking we've just now become divided. We've been divided since the founding. We still have to attempt unity.


----------



## KingCosmos

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The Boy Wonder said:


> I think a lesson could be learned here for celebs and CEOs: keep your political opinions private. Why alienate half of your fans or consumers? Perhaps before this election they arrogantly believed Trump supporters only made up 30-40% of the nation. But after Tuesday that's not the case.


Because maybe they feel voicing their opinion to help prevent disaster is worth losing a few fans.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> You mean like this?


Trump's base as well would probably do the same if it were reversed. Never said they wouldn't. :mj However, I do believe we'd see some hypocrisy from both sides.


----------



## The Boy Wonder

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



KingCosmos said:


> Because maybe they feel voicing their opinion to help prevent disaster is worth losing a few fans.


No. They just want to show their power but in this case they failed. For these Celebs and CEO's it doesn't matter who the president is. But for the single moms, coal miners, small business owners it does.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Oda Nobunaga said:


> Trump's base as well would probably do the same if it were reversed. Never said they wouldn't. :mj However, I do believe we'd see some hypocrisy from both sides.


It's only hypocrisy if people complaining about the other side but would do it themselves.

Protesting is a first amendment right, as long as it's don't peaceful, no one should really complain about it.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



MrMister said:


> I think people pissed and moaned about the electoral college in 2000 too. It's not going anywhere.
> 
> All these new people thinking we've just now become divided. We've been divided since the founding. We still have to attempt unity.


Agreed. Our opinions and thoughts are much more exposed now than ever thanks to technological advances.



birthday_massacre said:


> It's only hypocrisy if people complaining about the other side but would do it themselves.
> 
> Protesting is a first amendment right, as long as it's don't peaceful, no one should really complain about it.


Of course. I'm not arguing against that. That's a given. 

Some of these protests have not been peaceful. Some have been riots, with looting and damaging of property.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



MrMister said:


> I think people pissed and moaned about the electoral college in 2000 too. It's not going anywhere.
> 
> All these new people thinking we've just now become divided. We've been divided since the founding. We still have to attempt unity.


2000 was a special cause though because would have Gore also won the EC if they did a full recount of FL. SCOTUS blocked Gore from winning. So in that year there was even more reason to protest. But we have been over this before.


----------



## KingCosmos

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The Boy Wonder said:


> No. They just want to show their power but in this case they failed. For these Celebs and CEO's it doesn't matter who the president is. But for the single moms, coal workers, small business owners it does.


They want to show their power? How do you even know this? So what it won't affect them. People still have compassion for the others around them. If they think Trump is a disaster they have every right to say it. And some of them know that they can reach a big demographic so it helps


----------



## Warlock

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



MrMister said:


> I think people pissed and moaned about the electoral college in 2000 too. It's not going anywhere.
> 
> All these new people thinking we've just now become divided. We've been divided since the founding. We still have to attempt unity.


No no. We are more divided than ever. Haven't you heard?


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The Boy Wonder said:


> I think a lesson could be learned here for celebs and CEOs: keep your political opinions private. Why alienate half of your fans or consumers? Perhaps before this election they arrogantly believed Trump supporters only made up 30-40% of the nation. But after Tuesday that's not the case.


It isn't about mere political opinions though. They didn't just disagree, they took it 5 steps further and became the categorical regressive bigots that they claimed they weren't. They paraded around and celebrated their flagrant intolerance as they incessantly shamed people with claims of bigotry. Instead of having a discussion--instead of trying to understand what these people thought, they tried to silence them with shame and prejudice. 

Everything and everyone who disagreed with them politically were suddenly labeled as racists, sexists, homophobes, Islamaphobes, fascists, 'uneducated,' misogynists, deplorables, irredemables, etc. 

Want migrants to follow immigrations laws? Racist.
Want to keep radical terrorist ideologies with a well-documented history of murder and violence out of your communities? Islamaphobe.
Like some of what Trump's positions are? Fascist.
Don't want to support Hillary? Sexist. Misogynist.
Voting for Trump? Uneducated. Deplorable. Irredemable.
Registered as a Republican? Homophobe.

And now, after they got slaughtered in the election, do they take a step back and reflect on this misjudgments or re-evaluate their mistakes? No. They double-down, and take it even further still. It's both laughable and pathetic in equal measure.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Sincere said:


> It isn't about mere political opinions though. They didn't just disagree, they took it 5 steps further and became the categorical regressive bigots that they claimed they weren't. They paraded around and celebrated their flagrant intolerance as they incessantly shamed people with claims of bigotry. Instead of having a discussion--instead of trying to understand what these people thought, they tried to silence them with shame and prejudice.
> 
> Everything and everyone who disagreed with them politically were suddenly labeled as racists, sexists, homophobes, Islamaphobes, fascists, 'uneducated,' misogynists, deplorables, irredemables, etc.
> 
> Want migrants to follow immigrations laws? Racist.
> Want to keep radical terrorist ideologies with a well-documented history of murder and violence out of your communities? Islamaphobe.
> Like some of what Trump's positions are? Fascist.
> Don't want to support Hillary? Sexist. Misogynist.
> Voting for Trump? Uneducated. Deplorable. Irredemable.
> Registered as a Republican? Homophobe.
> 
> And now, after they got slaughtered in the election, do they take a step back and reflect on this misjudgments or re-evaluate their mistakes? No. They double-down, and take it even further still. It's both laughable and pathetic in equal measure.


Got slaughtered in the election LOL Hillary Clinton got MORE votes than Trump. At least be honest dude.


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Got slaughtered in the election LOL Hillary Clinton got MORE votes than Trump. At least be honest dude.


Yes, slaughtered. 

They lost the House, the Senate, the WH, and effectively lost SCotUS. They also saw several states flip from blue to red (and several others very nearly did the same) to such an extent that if they do not manage to re-flip those states they mathematically cannot win another election. The GOP gained in every minority demographic according to early exit polls--essential elements to Democrat victories. Blacks up 7%, Hispanics up 8%, Asians up 11%. Cubans flocked to Trump. White women rejected Hillary. 

It was a massacre.

A few 10ths of a percentage difference popular vote (that isn't even fully tallied yet, anyway) doesn't change how much of a spectacular failure this election was for the Democrats.


----------



## TripleG

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Hillary voters


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Sincere said:


> Yes, slaughtered.
> 
> They lost the House, the Senate, the WH, and effectively lost SCotUS. They also saw several states flip from blue to red (and several others very nearly did the same) to such an extent that if they do not manage to re-flip those states they mathematically cannot win another election. The GOP gained in every minority demographic according to early exit polls--essential elements to Democrat victories. Blacks up 7%, Hispanics up 8%, Asians up 11%. Cubans flocked to Trump. White women rejected Hillary.
> 
> It was a massacre.
> 
> A few 10ths of a percentage difference popular vote (that isn't even fully tallied yet, anyway) doesn't change how much of a spectacular failure this election was for the Democrats.


Um the democrats did not lose the house and senate they never had i in the first place. It was already GOP controlled. And they have not lost SCOTUS yet because they will replace a conservative with a conservative. 

And any way you slice it half the country is against Trump.


----------



## FITZ

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Once California secedes Democrats are never winning another national election anyway.


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

*If Pence ever becomes President I'll be like










and I'll be the one moving to Canada...... please stay safe Trump.
*


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Um the democrats did not lose the house and senate they never had i in the first place. It was already GOP controlled. And they have not lost SCOTUS yet because they will replace a conservative with a conservative.
> 
> And any way you slice it half the country is against Trump.


The Democrats were expected to retake the Senate and pick up many, many more seats in the House. 

The Democrats got decimated again in state governor and state legislature races. Republicans control 36 governorships now and still have 69 of 99 state legislative chambers. 

You can whistle past the graveyard all you like but the Republican Party will NEVER have had as much power over this country as it will have from January 20, 2017, to at least January 20, 2019. The Democratic Party is, at the moment, a coastal rump party with some enclaves in old cities and college towns. 

Can it recover? Certainly. It is certainly not weakened enough to be written off in even the very next presidential election. But it is a very diminished animal right now.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Pence is definitely the worst thing about a Trump presidency. Fortunately he's just the VP who can't do shit unless he's Dick Cheney. unfortunately, however, he's the VP.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



AryaDark said:


> *If Pence ever becomes President I'll be like
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and I'll be the one moving to Canada...... please stay safe Trump.
> *


Immigrating to Canada isn't as easy as immigrating to the US, as liberals learned the last few days. :trump 

@DesolationRow @L-DOPA @Carte Blanche @Sincere 

Reason's Nick Gillespie sits down with various libertarian thinkers to discuss reasons for optimism regarding Trump's cabinet, despite the concern about some of the names floating around:


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



AryaDark said:


> *If Pence ever becomes President I'll be like
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and I'll be the one moving to Canada...... please stay safe Trump.
> *


What is terrifying... the political coup is very much possible since Pence is clearly the GOP's man and Trump never wanted him as VP in the first place. If Trump doesn't play ball with the GOP, which is more likely than some think, I would not be surprised he had a "heart attack" or some accident. Then we are all fucked. Pence makes Trump look like a saint.


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Um the democrats did not lose the house and senate they never had i in the first place. It was already GOP controlled. And they have not lost SCOTUS yet because they will replace a conservative with a conservative.
> 
> And any way you slice it half the country is against Trump.


Yes they did. Both the House and Senate were effectively up for grabs. SCotUS was also up for grabs as a result of the presidency. Republicans also have more Governors in office at the state level, as well, btw.

This election was such a remarkable loss for Democrats that Republicans have not had this much power in government since 1928, and haven't had this much majority in the House since that same year. That's how rare and outstanding this election result is. The fact that you refuse to recognize the gravity of that because you're too busy harping on 10ths of percentage points in the largely meaningless (and incomplete) popular vote, and more generally are probably just unwilling to admit such massive defeat, is comical and its own sad commentary on your denial and ignorance. 

But you keep going on about that popular vote till you're blue in the face, meanwhile Trump will likely be cruising on a veritable autobahn of governance for the next 4 years, at least.



FITZ said:


> Once California secedes Democrats are never winning another national election anyway.


The irony here is that Lincoln effectively crushed the concept of secession from the Union with the Civil War.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



AryaDark said:


> *If Pence ever becomes President I'll be like
> 
> and I'll be the one moving to Canada...... please stay safe Trump.
> *


By the time you get your immigration Visa, Pence's term would be over though. My brother applied for immigration to Canada for his wife and it took them 3 years to put it through. Canada has become near impossible to immigrate to. 

Cross border couples generally move to the States to be together than the other way around because immigration to Canada is one of the toughest immigrations to acquire in the world. 

On the flip, my wife sponsored me and I got my papers in 6 months. I didn't even have to leave the country and I entered on a visit visa after which I simply applied for a change in legal status.

Canada does not allow people to change their legal status after they enter the country so if you go in as a visitor (which you can for six months), you'll have to leave it before you can apply for immigration. 

So ... uh ... good luck moving to Canada


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Kabraxal said:


> What is terrifying... the political coup is very much possible since Pence is clearly the GOP's man and Trump never wanted him as VP in the first place. If Trump doesn't play ball with the GOP, which is more likely than some think, I would not be surprised he had a "heart attack" or some accident. Then we are all fucked. Pence makes Trump look like a saint.


Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if Trump picked Pence to be an insurance policy against assassination. Liberals may hate Trump, but they'd hate Pence even more.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*






These Democratic party hacks never learn :lmao. Tim FUCKING Kaine for 2020? These idiots deserve to lose when they don't even appeal to their own base, which was one of the main reasons why Clinton lost to Trump.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



> I'd give Assange, Manning and Snowden a bullet in the neck cus that's what they deserve.
> 
> Manning and Snowden are traitors period and Assange has made it his life's work to destroy the US's ability to act beyond its borders, fuck all three of em


I used to agree with sentiment, but after seeing how shady our government is (assassinating foreign leaders, rigging elections, spying on Americans), you need whistleblowers to keep it in check.




> Hillary Clinton got MORE votes than Trump.


She had dead and illegal voters. Doesn't count. :lol

- Vic


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Chris Rock has announced his presidential bid for 2020. :heston

I'd probably vote for him if there's no Rand Paul or a good Libertarian candidate. :mj


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> I have an explanation for the upsurge in the minority vote for Trump that none of the pundits that I've read or listened to have even mentioned at all (I'm sure someone else might have) and it should be highlighted here if no where else.
> 
> When Hillary and the SJW's went on their whites are racist warpath, *they completely and utterly forgot about us interracial couples who are an ignored, but very large voter group in America as well*. When they drew their campaign along racial lines, they simply could not breach the bonds minorities and whites have. They assumed that all minorities are *completely *in their camp to the point where the personal rights (and feelings) were literally being trampled upon by the deplorable declaration.
> 
> I'm married to a white girl who has helped me beyond belief in the last 5 years, and I'm damned sure there are hundreds of thousands of minorities across America who are in relationships with whites as spouses, adopted siblings, employers, employees, colleagues, friends. These whites are incredibly hospitable and socially liberal, but they too were being lumped in this basket of deplorables.
> 
> Now, my wife wasn't a support of Trump, but my mother in law was and if any democrat thought that I wouldn't take an attack on my mother in law who's not even slightly racist (as she took a homeless black man into her home for nearly a year to give him a chance in life) that I wouldn't start taking Trump more seriously after that were very misguided.
> 
> The fact is that democrats have gotten so used to their entitlement to the minority because they loved Obama (they didn't necessarily love the democrats) that they forgot about those minorities that love whites for whatever reason. They drove us minorities away. I'm just one example - and I'm sure there's hundreds of thousands more. Even Asians voted Trump more than they voted Romney and that's really saying something.
> 
> Democrats should *NEVER* make the mistake of speaking over minorities or for minorities ever again. They need to learn to speak to Americans again if they ever hope to win another election again.


This is one of my pet theories and, to a limited extent, anyway, Trump seemed to prove it true.

Republicans have a built-in uphill climb in attracting minority voters to vote for them. Why not simply run on a platform of populism, in terms of immigration, intervention and trade, and condemn illegal immigration, rampant crime in the streets, the staggering spread of drugs, terrible public schools in cities, et. al., all of which directly impact children and families of all races and ethnicities, and statistically have a directly deleterious effect for blacks, Hispanics and poor whites? (Humorously, what never gets talked about is that Asian-Americans today boast the highest income as a group! :lol No wonder no one ever talks about them; they directly annihilate the identity politics narrative.)

For every couple of Latino votes Trump presumably lost because he took a hard line on immigration, it would appear he gained roughly one because he was unafraid of being politically incorrect on the matter. He did vastly better with black men than Romney did. 

Many minorities view the opposing candidates with the perspective characterized by verse 3:16 in the Book of Revelation:


> But since you are like lukewarm water, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth!


The McCains and Romneys did not address any of the issues that minority voters, and many poor whites and centrist and moderate Democrats, care about. It was easier for minority voters to spew them out.

Of course people can look at it from the other side of he equation and say that, in a certain way, Hillary Clinton lost the election because she is a white woman. It's difficult to come to diametrically opposed conclusion considering how she fared most especially with black voters. There's no question that Obama gained far more in running in 2008 and 2012 by being black than he lost; between whites who wanted to virtue-signal and who honestly believed that the electing of Obama in 2008 would open a new "post-racial" U.S., and the higher-than-ever black turnout, plus sweeping victories among Latinos and Asians, the data bears this out. 

But, whatever one believes looking at the data, this is the case: Trump picked the populist lock and took the Democrats' "forgotten man" as he's been calling it (which sounds like Franklin D. Roosevelt during the Depression), and in states like Michigan, there were almost 100,000 voters, poor whites, middle class whites, poor blacks, Arab immigrants, etcetera, who opted to vote on the whole ballot but refused to leave a mark for the presidential ticket. Many of them could not bring themselves to vote for any number of reasons but they also steadfastly refused to vote in Hillary Clinton. It was obvious that Trump and his inner-circle had a better reading of the "ground" in this election, hitting Michigan hard, for instance, while the Michigan Democratic Party kept calling up Hillary's campaign, begging her to show up because they were taking the state for granted. (Which she did in the case of Wisconsin, too, never even showing up after the primary season. While enjoying the company of transnational elites in the Hamptons, Manhattan and Hollywood.) 

To put it as succinctly as possible, the Democratic Party overreached in terms of identity politics and all of the "accept your new role as the inevitable minority of the country, dying white America" (which _National Review_ and organs of the supposed American right were echoing all campaign long in a fairly despicable effort to discredit the largely righteous anger behind the people attracted to Trump's campaign), and the end result is that more young white men right now have a more jaundiced view of "equality" and the whole ball of wax than at any point in the last forty years. In many ways it started with Gamergate, as a bunch of apathetic young white dudes who just wanted to play video games all day and night found themselves on the front lines of the left's ceaseless cultural and identity politics-driven war, and they rebelled. And it's been snowballing ever since, and shows no sign of dissipating, particularly as white women followed white men in being decisive in this election, along with Latinos and blacks who in many instances voted Republican on a national ticket for the first time... Meanwhile, the nationally prominent Democrats in this cycle, aside from Bernie Sanders, had no appealing answers to questions like, "What are you going to do about my hollowed-out town in Indiana/Ohio/Michigan/Wisconsin/Minnesota/Pennsylvania, etcetera, etcetera," plus so many other questions. What millions of voters received as their message was that they were deplorable for even asking the question. And for all of those Republicans not named Rand Paul running against Trump? They were mainly celebrated by the tone deaf Beltway crowd huddled around the perfectly air-conditioned and heated offices of _National Review_ (whose editorials excoriated working class whites and called for the death of their towns and communities) and _The Weekly Standard_.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Guys I didn't know Indiana had descended into the 7th level of Hell from January 2013 to now :draper2

Really other than hysteria over his religion what makes Mike Pence so scary


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

*We need more whistleblowers :draper2*


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



deepelemblues said:


> Really other than hysteria over his religion what makes Mike Pence so scary


*That's all it takes for me.*


----------



## KingCosmos

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Sincere said:


> Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if Trump picked Pence to be an insurance policy against assassination. Liberals may hate Trump, but they'd hate Pence even more.


Hardly a insurance policy. If someone would go out of their way to assassinate Trump they damn sure would get Pence too


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



deepelemblues said:


> Guys I didn't know Indiana had descended into the 7th level of Hell from January 2013 to now :draper2
> 
> Really other than hysteria over his religion what makes Mike Pence so scary


The dumb ass believes in gay conversion therapy... what more do you want?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Looks like Pence is in charge of putting together Trump's cabinet and they're keep Chris Christie in the background because of his Bridge scandal. 

So we could be underestimating Pence's impact on the campaign. 

http://www.channel4000.com/nation/politics/pence-will-lead-trump-transition/152332323


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Sincere said:


> Yes they did. Both the House and Senate were effectively up for grabs. SCotUS was also up for grabs as a result of the presidency. Republicans also have more Governors in office at the state level, as well, btw.
> 
> This election was such a remarkable loss for Democrats that Republicans have not had this much power in government since 1928, and haven't had this much majority in the House since that same year. That's how rare and outstanding this election result is. The fact that you refuse to recognize the gravity of that because you're too busy harping on 10ths of percentage points in the largely meaningless (and incomplete) popular vote, and more generally are probably just unwilling to admit such massive defeat, is comical and its own sad commentary on your denial and ignorance.
> 
> But you keep going on about that popular vote till you're blue in the face, meanwhile Trump will likely be cruising on a veritable autobahn of governance for the next 4 years, at least.


Meanwhile more GOP control at the state level. Thirty-four States have Republican governors and 33 states claim Republican controlled legislatures. This has been worked on at the ground level.


----------



## The Boy Wonder

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

http://www.tmz.com/2016/11/11/mom-kicks-out-son-voting-donald-trump/

Apparently this was real and the mother lives in my home state of Texas. Child Services have been notified. The kid is probably better off being raised by someone else.


----------



## KingCosmos

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The Boy Wonder said:


> http://www.tmz.com/2016/11/11/mom-kicks-out-son-voting-donald-trump/
> 
> Apparently this was real and the mother lives in my home state of Texas. Child Services have been notified. The kid is probably better off being raised by someone else.


Nah he will most likely bounce around in the system and lead a horrible life. The mother is no doubt stupid tho


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



deepelemblues said:


> Guys I didn't know Indiana had descended into the 7th level of Hell from January 2013 to now :draper2
> 
> Really other than hysteria over his religion what makes Mike Pence so scary


He believes in gay conversation therapy.
He proposed a law to make women who suffer a miscarriage or have an abortion to have a funeral for the fetus
He signed a bill that would make it legal to discriminate against gay people.
It took him two months to deal with the HIV outbreak in Indiana

do I really need to go on


----------



## KingCosmos

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Looks like Pence is in charge of putting together Trump's cabinet and they're keep Chris Christie in the background because of his Bridge scandal.
> 
> So we could be underestimating Pence's impact on the campaign.
> 
> http://www.channel4000.com/nation/politics/pence-will-lead-trump-transition/152332323












Don't know why anyone thought Pence wouldn't have a significant impact


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I have always said to myself that the next tv show I binge watch is house of cards. Well after this election I am for sure going to watch house of cards


----------



## Larry Davis

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Tbh I was never actually concerned with Trump himself, when Pence was added into the mix that was the






moment


----------



## McGee

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I salute our new POTUS elect.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> the EC makes it so depending on the state you live in your vote can count more or less than another voter from another state. That is not democracy.
> 
> It should not matter how long we have to wait for the votes to be counted, if it gave us the real winner. that would prove every single vote matters. With the EC every vote does not matter, just the key 11-15 states they need to win via the EC.
> 
> Also the EC can still flip their votes, what would happen with they do that and instead give it to Hillary? What kind of shit storm would this stir up?


Yes and the EC was intended as that. It is giving some states that would have otherwise been marginalised a degree of bargaining power. The system is broken overtime because it gave battleground states more importance than every other states, giving really bad incentives for nominees. Aren't you SJW losers always talking about systemic bias or other BS and proposing policies to prop up minorities? Wouldn't it apply here in helping less populous state here?

It matters for people that want to know the results on the same day of voting. Fighting against the EC isn't helping to improve your democracy and really make every single vote matter. Focus the effort on reducing gerrymandering's impact on democracy will. (impossible to eliminate as there will always be bias from whoever is in charge but having more independent district lining could help a little to give a better representation of the electorate in the house) 

The same shit storm we have happening now from pathetic anti-democracy protesters?


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



AryaDark said:


> *That's all it takes for me.*


That's not enough really. 



Kabraxal said:


> The dumb ass believes in gay conversion therapy... what more do you want?


Has he signed laws mandating or something? Because his personal view on the issue may be and is wrong but it isn't affecting public policy now is it?

I care about politicians' opinions influencing policy that has wide-reaching effects not a distasteful belief that is not influencing policy :draper2



birthday_massacre said:


> He believes in gay conversation therapy.
> He proposed a law to make women who suffer a miscarriage or have an abortion to have a funeral for the fetus
> He signed a bill that would make it legal to discriminate against gay people.
> It took him two months to deal with the HIV outbreak in Indiana
> 
> do I really need to go on


Again his personal view on gay conversion therapy is an odd issue to get hysterical about. I'd think his taxation and budget and regulatory policies would be more consequential since, you know, they are. 

That fetal funeral law is weird and is the kind of thing to say uhhhh you can't have the government be doing that.

I am not interested in bullshit claims of legalizing discrimination of gays when it comes to fucking wedding cakes. It's a contrived moral panic.

And here is yet another example of a moral panic, this time from a legitimate issue. We're talking about close to but under 200 new cases of HIV. Should Pence have ensured there was HIV testing available in that county? Yes. Should he have instituted a limited needle exchange program as soon as the outbreak started? Yes. But again, we are talking about close to but under 200 people.

The Black Death it ain't. And I'm not trying to be flippant here. Politicians enact policies all the time that hurt far (far, far, far, far) more people than 200 people who got HIV or a handful of homosexuals who want devout Christians to bake them wedding cakes for some odd reason. If you want me to take freaking out over Mike Pence seriously, get me something he believes or something he fucked up that did getting HIV level of harm to more than 200 people. Because getting HIV is pretty harmful even with all the new drugs and treatments they have. But saying a man is some kind of monstrous danger over 200 people is a joke. There's plenty of people in office who thanks to their fucked up opinions or their performance fuckups have hurt millions. 

Mike Pence isn't one of them.

If all you've got is he fucked up that one time with the HIV outbreak and fetal funerals he's a weirdo Christian and I can't tolerate that... Come. On. I don't think that's a sound way to judge the acceptability of a politician. You're focusing on the picayune shit that will effect .5% of the populace if that picayune shit ever even has an impact on policy which it probably won't, when you should be looking at the stuff that effects everyone everywhere.

Plus at the end of the day America has had a lot of politicians who did great things despite being much more religious and much more weirdly religious than Mike Pence. Read about some of the Civil War and Reconstruction era "radical Republican" politicians, many of whom who were fanatics (for their time) not only about ending slavery but also about using the government to ensure social equality of blacks and whites. A lot of them were so much more intensely religious than Mike Pence and believed a lot stranger things of a religious nature but they still *somehow* managed to have their heads on straight about the really important stuff.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@CamillePunk @DesolationRow @Beatles123 @CarteBlanche @VicCapri @Tater @AryaDark @MrMister @L-DOPA 

Found this article I find interesting and would an interesting way to handle the Iran deal. One of Trump's big complaints is the Iranian nuclear deal was very poorly negotiated. However, rather than shred the deal as he said he would...there might be another alternative. Courtesy of AEIdeas website...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Can Trump walk away from the Iran deal?*
Michael Rubin- Foreign and Defense Policy, Middle East

President-elect Donald Trump has repeatedly called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the so-called Iran nuclear deal, “the worst deal ever negotiated” and a “disaster.”

He’s right. Far from creating the most robust monitoring regime, Secretary of State John Kerry’s deal set a new precedent for lax inspection standards. Not only did it fall short of the bar President Obama had established, it also fell short of past international precedent established with the dismantlement of South Africa’s and Libya’s nuclear program. Rather than ratify the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)’s Additional Protocol, Iranian negotiators promised only to abide by it. The last time that happened, the Iranian government walked away from its restrictions as soon as they had achieved what they wanted, and bragged about it.

Inspections remain spotty and the snapback sanctions mechanism practically non-existent. Nor does the agreement address the problem of off-shore nuclear work, for example, conducted by Iranian scientists in North Korea. Kerry allowed Iran to keep its underground nuclear facility, and more centrifuges than Pakistan used to create its nuclear arsenal. Should Trump serve a second term, the sunset clause to which Kerry acquiesced will put Iran on the verge of having its few remaining controls lifted by time Trump’s presidency ends.

So can Trump walk away from the deal? Legally, yes. President Obama passed the deal through convoluted legal maneuvering rather than by presenting it for ratification by the Senate. Much of the deal was also enshrined in UN Security Council Resolution 2231 and so this would be harder to simply dismiss but, as with all UN resolutions, there is significant wiggle room, much of which Iran has already exploited (for example, with regard to justifying its ballistic missile work).

But would it be wise to walk away from the deal? The answer to this is no. Kerry crafted the deal to give Iran its rewards upfront. A savvier diplomat might have insisted on calibrating sanctions relief and the return of frozen assets to Iran over the course of the deal’s duration, but Kerry was so desperate for a deal that he frontloaded Iran’s rewards. It was the diplomatic equivalent of giving a toddler dessert first and then demanding he eat his spinach. If Trump were to walk away from the deal, it wouldn’t hurt the Iranians one bit; they already received a reward equivalent perhaps to their entire investment in the nuclear program in the first place.

So what might Trump do instead? JCPOA implementation has been handicapped by Kerry’s ego and his fear that it might unravel if he is not obsequious to the Islamic Republic. Weakness seldom wins, however. The Iranian regime understands Kerry’s naiveté and ego and has guided him down a path to the loosening of the JCPOA’s already weak restrictions. On any number of issues—Iran’s illicit ballistic missile work, tolerance for Iran exceeding limits on its heavy water, interpretations of banking regulations, and Iran’s refusal to allow inspections of military bases—Kerry has deferred to Iran, often acting as its business agent and lawyer.

As flawed as the deal is, Trump should simply implement it as if his concern were putting American interests first rather than deferring to Iranian interests. Iran doesn’t want a military base inspected? Tough. Let Iran walk away from the deal if it objects. Iran is upset that its economy isn’t meeting its own expectations? Well, perhaps they should tackle their own corruption and lack of commercial law rather than expect a Western bailout. Iran violates restrictions on ballistic missile development and heavy water production? Then it is in violation and should suffer the full consequences. Flexibility is not an entitlement. Iran complains that sanctions leveled by individual US states on pension fund investments hurt its economy? Not only does agreeing to Tehran’s interpretation betray US democracy, but Tehran’s interpretation is tendentious.

Trump is right: The JCPOA is flawed and does little to restrain or prevent Iran’s military nuclear ambitions. But that does not mean he should walk away. Rather, he can interpret the deal with such inflexibility as to force Iran to walk away. He can be ready with sanctions and, if necessary, other elements of coercion to punish Iran for its noncompliance. And, if he truly wishes to put America first, he will call out every European and Asian firm that seeks for its own short term gain to pump resources into Iran’s infrastructure of terrorism by doing business with Revolutionary Guards-affiliated companies.

At the same time, he can move to undercut Iran’s ability to conduct terrorism by seizing accounts, restricting dollar access by reversing Obama’s tendentious Treasury Department interpretations, and ordering the US Navy to hold its ground rather than “depressurize the Persian Gulf,” as former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel sought.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I like the idea of this approach. Keep the agreement, but follow it to the point that every i is dotted and every T is crossed. Give Iran no room to breathe under any circumstances. If they complain about the deal at any point, tell them, "Go ahead and walk away from it if you want, you are now in violation." Any activity that is slightly above what is legally allowed? You broke the agreement...now full sanctions in place, etc. Then, it's on them if they break the agreement and Trump can then say, "Now we re-do this my way."


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



deepelemblues said:


> That's not enough really.
> 
> 
> 
> Has he signed laws mandating or something? Because his personal view on the issue may be and is wrong but it isn't affecting public policy now is it?
> 
> I care about politicians' opinions influencing policy that has wide-reaching effects not a distasteful belief that is not influencing policy :draper2
> 
> 
> 
> Again his personal view on gay conversion therapy is an odd issue to get hysterical about. I'd think his taxation and budget and regulatory policies would be more consequential since, you know, they are.
> 
> That fetal funeral law is weird and is the kind of thing to say uhhhh you can't have the government be doing that.
> 
> I am not interested in bullshit claims of legalizing discrimination of gays when it comes to fucking wedding cakes. It's a contrived moral panic.
> 
> And here is yet another example of a moral panic, this time from a legitimate issue. We're talking about close to but under 200 new cases of HIV. Should Pence have ensured there was HIV testing available in that county? Yes. Should he have instituted a limited needle exchange program as soon as the outbreak started? Yes. But again, we are talking about close to but under 200 people.
> 
> The Black Death it ain't. And I'm not trying to be flippant here. Politicians enact policies all the time that hurt far (far, far, far, far) more people than 200 people who got HIV or a handful of homosexuals who want devout Christians to bake them wedding cakes for some odd reason. If you want me to take freaking out over Mike Pence seriously, get me something he believes or something he fucked up that did getting HIV level of harm to more than 200 people. Because getting HIV is pretty harmful even with all the new drugs and treatments they have. But saying a man is some kind of monstrous danger over 200 people is a joke. There's plenty of people in office who have by their fucked up opinions or their performance fuckups have hurt millions.
> 
> Mike Pence isn't one of them.
> 
> If all you've got is he fucked up that one time with the HIV outbreak and fetal funerals he's a weirdo Christian and I can't tolerate that... Come. On. I don't think that's a sound way to judge the acceptability of a politician. You're focusing on the picayune shit that will effect .5% of the populace if that picayune shit ever even has an impact on policy which it probably won't, when you should be looking at the stuff that effects everyone everywhere.



Now that he is VP and has real more far-reaching power, you don't see how him being for gay conversion therapy could be an issue? Also being gay is not a choice, so how is it not fucked up that he thinks people should be converted from being gay to straight?

Well good to see you agree on the fetus funeral thing being bad.

It's not moral panic that he has a law allows places to description aginst someone because they are gay. You can't do it against blacks, or other minorities, or women so why should it not be a big deal when it comes to gays? It's not just about wedding cakes. You can refuse to server someone and you can even refuse to hire them based on them being gay. How can you not see that as a problem?

That HIV outbreak was the worst in Indiana state history. How is that not a huge deal? And to be slow moving on it makes it even worse.

I listed a number of huge issues with him and that is only the tip of the iceberg with him.

Maybe you think its ok to discrimate against gays but most of the country does not think its ok.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I have to say it is hilarious that the soundbites from both partisan sides are flipped from before and after the elections. And here I am as an outsider just hoping Trump don't go apeshit and start trade wars or literal wars against nations that pissed him off given how petty and vindictive he AND his team are.

Someone should start a daily check from inauguration to see how long it will take for Trump to take down ISIS. Will it be within 30 days? I suspect it will be as effective as Bush taking down Osama and Obama closing down Guantanamo. What then?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> I have to say it is hilarious that the soundbites from both partisan sides are flipped from before and after the elections. And here I am as an outsider just hoping Trump don't go apeshit and start trade wars or literal wars against nations that pissed him off given how petty and vindictive he AND his team are.
> 
> Someone should start a daily check from inauguration to see how long it will take for Trump to take down ISIS. Will it be within 30 days? I suspect it will be as effective as Bush taking down Osama and Obama closing down Guantanamo. What then?


Look at who is picking from his cabinet. Most of them are war mongers. Trump is going to start wars left and right


----------



## KingCosmos

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


>


Why would anybody want him to fail? Wanting him to not be elected sure. But at least hope he makes good decisions. I'm sure this is directed at the protest and the people arent hoping he fails, they just are protesting him being president period


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



KingCosmos said:


> Why would anybody want him to fail? *Wanting him to not be elected sure.* But at least hope he makes good decisions


Should've thought about that before the minorities (especially african americans) decided not to organize themselves to vote for the democrats (not Hillary, but democrats). 

The Republicans, even the ones that are disgusted with Trump as a human being still voted for the GOP.

Main reason why he got elected in the first place is because african americans and millennials stayed home. That's it.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Republicans are hypocrites giving people shit who say they hope Trump fails when for the last 8 years they wanted Obama to fail and the republicans in congress for 6 of those years did everything to block him so he could not get anything done.


----------



## Smarkout

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Republicans are hypocrites giving people shit who say they hope Trump fails when for the last 8 years they wanted Obama to fail and the republicans in congress for 6 of those years did everything to block him so he could not get anything done.


I think they wanted the Republicans to stop the agenda Obama was pushing so America would become the America they wanted it to be. Not really sure they wanted Obama to fail more than they wanted Republican congress to succeed. 

And yes, I understand you believe we are racists, sexists, homophobes, and deplorable's but I don't think anyone wanted AMERICA to fail. 

Everybody needs to stop bitching for a little bit and allow the Republicans to sink or swim, if they fuck up it is all their fault as of now. Let them do their thing for a little bit and see how it goes. Not that difficult.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Republicans are hypocrites giving people shit who say they hope Trump fails when for the last 8 years they wanted Obama to fail and the republicans in congress for 6 of those years did everything to block him so he could not get anything done.


This is what I hate about the results of this election. It gave even more incentive for either party to be obstructionist and playing to the emotion of their voters instead of doing what's right but unpopular.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

https://www.yahoo.com/news/man-beaten-south-side-while-132843594.html


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



>





KingCosmos said:


> Why would anybody want him to fail?


Why? Because pro-rich fuck over the workers economic policy needs to be abolished once and for all. Wealth concentration is always a bad thing.


----------



## -XERO-

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/797238253309005824


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



-PerfectDarkness- said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/797238253309005824


Backflip number one, ladies and gentleman.

Cant' wait for the excuses, I'm sorry, clarifications.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Backflip number one, ladies and gentleman.
> 
> Cant' wait for the excuses, I'm sorry, clarifications.


Sorry that's isn't number one. The Muslim ban was. :troll


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> Sorry that's isn't number one. The Muslim ban was. :troll


He hasn't backed down on either of those. Christ, why do you even?


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Instead of saying yes to Hillary, the fuccboi dems should've done that to this person instead:










Make that shit happen and *maybe* you'll recover some sliver of respect, DNC. :cudi


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> He hasn't backed down on either of those. Christ, why do you even?


Sure he has. "Technical issues' removed it for a few hours from his website after winning before being back on it again. 

But it wouldn't matter to you since you are cheering his potential appointment of people closely associated with special interests groups in key positions after a campaign against special interests in government.

As long as you get your conservative SCOTUS you don't care if the country burns down anyway.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> Sure he has. "Technical issues' removed it for a few hours from his website after winning before being back on it again.
> 
> But it wouldn't matter to you since you are cheering his potential appointment of people closely associated with special interests groups in key positions after a campaign against special interests in government.
> 
> As long as you get your conservative SCOTUS you don't care if the country burns down anyway.


As if you do :lol


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> As if you do :lol


I care because we need a powerful US to pivot against a rising China in Asia. Life of the little guy.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Smarkout said:


> I think they wanted the Republicans to stop the agenda Obama was pushing so America would become the America they wanted it to be. Not really sure they wanted Obama to fail more than they wanted Republican congress to succeed.
> 
> And yes, I understand you believe we are racists, sexists, homophobes, and deplorable's but I don't think anyone wanted AMERICA to fail.
> 
> Everybody needs to stop bitching for a little bit and allow the Republicans to sink or swim, if they fuck up it is all their fault as of now. Let them do their thing for a little bit and see how it goes. Not that difficult.


And what America would that be? Straight Rich White America? That GOP agenda?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

This is the best.

https://vimeo.com/191247070

:sodone


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> And what America would that be? Straight Rich White America?


We can dream, can't we?


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

:lol at that, @Carte Blanche
@AryaDark @The Absolute @A-C-P @Beatles123 @BruiserKC @CamillePunk @Fringe @L-DOPA @markoutsmarkout @Neuron @Pratchett @Sincere @virus21 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796363494664896512
:hglol


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/795035238326005760

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/797173779218780160
:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao 

:tysonlol:dead2:heston:mauryhillip2:ha


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



-PerfectDarkness- said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/797238253309005824


All Trump has to do is keep Obamacare then add in a public option. It would be a win/win


----------



## Reggie Dunlop

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Good God, the fear-mongering and absurd stereotyping around here is just epic. fpalm


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



DesolationRow said:


> :lol at that, @Carte Blanche
> 
> @AryaDark @The Absolute @A-C-P @Beatles123 @BruiserKC @CamillePunk @Fringe @L-DOPA @markoutsmarkout @Neuron @Pratchett @Sincere @virus21
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796363494664896512
> :hglol


What's this? A black man supporting (and likely voting for) Trump? I was told by the perennially reliable mainstream media that we don't exist and that this election was a "white-lash" against Obama. Interesting... :hmm: And I love that the video was shot here in *BELIEVELAND*, which is a huge Democratic party stronghold.


----------



## Loudness

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

This feels like a comedy show.

Hillary - a feminist, who is as PC as can get, including raping women (as long as the rapists aren't white) and wants to go to war with Russia and have americans get their ass handed to them by alpha russians and make USA a 2nd world country as a result.

vs

Trump - A guy with no sense of morality, who calls women sluts and pigs (but deservedly so in his instances) and calls out any race for their bad politics likewise. However he does NOT want a WW3, he doesn't call out Russia, in fact Putin stated that he can now start talking about restoring the USA-RUSSIA connection that was long broke.

Now Donald Trump ain't a saint, in fact he's anything I'd have picked...but looking at the possible outcomes (Mass rapings, islamophobia beeing considered a bad thing when most muslims are pedophiles/racists etc, radical feminism and PCness) vs just restoring order...I'd pick Trump every time. He's the guy that puts people in their place, whether it be women, men, white people, asian people, black people or any other type of group. He was the only politician in recent history that wasn't afraid of calling people, and groups of people out and put them in their place, and for that I commend him.

I'm not conservative in the least either, but those extreme liberal idea of "I'm tolerant as long as you agree with me, or else..." completely put me off. Next time, dont try to get a vote based on slut-shaming and islamophobia. Most people hate sluts and most people hate rapist pedos.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The Cleaner said:


> Good God, the fear-mongering and absurd stereotyping around here is just epic. fpalm


yeah its really absurd

https://twitter.com/i/moments/796417517157830656

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/us/post-election-hate-crimes-and-fears-trnd/


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Also, I don't see a problem with Trump's general stance on climate change. I think the controversial bit is his reluctance to accept the climate models. But he still says we should protect the environment, keep the air clean, the water clean, just not out of hysteria. Shifting all focus to 'alternative energy' has never been a good idea. Balancing traditional energy and new energy is a much more reasonable stance.

The worst thing he's said (even looking from the point of view of a devout climate change advocate) is that nobody knows for sure, which isn't as unreasonable as it's made out to be.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



DesolationRow said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796363494664896512
> :hglol


How based?

*Falsetto* SO BASED! :trump

And huzzah for Chris Jansing being a part of that brilliant clip. She's aged so nicely that I'd be down with grabbing her by the pussy. >


----------



## CALΔMITY

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



AryaDark said:


> *If Pence ever becomes President I'll be like
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and I'll be the one moving to Canada...... please stay safe Trump.
> *


Well can both chill with CHAMP. Or maybe Zombo.


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The Absolute said:


> What's this? A black man supporting (and likely voting for) Trump? I was told by the perennially reliable mainstream media that we don't exist and that this election was a "white-lash" against Obama. Interesting... :hmm: And I love that the video was shot here in *BELIEVELAND*, which is a huge Democratic party stronghold.


That was you, wasn't it?

:LIGHTS


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*






:trump


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*






HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

- Vic


----------



## ShiningStar

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The Cleaner said:


> Good God, the fear-mongering and absurd stereotyping around here is just epic. fpalm


Forget about the Clinton-Trump fighting for a second. Ever since legalized marijuana was past in California it has emboldened Gary Johnson supporters to loot our local hospitals pharmacies and Pot dispenceries. 

I am scared Johnson supporters will fly to Puerto Rico and won't even try and eat our delicious cuisine or smell the Habiscus flowers and instead head to the nearest 7-11 in San Juan for cheetos and microwave burritos.


----------



## The Boy Wonder

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Regarding Trump compromising on Obamacare:

I have a feeling that he's willing to keep certain parts of Obamacare as a goodwill gesture towards President Obama. Trump admitted they had a longer than usual conversation at the White House. Maybe Obama tried to persuade Trump to keep certain aspects of the law. Let's be honest: Obama's legacy hinges on Obamacare. Perhaps Trump realizes this and also realizes something more important: it's important to keep Obama happy so that he stays out of Trump's hair. If he tears up everything Obama did you can bet Obama will be second guessing Trump to death, which would only enable the media more. But by making Obama happy he'll keep the media and Obama itself off his back -- not entirely of course.


----------



## amhlilhaus

FriedTofu said:


> birthday_massacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans are hypocrites giving people shit who say they hope Trump fails when for the last 8 years they wanted Obama to fail and the republicans in congress for 6 of those years did everything to block him so he could not get anything done.
> 
> 
> 
> This is what I hate about the results of this election. It gave even more incentive for either party to be obstructionist and playing to the emotion of their voters instead of doing what's right but unpopular.
Click to expand...

Thats the whole problem. Whats 'right?'. Anything either party pushes will be unpopular to the other side and considered 'wrong'.

Getting the economy might be common ground to everybody. But guaranteed the way its tried will be demonized as rewarding the rich. Those people who start that protest cant understand that a lot of people dont think that 'the people' are entitled to the richs money and hope to get rich themselves, instead of handed peanuts because the wealthy paid their fair share.

Controlling illegal, ILLEGAL immigration is right. 90 million people not in the labor force, so how will letting tens of millions of poorly skilled workers, even if they want to work help those who already cant find work?

Freezing muslim immigrants until we can figure out how to vet them is right.

Revamping the fbi, cia and the doj is right. Doing so will throw thousands of career, partisan, (supposed to be neutral) out the door.

Yet even with illegal, muslim immigration and cleaning out the federal police agencies im sure to get replies vehemently disagreeing.

I think the root problem is the leftists that have taken over the schools no longer teach what the country was founded on and what its purpose became. 

The us was founded on religous freedom, then morphed into personal freedom. The american dream became a belief if you worked hard you could earn a good life.

Now its taught that the us is corrupt, racist and only the govt, who ironically is the root cause of the reasons the american dream no longer 'exists' is the answer.

High taxes, regulations, and corruption has turned us into the state we are in.

Everything ive said is dead wrong to many people. I think the 2nd most fascinating experiment in world history would be for the us to split.

Liberals get both coasts and the states along the canadian border. The conservative states get the rest. Split the national debt, 5 years for people to move where they would fit in more, and see where both countries would be in 20 years.


----------



## amhlilhaus

The Boy Wonder said:


> Regarding Trump compromising on Obamacare:
> 
> I have a feeling that he's willing to keep certain parts of Obamacare as a goodwill gesture towards President Obama. Trump admitted they had a longer than usual conversation at the White House. Maybe Obama tried to persuade Trump to keep certain aspects of the law. Let's be honest: Obama's legacy hinges on Obamacare. Perhaps Trump realizes this and also realizes something more important: it's important to keep Obama happy so that he stays out of Trump's hair. If he tears up everything Obama did you can bet Obama will be second guessing Trump to death, which would only enable the media more. But by making Obama happy he'll keep the media and Obama itself off his back -- not entirely of course.


I think thats a solid analysis. The aca isnt functional, but pre existing conditions was probably the one thing a majority of people could agree on. If trump can straddle the line of letting both sides think they can live with what hes doing, without getting everything they want he will be hailed as a political genius like bill clinton.

For me, illegal immigration, muslim immigration and getting the trillions of dollars us companies have overseas back home are the biggest concerns. Trump will have a hard time no matter what he does, so we will see.


----------



## QWERTYOP

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Who in their right mind votes for a guy who can't be trusted with a twitter account to be trusted with the launch codes for the largest nuclear arsenal on earth?! You set of absolute lunatics, America! Hopefully he doesn't screw up the rest of the world as much as he's going to screw up the US, but I'm not hopeful. Enjoy being best buds with Russia & Assad. You're officially the laughing stock of the planet.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



amhlilhaus said:


> Thats the whole problem. Whats 'right?'. Anything either party pushes will be unpopular to the other side and considered 'wrong'.


Well for one thing, increasing taxes or cutting farming subsidies to cut the deficit is a no-no for either party in America.



> Getting the economy might be common ground to everybody. But guaranteed the way its tried will be demonized as rewarding the rich. Those people who start that protest cant understand that a lot of people dont think that 'the people' are entitled to the richs money and hope to get rich themselves, instead of handed peanuts because the wealthy paid their fair share.


There is cutting corporate taxes, and there is excessively cutting taxes that only the richest pay to benefit the rich that won't generate growth. Trump's original tax plan was so blatantly rewarding the rich that he had to revise them late last year/early this year during his campaign. 



> Controlling illegal, ILLEGAL immigration is right. 90 million people not in the labor force, so how will letting tens of millions of poorly skilled workers, even if they want to work help those who already cant find work?


Are there really tens of millions of poorly skilled workers willing to work those long hours at such low compensation? The easier way to combat illegal immigration is to take away the incentive for them to come by penalising offending employers. When the US economy tanked, illegal immigration dropped because there were no jobs for them.



> Freezing muslim immigrants until we can figure out how to vet them is right.


It is not. It is just a head in the sand option. Terrorists can just lie about their religion to get in.



> Revamping the fbi, cia and the doj is right. Doing so will throw thousands of career, partisan, (supposed to be neutral) out the door.


The FBI that just gave the election to Trump?



> Yet even with illegal, muslim immigration and cleaning out the federal police agencies im sure to get replies vehemently disagreeing.


Because there is no way to do any of that without draconian methods.



> I think the root problem is the leftists that have taken over the schools no longer teach what the country was founded on and what its purpose became.


You can only blame the right for adopting anti-intellectualism in recent decades to appeal to their base. Those snobby elites annoy you. Vote for me the common man that went to elite schools!



> The us was founded on religous freedom, then morphed into personal freedom. The american dream became a belief if you worked hard you could earn a good life.
> 
> Now its taught that the us is corrupt, racist and only the govt, who ironically is the root cause of the reasons the american dream no longer 'exists' is the answer.
> 
> High taxes, regulations, and corruption has turned us into the state we are in.


Aren't you also singling out that the US is corrupt too? Did you learn that from leftist or the right? Lack of regulations is what brought you to the state you are in. You can't go back to what the founding fathers time. They didn't have to grapple with technology we have today. Heck, the establishment wasn't ready to combat the development of social media as a political weapon this election compared to just 4 years ago.



> Everything ive said is dead wrong to many people. I think the 2nd most fascinating experiment in world history would be for the us to split.
> 
> Liberals get both coasts and the states along the canadian border. The conservative states get the rest. Split the national debt, 5 years for people to move where they would fit in more, and see where both countries would be in 20 years.


I have a feeling it will be harder to sell stuff without access to the coasts...


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



QWERTYOP said:


> Who in their right mind votes for a guy who can't be trusted with a twitter account to be trusted with the launch codes for the largest nuclear arsenal on earth?! You set of absolute lunatics, America! Hopefully he doesn't screw up the rest of the world as much as he's going to screw up the US, but I'm not hopeful. Enjoy being best buds with Russia & Assad. You're officially the laughing stock of the planet.


The only laughing stock are people like you who think that a pacifist that is openly anti-war is a worse president than a neocon who has directly been involved in making sure Obama couldn't end any wars in the middle east, was directly involved in a violent and bloody regime change in Libya, continued drone bombings in dozens of countries, selling weapons to Saudi Arabia who are now exterminating Yeminis with American weapons, supporting terrorists under the guise of forcing yet another regime change.

Even my 8 year old nephew called his mum out on her bullshit because he remembered the time when people like her used to blame Obama and democrats for the deaths of Muslims around the world and told her to her face that "But mom, Clinton killed hundreds of muslims - maybe a new president may not."


----------



## Seb

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



QWERTYOP said:


> Who in their right mind votes for a guy who can't be trusted with a twitter account


So you're saying instead they should have voted for someone who can't be trusted with an email account :trump


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Seb said:


> So you're saying instead they should have voted for someone who can't be trusted with an email account :trump


Email server. It was John Podesta's email account that got hacked.

:trump also lost information and emails from his company's email server conveniently when sued. Heck the server even magically didn't exist prior to a certain date when he got sued.

:shrug


----------



## DA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*










Best part of Lena Dunham's reaction :mj4 x100000


----------



## skypod

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I'm not sure what the obsession was with women attaching themselves with Clinton so much. I'm anti-Republican as ever but there was nothing pure and wholesome about Clintons message, past or future. People seem to want to ignore a huge amount to be positively in a candidates corner rather than saying "I know both candidates suck but this one is going to do less damage". I know a lot of people did end up doing this but why is anyone pretending Trump or Clinton were solid representations of what we need? 

Bernie, I could see people getting so behind they'd cry if he lost (which I still feel is a little silly), but Hillary was just more of the same. How could she possible illicit any emotion from anyone?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



skypod said:


> B
> 
> Bernie, I could see people getting so behind they'd cry if he lost (which I still feel is a little silly), but Hillary was just more of the same. How could she possible illicit any emotion from anyone?


Crocodile tears.

Since the beginning of time women have emotionally manipulated men and other women with their tears and that's all this is.


----------



## amhlilhaus

Seb said:


> QWERTYOP said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who in their right mind votes for a guy who can't be trusted with a twitter account
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying instead they should have voted for someone who can't be trusted with an email account
Click to expand...

Guess the stories of hilarys server being hacked by up to 5 foreign governments escaped your notice.


----------



## amhlilhaus

Carte Blanche said:


> skypod said:
> 
> 
> 
> B
> 
> Bernie, I could see people getting so behind they'd cry if he lost (which I still feel is a little silly), but Hillary was just more of the same. How could she possible illicit any emotion from anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> Crocodile tears.
> 
> Since the beginning of time women have emotionally manipulated men and other women with their tears and that's all this is.
Click to expand...

That or the fear that she could go to jail.

Women manipulate men far more with sex, or lack of it than tears


----------



## The Boy Wonder

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Goku said:


> Also, I don't see a problem with Trump's general stance on climate change. I think the controversial bit is his reluctance to accept the climate models. But he still says we should protect the environment, keep the air clean, the water clean, just not out of hysteria. Shifting all focus to 'alternative energy' has never been a good idea. Balancing traditional energy and new energy is a much more reasonable stance.
> 
> *The worst thing he's said (even looking from the point of view of a devout climate change advocate) is that nobody knows for sure, which isn't as unreasonable as it's made out to be*.


I am not going down this rabbit hole so I am only going to comment on this once.

Yes it is unreasonable as it's made out to be to deny climate change, just as much as it is to deny evolution. Over 90% of scientist agree based on the evidence. 

and that 90% number is correct

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/...yer-says-97-percent-scientists-believe-human/


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



amhlilhaus said:


> That or the fear that she could go to jail.
> 
> Women manipulate men far more with sex, or lack of it than tears


People other than illegal imigrants who live in blue states have nothing to worry about. 

But expecting them to actually understand anything about the country they live in is a mistake. 

Most people don't even know that America isn't a true democracy and we can thank our decades of dropping "democracy" on any country whose government we don't like for this misconception of what kind of a democracy America actually is. 

We're a constitutional republic. It's a democratic _process _but ultimately America is governed by and has to be governed by people who have to adhere to the constitution. My understanding is that when we vote, we're not voting for what we want as much as we are voting for people who will uphold the constitution. Period.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



amhlilhaus said:


> Controlling illegal, ILLEGAL immigration is right. 90 million people not in the labor force, so how will letting tens of millions of poorly skilled workers, even if they want to work help those who already cant find work?


You do understand most of the jobs that illegal immigrants do are the jobs that no American wants to do right? Like those farming jobs where they are in fields for 9-12 hours a day. Some people act like illegals are taking professional jobs in corp. America which they are not. The whole reason why illegal immigrants are taking some jobs is because that is the only way those jobs can be filled.




amhlilhaus said:


> Freezing muslim immigrants until we can figure out how to vet them is right.


No it's not right, and if you said oh lets free Christians from coming into the country, you really think republicans would stand for that? This whole oh they could be terrorist thing is bullshit.
You are more likely to be killed by furniture than yo are a terrorist. The only people that should not be allowed into the country are the ones who are flagged. 

How can you even tell if someone is Muslim anyways? the real threats are going to hide the fact they are Muslim so the blend in, so the whole thing is just fucking over the innocent.




amhlilhaus said:


> Revamping the fbi, cia and the doj is right. Doing so will throw thousands of career, partisan, (supposed to be neutral) out the door.


Trump is going to revamp those groups with the same types of people but just republicans like from the Bush era. Nothing will change except party affiliation. You are falling for a shell game.




amhlilhaus said:


> Yet even with illegal, muslim immigration and cleaning out the federal police agencies im sure to get replies vehemently disagreeing.


Already told you, nothing will change with the so-called clearing out except now the people they put in you will agree with because they are righ winged.



amhlilhaus said:


> I think the root problem is the leftists that have taken over the schools no longer teach what the country was founded on and what its purpose became.
> 
> The us was founded on religous freedom, then morphed into personal freedom. The american dream became a belief if you worked hard you could earn a good life.
> 
> Now its taught that the us is corrupt, racist and only the govt, who ironically is the root cause of the reasons the american dream no longer 'exists' is the answer.


Yes you are right the was founded on religious freedom yet the republicans want to push their religion onto the whole country. The left says no you can't separation of church and state. The right just gets made the left does not allow them to discriminate against people that are not Christian.

The US is corrupt LOL How is it not. The Us is run by big banks and wall st not what the people want. How is the US not corrupt?



amhlilhaus said:


> High taxes, regulations, and corruption has turned us into the state we are in.
> 
> Everything ive said is dead wrong to many people. I think the 2nd most fascinating experiment in world history would be for the us to split.
> 
> Liberals get both coasts and the states along the canadian border. The conservative states get the rest. Split the national debt, 5 years for people to move where they would fit in more, and see where both countries would be in 20 years.



You are dead wrong on pretty much everything you said as I pointed out why


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> People other than illegal imigrants who live in blue states have nothing to worry about.
> 
> But expecting them to actually understand anything about the country they live in is a mistake.
> 
> *Most people don't even know that America isn't a true democracy and we can thank our decades of dropping "democracy" on any country whose government we don't like for this misconception of what kind of a democracy America actually is.
> 
> We're a constitutional republic. It's a democratic process but ultimately America is governed by and has to be governed by people who have to adhere to the constitution. My understanding is that when we vote, we're not voting for what we want as much as we are voting for people who will uphold the constitution. Period*.


Wow I pretty much agree with more or less on what you said . You are pretty spot on.


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Pratchett said:


> That was you, wasn't it?
> 
> :LIGHTS


:lol Yup. I guess you caught me red-handed. Or should I say *RED-HATTED???!!!*






























I'll show myself out.


----------



## Oxidamus

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@Goku could you please elaborate on your climate change thoughts here a little bit, since you tou he'd up on it in this thread, as well as the chatbox the other day? From what I gather you (may) see the outrage over climate change to be exaggerated especially since there seems to be no effort into pushing people from eating animals?


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

*YOU KNOW THIS ELECTION WAS BANANAS WHEN CHRIS MATTHEWS STARTS TO MAKE SENSE!!!!*


----------



## Genesis 1.0

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Just reading the last page and it's pretty clear why so many people are catching bans over this. Two awful candidates with equally awful supporters.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## Achilles

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

*Just realized it was already posted. But it was so good, let's have it up twice. *

Chris Matthews - of all people - making a good point on why Trump won.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Aido Get Laido said:


> @Goku could you please elaborate on your climate change thoughts here a little bit, since you tou he'd up on it in this thread, as well as the chatbox the other day? From what I gather you (may) see the outrage over climate change to be exaggerated especially since there seems to be no effort into pushing people from eating animals?


i refuse.

i will not express my full opinion out of fear of being insulted and labelled. I do encourage you to do full research on the matter if you are interested (including speaking with people who work on climate science models).


----------



## Loudness

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



amhlilhaus said:


> That or the fear that she could go to jail.
> 
> Women manipulate men far more with sex, or lack of it than tears


Let's not do a man vs woman thing now. Sluts have always existed, so did suckers. A rational, intelligent man will not even have contact with these type of women to begin with. Actually a girl I'm seeing right now is talking how sexist females are towards males nowadays...anything but a women-right type of woman and she's smart working at higher positions as the vice-president of a company. My personal idea is: I treat others how I'd like myself to get treated. I hate beeing treated like a special snowflake so I treat people of all minorities, sexual orientations etc the same. You won't get treated nicer by me just because you're black or gay or a woman, but on the other hand you won't get treated worse either.

Interesting how this turned out so well for me...unlike the PC community who have zero non-white friends, no gay buddies and are fapping off into their socks at night. Nobody likes fakes, and that's what PC people are.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## Warlock

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

So hate crime hoaxes have become a thing and can potentially lead to some very real and violent backlashes.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The Absolute said:


> *YOU KNOW THIS ELECTION WAS BANANAS WHEN CHRIS MATTHEWS STARTS TO MAKE SENSE!!!!*


Trump wants to take the US to war against ISIS, I don't get his point about stupid wars.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Sweenz said:


> So hate crime hoaxes have become a thing and can potentially lead to some very real and violent backlashes.


That was happening even before the election



> A victory parade being planned in North Carolina by members of a Ku Klux Klan chapter in reaction to Donald Trump’s election is drawing criticism from local Republican leaders and the president-elect’s inner circle.
> The chairman of the North Carolina Republican Party and the spokeswoman behind Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign each responded negatively Friday to reports that the Loyal White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan plan to hold a “Victory Klavalkade Klan Parade” early last month in the Tar Heel State.
> “We are disgusted and condemn this extremist ideology and associated actions in the strongest possible terms,” N.C. GOP Chairman Robin Hayes said in a statement, CNN reported.
> “These acts and thought processes are no reflection of the heartbeat of this great country and are counter to the efforts to make America great again. We stand with the Democratic Party in calling these out-of-state troublemakers to go home,” he added.
> Hope Hicks, Mr. Trump’s campaign spokeswoman, similarly condemned the group’s plans in a statement published by CNN late Friday.
> “Mr. Trump and his team continue to disavow these groups and individuals and strongly condemn their message of hate,” she said.
> 
> SPONSORED CONTENT
> Trump's IQ Will Shock You
> Trump's IQ Will Shock You
> The Celeb Buzz
> Trump Refuses To Live In The White House In January
> Trump Refuses To Live In The White House In January
> UpVibes
> The Most and Least Expensive Diamond Shapes
> The Most and Least Expensive Diamond Shapes
> Engagement Rings, Diamonds, Wedding Rings, and Fine Jewelry at Blue Nile
> Recommended by
> The Loyal White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan are considered “perhaps the most active Klan group in the United States today” by the Anti-Defamation League, and deemed a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
> The group announced on its website earlier this week that it plans to celebrate Mr. Trump’s election with a parade slated to take place Dec. 3 at an undisclosed location within the state.
> The plans appeared above an image of the president-elect and the words “Trump = Trump’s Race United My People” first spotted on the group’s website after the Republican candidate defeated Democratic rival Hillary Clinton on Tuesday in their race to the White House. As of Saturday afternoon, however, Mr. Trump’s name and information about the event have disappeared from its homepage.
> The Loyal White Knights boast upwards of 200 members across the country, according to the ADL, but conducts its operations largely out of Pelham, N.C., near the Virginia state line. Repeated attempts to reach the group for comment have been unsuccessful.
> Former Klan leader David Duke — who ran unsuccessfully this year for a U.S. Senate seat in Louisiana — and a newspaper affiliated with the KKK, The Crusader, each supported Mr. Trump’s White House bid prior to his election. Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign denounced their support in both instances.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/12/trump-camp-condemns-kkks-plan-hold-victory-parade-/
But I thought Trump was all buddy buddy with the Klan. Funny that.

Also



> HÉNIN-BEAUMONT, France — It was a moment of intense French patriotism on a sunny Friday, Armistice Day. A band blared “La Marseillaise,” the national anthem. Shouts of “Vive la France!” filled the chilly November air. And there, too, was Marine Le Pen, leader of the far-right National Front party, beaming.
> 
> Before Donald J. Trump’s presidential victory in the United States this week, Ms. Le Pen was considered a disruptive political force but far from a true threat to become president herself when France votes next spring. Not anymore.
> 
> Since Wednesday, French news outlets, along with Ms. Le Pen’s mainstream political rivals, have been repeating the same thing: It could happen here.
> 
> And Ms. Le Pen is not alone. From the Balkans to the Netherlands, politicians on the far right have greeted the election of Mr. Trump with unrestrained delight and as a radical reconfiguring of the political landscape — not just in the United States, but in Europe as well.
> 
> Continue reading the main story
> RELATED COVERAGE
> 
> 
> Geert Wilders, Dutch Politician, Distracts From Hate-Speech Trial With More Vitriol OCT. 31, 2016
> 
> For Marine Le Pen, Migration Is a Ready-Made Issue OCT. 5, 2015
> 
> Marine Le Pen’s Anti-Islam Message Gains Influence in France NOV. 17, 2015
> ADVERTISEMENT
> 
> Continue reading the main story
> 
> They are seeing it as a sign that their time has finally arrived, and that the politics of heightened nationalism, immigrant-bashing and anti-globalization have overturned the pro-globalization, pro-immigration consensus.
> 
> “It shows that when the people really want something, they can get it,” Ms. Le Pen said in an interview on Friday in this far-right bastion, in France’s depressed postindustrial north.
> 
> “When the people want to retake their destiny in hand, they can do it, despite this ceaseless campaign of denigration and infantilization,” she said.
> 
> Far-right leaders competed in their fervor to support Mr. Trump. Those already in office, like Prime Minister Viktor Orban of Hungary, took the news of Mr. Trump’s victory as a vindication of their stances. Those seeking office, like Ms. Le Pen or Geert Wilders of the Netherlands, saw it as a hopeful sign for their own aspirations, proclaiming that a revolutionary new order was born this week.
> 
> That revolution, they said, has overthrown what they called the “elites” — the mainstream news media and establishment politicians — who are in a tacit alliance.
> 
> The enthusiasm of the far right was in striking contrast to the coolness of Europe’s mainstream leaders to the week’s news. Some of them, like Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, offered veiled criticism even as they sent Mr. Trump pro forma letters of congratulation.
> 
> “It’s the emergence of a new world,” Ms. Le Pen said, after being the first to lay a wreath at the monument here to France’s World War I dead. “It’s the end of the 20th century.”
> 
> Even more ecstatic was Mr. Wilders, leader of the Dutch far-right Freedom Party. “Congratulations! A historic victory! A revolution! We will return our country to the Dutch,” Mr. Wilders said on Wednesday on Twitter. He expanded on his thoughts in an op-ed for Breitbart, writing, “We are witnessing the same uprising on both sides of the Atlantic.”
> 
> Mr. Wilders, who sports his own Trumpian mane of swept blond hair, is on trial in the Netherlands on charges of hate speech for suggesting that the country was home to too many Moroccans. He refused to attend the trial or to disavow the remarks.
> 
> His party is allied with Ms. Le Pen’s National Front in the European Parliament, and both are staunchly anti-immigration. He attended several Trump rallies, and like Ms. Le Pen, he is seeking to be his country’s leader.
> 
> Populist leaders, not necessarily of the far right, who have mounted insurgent challenges to longstanding political orders were similarly buoyed by Mr. Trump’s victory, like Beppe Grillo, the leader of the Five Star Movement in Italy.
> 
> “They called us sexists, homophobes, demagogues and populists,” Mr. Grillo wrote in a blog post. “They don’t realize that millions of people already no longer read their newspapers and no longer watch their television.”
> 
> The idea that Mr. Trump’s supporters had delivered a double blow — to the establishment’s ideas and to the “elite” itself — had wide support.
> 
> “The left and the corrupt establishment, which considers itself so superior, are being punished blow by blow by the voters and voted out of various positions of responsibility,” said Heinz-Christian Strache, leader of the Freedom Party of Austria, a serious contender to win the country’s presidency on Dec. 4.
> 
> Ms. Le Pen in many ways stands as the most prominent leader of Europe’s far right. The French political establishment was in consensus this week that the news from the United States had put new wind in her political sails.
> 
> “Mrs. Le Pen could win in France,” said the former Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin, usually known for his sobriety.
> 
> A cartoon on the front page of the leading daily Le Monde this week showed a grinning Mr. Trump giving the V for victory sign while a winged Ms. Le Pen happily flew away, with the caption, “Marine Le Pen feels wings grow.”
> 
> Some analysts, however, pointed out that she faces significant barriers.
> 
> For months, it has been an article of faith in France that Ms. Le Pen will reach the runoff in next year’s presidential elections, but will find it impossible to break through the 30-percent barrier that has roughly comprised the National Front’s share of the vote.
> 
> In France, voters on the left and right routinely join in the final round of voting, to form what is called a “republican front” to defeat the candidate of the far right.
> 
> Experts suggested on Friday that similar logic might operate next year, and that Ms. Le Pen is no Mr. Trump.
> 
> “Le Pen is the candidate of a party that is on the margins of the system,” said Jean-Yves Camus, an expert on Europe’s far-right parties. “Donald Trump was the candidate of the Republican Party. He had resources that were not comparable to hers.”
> 
> Ms. Le Pen was in friendly territory here on Friday in this worn, old former coal-mining town, where unemployment reaches 20 percent, twice the national average.
> 
> It is one of 11 or so towns in France ruled by the National Front, and it was difficult to find an opposing voice on Friday. “You’re a fantastic woman!” a woman called out to Ms. Le Pen as she ascended the steep steps of the old city hall building. Others crowded around to have cellphone pictures taken with her.
> 
> The National Front mayor here, Steeve Briois, is a favorite of Ms. Le Pen’s. “France is no longer France,” Mr. Briois said in his speech in the council chambers on Friday — the same line Mr. Trump used after the terrorist attack in Nice in July.
> 
> Mr. Briois said later he was aware that Mr. Trump had spoken those words, and he agreed with them.
> 
> “There is the same desire to change politics in France,” Mr. Briois said. As in the United States, he added, “a lot of French are victims of globalization and immigration.”
> 
> “So, we’ve got to change our politics,” he said. “And the only one who can do it is Marine Le Pen.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/12/world/europe/donald-trump-marine-le-pen.html?_r=0

Vive La France indeed


----------



## GOON

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

A bit late to this but...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH I TOLD YOU ALL


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



draykorinee said:


> Trump wants to take the US to war against ISIS, I don't get his point about stupid wars.


Take the US to war?

The US is already at war with ISIS. What rock have you been living under for the last decade?


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Goku said:


> i refuse.
> 
> i will not express my full opinion out of fear of being insulted and labelled. I do encourage you to do full research on the matter if you are interested (including speaking with people who work on climate science models).


Full research, kind of like the scientific community does that concludes its real and happening.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Sincere said:


> Take the US to war?
> 
> The US is already at war with ISIS. What rock have you been living under for the last decade?


Yeah, you'll to have excuse me because it was Trump himself who said he wanted to declare war on ISIS, I forgot the guys a bit clueless.

PS. the US is not 'at war' because to be at war you need to declare it as such and it has to go through congress.



virus21 said:


> That was happening even before the election
> 
> 
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/12/trump-camp-condemns-kkks-plan-hold-victory-parade-/
> But I thought Trump was all buddy buddy with the Klan. Funny that.
> 
> Also
> 
> 
> [/URL]
> 
> Vive La France indeed


Le Pen is definitely the next one to be voted in for sure.


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



draykorinee said:


> Yeah, you'll to have excuse me because it was Trump himself who said he wanted to declare war on ISIS, I forgot the guys a bit clueless.
> 
> PS. the US is not 'at war' because to be at war you need to declare it as such and it has to go through congress.


Pedantic over semantics.


----------



## Flair Flop

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## SpeedStick

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*










So who did those violence police riots help again?


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

_The Cognitive Dissonance Cluster Bomb_, by Scott Adams: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/153080448451/the-cognitive-dissonance-cluster-bomb

CNN still trying to be taken seriously. :lol


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Sincere said:


> Pedantic over semantics.


My original point was that Trump wanted to declare war on isis, thats one of his political stances, accusing Obama of not being tough enough, if you have a problem with semantics then talk to Trump instead of trying to be a smart ass.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*










You would think this was a Jihadist posting....nope it's a leftist.


----------



## SovereignVA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



draykorinee said:


> Trump wants to take the US to war against ISIS, I don't get his point about stupid wars.


A stupid war is a war against Russia.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I'm not surprised more Trumpsters haven't commented on his Obamacare backflip. Have you forgotten he painted it as the devil itself in the election? Now he's open to working with it. I'm not surprised Trump said it, I also wouldn't have been surprised if Hillary did something similar.

But just come out and call a spade a spade.

All I've heard so far is he's being good about it so Obama stays out of his hair when he's president, which is laughable. Obama won't have any power and if Trump's the big tough guy everyone says he is, he would be able to handle it.

Let's call it now, how many backflips does he get passes for?


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



L-DOPA said:


> You would think this was a Jihadist posting....nope it's a leftist.


I feel sorry for Charles Waltz the actor

The similar name bug shall bite him


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*






I would like to thank Don Lemon for being stupid enough to admit CNN stages interviews. :lol

- Vic


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

*THE TPP IS DEAD!*

https://archive.is/XinVm

Hows that for a backflip, @yeahbaby! ? :trump


----------



## KingCosmos

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> I'm not surprised more Trumpsters haven't commented on his Obamacare backflip. Have you forgotten he painted it as the devil itself in the election? Now he's open to working with it. I'm not surprised Trump said it, I also wouldn't have been surprised if Hillary did something similar.
> 
> But just come out and call a spade a spade.
> 
> All I've heard so far is he's being good about it so Obama stays out of his hair when he's president, which is laughable. Obama won't have any power and if Trump's the big tough guy everyone says he is, he would be able to handle it.
> 
> Let's call it now, how many backflips does he get passes for?


He played them and said whatever he could to get in office


----------



## witchblade000

L-DOPA said:


> You would think this was a Jihadist posting....nope it's a leftist.


Does this person live in Texas? If so, I'd personally give him a open invitation to try to kick ny ass. I didn't vote but I still live in a red state. He gonna find himself being carried over my shoulder and thrown into the Gulf of Mexico.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



KingCosmos said:


> He played them and said whatever he could to get in office


So like every other politician then?


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



KingCosmos said:


> He played them and said whatever he could to get in office


You'll wish that were true.


----------



## KingCosmos

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



virus21 said:


> So like every other politician then?


We have a winner! Exactly.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> *THE TPP IS DEAD!*
> 
> https://archive.is/XinVm
> 
> Hows that for a backflip, @yeahbaby! ? :trump


Well that sucks as it fucks over Australia alot.

But do you care to address what I was actually talking about? Obamacare? Or would that just bring back all the slings and arrows you've had to endure when all you've done is just 'tried to be nice'?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



draykorinee said:


> Full research, kind of like the scientific community does that concludes its real and happening.


No. *Full *research means listening to the 3% that say otherwise and why and then make up your own mind.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Well that sucks as it fucks over Australia alot.
> 
> But do you care to address what I was actually talking about? Obamacare? Or would that just bring back all the slings and arrows you've had to endure when all you've done is just 'tried to be nice'?


Sure!

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...d-trump-not-abandon-promise-repeal-obamacare/


And just as a bonus, i'll throw in the wall! :trump










You'll have to speak up in your next post. I'm feeling patriotism~ :trump :heston


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> I'm not surprised more Trumpsters haven't commented on his Obamacare backflip. Have you forgotten he painted it as the devil itself in the election? Now he's open to working with it. I'm not surprised Trump said it, I also wouldn't have been surprised if Hillary did something similar.
> 
> But just come out and call a spade a spade.
> 
> All I've heard so far is he's being good about it so Obama stays out of his hair when he's president, which is laughable. Obama won't have any power and if Trump's the big tough guy everyone says he is, he would be able to handle it.
> 
> Let's call it now, how many backflips does he get passes for?


Something liberals have failed to understand during the entire campaign: actions matter more than words. We're going to wait and see what he does, not what he says to the media or what the media reports from "sources".


----------



## amhlilhaus

birthday_massacre said:


> amhlilhaus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Controlling illegal, ILLEGAL immigration is right. 90 million people not in the labor force, so how will letting tens of millions of poorly skilled workers, even if they want to work help those who already cant find work?
> 
> 
> 
> You do understand most of the jobs that illegal immigrants do are the jobs that no American wants to do right? Like those farming jobs where they are in fields for 9-12 hours a day. Some people act like illegals are taking professional jobs in corp. America which they are not. The whole reason why illegal immigrants are taking some jobs is because that is the only way those jobs can be filled.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amhlilhaus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Freezing muslim immigrants until we can figure out how to vet them is right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it's not right, and if you said oh lets free Christians from coming into the country, you really think republicans would stand for that? This whole oh they could be terrorist thing is bullshit.
> You are more likely to be killed by furniture than yo are a terrorist. The only people that should not be allowed into the country are the ones who are flagged.
> 
> How can you even tell if someone is Muslim anyways? the real threats are going to hide the fact they are Muslim so the blend in, so the whole thing is just fucking over the innocent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amhlilhaus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Revamping the fbi, cia and the doj is right. Doing so will throw thousands of career, partisan, (supposed to be neutral) out the door.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump is going to revamp those groups with the same types of people but just republicans like from the Bush era. Nothing will change except party affiliation. You are falling for a shell game.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amhlilhaus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet even with illegal, muslim immigration and cleaning out the federal police agencies im sure to get replies vehemently disagreeing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Already told you, nothing will change with the so-called clearing out except now the people they put in you will agree with because they are righ winged.
> 
> 
> 
> amhlilhaus said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the root problem is the leftists that have taken over the schools no longer teach what the country was founded on and what its purpose became.
> 
> The us was founded on religous freedom, then morphed into personal freedom. The american dream became a belief if you worked hard you could earn a good life.
> 
> Now its taught that the us is corrupt, racist and only the govt, who ironically is the root cause of the reasons the american dream no longer 'exists' is the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes you are right the was founded on religious freedom yet the republicans want to push their religion onto the whole country. The left says no you can't separation of church and state. The right just gets made the left does not allow them to discriminate against people that are not Christian.
> 
> The US is corrupt LOL How is it not. The Us is run by big banks and wall st not what the people want. How is the US not corrupt?
> 
> 
> 
> amhlilhaus said:
> 
> 
> 
> High taxes, regulations, and corruption has turned us into the state we are in.
> 
> Everything ive said is dead wrong to many people. I think the 2nd most fascinating experiment in world history would be for the us to split.
> 
> Liberals get both coasts and the states along the canadian border. The conservative states get the rest. Split the national debt, 5 years for people to move where they would fit in more, and see where both countries would be in 20 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are dead wrong on pretty much everything you said as I pointed out why
Click to expand...

As stated earlier, if a republican says 2 plus 2 equals 4 some liberal will argue all day hes wrong.

I dont fall for anything. I clearly stated trump was my lol fuck you candidate. If he slows the progressive tide just a little bit id be well satisfied. 

Big banks running the country is better than big govt. Big banks just fuck you over. Big govt fucks you over, makes your life miserable with new laws and can throw you in jail. And the people should never get everything they want. Because first on the list is all the rich peoples money. Now taking all their money sounds good, and the coubtry collapsing shortly afterwards would be the result.

Guess im still an idealist, where your behavior dictates where you are in life.

You obviously do not read the reports of muslims running wild in europe.

Illegals do take jobs us citizens wont. They also take many jobs us citizens want, most notably construction. They also overwhelm social services.

Trump is a stop gap. The liberals have a simple message: be lazy, its not your fault. WE will take care of you, just vote for us. Its irresistable. You will win eventually

The end result will be nothing like your fantasies though


----------



## ManiacMichaelMyers

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

This is YOUR champion. Not mine. 

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/trump-confirms-that-he-just-googled-obamacare

fpalm

Please tell me this publication is on par with The Onion...


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



ManiacMichaelMyers said:


> This is YOUR champion. Not mine.
> 
> http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/trump-confirms-that-he-just-googled-obamacare
> 
> fpalm
> 
> Please tell me this publication is on par with The Onion...


Yes he writes satire.

Read the last line of the article. Its a dead giveaway.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



amhlilhaus said:


> As stated earlier, if a republican says 2 plus 2 equals 4 some liberal will argue all day hes wrong.
> 
> I dont fall for anything. I clearly stated trump was my lol fuck you candidate. If he slows the progressive tide just a little bit id be well satisfied.
> 
> Big banks running the country is better than big govt. Big banks just fuck you over. Big govt fucks you over, makes your life miserable with new laws and can throw you in jail. And the people should never get everything they want. Because first on the list is all the rich peoples money. Now taking all their money sounds good, and the coubtry collapsing shortly afterwards would be the result.
> 
> Guess im still an idealist, where your behavior dictates where you are in life.
> 
> You obviously do not read the reports of muslims running wild in europe.
> 
> Illegals do take jobs us citizens wont. They also take many jobs us citizens want, most notably construction. They also overwhelm social services.
> 
> Trump is a stop gap. The liberals have a simple message: be lazy, its not your fault. WE will take care of you, just vote for us. Its irresistable. You will win eventually
> 
> The end result will be nothing like your fantasies though


I love how conservatives always pretend they are not for big govt when of course the GOP is for big govt. Stop fooling yourself. 
The GOP is always for a super big military, that is big govt, they try to tell you that you cant get abortions that is big govt, they try to say gays can't get married, that is big govt, the GOP loves to push chritsian views on the rest of the country that is big govt etc etc

The only difference between the GOP and the DNC big govt is the Gop tries to take way rights and push their values onto the rest of the country where as the DNC tries to help the poor and middle class.

I won't even bother to reply to the rest of your BS rhetoric


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*










:done


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> Something liberals have failed to understand during the entire campaign: actions matter more than words. We're going to wait and see what he does, *not what he says to the media *or what the media reports from "sources".


So.... we can't trust what he says basically?


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> Something liberals have failed to understand during the entire campaign: actions matter more than words. We're going to wait and see what he does, not what he says to the media or what the media reports from "sources".


In other words, have a private position and a public position? :hmm


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I decided to simulate building THE WALL in Age of Empires

No matter how many times I asked the Aztecs and Mayans refused to pay for it and Slavs and Chinese did little to help (they seemed more concerned with collecting relics and building hordes of Boyer)


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> Sure!
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...d-trump-not-abandon-promise-repeal-obamacare/


Impressive, getting Breitbart to talk for you. I'll let you off this time since I can't wait for this author's "See No Evil: 19 Hard Truths the Left Can’t Handle" (lol).

It actually sounds pretty reasonable of Trump, considering keeping some good parts of the plan. Wait, a second Obamacare has good parts to it?!!!! WH WH WHAAAAT?! 

Therefore sounds like OBAMAJAMMACARE wasn't all bad yes? Perhaps Obama wasn't the disaster you said he was? Your man Trump has praised his plan so you'd better step in line.


----------



## SovereignVA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> Something liberals have failed to understand during the entire campaign: actions matter more than words. We're going to wait and see what he does, not what he says to the media or what the media reports from "sources".


Well, when neither candidate has ever been president, what would be the point of a campaign then?


----------



## Smarkout

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> And what America would that be? Straight Rich White America? That GOP agenda?


Good job at totally ignoring what the important part of the post was. There you go with the hyperbole's again!

Do Democrats want a welfare state? That democratic agenda? Oh wait, I would never say that because I do not speak in hyperbole like you.


----------



## Lady Eastwood

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

The same group of people who said Trump should just accept the outcome if Hillary wins are the same piles of shit participating in violent riots and spending DAYS protesting (get a fucking job?).

I think people should just shut the fuck up and see what happens when he is in office. If he sucks dick as a President, by all means, go out and protest. Until then, go the fuck to work.

These idiots are the reason he was elected. It's time for someone to say sit the fuck down, shut the fuck up and behave.


----------



## MonkasaurusRex

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

While I had no horse in this race, I think that many places in the world need electoral reform not because Trump was elected, but for the sake of equal and fair representation. There is no need for certain states/provinces to have more say in who leads their nation than the other states/provinces.

I know that Trump lost the "popular" vote, but even if the electoral college wasn't completely abolished and popular results still weren't the deciding factor if every state had the same say in who becomes president then everyone's vote would actually matter. The fact that every state Hilary won could have voted her unanimously and it would make no difference is both funny and sad. I maintain that the best way for all countries my own homeland included is for it to be based on the popular vote. Kind of like student elections in school.

The way most elections in North America are decided pretty much tries to say that everybody has a say just not an equal say as people who live somewhere else. At least here in Canada we're not directly choosing who our Prime Minister is we're electing based or a Party's ideology and our direct choices are for who represents our particular riding.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Catalanotto said:


> The same group of people who said Trump should just accept the outcome if Hillary wins are the same piles of shit participating in violent riots and spending DAYS protesting (get a fucking job?).
> 
> I think people should just shut the fuck up and see what happens when he is in office. If he sucks dick as a President, by all means, go out and protest. Until then, go the fuck to work.
> 
> These idiots are the reason he was elected. It's time for someone to say sit the fuck down, shut the fuck up and behave.


But the thing I will bring up once again is Trump got less votes than Hillary Clinton. Just because our country uses a stupid EC voting system a person with less votes won .

And lets cut the shit on this bullshit oh they need to just the fuck up and behave. Protesting is a first amendment right and most of them are peaceful. Stop lying and claiming most are riots.

And ill also bring this up once again for the hypocrites 



















Do you need a safe space that you can't deal with people protesting? (and not the idiots that are rioting those people are totally in the wrong, that is a different story but most are peaceful)

99.9% of the protestors are doing it the right way. The few bad assholes who vandalize or cause violence make everyone look bad.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



MonkasaurusRex said:


> While I had no horse in this race, I think that many places in the world need electoral reform not because Trump was elected, but for the sake of equal and fair representation. There is no need for certain states/provinces to have more say in who leads their nation than the other states/provinces.
> 
> I know that Trump lost the "popular" vote, but even if the electoral college wasn't completely abolished and popular results still weren't the deciding factor if every state had the same say in who becomes president then everyone's vote would actually matter. The fact that every state Hilary won could have voted her unanimously and it would make no difference is both funny and sad. I maintain that the best way for all countries my own homeland included is for it to be based on the popular vote. Kind of like student elections in school.
> 
> The way most elections in North America are decided pretty much tries to say that everybody has a say just not an equal say as people who live somewhere else. At least here in Canada we're not directly choosing who our Prime Minister is we're electing based or a Party's ideology and our direct choices are for who represents our particular riding.


The EC would not be as bad if it was at least proportional and not winner take all. 

But like I brought up before with the whole sham that is the EC. A person could become president by only getting 22% of the popular vote but if they happen to win the correct 11 states (just by one vote and getting zero votes in every other state) they can still become president.


----------



## Munkycheez

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



L-DOPA said:


> You would think this was a Jihadist posting....nope it's a leftist.


That's the spirit :grin2:


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Personally I have no problem at all with California and Oregon seceding from the United States. The idea of never seeing another Democrat in the White House ever again... :trumpout


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Impressive, getting Breitbart to talk for you. I'll let you off this time since I can't wait for this author's "See No Evil: 19 Hard Truths the Left Can’t Handle" (lol).
> 
> It actually sounds pretty reasonable of Trump, considering keeping some good parts of the plan. Wait, a second Obamacare has good parts to it?!!!! WH WH WHAAAAT?!
> 
> Therefore sounds like OBAMAJAMMACARE wasn't all bad yes? Perhaps Obama wasn't the disaster you said he was? Your man Trump has praised his plan so you'd better step in line.


You know what, if you gotta wait till it happens to see it, like you had to with the election. Fine. I just thought there was hope for ya.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTiHVzOH9B0

The single most abused journalist that I've heard about all through Trump's campaign. I guess her being a woman makes her an easy target. This lady was in the thick of things all of the last couple of years. She's had urine dumped on her head. She's been assaulted in the UK of all places. 

She's been insulted and abused and yet she stuck with her message and was one of the many people who got into the thick of the worst parts of the left and exposed the reality of their fascism. 

And despite all that, she's surprisingly humble and restrained - but you can see the sheer relief on her face. Maybe people will finally start to take notice and give her the support she and other journalists like her need against the angry and hateful mobs they have faced.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> Something liberals have failed to understand during the entire campaign: actions matter more than words. We're going to wait and see what he does, not what he says to the media or what the media reports from "sources".





Beatles123 said:


> You know what, if you gotta wait till it happens to see it, like you had to with the election. Fine. I just thought there was hope for ya.


what I've learned from this election is that I no longer have to go out of my way to try to explain my positions to people who either intentionally misrepresent the truth or simply never wanted to listen to any other side than their own.

just quoting the two of you because I see the futility in trying to engage this poster, but it's more a general point.


----------



## MonkasaurusRex

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> The EC would not be as bad if it was at least proportional and not winner take all.
> 
> But like I brought up before with the whole sham that is the EC. A person could become president by only getting 22% of the popular vote but if they happen to win the correct 11 states (just by one vote and getting zero votes in every other state) they can still become president.


Just more reason for equal electoral votes among states then you actually have to win 26 states, while that doesn't solve the popular vote conundrum.

Electoral Reform is needed not just in the US but in Canada where I live also. Although in our most recent federal election it wouldn't have made a difference it was a Liberal win any way you slice it. Which I am all for to be honest.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I just find it ironic that so many things that was so bad about politicians are now put forward by Trump supporters as positives for him. The reverse is true for liberals doing the very same shit they accuse Trump supporters will do if Trump loses that will undermine the integrity of the system.

Politics has become so much like pro sports. Pretend to care about the 'integrity of the game' or playing the right way, but love the players on your team that plays dirty to win and blame players that refuse to compromise if it cost the team to lose.. Party over nation. Team over sport. Bragging rights over improving things.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Donald Trump wins the popular vote! Michigan wasn't finished counting until today.

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/michigan

Trump: 62,972,226
Hillary: 62,277,750



*Final Electoral College vote*:

Trump: 306
Hillary: 232

- Vic


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Vic Capri said:


> Donald Trump wins the popular vote! Michigan wasn't finished counting until today.
> 
> Trump: 62,972,226
> Hillary: 62,277,750
> 
> 
> 
> *Final Electoral College vote*:
> 
> Trump: 306
> Hillary: 232
> 
> - Vic


Ok liberal protesters, your move!


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Vic Capri said:


> Donald Trump wins the popular vote! Michigan wasn't finished counting until today.
> 
> Trump: 62,972,226
> Hillary: 62,277,750
> 
> 
> 
> *Final Electoral College vote*:
> 
> Trump: 306
> Hillary: 232
> 
> - Vic


Citation please and not that wordpress source.

I dont see anyone legit source picking that up. Maybe we won't til tomorrow. All the legit sources still have Clinton in the lead. And has CA even been finished yet?


----------



## MillionDollarProns

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I want to believe, but like a spaghetti farmer during the tomato strike of 1817 I need to see the sauce


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

i'm not sure how :trump could go from ~300,000 down in the popular vote to ~700,000 up when most of the ballots left to be counted were either from CA or were absentee ballots (most of those coming from CA and NY)

i mean it's not impossible but still

but anyway this seems as good a place as any for this:

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/11/...-the-fracking-contaminates-ground-water-myth/



> What do you suppose they found? First of all, the EPA well was drilled in a defective fashion. The artificial materials in the well almost certainly came from the drilling process when the EPA dug the wells.
> 
> Second, the junk they allowed in there clogged the screens down at the base of the well. This allowed stagnant, standing water to build up at the bottom and it became infested with bacteria and biological agents. (As happens with any stagnant pools of water.) The bacterial infestation was what was causing the smell. The origin of the problem the EPA has been complaining about since 2011 was almost certainly caused by… you guessed it… the EPA. Randy Hildreth at Energy Indepth explains why this should close the books on these claims by anti-fracking activists once and for all.


there have been precisely _zero_ valid scientific studies showing that fracking, when done properly, contaminates the water supply 

:heston


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> So.... we can't trust what he says basically?





FriedTofu said:


> In other words, have a private position and a public position? :hmm





SovereignVA said:


> Well, when neither candidate has ever been president, what would be the point of a campaign then?


I don't know what the hell either of you are talking about or what hallucinations you're responding to right now. 

Donald Trump hasn't done anything to give me concern yet. There's been talk in the media about who he might appoint. He's made vague statements to the media which have been blown out of proportion, like much of what he says is by the media, and then you useful...people...seize on it and try to run away with conclusions that have no basis in reality. None of that is "don't trust what he says" or "have a public and private position", and I don't even know what SovereignVA's post means or is referring to.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@Loudness : 4 days in and so far women haven't had their pussies subjected to the kung-fu grip of StormtroopersTrumpers, the minorities haven't been committed to concentration camps and the LGBT community haven't been subjected to mandatory conversion therapy en masse.

I think that maybe, just maybe, we're gonna be fine. :trump


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> No. *Full *research means listening to the 3% that say otherwise and why and then make up your own mind.


Vested interests.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> @Loudness : 4 days in and so far women haven't had their pussies subjected to the kung-fu grip of StormtroopersTrumpers, the minorities haven't been committed to concentration camps and the LGBT community haven't been subjected to mandatory conversion therapy en masse.
> 
> I think that maybe, just maybe, we're gonna be fine. :trump


This is like the brexit guys saying everythings fine...its not even happened yet.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



draykorinee said:


> This is like the brexit guys saying everythings fine...its not even happened yet.


I didn't vote for Trump nor do I support a lot of his policies, but considering he entertained the ever-living hell out of me during this election season, I'm willing to give him a chance and see how he does.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> I didn't vote for Trump nor do I support a lot of his policies, but considering he entertained the ever-living hell out of me during this election season, I'm willing to give him a chance and see how he does.


The massive amount of dank memes we're going to get over 4 years are nearly worth it to be honest.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



draykorinee said:


> Vested interests.


Proof. Sources. And citations. Proving that all 3% of the anti crowd have vested interests. 

Otherwise stop quoting me with your lack of knowledge based irrational responses that have been brainwashed into your head.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> I don't know what the hell either of you are talking about or what hallucinations you're responding to right now.
> 
> Donald Trump hasn't done anything to give me concern yet. There's been talk in the media about who he might appoint. He's made vague statements to the media which have been blown out of proportion, like much of what he says is by the media, and then you useful...people...seize on it and try to run away with conclusions that have no basis in reality. None of that is "don't trust what he says" or "have a public and private position", and I don't even know what SovereignVA's post means or is referring to.


Don't act like I took you wrong. Here's what I was responding to:



> _*We're going to wait and see what he does, not what he says to the media *_or what the media reports from "sources".


That's a clear message that what he says and does will be two different things, and you're more than fine with that because he's your guy. How else is he going to talk to the nation other than through the media?

If your ego will allow you to take it back or clarify something that's fine, but don't act like you've been taken out of context because there's only one context for what you said.


The original point was the Obamacare backflip and your justification of 'I don't care what he says' quite frankly doesn't cut it.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*






:lol with schadenfreude of the overly confident dude getting it wrong and losing the bet.

Then I look at the racist comments in the comments section and fpalm


----------



## ShiningStar

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> @Loudness : 4 days in and so far women haven't had their pussies subjected to the kung-fu grip of StormtroopersTrumpers, the minorities haven't been committed to concentration camps and the LGBT community haven't been subjected to mandatory conversion therapy en masse.
> 
> I think that maybe, just maybe, we're gonna be fine. :trump


Yeah. I am actually optimistic he will at least be better then GW . People should never forget his George Wallace like rhetoric hopefully though they constructively save their anger for the 1st time he tries to do something that's over the line.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*






Karen Staughan debunking the myth that Trump is going to be a fascist in one of the most rational responses to accusations of "literally Hitler" he has faced.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> He's going to overtake her count now.





birthday_massacre said:


> No he is not. He is 250,000 votes behind her.


*SHAZAM!*:trump


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Don't act like I took you wrong. Here's what I was responding to:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a clear message that what he says and does will be two different things, and you're more than fine with that because he's your guy. How else is he going to talk to the nation other than through the media?
> 
> If your ego will allow you to take it back or clarify something that's fine, but don't act like you've been taken out of context because there's only one context for what you said.
> 
> 
> The original point was the Obamacare backflip and your justification of 'I don't care what he says' quite frankly doesn't cut it.





ShiningStar said:


> Yeah. I am actually optimistic he will at least be better then GW . People should never forget his George Wallace like rhetoric hopefully though they constructively save their anger for the 1st time he tries to do something that's over the line.


I think waiting and seeing is the right approach, and keep in mind I was not someone who voted for the man. He still has a tendency to blurt stuff out, I'm sure a lot of that will change when he takes office and he frankly won't have the time to be on all the Sunday morning talk shows. What I took away from his meeting with Obama was he is thinking now..."Oh shit. This is for real now. It's going to happen and now I know why the man looks like he has aged about 25 years in the 8 he's done this gig." He absolutely can not be the blustering force he was throughout the primaries and the general race. He is going to have to truly be reserved, strong, and act like a leader. I'm not saying just go completely suit and political, but I want to know that the President is in control when the shit hits the fan. And that includes putting his Twitter account in mothballs for the next 4 years. 

As for Obamacare...I think looking at all options is the wise thing to do. Here in the States...one of the biggest knocks against the ACA was that it was rammed through and no one knew fully or understood what was in the bill. I remember being told, "We have to pass it to see what's in it." Already, the sites that I frequent have people that are starting to freak out and say, "DAMN IT! I VOTED FOR HIM FOR REPEALING! HE BETTER DO IT OR ELSE!" 

This is something that he is going to need to get done right. I know there are people that already want the full repeal done and in his hand for signature as soon as he takes the Oath of Office, but the only reason for that is if the replacement for it is ready to go. He should already have someone working on this as we speak. Some of what he was talking about (opening up competition among insurance companies, health savings accounts, etc) now need to be put together like a puzzle. Give it some time and make sure it's done right, don't just rush it through to appease a few. 

Now...if he goes down the road of Universal Health Care and continued government overreach, I can assure you I will be howling from the mountaintops and you will know that he stepped in it. I will continue to be that pain in the ass to make sure that he leads in a way that adheres to the principles of the Constitution.  





Carte Blanche said:


> Karen Staughan debunking the myth that Trump is going to be a fascist in one of the most rational responses to accusations of "literally Hitler" he has faced.
> 
> In fact, in doing so she rightfully paints authoritarian left-wing governments as the fascists they are without ever making the claim.


Trump doesn't have the political capital to go down that road. Yes, he has a GOP controlled Congress and is the de facto head cheese of the GOP, but unlike HRC he ain't got the clout to just start going crazy. There are enough people in Washington who sure as hell won't let that happen, supporters and non-supporters alike. 

I think with all that he is learning and will be learning these next couple of months, he is realizing just exactly what this job will entail. As big an ego as Trump has (about the size of the entire East coast), he knows that this is now completely on him now. If this goes wrong, history will not treat him kindly and I don't think he wants that. To all the Trumpamaniacs and deplorables...if this fails it won't be because of those that want him to fail. It will be because he wasn't up to the task. That's the truth, Ruth.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



BruiserKC said:


> I think with all that he is learning and will be learning these next couple of months, he is realizing just exactly what this job will entail. As big an ego as Trump has (about the size of the entire East coast), he knows that this is now completely on him now. If this goes wrong, history will not treat him kindly and I don't think he wants that. To all the Trumpamaniacs and deplorables...if this fails it won't be because of those that want him to fail. It will be because he wasn't up to the task. That's the truth, Ruth.


Implying :trump


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



BruiserKC said:


> Trump doesn't have the political capital to go down that road. Yes, he has a GOP controlled Congress and is the de facto head cheese of the GOP, but unlike HRC he ain't got the clout to just start going crazy. There are enough people in Washington who sure as hell won't let that happen, supporters and non-supporters alike.


He doesn't have the political capital nor the backing of racist supporters ... but at the same time, as Karen breaks down in the first 6-8 minutes of her video, his policies aren't just anti-establishment, they're completely anti-fascist. 

- Speaking against common-core education is anti-fascist. A fascist wants all education including the curriculum to be state-supported and sanctioned (This is why we have the majority Canadians, Brits and Australians completely baffled by the fact that people would be against social welfare because their entire education is based on only knowing its benefits and not even being aware of its pitfalls). 
- Gun control is fascist whereas giving people the right to self-defense is anti-fascist. People who are afraid of LITERALLY Hitler if so afraid should be going out right now and buying guns so that when the so-called death squads come, they can defend themselves. 
- Talking about reducing government control over State sovereignty is anti-fascist. 

And there's other points she brings up to. Basically people don't understand what fascism is so when the elites were told that Trump is going to be a fascist they just believed it. Didn't even bother to understand what it is. 

Pretty much everyone I know that's a Trump supporter isn't racist and they've pretty much already put their word out that if Trump goes down the path of racism and tries to enact any openly racist/discriminatory policy, they'll be some of the first to start opposing him. 

If people are worried about fascism at this point, they should be vary of the kind of control the DNC has been trying to gain for a long time. Funding proxy wars. Forcing regime changes. Rigging their own primaries to select the one true supreme leader through illegal means. Spinning a national media narrative that the opposing side are "deplorables". Forcing college students to take mandatory rape culture and male/white privilege crash courses. Who's acting like fascists here really with the full support of their supporters? 

If anyone walks away from this election thinking that the democratic party hasn't become increasingly fascist over the last decade, they're the ones that are completely mistaken about their party.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> Implying :trump



What I am implying is that :trump will have no one to blame but himself. Yes, there are people out there who want him to fail (even though I have been one of his harshest critics I'm not one of them). However, the man has control of the GOP right now, he is in control of the message and the direction of the party. 
Only twice otherwise within the last 60 years or so has that happened...and that was during Dubya's second term and during the Eisenhower administration. It's all at his disposal to get stuff done and he'll at least have that control for 2 years. For years the GOP told us, "Give us the House". Then, "Give us the Senate." Then..."Give Us The White House." It's all there now. No more excuses. 

I know Trumpamania runs deep in your blood and its running wild right now, but you and your fellow deplorables need to be prepared fully to hold this man accountable for what he does and says. If the Trump train looks like it's derailing, you need to scream out and get it back on the tracks. Don't just blindly go along with what he says if where he wants to take things ain't what you signed up for. As I've said in the past, we're to the point I want to see shit get done. The time for talk is over. I want him to get the job done, and if he can I will admit I'm wrong about him. If not...can't blame the world for this. 

So...what say you?


----------



## amhlilhaus

birthday_massacre said:


> amhlilhaus said:
> 
> 
> 
> As stated earlier, if a republican says 2 plus 2 equals 4 some liberal will argue all day hes wrong.
> 
> I dont fall for anything. I clearly stated trump was my lol fuck you candidate. If he slows the progressive tide just a little bit id be well satisfied.
> 
> Big banks running the country is better than big govt. Big banks just fuck you over. Big govt fucks you over, makes your life miserable with new laws and can throw you in jail. And the people should never get everything they want. Because first on the list is all the rich peoples money. Now taking all their money sounds good, and the coubtry collapsing shortly afterwards would be the result.
> 
> Guess im still an idealist, where your behavior dictates where you are in life.
> 
> You obviously do not read the reports of muslims running wild in europe.
> 
> Illegals do take jobs us citizens wont. They also take many jobs us citizens want, most notably construction. They also overwhelm social services.
> 
> Trump is a stop gap. The liberals have a simple message: be lazy, its not your fault. WE will take care of you, just vote for us. Its irresistable. You will win eventually
> 
> The end result will be nothing like your fantasies though
> 
> 
> 
> I love how conservatives always pretend they are not for big govt when of course the GOP is for big govt. Stop fooling yourself.
> The GOP is always for a super big military, that is big govt, they try to tell you that you cant get abortions that is big govt, they try to say gays can't get married, that is big govt, the GOP loves to push chritsian views on the rest of the country that is big govt etc etc
> 
> The only difference between the GOP and the DNC big govt is the Gop tries to take way rights and push their values onto the rest of the country where as the DNC tries to help the poor and middle class.
> 
> I won't even bother to reply to the rest of your BS rhetoric
Click to expand...

Youre right, gop is for big govt. Conservatives are not.

And who is for controlling smoking, food consumption, liberals.

Not knowing the difference is bigger bs than my rhetoric.

In fairness i dont know the difference between liberals and progressives. I could be wrong, but liberals arent complete barking moonbats like progressives.


----------



## The5star_Kid

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I saw a video compilation today of trump going on about how attractive his daughter is and if she wasn't his daughter, he'd date her. What kind of man even thinks such things, let alone mentions them multiple times in interviews? 

And on top of all that, gets 58 million votes. LOL


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



amhlilhaus said:


> Youre right, gop is for big govt. Conservatives are not.
> 
> And who is for controlling smoking, food consumption, liberals.
> 
> Not knowing the difference is bigger bs than my rhetoric.
> 
> In fairness i dont know the difference between liberals and progressives. I could be wrong, but liberals arent complete barking moonbats like progressives.


The GOP are conservatives lol And sorry but most conservatives are for those things I mentioned. Just look at the whole oh war on xmas BS every year by conservatives or how conservatives got pissy when the 10 commandments were taken out of the state capital in the conservative states that had that.


----------



## ShiningStar

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The5star_Kid said:


> What kind of man even thinks such things, let alone mentions them multiple times in interviews?
> 
> And on top of all that, gets 58 million votes. LOL


One who is running against Hilary Clinton


----------



## The5star_Kid

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



ShiningStar said:


> One who is running against Hilary Clinton


the default argument can't be "Trump won because HIllary was shit"

sooner or later americans have to face up to the fact that they elected this type of man to be president


----------



## amhlilhaus

birthday_massacre said:


> amhlilhaus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Youre right, gop is for big govt. Conservatives are not.
> 
> And who is for controlling smoking, food consumption, liberals.
> 
> Not knowing the difference is bigger bs than my rhetoric.
> 
> In fairness i dont know the difference between liberals and progressives. I could be wrong, but liberals arent complete barking moonbats like progressives.
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP are conservatives lol And sorry but most conservatives are for those things I mentioned. Just look at the whole oh war on xmas BS every year by conservatives or how conservatives got pissy when the 10 commandments were taken out of the state capital in the conservative states that had that.
Click to expand...

Again, displaying deficient knowledge.

Dont feel bad, it took me almost 20 years to accept theres a difference between republicans and conservatives


----------



## amhlilhaus

The5star_Kid said:


> ShiningStar said:
> 
> 
> 
> One who is running against Hilary Clinton
> 
> 
> 
> the default argument can't be "Trump won because HIllary was shit"
> 
> sooner or later americans have to face up to the fact that they elected this type of man to be president
Click to expand...

He also won, and got the poor white voters who voted obama by promising to make america great again.

Kind of like hope and change


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

At this point if people are still asking why he got voted in, then they're basically betraying one of the reasons why he got voted in.

Go watch some analysts or read some articles, or look at the statistics ffs. 

Do _something _other than just bitch because throughout this campaign that's pretty much all the vast majority of anti-Trumpers have done.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



amhlilhaus said:


> Again, displaying deficient knowledge.
> 
> Dont feel bad, it took me almost 20 years to accept theres a difference between republicans and conservatives


Projection is rich with you.


----------



## Warlock

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The5star_Kid said:


> the default argument can't be "Trump won because HIllary was shit"
> 
> sooner or later americans have to face up to the fact that they elected this type of man to be president


It is true tho. Hillary lost due to much lower turnout for herself than when obama ran. Republicans were on par with their own turnout.

Suggests its more about how bad hillary was than how good trump was.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Sweenz said:


> It is true tho. Hillary lost due to much lower turnout for herself than when obama ran. Republicans were on par with their own turnout.
> 
> Suggests its more about how bad hillary was than how good trump was.


Well. I wouldn't ignore the agent of change voters that switches allegiance. Both amongst white millennials [who are sick if PC outrage culture] and white middle class that voted Obama the last time who was the agent of change in that election. 

Hillary was one of the reasons but Trump ran a better campaign overall. His campaign was literally Obama's campaign but targeted to the republicans.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

More protests based on Donald Trump committing "human rights violations" and he isn't even the president yet ....and democrats wonder why they get called whiners


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Stinger Fan said:


> More protests based on Donald Trump committing "human rights violations" and he isn't even the president yet ....and democrats wonder why they get called whiners


Seems like we've had too much migration from Canada and Europe too. I say we should deport those fuckers as well because they're causing cultural degradation as well :kobelol


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Stinger Fan said:


> More protests based on Donald Trump committing "human rights violations" and he isn't even the president yet ....and democrats wonder why they get called whiners


You stop that shit before it happens not after LOL

He said he was going to do these things, so now is the time to stop him or protest against it from happening, not after it happens when its too late.


----------



## Genking48

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> *You stop that shit before it happens not after LOL*
> 
> He said he was going to do these things, so now is the time to stop him or protest against it from happening, not after it happens when its too late.


Wow, that's some Nineteen Eighty-Four Thoughtcrime shit right there.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Seems like we've had too much migration from Canada and Europe too. I say we should deport those fuckers as well because they're causing cultural degradation as well :kobelol


I'm still waiting on all those celebrities and athletes who claimed they'd to Canada move if Trump wins....Though, I wonder ... what's wrong with Mexico?



birthday_massacre said:


> You stop that shit before it happens not after LOL
> 
> He said he was going to do these things, so now is the time to stop him or protest against it from happening, not after it happens when its too late.


You can't claim a "human rights violation", when literally none occurred. An election is not , I repeat *is not* a "human rights violation". 

Deporting illegal immigrants, is not a "human rights violation" and this is coming from someone who has had family members deported more than once.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Genking48 said:


> Wow, that's some Nineteen Eighty-Four Thoughtcrime shit right there.


Trumps says he is gong to do these things and we all know what Pence stands for. The same kind of stuff was foreshadowed while Hitler was rising to power and look what happened with that.


----------



## El Dandy

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

These protests are just white noise tbh. I mean, by all means go ahead and exerciser your right and keep it peaceful if you can. Not sure what they think will be done or who they think they're hoping will hear their voices, so I digress. 

The fear mongering is real. Trump isn't in office for another 2 months and he is already trying to be flexible with Obamacare. This is El Hijo del Hitler? What a monster.

I am just lel'ing hard at people on social media saying this is a "revolution." You boys and girls missed the revolution; it happened on Tuesday :lmao


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



El Dandy said:


> These protests are just white noise tbh. I mean, by all means go ahead and exerciser your right and keep it peaceful if you can. Not sure what they think will be done or who they think they're hoping will hear their voices, so I digress.
> 
> The fear mongering is real. Trump isn't in office for another 2 months and he is already trying to be flexible with Obamacare. This is El Hijo del Hitler? What a monster.
> 
> I am just lel'ing hard at people on social media saying this is a "revolution." You boys and girls missed the revolution; it happened on Tuesday and you missed it :lmao


What can be done? The EC can listen and flip their votes to Hillary and give her the presidency.


----------



## El Dandy

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> What can be done? The EC can listen and flip their votes to Hillary and give her the presidency.


That's not happening :lmao


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



El Dandy said:


> That's not happening :lmao


That is not the point, the point is it CAN happen and that is what the protesters are fighting for. To convince the EC to flip their votes

when all the votes are counted. Hillary could win the popular vote by close to 2 million votes.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*






especially for the 'communists' not 'anarchist' bit.


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The5star_Kid said:


> the default argument can't be "Trump won because HIllary was shit"
> 
> sooner or later americans have to face up to the fact that they elected this type of man to be president


It is not a default position though, because when you look at the compilation of votes (at least the last time I checked), Trump did not even receive as many votes as Romney did in 2012. Look at how many votes Hillary got when compared to what Obama got in 2012.

When you break it down to the most simplest components, this election was not about Trump winning it as much as it was about Hillary losing it. The people who should have supported her instead rejected her. "Hillary was shit" is indeed a valid argument in the end. The fact that the DNC insisted upon her being handed the office of President of the United States as some kind of 'Lifetime Achievement Award' is the very thing that cost them the election and handed it to Trump.

Which, incidentally, is why I was ROFL when during his acceptance speech, :trump said that we should all thank her for her years of service to the country. Absolutely savage. :banderas


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Stinger Fan said:


> I'm still waiting on all those celebrities and athletes who claimed they'd to Canada move if Trump wins....Though, I wonder ... what's wrong with Mexico?


Because they're the real racists obviously. It's not even worth debating :draper2


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Pratchett said:


> It is not a default position though, because when you look at the compilation of votes (at least the last time I checked), Trump did not even receive as many votes as Romney did in 2012. Look at how many votes Hillary got when compared to what Obama got in 2012.
> 
> When you break it down to the most simplest components, this election was not about Trump winning it as much as it was about Hillary losing it. The people who should have supported her instead rejected her. "Hillary was shit" is indeed a valid argument in the end. The fact that the DNC insisted upon her being handed the office of President of the United States as some kind of 'Lifetime Achievement Award' is the very thing that cost them the election and handed it to Trump.
> 
> Which, incidentally, is why I was ROFL when during his acceptance speech, :trump said that we should all thank her for her years of service to the country. Absolutely savage. :banderas


Not to mention when you look at who voted, half the country did not vote.

The GOP always has a better chance when voter turn out is low, but when its high the democrats usually win.

The 2016 election had a 20 year low for voter turn out.


----------



## El Dandy

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> That is not the point, the point is it CAN happen and that is what the protesters are fighting for. To convince the EC to flip their votes
> 
> when all the votes are counted. Hillary could win the popular vote by close to 2 million votes.


She could win it by 10 million, it's not changing a thing because it's not about what just people in CA and NY want.

but let's say it happens: good luck explaining it to, you know, the rest of America. It would start a civil war. That's a whole lot of red. Like it or not, Donald Trump won the election fair and square. They take it away from him, there will be hell to pay from tens of millions of angry "deplorables." 










tbh there is a better chance of CA seceding than EC's getting flipped


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



El Dandy said:


> I am just lel'ing hard at people on social media saying this is a "revolution." You boys and girls missed the revolution; it happened on Tuesday :lmao


Never mind the fact that most of these protesters are spoiled rich kids, most of which would never think about using a gun. It makes me laugh when Katy Perry is calling for a revolution. Im sure someone who got popular for shaking her tits and making shit music is going to be the modern Che Guevara


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Because they're the real racists obviously. It's not even worth debating :draper2


it is. Let's not make the same mistakes the left made. I do agree we shouldn't do it under conditions where we're being shouted down to.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



virus21 said:


> Never mind the fact that most of these protesters are spoiled rich kids, most of which would never think about using a gun. It makes me laugh when Katy Perry is calling for a revolution. Im sure someone who got popular for shaking her tits and making shit music is going to be the modern Che Guevara


You know who would defend these democrats right to bear arms to actually fight in a real revolution. 

2nd ammendment advocates. Otherwise, good luck bringing your "voices" to a gunfight. 

The protests will be over soon. The police in the states where this shit is happening are getting frustrated. I don't remember who but some high ranking official in Phoenix has already told the protestors to go home. Their own establishment is turning against them because everyone knows except these fuckers that the establishment they themselves created is fascist and wouldn't think twice about bringing down the full force of the police on them if they step out of line even a little bit. 

:ha



Goku said:


> it is. Let's not make the same mistakes the left made. I do agree we shouldn't do it under conditions where we're being shouted down to.


I can justify the claim to an extent because they want to go from one privileged, white country to another that they assume is much the same. If they actually knew anything about Mexico, they'd realize that parts of mexico are on the verge of being considered first world in their own right and well worth the move. 

I suppose that doesn't make them racists more than it makes them ignorant though - but I think in this particular case both are intrinsically linked. 

That said, I won't waste either of our time on this too much either :shrug


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



El Dandy said:


> She could win it by 10 million, it's not changing a thing because it's not about what just people in CA and NY want.
> 
> but let's say it happens: good luck explaining it to, you know, the rest of America. It would start a civil war. That's a whole lot of red.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tbh there is a better chance of CA seceding than EC's getting flipped


First off all that map is bullshit its not showing proportional voting. And the EC is even more bullshit because you can just win 11 states by one vote and get 0 votes in the rest and still become president with only 22% of the popular vote. Not to mention a lot of those areas its desert ande farm area so its deceiving. You dont go by area size, you go by population. Why should a bigger area with less people count more than a smaller area with more people?

It's illogical. It never made sense oh you live in a state with more people so we are not going to count your vote as much as this other state that is bigger but has less people.

Everyones vote should matter equally but with the EC it does not. it lets the minority win over the majority.

Like I said before. the EC would be an improvement if it was not winner take all. It should be proportional.


----------



## El Dandy

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Everyones vote should matter equally but with the EC it does not. it lets the minority win over the majority.


No they shouldn't :lmao

Our president would always be whomever NY and CA decides it to be and it would totally marginalize middle America. 

The marginalization of middle America is a reason why :trump got in to begin with (how big of a reason IDK but a reason nonetheless)

I'm not saying the EC isn't broken or w/e, but to saying every vote should literally count equally is lawlzy


----------



## AttitudeEraMark4Life

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

The best thing about Trump's presidency is it will remind people that conservative policies just don't work for the vast majority of people. People are stupid how quickly they forget how Bush fucked up the economy not that long ago. There was a reason Obama whooped McCains ass in the 2008 election.

Trumps fuck ups over the next 4 years will only help the democrats in the long run. People bought too much into Trumps ridiculous claims and they are in for a rude awakening. The guy has no experience and is a failed business man. He will probably fuck up the economy even worse than Bush did in 2008. And this time cons have no Obama to blame.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



El Dandy said:


> No they shouldn't :lmao
> 
> Our president would always be whomever NY and CA decides it to be and it would totally marginalize middle America.
> 
> The marginalization of middle America is a reason why :trump got in to begin with (how big a reason IDK but a reason nonetheless)


it should not matter where you live. Every vote should count the same. You are just doing the reverse of what you are claiming you are marginalizing CA the biggest state in the country and making it so their votes dont even matter. Their votes never matter in the elections. A lot of times its called even before the CA polls close.

Let me ask you.

If the EC went to proportional voting would you agree to that? They may have to redo how many EC votes each state gets but would that be more fair than the EC now and the popular vote in your mind


----------



## RenegadexParagon

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Goku said:


> especially for the 'communists' not 'anarchist' bit.


You mean actual anarchists?


----------



## El Dandy

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> it should not matter where you live. Every vote should count the same. You are just doing the reverse of what you are claiming you are marginalizing CA the biggest state in the country and making it so their votes dont even matter. Their votes never matter in the elections. A lot of times its called even before the CA polls close.


CA is the biggest state in the country and is recognized as such by having 55 delegates (you know this obv). The Dem nominee essentially starts with a 46 vote head start every election (would be 84 but in fairness gotta subtract Texas' 38 from the Rep)

So what would fix it is having the largest state in American be able to tag team with NY, therefore always deciding who the Pres should be? Seems legit.

If they come up with something new/better for 2020 onward then they come up something new/better. I'm just saying they're not gonna change the rules after the game is played no matter how much liberals try to will it to be true. Trump won this election fair and square.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> What can be done? The EC can listen and flip their votes to Hillary and give her the presidency.


That happens I guarantee that what is happening now by some of these protesters will be nothing compared to the stink that will be raised.


----------



## Smarkout

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Guys these candidates did NOT run to win the popular vote. Why don't the disappointed liberals understand that? They ran to win Ohio, Wisconsin, Penn, North Carolina, Florida, and Michigan. 

You really think Trump gave a flying fuck about how many Republicans voted for him in NY and California. The popular vote would look much different anyway if there was no EC because more Republicans would come out to vote in NY and CA and the same for Democrats in other states. 

You lost, stop complaining. Neither candidate went after the popular vote and for good reason, it does not matter. Trump won where it counted, and Hillary tried to do the same but could not because she is a loser. 

Get over it and give Trump his first term to see how he does. Bitching about it isn't going to do anything.


----------



## Marv95

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Comparing Trump to that NeoCon Bush? Really? I agree that the 20 trillion debt could get worse before it gets better if no serious cuts are made, but other than that if you watched his rallies and listen to him talk you'd understand he's anti-Bush. Moreso than Obama and Clinton. His victory killed the TPP this past week(something Bush signed into law).

Not all Republicans are globalist warmongers or racist ********. Eisenhower ring a bell? Cause that's who Trump wants to emulate.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



El Dandy said:


> CA is the biggest state in the country and is recognized as such by having 55 delegates (you know this obv). The Dem nominee essentially starts with a 46 vote head start every election (would be 84 but in fairness gotta subtract Texas' 38 from the Rep)
> 
> So what would fix it is having the largest state in American be able to tag team with NY, therefore always deciding who the Pres should be? Seems legit.
> 
> If they come up with something new/better for 2020 onward then they come up something new/better. I'm just saying they're not gonna change the rules after the game is played no matter how much liberals try to will it to be true. Trump won this election fair and square.


And the republicans have states they always win too more than just TX. The problem with the EC is they always ignore over half of the states and usually focus on the swing states and the few that could go either way based on the polling.

What if the EC went to proportional voting?


----------



## Marv95

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

If many of the electors give their votes to Shillary giving her the win(which won't happen as many of these states won't allow it, nor Hillary would allow it) then if you think the riots happening now are bad, lol you're in for an absolute crapshow. Think the deplorables in middle America and the Sun Belt would accept this w/o a fight?


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RenegadexParagon said:


> You mean actual anarchists?


that would depend on who you consider an actual anarchist.

For reference, I usually use anarchists to refer to advocates of voluntary society and never to refer to rioters, and sometimes to something in between;.


----------



## McGee

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

El hail el presidente!


----------



## Punkhead

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

edit: delete pls


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

read that wrong nevermind


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Just heard on MSNBC that people who have Obamacare, they got their premium's in the mail a week before the election, and they went up almost DOUBLE from what they were before; and this hurt Hilary big time in the election. Makes sense.

Add onto that, taxes have increased over the last few years for the middle class; as someone who owns my own condo/apartment, I can attest to this. The economy was stagnant these past few years; and I think that's putting it quite nicely, tbh. Healthcare is kind of a mess. People who own small/family businesses are having a hard time; my aunt and uncle own one, so I know that is true. Add all of that up and it's not hard to see why the country wanted to change things up alittle bit and see where they go form here. There's alot more to being President than just social issues. People have to pay their bills, take care of their families, as well. And over the past few years, that became a bit more difficult for regular people to do. I have no idea if Trump will workout as President or not, but I guess people want to findout because their finances and the economy haven't been in very good shape over the past 4 years. We shall see what happens.


----------



## RenegadexParagon

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Goku said:


> that would depend on who you consider an actual anarchist.
> 
> For reference, I usually use anarchists to refer to advocates of voluntary society and never to refer to rioters, and sometimes to something in between;.


I would consider what anarchism is to be what anarchism historically is, a socialist ideology. The first guy to call himself an anarchist was openly a socialist and wrote a nice book saying "property is theft!". Anarchist thought built off of that. 

Rightist-"anarchism" is a much more recent development that has nothing to do with historical anarchism.


----------



## paladin errant

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

with this election,i dream about the future french elections and happening of the same thing..

it's a blasphemy here,in France, to talk about "populism" but the politics have forgotten they must be afraid of their own people,that's what happened in the USA..i don't want to judge the US electors,they made a choice..and Hillary was really the worst candidate for the democrats.

complete mash for opinion poll institutes,medias who were pro democrat (same here in France who predicted the élection of Clinton)..that was funny to see their face..


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Proof. Sources. And citations. Proving that all 3% of the anti crowd have vested interests.
> 
> Otherwise stop quoting me with your lack of knowledge based irrational responses that have been brainwashed into your head.


Lol. Fine, I'll get to work on the 3% you get to work on proving that all of the 97% are wrong. Otherwise stop talking shit about climate change. Also, brainwashed? Lame attempt at an insult.










https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/

Climate change denial is shady as fuck.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



paladin errant said:


> with this election,i dream about the future french elections and happening of the same thing..
> 
> it's a blasphemy here,in France, to talk about "populism" but the politics have forgotten they must be afraid of their own people,that's what happened in the USA..i don't want to judge the US electors,they made a choice..and Hillary was really the worst candidate for the democrats.
> 
> complete mash for opinion poll institutes,medias who were pro democrat (same here in France who predicted the élection of Clinton)..that was funny to see their face..


I posted an article about the French election a few pages ago. The right wing candidate seems invigorated after Trump's win.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RenegadexParagon said:


> I would consider what anarchism is to be what anarchism historically is, a socialist ideology. The first guy to call himself an anarchist was openly a socialist and wrote a nice book saying "property is theft!". Anarchist thought built off of that.
> 
> Rightist-"anarchism" is a much more recent development that has nothing to do with historical anarchism.


Pretty much this, anarchism as an ideology suits me, but the way its portrayed and abused today not so much.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



draykorinee said:


> Lol. Fine, I'll get to work on the 3% you get to work on proving that all of the 97% are wrong. Otherwise stop talking shit about climate change. Also, brainwashed? Lame attempt at an insult.


I said prove that all 3% of the scientists that deny climate change have vested interests because that's the claim you made.


----------



## paladin errant

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



virus21 said:


> I posted an article about the French election a few pages ago. The right wing candidate seems invigorated after Trump's win.


in page 94? yep i read it...but don't be mistaken,i will not vote for the hard right (le pen),she has an economical program which is really crap, i just dream of a president who can understand the people's problems.

in the USA they have the republicans (the right for us,with Sarkozy) and the democrats (the left here,with the actual stupid president Hollande) but for me they're both crap.

tell me if i'm wrong but i think people in the US who vote clinton are people who have money and a good job,and people who voted Trump are the poor,unemployed and the forgotten of the system..it's the same thing here in France..that's why we have more than 50% of the electors who don't vote (the abstentionists) ..and a president who is elected with less than 30% of the frenchs vote,i can't agree with that,our actual president (and the oldests) aren't representative of the french people,they're not legitimate,i want a change of our institutions.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> That's the problem with our education system.
> 
> I said prove that all 3% of the scientists that deny climate change have vested interests because that's the claim you made.
> 
> Unfortunately, I don't blame you because schools these days don't even teach kids the basics of what it means to make a substantiated claim.


I wouldn't be able to give evidence for the entire 3% having vested interests because I never made that claim. You asked me to listen to the 3% and come up with a conclusion, that was my conclusion. Unfortunately the ability to read wasn't taught to you at school. Yeah, I stooped to a childish education joke too.

(I did however link to a study that shows the shady nature of climate change denial, guess you skipped that)

The funny thing is, you come in with some purposefuly vague stance on climate change because you don't have the ability to defend your position, its pretty tragic.

How about recognition from the oil industry?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

>>>


draykorinee said:


> *Vested interests.*





draykorinee said:


> *I wouldn't be able to give evidence for the entire 3% having vested interests because I never made that claim.* You asked me to listen to the 3% and come up with a conclusion, that was my conclusion. Unfortunately the ability to read wasn't taught to you at school. Yeah, I stooped to a childish education joke too.


You made the claim that you're back-peddaling on. 

The evidence you provide is not the evidence of what climate change deniers are claiming, but what people who accept climate change are saying about what people who deny climate change are saying. 

That's not proof of people having vested interests. 

You're not even on the same page, contradicting yourself and not proving your own claim.

Either you can state that your claim was wrong and I'll be ok with that, or prove that your claim is correct. That's how this game of logic is played. Not buying your fallacies and misdirections and goal-post changing today :draper2


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> >>>
> 
> 
> 
> You made the claim that you're back-peddaling on.
> 
> The evidence you provide is not the evidence of what climate change deniers are claiming, but what people who accept climate change are saying about what people who deny climate change are saying.
> 
> That's not proof of people having vested interests.
> 
> You're not even on the same page, contradicting yourself and not proving your own claim.


Nope, never claimed that every single piece of study has vested interests. Back peddling I am not. Vested interests is why climate change denial exists.

At least have the balls to admit you're a climate change denier instead of hiding behind this vagueness.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warmin...tion/global-warming-skeptic.html#.WCjErPmLQ5k


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



draykorinee said:


> Nope, never claimed that every single piece of study has vested interests. Back peddling I am not. Vested interests is why climate change denial exists.
> 
> At least have the balls to admit you're a climate change denier instead of hiding behind this vagueness.


Calling me a climate change denier. :lmao

I'm teaching you the rules of logic i.e. making claims and substantiating them. Not claiming that climate change isn't real.

If you can find one post where I've said that climate change isn't real, I'll never post on this site again. People like you are so far gone that there's just no way of teaching you how to think.


----------



## amhlilhaus

birthday_massacre said:


> El Dandy said:
> 
> 
> 
> She could win it by 10 million, it's not changing a thing because it's not about what just people in CA and NY want.
> 
> but let's say it happens: good luck explaining it to, you know, the rest of America. It would start a civil war. That's a whole lot of red.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tbh there is a better chance of CA seceding than EC's getting flipped
> 
> 
> 
> First off all that map is bullshit its not showing proportional voting. And the EC is even more bullshit because you can just win 11 states by one vote and get 0 votes in the rest and still become president with only 22% of the popular vote. Not to mention a lot of those areas its desert ande farm area so its deceiving. You dont go by area size, you go by population. Why should a bigger area with less people count more than a smaller area with more people?
> 
> It's illogical. It never made sense oh you live in a state with more people so we are not going to count your vote as much as this other state that is bigger but has less people.
> 
> Everyones vote should matter equally but with the EC it does not. it lets the minority win over the majority.
> 
> Like I said before. the EC would be an improvement if it was not winner take all. It should be proportional.
Click to expand...

Evidently you dont understand why the civil war happened.

The southern states (rural areas) didnt feel like they were treated fairly by the north (cities)


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Calling me a climate change denier. :lmao
> 
> I'm teaching you the rules of logic i.e. making claims and substantiating them. Not claiming that climate change isn't real.
> 
> If you can find one post where I've said that climate change isn't real, I'll never post on this site again. People like you are so far gone that there's just no way of teaching you how to think.


Yes my claim was that vested interests is why climate change denial exists, I have since given you some small samples of why I believe that, heres another one , unfortunately you still have this bizarre idea that I made a claim that 100% of climate change denial studies are funded based on a 2 word reply, its quite astounding how woolly you are. I see you hide behind not making ANY claims so that you never have to defend them, thats dlightful.

Trying to make me substantiate a claim I never made is ridiculous but also trying to make me substantiate a claim by reviewing thousands of pieces of literature is absolutely ridiculous, but of course you know that, which is why you asked, its a pointless request and is based purely on your goal of 'coming out on top'. Sad.

Your logic is not logic, its flawed attempts (and completely misussed at that) at bragging rights :lmao:lmao:lmao


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



draykorinee said:


> Yes my claim was that vested interests is why climate change denial exists, I have since given you some small samples of why I believe that, heres another one , unfortunately you still have this bizarre idea that I made a claim that 100% of climate change denial studies are funded based on a 2 word reply, its quite astounding how woolly you are. I see you hide behind not making ANY claims so that you never have to defend them, thats dlightful.
> 
> Trying to make me substantiate a claim I never made is ridiculous but also trying to make me substantiate a claim by reviewing thousands of pieces of literature is absolutely ridiculous, but of course you know that, which is why you asked, its a pointless request and is based purely on your goal of 'coming out on top'. Sad.
> 
> Your logic is not logic, its flawed attempts at bragging rights..


Wait, so now you're a mind-reader as well :lmao 

The argument that scientists will report positive (biased findings) based on their elite benefactors goes both ways. It is essentially a weak argument. While I don't think that that is enough to dismiss climate change advocates on what they're saying simply based on whose providing their funding, I find it interesting that the scientists who say otherwise are ALL treated as shills without people even bothering to read their work. 

TBH, my only goal was to actually encourage you to read some of what the climate change denying scientists have concluded, what they're saying and why. That's it. If you're only willing to read what pro-climate change advocates are saying about climate change and about climate change deniers, how do you as a person have complete information since that's what the original context of this discussion was. And yes, reading only one side and concluding that that side is right without even bothering to read what the other side says is the very definition of being brainwashed. 

In the end, not even reading what the anti-side says or believes is entirely your loss in every way imaginable. I'm sure you'll live with it or whatever, but some of us like to learn and increase our knowledge daily :draper2


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Start spreading the news
I am leaving today
I want to be a part of it
New York, New York 

These vagabond shoes
Are longing to stray
Right through the very heart of it
New York, New York 

I want to wake up in a city
That doesn't sleep
And find I'm king of the hill
Top of the heap 

These little town blues
Are melting away
I'll make a brand new start of it
In old New York 

If I can make it there
I'll make it anywhere
It's up to you
New York...NEW YORK!










- Vic


----------



## TripleG

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*






Yeeeeeeah, Donald's strategy played the media and his opponents throughout his campaign for saps.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Wait, so now you're a mind-reader as well :lmao
> 
> The argument that scientists will report positive (biased findings) based on their elite benefactors goes both ways. It is essentially a weak argument. While I don't think that that is enough to dismiss climate change advocates on what they're saying simply based on whose providing their funding, I find it interesting that the scientists who say otherwise are ALL treated as shills without people even bothering to read their work.
> 
> TBH, my only goal was to actually encourage you to read some of what the climate change denying scientists have concluded, what they're saying and why. That's it. If you're only willing to read what pro-climate change advocates are saying about climate change and about climate change deniers, how do you as a person have complete information since that's what the original context of this discussion.


No, just a normal person who was asked to review thousands of pieces of literature to prove that 100% of climate change denial is funded by those with a vested interest, no one with noble intentions would ask that of a person because its ludicrous. 

If your hope truly was to make me read just a small sample then thats fine, you know how you could have done that without some smug attitude and perpetual insults? You could say something like "Why don't you read a bit more about climate change denial".

That whole last paragraph I would 100% agree on, its a shame it took you a ton of insults to get to a point that makes sense.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> In the end, not even reading what the anti-side says or believes is entirely your loss in every way imaginable.


Umm, I missed this, at what point have I said I haven't read climate change denial, thats such a weird assumption to make from anything I have said. I attend a science cafe in Sherborne and we have had all sorts of people come and talk about it, just last month we had a massive turnout because we had Fracking on the agenda, I was pro fracking before and now I'm not after seeing both sides put forward by respected scientists. Damn, you nearly had me agreeing with you.



Carte Blanche said:


> Wait, so now you're a mind-reader as well :lmao


Ditto.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I have concerns that Mike Pence is supposedly in charge of the transition team.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



MrMister said:


> I have concerns that Mike Pence is supposedly in charge of the transition team.


Does it ease your mind to know that Chris Christie is his second in command and that he was supposed to be #1 and was only side-lined because of Bridgegate? 

I wouldn't worry till the cabinet is announced. It's probably going to be a mixed bag.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



AttitudeEraMark4Life said:


> The best thing about Trump's presidency is it will remind people that conservative policies just don't work for the vast majority of people. People are stupid how quickly they forget how Bush fucked up the economy not that long ago. There was a reason Obama whooped McCains ass in the 2008 election.
> 
> Trumps fuck ups over the next 4 years will only help the democrats in the long run. People bought too much into Trumps ridiculous claims and they are in for a rude awakening. The guy has no experience and is a failed business man. He will probably fuck up the economy even worse than Bush did in 2008. And this time cons have no Obama to blame.


What the GOP has done since GHWB is not true conservatism. True conservative thought doesn't expand government and run up the national debt. It means scaling back government and limiting it to just the day to day operations set forth by the Constitution. The bailout pushed through initially by Dubya was not a conservative gesture. A lot of those companies should have been allowed to go out of business if they were going to fail. The reason for the Tea Party was the government getting too big and overspending. Yet the GOP kept rolling over for Obama and allowed more spending and government overreach. 

True conservative blueprints would work if allowed to play out


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



amhlilhaus said:


> Evidently you dont understand why the civil war happened.
> 
> The southern states (rural areas) didnt feel like they were treated fairly by the north (cities)


the civil war happened because of slavery. The south wanted to keep slavery and the north did not.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Ron Paul talks President Trump and the Fed:


----------



## The5star_Kid

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Sweenz said:


> It is true tho. Hillary lost due to much lower turnout for herself than when obama ran. Republicans were on par with their own turnout.
> 
> Suggests its more about how bad hillary was than how good trump was.


I'm not saying the argument is false, I'm saying it can not and should not be the default position. Yes Hillary made herself in-electable but people that were voting werent JUST voting for Trump as an alternative. Many of them voted because they truly believe what Trump is saying about hispanics, Muslims, immigrants, jobs, China etc etc etc. 

You just have to watch interviews of local, everyday people in Trump territory to see that.

One can not absolve the American people of blame or racism and bigotry in all its forms. I've come across many Americans on this forum no less, who have spoken in favour of police shootings and tried to make out like Police officers shooting unarmed black people is ok. 

this is not unheard of in America. Unless all of you decide to stand up to these problems and discuss them openly nothing will change. 

Or you can just carry on with "b b b but Hillary though"


----------



## The5star_Kid

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> the civil war happened because of slavery. The south wanted to keep slavery and the north did not.


That's the popular narrative but not entirely true. 

Many in the north owned slaves up until the civil itself, some of whom became powerful political foes of the south. 

Yes slavery eventually became a part of the civil war story but it was not the cause of the civil war.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



virus21 said:


> Never mind the fact that most of these protesters are spoiled rich kids, most of which would never think about using a gun. It makes me laugh when Katy Perry is calling for a revolution. Im sure someone who got popular for shaking her tits and making shit music is going to be the modern Che Guevara


I think you underestimate the power of her sweet titties.










I'd follow them anywhere!

I'd buy that for a dollar

I'd vote for them

I'd storm her... castle?


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Report: Priebus To Be Trump’s Chief of Staff

http://www.dailywire.com/news/10757/report-priebus-be-trumps-chief-staff-joshua-yasmeh#

Bannon to be Senior Advisor...

Not a fan of Priebus, but looking at the pick from an outside perspective, I can see the logic and strategy here. Trump will still have Bannon in the WH as Senior Adviser, and he will have Priebus as the conduit for implementing his goals in congress. Reince gives Trump is in into the political machine, while Bannon will keep him grounded and firmly planted in the Breitbart conservative/libertarian mindset.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> Report: Priebus To Be Trump’s Chief of Staff
> 
> http://www.dailywire.com/news/10757/report-priebus-be-trumps-chief-staff-joshua-yasmeh#
> 
> Bannon to be Senior Advisor...
> 
> Not a fan of Priebus, but looking at the pick from an outside perspective, I can see the logic and strategy here. Trump will still have Bannon in the WH as Senior Adviser, and he will have Priebus as the conduit for implementing his goals in congress. Reince gives Trump is in into the political machine, while Bannon will keep him grounded and firmly planted in the Breitbart conservative/libertarian mindset.


Pretty much my take. Although Roger Stone did say Reince as COS would cause a revolt in Trump's base. We'll see what happens.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Vic Capri said:


> Start spreading the news
> I am leaving today
> I want to be a part of it
> New York, New York
> 
> These vagabond shoes
> Are longing to stray
> Right through the very heart of it
> New York, New York
> 
> I want to wake up in a city
> That doesn't sleep
> And find I'm king of the hill
> Top of the heap
> 
> These little town blues
> Are melting away
> I'll make a brand new start of it
> In old New York
> 
> If I can make it there
> I'll make it anywhere
> It's up to you
> New York...NEW YORK!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Vic


I LOVE that you posted a screen cap that looks like it was from the early 90s.

I'm feeling positive today. I'm thinking Trump's going to be less hardline on many issues than we expect and this may make for some entertaining clashes with the GOP heavyweights and it might even bring some GREATNESS back in to 'Murica. I'm hoping his first address ends in TRUMP dollars falling from the ceiling, and basically turns politics into a literal sideshow.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> Pretty much my take. Although Roger Stone did say Reince as COS would cause a revolt in Trump's base. We'll see what happens.


by itself perhaps, but Bannon is also there. Preibus may be establishment but he was also one of the few who actually had common sense and supported him. He gets the congress to listen and Bannon tells him not to get outa line.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> Report: Priebus To Be Trump’s Chief of Staff
> 
> http://www.dailywire.com/news/10757/report-priebus-be-trumps-chief-staff-joshua-yasmeh#
> 
> Bannon to be Senior Advisor...
> 
> Not a fan of Priebus, but looking at the pick from an outside perspective, I can see the logic and strategy here. Trump will still have Bannon in the WH as Senior Adviser, and he will have Priebus as the conduit for implementing his goals in congress. Reince gives Trump is in into the political machine, while Bannon will keep him grounded and firmly planted in the Breitbart conservative/libertarian mindset.


I'm not savvy in the process, can Trump pick literally whoever if he wanted, or are there official guidelines? Do they need to be (or have been in the past) in the legislative process somewhere?


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> I think you underestimate the power of her sweet titties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd follow them anywhere!
> 
> I'd buy that for a dollar
> 
> I'd vote for them
> 
> I'd storm her... castle?


Yeah, she's good wank material, but not much else. 



> USA POLITICS
> First Look
> How crisis hotlines are helping people cope with the election results
> csmonitor icon Latest News
> Save for later
> Subscribe
> Calls into crisis hotlines have surged following the election, mental health professionals say. While call centers try to take on the increased volume, experts lend advice to those struggling to cope with a Donald Trump presidency.
> By Amanda Hoover, Staff NOVEMBER 13, 2016
> Save for later
> Jose Luis Magana/APView CaptionAbout video adsView Caption
> The number of people seeking counseling from certain crisis services and hotlines surged to two to three times the usual rate following the results of the 2016 election, mental health professionals say, as Americans face unknowns about the next administration.
> 
> During a divisive election cycle full of vitriol and rhetoric that minorities, women, and members of the LGBTQ community found not only offensive but also potentially dangerous, many felt betrayed by voters who chose Donald Trump, who has been accused of assaulting women and has planned to bar, or severely limit, the entrance of Muslim and Hispanic immigrants.
> 
> Following Mr. Trump’s victory, services like the National Suicide Prevention Hotline, the Crisis Text Line, and the Trevor Project, which focuses on helping LGBTQ youth, fielded hundreds or thousands of inquiries from Americans who feared they might lose health care and civil rights under a Trump administration, or face additional harassment from a sect of his increasingly vocal and radical supporters.
> 
> Recommended: Trump's reality TV playbook: Seven ways it changed 2016 election
> While professionals are linking the increased calls to the election, they also note that the anxieties callers are expressing draw from past experiences and issues.
> 
> 
> Trump's reality TV playbook: Seven ways it changed 2016 election
> 
> PHOTOS OF THE DAY Photos of the Weekend
> "I can't say I've seen anything like this. ... And it's certainly not something I've ever seen in an election," John Draper, a mental health professional who works with the National Suicide Prevention Hotline, told CNN. "They call and say it's the election. But by the end of the call, it's about their lives, and that's when we can help them."
> 
> For some, it’s not surprising that the election has triggered such strong fears and brought them to the surface. According to the American Psychological Association, 52 percent of adults expressed feeling stress related to the campaign. Experts recommended that those experiencing such feelings limit their engagement with social media and the barraging nature of the 24-hour new cycle, instead reading or watching just enough news to remain informed on the issues.
> 
> But those experiencing post-election anxieties are largely citizens from vulnerable groups, including many individuals with some history of mental health issues. Counselors recommend that those who know someone experiencing suicidal thoughts support them and direct them to a professional service that can offer understanding and support.
> 
> Others have turned to social media to offer their support and information about resources for recovering addicts and those who feel depressed, anxious, or suicidal. While some views espoused on Twitter and Facebook can further alienate those users and reignite their fears, the sites have also played a role in providing comfort and building communities.
> 
> "Seen some lovely tweets from sober brothers/sisters about not drinking/using right now," actor Rob Delaney tweeted early Wednesday morning. "I'm sober & I won't drink today. Don't you either."
> 
> Dr. Draper also recommended that those who currently feel hopeless find ways to show compassion to others by joining a volunteer organization or supporting a cause that promotes issues they care about.
> 
> "Bind that anxiety through action," he told CNN. "Creating a more kind, personal atmosphere is really needed right now."


http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2016/1113/How-crisis-hotlines-are-helping-people-cope-with-the-election-results


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Seems to be a developing strategy here. Trump isn't abandoning the group that's anti-establishment ... It seems like he's trying to keep polar opposites together - but two primary appointments with power are as establishment as you can get. 

I don't see it as necessarily a bad thing, I'm curious as to how he's going to get these guys to work together and accomplish things.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The5star_Kid said:


> That's the popular narrative but not entirely true.
> 
> Many in the north owned slaves up until the civil itself, some of whom became powerful political foes of the south.
> 
> Yes slavery eventually became a part of the civil war story but it was not the cause of the civil war.


LOL

That is the main reason why the civil war happened. its a fact. Stop believing the BS white washing southern version for the civil war.

Please learn real American history. We have been over this all before in the confederate flag thread. 


Here is what states in the confederate said during the civil war when seceding from the nation


SC

"A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery....."


Miss. 

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery—the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth......."


Louisiana:
"The people of the slave holding States are bound together by the same necessity and determination to preserve African slavery."

Texas

"in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator,"




Here is a "great" quote to prove it was about slavery

"The people of the South,’ says a contemporary, ‘are not fighting for slavery but for independence.’ Let us look into this matter. It is an easy task, we think, to show up this new-fangled heresy — a heresy calculated to do us no good, for it cannot deceive foreign statesmen nor peoples, nor mislead any one here nor in Yankeeland. . . Our doctrine is this: WE ARE FIGHTING FOR INDEPENDENCE THAT OUR GREAT AND NECESSARY DOMESTIC INSTITUTION OF SLAVERY SHALL BE PRESERVED, and for the preservation of other institutions of which slavery is the groundwork."





Its silly to claim the civil war was not mainly about slavery.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL
> 
> That is the main reason why the civil war happened. its a fact. Stop believing the BS white washing southern version for the civil war.
> 
> Please learn real American history. We have been over this all before in the confederate flag thread.
> 
> 
> Here is what states in the confederate said during the civil war when seceding from the nation
> 
> 
> SC
> 
> "A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery....."
> 
> 
> Miss.
> 
> "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery—the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth......."
> 
> 
> Louisiana:
> "The people of the slave holding States are bound together by the same necessity and determination to preserve African slavery."
> 
> Texas
> 
> "in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator,"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a "great" quote to prove it was about slavery
> 
> "The people of the South,’ says a contemporary, ‘are not fighting for slavery but for independence.’ Let us look into this matter. It is an easy task, we think, to show up this new-fangled heresy — a heresy calculated to do us no good, for it cannot deceive foreign statesmen nor peoples, nor mislead any one here nor in Yankeeland. . . Our doctrine is this: WE ARE FIGHTING FOR INDEPENDENCE THAT OUR GREAT AND NECESSARY DOMESTIC INSTITUTION OF SLAVERY SHALL BE PRESERVED, and for the preservation of other institutions of which slavery is the groundwork."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its silly to claim the civil war was not mainly about slavery.


stop shit talking the south, BM. it was wrong the last time you did it.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

PLEASE LORD either start a civil war thread or leave it out.

TRUMP CARES NOT FOR SLAVES! Unless dey got big boobs and not fat pigs.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> stop shit talking the south, BM. it was wrong the last time you did it.


Who is talking shit about the south? I am quoting what the south said about the civil war during that time.

And dude its a fact the south white washes their history books.


Whitewash: New Texas history books will downplay slavery, omit KKK and Jim Crow
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/whi...-will-downplay-slavery-omit-kkk-and-jim-crow/


How Texas is whitewashing Civil War history
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...68226c-2415-11e5-b77f-eb13a215f593_story.html


This is a Trump thread so there is no point in getting into a civil war discussion. I was just correcting that person that claimed the civil war was not mostly about slavery.

And stop being so sensitive about what people say about the south. If it does not apply to you then don't take it personally.

I am from MA and Boston is said to be one of the most racist cities in the US (rightfully so) and I would not get offended by that since it's true. And Boston is like 30 minutes from me. I'm not racist so why would I care if someone points out how racist can be


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Who is talking shit about the south? I am quoting what the south said about the civil war during that time.
> 
> And dude its a fact the south white washes their history books.
> 
> 
> Whitewash: New Texas history books will downplay slavery, omit KKK and Jim Crow
> http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/whi...-will-downplay-slavery-omit-kkk-and-jim-crow/
> 
> 
> How Texas is whitewashing Civil War history
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...68226c-2415-11e5-b77f-eb13a215f593_story.html
> 
> 
> This is a Trump thread so there is no point in getting into a civil war discussion. I was just correcting that person that claimed the civil war was not mostly about slavery.
> 
> And stop being so sensitive about what people say about the south. If it does not apply to you then don't take it personally.
> 
> I am from MA and Boston is said to be one of the most racist cities in the US (rightfully so) and I would not get offended by that since it's true. And Boston is like 30 minutes from me. I'm not racist so why would I care if someone points out how racist can be


Mother of God, man. fpalm


----------



## The5star_Kid

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL
> 
> That is the main reason why the civil war happened. its a fact. Stop believing the BS white washing southern version for the civil war.
> 
> Please learn real American history. We have been over this all before in the confederate flag thread.
> 
> 
> Here is what states in the confederate said during the civil war when seceding from the nation
> 
> 
> SC
> 
> "A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery....."
> 
> 
> Miss.
> 
> "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery—the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth......."
> 
> 
> Louisiana:
> "The people of the slave holding States are bound together by the same necessity and determination to preserve African slavery."
> 
> Texas
> 
> "in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator,"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a "great" quote to prove it was about slavery
> 
> "The people of the South,’ says a contemporary, ‘are not fighting for slavery but for independence.’ Let us look into this matter. It is an easy task, we think, to show up this new-fangled heresy — a heresy calculated to do us no good, for it cannot deceive foreign statesmen nor peoples, nor mislead any one here nor in Yankeeland. . . Our doctrine is this: WE ARE FIGHTING FOR INDEPENDENCE THAT OUR GREAT AND NECESSARY DOMESTIC INSTITUTION OF SLAVERY SHALL BE PRESERVED, and for the preservation of other institutions of which slavery is the groundwork."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its silly to claim the civil war was not mainly about slavery.


I understand what you're saying but my reasoning and the historical fact still remains: slavery was not the only reason for the civil war.

Economic conditions had already been formulated by that point in the 19th century that led to a large difference in the financial fortunes of the everyday individual in the North and the everyday individual of the South. As the north moved more towards industrialisation, education, a higher standing in government and so on, the south had a large chunk of it's income from farming and agriculture in general, a lot of which relied on slave labour. The north knew that complete domination of the south would come through strangling what little economic gain they had at the time. 

this was not some moral battle to end slavery, it was a way to further impose the superiority of Washington and her allies over a new dominion of states, united under a single constitution which still harboured the old hatreds of empire. 

Anyway, all of this is useless because history proves my point. However many proclamations of emancipation you wish to quote, how ever many politicians, the fact remains that well into the 20th century, not only was there segregation, a large chunk of the ruling elite still believed black people to be inferior. 

Well into the 1940s, many practitioners of medicine, across the south AND north believed that black people were fundamentally a lower, evolutionary species and thus could not and hsould not be treated in white hospitals.

If the north so despised slavery and thus the demeaning of the black race, why did it take them another century to take a single step beyond proclamation?


----------



## amhlilhaus

birthday_massacre said:


> amhlilhaus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evidently you dont understand why the civil war happened.
> 
> The southern states (rural areas) didnt feel like they were treated fairly by the north (cities)
> 
> 
> 
> the civil war happened because of slavery. The south wanted to keep slavery and the north did not.
Click to expand...

Believe what you will.

Slavery only became an issue to help keep england out of the war.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The5star_Kid said:


> I understand what you're saying but my reasoning and the historical fact still remains: slavery was not the only reason for the civil war.
> 
> Economic conditions had already been formulated by that point in the 19th century that led to a large difference in the financial fortunes of the everyday individual in the North and the everyday individual of the South. As the north moved more towards industrialisation, education, a higher standing in government and so on, the south had a large chunk of it's income from farming and agriculture in general, a lot of which relied on slave labour. The north knew that complete domination of the south would come through strangling what little economic gain they had at the time.
> 
> this was not some moral battle to end slavery, it was a way to further impose the superiority of Washington and her allies over a new dominion of states, united under a single constitution which still harboured the old hatreds of empire.
> 
> Anyway, all of this is useless because history proves my point. However many proclamations of emancipation you wish to quote, how ever many politicians, the fact remains that well into the 20th century, not only was there segregation, a large chunk of the ruling elite still believed black people to be inferior.
> 
> Well into the 1940s, many practitioners of medicine, across the south AND north believed that black people were fundamentally a lower, evolutionary species and thus could not and hsould not be treated in white hospitals.
> 
> If the north so despised slavery and thus the demeaning of the black race, why did it take them another century to take a single step beyond proclamation?


Slavery was not the only reason but it was the MAIN reason. 



amhlilhaus said:


> Believe what you will.
> 
> Slavery only became an issue to help keep england out of the war.



You don't know your American history but believe what you want.


This is my last post on this. I already backed it up with what the south said during those times. If you want to ignore it go ahead. You still wont change the real reasons.


----------



## Trivette

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

:kobelol


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> I'm not savvy in the process, can Trump pick literally whoever if he wanted, or are there official guidelines? Do they need to be (or have been in the past) in the legislative process somewhere?


Anyone that works directly with him at the White House (Chief of Staff and Press Secretary, advisors, etc) can be picked by the President directly. His Cabinet members, ambassadors, judges on the SCOTUS and other federal levels require Senate confirmation


----------



## CenaBoy4Life

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> by itself perhaps, but Bannon is also there. Preibus may be establishment but he was also one of the few who actually had common sense and supported him. He gets the congress to listen and Bannon tells him not to get outa line.


Preibus bent the knee very early on. He also warned the others and said get on board. This guy has lots of inside useful information and influence.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



BruiserKC said:


> Anyone that works directly with him at the White House (Chief of Staff and Press Secretary, advisors, etc) can be picked by the President directly. His Cabinet members, ambassadors, judges on the SCOTUS and other federal levels require Senate confirmation


Ah I see. I'm sure The Senate will be fine with Beatles123 as the new 'American Greatness Ambassador'.


----------



## Lady Eastwood

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> But the thing I will bring up once again is Trump got less votes than Hillary Clinton. Just because our country uses a stupid EC voting system a person with less votes won .
> 
> And lets cut the shit on this bullshit oh they need to just the fuck up and behave. Protesting is a first amendment right and most of them are peaceful. Stop lying and claiming most are riots.
> 
> And ill also bring this up once again for the hypocrites
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you need a safe space that you can't deal with people protesting? (and not the idiots that are rioting those people are totally in the wrong, that is a different story but most are peaceful)
> 
> 99.9% of the protestors are doing it the right way. The few bad assholes who vandalize or cause violence make everyone look bad.



What the fuck?

You are asking ME if I need a fucking safe space? Really?

It's okay that you have your tongue in Hillary's asshole, but, that wont change shit, so just set your alarm and go to work. If people want to protest, I never fucking said they couldn't, I just think it's a waste of time because what's done is done and we all have to deal with it. These people insisted Trump deal with the outcome, yet, look at them NOT dealing with it.


----------



## Jabez Makaveli

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Here's to hoping Trump gets impeached and we have a real election with real candidates instead of the two laughing stocks that were the last two standing. Protesting won't change the outcome, but what else is there to do to be honest?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Catalanotto said:


> What the fuck?
> 
> You are asking ME if I need a fucking safe space? Really?
> 
> It's okay that you have your tongue in Hillary's asshole, but, that wont change shit, so just set your alarm and go to work. If people want to protest, I never fucking said they couldn't, I just think it's a waste of time because what's done is done and we all have to deal with it. These people insisted Trump deal with the outcome, yet, look at them NOT dealing with it.


Yes you do because you are crying about people expressing their first amendment rights. 

And sorry but I am not a Hillary supporter. Protesting is not a waste of time it never has been. People like you always claim oh all these people are bitching about something but never do anything about it. When now they are and you are complaining the are doing something about it.

And like I said, Trump in 2012 did not want to deal with the outcome and told people to protest. And now in 2016 people are protesting against him.

IRONY


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



A-Will said:


> Here's to hoping Trump gets impeached and we have a real election with real candidates


That's not how it works...

Impeach Trump and you get President Pence, who is far less liberal-friendly than Trump.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> That's not how it works...
> 
> Impeach Trump and you get President Pence, who is far less liberal-friendly than Trump.


Pence is a million times worse than Trump. That is why Trump picked him, so they would not impeach him


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



> Noisy political theater is in full swing: protest marches over President-elect Donald Trump’s victory have warranted considerable coverage by the media. But does the nation as a whole share in the protesters’ angry insistence that Mr. Trump is “not my president?” Well, maybe not.
> “Now that Trump has been declared the winner and will be inaugurated in January, will you accept him as the legitimate president, or not?” asks a new Gallup poll.
> The numbers: 84 percent of Americans said they accept Mr. Trump; that number includes 76 percent of those who supported Hillary Clinton. The pollster had similar findings when it asked the same question during the 2000 election, which ultimately relied on Supreme Court decision to pronounce George W. Bush the victor over Al Gore.
> SEE ALSO: After years of IRS delay, 2 tea party groups denied tax-exempt status
> “Americans rated the campaign more negatively than any in recent memory. Even so, the majority, 58 percent, say the 2016 election process has not caused permanent harm to the U.S., although 38 percent say it has,” writes Gallup analyst Jeffrey Jones.
> The nation may be calming down already, perhaps. The poll also found that the prevailing reaction among Americans following Mr. Trump’s win was simply surprise; only 29 percent were “angry.” See more numbers in the Poll du Jour at column’s end.
> 67 DAYS AND COUNTING
> 
> SPONSORED CONTENT
> Trump's IQ Will Shock You
> Trump's IQ Will Shock You
> The Celeb Buzz
> Secret Clintons Pictures That Will Leave You Dumbfounded
> Secret Clintons Pictures That Will Leave You Dumbfounded
> Frank151
> 27 Stars Who Hate The President
> 27 Stars Who Hate The President
> Stars
> Recommended by
> The Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies has rumbled to life, hammering out the complicated schedule for President-elect Donald Trump’s big moment, now 67 days off. There’s a morning worship service, a procession to the U.S. Capitol, swearing-in ceremonies, Mr. Trump’s inaugural address, a formal luncheon, a parade and of course the evening’s galas — typically 14 official inaugural balls.
> But not everyone is in party mode.
> “Protest against Donald Trump on Inauguration Day: Fight Racism, Defend Immigrants!” advises a vigorous new invitation from the Answer Coalition, which plans to begin a “massive demonstration” beginning at 7 a.m. sharp at Freedom Plaza in the nation’s capital — right on Pennsylvania Avenue about three blocks from the White House.
> “It is critically important that we keep building a larger grass-roots movement against war, militarism, racism, anti-immigrant scapegoating and neoliberal capitalism’s assault against workers’ living standards and the environment,” the organization says in its public notice — also requesting donations “to cover the cost of buses, leaflets, placards and other organizing expenses.”
> LIBERALS IN THE GRIM AFTERMATH
> “Liberalism, for all its virtues, has begun to develop a sense of entitlement, and needs time to rediscover its soul,” writes Stephen L. Carter, a columnist for Bloomberg News.
> “The Left has work to do, not only on policy and organization but also on attitude. Too many of my progressive friends seem to have forgotten how to make actual arguments, and have become expert instead at condemnation, derision and mockery. On issue after issue, they’re very good at explaining why no one could oppose their policy positions except for the basest of motives. As to those positions themselves, they are too often announced with a zealous solemnity suggesting that their views are Holy Writ — and those who disagree are cast into the outer political darkness. In short, the left has lately been dripping with hubris, which in classic literature always portends a fall,” says Mr. Carter.
> REPUBLICAN AFFIRMATION
> Well, there sure won’t be any GOP “autopsy” this year. Nope.
> The Republican National Committee gathers some of its heavyweight movers and shakers together on Monday to talk over the organization’s role in the 2016 election. Despite negative coverage about their efforts — or no coverage at all — the committee ran a focused, relentless campaign that raised $282 million, organized 26 million get-out-the-vote phone calls and sent out 51 million emails. Among many things.
> On hand at a private club on Capitol Hill in early afternoon to reveal all: Republican National Committee chief-of-staff Katie Walsh, chief strategist and communications director Sean Spicer, political director Chris Carr, digital director Gerrit Lansing, and research partner Bill Skelly.
> TUCKER’S DEBUT
> Look for new programming on Fox News. Monday marks the debut of “Tucker Carlson Tonight” showcasing the newsman of the same name. Mr. Carlson takes over the coveted 7 p.m. ET time slot to offer “powerful analysis and spirited debates” with a variety if guests from across the political and cultural spectrum.” He’ll also regularly home in on political correctness and media bias.
> Mr. Carlson has been a contributor and co-host at Fox News since 2009; he founded the much read “Daily Caller” online news site the following year and remains a “passive owner” rather than a hands-on guy at this point. He previously spent three years hosting “Tucker,” a political chat fest on MSNBC, and another five years on CNN co-hosting “The Spin Room” and later “Crossfire.” He began his career at Policy Review, a national conservative journal, and also worked at the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette and The Weekly Standard.
> Greta Van Susteren, who anchored the 7 p.m. spot with her own show for years, left the network in September.
> “If the right opportunity arises, I will be back on TV. If not, I will just do other things,” she tweeted on Sunday.
> POLL DU JOUR
> • 75 percent of Americans say they were “surprised” by President-elect Donald Trump’s victory; 62 percent of those who voted for Mr. Trump and 88 percent of those who supported Hillary Clinton agree.
> • 42 percent overall say they are “afraid” about the Trump victory; 5 percent of Trump voters and 76 percent of Clinton voters agree.
> • 40 percent are “relieved” that Mr. Trump won; 91 percent of Trump voters and 9 percent of Clinton voters agree.
> • 35 percent overall are “excited” by the results; 80 percent of Trump voters and 5 percent of Clinton voters agree.
> • 34 percent overall are “devastated” by the results; 3 percent of Trump voters and 66 percent of Clinton voters agree.
> • 29 percent overall are “angry”; 3 percent of Trump voters and 58 percent of Clinton voters agree.
> Source: A Gallup survey of 511 U.S. adults conducted Nov. 9.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/13/americans-accept-donald-trump-as-president/


----------



## Jabez Makaveli

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> That's not how it works...
> 
> Impeach Trump and you get President Pence, who is far less liberal-friendly than Trump.


I know. It's just a dream that'll never be reality


----------



## Banez

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

heard he's refusing the presidential salary.


----------



## southrnbygrace

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I found this over on Facebook. I've never heard of the guy but IF he said this, even in satire, he's dead on the money. For me, especially the bolded parts. 

_British actor and comedian Tom Walker’s satirical leftwing persona “Jonathan Pie” launched into an epic rant blaming Donald Trump’s victory on the penchant of leftwing social justice warriors to hurl insults at their opponents, stifle political debate, and label anyone who disagrees with them as sexist and racist.
“Not everyone that voted for Trump is a sexist or a racist,” he rails. “How many times does the vote not have to go our way before we realize that our argument isn’t won by hurling labels and insults?”

Below is a partial transcript:

*The left is responsible for this result because the left have now decided that any other opinion, any other way of looking at the world is unacceptable. We don’t debate anymore because the left won the cultural wars. So if you’re on the right, you’re a freak. You’re evil. You’re racist. You’re stupid. You are a basket of deplorables. How do you think people are going to vote if you talk to them like that? When has anyone ever been persuaded by being insulted or labeled?*

So now if you are on the right or even against the prevailing view, you are attacked for raising your opinion. That’s why people wait until they’re in the voting booth. No one’s watching any more, there’s no blame or shame or anything, and you can finally say what you really think, and that is a powerful thing.

The Tories in charge, Brexit, and now Trump. And all the polls were wrong. All of them! Because when asked people can’t admit what they think. They can’t admit what they think! They’re not allowed to! The left don’t allow them to! We have made people unable to articulate their position for fear of being shut down. They’re embarrassed to say it. Every time someone on the left has said, “You mustn’t say that,” they are contributing to this culture.

It’s time to stop moaning. It’s time to stop crying over spilt f+++ing Brexit. It time to stop ignoring your opponents or worst trying to silence them. It’s time to stop banning people from speaking in universities. It’s time to stop thinking that reposting an article on your Facebook feed is political engagement. That banning a gymnast from doing what he’s good at because he insulted someone’s religion somehow achieves something. And sorry, when did the gymnast’s association start thinking it was appropriate to start enforcing blasphemy laws?

It’s time to realize that reading The Guardian doesn’t make you a liberal. That re-tweeting Green Peace doesn’t lower your carbon footprint.

And if my mansplaining is triggering you, you can either f++k off to your safe space or you can engage and debate me and tell me what I’m getting wrong. Because Trump just won the White House. Being offended doesn’t work any more. *Throwing insults doesn’t work any more.*

The only thing that works is f+++ing bothering, doing something, and all you have to do is engage in the debate. Talk to people who think differently to you and persuade them of your argument. It’s so easy, and the left have lost the art. Stop thinking that everyone who disagrees with you is evil or racist or sexist or stupid, and talk to them, persuade them otherwise because if you don’t. I’ll tell you what you get – you get President Donald Trump._


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Banez said:


> heard he's refusing the presidential salary.


And also this: 


> “I feel that I want to focus on jobs, I want to focus on healthcare, I want to focus on the border and immigration and doing a really great immigration bill,” he explained, adding, “I don’t want to hurt [the Clintons]. They’re good people. I don’t want to hurt them. And I will give you a very, very good and definitive answer the next time we do 60 Minutes together.”


Well, I doubt anyone really thought that he was gonna put Clinton behind bars. Just as I'm pretty sure that Clinton doesn't think he's a racist, mysoginist, homophobe blah blah blah. 

The're all cut from the same cloth and attend the same parties. Imagine Trump's standing in the billionaire club if he even attempts to put one of them behind bars in reality.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

He may feel it would be too much of a political circus and harm his goal of unifying the country, but I'll still be disappointed if he doesn't go after the Clintons. They are not good people, they are evil and should be prosecuted under the law for their likely illegal acts. Nevermind how their campaign actively worked to divide the country with racist and sexist propaganda against President-elect Trump, which helped create the current volatile climate. They need to be punished.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

With you on this CP, but it's unlikely to happen. Even if Trump was to go after the Clintons, I personally would want it to be one of the last things he does as president because I'd rather his legacy be all the other stuff he's promised and not one where we know the press is going to ignore everything he does and makes his entire presidency about his feud with the Hillary.


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@southrnbygrace



southrnbygrace said:


> I found this over on Facebook. I've never heard of the guy but IF he said this, even in satire, he's dead on the money. For me, especially the bolded parts.
> 
> _British actor and comedian Tom Walker’s satirical leftwing persona “Jonathan Pie” launched into an epic rant blaming Donald Trump’s victory on the penchant of leftwing social justice warriors to hurl insults at their opponents, stifle political debate, and label anyone who disagrees with them as sexist and racist.
> “Not everyone that voted for Trump is a sexist or a racist,” he rails. “How many times does the vote not have to go our way before we realize that our argument isn’t won by hurling labels and insults?”
> 
> Below is a partial transcript:
> 
> *The left is responsible for this result because the left have now decided that any other opinion, any other way of looking at the world is unacceptable. We don’t debate anymore because the left won the cultural wars. So if you’re on the right, you’re a freak. You’re evil. You’re racist. You’re stupid. You are a basket of deplorables. How do you think people are going to vote if you talk to them like that? When has anyone ever been persuaded by being insulted or labeled?*
> 
> So now if you are on the right or even against the prevailing view, you are attacked for raising your opinion. That’s why people wait until they’re in the voting booth. No one’s watching any more, there’s no blame or shame or anything, and you can finally say what you really think, and that is a powerful thing.
> 
> The Tories in charge, Brexit, and now Trump. And all the polls were wrong. All of them! Because when asked people can’t admit what they think. They can’t admit what they think! They’re not allowed to! The left don’t allow them to! We have made people unable to articulate their position for fear of being shut down. They’re embarrassed to say it. Every time someone on the left has said, “You mustn’t say that,” they are contributing to this culture.
> 
> It’s time to stop moaning. It’s time to stop crying over spilt f+++ing Brexit. It time to stop ignoring your opponents or worst trying to silence them. It’s time to stop banning people from speaking in universities. It’s time to stop thinking that reposting an article on your Facebook feed is political engagement. That banning a gymnast from doing what he’s good at because he insulted someone’s religion somehow achieves something. And sorry, when did the gymnast’s association start thinking it was appropriate to start enforcing blasphemy laws?
> 
> It’s time to realize that reading The Guardian doesn’t make you a liberal. That re-tweeting Green Peace doesn’t lower your carbon footprint.
> 
> And if my mansplaining is triggering you, you can either f++k off to your safe space or you can engage and debate me and tell me what I’m getting wrong. Because Trump just won the White House. Being offended doesn’t work any more. *Throwing insults doesn’t work any more.*
> 
> The only thing that works is f+++ing bothering, doing something, and all you have to do is engage in the debate. Talk to people who think differently to you and persuade them of your argument. It’s so easy, and the left have lost the art. Stop thinking that everyone who disagrees with you is evil or racist or sexist or stupid, and talk to them, persuade them otherwise because if you don’t. I’ll tell you what you get – you get President Donald Trump._



*The video was posted in the thread and it's amazing. Looking at it in print is really good but to see the video is truly phenomenal. Here it is again. It might be my favorite video of the year.





*


----------



## -XERO-

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/797975156941459456


----------



## McGee

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

You're a good man Donald Trump. A damn good man.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



-PerfectDarkness- said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/797975156941459456


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> He may feel it would be too much of a political circus and harm his goal of unifying the country, but I'll still be disappointed if he doesn't go after the Clintons. They are not good people, they are evil and should be prosecuted under the law for their likely illegal acts. Nevermind how their campaign actively worked to divide the country with racist and sexist propaganda against President-elect Trump, which helped create the current volatile climate. They need to be punished.


I would suggest Trump circumvents the regular judicial process and holds then in somewhere like Gitmo until a special anti-evil case is built. When you're dealing with evil like that you can't really be too aggressive.

Would you say throw in Chelsea Clinton as well for good measure?


----------



## Ruth

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> I would suggest Trump circumvents the regular judicial process and holds then in somewhere like Gitmo until a special anti-evil case is built. When you're dealing with evil like that you can't really be too aggressive.
> 
> Would you say throw in Chelsea Clinton as well for good measure?


i hear :trump's getting them on the World Court docket as soon as it's done with the latest Dr. Evil case


----------



## Reotor

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*










:lol


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> He may feel it would be too much of a political circus and harm his goal of unifying the country, but I'll still be disappointed if he doesn't go after the Clintons. They are not good people, they are evil and should be prosecuted under the law for their likely illegal acts. Nevermind how their campaign actively worked to divide the country with racist and sexist propaganda against President-elect Trump, which helped create the current volatile climate. They need to be punished.





Carte Blanche said:


> With you on this CP, but it's unlikely to happen. Even if Trump was to go after the Clintons, I personally would want it to be one of the last things he does as president because I'd rather his legacy be all the other stuff he's promised and not one where we know the press is going to ignore everything he does and makes his entire presidency about his feud with the Hillary.


Also the Clinton camp and the DNC might have tried to rig the general election as well. The Pied Piper Wikileaks stated that Hillary most wanted to face Trump in the general election. In 2008, Rush Limbaugh told his listeners to openly cross over into open primaries and vote in the Democratic races to keep that race close, possibly all the way to the Democratic National Convention. They estimated 12-15 million Democrats crossed over during open primaries in this election cycle and voted for Trump. There is a very real possibility that there was some collusion with a decent number of those votes in the expectation that they could get Trump in the general election and then Clinton could easily defeat him. Of course, that plan backfired if that was the case as it obviously did for Limbaugh and his ilk in 2008. 

However, there is such a thing as unintended consequences if he did pursue a case against the Clintons. The term in the legal system is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There would need to be an unquestioned, no doubt about it, open and shut case. You can't leave even the slightest possibility that she might be not guilty (as farfetched as the concept is). The biggest thing, however, would be that you might be opening a Pandora's box by going down this road. In many other nations around the world, there are many cases of political adversaries in elections getting arrested and jailed for far less serious (and in some cases, trumped up) charges. If you go down this path in this country, when at some point down the road the Democrats come back into control, what's to say they won't do the same thing and go after a Republican opponent and get them put in prison? Is this something that they really want to see happen in this country? We complain about the lack of good candidates now...imagine if there's the threat of losing your freedom after an election. The pool will be even smaller. 

What I would be fine with is to require the Clintons to close down the Foundation as it is now. Then, revamp it and start it up again in a different format, as a truly charitable foundation that can do good in the world. Bill Clinton, for all his faults, has done some good in his post-President career and they could use the Foundation to do just that moving forward. Leave those terms on, and then let them know if they follow through and keep it clean that they will not risk prosecution. However, leave open the possibility that if they don't do that and continue with the Foundation as it is that they could prosecute. 

Of course, Obama could render it all moot and pardon the Clintons on his way out the door. Remember, this was one of Trump's core promises and there are a number of supporters who will be alienated if he doesn't follow through. If she is pardoned, he is off the hook and it's not his fault he couldn't keep that promise.


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

President-elect Pussy Grabber thinks up to 3 million of the 11 million undocumented immigrants are gang members and criminals



CNN said:


> He pledged to focus first on deporting those who have committed crimes within the United States -- "*gang members, drug dealers ... probably two million, it could even be three million" -- and worry about others later. *


http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/13/politics/paul-ryan-donald-trump-obamacare-deportation-force/index.html

Lol 27% of undocumented immigrants are criminals in this cock sucker's mind, except that would mean that 28% or more of native-born Americans are criminals since studies show undocumented immigrants are less likely to commit crime than natives.



Walter Ewing said:


> According to an original analysis of data from the 2010 American Community Survey (ACS) conducted by the authors of this report, *roughly 1.6 percent of immigrant males age 18-39 are incarcerated, compared to 3.3 percent of the native-born. *This disparity in incarceration rates has existed for decades, as evidenced by data from the 1980, 1990, and 2000 decennial censuses.* In each of those years, the incarceration rates of the native-born were anywhere from two to five times higher than that of immigrants.*
> 
> The 2010 Census data reveals that incarceration rates among the young, less-educated Mexican, Salvadoran, and Guatemalan men who make up the bulk of the unauthorized population are significantly lower than the incarceration rate among native-born young men without a high-school diploma. *In 2010, less-educated native-born men age 18-39 had an incarceration rate of 10.7 percent—more than triple the 2.8 percent rate among foreign-born Mexican men, and five times greater than the 1.7 percent rate among foreign-born Salvadoran and Guatemalan men.*


https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/criminalization-immigration-united-states?utm_content=buffercf974&utm_source=buffer&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Buffer


How is it not a race issue when he keeps calling undocumented immigrants criminals and gang members when the facts don't support it?


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> President-elect Pussy Grabber thinks up to 3 million of the 11 million undocumented immigrants are gang members and criminals
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/13/politics/paul-ryan-donald-trump-obamacare-deportation-force/index.html
> 
> Lol 27% of undocumented immigrants are criminals in this cock sucker's mind, except that would mean that 28% or more of native-born Americans are criminals since studies show undocumented immigrants are less likely to commit crime than natives.
> 
> 
> https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/criminalization-immigration-united-states?utm_content=buffercf974&utm_source=buffer&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Buffer
> 
> 
> How is it not a race issue when he keeps calling undocumented immigrants criminals and gang members when the facts don't support it?


*Don't worry, he's got a plan, and it's fantastic. He can't explain it, but just know it's fantastic.*


----------



## Alco

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



AryaDark said:


> @southrnbygrace
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The video was posted in the thread and it's amazing. Looking at it in print is really good but to see the video is truly phenomenal. Here it is again. It might be my favorite video of the year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *


Seldom have I seen a more inspiring speech. I think I'm in love.


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Legit BOSS said:


> *Don't worry, he's got a plan, and it's fantastic. He can't explain it, but just know it's fantastic.*


Well Paul Ryan is trying to convince people they won't start a deportation force and start rounding up immigrants like the Japanese in '42 and then Predident Camacho immediately undoes that in his next breath. Now Paul Ryan's a slimy dickcheese, but at least he's trying not to look like the bogeyman, Trump is _actively_ trying to provoke fear in people. 29%!! 29% of hispanics voted for this evil fuck; I feel like, the majority of whom, have to love or at least know somebody that would be in Trump's crosshairs.

I hope he spends tens of billions of dollars deporting people, and tens of billions of dollars building a wall, and drains the hundreds of billions of dollars they add to the economy, and the net result will be a crime rate that won't change, a massive increase in the deficit, and a bunch of job openings for people who won't do them at that pay. Plus in the process, we will have made an enemy of our third largest trade partner.


----------



## AmWolves10

all I have to say is WE THE PEOPLE!!!


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Trump elected president and we get a supermoon.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> Well Paul Ryan is trying to convince people they won't start a deportation force and start rounding up immigrants like the Japanese in '42 and then Predident Camacho immediately undoes that in his next breath. Now Paul Ryan's a slimy dickcheese, but at least he's trying not to look like the bogeyman, Trump is _actively_ trying to provoke fear in people. 29%!! 29% of hispanics voted for this evil fuck; I feel like, the majority of whom, have to love or at least know somebody that would be in Trump's crosshairs.
> 
> I hope he spends tens of billions of dollars deporting people, and tens of billions of dollars building a wall, and drains the hundreds of billions of dollars they add to the economy, and the net result will be a crime rate that won't change, a massive increase in the deficit, and a bunch of job openings for people who won't do them at that pay. Plus in the process, we will have made an enemy of our third largest trade partner.


Up until 2014 incidentally just before the primaries really got going, the democrats and liberal supporters used to call Obama deporter-in-cheif because he has statistically deported more illegal immigrants than any president before him. (And these numbers were tracked by the MSM only until 2014 just before they switched sides). 

How easily the democrats switched their views on immigration the minute Trump came out with his rhetoric. 



> *Since coming to office in 2009, Obama’s government has deported more than 2.5 million people—up 23% from the George W. Bush years. *More shockingly, Obama is now on pace to deport more people than the sum of all 19 presidents who governed the United States from 1892-2000, according to government data.


Yes, Trump's statistics are wrong in a manner of speaking but his rhetoric isn't full of crap - but when it's all said and done it's likely that his numbers won't be that much higher than other presidents mainly because Trump's numbers aren't really wrong (just that there's a fascist narrative spun on them) considering that his number of 2.5-3.0 million is very close to the number of Obama's deportations. 

Right now he's talking about deporting criminal mexicans illegals meaning that when the bureaucracy starts actually working on it, his numbers and likely his rhetoric will change as well.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

The cost to taxpayers educate the children of illegal immigrants is estimated to run in excess of thirteen billion a year. According to 2014 Justice Department statistics, there are no fewer than 1.3 million illegal immigrant gang members who are responsible for a rather shocking 18% of all violent crime in the U.S. for that year. The Center for Immigration Studies notes that several of the U.S.'s most ruthless gangs are comprised almost exclusively of illegal immigrants, the cost of combatting runs in excess of seven billion dollars for all levels of American law enforcement. Mexican drug cartels are conducting paramilitary operations within the U.S. and have been for at least a good ten years now, especially in Arizona where Arizona law enforcement officers have been told to give particular cartels a wide berth unless they want to be executed by cartel snipers who dot many of the primary arteries near the border. The Center for Immigration Studies also notes that 30-35% of all federal, state and local prison populations are comprised of illegal immigrants. The cost of incarcerating all of them runs in excess of $2.3 billion annually, and those are 2012 numbers. 

Moreover, with automation coming soon for major harvesting operations, the need for so much unskilled labor is going to be dramatically reduced. A "migrant hangover" is inevitable: 




Closing the border from criminals and drug cartel operations and drugs as much as possible could all help the U.S.'s national cohesion, which, as 2016 has displayed in massive neon flashing lights, could use it going forward. Irish, Italian, Polish, Chinese, Japanese and other immigrant populations, along with native Anglos and blacks, had the chance to stew together from 1924 until 1965, which helped provide all groups with ample opportunity for upward mobility from the despair of the Great Depression to the colossal postwar economic expansion through the 1950s and 1960s. A four-decade pause in all immigration need not be called for, but shutting off the constant faucet, as it were, from the south, will give millions of Hispanics and their posterity, who are set to be the majority demographic in only twenty-five or so years now, a similar chance to climb socioeconomic rungs, as well as everyone else in the U.S.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



DesolationRow said:


> A four-decade pause in all immigration need not be called for, but shutting off the constant faucet, as it were, from the south, will give millions of Hispanics and their posterity, who are set to be the majority demographic in only twenty-five or so years now, a similar chance to climb socioeconomic rungs, as well as everyone else in the U.S.


I feel sorry for people who just started reading the news this election cycle because just before the primaries, Obama used to be known as deporter in chief having deported more illegals than any president before him :kobelol 

I hate to call people sheep, but I can't help but mock the bleating this year.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> I feel sorry for people who just started reading the news this election cycle because just before the primaries, Obama used to be known as deporter in chief having deported more illegals than any president before him :kobelol
> 
> I hate to call people sheep, but I can't help but mock the bleating this year.


:lol

Yes, it's true. I appreciated Trump bringing that point up in the third and final presidential debate. :lol Everyone in the room acted like he was crazy (and, you know, maybe he is :side: :lol) but he was completely right about that. 

Also: as Trump noted way back in August and September a few times, some of the most notorious "illegal aliens" in the U.S. are Russian and Armenian gangsters and murderers. Both Russian and Armenian mobs have intricate networks in California and have had so for a long, long time now (we have everything! :lol). My father's doctor is a Russian-American lady (married to an Iranian moderate Muslim who fled in 1979 as a kid), daughter of Russian immigrants during the Cold War. According to her, several Russian old ladies who are members of San Francisco's large Russian population were planning to call up Trump's federal government personally come late January, telling them where to find some of the bad illegal Russian criminals in San Francisco. :lol

This reminds me, I saw a tweet from a Latina lady the morning after the election, saying,


> I pray that Trump doesn't deport my illegal Colombian ex that lives on 34 116th street Harlem NY 10029 2nd door from the left apt 2C @USCIS


:lmao :hglol :done


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



AryaDark said:


> @southrnbygrace
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The video was posted in the thread and it's amazing. Looking at it in print is really good but to see the video is truly phenomenal. Here it is again. It might be my favorite video of the year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *


I agree with everything he said, but as he pointed out we (the left) _did_ win the cultural war, an educated and moral society _should_ move closer to our social positions than the right's. When Mike Pence said that gay couples signaled "societal collapse" or made applying for a marriage license in Indiana a felony for gay couples, was he not being homophobic? When Trump said "laziness is a trait in blacks", or denied them equal housing that got him sued by the Justice dept. twice, or constantly calls Mexicans criminals when the facts don't support it, is it not fair to call him racist? When he talks about kissing women and grabbing them by the pussy without permision, or speaking about them only in terms of their looks or comparing them to dogs, pigs, buildings and art, is it not fair to call him sexist? And for the people who support these fucks, aren't you implicitly supporting their stated public positions? 

If you're a wealthy person who says they vote GOP because of conservative fiscal policy, which has been proven time and time again to stagnate the economy and only grow the wealth disparity, I'm going to think that you only care about getting richer and you don't give a shit about poor people; if you're a poor person that votes GOP because of fiscal policy that consistently fucks people like you, then I'm going to think that you're an idiot. And if you vote GOP because of their backwards social policies then it's fair to think that you're sexist, racist, homophobic or Islamaphobic because you don't want others to have the same rights or quality of life that you have. If fiscal conservatives don't want to be associated with the craziness and small mindedness there's always the libertarian party.

I guess the difference between myself and the "regressive left" is that I won't publically shame you or label you or try to deny you a platform to say what you feel; I might think that you're a piece of shit in the back of my mind, but I want people to out themselves, republicans with Twitter accounts just confirm what I had already assumed. The thought police shit has to end, if only because shaming an asshole doesn't make them change how they think, it just teaches them how to be stealthier about being an asshole.


----------



## DoolieNoted

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

People were far more civilised when a common way to finish a spirited 'debate' was a nice sharp sword.

Moral guardians, thought police, perpetually fauxfended buttercups, hug-ins, safe spaces, participation prizes.. 


It's kinda sad that with all the adaptability and ingenuity humans have we just seem to want to turn on ourselves for the most ridiculous reasons.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> And for the people who support these fucks, aren't you implicitly supporting their stated public positions?


That's not how electing political leadership works for everyone. Sure there are some people who support these people for their bigotry and sexism and homophobia, but implying that everyone that supports them for other reasons are supporting their bigoted positions is stereotyping and a major fallacy. 

The thing is that most of the social reform has already happened legally and under the constitution. I cannot think of a single legal that minorities, women and gays and lesbians don't have anymore. The fact that they are social bigots does not mean that all supporters (or even a majority of supporters) will switch sides and support them in their bigotry. The majority of Americans now support abortion, gay marriage and equal rights for women. If any of these so-called bigots try to implement a legalized form of discrimination on any of the people they personally dislike or speak against, they will lost support of the majority even faster. 

The thing is that while you have openly bigoted policy-makers whose social views are unpalatable and even unacceptable are in power in America does not mean that they can push those policies into the federal government. 

As Trump said about gay marriage: It's a law and the supreme court has ruled on it, so it stays. That should be the end of discussion there. America over-turned all Jim Crow laws and it's very unlikely that the federal government will try to push any such type of policies when even at the peak of racial discrimination in this country the federal government could not push any discriminatory policy because the Supreme Court of the land had already ruled against discrimination. 

State laws are a different matter, but these people who are now running the federal government are not running state governments. Will it embolden state governments to try to push bigoted agendas, it's possible. Do I think that the federal government will not interfere. Probably. However, the supreme court is independent and the system of checks and balances will prevent discriminatory policies coming into play. 

Finally, discrimination an inequality isn't something any government (even Obama's government) was something that they ended or can possibly end. The federal government cannot prevent a racist from refusing to find loopholes to prevent blacks from renting a place. The guy could very well refuse to rent out a place because someone is black but then claim it was because of renter's history or find some other reason. How far can and should the federal government go to prevent discrimination. How far _can _the federal government go to prevent discrimination?



> If you're a wealthy person who says they vote GOP because of conservative fiscal policy, which has been proven time and time again to stagnate the economy and only grow the wealth disparity, I'm going to think that you only care about getting richer and you don't give a shit about poor people; if you're a poor person that votes GOP because of fiscal policy that consistently fucks people like you, then I'm going to think that you're an idiot.


Bush's fiscal policy wasn't conservative. Bush increased federal spending and regulation which is the opposite of what fiscal conservatives really want. 



> And if you vote GOP because of their backwards social policies then it's fair to think that you're sexist, racist, homophobic or Islamaphobic because you don't want others to have the same rights or quality of life that you have. If fiscal conservatives don't want to be associated with the craziness and small mindedness there's always the libertarian party.


GOP values aren't sexist. Opposing Planned Parenthood's federal funding does not make them sexist. It makes them fiscal conservatives. 
GOP is torn on the gay rights issue. It's not a monolithic stance and the party does not and will not vote monolithically on gay rights or abortion. 
Trump's anti-Muslim platform has evolved over the election cycle before people went to vote. Now there would be some people who voted to keep muslims out of America, but there's no way to prove this debate either way so the assumption that they're islamophobes is entirely hearsay and baseless. 

Just want to add a personal note: The current version of Islam and its ideological regression in the middle east makes muslims largely incompatible with western social liberal values. 

Just gonna repost these because for some reason people love to ignore it: 



















I don't know how you can support the mass immigration (refugees) from the muslim world who are sexists and homophobes just because you want to believe that it's islamophobic. I've proven this time and time again that 90% of all average muslims (the ones that is the make up of the refugees) are homophobic and see western women as nothing but sex toys and easy women. This is why the refugee and migrant policies of europe have create social chaos in their countries.


----------



## WalkingInMemphis

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



KingCosmos said:


> Very interesting about the white voters that came out the woodwork to vote for Trump. The numbers are very telling. It shows that when they feel systematic white supremacy is threatened they will go out of the way to vote. No doubt the racial issues and riots in America has caused these people to act. They feel as if they are under attack. Which is ridiculous because systematic white supremacy would still be protected under Hilary. These people aren't the radical racist and some of them might not even realize they are white supremacist
> 
> Then you have the for lack of a better term losers that voted for Trump because they feel that it is somehow giving the middle finger to the establishment and the elite These poor saps have been beaten down in life so much that they feel voting for Trump somehow gives them a sense of power. Ironically they are voting for one of the extreme elite and are blind to the fact that anything will really change. These suckers will stay poor and the rich will keep the money
> 
> Then let's not forget the Black people for Trump simply because they thought Hilary was a snake. Also the Black voters that are Uncle toms and fail to realize in the end supporting white supremacy does not spare you from injustice because at the end of the day your skin color will always get you shot.
> 
> Then you have the Anti Clinton crowd that voted and they would put Satan in the white house before another Clinton.
> 
> Trump picked the perfect time to run for president. White people feel that their place st the top in society is threatened so they will flock naturally. This is the brutal honest truth about the people voted.


Thank you for the truth sir.


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Up until 2014 incidentally just before the primaries really got going, the democrats and liberal supporters used to call Obama deporter-in-cheif because he has statistically deported more illegal immigrants than any president before him. (And these numbers were tracked by the MSM only until 2014 just before they switched sides).
> 
> How easily the democrats switched their views on immigration the minute Trump came out with his rhetoric.
> 
> Yes, Trump's statistics are wrong in a manner of speaking but his rhetoric isn't full of crap - but when it's all said and done it's likely that his numbers won't be that much higher than other presidents mainly because Trump's numbers aren't really wrong (just that there's a fascist narrative spun on them) considering that his number of 2.5-3.0 million is very close to the number of Obama's deportations.
> 
> Right now he's talking about deporting criminal mexicans illegals meaning that when the bureaucracy starts actually working on it, his numbers and likely his rhetoric will change as well.


What your guys' stats don't show is that Obamas deportations have been decreasing yearly from 2008's 1,043,799 to 2013's 662,483 which was the last year in those documents you provided, additionally you faliled to realize (or mention) that the majority of those were caught by Border Patrol, in fact of 2013's 662,483-- 420,789 were caught by CBP, 11,996 were caught by ICE Homeland Security operations and 229,698 were caught by ICE enforcement operations. So of 11 million undocumented immigrants that were in the country in 2013, 229,000 were involved in a run in with law enforcement that got them deported, which if you do the math... is 2%. Nobody is saying immigrants shouldn't be deported when they commit crimes but if 2% of them are in jail and 2% are getting deported, combined that's still significantly lower than our 10% of native-born who are incarcerated.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> What your guys' stats don't show is that Obamas deportations have been decreasing yearly from 2008's 1,043,799 to 2013's 662,483 which was the last year in those documents you provided, additionally you faliled to realize (or mention) that the majority of those were caught by Border Patrol, in fact of 2013's 662,483-- 420,789 were caught by CBP, 11,996 were caught by ICE Homeland Security operations and 229,698 were caught by ICE enforcement operations. So of 11 million undocumented immigrants that were in the country in 2013, 229,000 were involved in a run in with law enforcement that got them deported, which if you do the math... is 2%. Nobody is saying immigrants shouldn't be deported when they commit crimes but if 2% of them are in jail and 2% are getting deported, combined that's still significantly lower than our 10% of native-born who are incarcerated.


Except what I was pointing out was that Trump's latest comments seems to suggest that he will go after the criminals first ... which is seriously what Obama's stance was. 

The thing I will give you is that it seems like he fooled us all. He's definitely changed is stance, but as I've been pointing out lately, it seems like he's going back on many of his promises. 

At the same time, let's also not give in to the mass hysteria over internment camps. I'm pretty sure he won't dare go as far as Roosevelt did. If he does, I promise, I'll sign up to fight against him in the civil war that ensues :lol


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> If you're a wealthy person who says they vote GOP because of conservative fiscal policy, which has been proven time and time again to stagnate the economy and only grow the wealth disparity, I'm going to think that you only care about getting richer and you don't give a shit about poor people; if you're a poor person that votes GOP because of fiscal policy that consistently fucks people like you, then I'm going to think that you're an idiot. And if you vote GOP because of their backwards social policies then it's fair to think that you're sexist, racist, homophobic or Islamaphobic because you don't want others to have the same rights or quality of life that you have. If fiscal conservatives don't want to be associated with the craziness and small mindedness there's always the libertarian party.


is there anybody that could vote gop without you thinking they're selfish, an idiot, racist, sexist, homophobic or islamophobic?


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Except what I was pointing out was that Trump's latest comments seems to suggest that he will go after the criminals first ... which is seriously what Obama's stance was.
> 
> The thing I will give you is that it seems like he fooled us all. He's definitely changed is stance, but as I've been pointing out lately, it seems like he's going back on many of his promises.
> 
> At the same time, let's also not give in to the mass hysteria over internment camps. I'm pretty sure he won't dare go as far as Roosevelt did. If he does, I promise, I'll sign up to fight against him in the civil war that ensues :lol


If he does, you likely wouldn't have the freedom to do so. Though I doubt he will in any situation actually go to those extremes. As a supporter of neither of the two main candidates, the one thing Trump "promised" that I was totally behind was him getting Hillary's corrupt ass thrown in jail (I personally don't think she should have even been allowed to run with all the investigations and leaks - hardly fit for purpose.) I read an article earlier where he said the Clintons were good people...huh? So wtf was he talking about for the last few months? I'm VERY wary of politicians backtracking on their promises so fast, the Tories here did it when they got elected - promised to protect the NHS from privatisation as one of their major platforms, then began the privatisation the day after the election. It's that sort of shadiness I find hard to stomach from any politician. I can't blame the people who voted for the lies, but they WERE lies, and I CAN blame the politicians for that. It happened again in Brexit: There was a promise of £350Mil for NHS funding (which tbh anybody with any knowledge of the situation knew would never materialise) which vanished pretty much the day after the Brexit result. Many of the promises for Brexit simply can not be delivered. I can't blame the Brexit voters for voting for the lies, though I must admit I find it a little stupid of those voters to think they had an "anti-establishment" vote when they were supporting Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson (both upper-class members of the establishment, one of whom was groomed for power from an early age and a member of the notorious Bullingdon club. Both were educated in private schools frequented by the gentry.) I'd hate for the US voters to have to feel something akin to the "Bregret" many Brexiters are experiencing after they were lied to en masse by the establishment to the point they thought they were voting ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT, but from the article I read it seems Trump's already doing a whole mess of backpedalling which isn't a good sign at all in my experience.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*






:lmao Watch this become true!


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Goku said:


> is there anybody that could vote gop without you thinking they're selfish, an idiot, racist, sexist, homophobic or islamophobic?


No, that was my point, I don't get the party platform. Half the party stands for making rich people richer and increasing the wealth gap, the other half stands for archaic religious bullshit that has no place in modern society. At least I can respect the avaristic and the dumb, I've got no respect for the social conservatives.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RavishingRickRules said:


> If he does, you likely wouldn't have the freedom to do so.


While I agree with you in part with just about everything else, this is why America's 2nd amendment rights are so valuable and this is exactly why Americans have fought tooth and nail for these rights for centuries. 

It is exactly to prevent the tyranny of the fascist federal state that people fight gun control laws. 

Yes, the local militia would never stand a chance against the might of the federal government - but at least knowing that there would still be massive losses in case Americans ever did rise up to fight even knowing they would lose is one of our checks and balances. 

It's not very effective and won't be very effective, but it is a deterrent nonetheless from the government becoming as oppressive as it has in the rest of the western world.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> While I agree with you in part with just about everything else, this is why America's 2nd amendment rights are so valuable and this is exactly why Americans have fought tooth and nail for these rights for centuries.
> 
> It is exactly to prevent the tyranny of the fascist federal state that people fight gun control laws.
> 
> Yes, the local militia would never stand a chance against the might of the federal government - but at least knowing that there would still be massive losses in case Americans ever did rise up to fight even knowing they would lose is one of our checks and balances.
> 
> It's not very effective and won't be very effective, but it is a deterrent nonetheless from the government becoming as oppressive as it has in the rest of the western world.


Yeah I must admit, I almost expected it in a little way the more the election went on. When people were saying "this is a dead cert for Hillary" (glad it wasn't I won a couple hundred quid betting on Trump at 9.2 lol) it did cross my mind for a second like "wait, isn't that one of the reasons they have the 2nd amendment, for a corrupt/dangerous government?" I didn't really think it'd happen, but it was in the back of my mind like "is this why they did that, hmmm." Now, I'm sure everyone knows that regardless of how many "militia men" you got together, those civilian weapons aren't going to compete with the largest and best equipped army in the world plus their allies (the best trained army in the world  .) I do wonder about some of those gun activists though if I'm honest, many of them seem to bang on about government or even personal protection though you get very few stories of attacks being stopped by concealed carriers in the general public. I'm not anti-guns though, I do think they should have more checks done because when a crazy gets one out there it's heartbreaking to see, but I have no opposition to them in general. I do think the scenario would've been more likely with Hillary though - I massively dislike Trump, I make no secret of that, I think he's a bigoted phony - but Hillary makes the Devil look nice. Shame she won't get her just desserts, like every other piece of shit criminal politician out there. And just because it pisses me off thinking about it Tony Blair can go fuck himself too. lol.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> No, that was my point, I don't get the party platform. Half the party stands for making rich people richer and increasing the wealth gap, the other half stands for archaic religious bullshit that has no place in modern society. At least I can respect the avaristic and the dumb, I've got no respect for the social conservatives.


perhaps you might be missing something?


----------



## Chloe

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Goku said:


> perhaps you might be missing something?


He's missing the fact that's he's a hypocrite. Like all hypocrites do. :kobelol


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Goku said:


> is there anybody that could vote gop without you thinking they're selfish, an idiot, racist, sexist, homophobic or islamophobic?


The party stands for all of that but not everyone that votes has to be any or all of those things but a good number of them are at least one or most of those things.


----------



## Chloe

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> The party stands for all of that but not everyone that votes has to be any or all of those things but a good number of them are at least one or most of those things.


Do you have anything to back this up or are you just spouting bullshit that sounds like statistics to make yourself sound smarter?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Yeah I must admit, I almost expected it in a little way the more the election went on. When people were saying "this is a dead cert for Hillary" (glad it wasn't I won a couple hundred quid betting on Trump at 9.2 lol) it did cross my mind for a second like "wait, isn't that one of the reasons they have the 2nd amendment, for a corrupt/dangerous government?" I didn't really think it'd happen, but it was in the back of my mind like "is this why they did that, hmmm." Now, I'm sure everyone knows that regardless of how many "militia men" you got together, those civilian weapons aren't going to compete with the largest and best equipped army in the world plus their allies (the best trained army in the world  .) I do wonder about some of those gun activists though if I'm honest, many of them seem to bang on about government or even personal protection though you get very few stories of attacks being stopped by concealed carriers in the general public. I'm not anti-guns though, I do think they should have more checks done because when a crazy gets one out there it's heartbreaking to see, but I have no opposition to them in general. I do think the scenario would've been more likely with Hillary though - I massively dislike Trump, I make no secret of that, I think he's a bigoted phony - but Hillary makes the Devil look nice. Shame she won't get her just desserts, like every other piece of shit criminal politician out there. And just because it pisses me off thinking about it Tony Blair can go fuck himself too. lol.


I think what we've seen in recent years is a fair amount of mis-characterization of the values of pro-gun rights individuals. America has over 300 million guns and at least 100 million people with guns. Despite contrary belief recent trends have shown that there is actually a decline in gun ownership too. The left is moving away from this and putting more and more trust in the federal government while at the same time enforce their beliefs on the gun crowd that sees this as the result of fascist government brainwashing (which I agree with). This isn't conspiracy stuff as its labeled (media spin doctoring is yet another method of enforcing fascism), but rather a real fear of the threat of the goverment getting too strong and acting against the will of the people. 

I also think that the media put a spin on "mass shooting" by arbitrarily deciding that a certain number of people being killed is what a "mass shooting" entailed and then started keep tracks on it. Before the last few years, a mass-shooting was essentially described as a lone-shooter walking into a public place and opening fire with motivations only becoming known after the fact. 

This managed to include gang vs gang violence and shoot-outs into the national consciousness as a lone-mass shooter kind of shooting muddying by confusing people with misleading statistics and murkying the national conversation on gun violence as a whole instead of making it more nuanced - hence allowing a further mischaracterization of the pro-gun crowd. The international media picked up on it and just ran with the idea that America now has a serious lone-shooter type epidemic without understand that a lot of the shootings included into this were of gang violence --- a group that will acquire guns no matter what. We're not insulated from the rest of the world as much as people think, we have a real threat along our southern border. A very real threat. Especially if you look at the drug cartels in Mexico and South America. 

The electoral college, the forcing of candidates to address minority opinion, the primaries, the house/state/congress/supreme court are ALL ultimately responsible to the constitution - and the constitution alone. This is a national value and unfortunately under democratic rule, the role of the constitution is downplayed in order to increase federal government power. 

Now I will admit that I don't think (and that's just my opinion) that a lot of these men will actually come out to defend people's rights, but being armed gives people the sense that they would and that sense in and of itself is the deterrent. 

Secondly, Americans are so pro-american that if the government ever even suggest that the military take up arms against other americans there would be massive desertions and potentially even mutiny abound. 

One thing about Americans are is that while the democratic partly is secretly fascist with their calls for big government - the majority of Americans are still very loyal to their role in taking down fascism during WWII - and many still recognize that one of the reasons why there is fascism is when there's big government. Wanting to own guns and all sorts of guns is just one part of this recognition. 

Ultimately, as far as the political landscape is concerned, there are no big government *true* fascists alive that I can think of, not even Hillary. 

The media is too busy fanning the flames.


----------



## ShiningStar

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> As Trump said about gay marriage: It's a law and the supreme court has ruled on it, so it stays.


Trump promised 20 Conservative names earlier in the year. If he follows through with his promise on those and really old Breyer or Ginsberg die that would be enough 5-4 to overturn it even against Trumps wishes or changing public sentiment . It may be settled law but if Trump replaces Ginsberg or Breyer some lower level Bible Belt District Court will try to relitigate it. The culture wars may be over but Evangelicals aint gonna lay down on gay marriage.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



ShiningStar said:


> Trump promised 20 Conservative names earlier in the year. If he follows through with his* promise on those and really old Breyer or Ginsberg die *that would be enough 5-4 to overturn it even against Trumps wishes or changing public sentiment . It may be settled law but if Trump replaces Ginsberg or Breyer some lower level Bible Belt District Court will try to relitigate it. The culture wars may be over but Evangelicals aint gonna lay down on gay marriage.


And Prince Charles has been waiting a long time to become King.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Flay said:


> Do you have anything to back this up or are you just spouting bullshit that sounds like statistics to make yourself sound smarter?


Just look at the GOP policies, or what they say. Look at what a lot of conservatives say. 

It's really not that difficult.You can simply use google to find tons of evidence. You have to go out of your way to not see it.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*






Fucking digusting


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I'm glad we're going to live in a world where we can debate all of these issues and more rather than one where we and Russia destroy each other. :trump2


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

By tomorrow expect this thread to be filled with comments about how the electoral college is racist and sexist. That's the next line of attack incoming from the left msm and SJW's. Just a heads up.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> By tomorrow expect this thread to be filled with comments about how the electoral college is racist and sexist. That's the next line of attack incoming from the left msm.


Of course even if Trump had won the popular vote things would be no different. :lol It'd be like Brexit where they just find some demographic (old white folks) to blame everything on and then try and get the result overturned anyway. These people aren't really worth engaging because their arguments are driven by their feelings rather than reason. It's best to just let them tire themselves out with their tantrum while the adults try to save civilization.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



virus21 said:


> Fucking digusting


Yes that is disgusting , violence is always wrong but don't act like Trump and his supporters are the one who started all this violence. There are way more acts of violence from Trump supporters than democracy, 

The violence on both sides needs to stop. Its only going to get worse if it doesn't. At least 99% of the protesters are peaceful.


----------



## Chloe

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Just look at the GOP policies, or what they say. Look at what a lot of conservatives say.
> 
> It's really not that difficult.You can simply use google to find tons of evidence. You have to go out of your way to not see it.


Or is this another way of saying that you've seen 10 minute videos and what not that clearly have a bias and display the worst of the bunch?

Generalization like you do has created the divide in your country and is the exact reason why you have Trump as a president. People don't want to be aligned with the extreme left that paints people with the racist/sexist/homophobic brush whenever they feel like it. Haven't you learned anything from this process?


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I highly doubt Trump will want same-sex marriage overturned and I doubt the Supreme Court will do it either but if they do I'll be right with the leftists saying that it's a horrible decision.

This is why I want government out of the fucking way when it comes to these issues.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Flay said:


> Or is this another way of saying that you've seen 10 minute videos and what not that clearly have a bias and display the worst of the bunch?
> 
> Generalization like you do has created the divide in your country and is the exact reason why you have Trump as a president. People don't want to be aligned with the extreme left that paints people with the racist/sexist/homophobic brush whenever they feel like it. Haven't you learned anything from this process?



No what divides the country is all the racist/sexist/homophobic people in the world and the publications that try to push those things onto the American people.

Take Mike Pence for example. You don't think he is homophobic? 

He is pro-gay conversion therapy. 
He fought for it to be legal to discriminate aginst gays. 
He is against same-sex marriage.
He is deplorable on trans rights.


The GOP has always been against gays. That is a part of their platform. 

shit like all those things are what divide the country.




L-DOPA said:


> I highly doubt Trump will want same-sex marriage overturned and I doubt the Supreme Court will do it either but if they do I'll be right with the leftists saying that it's a horrible decision.
> 
> This is why I want government out of the fucking way when it comes to these issues.


The only way the GOP would be right about same-sex marriage would be if the GOVT tried to make church's marry same-sex couples, which they are not. 

I don't understand why so people care so much if gays get married. If you are against same-sex marriage, fine then don't marry some one of the same gender.

It's that simple.


----------



## ShiningStar

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> And Prince Charles has been waiting a long time to become King.


RBG has had a history of health problems,meanwhile The Queen is still strong as an Ox.

Here she is jumping out of airplane during the 2012 Olympics.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> The only way the GOP would be right about same-sex marriage would be if the GOVT tried to make church's marry same-sex couples, which they are not.
> 
> I don't understand why so people care so much if gays get married. If you are against same-sex marriage, fine then don't marry some one of the same gender.
> 
> It's that simple.


Sorry ignore me, I read your post completely wrong. Forego it.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



L-DOPA said:


> Sorry ignore me, I read your post completely wrong. Forego it.


I missed your post but I assume you mistook the way I used the word "you" as informal. I need to stop doing that since it causes confusion. I should just use "they" instead.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Now some words from Bernie Sanders


----------



## Flair Flop

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



L-DOPA said:


> Sorry ignore me, I read your post completely wrong. Forego it.


Just wanted to say that I couldn't possibly agree more with what you originally had posted.


----------



## nyelator

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> the civil war happened because of slavery. The south wanted to keep slavery and the north did not.


I am sorry but that is not the case


----------



## Chloe

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> No what divides the country is all the racist/sexist/homophobic people in the world and the publications that try to push those things onto the American people.
> 
> Take Mike Pence for example. You don't think he is homophobic?
> 
> He is pro-gay conversion therapy.
> He fought for it to be legal to discriminate aginst gays.
> He is against same-sex marriage.
> He is deplorable on trans rights.
> 
> 
> The GOP has always been against gays. That is a part of their platform.
> 
> shit like all those things are what divide the country.


Mike Pence is irrelevant because even as VP he has no real power. Yes, I do not care for Mike Pence's views but he is one man and does not define the tens of millions of voters that voted Trump/Republican. You should learn to differentiate the views of one person and another. 

Now, tell me how the fuck generalizing that amount people is not divisive? There's probably a lot more people like you, in the millions in my estimation judging from the amount of people who voted Hillary that will tar and feather somebody for being a Trump supporter. And there are a lot of Trump supporters. That creates a whole lot of resentment and it's the generalizing that does it because people on both sides think that the negative attitude of the other side is a reflection of literally MILLIONS of other people. Don't be ignorant and tell me that's not divisive. 

See, what's happened in the last 5 years or so is people have gotten too lazy to hold a single person accountable for their own actions. Mike Pence is a homophobe? Okay, Mike Pence is a homophobe. You wanna call the entire right wing homophobes then you should have evidence for every single one of those tens of millions of people. If not, shut your mouth. If for nothing else, you do a disservice to your own cause. It's too simplistic to say 'he's a homophobe and a Republican so all Republicans are homophobes'. You want your country to come together instead of civil war happening, be more understanding of people with an opposite viewpoint. You've calmed down a little bit and aren't looking like the guy everybody hates because he lives in his own bubble so that's why I'm attempting to reason with you. Don't make me regret it.


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Flay said:


> He's missing the fact that's he's a hypocrite. Like all hypocrites do. :kobelol


You obviously aren't basing that on anything I've said in the past, so what exactly are you basing it on?


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@DesolationRow @AryaDark

Hugely important video, again the debt/deficit problem is hidden among a series of other issues.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I have no idea what Joe Biden's positions are on anything and it has never been relevant during Obama's 8 years. Neither will it be with Pence, unless some moron assassinates Trump, which is what the corporate media is actively working towards.


----------



## skypod

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Flay said:


> Mike Pence is irrelevant because even as VP he has no real power. Yes, I do not care for Mike Pence's views but he is one man and does not define the tens of millions of voters that voted Trump/Republican. You should learn to differentiate the views of one person and another.
> 
> Now, tell me how the fuck generalizing that amount people is not divisive? There's probably a lot more people like you, in the millions in my estimation judging from the amount of people who voted Hillary that will tar and feather somebody for being a Trump supporter. And there are a lot of Trump supporters. That creates a whole lot of resentment and it's the generalizing that does it because people on both sides think that the negative attitude of the other side is a reflection of literally MILLIONS of other people. Don't be ignorant and tell me that's not divisive.
> 
> See, what's happened in the last 5 years or so is people have gotten too lazy to hold a single person accountable for their own actions. Mike Pence is a homophobe? Okay, Mike Pence is a homophobe. You wanna call the entire right wing homophobes then you should have evidence for every single one of those tens of millions of people. If not, shut your mouth. If for nothing else, you do a disservice to your own cause. It's too simplistic to say 'he's a homophobe and a Republican so all Republicans are homophobes'. You want your country to come together instead of civil war happening, be more understanding of people with an opposite viewpoint. You've calmed down a little bit and aren't looking like the guy everybody hates because he lives in his own bubble so that's why I'm attempting to reason with you. Don't make me regret it.



The Republicans have let their party be taken over by Evangelicals though. The perception of their party is on them, not anyone else. Instead you get a lot of Republicans who, may not care much about gay people (which is fair enough) but they don't have the integrity to call people out in their own party for backwards views. Why is it I constantly I hear about states having issues with LBGT, and it's ALWAYS a Republican governor pushing some rhetoric or some shit. It gets tedious and it's why people are right to worry with the Right in control.


----------



## RenegadexParagon

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



nyelator said:


> I am sorry but that is not the case


lol, yes it was, the southern states and notable confederates said that their reason for secession was to keep the institution of slavery: 

Mississippi: 



> Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.


Texas: 



> Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as ***** slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?


South Carolina: 



> The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution.


Georgia: 



> The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic.


http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html

Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy: 



> The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution — African slavery as it exists amongst us — the proper status of the ***** in our form of civilization" and further that "Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea ["equality of the races"]; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the ***** is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.


_The Cornerstone Speech_, https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech

Henry L. Benning: 



> [The reason] was a conviction, a deep conviction on the part of Georgia, that a separation from the North-was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery. [....] [T]hat the North is in the course of acquiring this power to abolish slavery.


http://civilwarcauses.org/benningva.htm

So can we just stop the Confederate apologia or whitewashing of the Civil War before it becomes a thing here? That'd be kinda annoying and dumb tbh


----------



## nyelator

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RenegadexParagon said:


> lol, yes it was, the southern states and notable confederates said that their reason for secession was to keep the institution of slavery:
> 
> Mississippi:
> 
> 
> 
> Texas:
> 
> 
> 
> South Carolina:
> 
> 
> 
> Georgia:
> 
> 
> http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html
> 
> Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy:
> 
> 
> _The Cornerstone Speech_, https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech
> 
> Henry L. Benning:
> 
> 
> http://civilwarcauses.org/benningva.htm
> 
> So can we just stop the Confederate apologia or whitewashing of the Civil War before it becomes a thing here? That'd be kinda annoying and dumb tbh


Oh yeah slavery was part of it but that was not the only reason


----------



## Chloe

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



skypod said:


> The Republicans have let their party be taken over by Evangelicals though. The perception of their party is on them, not anyone else. Instead you get a lot of Republicans who, may not care much about gay people (which is fair enough) but they don't have the integrity to call people out in their own party for backwards views. Why is it I constantly I hear about states having issues with LBGT, and it's ALWAYS a Republican governor pushing some rhetoric or some shit. It gets tedious and it's why people are right to worry with the Right in control.


If you LGBT then fair enough. If a Republican actively trying to fuck you over then you vote against them. But you still have to look at each Republican individually. Have all Republican politicians campaign against gay rights? Has every single Republican spouted off about gays? People have been getting lazy and just paint a group of people with the same brush because it's easy. That's all it is. Intellectual laziness. I can't speak on the people who don't call out the party because I don't identify myself as either democrat/liberal/left or republican/conservative/right. I just look at the bullshit and call it out. If people didn't label themselves and others and did the same then maybe the US wouldn't be so divided.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RenegadexParagon said:


> lol, yes it was, the southern states and notable confederates said that their reason for secession was to keep the institution of slavery:
> 
> Mississippi:
> 
> 
> 
> Texas:
> 
> 
> 
> South Carolina:
> 
> 
> 
> Georgia:
> 
> 
> http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html
> 
> Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy:
> 
> 
> _The Cornerstone Speech_, https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech
> 
> Henry L. Benning:
> 
> 
> http://civilwarcauses.org/benningva.htm
> 
> So can we just stop the Confederate apologia or whitewashing of the Civil War before it becomes a thing here? That'd be kinda annoying and dumb tbh



thank god I did not have to keep explaining this to people.




nyelator said:


> Oh yeah slavery was part of it but that was not the only reason


It was not the only reason but it was the MAIN/BIGGEST REASON for it.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Lol 100% of illegal immigrants are criminals

Since you know entering this country without permission of the US government is a crime

If this is the kind of abject stupidity we're going to see in opposition to :trump his re-election is assured. And it ain't gonna lookin bad for his handpicked successor in 2024. Figure it out already. Mockery and contempt failed to prevent his election, in fact it significantly contributed to his election, and every time it is tried again it only makes :trump ism stronger among the white population which is gonna have more than enough votes to re-elect him and elect his successor. And re-elect his successor too.

Actually wait!

Please don't figure it out. Keep making white people in the sticks and in the suburbs think that their opinions are dismissed by the coastal and ivory tower elite because LOLRACISM or LOLRELIGION or plain ole unadorned LOLTHEYDUMB. Please keep showing complete disdain for them. Solidify :trump ism as the dominant force in American politics because you can't see you're cutting off your nose to spite _someone else's_ face.


----------



## nyelator

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> thank god I did not have to keep explaining this to people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was not the only reason but it was the MAIN/BIGGEST REASON for it.


Yeah sorry don't know how misread it


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> the civil war happened because of slavery. The south wanted to keep slavery and the north did not.


That isn't technically true. In Abraham Lincoln's own words he says

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. *If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it*, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. 

"I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races,”

To simply say the Civil War was entirely based on slavery is painting it as black and white as possible. Also, the Emancipation Proclamation didn't immediately apply to states like Delaware , Missouri , Maryland and Kentucky which were apart of the Union. The major point of the Civil War was to unite all of the USA together first and foremost


----------



## RenegadexParagon

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



nyelator said:


> Oh yeah slavery was part of it but that was not the only reason


Oy vey.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*






Hardly surprising but :lmao.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Stinger Fan said:


> That isn't technically true. In Abraham Lincoln's own words he says
> 
> "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. *If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it*, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.
> 
> "I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."
> 
> “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races,”
> 
> To simply say the Civil War was entirely based on slavery is painting it as black and white as possible. Also, the Emancipation Proclamation didn't immediately apply to states like Delaware , Missouri , Maryland and Kentucky which were apart of the Union. The major point of the Civil War was to unite all of the USA together first and foremost


No one ever said it was 100% reason for the civil war but it was the main reason. I already showed a number of quotes to prove it was the main reason as did another poster.

stop denying it.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Enough with the Civil War talk please


----------



## nyelator

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RenegadexParagon said:


> Oy vey.


I already apologized as I misread the original post that I quoted.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> thank god I did not have to keep explaining this to people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was not the only reason but it was the MAIN/BIGGEST REASON for it.


Yeah if someone thinks slavery wasn't 90% of the reason 8 of the 11 slave states (SC, FL, AR, TX, AL, MS, GA, LA) seceded and 50-75% of the reason for the other 3 (VA, TN, NC) they need to pick up a history book or three or Google search for the texts of the declarations of secession of those states. Or Google Search the text of the Confederate Constitution. There are two major differences between the Confederate Constitution and the American one: presidency limited to a single 6 year term, and the Confederate Constitution explicitly protected the legality of slavery instead of implicitly doing so as the US Constitution did. Other than those two differences the two constitutions are essentially identical. But some people still think it wasn't because slavery.

It was slavery slavery slavery period. Not tariffs. Not other economic differences. Not because the South was mad that those Northern meanies were saying mean insulting things about slavery and slaveowners.

It was because they saw the writing on the wall saying that their power - to prevent the rest of the country from restricting slavery to states where it already existed (an economic death sentence for the institution of slavery) or, eventually, to abolish it altogether - was gone. They couldn't hold off the abolition tide that was sweeping the north for very much longer. So they decided to try to leave and make their own country.

And to other people please don't pull out Lincoln quotes that show you don't know what you're talking about. For every Lincoln "I just want to save the Union quote" I got 10 Lincoln quotes showing he wanted to abolish slavery but knew the Northern people did not want to fight a war for that in 1861 or 1862. He waited until the people came around to the opinion that slavery had to go before he could say the same in public. If he had pushed for abolition too soon the northern public would have given up on the war and the Confederacy would have won.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/loca...-401016205.html?_osource=SocialFlowFB_CHBrand

Congratulations. Electing Trump and Pence actually got these wankers to do what we were hoping they'd do .. Now if only they decided to do that about all sorts of welfare and charities, we'd finally have what we want. A society built on the foundation of philanthropy and not mandated taxation. 



> Activists have been opening their wallets to make a donation to Planned Parenthood - with a twist. Countless people, largely women, posted on social media that they donated in honor of Indiana Governor and now Vice President-elect Mike Pen
> 
> Source: Women Donate to Planned Parenthood in Mike Pence's Name | NBC Chicago http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/loca...l?_osource=SocialFlowFB_CHBrand#ixzz4Q1Lwucs2
> Follow us: @nbcchicago on Twitter | nbcchicago on Facebook


If only they weren't spiteful morons and instead actually altruistic, they'd actually do some good for the sake of doing good instead of doing it out of spite, narcissism or gaining power :kobelol


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

http://www.mediaite.com/online/dem-...t-up-by-mob-oh-my-goodness-poor-white-people/



> “What do you say to the people who dragged a poor white guy out of a car and beat him?” asked Higbie.
> 
> “Oh my goodness, poor white people! Please!” she responded. “Oh my– stop. Stop, Carl.”


These dumb fucks

Only making :trump stronger

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/13/irs-denies-tea-party-groups-after-long-wait-for-de/

Can :trump just take office already so these fascist fucks at the IRS can go to federal prison where they belong

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-13/blocks-anti-trump-protest-buses-caught-tape

:heston 

All the "spontaenous" "grassroots" protests you could ever want, courtesy of George Soros' millions :heston


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

*To the absolute surprise of no one





*


----------



## RenegadexParagon

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Stinger Fan said:


> To simply say the Civil War was entirely based on slavery is painting it as black and white as possible. Also, the Emancipation Proclamation didn't immediately apply to states like Delaware , Missouri , Maryland and Kentucky which were apart of the Union. The major point of the Civil War was to unite all of the USA together first and foremost


Preservation of the Union was definitely a big motivation for the Union, however this again, completely ignores the motivations of the confederate states (which was to keep the institution of slavery, I recommend reading the sources I provided on my previous post regarding this). 

Furthermore, the Emancipation Proclamation was never intended to end slavery in the Union, it was intended to free slaves in rebelling states. It's also deceptive to assume that because slavery was not immediately ended in the Union, it was not Lincoln's intention to end slavery within the Union or that abolishing slavery was not one of Lincoln's goals. Lincoln and others sought to end slavery in the Union through legal means by way of the 13th amendment: 
http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/13thamendment.html


----------



## Headliner

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



> During their private White House meeting on Thursday, Mr. Obama walked his successor through the duties of running the country, and Mr. Trump seemed surprised by the scope, said people familiar with the meeting. Trump aides were described by those people as unaware that the entire presidential staff working in the West Wing had to be replaced at the end of Mr. Obama’s term.
> 
> After meeting with Mr. Trump, the only person to be elected president without having held a government or military position, Mr. Obama realized the Republican needs more guidance. He plans to spend more time with his successor than presidents typically do, people familiar with the matter said.


http://www.wsj.com/articles/leading...c-chairman-reince-priebus-1479069597?mod=e2tw

:lol Hilarious. You could see hints of this in the pictures and videos of Trump and Obama together. But, but, but, but, this is just the media going against Trump. :sleep


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Headliner said:


> http://www.wsj.com/articles/leading...c-chairman-reince-priebus-1479069597?mod=e2tw
> 
> :lol Hilarious. You could see hints of this in the pictures and videos of Trump and Obama together. But, but, but, but, this is just the media going against Trump. :sleep


I think this says more about the bloated bureaucracy than it does someone's ability to "lead" (as some of the media have tried to paint this as). The scope of governing shouldn't be so daunting, especially to someone that has run a business in some capacity. Love or hate trump, I'm not taking this as a negative on him... but a negative on our system that is far too bloated and oversized. 

But then, I have the same ideas about corporations and how overly bloated and how much that system relies on micromanagement. I think a lot of things would be better off if they were smaller at this point...


----------



## A-C-P

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Headliner said:


> http://www.wsj.com/articles/leading...c-chairman-reince-priebus-1479069597?mod=e2tw
> 
> :lol Hilarious. You could see hints of this in the pictures and videos of Trump and Obama together. But, but, but, but, this is just the media going against Trump. :sleep


To be fair, from what I have heard, this is kind of the reason alot of people voted for Trump, b/c they feel the government should change the ways it has been doing "business" so to speak so they voted to elect an "outsider" and a person, in Trump, who is not just going to keep doing things the way they have been done in the past.

Not saying this is right or wrong, or will happen or not though....


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Headliner said:


> http://www.wsj.com/articles/leading...c-chairman-reince-priebus-1479069597?mod=e2tw
> 
> :lol Hilarious. You could see hints of this in the pictures and videos of Trump and Obama together. But, but, but, but, this is just the media going against Trump. :sleep


Nobody cares tho :draper2

Well nobody who voted for him gives a shit anyway 

I on the other hand maintained my perfect record of not voting :grin2:


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RenegadexParagon said:


> lol, yes it was, the southern states and notable confederates said that their reason for secession was to keep the institution of slavery:
> 
> Mississippi:
> 
> 
> 
> Texas:
> 
> 
> 
> South Carolina:
> 
> 
> 
> Georgia:
> 
> 
> http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html
> 
> Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy:
> 
> 
> _The Cornerstone Speech_, https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech
> 
> Henry L. Benning:
> 
> 
> http://civilwarcauses.org/benningva.htm
> 
> So can we just stop the Confederate apologia or whitewashing of the Civil War before it becomes a thing here? That'd be kinda annoying and dumb tbh


Oh, yes, can't let the south seem decent and human, can we?


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Also if none of you can see what Trump is doing now, let me break it down:

Reince was loyal to Trump. Just because we voted for him to get rid of the establishment doesn't mean we wanted him to get rid of the ones that were serviceable. Preibus offors Trump an bridgeway to congress and was instrumental in organizing Republican turnout. He's not going to easily deny Trump. Steve Bannon takes care of that.

As for the Clintons...you want him to prosecute her before he can even take office, WHILE her supporters are pissed off? WHAT?


----------



## RenegadexParagon

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> Oh, yes, can't let the south seem decent and human, can we?


Good arguments put forward man, really convinced me there. I'm gonna go pray to Saint Robert E. Lee now. Thank god we have people like you contributing here.

Btw I loved the humanity of that quote by Alexander Stephens, don't you? Those noble southerners! Very decent.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> Oh, yes, can't let the south seem decent and human, can we?


Based on past history and even current history (especially when it comes to LBGT issues) they are not. Sorry dude.





Beatles123 said:


> Also if none of you can see what Trump is doing now, let me break it down:
> 
> Reince was loyal to Trump. Just because we voted for him to get rid of the establishment doesn't mean we wanted him to get rid of the ones that were serviceable. Preibus offors Trump an bridgeway to congress and was instrumental in organizing Republican turnout. He's not going to easily deny Trump. Steve Bannon takes care of that.
> 
> As for the Clintons...you want him to prosecute her before he can even take office, WHILE her supporters are pissed off? WHAT?


we can see what Trump is doing. He is going back on everything he ran on

Oh build a huge wall, now he is like, well maybe a small fence on some parts of the border.
He wanted to deport all illegals, now he is like well just the violent ones, you know like the democrats said.
Trump claimed he wanted to get money out of politics yet he is hiring all kinds of lobbyists.
Trump claimed he hated the establishment yet he hires Bush era establishment republicans.

Trump is proving what I have been saying all alone, he is the establishment and is just lying to his supporters but you would not listen.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> Also if none of you can see what Trump is doing now, let me break it down:
> 
> Reince was loyal to Trump. Just because we voted for him to get rid of the establishment doesn't mean we wanted him to get rid of the ones that were serviceable. Preibus offors Trump an bridgeway to congress and was instrumental in organizing Republican turnout. He's not going to easily deny Trump. Steve Bannon takes care of that.
> 
> As for the Clintons...you want him to prosecute her before he can even take office, WHILE her supporters are pissed off? WHAT?


Reince is a young gun with a handle on tech and new trends and an excellent administrator. I think he's a great choice for cheif of staff. He doesn't have any openly weird public positions. Just seems like a guy who knows how to get things done. 

Don't forget that this is the guy that eventually played an important role in rallying the GOP back after it looked like it was about to implode by ensuring that as many people as possible got behind Trump. 

Could he be a wolf or a hawk ... I don't know .. but from what I've read, he seems like a perfect candidate for the COF.


----------



## Mifune Jackson

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Headliner said:


> http://www.wsj.com/articles/leading...c-chairman-reince-priebus-1479069597?mod=e2tw
> 
> :lol Hilarious. You could see hints of this in the pictures and videos of Trump and Obama together. But, but, but, but, this is just the media going against Trump. :sleep


These Obama/Trump meetings are going to be the subject of a movie someday.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RenegadexParagon said:


> Good arguments put forward man, really convinced me there. I'm gonna go pray to Saint Robert E. Lee now. Thank god we have people like you contributing here.
> 
> Btw I loved the humanity of that quote by Alexander Stephens, don't you? Those noble southerners! Very decent.


I was not defening what you quoted. Just pointing out you seem to think we are all those people.


----------



## Dr. Middy

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Now to give everybody a laugh :lmao :lmao


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/797931201717673985

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/797956912104939520

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/797999039648145410


----------



## RenegadexParagon

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> I was not defening what you quoted. Just pointing out you seem to think we are all those people.


Lmfao, when the fuck did I say anything like that? All I said is the main motivation for the South seceding during the civil war was slavery, but you're really just taking this to mean I'm generalizing all Southerners _currently_? 

W e w l a d


----------



## Headliner

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Mifune Jackson said:


> These Obama/Trump meetings are going to be the subject of a movie someday.












Obama's looking like, this is gonna be greatopcorn

Trump's looking like, what the fuck did I just sign up for?? 

:lol


----------



## Flair Flop

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Headliner said:


> Obama's looking like, this is gonna be greatopcorn
> 
> Trump's looking like, what the fuck did I just sign up for??
> 
> :lol


Actually Trump looks like the Penguin from the Adam West Batman show


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



















Apparently the meme just turned into reality. 

Three guesses as to whose mug shots these are :kobelol

:sodone


----------



## Green Light

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Guys I don't know too much about politics and have a question. If Hillary had won the election, would that have made Bill Clinton the first lady? :lenny2


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RenegadexParagon said:


> Lmfao, when the fuck did I say anything like that? All I said is the main motivation for the South seceding during the civil war was slavery, but you're really just taking this to mean I'm generalizing all Southerners _currently_?
> 
> W e w l a d


If you weren't, my mistake. Most who think about slavery do.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Green Light said:


> Guys I don't know too much about politics and have a question. If Hillary had won the election, would that have made Bill Clinton the first lady? :lenny2


First Gentleman probably


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Green Light said:


> Guys I don't know too much about politics and have a question. If Hillary had won the election, would that have made Bill Clinton the first lady? :lenny2


Bill said he would call himself the "first laddy" 

Bill has many flaws but humor and likeability are not any of them


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



stevefox1200 said:


> Bill said he would call himself the "first laddy"
> 
> Bill has many flaws but humor and likeability are not any of them


His likability aint shit with me. Wouldn't be with many if they didn't think anything anti-Clinton was a lie. These people are a literal crime family.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> His likability aint shit with me. Wouldn't be with many if they didn't think anything anti-Clinton was a lie. These people are a literal crime family.


No they aren't 'Literally'. No crime has been proven or prosecuted. 

A literal crime family is the Corleone's in the Godfather or a family in real life that's gone to jail for organised crime. The Clintons would 'literally' be a political family.


Just a pet peeve of mine people not knowing how to use that word


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

http://www.boston.com/news/politics...tionalist?s_campaign=bcom:socialflow:facebook

Sen. Ed Markey says Donald Trump’s top aide Steve Bannon is a ‘white nationalist’

Sen. Edward Markey speaking during a news conference on opioid and heroin abuse last February.	–Alex Brandon / AP
By Nik DeCosta-Klipa 5:17 PM
There will be no olive branches from Sen. Ed Markey. At least not after Donald Trump’s latest controversial move.

In a statement Monday, the Massachusetts Democrat said the president-elect “will forever poison the well with Congress and the American people” with his appointment of “white nationalist” Steve Bannon to a senior White House position. Bannon took a leave as executive chairman of Breitbart News when he joined Trump’s campaign in August.

While some of his fellow progressives had previously suggested a conditional willingness to work with the Trump administration, Markey was uncompromising in his words.

“If Donald Trump wants to keep his word and unify the country, he must call on all of his appointments to repudiate any and all past affiliations with hate groups, and he himself must denounce anyone who has affiliations with groups whose stock and trade is hate and violence against the American people,” the senator said.

As The New York Times reported Monday, Trump’s appointment of Bannon—who joined the Trump campaign as a top advisor in August—has been criticized as giving a White House voice to anti-Semitic, racist, and white nationalist ideologies at times promoted on his website.

Read Markey’s full statement below:

“If the saying is true and you are the company you keep, Donald Trump has chosen to champion the positions of neo-Nazis, white nationalists and anti-Semites by appointing Steve Bannon as chief strategist and senior counselor.
“There is no place in our society, let alone the White House, for purveyors like Steve Bannon of hate and violence against any group of Americans. President-elect Trump will forever poison the well with Congress and the American people by appointing a figure who has fueled the rhetoric and activities of hate groups that actively promote violence against immigrants, Muslims, women, African-Americans, the LGBTQ community, and people of Jewish faith.
“If Donald Trump wants to keep his word and unify the country, he must call on all of his appointments to repudiate any and all past affiliations with hate groups, and he himself must denounce anyone who has affiliations with groups whose stock and trade is hate and violence against the American people.

“Right now, we are in an epic battle for our democracy. The stand we take today will determine if future generations live in a nation founded on hope or fueled by hate. Today, and every day moving forward, we must always be guided by the principles and values of our nation — justice, tolerance, liberty, and equality — for all races, creeds, colors, faiths and origins.”


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> http://www.boston.com/news/politics...tionalist?s_campaign=bcom:socialflow:facebook
> 
> Sen. Ed Markey says Donald Trump’s top aide Steve Bannon is a ‘white nationalist’
> 
> Sen. Edward Markey speaking during a news conference on opioid and heroin abuse last February.	–Alex Brandon / AP
> By Nik DeCosta-Klipa 5:17 PM
> There will be no olive branches from Sen. Ed Markey. At least not after Donald Trump’s latest controversial move.
> 
> In a statement Monday, the Massachusetts Democrat said the president-elect “will forever poison the well with Congress and the American people” with his appointment of “white nationalist” Steve Bannon to a senior White House position. Bannon took a leave as executive chairman of Breitbart News when he joined Trump’s campaign in August.
> 
> While some of his fellow progressives had previously suggested a conditional willingness to work with the Trump administration, Markey was uncompromising in his words.
> 
> “If Donald Trump wants to keep his word and unify the country, he must call on all of his appointments to repudiate any and all past affiliations with hate groups, and he himself must denounce anyone who has affiliations with groups whose stock and trade is hate and violence against the American people,” the senator said.
> 
> As The New York Times reported Monday, Trump’s appointment of Bannon—who joined the Trump campaign as a top advisor in August—has been criticized as giving a White House voice to anti-Semitic, racist, and white nationalist ideologies at times promoted on his website.
> 
> Read Markey’s full statement below:
> 
> “If the saying is true and you are the company you keep, Donald Trump has chosen to champion the positions of neo-Nazis, white nationalists and anti-Semites by appointing Steve Bannon as chief strategist and senior counselor.
> “There is no place in our society, let alone the White House, for purveyors like Steve Bannon of hate and violence against any group of Americans. President-elect Trump will forever poison the well with Congress and the American people by appointing a figure who has fueled the rhetoric and activities of hate groups that actively promote violence against immigrants, Muslims, women, African-Americans, the LGBTQ community, and people of Jewish faith.
> “If Donald Trump wants to keep his word and unify the country, he must call on all of his appointments to repudiate any and all past affiliations with hate groups, and he himself must denounce anyone who has affiliations with groups whose stock and trade is hate and violence against the American people.
> 
> “Right now, we are in an epic battle for our democracy. The stand we take today will determine if future generations live in a nation founded on hope or fueled by hate. Today, and every day moving forward, we must always be guided by the principles and values of our nation — justice, tolerance, liberty, and equality — for all races, creeds, colors, faiths and origins.”


From what I gather, the "accusations" made against Bannon stem from a statement made by his ex-wife (who apparently never backed them up). Is there any real evidence of him making anti-semetic or neo-nazi remarks, or do we just have her word for it?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

its not just what his wife claimed but the things he has said as well.




Pratchett said:


> From what I gather, the "accusations" made against Bannon stem from a statement made by his ex-wife (who apparently never backed them up). Is there any real evidence of him making anti-semetic or neo-nazi remarks, or do we just have her word for it?


http://www.salon.com/2016/11/14/ste...will-be-one-of-donald-trumps-senior-advisors/

Donald Trump’s chief strategist is Steve Bannon, the former head of the alt-right publication Breitbart News and the former CEO of Trump’s presidential campaign.

Bannon is also a notorious anti-Semite.

During Bannon’s reign over Breitbart, the website ran articles referring to conservative commentator Bill Kristol as a “renegade Jew” and Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum as “a Polish, Jewish, American elitist scorned.” Former Breitbart editor Ben Shapiro accused the site of embracing “a movement shot through with racism and anti-Semitism,” and Bannon’s ex-wife has testified in court that Bannon has “said he doesn’t like Jews” and didn’t want his children to go to school with Jews.

Jonathan Franks, the political director and executive producer for “The Montel Williams Show,” has said on Twitter that his sources at the pro-Israel lobbying group American Israel Public Affairs Committee are “privately apoplectic” about Bannon’s appointment.

Adam Jentleson, the spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, expressed disgust at the news of Bannon’s appointment. “It’s easy to see why the KKK views Trump as their champion when Trump appoints one of the foremost peddlers of White Supremacist themes and rhetoric as his top aide,” Jentleson wrote in a statement. “Bannon was ‘the main driver behind Breitbart becoming a white ethno-nationalist propaganda mill,’ according to the Southern Poverty Law Center.”

Jentleson also cited allegations that Bannon had committed violent domestic abuse and noted misogynistic headlines from Breitbart including “Birth Control Makes Women Unattractive and Crazy” and “The Solution To Online ‘Harassment’ Is Simple: Women Should Just Log Off.”

This is not the extent of Bannon’s racist and sexist record: He has claimed that Roman Catholics want to boost Hispanic immigration to the United States because their “church is dying,” referred to the Civil War as the “war of Southern Independence” (a phrase often associated with pro-Confederate apologists for slavery), said that conservative women are better than progressive women because they’re not a “bunch of ***** that came from the Seven Sisters schools up in New England” and complained about inner-city people of color, saying that “cities could be washed away in an orgy of de-gentrification.”

Bannon has long been associated with the far right of the GOP and used his Breitbart platform to encourage the party to move away from the political center. This aligns with his support for other alt-right political parties in Western countries, including the United Kingdom Independence Party, the Alternative for Germany and the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

On the upside he did enjoy Blazing Saddles.


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> its not just what his wife claimed but the things he has said as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.salon.com/2016/11/14/ste...will-be-one-of-donald-trumps-senior-advisors/
> 
> Donald Trump’s chief strategist is Steve Bannon, the former head of the alt-right publication Breitbart News and the former CEO of Trump’s presidential campaign.
> 
> Bannon is also a notorious anti-Semite.
> 
> During Bannon’s reign over Breitbart, the website ran articles referring to conservative commentator Bill Kristol as a “renegade Jew” and Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum as “a Polish, Jewish, American elitist scorned.” Former Breitbart editor Ben Shapiro accused the site of embracing “a movement shot through with racism and anti-Semitism,” and Bannon’s ex-wife has testified in court that Bannon has “said he doesn’t like Jews” and didn’t want his children to go to school with Jews.
> 
> Jonathan Franks, the political director and executive producer for “The Montel Williams Show,” has said on Twitter that his sources at the pro-Israel lobbying group American Israel Public Affairs Committee are “privately apoplectic” about Bannon’s appointment.
> 
> Adam Jentleson, the spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, expressed disgust at the news of Bannon’s appointment. “It’s easy to see why the KKK views Trump as their champion when Trump appoints one of the foremost peddlers of White Supremacist themes and rhetoric as his top aide,” Jentleson wrote in a statement. “Bannon was ‘the main driver behind Breitbart becoming a white ethno-nationalist propaganda mill,’ according to the Southern Poverty Law Center.”
> 
> Jentleson also cited allegations that Bannon had committed violent domestic abuse and noted misogynistic headlines from Breitbart including “Birth Control Makes Women Unattractive and Crazy” and “The Solution To Online ‘Harassment’ Is Simple: Women Should Just Log Off.”
> 
> This is not the extent of Bannon’s racist and sexist record: He has claimed that Roman Catholics want to boost Hispanic immigration to the United States because their “church is dying,” referred to the Civil War as the “war of Southern Independence” (a phrase often associated with pro-Confederate apologists for slavery), said that conservative women are better than progressive women because they’re not a “bunch of ***** that came from the Seven Sisters schools up in New England” and complained about inner-city people of color, saying that “cities could be washed away in an orgy of de-gentrification.”
> 
> Bannon has long been associated with the far right of the GOP and used his Breitbart platform to encourage the party to move away from the political center. This aligns with his support for other alt-right political parties in Western countries, including the United Kingdom Independence Party, the Alternative for Germany and the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands.


I appreciate you giving me more than just his ex-wife's opinions to go on. However, a lot of that looks like stuff that _could _be read in different ways depending on context... and forgive me for being skeptical since they are brought about by people that don't like him. Nevertheless, I will look into each of the articles and reports pointed out in this quote you posted. Thanks.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Pratchett said:


> I appreciate you giving me more than just his ex-wife's opinions to go on. However, a lot of that looks like stuff that _could _be read in different ways depending on context... and forgive me for being skeptical since they are brought about by people that don't like him. Nevertheless, I will look into each of the articles and reports pointed out in this quote you posted. Thanks.


I am sure more will come out over the next few weeks. But I agree we should not just go on what his wife said. That is just hearsay.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*






goldberg! Goldberg! GOLDBERG! 

- Vic


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Now I feel dirty everytime I watch an episode of Seinfeld because of Bannon.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

NEW TRUMP SMILIES YALL

:trump2 

:trump3

My original now has children! :trump


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> NEW TRUMP SMILIES YALL
> 
> :trump2
> 
> :trump3
> 
> My original now has children! :trump


His smalls hands are perfect in the first smiles, pretty accurate size LOL


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@DesolationRow @Fringe @Sincere @L-DOPA @Carte Blanche @Pratchett @Beatles123 

Trump insider Roger Stone discusses the election victory and where Trump goes from here with Stefan Molyneux:






Especially loved the bit about the absurd Clinton worldview that you either want war with Russia or you're a Russian agent. :lol Too true, Roger. America will never understand how close they came to the brink of annihilation with Hillary Clinton.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I don't know shit about this Bannon guy but everyone that calls him a white supremacist looks to be an enemy of his. now are they enemies because he's a white supremacist or are they his enemies because everyone is an asshole? I got questions.

It's pretty easy to call someone a white supremacist in order to destroy their reputation.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Vic Capri said:


> goldberg! Goldberg! GOLDBERG!
> 
> - Vic


BAH GAWD, KING! :jr

Shame those bastards stopped him from finishing the job with the JackCuckhammer. :trump


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



MrMister said:


> I don't know shit about this Bannon guy but everyone that calls him a white supremacist looks to be an enemy of his. now are they enemies because he's a white supremacist or are they his enemies because everyone is an asshole? I got questions.
> 
> It's pretty easy to call someone a white supremacist in order to destroy their reputation.


They're literally calling him anti-semitic because a Jewish guy writes for his website and talks about Jews he has political disagreements with. Oh and during a bitter divorce battle his ex-wife claimed he said he didn't want to send his kids to a school with Jews. Because that's a credible character witness right there. 

They're also trying to throw homophobia shade at him because a gay writer who works for him named Milo refers to himself as "The Dangerous ******" and writes frankly about the LGBT community. 

Yes, the guy who hires gay and Jewish writers is a homophobic anti-Semite according to the left. fpalm 

I've still yet to see any basis for the "white supremacist" claim other than him running a right-wing website that is linked to "the alt-right", which Hillary decided on her own was a white nationalist movement. I've spent a lot of time in those circles over the last year and the white nationalist element is very fringe, not at all uncontroversial within the movement. I'd describe the movement more as pure egalitarian myself, that is, not accepting of racism and hatred toward whites. Naturally, the actively white-hating Left doesn't like this and thus the gross race-baiting mischaracterizations.


----------



## RenegadexParagon

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> During Bannon’s reign over Breitbart, the website ran articles referring to conservative commentator Bill Kristol as a “renegade Jew” and Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum as “a Polish, Jewish, American elitist scorned.” Former Breitbart editor Ben Shapiro accused the site of embracing “a movement shot through with racism and anti-Semitism,” and Bannon’s ex-wife has testified in court that Bannon has “said he doesn’t like Jews” and didn’t want his children to go to school with Jews.


The issue with this, that I see, is many of the people who read Breitbart will not consider stuff like this antisemitic because David Horowitz (the guy who made the "renegade jew" remark) is Jewish. It's similar to people saying Milo Yiannopoulos isn't a homophobe because he's gay. It's just an easy get out of jail free card for prejudiced beliefs and content.

EDIT: Oh boy someone actually beat me to it and said that unironically :lol


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Watched that fantastic interview between Stefan Molyneux and Roger Stone, and was actually thinking about embedding it here, @CamillePunk. Thank you for sharing! 



MrMister said:


> I don't know shit about this Bannon guy but everyone that calls him a white supremacist looks to be an enemy of his. now are they enemies because he's a white supremacist or are they his enemies because everyone is an asshole? I got questions.
> 
> It's pretty easy to call someone a white supremacist in order to destroy their reputation.


This "white supremacist" charge seems fairly dubious. Steve Bannon happened to oversee Breitbart when David Horowitz, a Jew, wrote a column which called Bill Kristol a "renegade Jew" after Kristol started talking about forming his own political party, the Renegade Party, when it became clear that Trump would be the Republican nominee. The brunt of Horowitz's argument? Kristol supporting Hillary Clinton _endangered Israel_, because supposedly Hillary being president would result in Israel becoming endangered. There a hundred things one could say about this argument, but to suggest that Steve Bannon is a "white supremacist" because he allowed one Jewish writer to attack the political position of another Jewish writer because it put Israel at risk is quite the leap. 

Most of the rest of this is hearsay. 

Speaking of possible hearsay concerning Bannon (who has always seemed like quite the character, almost like a political pirate ala Long John Silver) it turns out he's probably not a "white supremacist"--he's a "Leninist"! :mark: :lol http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...rump-s-top-guy-told-me-he-was-a-leninist.html


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



DesolationRow said:


> Speaking of possible hearsay concerning Bannon (who has always seemed like quite the character, almost like a political pirate ala Long John Silver) it turns out he's probably not a "white supremacist"--he's a "Leninist"! :mark: :lol http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...rump-s-top-guy-told-me-he-was-a-leninist.html


He wants to destroy the State, you say? :mj 

#Bannon2024.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

:lmao now they're invoking Lenin :lmao


----------



## amhlilhaus

Everything trump says or does will be controversial.

The proof will be in the fence, constitutional sc nominees, deportations and jobs.

He does these simple things and hes got reelection grabbed by the pussy.

Good luck dems running 86 yo bernie sanders


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

My future self just showed up and gave my this video of my trip to the border in a few years






its about 15 stories high


----------



## El Dandy

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



stevefox1200 said:


> My future self just showed up and gave my this video of my trip to the border in a few years
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> its about 15 stories high


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*










It was only one year ago, he came out with this book. WOW!

- Vic


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Vic Capri said:


> It was only one year ago, he came out with this book. WOW!
> 
> - Vic


Jesus I looked at that and immediately thought Trump was threatening to cripple me if I didn't raise my energy. Lol


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Vic Capri said:


> It was only one year ago, he came out with this book. WOW!
> 
> - Vic


that :trump face needs to be a smiley


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

If anyone wants, you can listen to Crippled America for free on Audible.com. It's very detailed and I would recommend it for anyone wanting to know HOW he plans to build the wall and HOW mexico can pay for it among other things.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Sorry if this was already posted.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Dr. Savage needs to relax. :lol

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/michael-savage-reince-priebus-enemy-gop/2016/11/14/id/758693/

And Savage is someone who has been in the Trump camp since day one. These are people that Trump initially needs to work with to get things done. Priebus especially knows how to maneuver around Washington. If he's not up to the job, then I'm sure Trump will get rid of him and find someone that is. 

If people are going to freak out over every little move he makes and we are still two months away from him taking the Oath, they're going to be wanting to keep Obamacare as we're going to have a ton of folks having heart attacks.


----------



## ShiningStar

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



amhlilhaus said:


> Everything trump says or does will be controversial.
> 
> The proof will be in the fence, constitutional sc nominees, deportations and jobs.
> 
> He does these simple things and hes got reelection grabbed by the pussy.
> 
> Good luck dems running 86 yo bernie sanders


I am less worried about his rhetoric he will not follow through on and more that a dude who bankrupted a Casino is now running the biggest economy in the world. A Casino is literally the one business you can RIG in your favor and rake in money and he fucked that up.


----------



## DJHJR86

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



MrMister said:


> I don't know shit about this Bannon guy but everyone that calls him a white supremacist looks to be an enemy of his. now are they enemies because he's a white supremacist or are they his enemies because everyone is an asshole? I got questions.


I have never heard of him either, but apparently headlines to articles written by other people on a website he ran were "controversial" and somehow this is proof that he's a racist, homophobic antisemite.

And it's ironic because a ton of liberals are supporting Keith Ellison to head the DNC. The same Keith Ellison who has ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, two organizations that are largely antisemitic.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



MrMister said:


> I don't know shit about this Bannon guy but everyone that calls him a white supremacist looks to be an enemy of his. now are they enemies because he's a white supremacist or are they his enemies because everyone is an asshole? I got questions.
> 
> It's pretty easy to call someone a white supremacist in order to destroy their reputation.


Modern white nationalism is yet another hysterical accusation for people who are not as extremist as actual white nationalists but they are "still the same" if you know what I mean. It's the same media and leftist spin that has sought to label any and every commentator about race issues that doesn't favor or pander to minorities as a racist.

---

There are actual racists amongst the alt-right, but the community at this point has not at all been taken over by racists at all but rather has a growing segment of disenfranchised white men and women who have been raised to believe the white privilege conspiracy theory as fact - but then they grew up, looked at the world around them, applied for non-existent college scholarships, non-existent pro-white affirmative action, saw the homeless white people around them, saw the racist and sexist attitudes towards whites, saw the rantings of millions of SJW's consistently calling for the genocide of ****** and decided that they need to come together to fight this growing hatred they face.

We've gotten to a point where simply trying to have a conversation about race and white people claiming that they never experienced their "privilege" are called white nationalists. Of course some people in the alt-right do hold certain toxic views, but a lot of what they say makes perfect sense.



DJHJR86 said:


> And it's ironic because a ton of liberals are supporting Keith Ellison to head the DNC. The same Keith Ellison who has ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, two organizations that are largely antisemitic.


Why go as deep as Keith Ellison when you have Hillary who's in bed with the Saudi monarchs and Obama who's in bed with Iranians who have some of the worst human rights violations on record in the modern era - and two countries with an openly anti-Israeili policy.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Campaigned for draining the swamp....transition team filled by cronyism and nepotism. :trump


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> We've gotten to a point where simply trying to have a conversation about race and white people claiming that they never experienced their "privilege" are called white nationalists. Of course some people in the alt-right do hold certain toxic views, but a lot of what they say makes perfect sense.


it's getting difficult to take the 'white supremacist' criticisms seriously when the mainstream left is using that label for the likes of bannon and milo. Have to pick their targets more carefully if they don't want the phrase to lose all meaning as the other commonplace insults have (racist, sexist, homophobe, islamophobe etc.)


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

The hypocrisy of the Guardian :banderas










Four years ago, I posted the article about Texan secession petitioners on FB when I was a naive left-leaning liberal myself.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RenegadexParagon said:


> The issue with this, that I see, is many of the people who read Breitbart will not consider stuff like this antisemitic because David Horowitz (the guy who made the "renegade jew" remark) is Jewish. It's similar to people saying Milo Yiannopoulos isn't a homophobe because he's gay. It's just an easy get out of jail free card for prejudiced beliefs and content.
> 
> EDIT: Oh boy someone actually beat me to it and said that unironically :lol


LOL Of course


I am not surprised at all Trump at supporters defending Bannon. They always make excuses.

i just think it's funny some people think just because you may be gay, Jewish or a certain race, you can make a bigoted comment and since they are one of those things it does not count. It just shows you the warped logic of the right.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

People on the right are bashing Bannon too.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/11/14/report-soros-big-liberal-donors-meeting-dems-stopping-trump



> Billionaire George Soros and other big Democratic donors are meeting for three days in Washington, D.C. to discuss how to stop President-elect Donald Trump's agenda.
> 
> The reported closed-door meetings kicked off Sunday night at the upscale Mandarin Oriental hotel.


Looks like the establishment is getting worried.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I was really harsh to Hillary supporters this cycle. I accused them of being in a bubble of elite air. I ridiculed them at every turn because I knew Trump would win. Now after seeing so many Hillary supporters express their fears with such emotion and hearing them speak with a tremble in their voice and apprehension in their words I want to sincerely offer an apology to none of them.﻿

- Vic


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

In the meantime George Soros will just keep paying his professional rioters and protesters. :lol Entirely fitting that he and other major Democratic Party donors are meeting at the Mandarin Oriental (which truly is a fantastic hotel).
@AryaDark @Beatles123 @camille Punk @Carte Blanche @DA @The Dazzler @Goku @L-DOPA @markoutsmarkout @Miss Sally @Vic Capri


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/798348799240343554
:hglol :lmao :sodone

I really, really want to see this film. :mark:


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



DesolationRow said:


> In the meantime George Soros will just keep paying his professional rioters and protesters. :lol Entirely fitting that he and other major Democratic Party donors are meeting at the Mandarin *Oriental* (which truly is a fantastic hotel).
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/798348799240343554
> :hglol :lmao :sodone
> 
> I really, really want to see this film. :mark:


> Cries wolf about racism as one form of counter-arguing
> Attends a meeting at a hotel that uses an outdated term that is regarded as racist towards Asians










And I'd be down to roll out with Donaldus Prime if it means protecting this flawed but lovely nation of ours. :trump


----------



## A-C-P

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*








EXTERMINATE ILLEGALS


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Wait. Was that supposed to make us want to stop deporting mexicans, or giving us ideas to build a giant fucking Trump robot that shoots missiles out of its crotch? 

I'm confused, because I really want a giant crotch-missile shooting Trump robot patrolling my borders now.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

You know, this should be Trump's mindset towards liberals at this point.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Wait. Was that supposed to make us want to stop deporting mexicans, or giving us ideas to build a giant fucking Trump robot that shoots missiles out of its crotch?
> 
> I'm confused, because I really want a giant crotch-missile shooting Trump robot patrolling my borders now.










is there to protect murica from :fellabot


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Breitbart is apparently planning a lawsuit against a 'major media company' for repeatedly (about a million times) being slandered as a 'white nationalist' 'racist' outfit without any actual evidence being presented to back it up.

I sure hope it's CNN *fingers crossed*


----------



## Martins

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

This Bannon guy calling himself a Leninist is fucking amazing :lmao

American politics more and more sound like one big self-parody.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

http://gotnews.com/breaking-trump-s...r-actually-autistic-hillaryclinton-supporter/

Disgusting considering the national media ran this as a Trump supporter instead of telling us the truth - as always.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



deepelemblues said:


> Breitbart is apparently planning a lawsuit against a 'major media company' for repeatedly (about a million times) being slandered as a 'white nationalist' 'racist' outfit without any actual evidence being presented to back it up.
> 
> I sure hope it's CNN *fingers crossed*


Its easy to show how they can make a case why they are 'white nationalist' 'racist' outfit


Here is just one example.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...nfederate-flag-proclaims-a-glorious-heritage/

Hoist It High And Proud: The Confederate Flag Proclaims A Glorious Heritage

Another article from them

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presi...bill-kristol-republican-spoiler-renegade-jew/

Bill Kristol: Republican Spoiler, Renegade Jew


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

At least there is some good news

Ben Carson turning down Trumps offer to be in his cabinet
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcar...offer-to-serve-in-trump-administration-report


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Its easy to show how they can make a case why they are 'white nationalist' 'racist' outfit
> 
> 
> Here is just one example.
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...nfederate-flag-proclaims-a-glorious-heritage/
> 
> Hoist It High And Proud: The Confederate Flag Proclaims A Glorious Heritage
> 
> Another article from them
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presi...bill-kristol-republican-spoiler-renegade-jew/
> 
> Bill Kristol: Republican Spoiler, Renegade Jew


LOL

these are literally the only two articles braindead morons pull out to call breitbart white nationalist

one is a defense of the confederate flag as a historical symbol not as a symbol for any contemporary political movement. nowhere in that article does it call for white people to band together as a racial bloc to for the political purpose of advancing 'white interests' (whatever those may be). it's a half-troll half-serious article about the confederate flag as a historical symbol

the other was _written by a Jew_ and has been defended by multiple prominent Jews and Jewish organizations and even if it were intended in an anti-Semitic way which it wasn't, it has nothing to do with white nationalism. what if an arab called someone a "renegade Jew," is that arab a white nationalist now? :heston

two articles that aren't white nationalist at all out of thousands breitbart has published :heston

this is pathetic even by your extremely low standard BM, you're gonna have to do better than copy pasting whatever you read on thunkprogress or media mutters this morning

even if those WERE 'white nationalist' articles, they're like .0005% of all the articles breitbart has ever published.

white nationalists usually talk about umm you know white nationalism pretty much all the time, not .0005% of the time

they also don't spend their time defending israel ad nauseum

breitbart must be the smartest, slickest bunch of white nationalists ever, defending israel to the point that it's almost an obsession with them and having a large portion of their senior staff and many of their contributors being jews and all. don't usually see that with white nationalists. okay not usually, you NEVER see that with white nationalists.

so unless breitbart is playing 19 dimensional level white nationalist chess, get outta here with that bullshit.

there's actually some dumbfucks out there on the internet writing articles for left-wing websites trying to 'prove' that you can be a staunch defender of israel while still being an anti-Semite :heston

let's just redefine anti-Semitism so it suits our current political prejudices LOL. for 55 years no anti-Semite has ever defended israel yet now with the proper mental gymnastics (special olympics edition) someone can claim that anti-Semites definitely can defend israel.

who gets these people out of bed and dressed in the morning for real. who ties their shoes for them? cus for sure they aren't doing it themselves.


----------



## skypod

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> > Cries wolf about racism as one form of counter-arguing
> > Attends a meeting at a hotel that uses an outdated term that is regarded as racist towards Asians


There's a million hotels and restaurants named Oriental. It's not an insulting term, it's just a word to describe countries in the East.

However describing people as "dem damn Oriental fellas down the street bah Gawd" is offensive.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



skypod said:


> There's a million hotels and restaurants named Oriental. It's not an insulting term, it's just a word to describe countries in the East.
> 
> However describing people as "dem damn Oriental fellas down the street bah Gawd" is offensive.


i find that way more offensive because it includes one of JR's catchphrases BAH GAWD


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

On a bit of a personal note again. You don't have to read this if you don't like anecdotes. 

My 2 years provisional permanent residency are up and I was looking at the requirements for getting the provisional status on my immigration renewed ... so it boils down to this:

1. My 2 year green card
2. Lease agreement
3. Transaction history on a joint account
4. Personal affidavits of two friends or family members that can testify that we've been living together for two years in front of a panel if required
5. Joint utility bills, car insurance and other forms of government records proving joint living
6. Possible second FBI screening, second round of background checks on criminal history and a completely clean police record (not even a parking violation)
7. Joint tax records
8. $600 processing fee

Secondary evidence (recommended but not required)
9. Photo evidence of our life together at various events, vacations, selfies etc
10. Continued exchange of gifts (basically official bank records or receipts)

Given the mood of the immigration officer reviewing our records. Possibility of second round of interviews being called where they will ask us intrusive questions about which side of the bed we sleep on, our personal likes and dislikes and given the interviewer it isn't even uncommon for them to ask about our sex life (we were asked in the first round of interviews). 

What Illegal immigrants need to stay:

1. Nothing. 

I am not comparing my situation to that of an illegal. The fact that they have low moral equity because they're already committing a crime and then claiming entitlement to continuing this crime is immoral enough. But what bothers me is that the red tape I have to go through in order to stay legal in this country compared to what illegals have to go through makes for a very unbalanced system. Abide by the law and moral values: Get your life stripped down and have no rights to privacy of personal information. Break the rules: Get far more legal protection to privacy. 

This does not make sense.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



skypod said:


> There's a million hotels and restaurants named Oriental. It's not an insulting term, it's just a word to describe countries in the East.
> 
> However describing people as "dem damn Oriental fellas down the street bah Gawd" is offensive.


Nope, it's still offensive and outdated, you white cis male scum. :yoshi


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



virus21 said:


>


i get the feeling there's gonna be a big budget 1984 movie made sometime in the next 4 years, and o'brien will look suspiciously like a certain donald :trump


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



> College students across the country are now demanding that their schools be converted into sanctuary campuses to protect illegal immigrants from President-elect Donald Trump’s vowed crackdown on immigration.
> 
> At Harvard University, for instance, “concerned” students and faculty presented a petition to the elite school’s administration in which they “urgently demand that you directly support our undocumented students.”
> 
> “Many students and their families now live in fear of Donald Trump’s deportation threats.” Tweet This
> 
> [RELATED: Campus police won’t enforce immigration law, college tells students]
> 
> “President-elect Donald J. Trump now possesses the power to materialize his words with the support of our [C]ongress, making the repeal of vital immigration policies not only possible, but frighteningly plausible,” the petition asserts before going on to present a list of several demands to ensure the protection of illegal immigrants at Harvard.
> 
> Among the demands are calls for the hiring of a “full-time Assistant Dean under the Dean of Diversity and Inclusion” whose sole objective will be to “support the undocumented/DACA-mented students at the college.”
> 
> Additionally, the ultimatum orders Harvard’s administration to “establish a distinct budget for undocumented students” to “cover fees associated with immigration-related legal proceedings,” and to hire “a mental health professional” to work with “marginalized communities.”
> 
> Finally, Harvard students and faculty call on their administration to “proclaim Harvard Memorial Church” a member of “the network of sanctuary churches that provide refuge for students facing deportation proceedings.”
> 
> [RELATED: Student groups demand that UCSD become ‘sanctuary campus’]
> 
> Meanwhile, at Yale University, students are now circulating a petition that commands the university to “investigate the possibility of our campus serving as a sanctuary for students, staff, and their family members who face imminent deportation,” saying that “many students and their families now live in fear of Donald Trump’s deportation threats.”
> 
> At Brown University, students and staff have also submitted a letter to their administration demanding that it “investigate the possibility of our campus serving as a sanctuary for students, our staff members, and their family members who face imminent deportation,” using language that is almost precisely the same as that of Yale’s petition.
> 
> "Our active support of our most vulnerable members will demonstrate Brown's commitment to defend our values of inclusion, justice, and humanity," the letter states. "It may give comfort to those, especially within the Brown community, who are frightened and unsure about their future and safety."
> 
> [RELATED: Brown student vandalize U.S. flags on eve of Veterans Day]
> 
> Another petition is making its way around the University of Wisconsin, Madison’s campus, where students and faculty are asking the administration “to implement a plan to declare our campus a sanctuary for undocumented and DACAmented students, staff, and their family members who face imminent deportation,” again using language strikingly similar to that of the previously mentioned petitions.
> 
> Similarly, student activists at the University of Connecticut are demanding that the school “become a legal sanctuary for undocumented students and their families by the end of the calendar year.”
> 
> If such an outcome does not occur, the list of demands calls on the school to release an “action plan” for how it will handle the deportation of illegal immigrants, “including how the university will handle their credits, financial aid, and any money they have paid for tuition/room and board,” the Daily Campus reports.
> 
> While the school has not specifically addressed the list of demands, the Daily Campus reports that the administration sent out a statement to all students Thursday reiterating its commitment to inclusivity.


https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=8386



> An Air Force veteran's message to anti-Trump protesters went viral in the past few days, as he ranted against what he sees as the hypocrisy of the left.
> 
> Thaddeus Alexander posted the video, which has been viewed more than 19 MILLION times since Thursday, with the message: "Protesting .... really?"
> 
> He said there are violent protesters out there who also want to do away with the Second Amendment as a way to end violence.
> 
> "You're causing all this destruction just because your candidate lost! See, that's the problem with this country. You can't always get your way. ... Quit being crybabies!" he said.
> 
> Alexander said many protesters are behaving like "two-year-olds," setting fires and blocking roads, making people late for work, because they didn't like the election's outcome.
> 
> "I'm glad I don't live in New York City or Washington or Oregon because I would run one of your asses over!" he said, adding that this mentality is why Trump is going to be president.
> 
> "Because we're tired of you crybabies. You didn't earn anything. None of you put on a uniform, but you're equipped to disrespect the flag, to not say the Pledge of Allegiance, not recognize the Bible. You didn't fight for anything, but you want it. It doesn't work like that!"
> 
> Alexander said this morning that he wants all Americans to realize the great country that they have and to start having some pride in it.
> 
> "We need to preserve this country. We need to stop burning flags. We need to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance and we need to be proud of what we have here," he said.
> 
> Alexander struck quite a nerve with many Americans, as his video was shared nearly 1 million times on Facebook. He said he posts videos on social media because of his concern about how divided the country has become.
> 
> He also argued that most political pundits and Democrats assumed that African-Americans would support Hillary Clinton.
> 
> "When you have a white lady on CNN saying who the black man is gonna vote for? There's no way she could know that. You might want to talk to a lot of black men to find out," he argued.


http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/11/14/black-veterans-video-message-trump-protesters-goes-viral


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

i can't wait until :trump gets into office and starts bringing the hammer down on these fucks in their sanctuary cities for refusing to follow federal law

federalism means certain things are left to the states and local governments and certain things are left to the federal government

it doesn't mean that authorities that aren't the federal government can ignore the federal government's legitimate constitution-granted authority when they feel like it

the constitution gives near absolute authority to the president on immigration as long as he conforms to the laws passed on the subject by congress. don't like that, amend the constitution then


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



deepelemblues said:


> LOL
> 
> these are literally the only two articles braindead morons pull out to call breitbart white nationalist
> 
> one is a defense of the confederate flag as a historical symbol not as a symbol for any contemporary political movement. nowhere in that article does it call for white people to band together as a racial bloc to for the political purpose of advancing 'white interests' (whatever those may be). it's a half-troll half-serious article about the confederate flag as a historical symbol
> 
> the other was _written by a Jew_ and has been defended by multiple prominent Jews and Jewish organizations and even if it were intended in an anti-Semitic way which it wasn't, it has nothing to do with white nationalism. what if an arab called someone a "renegade Jew," is that arab a white nationalist now? :heston
> 
> two articles that aren't white nationalist at all out of thousands breitbart has published :heston
> 
> this is pathetic even by your extremely low standard BM, you're gonna have to do better than copy pasting whatever you read on thunkprogress or media mutters this morning
> 
> even if those WERE 'white nationalist' articles, they're like .0005% of all the articles breitbart has ever published.
> 
> white nationalists usually talk about umm you know white nationalism pretty much all the time, not .0005% of the time
> 
> they also don't spend their time defending israel ad nauseum
> 
> breitbart must be the smartest, slickest bunch of white nationalists ever, defending israel to the point that it's almost an obsession with them and having a large portion of their senior staff and many of their contributors being jews and all. don't usually see that with white nationalists. okay not usually, you NEVER see that with white nationalists.
> 
> so unless breitbart is playing 19 dimensional level white nationalist chess, get outta here with that bullshit.
> 
> there's actually some dumbfucks out there on the internet writing articles for left-wing websites trying to 'prove' that you can be a staunch defender of israel while still being an anti-Semite :heston
> 
> let's just redefine anti-Semitism so it suits our current political prejudices LOL. for 55 years no anti-Semite has ever defended israel yet now with the proper mental gymnastics (special olympics edition) someone can claim that anti-Semites definitely can defend israel.
> 
> who gets these people out of bed and dressed in the morning for real. who ties their shoes for them? cus for sure they aren't doing it themselves.


Just because you are Jewish it does not mean you can't make anti-semitic statements. Anti-semitic statements are anti-Semitic regardless of who says them
Just like racist comments are racist comments regardless of what the race of the person is making those comments.

The confederate flag is a symbol of racism. It's laughable to even claim it's not. It's a symbol of hate.

And sorry but they are a pro-white nationalist website. Its not bullshit.

You want other examples, here ya go

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...list-article-at-breitbart-challenge-accepted/


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



deepelemblues said:


> i can't wait until :trump gets into office and starts bringing the hammer down on these fucks in their sanctuary cities for refusing to follow federal law
> 
> federalism means certain things are left to the states and local governments and certain things are left to the federal government
> 
> it doesn't mean that authorities that aren't the federal government can ignore the federal government's legitimate constitution-granted authority when they feel like it
> 
> the constitution gives near absolute authority to the president on immigration as long as he conforms to the laws passed on the subject by congress. don't like that, amend the constitution then


You do know that Obama deported more immigrants than any other president in history right?

I love how certain people act like Obama was not strict on illegal immigration.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Take a shot every time BM stars a sentence with "I love how" or a similar variation.

Seriously m8, use a different set of words every now and then.

And before you go off about Trump supporters, I'm not one, remember?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Cipher said:


> Take a shot every time BM stars a sentence with "I love how" or a similarly variation.
> 
> Seriously m8, use a different set of words every now and then.
> 
> And before you go off about Trump supporters, I'm not one, remember?


are you going to deny that I am wrong about Obama deporting the most immigrants fo any president in history?


----------



## Cipher

birthday_massacre said:


> are you going to deny that I am wrong about Obama deporting the most immigrants fo any president in history?


Not at all seeing as that's a fact. Just pls stop using that set of words so damn much.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



> A common complaint against Hillary Clinton throughout her campaign was that she came off to voters as cold and highly scripted. WikiLeaks emails released from Clinton campaign chair John Podesta revealed her campaign staff debated back and forth about what to have her say, often without any input from Clinton herself. The campaign’s response to the disconnect Clinton had with voters was to rely on data driven from a computer algorithm named Ada rather than hold more press conferences to personally address voters’ concerns, or hold more town halls and appearances in working class communities.
> 
> “Ada is a complex computer algorithm that the campaign was prepared to publicly unveil after the election as its invisible guiding hand,” reported The Washington Post. “Named for a female 19th-century mathematician—Ada, Countess of Lovelace—the algorithm was said to play a role in virtually every strategic decision Clinton aides made, including where and when to deploy the candidate and her battalion of surrogates and where to air television ads—as well as when it was safe to stay dark.”
> 
> In short, a campaign whose candidate suffered from complaints about appearing too robotic put all bets on a robot. And Clinton partisans wonder why she lost.
> 
> Clinton didn’t make any appearances in Wisconsin and didn’t show up in Michigan until very late in the election. Sen. Bernie Sanders defeated Clinton in both states during the Democratic primaries, despite the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Democratic Party working on behalf of her candidacy.
> 
> President Barack Obama recently explained Clinton lost because she failed to show up at a lot of places throughout the country.
> 
> “One of the issues the Democrats have to be clear on is, given population distribution across the country, we have to compete everywhere. We have to show up everywhere. We have to work at a grass-roots level, something that’s been a running thread in my career,” Obama told reporters on November 14, preceding a trip he is taking to Greece, Germany and Peru. “You know, I won Iowa not because the demographics dictated that I would win Iowa. It was because I spent 87 days going to every small town and fair and fish fry and VFW hall, and there were some counties where I might have lost, but maybe I lost by 20 points instead of 50 points.”
> 
> Obama added, “There are some counties maybe I won that people didn’t expect because people had a chance to see you and listen to you and get a sense of who you stood for and who you were fighting for.” But instead, the Clinton campaign falsely assumed it could ride on the coattails of Obama’s approval ratings and previous success in grassroots campaigning, without having to do any of the work themselves.
> 
> Clinton and her loyal supporters have yet to hold themselves accountable for her loss. It wasn’t Russia, WikiLeaks, FBI Director James Comey, Facebook, third parties, Sanders, sexism or the media’s fault. It was Clinton and the DNC‘s for being grossly out of touch with voters.
> 
> Their strategy was focused on wealthy donors and elites. The Clinton campaign responded to Donald Trump‘s wealth by touting billionaires Mark Cuban, Warren Buffett, Meg Whitman and Michael Bloomberg as surrogates. They reveled in fundraising nearly twice as much as Trump, with over $200 million from Super PACs.
> 
> During a time in which both political parties were experiencing a rise in resentment toward big money and the elitist status quo, Clinton embraced the elitism that the family has taken solace in since Bill left the White House. Hillary assumed all that corporate money would grease her campaign wheels, allowing her to coast into the White House. This tactic backfired miserably, though it was obvious to anyone not depending solely on a computer algorithm that this was self-destructive from the start.


http://observer.com/2016/11/obama-blames-clinton-and-her-out-of-touch-campaign-for-losing-election/


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

*SOMEBODY IN THE MEDIA FINALLY DELIVERED THE MESSAGE THAT ALL THESE LATE NIGHT HOSTS NEED TO HEAR!!!!!*






Dude mentioned the GOAT of late night, Johnny Carson.

:banderas

And for those who haven't seen it yet, here's the SNL cold open Joe was referencing, which was a somber tribute for both Hillary's failed campaign and Leonard Cohen:


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Just because you are Jewish it does not mean you can't make anti-semitic statements. Anti-semitic statements are anti-Semitic regardless of who says them
> Just like racist comments are racist comments regardless of what the race of the person is making those comments.
> 
> The confederate flag is a symbol of racism. It's laughable to even claim it's not. It's a symbol of hate.
> 
> And sorry but they are a pro-white nationalist website. Its not bullshit.
> 
> You want other examples, here ya go
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...list-article-at-breitbart-challenge-accepted/


it's complete bullshit

not one of those articles linked to in that pathetic WaPo article are white nationalism

sorry bro you haven't figured it out yet but the days of substituting your prejudices for objective analysis are done with. you haven't figured it out yet and the media hasn't figured it out yet but it's a :fact all the same. 

even if those were white nationalist articles which they aren't it's still like .0001% of all the articles breitbart has posted in its existence.

so pathetic. so :heston at you guys thinking you can keep playing the same old smear game and have it work anymore. enough people are sick and tired of your dishonest bullshit that they just elected :trump 

figure it out and fast or you're only in for more heartbreak in the political future.



birthday_massacre said:


> You do know that Obama deported more immigrants than any other president in history right?
> 
> I love how certain people act like Obama was not strict on illegal immigration.


this is completely irrelevant to the issue of sanctuary cities. not once did i mention obama. how many people obama has deported is completely irrelevant to the issue of sanctuary cities refusing to follow federal law.

can you possibly not throw out non sequitirs and red herrings just once? please?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



deepelemblues said:


> it's complete bullshit
> 
> not one of those articles linked to in that pathetic WaPo article are white nationalism
> 
> sorry bro you haven't figured it out yet but the days of substituting your prejudices for objective analysis are done with. you haven't figured it out yet and the media hasn't figured it out yet but it's a :fact all the same.
> 
> even if those were white nationalist articles which they aren't it's still like .0001% of all the articles breitbart has posted in its existence.
> 
> so pathetic. so :heston at you guys thinking you can keep playing the same old smear game and have it work anymore. enough people are sick and tired of your dishonest bullshit that they just elected :trump
> 
> figure it out and fast or you're only in for more heartbreak in the political future.
> 
> 
> 
> this is completely irrelevant to the issue of sanctuary cities. not once did i mention obama. how many people obama has deported is completely irrelevant to the issue of sanctuary cities refusing to follow federal law.
> 
> can you possibly not throw out non sequitirs and red herrings just once? please?


Of course you will just ignore evidence it's what you always do.

As for the sanctuary cities nothing is going to change that hasn't been done currently. What exactly will they be breaking? Do you even know what you are talking about? sanctuary cities don't break federal laws.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Apparently hearing news that Cruz and Trump met today at Trump Tower. 

Here's hoping that these two mend fences and talked about the Supreme Court because a constitutionalist in the Supreme Court would be fantastic.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Of course you will just ignore evidence it's what you always do.
> 
> As for the sanctuary cities nothing is going to change that hasn't been done currently. What exactly will they be breaking? Do you even know what you are talking about? sanctuary cities don't break federal laws.


BM thinks he provides evidence in any post he makes :lol YOU DON'T *POST* Evidence dude! We debunk you every single time NO ONE believes you. No one ever has. Call me out for posting memes all you like. You post anecdotal shit the same as i do, difference is only you claim its pure fact.

No one here buys it.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Apparently hearing news that Cruz and Trump met today at Trump Tower.
> 
> Here's hoping that these two mend fences and talked about the Supreme Court because a constitutionalist in the Supreme Court would be fantastic.


I would prefer him to stay in the Senate and be a thorn in the side of people who try to keep going to the left. Need people like him to hold the line if the GOP tries to keep on the liberal side.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



BruiserKC said:


> I would prefer him to stay in the Senate and be a thorn in the side of people who try to keep going to the left. Need people like him to hold the line if the GOP tries to keep on the liberal side.


That's true and that's where I'd want him to be as well, but his input on the constitution and Supreme Court appointment would be absolutely invaluable. From what Cruz let slip to the media it seems like the Supreme Court was definitely discussed between the two. 

Reaching out to Cruz is a sign that Trump wants to work with the best minds he has access to as well.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> BM thinks he provides evidence in any post he makes :lol YOU DON'T *POST* Evidence dude! We debunk you every single time NO ONE believes you. No one ever has. Call me out for posting memes all you like. You post anecdotal shit the same as i do, difference is only you claim its pure fact.
> 
> No one here buys it.


That is because when you show examples backing up what you are saying that is called evidence. 

The stuff you post is just made up things that is easily disproven by snopes, that is called debunking. Just because you say oh no it's not racist or anti-semantic does not mean you debunked it, especially when legit papers even back up that it is.

You don't even think the confederate flag is racist, that is all I need to know about your views on what is racist/bigoted or what is not.

Not to mention you don't think Trump was a racist, sexist, bigot during the primary and general election because you agree with everything he says.

So of course you won't think Bannon is a racist or bigot/antic-semantic.

it does not surprise me in the least.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



> More than half of the protestors arrested in Portland, Oregon, last weekend did not vote in the state.
> 
> According to 13 News Now, 69 of the rioters did not vote or are not registered to vote in the state.
> 
> KGW compiled a list of the 112 people arrested by the Portland Police Bureau during recent protests. Those names and ages, provided by police, were then compared to state voter logs by Multnomah County Elections officials.
> Records show 34 of the protesters arrested didn’t return a ballot for the November 8 election. Thirty-five of the demonstrators taken into custody weren’t registered to vote in Oregon.
> 
> Twenty-five protesters who were arrested did vote.
> 
> KGW is still working to verify voting records for the remaining 17 protesters who were arrested.
> 
> Nationwide riots or "protests" have dominated the headlines while violence against Trump supporters has gotten barely a mention. Some of the more inflammatory elements of the rallies have also been downplayed.
> 
> One report shows empty buses used to transport "participants" to a weekend protest in Chicago. Another shows that ads were placed on Craigslist looking to hire people to show up at the election protests. Recently reports surfaced that the protestors were paid to disrupt Trump rallies during the campaign. Is it really a surprise that the protestors in Portland are not really aggrieved voters?


https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/11/15/more-than-half-of-the-anti-trump-rioters-arrested-didnt-vote/


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



virus21 said:


> https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/11/15/more-than-half-of-the-anti-trump-rioters-arrested-didnt-vote/


http://patch.com/oregon/portland/anti-trump-protests-fill-downtown-streets


*
As Sixth Night of Protests Fill the Streets, No Arrests (Video)
*

*Meanwhile, Portland Police arrested so many people Saturday night that they needed a TriMet bus to transport them all to jail. Police said 71 people were arrested during the fifth night of protests since Trump had been elected.

The majority of those arrested were charged with failing to obey orders to get out of the streets and back onto the sidewalk.*

Don't act like all of them are rioters. Only a handful of them are and those need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent fo the law. But most just ignored police and would not get out of the street. They are not rioters and are not violent.

As for some of them not being voters, um so what. that just means they were against both Hillary and Trump. and some are out of state again so what, maybe their state did not have protests. It would be like someone going from RI or NH to MA to protest in Boston.

Again the violent protesters give the 99% peaceful protesters a bad name. And they need to be thrown in jail.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> BM thinks he provides evidence in any post he makes :lol YOU DON'T *POST* Evidence dude! We debunk you every single time NO ONE believes you. No one ever has. Call me out for posting memes all you like. You post anecdotal shit the same as i do, difference is only you claim its pure fact.
> 
> No one here buys it.


Respectfully disagree. I don't usually like his manner but BM posts much more useful stuff than you do and he explains his points a lot more comprehensively.

You might not trust his sources but I've never seen him post anything as bad as the Hillary Devil Worshipper / cult leader / blood sacrifice stuff for example that you were peddling in the lead up.

Maybe if you took the time to argue a bit more yourself rather than jumping on Trump echo chamber bandwagons saying 'we' have done this and 'we' have debunked that and that more people would take you seriously.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

A couple more great articles by Scott Adams, who predicted Trump's landslide victory over a year ago and accurately chronicled nearly every step of the journey since then in a way no one else did:

_How To Break An Illusion_: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/153172272041/how-to-break-an-illusion

Adams explains how Trump has been trying to dispel the illusions about him cast on people by the HRC campaign, and speculates what his next move may be. 

_The Thought Experiment that Broke Your Brain_: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/153220656771/the-thought-experiment-that-broke-your-brain

Adams provides a thought experiment relating to the topic of abortion and Trump's position on the issue.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> A couple more great articles by Scott Adams, who predicted Trump's landslide victory over a year ago and accurately chronicled nearly every step of the journey since then in a way no one else did:
> 
> _How To Break An Illusion_: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/153172272041/how-to-break-an-illusion
> 
> Adams explains how Trump has been trying to dispel the illusions about him cast on people by the HRC campaign, and speculates what his next move may be.





> For example, half the country thought Trump was going to eliminate every good thing about Obamacare. But recently the public learned that Trump wants to keep the most popular provisions and just “fix” the rest of it. That violates the monster frame. But it isn’t enough by itself. You need more violations.


Half the country or more thought Trump was going to eliminate Obamacare because that's what Trump himself has indicated on several occasions.



> "Obamacare can't be reformed, salvaged, or fixed. It's that bad." -- Time to Get Tough, 2011
> 
> (Whole lot of other quotes of Trump trashing Obamacare)
> 
> "Obamacare is a disaster. You know it, we all know it. It's going up at numbers that nobody’s ever seen, worldwide. It's -- nobody has ever seen numbers like this for health care. It's only getting worse… *We have to repeal it and replace it with something absolutely much less expensive*. And something that works, where your plan can actually be tailored. We have to get rid of the lines around the state, artificial lines, where we stop insurance companies from coming in and competing." -- Second presidential debate, Oct 9th, 2016


https://www.thrillist.com/health/nation/donald-trump-health-care-obamacare-views

Scott Adams is clearly implying everyone's just under the wrong impression when it comes to Trump and his actions and views, but you can't change what comes from the horse's mouth.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

^ this guy :lmao


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I definitely believe that Trump will not deliver on a vast majority of his campaign promises akin to your atypical politician. Though I think that some of his supporters knew that in the first place...again I think. 

It's kinda like if one of us armchair bookers on wrestling forum suddenly became the head of creative, you know? You don't really know what it's like to be in that position until you are. One of his main campaign points was to totally eliminate Obama Care and now he's already backing off of it. Though that may be due to his longstanding Democrat ideals? Who knows. The first few months will be really interesting.

Trump is also just an awful fucking public speaker. Charismatic and able to pump up crowds, yes, but absolutely horrible at speaking in a non-high school pep rally style. I feel like people wouldn't have been so against him in the first place if he got his points across more eloquently.


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



DesolationRow said:


> In the meantime George Soros will just keep paying his professional rioters and protesters. :lol Entirely fitting that he and other major Democratic Party donors are meeting at the Mandarin Oriental (which truly is a fantastic hotel).
> 
> @AryaDark @Beatles123 @camille Punk @Carte Blanche @DA @The Dazzler @Goku @L-DOPA @markoutsmarkout @Miss Sally @Vic Capri
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/798348799240343554
> :hglol :lmao :sodone
> 
> I really, really want to see this film. :mark:


hahaha oh wow


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

^ 'Sup GO to tha KU?


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Cipher said:


> I definitely believe that Trump will not deliver on a vast majority of his campaign promises akin to your atypical politician. Though I think that some of his supporters knew that in the first place...again I think.


Whilst I agree with you 100% that he'll end up being the exact same as any other lying, self-serving politician who break all their promises (I've yet to see a politician who isn't) I also get the impression that a lot of his voters were on his side for a change from the normal routine. Now, if he is just the same as any other politician, I can honestly see a lot of those people being quick to turn on him. I think those who are more pragmatic and aware of the political system and politics in general will likely be those who cut him more breaks - the voters who bought in to the "movement of change" I'm not so sure he'll get away with backing up on all of his promises and being exactly the same as the establishment they were rebelling against with their votes. In some ways a "change" platform can be a double-edged sword, it gives you the power to excite the populous, but I personally think it puts your actions under more scrutiny should the change prove false.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

It's been a week. Nothing significant has happened. Way too early to say he's not fulfilling any promises. I'm not even going to freak if he picks some neocon warhawk as his Secretary of State because at the end of the day Trump makes the decisions and everyone answers to him. I'll judge him based on what he does as president. If he disappoints me then I'll come down on him hard, just as I've gone at Obama hard despite supporting him in '08, due to liking his anti-war and pro-privacy rhetoric (which, looking back on what he actually did as president, LOL). 

What I do know is that if he wasn't serious about shaking things up and ruffling neocon feathers then there's zero chance he would have appointed Bannon as his Chief Strategist. It's a great sign. The hysterical, anti-reality based backlash from all the right enemies convinces me of that.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/201...d-steak-dinner-admin-shaping-be-least-n684511

http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/16/media/donald-trump-press-pool-tension/index.html?iid=hp-stack-dom

:lmao :lmao :lmao

He needs to start revoking the press credentials of these PATHETIC media outlets to really set them off. Only let alternative news journalists (from all parts of the political spectrum) into his press conferences who actually report directly to the people rather than through their corporate pro-establishment filters.


----------



## ManiacMichaelMyers

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

One week in and they (incoming administration) are already running around like chickens with their heads cut off. 
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/16/us/politics/trump-transition.html

Voting in a guy with zero political experience really makes sense when you just hate the other side that much I guess. fpalm

They didn't expect to win, and now we're stuck with this shit. 
Thanks.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Drain the swamp to add in toxic waste! You get a position! You get a seat! You get to regulate yourself! Every lobbyist gets a prize!


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



ManiacMichaelMyers said:


> One week in and they (incoming administration) are already running around like chickens with their heads cut off.
> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/16/us/politics/trump-transition.html
> 
> Voting in a guy with zero political experience really makes sense when you just hate the other side that much I guess. fpalm
> 
> They didn't expect to win, and now we're stuck with this shit.
> Thanks.


Nice to see you're still trusting the narratives spun by the people who have been wrong about literally everything this election cycle. Loyalty is important when you want to avoid critical thinking.


----------



## ManiacMichaelMyers

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> Nice to see you're still trusting the narratives spun by the people who have been wrong about literally everything this election cycle. Loyalty is important when you want to avoid critical thinking.


This is one time where I don't want to be right in the end, but I will be.
Once you guys catch on, it'll be too late.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

^^

Shouldn't you be worried that the current frontrunners for Secretary of State are the ultra hawkish Rudy Giuliani and John Bolton, considering your top criteria in voting for Trump is to avoid a nuclear war/WW3? :lol


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/201...d-steak-dinner-admin-shaping-be-least-n684511
> 
> http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/16/media/donald-trump-press-pool-tension/index.html?iid=hp-stack-dom
> 
> :lmao :lmao :lmao
> 
> He needs to start revoking the press credentials of these PATHETIC media outlets to really set them off. Only let alternative news journalists (from all parts of the political spectrum) into his press conferences who actually report directly to the people rather than through their corporate pro-establishment filters.


at this point, I'm not sure whether they love trump or hate him.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Goku said:


> at this point, I'm not sure whether they love trump or hate him.


Their position is Trump is good for their business, but bad for the country.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> Drain the swamp to add in toxic waste! You get a position! You get a seat! You get to regulate yourself! Every lobbyist gets a prize!


Not so.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

>we're in the timeline where an entire news cycle was filled about Trump going to dinner without telling the press

We have the greatest timeline, don't we folks?


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> Not so.


His transition team is made up of lobbyists. Do you think they are going to recommend for him to hire people that is against the interests of the people that paid them?

Face it, as an outsider there is a power vacuum in a Trump administration that is being filled by special interests that he campaigned against. Make sure you get your Medicaid credentials checked out before the new administration goes to work.


----------



## amhlilhaus

CamillePunk said:


> It's been a week. Nothing significant has happened. Way too early to say he's not fulfilling any promises. I'm not even going to freak if he picks some neocon warhawk as his Secretary of State because at the end of the day Trump makes the decisions and everyone answers to him. I'll judge him based on what he does as president. If he disappoints me then I'll come down on him hard, just as I've gone at Obama hard despite supporting him in '08, due to liking his anti-war and pro-privacy rhetoric (which, looking back on what he actually did as president, LOL).
> 
> What I do know is that if he wasn't serious about shaking things up and ruffling neocon feathers then there's zero chance he would have appointed Bannon as his Chief Strategist. It's a great sign. The hysterical, anti-reality based backlash from all the right enemies convinces me of that.


Obama anti war? Seriously?


----------



## amhlilhaus

ManiacMichaelMyers said:


> CamillePunk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice to see you're still trusting the narratives spun by the people who have been wrong about literally everything this election cycle. Loyalty is important when you want to avoid critical thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> This is one time where I don't want to be right in the end, but I will be.
> Once you guys catch on, it'll be too late.
Click to expand...

Too late for what?

Omg, trump doesnt have to follow established politics as usual. As he says, its gonna be fantastic!

And trusting the same people who derided him for 2 years, who he now isnt talking too is solid logic.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Meanwhile...I foresee another front re-opening. Many of you don't care or think the culture war is over (see Donald Trump saying same-sex marriage is settled law) but I can assure you that it is at a ceasefire right now. It's about to pick back up. 

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/11/lessons-from-2016-part-2

The cold, hard truth about politics is that while people here and elsewhere want Trump to just drain the swamp completely and start over,  it's about access and leverage in Washington. Trump is thanking those who supported him with choice positions (Bannon as adviser, Priebus as Chief of Staff, etc). He fully understands the importance of the evangelical movement to his campaign and is rewarding them by giving them the eventual demise of Roe v. Wade. He selected a hard core social conservative for his VP running mate. His comments about same-sex marriage, plus one of the names being tossed around for US ambassador to the UN (Richard Grenell) is openly gay, is trying to send the message to the social con movement "Thanks for coming, here's your gift, I will let you know if I need anything else." 

Leadership like Dr. James Dobson voted for Trump for a much different reason then many people here. In the eyes of people like him and other evangelicals/social conservatives...the biggest reason of why we are at the point in this country that we are is the collapse of society. They point to the rise in single parenthood, the acceptance and full-blown embrace of homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Abortion is just one thing they are wanting to get rid of...they will want more. They don't care about political and security aspects, they point at the culture of this country. While most of us don't care, they do. 

Rest assured, it won't be DOMA-esque legislation that gets introduced in Congress. It will start at the state level...a bill protecting ALL life (including at conception) which basically bans abortion period. Some legislator at the state level will introduce legislation that marriage is between one man and one woman...knowing it will go to the SCOTUS and that a now conservative SCOTUS will overturn Obergfell vs. Hodges. If Trump privately has any concerns, the evangelicals will tell him, "You needed our help, and now this is what we want fully. If it wasn't for us, you'd be back at Trump Towers right now. If you want us to short-circuit your legacy and let this whole thing come crashing down by sitting at home, be my guest." 

Rest assured, the culture war is not over...it will fire back up. In the past the social cons sat on the sidelines. They are in it to win it and they won't compromise as they have leverage. One telling comment was one in the locker room of my gym. One guy saw the 60 Minutes interview and said, " I can't believe I voted for a man who accepts an immoral lifestyle. He is an evil man." I know that many hoped that the religious right was gone, they are back and with a vengeance. Trump thinks tossing them a bone in Roe V Wade will satisfy them he is in for a surprise. I know that I have underestimated him in the past but this is a group that refuses to give an inch and helped him get in. Hard to deal with people you can't negotiate with.


----------



## Stipe Tapped

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

http://heatst.com/culture-wars/popu...ters-hypocrites-gets-blowback/?mod=sm_fb_post

Just when I thought I couldn't love JonTron any more.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> His transition team is made up of lobbyists. Do you think they are going to recommend for him to hire people that is against the interests of the people that paid them?
> 
> Face it, as an outsider there is a power vacuum in a Trump administration that is being filled by special interests that he campaigned against. Make sure you get your Medicaid credentials checked out before the new administration goes to work.


Au contrare, 'Mon Fre'er! 

@DesolationRow @CamillePunk @BruiserKC @Goku @Carte Blanche 

http://uk.businessinsider.com/trump-transition-team-lobbyists-2016-11?r=US&IR=T


*All lobbyists have been cut from Trump's transition team*



> Vice President-elect Mike Pence reportedly ordered the removal of all lobbyists from president-elect Donald Trump's transition team, The Wall Street Journal wrote on Tuesday night.
> 
> The decision was one of Pence's first since formally taking over the team's lead role. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie was abruptly dismissed from the post last week.
> 
> Critics have excoriated Trump for including lobbyists, Washington insiders, and Republican Party veterans among his team, suggesting it contradicts the anti-establishment message that defined his campaign.
> 
> "[Americans] do not want corporate executives to be the ones who are calling the shots in Washington," Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren said earlier Tuesday. "What Donald Trump is doing is that he's putting together a transition team that's full of lobbyists — the kind of people he actually ran against," she said.
> 
> The move capped a chaotic day for Trump's transition team. Former Michigan Rep. Mike Rogers, who handled national-security duties, was ousted, as was senior defense and foreign policy official Matthew Freedman.
> 
> Rogers was told that all team members picked by Christie were being ousted, The Journal reported, citing a source familiar with the situation. Rogers indicated the team may be in disarray.
> 
> "Is there a little confusion in New York? I think there is. I think this is growing pains," he told CNN's Jim Sciutto. Sources cited by CNN in that story suggested infighting among Trump's close advisers. Another unnamed CNN source denied the claim.
> 
> Trump attempted to dispel talk of turmoil in a tweet late Tuesday: "Very organized process taking place as I decide on Cabinet and many other positions. I am the only one who knows who the finalists are!," the tweet read.
> 
> Trump's team is tasked with finding and hiring 4,000 political appointees to fill out the federal government.


Look, I even posted the negative media spin so you could cling to the fading hope Trump doesn't keep his promise. :trump3

REV UP THOSE HESTON'S, @deepelemblues ! :lol


----------



## 35 Kanyon

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I don't like the way the media is hyping up Trumps victory as something bad.He is a true Patriot and he reparsent the true working American,unlike that comedy act Bush and that Will Smith and Kanye act Obama.Who disagree with other people who think and do things differently and get involved in other countries affairs that not consern him,make comments about be at the back of the que.The UK will never forgive or forget him for that comments.And Hilary was just as that another elitist tell other people how to vote and us money and celebritys too boost her winning the election.Like leading a donkey with a carrot and she did not talk for the Working classes and bought herself some black,women and Latino friends for a vote.

I also dislike the way Obama Treated Winston Churchill and made the White House like something of the Fresh Prince of belleair.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



35 Kanyon said:


> I don't like the way the media is hyping up Trumps victory as something bad.He is a true Patriot and he reparsent the true working American,unlike that comedy act Bush and that Will Smith and Kanye act Obama.Who disagree with other people who think and do things differently and get involved in other countries affairs that not consern him,make comments about be at the back of the que.The UK will never forgive or forget him for that comments.And Hilary was just as that another elitist tell other people how to vote and us money and celebritys too boost her winning the election.Like leading a donkey with a carrot and she did not talk for the Working classes and bought herself some black,women and Latino friends for a vote.
> 
> I also dislike the way Obama Treated Winston Churchill and made the White House like something of the Fresh Prince of belleair.


High energy post! :trump


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*










And people wonder why TV-based media coverage is dying. fpalm


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@AryaDark @MrMister @L-DOPA @DesolationRow @Miss Sally @CamillePunk @Pratchett @ShowStopper @Genesis 1.0

Aloha, everybody. I took the past 5 days or so off from all of this bullshit. I got drunk. I partied with old friends. We had a grand old time. Nobody really cared about politics. Nobody really cared about left or right or liberal or conservative or any of that old bullshit. We just got together for good food and good booze and good times and good friends. It was a blast.

It was a break that I needed. Because, honestly, I am tired of all the hate. I am the self-proclaimed furthest left person of this forum and I say that based upon my own views of how society should work. @BruiserKC is the person who is the furthest right person of this forum and he'll be the first person to tell you that. Guess what? He and I are friends.

I think, and I think everyone would do well to remember this, is that we are all Americans. And maybe I am a bit naive but I think that what most people want out of life is to be able to put a roof over their heads, food on their table and to mainly be left the fuck alone to live their own lives how they see fit.

Yeah, there will always be racists and sexists and misogynists and whatever-ists in the world but I will never believe that the majority of people are like that. The majority of people just want to live their lives. We don't all have to agree on how everyone should live their lives but what everyone should remember is that it's important to allow people to live their own lives.

I am an admitted far, far left wing libertarian. Hate on me all you want for that but it is my belief that society should work for the betterment of the all and not the enrichment of the few. I think it's fucking INSANE that barely 60 people own more than the bottom half of the human population. It just don't seem right to me. I'm not a communist and I don't run around saying all wealth should be distributed equally either. However, as a humanist, it don't seem right to me that so many people should be going hungry when the USA alone throws away over 40% of the food it produces. 

Scarcity is an invention of capitalism. We have the means and we have the technology and we have the resources to end human food insecurity. Yet, it is more profitable for companies to simply throw excess food away into the garbage disposals than it is to give it to people in need. That's one of those fucked up things about human society that needs to be reassessed. 

I am a leftist libertarian and I am fucking proud of it. And by leftist libertarian, I mean that I believe that we should create a society where everyone is allowed to thrive and everyone is left the fuck alone by the government. Is that really so much to ask?

You can be a Christian conservative or a hardcore atheist or anything inbetween. I don't particularly give a fuck what you personally believe in. What I do care about is the ability of everyone to go out and live their life by their own beliefs and not have any authority figure getting in the way of that.

All that being said, I'd just like to remind anyone who believes in Trump for change that they are just as retarded as the so called "liberals" who believed in Obama for change. As long as the USA and it's government is bought and paid for by the donor class, it doesn't particularly matter if you are a leftist or a rightist. All that matters is that our government is owned by the donor class.

The greatest trick the donor class ever pulled was convincing the worker class that other parts of the worker class is the reason that they are poor. You know what terrifies the owner class more than anything else? Us plebs banding together. 

As long as they keep us divided through various bullshit, they will always win. When the day comes that we band together, they are fucking done for. They know that. And it scares the shit out of them. They don't want to see the pitchforks at the gates. I say, let's show them the fucking pitchforks at the gates.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> Au contrare, 'Mon Fre'er!
> 
> @DesolationRow @CamillePunk @BruiserKC @Goku @Carte Blanche
> 
> http://uk.businessinsider.com/trump-transition-team-lobbyists-2016-11?r=US&IR=T
> 
> 
> *All lobbyists have been cut from Trump's transition team*
> 
> Look, I even posted the negative media spin so you could cling to the fading hope Trump doesn't keep his promise. :trump3
> 
> REV UP THOSE HESTON'S, @deepelemblues ! :lol


Looks like Warren scaring the shit out of him worked when she said* "If you refuse," Warren wrote, "I will oppose you, every step of the way, for the next four years. I will champion the millions of Americans you will fail to protect. I will track your every move, and I will remind Americans, every day, of the actions you take that fail them."








*

IF he does go through with it , its a step in the right direction. Now Trump just needs to get rid of all those Bush era establishment politicians.


----------



## The RainMaker

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Looks like Warren scaring the shit out of him worked when she said* "If you refuse," Warren wrote, "I will oppose you, every step of the way, for the next four years. I will champion the millions of Americans you will fail to protect. I will track your every move, and I will remind Americans, every day, of the actions you take that fail them."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> IF he does go through with it , its a step in the right direction. Now Trump just needs to get rid of all those Bush era establishment politicians.


Like Trump gives two shits about Elizabeth Warren when he shat on Hillary Fucking Clinton. LMAO.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The K3vin Ow3ns Show said:


> Like Trump gives two shits about Elizabeth Warren when he shat on Hillary Fucking Clinton. LMAO.



Warren would destroy Trump just like she did to the CEO of Wells Fargo and forced him to resign.

The last thing Trump wants is Warren on his case for 4 years before she beats him for the presidency

Liz Warren is not Hillary Clinton.


----------



## The RainMaker

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Warren would destroy Trump just like she did to the CEO of Wells Fargo and forced him to resign.
> 
> The last thing Trump wants is Warren on his case for 4 years before she beats him for the presidency


Oh my fucking God. Yes, America wouldn't vote for a Clinton over Trump, but they'll vote for Elizabeth Warren over him. It's just scary how salty Trump makes people.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The K3vin Ow3ns Show said:


> Oh my fucking God. Yes, America wouldn't vote for a Clinton over Trump, but they'll vote for Elizabeth Warren over him. It's just scary how salty Trump makes people.


Yes she would just like Sanders would have destroyed Trump if the DNC did not screw him over in the primary. 

People like Warren and Sanders are not the establishment like Hillary Clinton.


----------



## The RainMaker

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Yes she would just like Sanders would have destroyed Trump if the DNC did not screw him over in the primary.
> 
> People like Warren and Sanders are not the establishment like Hillary Clinton.


Oh yes, Bernie would have won, because Americans do like to be told they're going to get a bunch of free shit when it's totally impossible to give said shit to them free. Face it, the working class white male in this country just fired back at the Democratic Party. They ain't down for this Social Justice Warrior, Feminist, Black Lives Matter bullshit. So either the Democrats come back down to earth and start putting up populists LIKE a Bill Clinton and start denouncing these radical leftists, or you can continue to lose elections. Don't you think it's funny that Obama has a 54 percent approval rating after eight years but is still going to leave with a REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT, REPUBLICAN SENATE,and REPUBLICAN HOUSE. Liberals lose elections because they've lost touch with the common man in this country. Common man just fired back.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The K3vin Ow3ns Show said:


> Oh yes, Bernie would have won, because Americans do like to be told they're going to get a bunch of free shit when it's totally impossible to give said shit to them free. Face it, the *working class white male *in this country just fired back at the Democratic Party. *They ain't down for this Social Justice Warrior, Feminist, Black Lives Matter bullshit*. So either the Democrats come back down to earth and start putting up populists LIKE a Bill Clinton and start denouncing these radical leftists, or you can continue to lose elections. Don't you think it's funny that Obama has a 54 percent approval rating after eight years but is still going to leave with a REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT, REPUBLICAN SENATE,and REPUBLICAN HOUSE. Liberals lose elections because they've lost touch with the common man in this country. Common man just fired back.


Just proved everything I said about what kind of people Trumps main support is based on. Beatles and a few others on this board also prove it. And Trump lost by over a million votes to Hillary Clinton. not to mention Trump has record high unfavorable rating as an incoming president lol

We get it you are a white guy that thinks the US is against whites lol


----------



## The RainMaker

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Just proved everything I said about what kind of people Trumps main support is based on. Beatles and a few others on this board also prove it. And Trump lost by over a million votes to Hillary Clinton. not to mention Trump has record high unfavorable rating as an incoming president lol
> 
> We get it you are a white guy that thinks the US is against whites lol


All of that vote came from fucking California. There's a reason the electoral college exists. If it didn't, literally 4 or 5 states would fucking matter. The states where middle class, hard working people live, the states Trump had to win, Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio, etc, ALL went Trump. This isn't a fucking coincidence that all of a sudden these blue states turned red. He also got a third of the Latino vote, which helped him Florida, which basically won him the election. Know why? Because..GASP, maybe the hard working Latino's of this country who came here legally, are paying taxes, and trying to assimilate, ain't really against the ones coming in here illegally, taking their jobs from them, and not paying taxes, being thrown the fuck out. I know, SUPER RACIST shit there.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

trump won. Let it go. In 4 years' time, everyone will love trump anyway, even the naysayers.

:trump


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The K3vin Ow3ns Show said:


> All of that vote came from fucking California. There's a reason the electoral college exists. If it didn't, literally 4 or 5 states would fucking matter. The states where middle class, hard working people live, the states Trump had to win, Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio, etc, ALL went Trump. This isn't a fucking coincidence that all of a sudden these blue states turned red. He also got a third of the Latino vote, which helped him Florida, which basically won him the election. Know why? Because..GASP, maybe the hard working Latino's of this country who came here legally, are paying taxes, and trying to assimilate, ain't really against the ones coming in here illegally, taking their jobs from them, and not paying taxes, being thrown the fuck out. I know, SUPER RACIST shit there.


The EC causes it so only the swing states matter and maybe a couple of others depending on the election year like this year.

When you can become president while only winning 11 states, gets zero votes in every other state and get only 22-23% of the popular vote , you know that system is broken. The EC makes it so people in lesser popular states votes count more than people in more heavilier populated states. Everyone's vote should count the same. 

Even Trump knows the EC is not democratic and should go away. 

No all of that vote did not come from CA, she was leading in the EC even before CA is fully counted. A lot of those Latinos are Cuban especially in FL. 

Also stop with this non-sense that illegals are taking corp. jobs. Illegals take the mostly the jobs no one wants like toilet cleaners , farmers and things like that.


----------



## THE HAITCH

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

During the recent WWE tour of Europe, The Haitch noticed a lot of European libtards crying a river due to Crooked Hillary's loss.

Some were planning mass protests against president Trump, as if those little protests were going to make a difference across the Atlantic ocean-uhh.

The Haitch loved the taste of those tears-uhh.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Goku said:


> trump won. Let it go. In 4 years' time, everyone will love trump anyway, even the naysayers.
> 
> :trump


If Trump gets money out of politics like he claims, and gets rid of all those trade deals and even makes a better healthcare system like single payer, I'll be the first to say he did good.

I hope Trump proves me wrong about him.


----------



## The RainMaker

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> The EC causes it so only the swing states matter and maybe a couple of others depending on the election year like this year.
> 
> When you can become president while only winning 11 states, gets zero votes in every other state and get only 22-23% of the popular vote , you know that system is broken. The EC makes it so people in lesser popular states votes count more than people in more heavilier populated states. Everyone's vote should count the same.
> 
> Even Trump knows the EC is not democratic and should go away.
> 
> No all of that vote did not come from CA, she was leading in the EC even before CA is fully counted. A lot of those Latinos are Cuban especially in FL.
> 
> Also stop with this non-sense that illegals are taking corp. jobs. Illegals take the mostly the jobs no one wants like toilet cleaners , farmers and things like that.


Liberals hate the electoral college because they can't win it in a close election..(Bush/Gore.) Why? Because when the Republicans put up a candidate that people in rust belt can identify with, Democrats don't have a chance. So of course you bitch because you want the hippies in California and the Social Justice Black Lives Matter Feminists in New York to run up the popular vote for you. lol.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The K3vin Ow3ns Show said:


> Liberals hate the electoral college because they can't win it in a close election..(Bush/Gore.) Why? Because when the Republicans put up a candidate that people in rust belt can identify with, Democrats don't have a chance. So of course you bitch because you want the hippies in California and the Social Justice Black Lives Matter Feminists in New York to run up the popular vote for you. lol.


Gore won that election in 2000 even with the EC if they would have counted all the votes. Just sayin

And yes we get it, you are glad Trump is going to make America white again

Like I said before, I would have no issue with the EC if it was proportional voting. They may have to retribute the EC votes or maybe not but doing it that way would make much more sense than winner take all.

But like Goku said, its over. So we should focus on Trump as president

If he is really getting rid of all the lobbyist in his cabinet/team that is a step in the right direction.


----------



## The RainMaker

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Gore won that election in 2000 even with the EC if they would have counted all the votes. Just sayin
> 
> And yes we get it, you are glad Trump is going to make America white again


Liberals love moral victories apparently, lmao. You guys just can't win and you don't get why, even when you have a president with a super high approval rating, you can't even win the majority in ONE branch of government. It's LAUGHABLE. lmao.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The K3vin Ow3ns Show said:


> Liberals love moral victories apparently, lmao. You guys just can't win and you don't get why, even when you have a president with a super high approval rating, you can't even win the majority in ONE branch of government. It's LAUGHABLE. lmao.


Liberals lose because for them the only issues that matter in the world are social issues. Meanwhile there's a lot more going on than just social issues. 

@Tater - I was reading your post about non-hate and all that good stuff but why would you make a post about hate and uniting against the government and then call everyone that's pro-Trump for change a retard? That's hardly a good strategy towards unification of the poor working class a lot of which proved to be pro-Trump.


----------



## The RainMaker

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Liberals lose because for them the only issues that matter in the world are social issues. Meanwhile there's a lot more going on than just social issues.
> 
> @Tater - I was reading your post about non-hate and all that good stuff but why would you make a post about hate and everything else and then call everyone that's pro-Trump for change a retard?


Liberals lose because the party that once had Reagan democrats and populists like Bill Clinton has sunk to a party that's been taken over by faux-intellectual elitists who make people who disagree with them feel like racists or intellectually inferior. There's a reason all the polls before this election were off and people were so shocked that Trump won. People who liked Trump had it beat into them by the liberal media..(The Clinton News Network..) that if they liked Trump that they were an evil racist bigot who hated women. So of course, none of them wanted to admit it over the phone to a pollster or in an exit poll after voting. There's no reason that a president of 8 years with a 54 percent approval rating should not at least have his party in the majority of ONE branch of government. The simple reason is, liberals need to stop being snobby assholes, and accept the fact that the working white male is STILL the majority in this country..(as much as they hate it..) and they STILL need to court their vote. Or, they can just lose like they always do.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> What I do know is that if he wasn't serious about shaking things up and ruffling neocon feathers then there's zero chance he would have appointed Bannon as his Chief Strategist. It's a great sign. The hysterical, anti-reality based backlash from all the right enemies convinces me of that.


Noticing a trend of checks and balances within his own administrative picks so far. 

And him reaching out to Cruz to mend fences and have him involved in some way (I'm hearing rumors now that he's been offered Attorney General) is also a very good sign. 

I think right now we're seeing a conciliatory approach from Trump because his current goal is to unify the country but none of his appointments and actions to me indicate a complete U-turn - just mostly building an administration based on how they can keep each other in check.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

no cruz as attorney general

rudy as attorney general, cruz for the court, neo-con emeritus bolton for secretary of state

that is the correct route for maximum libtard and ron paultard head asploding


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*






Rubin the voice of reason :banderas.


----------



## CenaBoy4Life

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Liberals lose because for them the only issues that matter in the world are social issues. Meanwhile there's a lot more going on than just social issues.
> 
> @Tater - I was reading your post about non-hate and all that good stuff but why would you make a post about hate and uniting against the government and then call everyone that's pro-Trump for change a retard? That's hardly a good strategy towards unification of the poor working class a lot of which proved to be pro-Trump.



They run on social issues and being the moral party of tolerance. Yet they are some of the most nasty vicious ignorant people.

As soon as you don't vote for their party you are a fake gay, fake muslim, an uncle tom, racist, *******, bigot, insert __Ism / phobe here.

They are phony and only care about their team winning, and personal gain. 

Don't say you are for minority rights, womens or gays then vote for a party ran by pedophiles and in bed with evil dictators.


----------



## skypod

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Maybe if conservatives stopped manufacturing Evangelical nutbags the whole country wouldn't have to get distracted by social issues and your economic policies would have higher approval.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I'd for once like to see social issues take a backseat and the Government work on you know stuff like jobs, healthcare, trade, borders, not going to war? Things that actually matter?

Also I seen some posters mention Republicans is the party for old men, but what do you call the Democratic party who is funded by Soros, Zuckerberg, Apple and other giants, all ran by rich white guys?


----------



## SMW

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I proudly voted for Trump. the only thing that is bothering me is all these celebs were talking about leaving and none have done it yet!!!


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

So in 2008 president-elect Barack Obama slipped his press posse and took his family to Sea Life whatever, some knockoff Sea World theme park thing. The media creamed its pants over how mavericky and kewl Obama was.

:trump slips his press posse to go out to 21 Club a famous steakhouse in New York with his family and the media has lost its shit over how troubling it is. Seriously some of these bitches were crying about how it shows a lack of transparency or something.

These r-tards still haven't figured it out, they're just gonna keep doubling down on their hypocrisy until they double themselves down out of financial viability


----------



## skypod

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> I'd for once like to see social issues take a backseat and the Government work on you know stuff like jobs, healthcare, trade, borders, not going to war? Things that actually matter?
> 
> Also I seen some posters mention Republicans is the party for old men, but what do you call the Democratic party who is funded by Soros, Zuckerberg, Apple and other giants, all ran by rich white guys?


Absolutely fine with those issues taking precedence. But if the right didn't push religious agendas then there wouldn't be blowback from the left and childish arguments. All this is a distraction so people can continue to be fucked over financially because an argument about gay rights is always going to be more exciting people to have than one on economics.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Trump's China Stance Spurs Trade War Worrie

http://www.npr.org/sections/paralle...2/trumps-china-stance-spurs-trade-war-worries

China fires its first warning shot, warning iPhone sales will suffer if Trump starts a trade war
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/14/appl...nt-tariff-on-china-exports-beijing-warns.html


If Trump tries to put tariffs on China like he claimed for the primaries and the general election, China putting them on the US as payback would be a disaster for the US.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



> While many in the country are protesting and condemning Donald Trump’s election as president, his supporters (including both the alt-right and other traditional conservatives) are trying to counter with their own demonstrations. At the top of their list of targets is PepsiCo, but it’s one of only many companies some are planning to boycott for criticizing Trump or otherwise working against what they believe to be his goals.
> PepsiCo garnered their wrath last week when CEO Indra Nooyi talked about the election in an interview with the New York Times’ Andrew Ross Sorkin at a conference on Thursday. “They are all in mourning,” she said of her daughters and employees. “Our employees are all crying. And the question that they’re asking, especially those who are not white: ‘Are we safe?’ Women are asking: ‘Are we safe?’ LGBT people are asking: ‘Are we safe?’ I never thought I’d have had to answer those questions.”
> Nooyi went on to condemn the way Trump has spoken about women in a conversation that also addressed domestic violence issues in the NFL. There is no place for such language, she said, “not in locker rooms, not in football players’ homes, not in any place.”
> These comments moved PepsiCo to the top of the boycott list, ousting GrubHub from that position. The food delivery service earned its boycott when CEO Matt Maloney sent a company-wide email the day after the election explaining to his employees that demeaning minorities, immigrants, and people with disabilities is behavior that has “no place at Grubhub,” regardless of whether it “worked for Mr. Trump.” Anybody who didn’t agree that the company should be an inclusive place was invited to submit their resignation. Maloney later clarified he wasn’t asking people to resign if they voted for Trump, only if they support “discriminatory activity or hateful commentary.”
> There is an “official” list of the many companies for Trump supporters to boycott, maintained by Reddit user “WhiteChristianMan” in a channel called r/The_Donald, “the unofficial Donald Trump 2016 subreddit.” In addition to PepsiCo and GrubHub — WhiteChristianMan calls Maloney a “total cuck” — the list also includes:
> Macy’s, because it won’t be bringing back Trump’s clothing line.
> Amazon, because owner Jeff Bezos also owns the Washington Post, which investigated Trump’s life at length.
> Oreos (though oddly not parent company Nabisco), because as Trump mentioned multiple times on the campaign trail, the cookie company moved its factories to Mexico.
> The NFL, because Tampa Bay Buccaneers wide receiver Mike Evans sat during the national anthem on Sunday in protest of Trump’s election (though he has since said he’d find another way to express his concerns).
> Netflix, because they believe its new documentary about the White Helmets, civilian first-responders who rescue people after attacks in the Syrian civil war, spreads propaganda for Al Qaeda.
> Ben & Jerry’s, for supporting the Black Lives Matter movement.
> Though the Reddit list bears many trappings of the alt-right, it’s not only the alt-right embracing these boycotts. For example, the Family Research Council, a conservative evangelical anti-LGBT hate group, applauded the boycotts of PepsiCo and GrubHub, mocking the way their stocks dipped because of their CEOs’ comments about Trump’s divisive rhetoric. Tony Perkins, the group’s head, compared these boycotts to other social conservative boycotts FRC has participated in, such as of Target, Lands’ End, J.C. Penney, and Angie’s List — all of which were targeted for taking pro-LGBT or pro-choice positions.
> Gizmodo points out that WhiteChristianMan’s list is incomplete. Back in July, a group of tech luminaries signed an open letter opposing Trump’s candidacy. That included Alexis Ohanian, co-founder of Reddit — where his list ironically lives — as well as execs from several other tech companies, including Facebook, Tumblr, Apple, Yelp, Twitter, YouTube, Tinder, Google, Wikipedia, and Instagram.
> If Trump supporters truly end their usage of all products that have opposed Trump, they’ll be left with the companies WhiteChristianMan suggests they support, such as Yuengling beer, Hydrox Cookies, NASCAR, the WWE, Carl’s Jr./Hardee’s, Dominos Pizza, Chick-fil-A, and Home Depot.
> They can also wear New Balance sneakers, but that might soon change. The company’s vice president of public affairs said that Trump’s victory was good for the country, but then Neo-Nazis declared New Balance the “official shoes of white people.” The company has since responded with comments about how it “does not tolerate bigotry or hate in any form” — basically the same sentiment that prompted boycotts of PepsiCo and Grubhub.
> 
> There have also been boycotts against Trump. Activist Shannon Coulter started the #GrabYourWallet boycott after the release of a 2005 recording of Trump talking about grabbing women “by the pussy.” Her list focuses on stores that do business with the Trump family or sell its products, and incidentally includes some of the same targets as WhiteChristianMan’s, including Amazon and Macy’s.


https://thinkprogress.org/trump-pepsi-grubhub-boycotts-ca81001849e1#.t9h9uj2mg


----------



## Stormbringer

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

So hatred is wrong, but hatred towards hatred is ok?

"I'M INTOLERANT TO YOUR INTOLERANCE!"


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump's China Stance Spurs Trade War Worrie
> 
> http://www.npr.org/sections/paralle...2/trumps-china-stance-spurs-trade-war-worries
> 
> China fires its first warning shot, warning iPhone sales will suffer if Trump starts a trade war
> http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/14/appl...nt-tariff-on-china-exports-beijing-warns.html
> 
> 
> If Trump tries to put tariffs on China like he claimed for the primaries and the general election, China putting them on the US as payback would be a disaster for the US.


:heston

wrong again as usual BM

a trade war with china would be an annoyance for the US. the cheap shit at walmart gets a little more expensive. the shoddy clothes start coming with made in thailand instead of made in china labels.

a trade war with china would be a disaster for china. their economy is extremely dependent on american purchases of their cheap garbage products. there is no market in the world that can make up for the loss of trade with the US that a trade war would bring.

china has generally been an arrogant blowharding bunch of bitches during obama's presidency, talking down to and vaguely threatening the US all the time. 

their worst nightmare is :trump calling their bluffs and acting in accordance with reality where the united states is still vastly stronger and more wealthy than china. bitch boy obama has spent 8 years acting like the united states is a third-rate power, in 2 months we're gonna have a president who is gonna act like the US is still a first-rate power which it is. and it's the only first-rate power period, china and russia are the closest to it and they're both very much second-rate powers in comparison with the US (and russia is really closer to a third-rate power). 

this isn't the wwe, the 185 pound 6 foot tall guy doesn't beat the 6 foot 5 240 pound guy in any kind of fight. sorry.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



deepelemblues said:


> :heston
> 
> wrong again as usual BM
> 
> a trade war with china would be an annoyance for the US. the cheap shit at walmart gets a little more expensive. the shoddy clothes start coming with made in thailand instead of made in china labels.
> 
> a trade war with china would be a disaster for china. their economy is extremely dependent on american purchases of their cheap garbage products. there is no market in the world that can make up for the loss of trade with the US that a trade war would bring.
> 
> china has generally been an arrogant blowharding bunch of bitches during obama's presidency, talking down to and vaguely threatening the US all the time.
> 
> their worst nightmare is :trump calling their bluffs and acting in accordance with reality where the united states is still vastly stronger and more wealthy than china. bitch boy obama has spent 8 years acting like the united states is a third-rate power, in 2 months we're gonna have a president who is gonna act like the US is still a first-rate power which it is. and it's the only first-rate power period, china and russia are the closest to it and they're both very much second-rate powers in comparison with the US (and russia is really closer to a third-rate power).
> 
> this isn't the wwe, the 185 pound 6 foot tall guy doesn't beat the 6 foot 5 240 pound guy in any kind of fight. sorry.



there is so much wrong with what you said. China said they would stop order boeing, that would be a huge hit for the US. China would also stop importing from the US and exporting things as well, another huge hit for the US. Not to mention the price of iphone would skyrocket. It would be a much bigger hit for the US than China.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/su...onald-trump-about-apple-and-boeing-2016-11-14

"“China will take a tit-for-tat approach then,” the editorial read. “A batch of Boeing BA, -1.13% orders will be replaced by Airbus AIR, -2.92% U.S. auto and iPhone AAPL, +2.69% sales in China will suffer a setback, and U.S. soybean and maize imports will be halted.”"

We saw what happened when Obama tried to do a tariff and china bitched slapped him.

Trump is a buffoon and a bully. China would slap him down so hard he would not know what hit him.

Trump starting a trade war would be disastrous for the US and could also affect other trade with other countries.

Mark my words Trump will crumble to China and he wont be doing any tariffs and if he does it will blow up in his face and he will undone is shortly there after.


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

*Rand Paul I love you. :aryep





*


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Rand is a paragon on domestic policy and as dumb and simplistic as his dipshit dad on foreign policy.


----------



## RenegadexParagon

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



DX-Superkick said:


> So hatred is wrong, but hatred towards hatred is ok?
> 
> "I'M INTOLERANT TO YOUR INTOLERANCE!"


Uh, yes. Being nice to aggressive bigots accomplishes absolutely nothing. A Neo-Nazi does not give a single fuck about you being a pacifist.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



AryaDark said:


> *Rand Paul I love you. :aryep
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *


I was just about to post this 

Trump's rumored picks for foreign policy advisers are certainly worrying as someone who hoped Trump's rhetoric on this subject would actually come to fruition.

I guess we'll see who he picks but if he goes with Bolton or/and Giuliani then things are not looking good for the Trump camp in my opinion.


----------



## Stormbringer

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RenegadexParagon said:


> Uh, yes. Being nice to aggressive bigots accomplishes absolutely nothing. A Neo-Nazi does not give a single fuck about you being a pacifist.


So, no to MLK, yes to Malcolm X?


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



> President-elect Donald Trump took to Twitter on Wednesday to push back against news coverage describing a chaotic transition to power, saying the process of selecting Cabinet secretaries and working with the Obama administration “is going so smoothly.’’
> 
> As Trump met with senior advisers to discuss potential Cabinet candidates, there were further signs that power in his transition effort was consolidating within an ever-smaller group of loyalists generally not aligned with Republican members of the Washington establishment.
> 
> [The latest news on the Trump presidential transition]
> 
> Among them is Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), a top Trump adviser known for his hard-line views on immigration. His former staff director at the Senate Judiciary Committee, Brian Benczkowski, is now helping to manage the Justice Department transition for Trump’s team, according to two prominent Republican lawyers with knowledge of the matter.
> 
> Benczkowski replaced Kevin O’Connor, a former U.S. attorney and associate attorney general who had been managing the Justice Department transition, the lawyers said. A white-collar defense attorney at Kirkland & Ellis, Benczkowski previously worked in a number of senior Justice Department jobs and is a respected lawyer.
> 
> Here’s what president-elect Donald Trump has been doing after the election
> View Photos	He has been holding interviews and meeting with Congress and the president as he prepares to transition into the White House.
> His elevation is likely another indication that power has shifted away from New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R), who was recently replaced as head of the transition team by Vice President-elect Mike Pence and who had been considered an emissary to more mainstream Republicans.
> 
> Benczkowski declined to comment.
> 
> Pence is scheduled to meet with Congressional leaders in Washington on Thursday, including House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).
> 
> The new developments came as Sessions himself emerged as a top candidate for defense secretary, along with Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.). Both would bring hawkish views and military experience, but neither has executive experience running a massive bureaucracy such as the Pentagon.
> 
> CONTENT FROM JOHNNIE WALKER
> As our country's grown increasingly multicultural, pioneering efforts by Hispanics from every field have helped define - and refine - our social, political and cultural landscape.
> More
> Trump was also visited Wednesday by New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, who emerged from a meeting with the president-elect saying that he told Trump that “so many New Yorkers are fearful” of what he plans to do as president.
> 
> De Blasio, a liberal Democrat, has clashed with Trump in the past. And like mayors in many of the nation’s major cities with diverse cultures, he has said New York City authorities would not assist federal immigration officials with the deportations of immigrants who are here illegally, providing them sanctuary.
> 
> Despite such differences, De Blasio said the hour-long session was “respectful” and added that Trump “loves this city.’’
> 
> Here are the people the rumor mill says Trump might pick for Cabinet spots VIEW GRAPHIC
> From the lobby of Trump tower, reporters spotted a coterie of guests entering the building, including New York Jets owner and Republican megadonor Woody Johnson, Trump's children, Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump and his wife Lara Trump and former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, who is considered a potential Cabinet nominee.
> 
> Transition turmoil
> On his Twitter account, Trump took particular aim at a favorite target, the New York Times, which reported Wednesday that the transition has been marked by firings and infighting, and that U.S. allies were having trouble reaching Trump at New York’s Trump Tower as he plans his government.
> 
> “The failing @nytimes story is so totally wrong on transition. . . . I have received and taken calls from many foreign leaders,’’ Trump wrote in a series of posts on the microblogging site. He also denied reports that his transition team has sought security clearances for his children.
> 
> In his tweets, Trump falsely implies the Times reported that he had not spoken with foreign leaders and never points out exactly what the Times had in error. The Times did report that American allies were “blindly dialing in to Trump Tower” in an attempt to reach the president-elect and that key members of the transition team had been fired. The paper reported that even key U.S. allies such as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and British Prime Minister Theresa May had been patched through to Trump “with little warning,” citing a Western diplomat.
> 
> 
> Later in the day, the transition team released a list of foreign leaders that Trump and Pence have spoked with.
> 
> [Trump’s gripes about the Times are usually about stories that prove accurate]
> 
> The Washington Post has also reported about turbulence in Trump’s transition. But Peter Hoekstra, a Republican former congressman from Michigan, defended Trump in an interview Wednesday, saying the president-elect’s team has “a monumental job to do and a short time to do it.”
> 
> “I’m just watching all the sniping coming in. They’re not doing this right. They’re not doing that right,’’ said Hoekstra, a former House Intelligence Committee chairman who is reportedly under consideration for CIA director. “This is what any transition team would do. You start with the people who brought you. I think the Trump team is going to expand its outreach, absolutely. But they’re going to do it in a methodical way.’’
> 
> The reported bloodletting in Trump’s transition team that began with last week’s ouster of Christie had escalated Tuesday with new departures, particularly in the area of national security.
> 
> Former congressman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) announced that he had left his position as the transition’s senior national security adviser. Rogers, a former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and the leading candidate for CIA director, was among at least four transition officials purged this week, apparently because of perceived connections to Christie.
> 
> As turbulence within the team grew, some key members of Trump’s party began to question his views and the remaining candidates for top positions. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said Trump’s efforts to work more closely with Russian President Vladi.mir Putin amounted to “complicity in [the] butchery of the Syrian people” and “an unacceptable price for a great nation.”
> 
> Trump met Tuesday with Pence, who replaced Christie at the head of the transition Friday, to discuss Cabinet and White House personnel choices. Little to no information was released by the transition office, leaving a clutch of reporters gathered in the lobby of Trump Tower to hustle after team members passing between the front doors and the elevators.
> 
> 
> Trump posted a message Tuesday night on Twitter saying that a “very organized process [is] taking place” as he decides on Cabinet and other positions. “I am the only one who knows who the finalists are!”
> 
> As he had during the campaign, Trump appeared to be increasingly uncomfortable with outsiders and suspicious of those considered part of what one insider called the .“bicoastal elite,” who are perceived as trying to “insinuate” themselves into positions of power.
> 
> Those in the inner circle reportedly were winnowed to loyalists who had stuck with Trump throughout the campaign and helped devise his winning strategy. They include Sessions, former Breitbart News head Stephen K. Bannon, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, and members of Trump’s family, including son-in-law Jared Kushner.
> 
> “This is a very insular, pretty closely held circle of people,” said Philip D. Zelikow, a former director of the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia and a senior figure in the George W. Bush transition. “Confusion is the norm” for transitions, he said, “but there are some unusual features here, because they’re trying to make some statements.”
> 
> “They feel like their election was a lot of the American people wanting to throw a brick through a window,” Zelikow said. “They want to make appointments that make it sound like glass is being broken.”
> 
> [President Obama warns against ‘a crude sort of nationalism’ in the U.S.]
> 
> Increasingly, among the shards are more mainline Republicans in the national security field. In an angry Twitter post Tuesday, Eliot A. Cohen, a leading voice of opposition to Trump during the campaign who had advised those interested in administration jobs to take them, abruptly changed his mind, saying the transition “will be ugly.”
> 
> After responding to a transition insider seeking names of possible appointees, Cohen said, he received what he described as an “unhinged” email from the same person saying “YOU LOST” and accusing Trump critics of trying to infiltrate the administration’s ranks.
> 
> 
> “It became clear to me that they view jobs as lollipops, things you give out to good boys and girls, instead of the sense that actually what you’re trying to do is recruit the best possible talent to fill the most important, demanding, .lowest-paying executive jobs in the world,” Cohen said.
> 
> Rogers’s departure coincided with word from Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, whose possible selection as secretary of state comforted more mainline Republicans, that he was unlikely to be chosen. “Has my name been in the mix? I’m pretty sure, yeah. Have I been having intimate conversations? No,” Corker said in an interview. “Do I understand that it’s likely that people who’ve been involved in the center of this for some time, and have been surrogating on television, are likely front-runners? I would say that’s likely, yes.”
> 
> The two people whose names are mentioned most often for the diplomatic job — Giuliani and John R. Bolton, an undersecretary of state and one-year ambassador to the United Nations during the George W. Bush administration — are Trump loyalists. But both could be problematic, even among Republicans who would have to confirm them.
> 
> Giuliani, thought to be an early choice for attorney general, was said by a person close to the transition team to have personally appealed to Trump for the diplomatic job. He has virtually no diplomatic experience or knowledge of the State Department bureaucracy.
> 
> Bolton, a national security hawk who got his U.N. job through a recess appointment after the Senate refused to confirm him, was a leading advocate for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, contradicting Trump’s campaign position opposing it.
> 
> Congress voices concern
> Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Tuesday that Bolton would be a “disaster” and that he would actively oppose his nomination.
> 
> Others were more supportive. “If he picks John Bolton, then I’ll support John Bolton. If he picks Rudy, I’ll support Rudy,” said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.).
> 
> The shortlist for defense secretary is said to include Sessions, Flynn and Cotton. Although Sessions serves on the Armed Services Committee, his main issue there has been immigration. Cotton is a Harvard Law School graduate who just seven years ago was a first lieutenant in the Army.
> 
> Senate confirmation of Flynn, who also has voiced interest in serving as director of national intelligence, could be difficult, said the person close to the transition team. He was forced out as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency after two years over concerns about his leadership, and he has potentially problematic connections to foreign governments.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/transition-is-going-so-smoothly-trump-tweets/2016/11/16/37232c46-abfe-11e6-a31b-4b6397e625d0_story.html#comments


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> Au contrare, 'Mon Fre'er!
> 
> @DesolationRow @CamillePunk @BruiserKC @Goku @Carte Blanche
> 
> http://uk.businessinsider.com/trump-transition-team-lobbyists-2016-11?r=US&IR=T
> 
> 
> *All lobbyists have been cut from Trump's transition team*
> 
> Look, I even posted the negative media spin so you could cling to the fading hope Trump doesn't keep his promise. :trump3
> 
> REV UP THOSE HESTON'S, @deepelemblues ! :lol


You do realise all you are doing is confirming my position that his original transition team was filled with lobbyists? Trump tried to sneak in that rewarding his special interests friends is OK in his first interview in 60 minutes. If Trump isn't even holding up to his side of the bargain of ethical standards of cutting ties to his businesses, not surprising that those under him are ignoring the standards he put forward during the campaign.

You don't get to trash 'liberal negative spin' for doing their job of holding Trump accountable and then use it to bitch about them.

You are either holding Trump to a lower standard, or don't feel that is an issue because it is now 'your team' doing the dirty stuff of politics. If you are one of those that bitch about Clinton Foundation and their potential conflict of interests, I hope you bitch about Trump's businesses and Rudy's consultant work and their potential conflict of interests too.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> You do realise all you are doing is confirming my position that his original transition team was filled with lobbyists? Trump tried to sneak in that rewarding his special interests friends is OK in his first interview in 60 minutes. If Trump isn't even holding up to his side of the bargain of ethical standards of cutting ties to his businesses, not surprising that those under him are ignoring the standards he put forward during the campaign.
> 
> You don't get to trash 'liberal negative spin' for doing their job of holding Trump accountable and then use it to bitch about them.
> 
> You are either holding Trump to a lower standard, or don't feel that is an issue because it is now 'your team' doing the dirty stuff of politics. If you are one of those that bitch about Clinton Foundation and their potential conflict of interests, I hope you bitch about Trump's businesses and Rudy's consultant work and their potential conflict of interests too.


Don't hold your breath for reply, you used too many words.


----------



## RenegadexParagon

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



DX-Superkick said:


> So, no to MLK, yes to Malcolm X?


"I want Dr. King to know that I didn't come to Selma to make his job difficult. I really did come thinking I could make it easier. If the white people realize what the alternative is, perhaps they will be more willing to hear Dr. King". 

It's important to understand the reason why talks existed with King in the first place is because there was already backdrop of violence. I have all the respect in the world for the work Dr. King did, but I also do find myself agreeing with Malcolm X far more. I think when it comes to violence, social change, and self defense I am on the same page with Malcolm X. 

And of course, this extends to white supremacist groups. Fighting white supremacy is absolutely necessary. This isn't a matter of hating other opinions and alternative viewpoints. Tolerating other opinions does not apply to those that want to have a pure white country and would gladly strip the rights away from every black person, Jew, Latino, Arab, etc. Fighting white supremacist scum and kicking them out of our communities is self defense. There is no such thing as a peaceful fascist.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Don't hold your breath for reply, you used too many words.


yeah beatles will just post some trolling comment with a stupid Trump picture next to it and not even speak to what he said.


----------



## amhlilhaus

Ive followed politics closely since 1988, longer than most of you have been alive.

Nothing has come close to the frenzy trump has stirred up. Its incredible.

Mark my words, trump will have the most scandal plauged administration in history.

And if ANY of it is true, the congress wont be able to impeach him fast enough.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



L-DOPA said:


> I was just about to post this
> 
> Trump's rumored picks for foreign policy advisers are certainly worrying as someone who hoped Trump's rhetoric on this subject would actually come to fruition.
> 
> I guess we'll see who he picks but if he goes with Bolton or/and Giuliani then things are not looking good for the Trump camp in my opinion.


Oh gosh I do not want anymore wars, I'm fine with America being more defensive such as more security, taking home grown and foreign terrorism seriously and reducing crime but not fighting other countries!


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



> WASHINGTON — Congressional Democrats, divided and struggling for a path from the electoral wilderness, are constructing an agenda to align with many proposals of President-elect Donald J. Trump that put him at odds with his own party.
> 
> On infrastructure spending, child tax credits, paid maternity leave and dismantling trade agreements, Democrats are looking for ways they can work with Mr. Trump and force Republican leaders to choose between their new president and their small-government, free-market principles. Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, elected Wednesday as the new Democratic minority leader, has spoken with Mr. Trump several times, and Democrats in coming weeks plan to announce populist economic and ethics initiatives they think Mr. Trump might like.
> 
> Democrats, who lost the White House and made only nominal gains in the House and Senate, face a profound decision after last week’s stunning defeat: Make common cause where they can with Mr. Trump to try to win back the white, working-class voters he took from them, or resist at every turn, trying to rally their disparate coalition in hopes that discontent with an ineffectual new president will benefit them in 2018.
> 
> Mr. Trump campaigned on some issues that Democrats have long championed and Republicans resisted: spending more on roads, bridges and rail, punishing American companies that move jobs overseas, ending a lucrative tax break for hedge fund and private equity titans, and making paid maternity leave mandatory.
> 
> Continue reading the main story
> RELATED COVERAGE
> 
> 
> Chuck Schumer Prepares for His Next Challenge: Leading Senate Democrats NOV. 10, 2016
> 
> Congressional Republicans Project Unity While Democrats Scramble NOV. 15, 2016
> 
> Republicans in Congress Plan Swift Action on Agenda With Donald Trump NOV. 9, 2016
> 
> In Twist, Trump Victory Could Defang Anti-Establishment G.O.P. Caucus NOV. 13, 2016
> 
> Iran, Spending, Defense: Areas to Watch as Congress Reconvenes NOV. 14, 2016
> Some Democrats are even co-opting Mr. Trump’s language from the campaign. “Every single person in our caucus agrees the system is rigged,” said Senator Debbie Stabenow, Democrat of Michigan.
> 
> Still, there will be areas of bright-line disagreement. Democrats are speaking out against Mr. Trump’s appointment of Stephen K. Bannon as his chief strategist, and will oppose his promised tax cuts for the wealthy and his vow to deport millions of illegal immigrants.
> 
> What is not clear is whether Mr. Trump will hew to his stated agenda or turn it over to Republican lawmakers who seek a far more traditional conservative program.
> 
> In several key states, namely Pennsylvania, Ohio and Wisconsin, Democratic Senate candidates and the party’s presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, failed to connect with middle-class voters, who gravitated instead to the populist appeals of Mr. Trump.
> 
> “There is an acknowledgment that it is very shortsighted to blame this loss on a letter from the F.B.I. or what states Hillary went to,” said Senator Amy Klobuchar, Democrat of Minnesota. “We need to do a better job having a bold sharp focus on the economy,” she said, like the cost of prescription drugs and predatory pricing on foreign steel.
> 
> “It is not just being a collection of groups,” she added. “It’s talking about policies in a serious way and talking about them in a way that touches all Americans.”
> 
> The competing political forces were evident in Mr. Schumer’s selection of a leadership slate that reflects competing strains within the party, from Senators Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, the best-known figures in the progressive wing, to Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, one of a half-dozen moderate Democrats up for re-election in 2018.
> 
> “This team is ideologically and geographically diverse, it mixes the wisdom of experience with the vigor of youth, at least in Senate years,” Mr. Schumer said.
> 
> 
> ELECTION 2016 By YARA BISHARA and JENNIFER STEINHAUER 3:43
> Who Is Chuck Schumer?
> Video
> Who Is Chuck Schumer?
> Senator Chuck Schumer, who will take over as the leader of the Senate Democrats after the retirement of Harry Reid, is known as a hard-charging Brooklynite. By YARA BISHARA and JENNIFER STEINHAUER on Publish Date November 10, 2016. Photo by Drew Angerer for The New York Times. Watch in Times Video »
> Embed
> ShareTweet
> But Mr. Schumer’s immediate challenge will be to meet the often competing imperatives of those senators, who reflect the Democrats’ larger struggle of whether to try to tailor an appeal to the working-class white voters who defected to Mr. Trump or to try to increase the so-called Obama coalition anchored by minority and younger voters.
> 
> That debate is playing out in some ways in the House, where Democrats have been knotted up in an internal battle over whether Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, who hails from one of the wealthiest, most liberal districts in the nation, ought to make room at the top for a new leader, possibly from a Rust Belt state.
> 
> Representative Tim Ryan of Ohio, a former football player from the ailing industrial region around Youngstown, is talking about challenging Ms. Pelosi, and the contrast he would present would be stark.
> 
> Sign-up for free NYT Newsletters
> 
> Morning Briefing
> News to start your day, weekdays
> 
> Opinion Today
> Thought-provoking commentary, weekdays
> 
> Cooking
> Delicious recipes and more, 5 times a week
> 
> Race/Related
> A provocative exploration of race, biweekly
> 
> Enter your email address
> Sign Up
> 
> Receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services.
> 
> PRIVACY POLICY
> Democrats need someone “like me, who has constituents and friends who are steelworkers or work in construction,” Mr. Ryan told The Youngstown Vindicator. “The economy and blue-collar jobs are important for us as a party. We need leaders who can go into these Great Lakes districts.”
> 
> The struggle to stitch together a winning coalition will play out in the competing policy ideas that Democrats are offering.
> 
> In a speech this week to the A.F.L.-C.I.O. Executive Council, Ms. Warren, who sparred in viciously personal terms with Mr. Trump during the campaign, noted the many ways she agreed with the president-elect.
> 
> “He spoke of the need to reform our trade deals so they aren’t raw deals for the American people,” she said. “He said he will not cut Social Security benefits. He talked about the need to address the rising cost of college and about helping working parents struggling with the high cost of child care. He spoke of the urgency of rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure and putting people back to work. He spoke to the very real sense of millions of Americans that their government and their economy has abandoned them. And he promised to rebuild our economy for working people.”
> 
> Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio, long a critic of trade deals, said in an interview that he had spoken extensively with Mr. Trump’s trade adviser and would work with him on issues concerning steel workers. “We can work with him on things we agree on,” Mr. Brown said. “On Bannon, no.”
> 
> Mr. Brown sent a letter to Mr. Trump urging him to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, make changes to the trade relationship with China and fight currency manipulation, which is also a pet issue of Mr. Schumer. Mr. Sanders put out a statement after the election saying he too would work with Mr. Trump on areas of populist agreement.
> 
> At the same time, they remain his adversary on other matters. For example, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, now the highest-ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a statement on Wednesday that “the committee will pay very close attention to proposed nominees to ensure the fundamental constitutional rights of Americans are protected.”
> 
> Republicans will not like many of these proposals, but they have been fulsome in their praise of Mr. Trump since his election. Speaker Paul D. Ryan, for instance, has repeatedly said that he expects Mr. Trump to work with Republicans on their agenda of rolling back the Affordable Care Act and making large-scale changes to the tax code and entitlements.
> 
> While Mr. Trump’s policies are one matter, his nominations to his cabinet and other senior positions are another, and there, Senate Republicans who will vote on their confirmations are in a quandary. Just as they were asked to comment on Mr. Trump’s more incendiary statements during the campaign, they are now being asked to weigh in on contentious names being floated for high positions. Republican senators like John McCain of Arizona also have been implicitly critical of Mr. Trump’s cozy views toward Russia.
> 
> On one area, though, Democrats and Republicans agree: Most of them strongly oppose Mr. Trump’s proposal for congressional term limits.


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/17/us/politics/democrats-house-senate.html?_r=0


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



amhlilhaus said:


> Ive followed politics closely since 1988, longer than most of you have been alive.
> 
> Nothing has come close to the frenzy trump has stirred up. Its incredible.
> 
> Mark my words, trump will have the most scandal plauged administration in history.
> 
> And if ANY of it is true, the congress wont be able to impeach him fast enough.


Damn how old are you? I was born in '80 btw.

I agree with you to an extent. The thing is 'Scandals' and other frenzy are now more prevalent due to the 24 hour news cycle, the internet and the outrage industry. So things get blown out of proportion, non-stories become issues etc etc. A lot of serious stories are based on tweets people make. Tweets FFS.

Imagine if the current media climate was around during Watergate FFS. Internet would've exploded.


----------



## NotGuilty

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Foreign policy boring policy, AMERICA FIRST


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



amhlilhaus said:


> Ive followed politics closely since 1988, longer than most of you have been alive.
> 
> Nothing has come close to the frenzy trump has stirred up. Its incredible.
> 
> Mark my words, trump will have the most scandal plauged administration in history.
> 
> And if ANY of it is true, the congress wont be able to impeach him fast enough.


Dunno, it might be but Obama had quite a few scandals but it didn't hurt him much.


----------



## That Is All

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

These anti trump protestors want nothing than to incite riots and cause chaos while they yell for love and do away with hate are nothing more than hypocrites but the mass media only covers certain portions of what they want the public to know while you have to actually do your own digging to see what is really going on.

I can tolerate alot but I do not tolerate anyone who is filled with hate and bigotry no matter if you're white, black, asian or any other kind of race. There is no reason for those who gang up and beat the living hell out of someone just because they view things differently or are a certain skin color but that seems to be the narrative for those who feel it's their entitlement to do so and it's sickening for anyone who condones any of this. Rallying and protesting isn't going to change the outcome of who is in office and those that believe otherwise are ignorant. 

It will take alot more and there are former presidents who have done worst with Obama who has done more damage to this country and giving himself alot more power than nearly any of the former presidents. I still suggest anyone to do your own research but those that fear of martial law, this whole ordeal of the protesting/rioting is playing right into the hand of giving reason for just that. I am no palm reader and I do not know what tomorrow will bring but I know there will be a time when things are going to get so bad in the US, people are going to wish they didn't take their freedom for granted.


----------



## amhlilhaus

yeahbaby! said:


> amhlilhaus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ive followed politics closely since 1988, longer than most of you have been alive.
> 
> Nothing has come close to the frenzy trump has stirred up. Its incredible.
> 
> Mark my words, trump will have the most scandal plauged administration in history.
> 
> And if ANY of it is true, the congress wont be able to impeach him fast enough.
> 
> 
> 
> Damn how old are you? I was born in '80 btw.
> 
> I agree with you to an extent. The thing is 'Scandals' and other frenzy are now more prevalent due to the 24 hour news cycle, the internet and the outrage industry. So things get blown out of proportion, non-stories become issues etc etc. A lot of serious stories are based on tweets people make. Tweets FFS.
> 
> Imagine if the current media climate was around during Watergate FFS. Internet would've exploded.
Click to expand...

Watergate wouldve ruined the internet lol.

Im 43, I knew from the age of 15 that to not follow politics is shirking your duty as a citizen. I read both sides of the issues and this year voted for democrats in local elections, two to dethrone political machines, 1 for sheriff who has done his job and against the incumbent congress slug.

I vote every election, even the small local stuff. Does it matter? Maybe, but i dont bitch for no reason


----------



## MillionDollarProns

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

If American-Chinese trade suffers, that means we can make manufacturing jobs here. :mark:

Or we can have Mexico do it, and then from the money they make they can build the wall :mark:

OR we can have our true friends, India, do it :mark:


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



MillionDollarProns said:


> If American-Chinese trade suffers, that means we can make manufacturing jobs here. :mark:


HHAHAHAHA yes I'm sure huge companies will be happy to manufacture in teh US and pay workers 10x more than what they used to.


----------



## Malakai

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I just hang my head in shame for my country, for the millions that voted for him, and for the others that are doing stupid shit and can't accept the fact that we really do have millions of idiots that voted for him.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> You do realise all you are doing is confirming my position that his original transition team was filled with lobbyists? Trump tried to sneak in that rewarding his special interests friends is OK in his first interview in 60 minutes. If Trump isn't even holding up to his side of the bargain of ethical standards of cutting ties to his businesses, not surprising that those under him are ignoring the standards he put forward during the campaign.
> 
> You don't get to trash 'liberal negative spin' for doing their job of holding Trump accountable and then use it to bitch about them.
> 
> You are either holding Trump to a lower standard, or don't feel that is an issue because it is now 'your team' doing the dirty stuff of politics. If you are one of those that bitch about Clinton Foundation and their potential conflict of interests, I hope you bitch about Trump's businesses and Rudy's consultant work and their potential conflict of interests too.


Try again.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## NotGuilty

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> HHAHAHAHA yes I'm sure huge companies will be happy to manufacture in teh US and pay workers 10x more than what they used to.


The companies have made fortunes over the years producing outside of the U.S. If their upset that they will have to pay hardworking Americans so be it. It is what's best for the American people and that is all that matters.


----------



## amhlilhaus

Malakai said:


> I just hang my head in shame for my country, for the millions that voted for him, and for the others that are doing stupid shit and can't accept the fact that we really do have millions of idiots that voted for him.


I hang my head in shame that millions voted for a corrupt unindicted felon that used a charity, her government job and a total lack of ethics to enrich herself.

See how easy it is


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



amhlilhaus said:


> I hang my head in shame that millions voted for a corrupt unindicted felon that used a charity, her government job and a total lack of ethics to enrich herself.
> 
> See how easy it is


Sexist!:wink2:


----------



## Oxidamus

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Here in Australia, when Trump won, everyone my age seemed to lose their shit. So much so, it got more coverage in the media and by citizens than the actual Australian election that happened this year too.

Anyway, after two days they were back to sharing their BuzzFeed Food videos as if nothing happened.

Shocking, huh?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> Sexist!:wink2:


Alt right white nationalist!


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

IF YER WHITE...

YOU AINT RIGHT!

- BLM.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*










New York Times turning into Gawker caliber tabloid.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> IF YER WHITE...
> 
> YOU AINT RIGHT!
> 
> - BLM.


Isn't that from Modern Family?


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> New York Times turning into Gawker caliber tabloid.


Why both headlines are entirely true. He was wrong to hire a bunch of lobbyists, and firing them all, while the right thing to do, has left things in chaos.

Btw re the whole foreign govs getting in touch with Trump its come out now that the Australian gov was only able to thanks to Greg Norman, the former golfer. 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-...malcolm-turnbull-contact-donald-trump/8032690 

Turns out that wasn't an invention of the MSM after all.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Why both headlines are entirely true. He was wrong to hire a bunch of lobbyists, and firing them all, while the right thing to do, has left things in chaos.


I don't feel like getting into this with you, but I hope understand that regardless of them being "true" the point is that both headlines are basically whinging. First he hires lobbyists. They whinge. Then he fires lobbyists. They whinge. 

This is what *tabloids *do to celebrities when they want to sell papers by constantly slamming every step they take. 

Not supposedly respectable news outlets that once used to have the courage to report actual news without turning into a shit tabloid.

and before you try to turn this into some sort of me being a Trump supporter slamming then, I have been an avid reader of NYT for over 20 years so I know where I'm coming from on this.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I feel bad for Trump, the people won't want establishment and the GOP will want who they want, it's going to be hard to find balance.

Already rumors of a few GOP members wanting TPP. Nope! Can't happen, my biggest thought is Trump got the Republicans 4 to 8 years in the white house and their actions are to Piss off everyone instead of ensuring your party survives?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> I feel bad for Trump, the people won't want establishment and the GOP will want who they want, it's going to be hard to find balance.
> 
> Already rumors of a few GOP members wanting TPP. Nope! Can't happen, my biggest thought is Trump got the Republicans 4 to 8 years in the white house and their actions are to Piss off everyone instead of ensuring your party survives?


I don't think the GOP get re-elected in 4 years. 

Personally as long as he repeals the mandate on Obamacare, pulls out of bombing the 7 countries Obama was bombing and selects a constitutionalist in the supreme court, he's done a good job securing the future to a certain degree. Pulling out of the middle east and ensuring that he sets up road-blocks for future hawkish democrats in curbing their funding of foreign militants should be a huge priority in terms of foreign policy.

Yes, Bush started this shit, but historically GOP has gone through the congress in their wars meanwhile Democrats have simply funded foreign governments and "rebels" directly ... I think someone in the government needs to set up a policy that makes it illegal to do so.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



> Here in Australia, when Trump won, everyone my age seemed to lose their shit. So much so, it got more coverage in the media and by citizens than the actual Australian election that happened this year too.


Same thing in Canada. :lol



> Mark my words, trump will have the most scandal plauged administration in history.


Nah, Grant and Obama already did that with theirs.

- Vic


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> IF YER WHITE...
> 
> YOU AINT RIGHT!
> 
> - BLM.


And you wonder why people think you are a typical southerner when you make comments like this.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/...ir-problems/nITzuJIET6YBmxS2GV0J0O/story.html

Interesting thoughts. Even as a republican he STILL didn't get the whole picture (because he ignored the free speech advocates that made up a huge chunk of the pro-Trump millennial crowd which in numbers is equal to the democrat party switchers), but at least somewhat more cognizant of the state of the democrat party than the party and its supporters. 



> *Democrats know why they lost, but won’t fix their problems*
> 
> Are Democrats ready to undertake with seriousness the course correction that
> is needed to revitalize the party? Judging by the early reaction to Donald Trump’s victory, the answer is no.
> 
> Anyone looking at the 2016 electoral map and exit polls knows there were two main forces that tipped the election to Trump: white working class inhabitants of the Rust Belt upset about a hollowed-out economy, and religious voters, both Catholic and Protestant, who reacted to attacks on their values by voting against the candidate of the cultural elite. There may be other reasons, but these two are highest on the list.
> 
> Trump’s victory did not happen overnight, either. The last eight years of the Obama presidency have been disastrous for Democrats. On their way to minority status, Democrats since 2009 have lost a net of 13 US Senate seats, 69 House seats, 12 governorships, and 30 state legislatures. The entire party is a smoldering ruin.
> 
> This is what happens when you invite unfair foreign competition for American jobs via bad trade practices and massive illegal immigration, and when you go to war with nuns over birth control.
> 
> Still, some Democrats believe the presidential election was unfairly denied them.
> 
> Former Massachusetts governor (and Democratic presidential candidate) Mike Dukakis thinks the problem is the Electoral College. MSNBC host Rachel Maddow pointed the finger at third-party candidates Jill Stein and Gary Johnson. Democratic influence peddler Sidney Blumenthal accused rogue FBI agents of staging a “coup d’etat.” Hillary Clinton is blaming everyone but herself.
> 
> Clinton is not very good at self-reflection. If she were honest, she would admit Bernie Sanders pushed her campaign too far to the left. She took the side of Black Lives Matter protesters against the police. She promoted government-run health care and free college tuition at a time of record-breaking deficits. She embraced more gun control.
> 
> Instead of listening to her husband, Bill Clinton, she strayed from a centrist message, focused on jobs and the economy, that got him elected and reelected in the 1990s.
> 
> Now a civil war is raging between the progressives and the pragmatists in the party, and it looks like Democrats will make the mistake of thinking they didn’t move left far enough. Two of the leading candidates for party chairman are the former governor of Vermont, Howard Dean, and Representative Keith Ellison of Minnesota — the former a tired liberal voice from a decade ago, the latter the chair of the Progressive Caucus in the House.
> 
> As Democrats prepare to double down on the errors of the past, Trump is finally making a hoped-for pivot to the middle.
> 
> He told “60 Minutes’’ in his first TV interview that he plans to keep major portions of Obamacare. He backed away from appointing a special prosecutor to pursue Clinton’s e-mails. He said he is focused on removing criminal illegal immigrants from the country, not breaking up families. He welcomed same-sex marriage as settled law.
> 
> Of course, that hasn’t stopped the protests. Trump needs to continue to prove himself worthy of the office, but his critics also need to cut him some slack.
> 
> When Trump said he wouldn’t take a government salary, his detractors on Twitter acted like Pavlov’s dogs in comparing him to Adolf Hitler, who refused pay as Germany’s chancellor. They should have reached for a more lucid comparison from America’s own past — John F. Kennedy, who donated his check to charity.
> 
> The road ahead is not going to be easy for Democrats. There are 10 Senate Democrats up for reelection in 2018 in states won by Trump. Their path is going to be made more challenging by a failure to come to terms with the real reasons voters are deserting the party in droves.
> 
> Eric Fehrnstrom is a Republican political analyst and media strategist, and was a senior adviser to Governor Mitt Romney.


----------



## TomahawkJock

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



NotGuilty said:


> The companies have made fortunes over the years producing outside of the U.S. If their upset that they will have to pay hardworking Americans so be it. It is what's best for the American people and that is all that matters.


No it's not. Companies not only get workers from there but many sell things to them too and you are crazy if you think China won't also put a higher tariff on us. We cannot produce everything. Our supply will go down causing prices to go up. There's a reason comparative advantage is a thing.

EDIT: I have no idea how to bring jobs back to the economy but by no means will a tariff suddenly bring them back. The manufacturing jobs that Americans want back simply are not returning. They have been replaced by technology. Companies here won't give them back to humans because of a tariff raise.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Of course, the mainstream media is absolutely refusing to cover this.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Of course, the mainstream media is absolutely refusing to cover this.


I don't see them reporting this either

http://usuncut.com/news/trump-supporters-brutally-attack-gay-man-california/

Trump supporters brutally attack gay man in California











stop acting like its only anti Trump supporters are the ones attacking the other side.

Both sides are doing it and both need to stop it. Anyone caught doing these types of things need to be arrested.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> I don't see them reporting this either
> 
> http://usuncut.com/news/trump-supporters-brutally-attack-gay-man-california/
> 
> Trump supporters brutally attack gay man in California
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> stop acting like its only anti Trump supporters are the ones attacking the other side.
> 
> Both sides are doing it and both need to stop it. Anyone caught doing these types of things need to be arrested.


The MSM isn't covering this because it's unproven and almost guaranteed to be fake to counter something that is very much real complete with interviews with the father and the child. This man is a film producer. You know, someone who has access to make up and can very easily fake this bullshit. No charges were filed. There are no police reports. Nothing. Just someone's bloodied picture with no accompanying evidence. 



> SANTA MONICA POLICE DEPARTMENT ADVISORY:
> You may have seen an unconfirmed story regarding a possible hate crime incident involving a “Chris Ball” alleging he was assaulted in Santa Monica on election night, November 8, by “Trump Supporters”.
> The Santa Monica Police Department and the City of Santa Monica have not received any information indicating this crime occurred in the City of Santa Monica. We encourage the alleged victim to come forward and work with us if a crime did in fact take place. A check of local hospitals revealed there was no victim of any such incident admitted or treated as well.
> If you have any questions, please contact Public Information Officer, Lt. Saul Rodriguez, (310) 458-2293.​


Also, posting something bad that happens to someone doesn't mean that other bad stuff isn't happening elsewhere and what is the point of what you're posting. Who the fuck claimed that only trump reporters are being attacked. 

Then again, explaining this to an empathy and logic vacuum like yourself is just plain useless.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> The MSM isn't covering this because it's unproven and almost guaranteed to be fake to counter something that is very much real complete with interviews with the father and the child. This man is a film producer. You know, someone who has access to make up and can very easily fake this bullshit. No charges were filed. There are no police reports. Nothing. Just someone's bloodied picture with no accompanying evidence.
> 
> 
> Also, posting something bad that happens to someone doesn't mean that other bad stuff isn't happening elsewhere and what is the point of what you're posting. Who the fuck claimed that only trump reporters are being attacked.
> 
> Then again, explaining this to an empathy and logic vacuum like yourself is just plain useless.


The article you posted does not say it's false, it just says unproven. 

You always have an excuse when someone gets attacked by a Trump supporter and you are always quick to point out when a Trump supporter is attacked.

Let's see you start posting articles when Trump supporters are the attackers. You just cry when it's a Trump supporter being attacked.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> The article you posted does not say it's false, it just says unproven.
> 
> You always have an excuse when someone gets attacked by a Trump supporter and you are always quick to point out when a Trump supporter is attacked.
> 
> Let's see you start posting articles when Trump supporters are the attackers. You just cry when it's a Trump supporter being attacked.


I "always" have an excuse when this is the first time I've talked about it and the first time I've countered one of your fake stories :lmao

How about you post all of them and let's go through the excercise of pointing out which ones are real and which ones are not. Maybe it might actually improve your forensic abilities a little bit to actually come close to me who's a real skeptic. Not just some fake that plagiarizes things and just copy pastes them with no critical thought ever actually added and then turns into a whiny ass when called out on it :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> I "always" have an excuse when this is the first time I've talked about it and the first time I've countered one of your fake stories :lmao


I don't post fake stories, i'm not beatles. And nothing has said that story is fake , it just says unproven. It does not say it's fake or made up. Learn the difference.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

These pissing contests over who is beating up who more in the streets :heston

Is gonna do absolutely nothing to stop :trump or even slow him down :heston

Keep wasting your time BM. 0 attacks on :trump supporters hoaxes, at least a half-dozen "attacks" on anti- :trump ers have been proven to be 100% made up. That's all you need to know really. The Left simply cannot break itself of its narcissistic martyr complex lying.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> I don't post fake stories, i'm not beatles. And nothing has said that story is fake , it just says unproven. It does not say it's fake or made up. Learn the difference.


:heston 

The FUCKING POLICE verified hospital records and said that no Chris Ball was ever treated for any injuries :lmao 

Maybe the Police are in on it too and are lying to the public :heston


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> I "always" have an excuse when this is the first time I've talked about it and the first time I've countered one of your fake stories :lmao
> 
> How about you post all of them and let's go through the excercise of pointing out which ones are real and which ones are not. Maybe it might actually improve your forensic abilities a little bit to actually come close to me who's a real skeptic. Not just some fake that plagiarizes things and just copy pastes them with no critical thought ever actually added and then turns into a whiny ass when called out on it :lol


LOL coming from the guy who wants creationism taught in science class.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL coming from the guy who wants creationism taught in science class.


:heston 

Run out of arguments so make up a strawman :lmao

There's a difference in saying that creationism should be taught to children as FACT which is not what I said and teaching children creationism as one of the things some people believe and why it's wrong because that's what I said :heston.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> :heston
> 
> The FUCKING POLICE verified hospital records and said that no Chris Ball was ever treated for any injuries :lmao
> 
> Maybe the Police are in on it too and are lying to the public :heston


You mean like these records










so what is your excuse going to be now? Did he fake these too?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



deepelemblues said:


> These pissing contests over who is beating up who more in the streets :heston
> 
> Is gonna do absolutely nothing to stop :trump or even slow him down :heston
> 
> Keep wasting your time BM. 0 attacks on :trump supporters hoaxes, at least a half-dozen "attacks" on anti- :trump ers have been proven to be 100% made up. That's all you need to know really. The Left simply cannot break itself of its narcissistic martyr complex lying.


So because you cant find any examples of Trump supporters are lying about getting attacked but you did find a handful of anti-trump supporters making it up means that Trump supporters are not attacking people?

Your logic makes no sense.
All you have to do is look at al the attacks Trump supporters are doing https://twitter.com/i/moments/796417517157830656 and guess what the main stream media is not picking up these stories either.

that is what local news is for and in reapers example the local news picked it up. Do you really expect any time someone is attacked mainstream news picks it up? As long as the local news is, there is not an issue.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> You mean like these records


So the hospital decided to not report a crime :lmao 

He gets attacked in Santa Monica and then drives at least 20-30 miles (an hour drive) to go to a hospital somewhere in Los Angeles. :lmao 











So many holes in his story. :lol 

He probably did get a CTScan for a head injury, but interestingly, I think he got the inspiration for his hoax from this: 



> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...in-sucker-punch-death-of-chris-ball-1.2577744
> 
> The family of a Calgary man who died from a blow to the head in northern British Columbia say they are satisfied with a recent manslaughter conviction.
> Chris Ball, 39, was allegedly "sucker punched" outside a Fort St. John bar in July 2012 and fell over, hitting his head on the pavement. He was later taken off life support at an Edmonton hospital.
> A jury delivered a verdict on Friday after a 10-day trial in Fort St. John.
> Joel Christopher Marchand, 31, was found guilty of manslaughter and assault causing bodily harm. Marchand has not yet been sentenced.
> Ball was working in the oil and gas industry in northeastern B.C. at the time of his death.
> His brother Jon Ball said Tuesday the family is pleased with the manslaughter conviction, but they are still shocked and angry about what happened.
> "I'd rather have my brother here than something like this, I can tell you.... The last year and a half has just been a complete whirlwind. It was such a shock to all of us that we haven't really moved on much."
> Another man, Ted Metcalfe of Kelowna, B.C., was also initially charged in relation to Ball's death. Those charges were stayed last year.


What a coincidence. 2 men named Christopher ball, both from Calgary and both got attacked outside of a bar ... Yeah, leaning hoax at this point despite the hospital report mainly because the guy drove 40 odd miles and the hospital never filed a crime report. 

You can whinge about me all you want for being so skeptical of this, but unfortunately, I'm not easily taken in by any stories and if I ever am, I freely admit it. In fact I've admitted is like a dozen times in this forum alone :lmao


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

The Muslim student who said her hijab was ripped off her head in Louisiana - hoax. She is now being charged.

Men pulling knives on Muslim women on buses - hoax. No eyewitnesses other than the alleged victims, no police report, no nothing.

A black woman in Delaware claimed she was harassed at a gas station - hoax.

An Asian woman in Minnesota claimed a white man assaulted her telling her "Go back to Asia." Hoax.

Christopher Ball - holes in his story big enough to throw :trump 's 260 pound frame through - most likely a hoax.

See the problem is a lot of these lying dimbulbs say that the police got involved - yet the police have no record of it. This is 2016 dummies, police reports are entered into a database, they can check that database very quickly and easily. Don't say the police got involved because they can find out real fast if they were or not and release that information to the public.

http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/11/election-night-hijab-attack-false

Like I've said before there are stupid assholes everywhere so undoubtedly there are very true and fucked up stories of people getting harassed by :trump supporters. But there are also plenty of hoaxes because lying for the purpose of getting the status of "victim" is the Left's default tactic. Nothing is more important to a Leftist than being a "victim." Except power of course. Power is always Number One. And being a "victim" is an easy route to some cheap power with this lying piece of shit media we have.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> So the hospital decided to not report a crime :lmao
> 
> He gets attacked in Santa Monica and then drives at least 20-30 miles (an hour drive) to go to a hospital somewhere in Los Angeles. :lmao
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So many holes in his story. :lol
> 
> He probably did get a CTScan for a head injury, but interestingly, I think he got the inspiration for his hoax from this:
> 
> What a coincidence. 2 men named Christopher ball, both from Calgary and both got attacked outside of a bar ... Yeah, leaning hoax at this point despite the hospital report mainly because the guy drove 40 odd miles and the hospital never filed a crime report.
> 
> You can whinge about me all you want for being so skeptical of this, but unfortunately, I'm not easily taken in by any stories and if I ever am, I freely admit it. In fact I've admitted is like a dozen times in this forum alone :lmao


Keep making excuses. You just keep proving my point.





deepelemblues said:


> The Muslim student who said her hijab was ripped off her head in Louisiana - hoax. She is now being charged.
> 
> Men pulling knives on Muslim women on buses - hoax. No eyewitnesses other than the alleged victims, no police report, no nothing.
> 
> A black woman in Delaware claimed she was harassed at a gas station - hoax.
> 
> An Asian woman in Minnesota claimed a white man assaulted her telling her "Go back to Asia." Hoax.
> 
> Christopher Ball - holes in his story big enough to throw :trump 's 260 pound frame through - most likely a hoax.
> 
> See the problem is a lot of these lying dimbulbs say that the police got involved - yet the police have no record of it. This is 2016 dummies, police reports are entered into a database, they can check that database very quickly and easily. Don't say the police got involved because they can find out real fast if they were or not and release that information to the public.
> 
> http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/11/election-night-hijab-attack-false
> 
> Like I've said before there are stupid assholes everywhere so undoubtedly there are very true and fucked up stories of people getting harassed by :trump supporters. But there are also plenty of hoaxes because lying for the purpose of getting the status of "victim" is the Left's default tactic. Nothing is more important to a Leftist than being a "victim." Except power of course. Power is always Number One. And being a "victim" is an easy route to some cheap power with this lying piece of shit media we have.



anyone who files a false police report should be charged and have the book thrown at them.


----------



## Genking48

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Almost afraid of posting this because I think I can guess what the reactions to just the person in the clip will be, but here we go anyways.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Glad BM posted that. Let's go through this shall we: 










#1 If anything, this is hate speech. Hate speech is not a hate crime

#2 : If true, then it's still hate speech which is not a hate crime. 

#3 . Huffpo editor writer who constantly claims that Trump supporters are racist and has been since before this tweet. There's no agenda there at all to make up a fake story. 

#4 . Another journalist. Interesting how this shit is happening to journalists, hmmm. 

#5 . If it happened, then again, it's hate speech, which is not a crime. 

#6 . Anyone can write anything on their own car. Why should I believe this to be true again?

$7. That's bad and it shouldn't have happened. I'm surprised though that the teachers didn't get involved. Again, it's not a crime because the black guy wasn't attacked physically. It's hate speech and last I checked hate speech isn't a crime. 

#8 . Being afraid of a potential crime is called irrational paranoia

#9 . More hate speech and that's not a crime. How does this Shuan King guy know that they were TRump supporters? Even the article it linked didn't say anything about Trump supporters :lmao

#1 0 . More irrational paranoia based on lack of evidence of any actual crimes. :lmao

#1 1 . Students were afraid and so they didn't wear a scarf. Did they have a legit reason to be scared. Nope. Being scared of a crime happening isn't the same as a crime happening :lmao

#1 2 . Obviously fake. No one talks like that. Even the KKK don't talk like that anymore. Just read the girl's transcript of the conversation :lmao

#1 3 . Repeat of #1 to exaggerate numbers :lmao

#1 4. If this is Trump supporters (and that's a big IF), then it's still hate speech, which is not a hate crime :lmao

#1 5. I don't want to get into the depths of this one, so I'll let it go. So the tally is now 1 possible sexist attack

#1 6. Hate speech. Probably drunk frat boys. Not a crime. 

#1 7. Yah. Clearly fake. Local police debunked the Ashley Boyer fake claim. 

#1 8. Not a crime. No date attached. No idea who did this. Could be anyone. How is this proof that it's Trump supporters? 

#1 9. Could have done it herself.

#2 0. Third time they've included the same thing on the same page :lmao

#2 1: Sounds like school bullies. Is verbal bullying a crime? Not yet. Also this sort of thing could be said at any point in time, or never said at all and could even be fake since it's again retweeted by the Shuan King guy who was already caught out on retweeting something else fake :lmao

#2 2: Hate speech. Not a hate crime. 

#23: More stuff from Shuan King. Something is placed on their car, and they take a picture of it inside in their room :lmao COuld have at least tried to make it real by leaving it on the car. 

#24: Yes. Children are screaming at her to leave America you know a black woman who isn't even considered an immigration by anyone. I mean, if she was hispanic or even looked hispanic, I might have believed her :lmao

#25: Not even her this time, apparently it happened to her cousin :lmao

#26: Shuan King apparently is retweeted all kinds of stories and all of them fake :lol

#27: They repeated the Ashley Boyer gif again :lmao 

1/24 (I dropped 3 because this incredibly shit as fuck of a page actually repeated multiple incidents over and over to buff up their content) potentially real "crimes" by actual Trump supporters. 

Yeah. I don't really think I need to go on here. 

Oh BM, for a skeptic, you really have *the lowest standard of what you consider evidence of crimes I have EVER seen in my life.* You are the very definition of the kind of rational thinkers Atheism Plus attracts :heston.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Glad BM posted that. Let's go through this shall we:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> #1 If anything, this is hate speech. Hate speech is not a hate crime
> 
> #2 : If true, then it's still hate speech which is not a hate crime.
> 
> #3 . Huffpo editor writer who constantly claims that Trump supporters are racist and has been since before this tweet. There's no agenda there at all to make up a fake story.
> 
> #4 . Another journalist. Interesting how this shit is happening to journalists, hmmm.
> 
> #5 . If it happened, then again, it's hate speech, which is not a crime.
> 
> #6 . Anyone can write anything on their own car. Why should I believe this to be true again?
> 
> $7. That's bad and it shouldn't have happened. I'm surprised though that the teachers didn't get involved. Again, it's not a crime because the black guy wasn't attacked physically. It's hate speech and last I checked hate speech isn't a crime.
> 
> #8 . Being afraid of a potential crime is called irrational paranoia
> 
> #9 . More hate speech and that's not a crime. How does this Shuan King guy know that they were TRump supporters? Even the article it linked didn't say anything about Trump supporters :lmao
> 
> http://www.wrestlingforum.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=10#1 0 . More irrational paranoia based on lack of evidence of any actual crimes. :lmao
> 
> http://www.wrestlingforum.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=11#1 1 . Students were afraid and so they didn't wear a scarf. Did they have a legit reason to be scared. Nope. Being scared of a crime happening isn't the same as a crime happening :lmao
> 
> http://www.wrestlingforum.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=12#1 2 . Obviously fake. No one talks like that. Even the KKK don't talk like that anymore. Just read the girl's transcript of the conversation :lmao
> 
> http://www.wrestlingforum.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=13#1 3 . Repeat of #1 to exaggerate numbers :lmao
> 
> #1 4. If this is Trump supporters (and that's a big IF), then it's still hate speech, which is not a hate crime :lmao
> 
> #1 5. I don't want to get into the depths of this one, so I'll let it go. So the tally is now 1 possible sexist attack
> 
> #1 6. Hate speech. Probably drunk frat boys. Not a crime.
> 
> #1 7. Yah. Clearly fake. Local police debunked the Ashley Boyer fake claim.
> 
> #1 8. Not a crime. No date attached. No idea who did this. Could be anyone. How is this proof that it's Trump supporters?
> 
> #1 9. Could have done it herself.
> 
> #2 0. Third time they've included the same thing on the same page :lmao
> 
> #2 1: Sounds like school bullies. Is verbal bullying a crime? Not yet. Also this sort of thing could be said at any point in time, or never said at all and could even be fake since it's again retweeted by the Shuan King guy who was already caught out on retweeting something else fake :lmao
> 
> #2 2: Hate speech. Not a hate crime.
> 
> #23: More stuff from Shuan King. Something is placed on their car, and they take a picture of it inside in their room :lmao COuld have at least tried to make it real by leaving it on the car.
> 
> #24: Yes. Children are screaming at her to leave America you know a black woman who isn't even considered an immigration by anyone. I mean, if she was hispanic or even looked hispanic, I might have believed her :lmao
> 
> #25: Not even her this time, apparently it happened to her cousin :lmao
> 
> #26: Shuan King apparently is retweeted all kinds of stories and all of them fake :lol
> 
> #27: They repeated the Ashley Boyer gif again :lmao
> 
> 1/27 potentially real "crimes" by actual Trump supporters.
> 
> Yeah. I don't really think I need to go on here.
> 
> Oh BM, for a skeptic, you really have *the lowest standard of what you consider evidence of crimes I have EVER seen in my life.* You are the very definition of the kind of rational thinkers Atheism Plus attracts :heston.


You keep proving my point over and over thanks.

Dismiss anything that Trump supporters do. You are such a fraud.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> You keep proving my point over and over thanks.
> 
> Dismiss anything that Trump supporters do. You are such a fraud.


What you can't do is prove that these true :lmao 

The burden of proof is on these people and indirectly on you since you seem to believe them on their word :lmao 

You didn't even read anything on the link you posted tho. I can't believe that you would be able to read all of this stuff and go "yup, everyone's being perfectly honest here" yourself if you actually did. Then again, I might be setting the bar too high for you :heston


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> What you can't do is prove that these true :lmao
> 
> The burden of proof is on these people and indirectly on you since you seem to believe them on their word :lmao
> 
> You didn't even read anything on the link you posted tho. I can't believe that you would be unable to read all of this stuff and go "yup, everyone's being perfectly honest here" yourself if you actually did. Then again, I might be setting the bar too high for you :heston


Yup so using your logic everyone is lying. You could see a Trump supporter doing the action on video and you would just claim well you dont know for sure that is really a Trump supporter doing it. 

But yeah keep dismissing the hateful things Trump supporters do. That is what you do best make excuses for them


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Yup so using your logic everyone is lying. You could see a Trump supporter doing the action on video and you would just claim well you dont know for sure that is really a Trump supporter doing it.
> 
> But yeah keep dismissing the hateful things Trump supporters do. That is what you do best make excuses for them


If you actually read what I wrote, I only claimed about half of them are false, a quarter of them are a result of irrational paranoia (fear without evidence) and half of them are examples of hate SPEECH if true. 

Hate SPEECH is not a crime. We've been over this. 

But then again, expecting you to actually read what I wrote about each example is setting the bar too high for someone like you. YOu don't even want to debate these individually. You want to lump them all together as undoubtedly true and or crimes (which is what you're point has been throughout). 

And if you won't even bother to look at them. Look at them. Not even like read them in full or even glance at them. 

ALL you did is look at that page and posted the link here. You did not even look at what has been posted on that page. Simply saw that there's a ton of posts. You went by the numbers. 

This is the WORST example of any kind of skeptic approach I have EVER seen in my life. 

You didn't even bother to read the things that are posted in there and are calling others out on it. 

So get off your fucking high horse and do some actual digging. Prove your worth if you can because repeatedly you've rubbed yourself up against me and have repeatedly come up short. Repeatedly. 

If you want to have a defensible position or stance. At least READ. Just read the god damned thing you're responding to.

You are worse than an anti-vaxxer because even in those communities I've had people who actually read the stuff they post or respond to even if what they read is wrong.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

OMG are we actually arguing over who's more capable of shitty violence and heinous acts - Trumpeters or Anti-Trumpeters? It's absurd, as if there is any correlation. People can be complete assholes no matter their politics can't they? 

The bigger factor is people are fucking afraid and feeling vulnerable and lashing out. The Anti-Trumpers had it pumped into them the world would end if Trump got in, and The Trumpers got the same thing about Hilldog. There's no winning here, just degrees of losing.

Besides so many violent shitty acts would go unreported and never end up on any media so how can we tell.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> OMG are we actually arguing over who's more capable of shitty violence and heinous acts - Trumpeters or Anti-Trumpeters? It's absurd, as if there is any correlation. People can be complete assholes no matter their politics can't they?
> 
> The bigger factor is people are fucking afraid and feeling vulnerable and lashing out. The Anti-Trumpers had it pumped into them the world would end if Trump got in, and The Trumpers got the same thing about Hilldog. There's no winning here, just degrees of losing.
> 
> Besides so many violent shitty acts would go unreported and never end up on any media so how can we tell.


No. You cannot prop up two things that are not equal and pretend that they're equal. The hate being faced by white people, republicans in the twitter-verse as well as off the internet and news IRL is proving to be worse than the other way round. The GOP and its supporters suddenly wouldn't and didn't become magically more racist after winning. Logic and facts both dictate that the winner behaves more respectably and once you account for the creation of all the fake stories then you realize that the vast majority of lashing out that's being done is being done by so-called liberals and mostly democrats. 

The other logical fact that people completely ignoring is that all of these incidents are being reported in BLUE states where the vast majority of people are already liberal as fuck. Are they saying that their communities are full of closet racists that feel empowered to break laws and suddenly come out of the closet while this is something they could have already been doing. All of them came out on the same fucking day and said mean things to dozens of liberals ... and not 1 fucking endorsement by the police. Not one police report. Not one incident outside of the pro-Hillary activist blogosphere in remote areas around the country ... You know, the rural ones? This isn't some third world country where hate crimes can be suppressed by the police fpalm 

When we can establish an actual equivalence in number of incidents and violence committed amongst members of both groups and determine that it is subjectively and objectively equal then we can make this claim of both sides and prop them up against one another. 

Otherwise, it's literally just wishful thinking ... and worse, an unscientific approach to forming an opinion.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Genking48 said:


> Almost afraid of posting this because I think I can guess what the reactions to just the person in the clip will be, but here we go anyways.


Nailed it Jon. 

:done


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> No. You cannot prop up two things that are not equal and pretend that they're equal. The hate being faced by white people, republicans in the twitter-verse as well as off the internet and news IRL is proving to be worse than the other way round. The GOP and its supporters suddenly wouldn't and didn't become magically more racist after winning. Logic and facts both dictate that the winner behaves more respectably and once you account for the creation of all the fake stories then you realize that the vast majority of lashing out that's being done is being done by so-called liberals and mostly democrats.
> 
> The other logical fact that people completely ignoring is that all of these incidents are being reported in BLUE states where the vast majority of people are already liberal as fuck. Are they saying that their communities are full of closet racists that feel empowered to break laws and suddenly come out of the closet while this is something they could have already been doing. All of them came out on the same fucking day and said mean things to dozens of liberals ... and not 1 fucking endorsement by the police. Not one police report. Not one incident outside of the pro-Hillary activist blogosphere in remote areas around the country ... You know, the rural ones? This isn't some third world country where hate crimes can be suppressed by the police fpalm
> 
> When we can establish an actual equivalence in number of incidents and violence committed amongst members of both groups and determine that it is subjectively and objectively equal then we can make this claim of both sides and prop them up against one another.
> 
> Otherwise, it's literally just wishful thinking ... and worse, an unscientific approach to forming an opinion.


Hate speech and hate crimes are just as bad as each other. 

And Trump is the one who encouraged all this violence at his rallies. Now the other side is fighting back doing what Trump was telling his supporters to do at his rallies. Trump is the main person to blame for all of this violence getting out of hand. I said it from day one when he stared saying that stuff. And now we are at the point we are now. And of course people like you made a huge deal about of it because its democrats doing it now too

You have no one to blame but Trump.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Hate speech and hate crimes are just as bad as each other.


:heston


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> :heston


People kill themselves because of hate speech or emotional abuse. In some cases hate speech / emotional abuse is worse than physical.


----------



## Reggie Dunlop

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> And Trump is the one who encouraged all this violence at his rallies. Now the other side is fighting back doing what Trump was telling his supporters to do at his rallies. Trump is the main person to blame for all of this violence getting out of hand. I said it from day one when he stared saying that stuff. And now we are at the point we are now. And of course people like you made a huge deal about of it because its democrats doing it now too
> 
> You have no one to blame but Trump.


What the everloving fuck are you talking about? You keep throwing out this utter bullshit like it's fact. Show me where Trump has actually encouraged violence. And I'm not talking about somebody accusing him of it, I don't mean people twisting his position on the second amendment, I mean an actual example of Trump himself saying anything to remotely suggest he wants his supporters to go enact violence on anybody. It's the spoiled brats protesting AGAINST Trump that are committing the violence, how the fuck is Trump the one to blame for that? You people and your twisted-ass logic make my fucking brain hurt.


----------



## Reggie Dunlop

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> People kill themselves because of hate speech or emotional abuse. In some cases hate speech / *emotional abuse is worse than physical*.


You must mean like the fictional bullshit you're spewing all over this thread? Cos this shit is just fucking painful.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The Cleaner said:


> What the everloving fuck are you talking about? You keep throwing out this utter bullshit like it's fact. Show me where Trump has actually encouraged violence. And I'm not talking about somebody accusing him of it, I don't mean people twisting his position on the second amendment, I mean an actual example of Trump himself saying anything to remotely suggest he wants his supporters to go enact violence on anybody. It's the spoiled brats protesting AGAINST Trump that are committing the violence, how the fuck is Trump the one to blame for that? You people and your twisted-ass logic make my fucking brain hurt.


http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/03/12/donald-trump-rallies-violence-protests-mashup-lv.cnn

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-violence_us_56e1f16fe4b0b25c91815913

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-trump-protester-violence-20160311-story.html

http://mashable.com/2016/03/12/trump-rally-incite-violence/#FRuigyg8Wiqk

Its like you dont even know the stuff Trump has said. It just makes you look bad when you deny this stuff.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The Cleaner said:


> You must mean like the fictional bullshit you're spewing all over this thread? Cos this shit is just fucking painful.


You obviously don't know what you are talking about since a simple google search would show you I am right. Maybe if you understood psychology you would know this.


----------



## Reggie Dunlop

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/03/12/donald-trump-rallies-violence-protests-mashup-lv.cnn
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-violence_us_56e1f16fe4b0b25c91815913
> 
> http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-trump-protester-violence-20160311-story.html
> 
> http://mashable.com/2016/03/12/trump-rally-incite-violence/#FRuigyg8Wiqk
> 
> Its like you dont even know the stuff Trump has said. It just makes you look bad when you deny this stuff.


Yeah, ok. From the usual sources. You read it any way you want. I wonder where he's hiding the pitchforks and torches.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The Cleaner said:


> Yeah, ok. From the usual sources. I wonder where he's hiding the pitchfork and torches.


It's quotes and video of Trump LOL

But yeah ignore Trump in his own words


----------



## Reggie Dunlop

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> You obviously don't know what you are talking about since a simple google search would show you I am right. Maybe if you understood psychology you would know this.


No, you're full of shit. But you're gonna believe whatever you're gonna believe.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*






:shrug


----------



## Reggie Dunlop

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> It's quotes and video of Trump LOL
> 
> But yeah ignore Trump in his own words


How about _you_ listen to his own words -- _all_ of them -- and don't just pick and choose the ones that you can twist to fit your idiotic agenda.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The Cleaner said:


> No, you're full of shit. But you're gonna believe whatever you're gonna believe.


yeah I have psychology on my side, you just have your ignorance.



virus21 said:


> :shrug


yeah he is saying that now after he won, he was not saying that back when he was telling his supporters to attack protestors and he would pay for the legal fees. 

Are you going to pretend Trump never said that?


----------



## Reggie Dunlop

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



virus21 said:


> :shrug


Come on, man, you know that had to have been taken out of context. :lol


----------



## Reggie Dunlop

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> yeah I have psychology on my side, you just have your ignorance.


Oh, is that what they're calling myopic hate now, psychology? Must be that new age liberal medicine shit.



birthday_massacre said:


> yeah he is saying that now after he won, he was not saying that back when he was telling his supporters to attack protestors and he would pay for the legal fees.
> 
> Are you going to pretend Trump never said that?


Which protesters? You mean the ones attacking his supporters at his rallies who otherwise had no business being there? Those protesters? I believe he was suggesting the unfathomable possibility that they have the right to defend themselves if they're being attacked, which they were. What was he supposed to say, "Hey, folks, just stand there and let them beat the fuck out of you, I'll pay your hospital/funeral expenses"?


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Carte Blanche, at the risk of sounding egotistical I hope you weren't replying to me a few pages back about my 'violence is not on one side' post. I've had you on ignore for ages now lol.


----------



## amhlilhaus

birthday_massacre said:


> Carte Blanche said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People kill themselves because of hate speech or emotional abuse. In some cases hate speech / emotional abuse is worse than physical.
Click to expand...


For weak willed people, yes.

Obamas elections didnt bring out massive protests. Trumps did.

Dozens of stories, videos of liberals crying their eyes out.

Liberals, weak willed nimcompoops

Your serve bm


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



amhlilhaus said:


> For weak willed people, yes.
> 
> Obamas elections didnt bring out massive protests. Trumps did.
> 
> Dozens of stories, videos of liberals crying their eyes out.
> 
> Liberals, weak willed nimcompoops
> 
> Your serve bm


yeah because Trump promoted racism, sexism, bigotry etc. Not to mention he lost the popular vote.

Its funny you talk about liberals crying when that is all conservatives did for the past 8 years with Obama. 6 of those the republicans did everything they could to block him for getting what he wanted done because they were so bitter.

And lets not forget this, if you want to talk about crying their eyes out



















the libs are doing exactly what Trump said conservatives should do 4 years ago.

game set match


----------



## amhlilhaus

birthday_massacre said:


> amhlilhaus said:
> 
> 
> 
> For weak willed people, yes.
> 
> Obamas elections didnt bring out massive protests. Trumps did.
> 
> Dozens of stories, videos of liberals crying their eyes out.
> 
> Liberals, weak willed nimcompoops
> 
> Your serve bm
> 
> 
> 
> yeah because Trump promoted racism, sexism, bigotry etc. Not to mention he lost the popular vote.
> 
> Its funny you talk about liberals crying when that is all conservatives did for the past 8 years with Obama. 6 of those the republicans did everything they could to block him for getting what he wanted done because they were so bitter.
> 
> And lets not forget this, if you want to talk about crying their eyes out
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the libs are doing exactly what Trump said conservatives should do 4 years ago.
> 
> game set match
Click to expand...

Nice non mention of the protests.

Typical liberal behavior. You say 'conservatives cried for 8 years' and a few did, most continued with their lives and there were NO major, shut down the cities protests.

Which side brainwashed their constituents into being so ill equiped to deal with life they need special rooms at school to color, pet dogs and play with modeling clay.

Hint, not conservatives


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



amhlilhaus said:


> Nice non mention of the protests.
> 
> Typical liberal behavior. You say 'conservatives cried for 8 years' and a few did, most continued with their lives and there were NO major, shut down the cities protests.
> 
> Which side brainwashed their constituents into being so ill equiped to deal with life they need special rooms at school to color, pet dogs and play with modeling clay.
> 
> Hint, not conservatives


Conservatives just grab their guns and shoot up the local school/church accidentally kill family and friends instead! >


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



amhlilhaus said:


> Nice non mention of the protests.
> 
> Typical liberal behavior. You say 'conservatives cried for 8 years' and a few did, most continued with their lives and there were NO major, shut down the cities protests.
> 
> Which side brainwashed their constituents into being so ill equiped to deal with life they need special rooms at school to color, pet dogs and play with modeling clay.
> 
> Hint, not conservatives


UM yes conservatives.

Conservatives were the ones crying when gays got equal rights to get married.
Conservatives are the ones who are always complaining about a womens right to choose.
Conservatives are the ones who cry when women get equal rights.
Conservatives are the ones who cry when blacks got equal rights
Conservatives are the ones who cry when people want common sense better gun laws 
Conservatives are the ones who cry about a so-called war on xmas when there is no such thing, like the starbucks cups for example.
Conservatives always cry when they can't push their Christian values onto the rest of hte country.
Conservatives are the ones crying because some football players are not standing for the national anthem.
Conservatives are hte ones crying about these protest in which almost everyone but a few are peaceful.
Conservatives were the ones crying when the ten commandments were taken out of some state houses
Conservatives were the ones crying when they could not fly the confederate flag on state property anymore


I could go on and on. It anyone needs a safe space its conservatives.


----------



## amhlilhaus

birthday_massacre said:


> amhlilhaus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice non mention of the protests.
> 
> Typical liberal behavior. You say 'conservatives cried for 8 years' and a few did, most continued with their lives and there were NO major, shut down the cities protests.
> 
> Which side brainwashed their constituents into being so ill equiped to deal with life they need special rooms at school to color, pet dogs and play with modeling clay.
> 
> Hint, not conservatives
> 
> 
> 
> UM yes conservatives.
> 
> Conservatives were the ones crying when gays got equal rights to get married.
> Conservatives are the ones who are always complaining about a womens right to choose.
> Conservatives are the ones who cry when women get equal rights.
> Conservatives are the ones who cry when blacks got equal rights
> Conservatives are the ones who cry when people want common sense better gun laws
> Conservatives are the ones who cry about a so-called war on xmas when there is no such thing, like the starbucks cups for example.
> Conservatives always cry when they can't push their Christian values onto the rest of hte country.
> Conservatives are the ones crying because some football players are not standing for the national anthem.
> Conservatives are hte ones crying about these protest in which almost everyone but a few are peaceful.
> Conservatives were the ones crying when the ten commandments were taken out of some state houses
> Conservatives were the ones crying when they could not fly the confederate flag on state property anymore
> 
> 
> I could go on and on. It anyone needs a safe space its conservatives.
Click to expand...

You act like a third rate magician, your misdirection fools no one.

Again, wheres the videos of conservatives marching in protest over a week after laws are passed they dont like?

I like our discussions. It illustrates the divide the country is in. Both sides think theyre correct, in the end neither side is swayed.

I bet you think goldberg vs brock will be a great match


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Guys we need to come together now like Trump said in his acceptance speech. I honestly did like that sentiment.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



> Home Politics
> By Andrew Stiles | 5:43 pm, November 15, 2016
> 
> Liberal New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio is calling for more “disruption” to protest the election of Donald Trump.
> 
> “We have to recognize that all over this country, the more disruption that’s caused peacefully … the more it will change the trajectory of things,” he said in a radio interview on Monday, adding that Trump did not have a mandate to implement his agenda because he failed to win the popular vote.
> 
> De Blasio also pledged that New York City would not comply if Trump sought to restore “stop-and-frisk,” a controversial policy that was deemed unconstitutional by a U.S. district court judge in 2013. “They can threaten to take away money, but they cannot tell us how to police our streets,” he said.
> 
> Get our exclusive newsletter—the best of Heat Street every day
> 
> email address
> 
> Subscribe
> The Democratic mayor, who aspires to be a standard bearer for the left, criticized members of his own party for failing to address the concerns of working-class voters, who “have every right to feel cheated.”
> 
> View image on Twitter
> View image on Twitter
> Follow
> The Hill ✔ @thehill
> Mayor de Blasio: Keep protesting, Trump has no mandate http://hill.cm/y4LVw78
> 10:25 AM - 15 Nov 2016
> 160 160 Retweets 220 220 likes
> Experience More with American Express Travel On Your Next Cruise
> Get more savings, onboard credits and more with the #AmexTravel Cruise Sale. Book by 10/31/2016. Terms Apply.
> Ad by American Express Travel
> De Blasio’s name occasionally appeared in the hacked emails of Democratic emails published by WikiLeaks, mostly in a negative context. Hillary Clinton’s top campaign advisers were not amused by the mayor’s reluctance to enthusiastically endorse Clinton in the Democratic primary. They also chafed at his desire to have more direct access to Clinton, saying that she would not be comfortable with such an arrangement.
> 
> “I find him a bit insufferable,” Center for American Progress president Neera Tanden wrote of de Blasio in an email to Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. “Sorry if I let my extreme annoyance show.”


http://heatst.com/politics/blasio-protest-trump/

I thought this one was connected


> In the wake of his party's significant losses across the Rust Belt in last week's elections, Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan is stepping up to challenge Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's nearly 14-year grip on the House Democratic caucus.
> 
> Ryan, a a seven-term lawmaker who represents Youngstown, wrote to his colleagues that "Democrats must not let this opportunity for change pass by without a fight." He noted that the party has hemorrhaged over 60 House seats in the past six years and has only been in the majority for two terms in the past 18 years.
> 
> "I have spent countless hours meeting and talking to Members of our Caucus, and the consensus is clear. What we are doing right now is not working," Ryan wrote. "Under our current leadership, Democrats have been reduced to our smallest congressional minority since 1929. This should indicate to all of us that keeping our leadership team completely unchanged will simply lead to more disappointment in future elections."
> 
> "The American people need to know we understand that they elected us to fight for economic opportunity for all. We need to create America 2.0 — a multicultural, progressive, and innovative country that fights every day for ordinary people," he continued.
> 
> Pelosi has held the top slot in House leadership since 2003, first serving as minority leader for four years before becoming the first-ever female Speaker of the House when Democrats won back control of Congress in 2006. When they lost the majority four years later, she returned to heading the minority, and she's held that position since 2011.
> 
> The California Democrat announced on Wednesday she intends to seek another term and that she already has support from two-third of the caucus.
> 
> "To be a strong voice for hard-working families and to uphold the values we cherish as Americans, House Democrats must be unified, strategic and unwavering," Pelosi wrote to members. "These qualities took us to victory in 2006 and I believe they will do so again. We must start now!"
> 
> Pelosi has never faced a major challenge to her top leadership position. In 2010, then-North Carolina Rep. Heath Shuler challenged Pelosi but only got 43 votes even as Democrats had lost 63 House seats.
> 
> The Counties That Flipped From Obama To Trump, In 3 Charts
> POLITICS
> The Counties That Flipped From Obama To Trump, In 3 Charts
> But this year, some Democrats have argued it's time for new, younger blood to lead the caucus and to add some geographic diversity to the leadership ranks. Pelosi hails from ultra-liberal San Francisco, while Ryan's home of Trumbull County, Ohio, voted for Trump by six points after having previously voted for President Obama by 22 points just four years earlier.
> 
> House Democrats delayed their leadership elections, originally slated for today, until November 30.
> 
> So far, Ryan is the only challenger to Pelosi. New York Rep. Joe Crowley, who represents Queens, had been urged by some to run, but he announced instead he will run to replace outgoing House Democratic Caucus Chairman Xavier Becerra, D-Calif.


http://www.npr.org/2016/11/17/502476590/ohio-congressman-will-try-to-take-down-nancy-pelosi-as-house-democratic-leader


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> UM yes conservatives.
> 
> Conservatives were the ones crying when gays got equal rights to get married.
> Conservatives are the ones who are always complaining about a womens right to choose.
> Conservatives are the ones who cry when women get equal rights.
> Conservatives are the ones who cry when blacks got equal rights
> Conservatives are the ones who cry when people want common sense better gun laws
> Conservatives are the ones who cry about a so-called war on xmas when there is no such thing, like the starbucks cups for example.
> Conservatives always cry when they can't push their Christian values onto the rest of hte country.
> Conservatives are the ones crying because some football players are not standing for the national anthem.
> Conservatives are hte ones crying about these protest in which almost everyone but a few are peaceful.
> Conservatives were the ones crying when the ten commandments were taken out of some state houses
> Conservatives were the ones crying when they could not fly the confederate flag on state property anymore
> 
> 
> I could go on and on. It anyone needs a safe space its conservatives.


There's a lot of truth here if you look at this post in the present context only tbh


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



amhlilhaus said:


> You act like a third rate magician, your misdirection fools no one.
> 
> Again, wheres the videos of conservatives marching in protest over a week after laws are passed they dont like?
> 
> I like our discussions. It illustrates the divide the country is in. Both sides think theyre correct, in the end neither side is swayed.
> 
> I bet you think goldberg vs brock will be a great match


the only person you are fooling is yourself and Trump supporters.

You are really going to claim for example there were no protests after same-sex marriage was passed by SCOTUS?

You have zero credibility if you are going to claim this.


----------



## MillionDollarProns

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Conservatives were the ones crying when gays got equal rights to get married.


The federal government stripping states of their right to create and enforce their own laws is a concern worth crying over, even if it's a good thing like gay marriage.




birthday_massacre said:


> Conservatives are the ones who cry when blacks got equal rights



What rights do "blacks" have that conservatives are crying over?



birthday_massacre said:


> Conservatives are the ones who cry when people want common sense better gun laws


Because none of the "common sense better gun laws" have been common sense to this point. Here in California we _already_ had background checks, waiting periods and federal registration of handguns, and now we've gone done and passed a law letting the government tax our ammunition. In other words, people that have been cleared to legally own firearms are being punished. This is not common sense.



birthday_massacre said:


> Conservatives are the ones crying because some football players are not standing for the national anthem.


I personally cry when that happens, but that's just because they're all ripping off @CamillePunk :ghost




birthday_massacre said:


> Conservatives were the ones crying when they could not fly the confederate flag on state property anymore


The 1st amendment is something worth crying over.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



MillionDollarProns said:


> The federal government stripping states of their right to create and enforce their own laws is a concern worth crying over, even if it's a good thing like gay marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What rights do "blacks" have that conservatives are crying over?
> 
> 
> 
> Because none of the "common sense better gun laws" have been common sense to this point. Here in California we _already_ had background checks, waiting periods and federal registration of handguns, and now we've gone done and passed a law letting the government tax our ammunition. In other words, people that have been cleared to legally own firearms are being punished. This is not common sense.
> 
> 
> 
> I personally cry when that happens, but that's just because they're all ripping off @CamillePunk :ghost
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 1st amendment is something worth crying over.



The govt did not strip rights of states when it came to gay marriage, they said you can't discriminate against gays.

Giving a group equal rights is not stripping the rights of a state to discriminate. It's just like when SCOTUS made interracial marriage legal across the country.
You are giving rights to people.

I am talking about back in the day when blacks got their rights.

How is it not common sense to make everyone buying a gun at a gun show need a background check? that is common sense.

As for The 1st amendment is something worth crying over so why are conservatives crying about the 1st amendment right of protesting? And I am talking about the peaceful ones.
Nice hypocrisy there.

Also how is it a 1st amendment right to fly a racist flag like the confederate flag on public property? It's not the US flag?


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Guys we need to come together now like Trump said in his acceptance speech. I honestly did like that sentiment.


Yeah baby, like that will ever happen. We can all dream, though, can we not? :mj2


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Guys we need to come together now like Trump said in his acceptance speech. I honestly did like that sentiment.


Me too which is why I'm trying to be a little more understanding and less critical of the silliness going on.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Guys we need to come together now like Trump said in his acceptance speech. I honestly did like that sentiment.


It would be easier if Trump was not putting such bigots and bush era establishment people in his cabinet. 

Thought Trump was supposed to be getting rid of the establishment.

Trump is going back on most of what he said he was going to do during the primary and general, I am surprised more of his supporters are not calling him out on it yet.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> So the hospital decided to not report a crime :lmao
> 
> He gets attacked in Santa Monica and then drives at least 20-30 miles (an hour drive) to go to a hospital somewhere in Los Angeles. :lmao
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So many holes in his story. :lol
> 
> He probably did get a CTScan for a head injury, but interestingly, I think he got the inspiration for his hoax from this:
> 
> What a coincidence. 2 men named Christopher ball, both from Calgary and both got attacked outside of a bar ... Yeah, leaning hoax at this point despite the hospital report mainly because the guy drove 40 odd miles and the hospital never filed a crime report.
> 
> You can whinge about me all you want for being so skeptical of this, but unfortunately, I'm not easily taken in by any stories and if I ever am, I freely admit it. In fact I've admitted is like a dozen times in this forum alone :lmao


They CT scan you regardless to be sure, any tests done are moot, it's about the results. So anyone using "Well he got these tests done!" are full of shit if using it as proof of anything.

Whatever happened to the girl who got "attacked" for painting trump naked? I still laugh about that silliness.


----------



## MillionDollarProns

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> The govt did not strip rights of states when it came to gay marriage, they said you can't discriminate against gays.
> 
> Giving a group equal rights is not stripping the rights of a state to discriminate. It's just like when SCOTUS made interracial marriage legal across the country.
> You are giving rights to people.



It's a very complex issue, with layers upon layers of court cases. I feel one reason people, especially those in the Sixth Circuit region of the country, are so mad is because they had just recently ruled in favor of traditional marriage. I understand why they're upset about it, and I feel the left's general attitude of 'Well you're all just homophobic ********!' didn't do them any favors in this election.



birthday_massacre said:


> How is it not common sense to make everyone buying a gun at a gun show need a background check? that is common sense.


I should clarify that it's not background checks I was addressing, rather all the other laws to punish legal, registered gun owners, such as ammunition taxes etc. These are fine issues to "cry over." It's not common sense to punish those of us who went through legal channels to get our guns.



birthday_massacre said:


> As for The 1st amendment is something worth crying over so why are conservatives crying about the 1st amendment right of protesting? And I am talking about the peaceful ones.
> Nice hypocrisy there.



I can't speak for all conseratives, but I personally have no problem with it, as long as they stay within the boundaries of the law.



birthday_massacre said:


> Also how is it a 1st amendment right to fly a racist flag like the confederate flag on *public property*? It's not the US flag?


That's actually the exact place where the 1st amendment applies, which is why it's protected to protest, or exhibit artwork in the public park, but not protected to protest inside your living room, for example.

Also, I hate to open this can of worms, but the "confederate flag" is not racist in and of itself. The people who fought and died for the confederacy in the Civil War did not do so just because they really, really hated black people.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



MillionDollarProns said:


> It's a very complex issue, with layers upon layers of court cases. I feel one reason people, especially those in the Sixth Circuit region of the country, are so mad is because they had just recently ruled in favor of traditional marriage. I understand why they're upset about it, and I feel the left's general attitude of 'Well you're all just homophobic ********!' didn't do them any favors in this election.
> 
> 
> 
> I should clarify that it's not background checks I was addressing, rather all the other laws to punish legal, registered gun owners, such as ammunition taxes etc. These are fine issues to "cry over." It's not common sense to punish those of us who went through legal channels to get our guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't speak for all conseratives, but I personally have no problem with it, as long as they stay within the boundaries of the law.
> 
> 
> 
> That's actually the exact place where the 1st amendment applies, which is why it's protected to protest, or exhibit artwork in the public park, but not protected to protest inside your living room, for example.
> 
> Also, I hate to open this can of worms, but the "confederate flag" is not racist in and of itself. The people who fought and died for the confederacy in the Civil War did not do so just because they really, really hated black people.



if you are against same-sex marriage then don't marry someone of the same gender. Where there is a huge issue is when those people think they can prevent others for marrying the same gender.
It's fine if churches don't want to marry people of the same sex, but the state cannot refuse.

It may not be what you are addressing but its what I am talking about when it comes to common sense gun laws. The stuff about taxing ammo is debatable, they tax tobacco but of course that is not protected by the constitution. But taxing ammo is not taking away your guns. 

We can agree on protesting for both sides as long as its peaceful.

No its not the place where the 1st amendment applies when it comes to the conf. flag being flown on public property. Now if someone tried saying you cant fly it on your own private property you would be current but public is a different story.

And yes the confederate flag is racist and its also treasonous. We have been over this a number of times already. The civil war was mostly about slavery. that was the #1 reason for it. I and one or two other posters already showed how it was.


----------



## Flair Flop

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



> WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald J. Trump has offered the post of national security adviser to Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, potentially elevating a retired intelligence officer who believes Islamist militancy poses an existential threat on a global scale to one of the most powerful roles in shaping military and foreign policy, according to a top official on Mr. Trump’s transition team.
> 
> It was not clear whether General Flynn, 57, a registered Democrat who was fired as the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency in 2014 by President Obama, had accepted the position. General Flynn advised Mr. Trump throughout his campaign, and as national security adviser, he would be a critical gatekeeper to the president, overseeing a staff of roughly 400 people.
> 
> In the role, he would often have the last word on how Mr. Trump should handle crises that could range from a showdown with China over the South China Sea to an international health crisis like the Ebola epidemic.
> 
> Given Mr. Trump’s lack of experience on national security matters, General Flynn could serve a role of even greater importance than his predecessors. At the same time, his appointment is a signal that the Trump administration is unlikely to be dominated by members of the Republican national security elite that shaped the policies of President George W. Bush, almost all of whom made clear that they believed Mr. Trump was unfit to lead the country.
> 
> Once counted among the most respected military officers of his generation, General Flynn was an ardent supporter of Mr. Trump, and he alienated many former colleagues with his denunciations of the wars in Iraq and elsewhere, efforts that he had helped lead during his time in the military.
> 
> Continue reading the main story
> The Trump White House
> Stories on the presidential transition and the forthcoming Trump administration.
> Donald Trump Seeks to Delay Action on Spending Bills Until His Term Starts
> NOV 17
> Jeff Sessions Appears Headed to a Trump Cabinet Position
> NOV 17
> From Iran to Syria, Trump’s ‘America First’ Approach Faces Its First Tests
> NOV 17
> Trump Team Sets Broader Limits on Lobbying by Former Staff
> NOV 16
> Trump Will Have Wide Latitude to Let Family Into Government’s Secret Circles
> NOV 16
> See More »
> 
> RELATED COVERAGE
> 
> 
> TRANSITION BRIEFING
> Jeff Sessions Appears Headed to a Trump Cabinet Position NOV. 17, 2016
> 
> Firings and Discord Put Trump Transition Team in a State of Disarray NOV. 15, 2016
> ADVERTISEMENT
> 
> Continue reading the main story
> 
> General Flynn would bring to the White House a belief that the problem in the Middle East for the United States is ultimately with the Islamic faith itself. He has criticized the religion as being nothing more than a “political ideology,” has made a point of using the phrase “radical Islamist terrorism” as often as possible, and once posted a video on his Twitter account that included the phrase “Fear of Muslims is rational.” He has also claimed that Islamic law, known as Shariah, is spreading in the United States, without providing evidence.


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/us/politics/donald-trump-administration.html


----------



## Vic Capri

Trump should hire Romney then immediately fire him for all that shit talking he did. :lol

- Vic


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I saw this and just wanted to share.










'Murica! :banderas


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*










HE'S DOING IT!!!

:trump3


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> And you wonder why people think you are a typical southerner when you make comments like this.


And YOU wonder why your posts are deemed as anti-southern


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Oda Nobunaga said:


> I saw this and just wanted to share.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Murica! :banderas


Dang it I was going to link that gif later! I'm giving you an infraction! >


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> HE'S DOING IT!!!
> 
> :trump3


The plant wasn't closing. What Trump did was managed to stop the production line of a less popular model from moving to Mexico. The upside would be workers don't need to adapt to working on a different model at the plant.

:trump telling half-truths again.

Would be ironic if it saddles Ford with more inventory of the less popular model and cut into the workers bonuses if they can't sell them.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> @AryaDark @MrMister @L-DOPA @DesolationRow @Miss Sally @CamillePunk @Pratchett @ShowStopper @Genesis 1.0
> 
> Aloha, everybody. I took the past 5 days or so off from all of this bullshit. I got drunk. I partied with old friends. We had a grand old time. Nobody really cared about politics. Nobody really cared about left or right or liberal or conservative or any of that old bullshit. We just got together for good food and good booze and good times and good friends. It was a blast.
> 
> It was a break that I needed. Because, honestly, I am tired of all the hate. I am the self-proclaimed furthest left person of this forum and I say that based upon my own views of how society should work. @BruiserKC is the person who is the furthest right person of this forum and he'll be the first person to tell you that. Guess what? He and I are friends.
> 
> I think, and I think everyone would do well to remember this, is that we are all Americans. And maybe I am a bit naive but I think that what most people want out of life is to be able to put a roof over their heads, food on their table and to mainly be left the fuck alone to live their own lives how they see fit.
> 
> Yeah, there will always be racists and sexists and misogynists and whatever-ists in the world but I will never believe that the majority of people are like that. The majority of people just want to live their lives. We don't all have to agree on how everyone should live their lives but what everyone should remember is that it's important to allow people to live their own lives.
> 
> I am an admitted far, far left wing libertarian. Hate on me all you want for that but it is my belief that society should work for the betterment of the all and not the enrichment of the few. I think it's fucking INSANE that barely 60 people own more than the bottom half of the human population. It just don't seem right to me. I'm not a communist and I don't run around saying all wealth should be distributed equally either. However, as a humanist, it don't seem right to me that so many people should be going hungry when the USA alone throws away over 40% of the food it produces.
> 
> Scarcity is an invention of capitalism. We have the means and we have the technology and we have the resources to end human food insecurity. Yet, it is more profitable for companies to simply throw excess food away into the garbage disposals than it is to give it to people in need. That's one of those fucked up things about human society that needs to be reassessed.
> 
> I am a leftist libertarian and I am fucking proud of it. And by leftist libertarian, I mean that I believe that we should create a society where everyone is allowed to thrive and everyone is left the fuck alone by the government. Is that really so much to ask?
> 
> You can be a Christian conservative or a hardcore atheist or anything inbetween. I don't particularly give a fuck what you personally believe in. What I do care about is the ability of everyone to go out and live their life by their own beliefs and not have any authority figure getting in the way of that.
> 
> All that being said, I'd just like to remind anyone who believes in Trump for change that they are just as retarded as the so called "liberals" who believed in Obama for change. As long as the USA and it's government is bought and paid for by the donor class, it doesn't particularly matter if you are a leftist or a rightist. All that matters is that our government is owned by the donor class.
> 
> The greatest trick the donor class ever pulled was convincing the worker class that other parts of the worker class is the reason that they are poor. You know what terrifies the owner class more than anything else? Us plebs banding together.
> 
> As long as they keep us divided through various bullshit, they will always win. When the day comes that we band together, they are fucking done for. They know that. And it scares the shit out of them. They don't want to see the pitchforks at the gates. I say, let's show them the fucking pitchforks at the gates.


Thank you, @Tater for those kind words...and as my catchphrase goes, "I make Rush Limbaugh look like a bleeding heart liberal."  

It seems like we have lost the gift of civility in this day and age, we seem to be caught up in echo chambers where idiots spout off about how their side gets it and the other side is evil, etc. Back in the day, it was well known that President Ronald Reagan (R) and Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill (D) fought like hell during the week for their respective parties but then would spend Friday night at the White House together having a few drinks with their spouses and having a good time. Could you imagine if a photo came out of Obama and Paul Ryan having a beer and hitting the bowling alley in the WH? People would lose their minds. We already see that regarding the Bushes and Clintons and their mutual admiration society as being members of the Former President's Club. People on both sides call the other family a traitor for fraternizing with the enemy. I get along with people of all political persuasions, whether their ideas come from The Federalist Papers or the Anarchist's Cookbook. We can fight like hell for our political viewpoints and still get along afterwards. 

So...we can sit back and relax and remember we can get along. If your candidate lost, fine. Rioting and acting stupid doesn't solve anything. If your candidate won, great. Enjoy the victory, but stop being an annoying bitch in your echo tunnel and keep the gloating to a minimum. It's not that difficult to actually calm down.


----------



## amhlilhaus

birthday_massacre said:


> amhlilhaus said:
> 
> 
> 
> You act like a third rate magician, your misdirection fools no one.
> 
> Again, wheres the videos of conservatives marching in protest over a week after laws are passed they dont like?
> 
> I like our discussions. It illustrates the divide the country is in. Both sides think theyre correct, in the end neither side is swayed.
> 
> I bet you think goldberg vs brock will be a great match
> 
> 
> 
> the only person you are fooling is yourself and Trump supporters.
> 
> You are really going to claim for example there were no protests after same-sex marriage was passed by SCOTUS?
> 
> You have zero credibility if you are going to claim this.
Click to expand...

Nowhere did i say conservatives didnt protest.

Name one instance conservatives protested going on 10 DAYS over the same shit.

Point me to articles of conservatives sucking their thumbs in fetal positions while hugging puppies made of play do and coloring when they should be learning in college.

Its ridiculous, highlights how immature the left is


----------



## amhlilhaus

Whorse said:


>


Thats the kind of leadership earth needs!

Fuck yeah, 'murica!!!!


----------



## amhlilhaus

birthday_massacre said:


> yeahbaby! said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guys we need to come together now like Trump said in his acceptance speech. I honestly did like that sentiment.
> 
> 
> 
> It would be easier if Trump was not putting such bigots and bush era establishment people in his cabinet.
> 
> Thought Trump was supposed to be getting rid of the establishment.
> 
> Trump is going back on most of what he said he was going to do during the primary and general, I am surprised more of his supporters are not calling him out on it yet.
Click to expand...

Its easy to say that, but all of washington is full of recycled players and lobbyists. 

You have to have some guides if you want to drain the swamp.

I personally dont think he will, or even can.

You saw the backlash he got from both sides with his rhetoric. If he was draining it, theyll kill him.

He can, however implement policies that will benefit americans like border security and bringing back off shore investments.

Trump is trying the most dangerous thing in the world, defying a established government


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



amhlilhaus said:


> Nowhere did i say conservatives didnt protest.
> 
> Name one instance conservatives protested going on 10 DAYS over the same shit.
> 
> Point me to articles of conservatives sucking their thumbs in fetal positions while hugging puppies made of play do and coloring when they should be learning in college.
> 
> Its ridiculous, highlights how immature the left is


You asked for examples of conservatives protesting, that means you dont think they protest lol. 

They did with same-sex marriage. They did not have as big groups as we have now but they were protesting same-sex marriage for weeks after it passed.

I think its funny you are so against people showing their first amendment rights. Do you need a safe space?


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Kanye West said:


> I would have voted for Trump. Stop focusing on racism.


He said this during his concert in San Jose. Dude's got some fucking balls! :lol

- Vic


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Vic Capri said:


> He said this during his concert in San Jose. Dude's got some fucking balls! :lol
> 
> - Vic







everyone's pro trump


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Ford has decided that Lincoln SUV production isn't going to go to Mexico, it's staying in MURICA

Apple has decided that it's going to start building iPhones in MURICA

Like :trump said so much WINNING you're gonna get sick of all the WINNING


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Apple products are the most ironic going on right now, you got products which are gobbled up by millennials and hipsters, the company puts money into the Democrat party and via advertising tries to make itself look all hip and inclusive.. yet their products are made by slave labor in China. 

Honestly for how they present themselves, I would've thought they would be made in the US.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## Vic Capri

I'm glad The Don settled the University complaints. Moving on is the best thing to do.

- Vic


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Vic Capri said:


> I'm glad The Don settled the University complaints. Moving on is the best thing to do.
> 
> - Vic


Nah man it just PROVES :trump was so guilty and is soooooo not qualified to be president

and if he hadn't settled it would just PROVE that he doesn't have his priorities straight and is soooo not qualified to be president

Get with it, boys, a Republican is president-elect and he's going to be the president very soon. 

Remember the rule, well there's only one rule really so it's easy to remember:

Everything a Republican does as president is wrong for some reason and shows that he's either an incompetent boob or a greedy son of a bitch.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



virus21 said:


>


LOL.. but poor Uncle Phil


----------



## Marv95

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Sessions and Bannon joining the fray are triggering a bunch of folks on the left even though they have no idea _who_ they are, except from the biased mainstream media pundits.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*






The Hillary camp still doesn't get it :lmao :lmao :lmao.






I'm sure this was already posted but utterly brilliant video from PJW and a brutal takedown on the protests that have happened since the election.


----------



## That Is All

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

There are a number of these you can find on your own but there are still alot that are asleep to what's really going on or just choose to ignore what they are blindly supporting.
































If that is not enough I won't pull up anymore videos of the most recent accounts on top of the protesting/rioting but there is something even more disturbing and disgusting that none of the main stream news want to cover which ties to Clinton as well.

It's sickening to think these people are in this country while there are so many others who are willfully never going to seek truth and would rather take to acceptance of what they are being told. 

Regardless if you agree with anything I say or not, I am only here to only show what I feel is a necessity to those that who are willing to understand that everything that is going on is not only a danger to those in this country but to it will affect everyone in do time. Though I am pretty sure alot will dismiss any of this because of their own views which is fine since everyone is entitled to their opinion but it still doesn't change how this country is being destroyed by the ones living in it.

These are only warnings but if you do not take my word for it, do your own research. 

Stay safe everyone and always protect yourself and your loved ones along with anyone that is to weak to fight for themselves.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Sessions made racist and bigot remarks but I don't think that's disqualifying as long as he doesn't allow his personal bias to interfere with his work. Pot users concerned about his appointment is :lol though. Don't know much about Pompeo to comment but he seem like the typical Republican politician backed by the Kochs, which means less uncertainty.

Flynn is a difficult one. He undoubtedly has the expertise to do the job. But his ties to Russian and Turkish interests bring up concerns about yugeee conflict of interests.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Sessions by all accounts is a rabid hardliner and massively anti marijuana legalisation, and he'll now have the power to overrule state laws and start having people arrested under federal drug laws.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



> Michael Shannon may be on a press tour promoting his new movie Nocturnal Animals, but he’s also on the warpath, spewing harsh words at President-elect Donald Trump and any of the 60.9 million Americans who voted for him in the presidential election. And his feedback is getting pretty intense. Earlier this week he suggested that people supporting “the Orange Man” form their own country called “the United States of Moronic Fucking Assholes,” and in a new interview with Metro News, he’s sounding off again.
> 
> After suggesting that a civil war would be the only way to prevent Trump from assuming the highest office in the land, Shannon asserts that if you feel okay about supporting his presidency, it’s probably time for you to just die already. “There’s a lot of old people who need to realize they’ve had a nice life, and it’s time for them to move on,” Shannon said. “Because they’re the ones who go out and vote for these assholes. If you look at the young people, between 18 and 25, if it was up to them, Hillary would have been president. No offense to the seniors out there. My mom’s a senior citizen. But if you’re voting for Trump, it’s time for the urn.” And if your parents voted for Trump? “Fuck ’em. You’re an orphan now. Don’t go home. Don’t go home for Thanksgiving or Christmas. Don’t talk to them at all. Silence speaks volumes.” Despite being from the red state of Kentucky, Shannon says that no one in his immediate family “would ever remotely consider voting for Trump.” So, it sounds like no one around his holiday hearth will have to sit frozen in terror as he stares them down with his severely threatening gaze.


https://www.yahoo.com/movies/michael-shannon-tells-trump-supporters-214000466.html


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



> If you look at the young people, between 18 and 25, if it was up to them, Hillary would have been president.


I really hate it when people speak for me, whether through my age range or my ethnicity. No, I would've never voted for Hillary. I didn't support Trump either, but Hillary would've never received my vote as well. Get the fuck out of here. Constantly, I have people speaking for my _ethnic_ background (Hispanic) and my age group (Millenials). They can kindly fuck off.


----------



## Warlock

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Bm proving all my points.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



> As is the case in so many other parts of America, thousands of California residents are protesting the 2016 election results. The difference? Their frustration has swelled into support for perhaps the ultimate solution to the Golden State's strong distaste for president-elect Donald Trump—secession.
> 
> SEE ALSO: Calexit: Californians want to secede now that Trump won
> 
> 
> The idea of a #Calexit blew up on Twitter right after Trump's win. It started as a series of jokes—Tweets about the state's best-known exports, of sorts (from Apple devices to weed), along with maps and memes showing what an independent California would look like.
> 
> View image on Twitter
> View image on Twitter
> Follow
> Yes California @YesCalifornia
> Are you down with #Calexit like this supporter is?
> 3:40 PM - 10 Nov 2016
> 1,270 1,270 Retweets 2,401 2,401 likes
> It wasn't long before a mere wave of social media output coalesced into something more. A group leading the movement toward state independence, Yes California, grew from some 1,500 members to around 12,000 after Trump's win, its president Louis Marinelli told Mashable.
> 
> It might sound like an extreme, reactive mode of thinking, but the reality is that every state has tried seceding at some point, mostly through petitions to the White House. But the probability of any kind of modern-day state secession actually happening is incredibly low. There's no set process for breaking away from the beloved union, as the part of the Constitution that explains how a state can join never explains how it can leave.
> 
> But: it's actually sort of, kind of possible.
> 
> California values and a Trump presidency
> The Golden State's opposition to Trump has been made clear via the thousands who protested in the streets of San Francisco and Los Angeles. The morning after election night, even some of the state's top lawmakers said they felt like a Trump presidency just didn't mesh with California values.
> 
> "Today, we woke up feeling like strangers in a foreign land, because yesterday Americans expressed their views on a pluralistic and democratic society that are clearly inconsistent with the values of the people of California," California Senate President Kevin de Leon and Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon said in a joint statement. "We have never been more proud to be Californians."
> 
> They added that the state would continue being a "refuge of justice and opportunity for people of all walks, talks, ages and aspirations – regardless of how you look, where you live, what language you speak, or who you love."
> 
> That's around the time some Silicon Valley elites joined in the California secession dreaming, such as Shervin Pishevar, angel investor and co-founder of Hyperloop One, and Marc Hemeon, CEO and founder of Design Inc.
> 
> 8 Nov
> Shervin ✔ @shervin
> 1/ If Trump wins I am announcing and funding a legitimate campaign for California to become its own nation.
> Follow
> Marc Hemeon ✔ @hemeon
> @shervin I support you in this effort let me know what I can do to help
> 12:18 AM - 9 Nov 2016
> 15 15 Retweets 77 77 likes
> Can #Calexit actually happen?
> Since the end of the Civil War, no state has ever broken from the United States. But all of them have tried. After Obama' re-election in 2012, petitions were organized in all 50 states and at least six of them had over 25,000 signatures. But of all the states, Texas has probably tried the hardest to break away.
> 
> Follow
> Krystal Rios @krystalrios
> California wants to secede & so should Texas! Come on Texas we always threaten to secede, let's be a republic again! #Texit
> 9:11 AM - 10 Nov 2016 · Houston, TX
> 1 1 Retweet 1 1 like
> Texan calls for secessions go back to the 19th Century, and haven't stopped since. In 2012, one Texas petition had over 125,000 signatures, more than any other state. But the White House rejected its plea, referencing the 1869 Supreme Court case of Texas v. White—when the federal government shut down another one of the state's attempts to secede. That case described the U.S. as an "indestructible union."
> 
> In the White House's response to Texas, officials explained how the Founding Fathers never intended to allow secession. "They enshrined in that document the right to change our national government through the power of the ballot—a right that generations of Americans have fought to secure for all," Jon Carson, then director of the Office of Public Engagement, wrote. "But they did not provide a right to walk away from it."
> 
> Yet, there's a substantial difference between California and Texas where secession's concerned. In Texas, getting an independence referendum for people to vote on requires a legislator putting it on the ballot. But in California, citizens can bypass having to work through lawmakers, and propose a referendum directly.
> 
> "This has never happened before, and California is uniquely positioned to do this," Yes California's Marcinelli told Mashable. "[Texans] don't have the ability to propose this referendum."
> 
> View image on Twitter
> View image on Twitter
> Follow
> #CalExit NaphiSoc @NaphiSoc
> Long may the Flag of Freedom fly over the land we love#CalExit
> 9:34 AM - 15 Nov 2016
> 18 18 Retweets 37 37 likes
> Yes California is hoping to gain enough petition signatures—around 800,0000—to meet the legal threshold of 8 percent of the amount of people who last voted for state governor. The movement is seeking 1.5 million, just to be safe.
> 
> The petition would place a referendum on the 2018 ballot that'd change the state's constitution and elections code to allow for California's independence, and call for a special election to decide if the state really wants to secede.
> 
> If that's passed, California residents could actually be voting on their state's independence in 2019.
> 
> Follow
> Chris P. @chiefsmiles
> I meeeean, we got Apple and Twitter and Hollywood and avocado farms and hella weed so like I'm good lol ?????? https://twitter.com/yescalifornia/status/796760364130201600 …
> 2:22 PM - 10 Nov 2016
> 4 4 Retweets 25 25 likes
> Follow
> Elliott Lusztig @ezlusztig
> The CA economy is bigger than France's. We feed America & the world. We are the only state that could go its own way.
> 
> Think about #CalExit
> 4:29 PM - 11 Nov 2016
> 155 155 Retweets 331 331 likes
> But would people actually go for it? Some Californians are dissatisfied enough with Trump's presidency to do just that.
> 
> Follow
> Brooke Cullison @BrookeCullison
> Where do I sign up to get an emergency vote on #Calexit
> 1:48 AM - 9 Nov 2016
> 2 2 Retweets 2 2 likes
> Follow
> Ann Marie @AnnSpaceMarie
> So when and how do I cast my vote for #Calexit ?
> 12:43 AM - 9 Nov 2016
> 1 1 Retweet 3 3 likes
> Follow
> ✌ Shannon ✌ @trustar_2010
> I'll Vote For That #Calexit
> 1:19 AM - 9 Nov 2016
> 1 1 Retweet 1 1 like
> California does have the largest single-state economy in America—it's also the sixth largest in the world from a single municipality, and larger than the entirety of France's economy. But the actual road to secession wouldn't be easy, from all the assets and land owned by the federal government in the states to developing new institutions (like, say, its own military). And the state's drought struggles likely won't be made easier by having to fend for itself.
> 
> It all just seems like crazy California dreaming, but the possibility's there. It's just a very small one.
> 
> "There's no precedent at all for it," Joel Aberbach, a UCLA political science professor, told Mashable. "The people who are talking about that for the moment are mostly just venting."
> 
> Aberbach cited obstacles dealing with the transition to independence, from the deep integration of California's economy with the rest of the country's to the challenges that would arise for international goods being shipped and traded through the California border.
> 
> Still, some are holding on to hope and Marcinelli isn't fazed by the doubters who say secession just couldn't happen.
> 
> "They said the same thing about the Brexit vote and they said the same thing about Trump getting elected," he said. "A lot of the things people don't expect are happening ... People are sick and tired of the status quo. They want to see some change."
> 
> http://mashable.com/2016/11/18/california-secede-from-rest-of-union/#dnizLbjwgqqO


Good riddance if it happens


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Oda Nobunaga said:


> I really hate it when people speak for me, whether through my age range or my ethnicity. No, I would've never voted for Hillary. I didn't support Trump either, but Hillary would've never received my vote as well. Get the fuck out of here. Constantly, I have people speaking for my _ethnic_ background (Hispanic) and my age group (Millenials). They can kindly fuck off.


LOL thank you! Why is it that people for some reason think all Hispanics or all millennials must or will vote a certain way? Since when are we a hive mind? People were calling me crazy when I said that Hispanics will vote for Trump and it seems they did, there was no Hispanic boycott of Trump. I've had some pretty nasty things said to me here because I don't follow the supposed "status quo" of a Hispanic or millennial.

Not all white people think the same, vote the same or want the same things yet in return anyone nonwhite supposedly all follows in one direction. :no:


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Oda Nobunaga said:


> I really hate it when people speak for me, whether through my age range or my ethnicity. No, I would've never voted for Hillary. I didn't support Trump either, but Hillary would've never received my vote as well. Get the fuck out of here. Constantly, I have people speaking for my _ethnic_ background (Hispanic) and my age group (Millenials). They can kindly fuck off.


Calm your jets I think it was pretty obvious Michael Shannon (who judging by that piece is a madman IRL in addition to his movie characters) was talking the majority of that particular voting demographic. People generalise, that's what they do.

That was a hilarious piece on Michael Shannon. 'If they voted Trump, fuck em!' Lol.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> LOL thank you! Why is it that people for some reason think all Hispanics or all millennials must or will vote a certain way? *Since when are we a hive mind?*


But it's okay to treat lefties or democrats or feminists as a hive mind right? :grin2::grin2:


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> But it's okay to treat lefties or democrats or feminists as a hive mind right? :grin2::grin2:


There is a reason I use the term "leftists" and third wave or modern feminists. But I'm sure someone like you would understand the difference right?

I also bash religious republicans just like I bash "leftist" democrats. I've said on several occasions that they're two sides to the same coin.

If you're going to try and call me out on something or insult me do be smart about it. It's the least you can do. Thanks !


----------



## Vox Machina

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Oda Nobunaga said:


> I really hate it when people speak for me, whether through my age range or my ethnicity. No, I would've never voted for Hillary. I didn't support Trump either, but Hillary would've never received my vote as well. Get the fuck out of here. Constantly, I have people speaking for my _ethnic_ background (Hispanic) and my age group (Millenials). They can kindly fuck off.


This is how I feel too, Oda. Not surprised by that.









Don't support Trump at all, but I would've never voted for Hillary. And I didn't.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Sol Katti said:


> This is how I feel too, Oda. Not surprised by that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't support Trump at all, but I would've never voted for Hillary. And I didn't.


Soul kitty in the anything section?  It seems you wish to be pillow attacked! >


----------



## Vox Machina

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Regarding the protests, I am perfectly fine with them. As long as they remain nonviolent, of course. I wouldn't be opposed to joining in either, but not because of Hillary Clinton not winning. I hate the electoral process altogether. Be the change you wanna see and all that jazz.



Miss Sally said:


> Soul kitty in the anything section?  It seems you wish to be pillow attacked! >


I poke my head in every now and then, but I usually avoid posting in political threads. :sk


----------



## NapperX

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I am Canadian and I have obviously been paying attention, and although I know most Trump supporters aren't racist, I'd like to know what convinced most Americans about his jobs plan?

This immigration stuff really doesn't impact me at all as I am Canadian, but Nafta and tariffs have the potential to impact Canada and the U.S in a negative economics matter if he proposes isolation and protectionism. I would like to see your opinions on his jobs plan because I would like to know and discuss the plans of how it would work with the new technologies, and that includes pros and cons of unions and right-to-work.

Anyone? I am actually somewhat interested.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Sol Katti said:


> Regarding the protests, I am perfectly fine with them. As long as they remain nonviolent, of course. I wouldn't be opposed to joining in either, but not because of Hillary Clinton not winning. I hate the electoral process altogether. Be the change you wanna see and all that jazz.
> 
> 
> 
> I poke my head in every now and then, but I usually avoid posting in political threads. :sk


The electoral vote allows me to pelt you with pillows anytime I like! 

Funny you say that, lots on my list here say the same thing for various reasons. I need to pop into the chat box more but it's a little laggy when at work and when I get home its usually full of soccer fans. For the most part this my fave section on most days when actual debates and discussions happen.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Sessions is not a racist. In fact he made sure the KKK head in Alabama faced death for kidnapping a black boy.

Stuff that in yer pipe.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> Apple products are the most ironic going on right now, you got products which are gobbled up by millennials and hipsters, the company puts money into the Democrat party and via advertising tries to make itself look all hip and inclusive.. yet their products are made by slave labor in China.
> 
> Honestly for how they present themselves, I would've thought they would be made in the US.


Apple is a very responsible company. In 2013 alone they conducted 31 surprise audits in their Chinese factories to make sure working conditions were fine ... but there is fraud at the contractor level which can get overlooked sometimes. Apple isn't perfect, but they're not a willing participant in slave labor and are likely to be duped by corrupt locals.


----------



## amhlilhaus

virus21 said:


> Michael Shannon may be on a press tour promoting his new movie Nocturnal Animals, but he?s also on the warpath, spewing harsh words at President-elect Donald Trump and any of the 60.9 million Americans who voted for him in the presidential election. And his feedback is getting pretty intense. Earlier this week he suggested that people supporting ?the Orange Man? form their own country called ?the United States of Moronic Fucking Assholes,? and in a new interview with Metro News, he?s sounding off again.
> 
> After suggesting that a civil war would be the only way to prevent Trump from assuming the highest office in the land, Shannon asserts that if you feel okay about supporting his presidency, it?s probably time for you to just die already. ?There?s a lot of old people who need to realize they?ve had a nice life, and it?s time for them to move on,? Shannon said. ?Because they?re the ones who go out and vote for these assholes. If you look at the young people, between 18 and 25, if it was up to them, Hillary would have been president. No offense to the seniors out there. My mom?s a senior citizen. But if you?re voting for Trump, it?s time for the urn.? And if your parents voted for Trump? ?Fuck ?em. You?re an orphan now. Don?t go home. Don?t go home for Thanksgiving or Christmas. Don?t talk to them at all. Silence speaks volumes.? Despite being from the red state of Kentucky, Shannon says that no one in his immediate family ?would ever remotely consider voting for Trump.? So, it sounds like no one around his holiday hearth will have to sit frozen in terror as he stares them down with his severely threatening gaze.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.yahoo.com/movies/michael-shannon-tells-trump-supporters-214000466.html
Click to expand...

Wheres the tolerance? Old people should die? Start a civil war?

So this guys is both hateful towards senior citizens, hes extremely ignorant too:

Civil war? Conservatives win that one, easily.

Why? First start off with the fact the left hates guns. The right has more guns.

The left hates the military. The right does not.

The left are concentrated in major urban areas, the right is not.

Civil war? Wed just blockade the cities, and after the food runs out the left simply starves.

Good luck with that


----------



## amhlilhaus

I like the idea of california seceeding, take oregon and washington too. Thatd be a block of 74 rock solid democrat votes every election gone.

Just deport all the criminal illegals to them, build another fence and they can have fun as mexicos newest cash cow


----------



## amhlilhaus

NapperX said:


> I am Canadian and I have obviously been paying attention, and although I know most Trump supporters aren't racist, I'd like to know what convinced most Americans about his jobs plan?
> 
> This immigration stuff really doesn't impact me at all as I am Canadian, but Nafta and tariffs have the potential to impact Canada and the U.S in a negative economics matter if he proposes isolation and protectionism. I would like to see your opinions on his jobs plan because I would like to know and discuss the plans of how it would work with the new technologies, and that includes pros and cons of unions and right-to-work.
> 
> Anyone? I am actually somewhat interested.


No one knows, he just offers change.

He says he will spend money on infrastructure and lure offshore money back with low taxes. Those two things, along with cutting taxes is the crux of it.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Apple is a very responsible company. In 2013 alone they conducted 31 surprise audits in their Chinese factories to make sure working conditions were fine ... but there is fraud at the contractor level which can get overlooked sometimes. Apple isn't perfect, but they're not a willing participant in slave labor and are likely to be duped by corrupt locals.


I did not know this, though I'd double check. Their political agenda is dubious at best but if I'm wrong than I'd just amend it to just political meddling. :grin2:

LOL civil war? Who is going to fight the right? Do the anti-trump people think they're going to have a draft to send young poor blacks, Hispanics and whites into war like it was in Vietnam? 

I could just imagine these college dorks lead by a raving Michael Shannon. While the big money flees overseas and sends their prayers. 

A civil war is the last thing they'd want. Not to mention aren't we sick of war? :laugh:


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> I did not know this, though I'd double check. Their political agenda is dubious at best but if I'm wrong than I'd just amend it to just political meddling. :grin2:
> 
> LOL civil war? Who is going to fight the right? Do the anti-trump people think they're going to have a draft to send young poor blacks, Hispanics and whites into war like it was in Vietnam?
> 
> I could just imagine these college dorks lead by a raving Michael Shannon. While the big money flees overseas and sends their prayers.
> 
> A civil war is the last thing they'd want. Not to mention aren't we sick of war?


Don't have to worry about the left fighting a war ever again. One sight of a gun and they'll just go home to their puppies and coloring books.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I thought you all considered Obama "left" out there? Weren't the US engaged in more countries during his presidency than under Bush? Similarly, I thought Shillary was the "left" and yet she was touted as a warmonger who was going to kick off with Russia? Sometimes you guys are mad confusing, I saw numerous people posting about how a big reason to be anti-Hillary was to avoid war with Russia (seems fair enough) so how can the left be both warmongers and at the same time, scared to go to war? It's almost like you all just make up which opinion of the "left" suits whatever point you're trying to make at the time or something...


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RavishingRickRules said:


> I thought you all considered Obama "left" out there? Weren't the US engaged in more countries during his presidency than under Bush? Similarly, I thought Shillary was the "left" and yet she was touted as a warmonger who was going to kick off with Russia? Sometimes you guys are mad confusing, I saw numerous people posting about how a big reason to be anti-Hillary was to avoid war with Russia (seems fair enough) so how can the left be both warmongers and at the same time, scared to go to war? It's almost like you all just make up which opinion of the "left" suits whatever point you're trying to make at the time or something...


Well GameGenie, Hillary and Obama are "Left" in the way that they're Democrats but they're warmongers. True Left and Liberals have been pretty much pushed out of the Democratic party. The "Left" also includes SJW's, special snowflakes and the whiny regressive left. They're all part of the same "Leftist" side, the college students, SJWs and professors/actors who protest to go to war have no stomach for it, it's just "revolution" talk by a bunch of people living in a fantasy. 

It is confusing because their whole stance is confusing, they say they don't want war and then when they don't get their way, want a "civil war", they say they want tolerance, yet attack people and fear monger, they're just hypocrites. The SJWs considering themselves left so do the Democrats. Which is why they get called "Left" because none or few of their stances are really liberal or leftist.

Tater actually has explained it before but like 50 pages back, if he shows up he can explain it rather well.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I don't think war is innately either left or right - it's what's used to justify it that pushes it either way. 

Hillary and Obama's verbal justification for war to their voters is purely based in the social liberalism caveat of helping the poor and oppressed in other countries. "We have to save them from terrorists. We have to save them from their own oppressive governments. They need our help." 

Yeah, that was Bush's justification as well. Going to war to help someone else is always justified through social liberalism ... Bringing liberty to those who are oppressed. 

Modern war is usually justified through social liberalism though. You can't just go out there and say that you're expanding your territory anymore. You justify it by calling yourself the hero. That's as left-wing as you can possibly get.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RavishingRickRules said:


> I thought you all considered Obama "left" out there? Weren't the US engaged in more countries during his presidency than under Bush? Similarly, I thought Shillary was the "left" and yet she was touted as a warmonger who was going to kick off with Russia? Sometimes you guys are mad confusing, I saw numerous people posting about how a big reason to be anti-Hillary was to avoid war with Russia (seems fair enough) so how can the left be both warmongers and at the same time, scared to go to war? It's almost like you all just make up which opinion of the "left" suits whatever point you're trying to make at the time or something...





Miss Sally said:


> Well GameGenie, Hillary and Obama are "Left" in the way that they're Democrats but they're warmongers. True Left and Liberals have been pretty much pushed out of the Democratic party. The "Left" also includes SJW's, special snowflakes and the whiny regressive left. They're all part of the same "Leftist" side, the college students, SJWs and professors/actors who protest to go to war have no stomach for it, it's just "revolution" talk by a bunch of people living in a fantasy.
> 
> It is confusing because their whole stance is confusing, they say they don't want war and then when they don't get their way, want a "civil war", they say they want tolerance, yet attack people and fear monger, they're just hypocrites. The SJWs considering themselves left so do the Democrats. Which is why they get called "Left" because none or few of their stances are really liberal or leftist.
> 
> Tater actually has explained it before but like 50 pages back, if he shows up he can explain it rather well.


Explaining to conservatives that Democrats are not a leftist party is like banging your head against a brick wall. There is no left in the USA as far as the government is concerned. Even "far leftists" like Bernie and Liz aren't much more than glorified centrists. Modern Democrats call themselves the party of the left and use socially liberal policies to sucker the sheep into voting for right wing corporatism for economic policy and war mongering for foreign policy. It's the failure of Democrats to be the actual party of the left that has led us into a Trump presidency. Gay weddings and abortion rights will only take you so far if you continue to fuck over the working class to keep the donor class happy.


----------



## Oxidamus

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RavishingRickRules said:


> I thought you all considered Obama "left" out there? Weren't the US engaged in more countries during his presidency than under Bush? Similarly, I thought Shillary was the "left" and yet she was touted as a warmonger who was going to kick off with Russia? Sometimes you guys are mad confusing, I saw numerous people posting about how a big reason to be anti-Hillary was to avoid war with Russia (seems fair enough) so how can the left be both warmongers and at the same time, scared to go to war? It's almost like you all just make up which opinion of the "left" suits whatever point you're trying to make at the time or something...


US politics boils down to "out of sight, out of mind". :mj


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Aido Get Laido said:


> US politics boils down to "out of sight, out of mind". :mj


Applies to everyone don't you think?


----------



## Oxidamus

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Applies to everyone don't you think?


Maybe, but not as much. The US governments seem to be masters at distraction. Even Australian government can't cover up or pretend things don't exist at the level of the US government.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Aido Get Laido said:


> Maybe, but not as much. The US governments seem to be masters at distraction. Even Australian government can't cover up or pretend things don't exist at the level of the US government.


But Trump's win should remind everyone that Americans perhaps aren't as distracted as is widely assumed. 

Shifts from left to right in America tends to happen faster than other countries especially where socially liberal governments continue to move leftward taking their conservative opposition with them leaving the real opposition to that leftward movement completely out of the picture.


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

So Mike Pence attended a Hamilton show last night and apparently he was booed throughout the show by the audience. Then this happened:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/799828567941120000

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/799972624713420804

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/799974635274194947

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/799977281875755008
I didn't see any rudeness or harrassment from the cast of Hamilton. They just did the typical SJW soapbox preaching you'd expect from show business. I think our President-elect might have overreacted. Your thoughts?


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The Absolute said:


> So Mike Pence attended a Hamilton show last night and apparently he was booed throughout the show by the audience. Then this happened:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/799828567941120000
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/799972624713420804
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/799974635274194947
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/799977281875755008
> I didn't see any rudeness or harrassment from the cast of Hamilton. They just did the typical SJW soapbox preaching you'd expect from show business. I think our President-elect might have overreacted. Your thoughts?


Typical SJW soapbox preaching is a synonym for rudeness and harassment. It must have been very untypical if it wasn't.

And nope, these Alinskyites make everything political and personal, it's about time someone pushed back. All the better that it's the president-elect doing it.

Expect much more of :trump naming and shaming these assholes who can't stop being obsessed with politics and their bitter hatred for anyone to the right of Bernie Sanders (although for many of them it's anyone to the right of Leon Trotsky) for more than five minutes at a time.

In the words of Georgie Lucas (except in this context he is 100% accurate):


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Eh. If I was an SJW and I knew that a small SJW speech and a little booing could get under the skin of the president I didn't like and he'd take to ranting on twitter like a 14 year old girl, I'd do it all the time.


----------



## Achilles

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Tucker Carlson destroys Jonathan Allen for his hit piece on Jeff Sessions.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Eh. If I was an SJW and I knew that a small SJW speech and a little booing could get under the skin of the president I didn't like and he'd take to ranting on twitter like a 14 year old girl, I'd do it all the time.


Let's be fair. Even if he was being dismissive and rational the SJW crowd would do it all the time if he commented at all, I've found pretty much the only way to make those type go away is to ignore them entirely. A friend and I got attacked on his Facebook wall last week for having a philosophical/theological discussion (in hindsight inbox would've been better) where we were simply comparing different religions and seeing if we could reconcile them within scientific theories and to see which religions are 100% mutually exclusive and where others don't necessarily discount each other's belief systems. Fun discussion as you can imagine, lots of ridiculous, over the top spin being applied in an attempt to find links where there probably aren't any, just for kicks. About 15 posts in we attracted a bunch of SJW's who proceeded to berate us for deconstructing the dogma and beliefs of different religions because "religion shouldn't be mocked, there are people being discriminated against for their religion all the time and doing what we're doing is making fun of/a mockery of people's beliefs and we have no right to do that." Now, you'd think a simple "nah, we're not mocking anything, we're 'thinking' about things in our own way mostly just because it's fun, no negativity here" would be enough? Nope, apparently we're horrible people who want to break religions down and oppress people by forcing them into believing our own (admittedly an agnostic and an atheist. Took us around an hour and a half to realise discussion wasn't going to fix it. In the end we both ended up blocking and deleting 5 contacts from our Facebook who we'd known almost 15 years simply to get left alone. Bonkers.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The Absolute said:


> So Mike Pence attended a Hamilton show last night and apparently he was booed throughout the show by the audience. Then this happened:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/799828567941120000
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/799972624713420804
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/799974635274194947
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/799977281875755008
> I didn't see any rudeness or harrassment from the cast of Hamilton. They just did the typical SJW soapbox preaching you'd expect from show business. I think our President-elect might have overreacted. Your thoughts?


*
Just more bullshit from Trump to stir up hatred from his uneducated constituency. #BoycottHamilton is the #1 trend on Twitter because of these irresponsible, dishonest, dumb ass tweets.
*


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Haha, Trump alluded to a safe space.

Some thick hypocrisy today tbh


----------



## Arkham258

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I give Trump one month before this thin skinned pussy gets pissed off enough by something to push the button...

Hello, nuclear warfare.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Arkham258 said:


> I give Trump one month before this thin skinned pussy gets pissed off enough by something to push the button...
> 
> Hello, nuclear warfare.


This 100% won't happen and I hope you'll circle back and realize how foolish and misled you were.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

how are the mainstream media now talking about "fake news" on the internet when all they've been doing for 18 months is presenting fake news :lmao

Is there no end to the absurdity?


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I don't have a problem with that guy from Hamilton addressing Pence like he did.


Tucker destroying that hack was a great listen/watch.


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

*Fuck Mike Pence. Everyone should be :rude to him.


*


----------



## Cipher

AryaDark said:


> *Fuck Mike Pence. Everyone should be :rude to him.
> 
> 
> *


Because that has worked so well before


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*






This is a genius idea.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Eh. If I was an SJW and I knew that a small SJW speech and a little booing could get under the skin of the president I didn't like and he'd take to ranting on twitter like a 14 year old girl, I'd do it all the time.


Best thing to do is ignore them, they end up making fools out of themselves. No need to stir the pot.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



L-DOPA said:


> This is a genius idea.


Disagree if "None of the Above" winning means the current president's term is extended. Then that party could just run dummy candidates while actively working for the "None of the Above" option to win to extend the current president's term indefinitely.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> Best thing to do is ignore them, they end up making fools out of themselves. No need to stir the pot.


It might be alright for a bit, but eventually it's just going to start making his administration start looking like they're really thin skinned .... Personally, it's just not the kind of tone I'd want his communication to take.

IF you want to shut the opposition up, do it with your actions, not words.


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

People are going to love Trump once he cuts their taxes, reforms their student debt, and gives them tax credits for child and elder care.

People don't realize how Great he'll make America again.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I understand the anger involved with going to a play and getting a lecture instead. The cast probably went a little bit over the top and I know I'd be very annoyed if I was in the audience and heard this. If I want a history lesson, I will go to a college campus or a high school government class. 

That being said...Mr. President-elect...and I mean this with all due respect..."DROP THE FUCKING PHONE AND PLEASE PUT THE TWITTER ACCOUNT ON MOTHBALLS FOR AT LEAST THE DURATION OF YOUR TERM!" I understand the need to defend your VP and call out the actors for overstepping (although they do have the right to protest). But you can't make statements about these things in 140 characters or less, it is just not possible. And no matter how many of your fans will cheer what you are doing and make #BoycottHamilton trend worldwide, you can't win. You look like someone who doesn't have the temperament to handle the job. This is not the primaries anymore, you are now about to become the leader of the Free World and you are expected to act like it. No matter how well-intended, it doesn't make you look good. You need to be the better man here and just let it go. Trust me, you aren't weak for doing this. 

Also...these clowns that find it funny to say their name is Trump at Starbucks just to hear the barista have to say the name or struggle to do so...then you wonder why people are pissed off and are doubling down on their hatred for Trump. Again, your guy won...congratulations...you have had your victory lap. Now...SHUT UP and stop being as annoying as the whiny SJWs.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I hadn't heard about the people saying their name is Trump in Starbucks, but I did see a man going off on one in Starbucks because his drink was taking a little time then used "I voted for Trump" and kept saying "Trump" at the staff who were POC. Pretty surreal tbh, it appeared he was using it as an attack on them though they didn't seem that bothered. That portion of his supporter base isn't going to do favours for him in the long run, especially if they're using his name itself in an attempt to attack people.


----------



## amhlilhaus

RavishingRickRules said:


> I hadn't heard about the people saying their name is Trump in Starbucks, but I did see a man going off on one in Starbucks because his drink was taking a little time then used "I voted for Trump" and kept saying "Trump" at the staff who were POC. Pretty surreal tbh, it appeared he was using it as an attack on them though they didn't seem that bothered. That portion of his supporter base isn't going to do favours for him in the long run, especially if they're using his name itself in an attempt to attack people.



Yeah thats stupid. 

When the left brings that up, just show all the crying they did the night hilary was repudiated by the country


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



amhlilhaus said:


> Yeah thats stupid.
> 
> When the left brings that up, just show all the crying they did the night hilary was repudiated by the country


That's not really how it works though tbh, they're mutually exclusive of each other. It's the same as before the election where a lot of responses to criticism of Trump were criticism of Hillary like that justified the criticisms of Trump. They're not affected by each other, Trump could be Satan and it wouldn't make Hillary a good person and vice versa. You can't justify one group of people acting like idiots because another group also acts like idiots, both groups are idiots. What you're suggesting doesn't achieve anything other than failing to condemn the bad actions of those who sit on the same side of the political spectrum as yourself. As a hypothetical: You have a close friend who has been charged with murder, his defence is "well someone else raped someone." Does that negate him being a murderer? Or does it just make him a murderer trying to distract from his own evil by highlighting the evil in others?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

On another note, the FLSA goes into effect soon. 

Goodbye small businesses.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



MrMister said:


> I don't have a problem with that guy from Hamilton addressing Pence like he did.
> 
> 
> T*ucker destroying that hack was a great listen/watch*.


Was that really a destruction though? Constant interrupting, completely ignoring and not acknowledging the points the guy made, making strawman arguments all over the place.

I'm not saying that guy was right or not, but I would have a lot more respect for the piece if the journalist didn't completely rudely disrespect his guest the whole time. 

Anyone can invite a person on their show with most likely pre-planned attack points and gotcha moments and a plan of constantly interrupting. IMO it makes you look weak if you do though, you're better off giving your guest enough rope to hang themselves with and actually letting them talk.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Let's be fair. Even if he was being dismissive and rational the SJW crowd would do it all the time if he commented at all, I've found pretty much the only way to make those type go away is to ignore them entirely. A friend and I got attacked on his Facebook wall last week for having a philosophical/theological discussion (in hindsight inbox would've been better) where we were simply comparing different religions and seeing if we could reconcile them within scientific theories and to see which religions are 100% mutually exclusive and where others don't necessarily discount each other's belief systems. Fun discussion as you can imagine, lots of ridiculous, over the top spin being applied in an attempt to find links where there probably aren't any, just for kicks. About 15 posts in we attracted a bunch of SJW's who proceeded to berate us for deconstructing the dogma and beliefs of different religions because "religion shouldn't be mocked, there are people being discriminated against for their religion all the time and doing what we're doing is making fun of/a mockery of people's beliefs and we have no right to do that." Now, you'd think a simple "nah, we're not mocking anything, we're 'thinking' about things in our own way mostly just because it's fun, no negativity here" would be enough? Nope, apparently we're horrible people who want to break religions down and oppress people by forcing them into believing our own (admittedly an agnostic and an atheist. Took us around an hour and a half to realise discussion wasn't going to fix it. In the end we both ended up blocking and deleting 5 contacts from our Facebook who we'd known almost 15 years simply to get left alone. Bonkers.


TBF, religion deserves to be mocked at all times. Kinda like the grown man who dresses up on Halloween and goes trick or treating by himself level of mocking.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Was that really a destruction though? Constant interrupting, completely ignoring and not acknowledging the points the guy made, making strawman arguments all over the place.
> 
> I'm not saying that guy was right or not, but I would have a lot more respect for the piece if the journalist didn't completely rudely disrespect his guest the whole time.
> 
> Anyone can invite a person on their show with most likely pre-planned attack points and gotcha moments and a plan of constantly interrupting. IMO it makes you look weak if you do though, you're better off giving your guest enough rope to hang themselves with and actually letting them talk.


I thought he allowed the guy to hang himself so I'm not sure what you watched.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*









> Chicago police say four people have been charged in the videotaped beating of a man as bystanders yelled “Don’t vote Trump.”
> 
> Authorities say 26-year-old Julian Christian, 21-year-old Rajane Lewis, 20-year-old Dejuan Collins and a 17-year-old girl who wasn’t identified were each charged with vehicular hijacking in the Nov. 9 incident. Christian is from Broadview, Illinois, and Lewis and Collins are from Chicago.
> 
> Forty-nine-year-old David Wilcox says he was attacked after his car was scraped by another car. He says he was beaten after parking and asking the other driver if he had insurance. Someone drove off with Wilcox’s car during the attack, which occurred on Chicago’s West Side.
> 
> Wilcox says he did vote for President-elect Donald Trump, but no one in the crowd knew that.
> 
> WARNING - GRAPHIC VIDEO AND STRONG LANGUAGE:
> 
> 
> Follow
> codi @kmscodi
> @shoe0nhead But things that HAVE happened because this poor old man voted for trump :~)
> 9:26 PM - 9 Nov 2016
> 7,579 7,579 Retweets 8,146 8,146 likes


http://www.torontosun.com/2016/11/19/4-charged-in-chicago-beating-of-trump-supporter


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

http://www.advocate.com/politics/20...rly-gay-man-my-president-says-we-can-kill-you
*Trump Supporter Attacks Elderly Gay Man: "My President Says We Can Kill You*

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...st-rant-tennessee_us_5820e084e4b0aac624863e02
*Trump Supporter’s Racist Attack Is A Reminder Of How Vile This Election Has Become*


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



virus21 said:


> http://www.torontosun.com/2016/11/19/4-charged-in-chicago-beating-of-trump-supporter





birthday_massacre said:


> http://www.advocate.com/politics/20...rly-gay-man-my-president-says-we-can-kill-you
> *Trump Supporter Attacks Elderly Gay Man: "My President Says We Can Kill You*
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...st-rant-tennessee_us_5820e084e4b0aac624863e02
> *Trump Supporter’s Racist Attack Is A Reminder Of How Vile This Election Has Become*



Fuckin hell, both sides need to cut all that shit out. Seems like the traditional "divide and conquer" tactic of the establishment is working fantastically in the US right now. Stay safe out there, all of you, regardless of political affiliation...


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

As usual BM falling for a SJW trashy website that's lying. 

I watched this guy's original interview, and the original ABC site which reported it. 

http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/sarasota-man-says-he-was-attacked-for-being-gay

Yes, it's sad that this happened to a gay man but don't be trashy and believe crap from trash tabloids. Go to the original source.

ANd no matter how much BM you whinge about hate speech, it is not a crime and it will never be a crime. You have a very twisted view of what a crime is if you think that hate speech constitutes a crime :heston

Edit: NVM. The guy claimed that they were claiming that Trump allowed this attack :lol Doubt that that's what actually happened but oh well I'll let this go.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> ANd no matter how much BM you whinge about hate speech, it is not a crime and it will never be a crime. You have a very twisted view of what a crime is if you think that hate speech constitutes a crime :heston


I could understand why many people would though. It is a crime in a lot of the world tbh, most of Europe, Canada, Australia, Brazil, New Zealand, South Africa, and I'm sure there are others. Many places even have constitutionally protected free speech that's been amended not to include hate speech.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RavishingRickRules said:


> I could understand why many people would though. It is a crime in a lot of the world tbh, most of Europe, Canada, Australia, Brazil, New Zealand, South Africa, and I'm sure there are others. Many places even have constitutionally protected free speech that's been amended not to include hate speech.


And being gay is a crime in the Muslim world. It's unreasonable and a law that I would fight to the death to prevent from passing.

Point is. Just because something is illegal somewhere does not mean that the law-makers are right.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> And being gay is a crime in the Muslim world. It's unreasonable and a law that I would fight to the death to prevent from passing.


I'm not sure how unreasonable it is as a preventative to inciting violence/hatred though tbh. I guess I have a different perspective because I'm not from the USA, but there's a very good reason that so many countries have made it a crime. I personally am of the opinion that a group of bigots surrounding someone and verbally attacking them would be just as damaging to the person emotionally as being attacked physically. Should people have the right to intimidate, threaten, abuse and scare people simply to protect free speech? I'm not convinced. I guess I'm not a fan of the notion that an "attack" is only an attack when it's physical. Curbing hate speech also curbs the ability for extremists to recruit. I'm not sure I'd like to have had Anjem Choudary running around the UK spewing hatred about the west, the UK and non Muslims unchecked. Similarly I wouldn't like to have Britain First and the EDL wandering around the place spewing pure bile and racism in order to recruit more neo-nazis. We have enough problems with those sort of groups as it is without giving them free license to abuse the populace because they didn't touch them.



Carte Blanche said:


> Point is. Just because something is illegal somewhere does not mean that the law-makers are right.


The reverse applies also, just because it's legal and protected in the USA, doesn't make it right. For the reasons I stated above, I'm 100% on the side of making hate speech illegal.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RavishingRickRules said:


> I'm not sure how unreasonable it is as a preventative to inciting violence/hatred though tbh. I guess I have a different perspective because I'm not from the USA, but there's a very good reason that so many countries have made it a crime. I personally am of the opinion that a group of bigots surrounding someone and verbally attacking them would be just as damaging to the person emotionally as being attacked physically. Should people have the right to intimidate, threaten, abuse and scare people simply to protect free speech? I'm not convinced. I guess I'm not a fan of the notion that an "attack" is only an attack when it's physical. Curbing hate speech also curbs the ability for extremists to recruit. I'm not sure I'd like to have had Anjem Choudary running around the UK spewing hatred about the west, the UK and non Muslims unchecked. Similarly I wouldn't like to have Britain First and the EDL wandering around the place spewing pure bile and racism in order to recruit more neo-nazis. We have enough problems with those sort of groups as it is without giving them free license to abuse the populace because they didn't touch them.


When shit like this happens in America, the police are allowed to crack down using disturbing the peace rhetoric.

People are adults. Those who commit crimes should be punished and are punished. Hate crime legislation is very deep in America. 

The only thing that they always over-turn in the courts is any kind of speech censorship. If you make a person who simply spoke and did nothing the criminal then you run the risk of becoming a fascist state that deals in double standards and favoring certain groups over others. You run the risk of losing nuance and context and eventually censoring dialogue in and of itself making the society regressive not progressive - as is being seen across Europe now. 

Incitement to violence simply cannot be considered a crime because it impacts the listeners differently. 

If you tell me to go kill somebody else, I am just as likely to go and do it as I am to not do it therefore your call to violence/action is irrelevant to my motivation. If I go and commit the crime, that motivation is still mine just as much as if I refuse to commit the crime. 

Verbal call to violence is not a criminal offence and cannot be a criminal offense - and I'd even defend those people who have openly claimed that all Trump supporters should die (Shannon) and even called for the assassination of Trump. 

Free speech protections are universal. The minute you start tampering with them you start running a fascist country and I want no part of that kind of bullshit because I come from a country where I've seen what blasphemy laws (which are essentially the same as hate speech laws) can do to the minorities.


> The reverse applies also, just because it's legal and protected in the USA, doesn't make it right. For the reasons I stated above, I'm 100% on the side of making hate speech illegal.


You don't get someone like Anjem Chaudary on hate speech. You get him on terrorism charges. Expand the terrorism laws, not the speech laws because then that leaves room for people who are not terrorists to be terrorized by the same laws. 

Take Canada for example. An anti-feminist college professor has been hauled up in front of a Human Rights Tribunal for simply speaking against Feminism. 

Hate speech laws will be used to intimidate and silence dissenting opinion. I'd rather they go after terrorists under the right laws and not bullshit like speech.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Don't know how this ended up in my recommended, but heres the coverage of the 1980 presidential election


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Fuckin hell, both sides need to cut all that shit out. Seems like the traditional "divide and conquer" tactic of the establishment is working fantastically in the US right now. Stay safe out there, all of you, regardless of political affiliation...


Something I've pointed out many times in this thread... the greatest trick the establishment ever pulled was convincing poor people that other poor people are the cause of their problems. As long as the "left" is fighting against the "right", the rich sit back in their ivory towers and laugh. This is all by design because the elite know that if the masses ever band up against them, they are royally fucked. What's going on now only serves their interests.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> As usual BM falling for a SJW trashy website that's lying.
> 
> I watched this guy's original interview, and the original ABC site which reported it.
> 
> http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/sarasota-man-says-he-was-attacked-for-being-gay
> 
> Yes, it's sad that this happened to a gay man but don't be trashy and believe crap from trash tabloids. Go to the original source.
> 
> ANd no matter how much BM you whinge about hate speech, it is not a crime and it will never be a crime. You have a very twisted view of what a crime is if you think that hate speech constitutes a crime :heston
> 
> Edit: NVM. The guy claimed that they were claiming that Trump allowed this attack :lol Doubt that that's what actually happened but oh well I'll let this go.


Oh look, making more excuses why am I not surprised.

And where in my quoted links did I say hate speech is a crime.

Just showing how racist and bigoted Trump supporters are.

but keep defending the bigots and racists and making excuses for them.

Its also funny how people like you always have to say on look SJW or SJW website when it's pointing out racism or bigotry. It's because you have no way to defend the racism or bigotry so you just call the people SJW pointing it out. It pretty pathetic if you ask me.



Carte Blanche said:


> And being gay is a crime in the Muslim world. It's unreasonable and a law that I would fight to the death to prevent from passing.
> 
> Point is. Just because something is illegal somewhere does not mean that the law-makers are right.


Being gay is also a crime in Christianity, the bible says you should stone gay people to death.


Leviticus 20:13 (KJV) If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

And just because the US for example does not execute gays like the bible says to like some Muslim countries do because Islam say to. does not mean Christianity does not say put homosexuals to death.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> Something I've pointed out many times in this thread... the greatest trick the establishment ever pulled was convincing poor people that other poor people are the cause of their problems. As long as the "left" is fighting against the "right", the rich sit back in their ivory towers and laugh. This is all by design because the elite know that if the masses ever band up against them, they are royally fucked. What's going on now only serves their interests.


Thomas Sowell I believe pointed this out that poor blacks have more in common with poor whites than rich whites and poor whites or vise versa have with each other. Classism is the real problem that fucks over the poor people. Poor Whites, Blacks, Hispanics and Asians in this country have more in common with each other over the dyed hair shrieking mobs, while some of these College kids have the right idea about helping the poor, they still bring racial divide and have little in common with the groups they try to help.

If poor Whites, Blacks and Hispanics ever got on the same page in America they could really fuck up the rich overlords and the corrupt politicians.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I feel SO good about my life lately.

Thank you, Trump.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> When shit like this happens in America, the police are allowed to crack down using disturbing the peace rhetoric.
> 
> People are adults. Those who commit crimes should be punished and are punished. Hate crime legislation is very deep in America.
> 
> The only thing that they always over-turn in the courts is any kind of speech censorship. If you make a person who simply spoke and did nothing the criminal then you run the risk of becoming a fascist state that deals in double standards and favoring certain groups over others. You run the risk of losing nuance and context and eventually censoring dialogue in and of itself making the society regressive not progressive - as is being seen across Europe now.
> 
> Incitement to violence simply cannot be considered a crime because it impacts the listeners differently.
> 
> If you tell me to go kill somebody else, I am just as likely to go and do it as I am to not do it therefore your call to violence/action is irrelevant to my motivation. If I go and commit the crime, that motivation is still mine just as much as if I refuse to commit the crime.
> 
> Verbal call to violence is not a criminal offence and cannot be a criminal offense - and I'd even defend those people who have openly claimed that all Trump supporters should die (Shannon) and even called for the assassination of Trump.
> 
> Free speech protections are universal. The minute you start tampering with them you start running a fascist country and I want no part of that kind of bullshit because I come from a country where I've seen what blasphemy laws (which are essentially the same as hate speech laws) can do to the minorities.
> You don't get someone like Anjem Chaudary on hate speech. You get him on terrorism charges. Expand the terrorism laws, not the speech laws because then that leaves room for people who are not terrorists to be terrorized by the same laws.
> 
> Take Canada for example. An anti-feminist college professor has been hauled up in front of a Human Rights Tribunal for simply speaking against Feminism.
> 
> Hate speech laws will be used to intimidate and silence dissenting opinion. I'd rather they go after terrorists under the right laws and not bullshit like speech.



Agreed, making hate speech illegal means that it can be expanded to anything. All speech must be protected, death threats against the President will always be taken seriously so there isn't much harm to officials but people regardless of the idiotic things they say must be protected. I don't want the US to turn into another censorship happy Euro state where people are harassed by police for having dissenting opinions, you give these censorship types an inch and they'll take ten miles.

Besides it's about action, not speech. Words are not violence.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@DesolationRow @Carte Blanche @Miss Sally @Goku @Fringe @deepelemblues @virus21 @Sweenz @L-DOPA @CamillePunk @BruiserKC

You guys ready for a peak at the alternate timeline? :trump

http://imgur.com/a/ib9bn


*BAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! A-HA! A-HA! HAHAHA!

*INHALES*

AAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

LOOK! LOOK AT THIS ONE--THEY PUT BERNIE IN IT---

http://i.imgur.com/1gyheXv.jpg


---HHHHHAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!*

:heston 

Ohhhhhh sweet JESUS I love this election! 0


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

^ You'll have to explain this to a slow guy, why is this significant and so amusing?


----------



## amhlilhaus

yeahbaby! said:


> MrMister said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have a problem with that guy from Hamilton addressing Pence like he did.
> 
> 
> T*ucker destroying that hack was a great listen/watch*.
> 
> 
> 
> Was that really a destruction though? Constant interrupting, completely ignoring and not acknowledging the points the guy made, making strawman arguments all over the place.
> 
> I'm not saying that guy was right or not, but I would have a lot more respect for the piece if the journalist didn't completely rudely disrespect his guest the whole time.
> 
> Anyone can invite a person on their show with most likely pre-planned attack points and gotcha moments and a plan of constantly interrupting. IMO it makes you look weak if you do though, you're better off giving your guest enough rope to hang themselves with and actually letting them talk.
Click to expand...

So tucker treated his guest how liberals treat conservatives on THEIR shows for decades?

Worlds changing, thanks leftists


----------



## amhlilhaus

RavishingRickRules said:


> Carte Blanche said:
> 
> 
> 
> ANd no matter how much BM you whinge about hate speech, it is not a crime and it will never be a crime. You have a very twisted view of what a crime is if you think that hate speech constitutes a crime
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could understand why many people would though. It is a crime in a lot of the world tbh, most of Europe, Canada, Australia, Brazil, New Zealand, South Africa, and I'm sure there are others. Many places even have constitutionally protected free speech that's been amended not to include hate speech.
Click to expand...

Amended free speech isnt free.

Why? So simple, its not suprising those countries missed it.

Hate speech is a goal that can be so easily moved, it poisons what is considered free.

Course theyll tell you its just to prevent hate against ethnic, gender and religous groups, but very quickly it morphs into a monster where anything enough people dont like gets included. With everyone in the world allowed to claim victimhood except white male heterosexual christians, the problem is obvious, except to the super educated left.

Maybe trumps new attorney general can highlight this by charging hate crimes against african americans who scream white boy as they attack whites.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

to @yeahbaby!

@DesolationRow educate em, Cap'n!


WOOOOO IT FEELS GOOD.


----------



## Marv95

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

The Hamilton crap: If you were a person trying to enjoy a show with your family only to get called out and jeered during the performance for NO reason, how would you feel? 

Stop defending SJWs. Trump has little choice but to use Twitter since the MSM continues to denounce him and anyone involved with him. Yeah it's childish ranting to anyone on the left and a few of his opponents(and to me to a lesser extent), and yeah he should _limit_ his use after Jan 20th but it's understandable why he does it. Gotta get both sides of the story.


----------



## skypod

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Being gay is also a crime in Christianity, the bible says you should stone gay people to death.
> 
> 
> Leviticus 20:13 (KJV) If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
> 
> And just because the US for example does not execute gays like the bible says to like some Muslim countries do because Islam say to. does not mean Christianity does not say put homosexuals to death.


I'm as left as left can be, but Christianity against gay people isn't influencing anything major (violence or laws) at the moment. This is the equivalent of people who say "all lives matter" and that cartoon picture of the fireman putting water on the house beside the actual house that's burning.

Don't get me wrong when the right push forth a ridiculous bathroom policy or try to revoke gay rights in some way I'm the first to jump in their faces. But the ridiculous laws in the Middle East and western Asia IS something that should be looked at and criticised. 

Islam is a problem with a lot of violence in the world right now. They have their own internal battle going on as well as affecting the West. If Christians started becoming a problem, then we would be talking about it but they're simply not right now. It's a pointless comparison.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*










:lmao


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



amhlilhaus said:


> Course theyll tell you its just to prevent hate against ethnic, gender and religous groups, but very quickly it morphs into a monster where anything enough people dont like gets included. With everyone in the world allowed to claim victimhood except white male heterosexual christians, the problem is obvious, except to the super educated left.


Also how do you decide what you criminalize? 

Offense is so arbitrary. I've heard of people killing people over getting taunted after a soccer game.


----------



## Marv95

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

James Mattis is being considered as Secretary of Defense. According to Trump he was quite impressed with him at yesterday's meeting.
_
Hire him_.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> I feel SO good about my life lately.
> 
> Thank you, Trump.


yeah because of Trump you can finally say your true southern feelings out loud and don't have to hide it anymore with coded words or dog whistling.




Beatles123 said:


> @DesolationRow @Carte Blanche @Miss Sally @Goku @Fringe @deepelemblues @virus21 @Sweenz @L-DOPA @CamillePunk @BruiserKC
> 
> You guys ready for a peak at the alternate timeline? :trump
> 
> http://imgur.com/a/ib9bn
> 
> 
> *BAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! A-HA! A-HA! HAHAHA!
> 
> *INHALES*
> 
> AAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
> 
> LOOK! LOOK AT THIS ONE--THEY PUT BERNIE IN IT---
> 
> http://i.imgur.com/1gyheXv.jpg
> 
> 
> ---HHHHHAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!*
> 
> :heston
> 
> Ohhhhhh sweet JESUS I love this election! 0


 
You do know they print out both versions so they can send out the cover of whomever wins the minute after the election is called right?
Its just like how for any championship like the superbowl or world series they make both shirts, hats, etc of both teams winning so they have it for when one of them won.

Its standard practice.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

For those that actually think Romney is going to be Secretary of State, forget it. He's pretty much taken people that have been loyal to him from day one for Cabinet and advisor positions so far. That's why Ted Cruz wasn't going to be Attorney General, etc. 



Marv95 said:


> James Mattis is being considered as Secretary of Defense. According to Trump he was quite impressed with him at yesterday's meeting.
> _
> Hire him_.


I do like that choice if he goes down that path..."You are part of the world's most feared and trusted force. Engage your brain before you engage your weapon." 

His defense picks seem to be very good so far. We need to adhere to a "Peace Through Strength" philosophy again. While I don't want war (pretty much any sane person does not want war), we need to have a strong military. We need to send the message throughout the world that messing with us is a bad idea. Don't throw the first punch, but have no problem with delivering the last punch in a fight.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



BruiserKC said:


> While I don't want war (pretty much any sane person does not want war), we need to have a strong military. We need to send the message throughout the world that messing with us is a bad idea. Don't throw the first punch, but have no problem with delivering the last punch in a fight.


Walk softly... but carry a big stick.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

It seems Democrats are trying to take credit for redoing the trade deals in favor of American interests and "draining the swamp", I find that silly since TPP was going to pass under Clinton and Nafta was passed under Bill. Also find it even more funny about the draining of the swamp, didn't we just look at all the DNC corruption, the fucking of bernie and election fraud? How can you be for "draining the swamp" when you're neck deep in corruption? 

The delusion of the US political parties is astounding, next the Republicans will say they've always stood for social programs, PP and taxing the rich.


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

First Hamilton, now SNL. Sheesh.







__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/800329364986626048

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/800337003426484224


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

don't really have a problem with :trump calling out biased narratives tbh :draper2


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I dunno, our President crying like a teenage girl about anything on Twitter is just weird as hell.

I guess it was inevitable with the internet completely enveloping our lives after all.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

idk why it should be weird. If he's slacking off and wasting his time on twitter, then sure. But if it doesn't affect anything, what does it matter?


----------



## southrnbygrace

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> Agreed, making hate speech illegal means that it can be expanded to anything. All speech must be protected, death threats against the President will always be taken seriously so there isn't much harm to officials but people regardless of the idiotic things they say must be protected. I don't want the US to turn into another censorship happy Euro state where people are harassed by police for having dissenting opinions, you give these censorship types an inch and they'll take ten miles.
> 
> Besides it's about action, not speech. Words are not violence.


What ever happened to "Sticks and stones may break my bones but _words_ will never hurt me" ? IMO words only have the power you allow them to have. In every instance of what is categorized as hate speech, the problem is with the person speaking not the person they are speaking about. Let 'em rant and rave and say whatever the heck they want. It's their ulcer they're feeding.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Goku said:


> idk why it should be weird. If he's slacking off and wasting his time on twitter, then sure. But if it doesn't affect anything, what does it matter?


Well, we've never seen anything like Trump for one. It's just weird to see the President consistently taking to Twitter to do stuff like this.


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Goku said:


> don't really have a problem with :trump calling out biased narratives tbh :draper2


He's only making it worse though. Giving them more attention, making himself look thin-skinned, etc. Any publicity is good publicity. If I were him, I would just ignore them.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The Absolute said:


> First Hamilton, now SNL. Sheesh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/800329364986626048
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/800337003426484224


This can't be good for Trump's public perception right? Over here political satire is one of the more popular comedy styles - hell, Bush and Blair got it HARD the entire time they were in power and I never saw either of them complain or even address them at all. I dunno, I guess I'm used to people being more of a "good sport" over here and not acting like comedy is some vicious personal attack. Besides, political satire is awesome, gives us plebs the chance to laugh at our overlords.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ft_rZ-BtqGQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BAM5hMMp0M


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RavishingRickRules said:


> This can't be good for Trump's public perception right? Over here political satire is one of the more popular comedy styles - hell, Bush and Blair got it HARD the entire time they were in power and I never saw either of them complain or even address them at all. I dunno, I guess I'm used to people being more of a "good sport" over here and not acting like comedy is some vicious personal attack. Besides, political satire is awesome, gives us plebs the chance to laugh at our overlords.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ft_rZ-BtqGQ
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BAM5hMMp0M


I think it's about time we threw out the rule book when it comes to media/satire/comedy and all that jazz impacting public opinion. 

I'm not against political satire at all. I just think that 2016 has proven it to be completely irrelevant and may in fact even be contributing to the rise in nationalism.

The conventions of satire dictate a certain degree of factual correctness and "comedians" (especially those on the left more so than the right) have geared their acts around uncouth character assassinations and mischaracterizations which barely pass for comedy let alone political commentary - and it's backfiring. Consistently.


----------



## Flair Flop

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Someone please change his Twitter password and just tell him it's all lost for good....make up something he might believe about duplicate accounts not being allowed. Tell him that if he tries that the Twitter police will know. That they will shave his head in his sleep. Anything. Just please get him off of Twitter. I am a strong supporter of his but this is fucking childish.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> I think it's about time we threw out the rule book when it comes to media/satire/comedy and all that jazz impacting public opinion.
> 
> I'm not against political satire at all. I just think that 2016 has proven it to be completely irrelevant and may in fact even be contributing to the rise in nationalism.


Have to agree to disagree on that one, I think political satire done right (ie both sides of the coin get slammed, which is normal here) is incredibly entertaining. If the people being lampooned can't take a joke that's more on them than the satire itself. Using Trump as an example, he's supposed to be the man who stands against "PC" and "over-sensitive" people who get offended at everything, yet he can't take a little bit of a joke because he's over-sensitive? Seems silly to me. I think this again might be a cultural difference between here and there tbh. There's no indication in the slightest that comedy in the UK is having an effect on nationalism (please feel free to show me legitimate studies that show otherwise) it's just entertainment. I didn't mean that the comedy would affect public perception either, I meant him being unable to take a joke might (it would here.) Comedy isn't supposed to be taken seriously, it's comedy, but railing against comedy sketches in a serious way like you're being attacked? Yeah in the UK that'll harm your public perception, it makes you look even more of a joke tbh. Comedy is "relevant" as long as it's funny, most political satire we have out here is very relevant because it's very funny. Our media machine isn't like yours either for the most part, comedians aren't ganging up with almost the entire mainstream press and entertainment industry like they did out there over the election. So yeah I disagree tbh. As long as people are entertained by it, comedy, political or otherwise is definitely relevant. Should comedy have bearing on how we perceive politician? Hell no, if people out there take comedy seriously then that's more their problem than the comedy itself. It's akin to those people who think GTA and Mortal Kombat will turn children into thugs and murderers, it's silly.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> I think it's about time we threw out the rule book when it comes to media/satire/comedy and all that jazz impacting public opinion.
> 
> I'm not against political satire at all. I just think that 2016 has proven it to be completely irrelevant and may in fact even be contributing to the rise in nationalism.
> 
> The conventions of satire dictate a certain degree of factual correctness and "comedians" (especially those on the left more so than the right) have geared their acts around uncouth character assassinations and mischaracterizations which barely pass for comedy let alone political commentary - and it's backfiring. Consistently.


political satire used to be funny when it exposed the hypocrisy of politicians and made a mockery of the gulf between the political class and the public at large. In some cruel irony, now there is a canyon between the media and the general public. It's not funny if you're even more out of touch than the thing you're making fun of.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Have to agree to disagree on that one, I think political satire done right (ie both sides of the coin get slammed, which is normal here) is incredibly entertaining. If the people being lampooned can't take a joke that's more on them than the satire itself. Using Trump as an example, he's supposed to be the man who stands against "PC" and "over-sensitive" people who get offended at everything, yet he can't take a little bit of a joke because he's over-sensitive? Seems silly to me. I think this again might be a cultural difference between here and there tbh. There's no indication in the slightest that comedy in the UK is having an effect on nationalism (please feel free to show me legitimate studies that show otherwise) it's just entertainment. I didn't mean that the comedy would affect public perception either, I meant him being unable to take a joke might (it would here.) Comedy isn't supposed to be taken seriously, it's comedy, but railing against comedy sketches in a serious way like you're being attacked? Yeah in the UK that'll harm your public perception, it makes you look even more of a joke tbh. Comedy is "relevant" as long as it's funny, most political satire we have out here is very relevant because it's very funny. Our media machine isn't like yours either for the most part, comedians aren't ganging up with almost the entire mainstream press and entertainment industry like they did out there over the election. So yeah I disagree tbh. As long as people are entertained by it, comedy, political or otherwise is definitely relevant. Should comedy have bearing on how we perceive politician? Hell no, if people out there take comedy seriously then that's more their problem than the comedy itself. It's akin to those people who think GTA and Mortal Kombat will turn children into thugs and murderers, it's silly.


If Trump's victory isn't evidence of political satire not impacting public perception, then I don't know what would be. 

Only some comedians are relevant while others are merely trapped inside their own echo chambers. The thing in America is that we have comedians and satire on both sides of the partisan political spectrum that in essence counters each other. 

You'll find people who disagree with Trump's twitter twattery and people who agree with it and become increasingly loyal to him as a result. I fall somewhere in the middle because I can see what he's doing by being this defensive. He's a) setting himself apart from other presidents and b) In a way assuring his voter base that he's not abandoning them. 

You yourself said that you're used to politicians who look the other way. If Trump isn't doing that, then hey, that makes him different and hey that's why he was voted in .. To BE different. 

Anyways, modern political satire is essentially a mix of character assassination and falsehoods attributed to their targets. People who laugh at this stuff by and large do so because it validates their prejudices and those who don't agree with the falsehoods don't laugh at it and don't allow it to color the perception of the individual being slandered. I disagree with the direction political satire has taken and a lot of people apparently do as well.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> If Trump's victory isn't evidence of political satire not impacting public perception, then I don't know what would be.
> 
> Only some comedians are relevant while others are merely trapped inside their own echo chambers. The thing in America is that we have comedians and satire on both sides of the partisan political spectrum that in essence counters each other.
> 
> You'll find people who disagree with Trump's twitter twattery and people who agree with it and become increasingly loyal to him as a result. I fall somewhere in the middle because I can see what he's doing by being this defensive. He's a) setting himself apart from other presidents and b) In a way assuring his voter base that he's not like them.
> 
> You yourself said that you're used to politicians who look the other way. If Trump isn't doing that, then hey, that makes him different and hey that's why he was voted in .. To BE different.
> 
> Anyways, modern political satire is essentially a mix of character assassination and falsehoods attributed to their targets. People who laugh at this stuff by and large do so because it validates their prejudices and those who don't agree with the falsehoods don't laugh at it and don't allow it to color the perception of the individual being slandered. I disagree with the direction political satire has taken and a lot of people apparently do as well.


Again, there's a massive difference between your media/comedy and ours. We don't share the same machine at all. I'm sure you're bang on the money when it comes to US comedy, you're exposed to a lot more of it than I am (as I see very little at all) but you're dead wrong about comedy here in the UK. Our political satire hasn't changed in style/tone since the days of "Spitting Image" in the 80's. Nice attempt at a subtle insult though with your "people who laugh at this stuff" sadly it failed completely. I'd say you're projecting your OWN prejudices with that comment, you aren't the authority on why people do or don't like something at all. And yeah I'm sure Trump is different, by his own words he's a bad sport who can't take a joke at his own expense - not particularly positive qualities in my opinion. You may support him for that, that's cool. In the UK that would be cause for even more mockery by comedians, why wouldn't they when it's so easy to get a reaction?


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Pence responds to the Hamilton cast:






Loosely translated:


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

personally I hate political satire 

its ages like warm milk and is only funny when its relevant which lasts like 2 weeks

"Barry Goldwater sure is crazy am I right?... uhh...wide stance don't taze me bro..."


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Using Trump as an example, he's supposed to be the man who stands against "PC" and "over-sensitive" people who get offended at everything, yet he can't take a little bit of a joke because he's over-sensitive? Seems silly to me. I think this again might be a cultural difference between here and there tbh.


Trump is the right wing PC police. This is the man who sued Bill Maher and The Onion because he didn't like being the butt of a joke. This is not a case of cultural difference. This is the case of Trump being a thin skinned little bitch who cannot take a joke.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I thunk generally righties don't political satire for no reason other than there's no one on their side who's actually funny. I mean... who is there?


On a non-related note however I completely disagree with the slobs who booed Pence at the theatre. There's no booing someone at the theatre, it's rude! Troglodytes!


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> Trump is the right wing PC police. This is the man who sued Bill Maher and The Onion because he didn't like being the butt of a joke. This is not a case of cultural difference. This is the case of Trump being a thin skinned little bitch who cannot take a joke.


I agree, I thought Pence handled the situation well. 

Was it silly to interrupt a man's night out for your rhetoric? Yup. 

Was it silly for Trump to tweet about it? Yup.

The only way you win against the silliness is simply not to play the game, you're in politics, got to have a thicker skin and let things go.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> On a non-related note however I completely disagree with the slobs who booed Pence at the theatre. There's no booing someone at the theatre, it's rude! Troglodytes!


So much this. I also think it'd be the same even at a sports game in my eyes. People might not like the man, but he should be able to go enjoy himself in his down time without having to deal with shit like that, it's not the time or place. I find it disrespectful to both the theatre and the man, you can dislike somebody without disrespecting anybody.


----------



## I AM Glacier

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RavishingRickRules said:


> So much this. I also think it'd be the same even at a sports game in my eyes. People might not like the man, but he should be able to go enjoy himself in his down time without having to deal with shit like that, it's not the time or place. I find it disrespectful to both the theatre and the man, you can dislike somebody without disrespecting anybody.


He wants to take basic human rights away from people but we should feel bad he had a shitty time at the theater?

You don't think it's disrespectful to not let people marry who they love? 

If you lose your baby during pregnancy, he believes you should carry your dead baby, to term, then pay to have a funeral for it. 
Do you have any clue what physiological effect that has on a woman? The suicide rate of dealing with that? What that does to a marriage? A family?

But lets not be disrespectful.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



I AM Glacier said:


> He wants to take basic human rights away from people but we should feel bad he had a shitty time at the theater?
> 
> You don't think it's disrespectful to not let people marry who they love?
> 
> If you lose your baby during pregnancy, he believes you should carry your dead baby, to term, then pay to have a funeral for it.
> Do you have any clue what physiological effect that has on a woman? The suicide rate of dealing with that? What that does to a marriage? A family?
> 
> But lets not be disrespectful.


All of those are political issues, he wasn't at work right that minute. Do I think those things should be opposed? Hell yes. Do I think it's right to do it when a man has paid for a ticket to chill and see a show? Absolutely not. It's evident you're very angry, but you're directing that anger towards the wrong person. I'm not a Trump supporter, a Pence supporter or even in the USA, I'm not to blame for the fact there's a politician in the USA you don't like who's been given power. How would you like it if a client/customer/patron of your workplace followed you around after work criticising you? Is that fair? Be angry, that's fine, but don't do it in such an idiotic, disrespectful way, all you achieve is proving those right-wingers you dislike so much right about the left. Your choice, not mine.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RavishingRickRules said:


> All of those are political issues, he wasn't at work right that minute. Do I think those things should be opposed? Hell yes. Do I think it's right to do it when a man has paid for a ticket to chill and see a show? Absolutely not. It's evident you're very angry, but you're directing that anger towards the wrong person. I'm not a Trump supporter, a Pence supporter or even in the USA, I'm not to blame for the fact there's a politician in the USA you don't like who's been given power. How would you like it if a client/customer/patron of your workplace followed you around after work criticising you? Is that fair? Be angry, that's fine, but don't do it in such an idiotic, disrespectful way, all you achieve is proving those right-wingers you dislike so much right about the left. Your choice, not mine.


You're 100% right, I hate Hillary but if her and Huma were having a burger somewhere I'd not bother them, there's a time and place for that. Me speaking rhetoric to them about how Hillary is evil isn't going to do anything productive. I interrupted their meal, woopty fuckin doo! I hope people who say harassing a guy going out for the eve would be this understanding if someone thought they were a cunt and just harassed them everywhere they went. :grin2:


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> You're 100% right, I hate Hillary but if her and Huma were having a burger somewhere I'd not bother them, there's a time and place for that. We speaking rhetoric to them about how Hillary is evil isn't going to do anything productive. I interrupted their mean, woopty fuckin doo! I hope people who say harassing a guy going out for the eve would be this understanding if someone thought they were a cunt and just harassed them everywhere they went. :grin2:


Exactly. That's not the way to do things at all. If people want to protest, attacking politicians in their down time is an idiotic approach. If people feel so strongly about something, organise, march on Washington, disrupt the services of THOSE IN POWER and make them listen to you. Don't start accosting politicians in the street and theatre, or rioting in your home town where most of the politicians are miles away and don't really give that much of a fuck. Protesting is a powerful tool when used properly, when used in the wrong way it changes nothing beyond generating hatred for the protesters.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



I AM Glacier said:


> He wants to take basic human rights away from people but we should feel bad he had a shitty time at the theater?
> 
> You don't think it's disrespectful to not let people marry who they love?
> 
> If you lose your baby during pregnancy, he believes you should carry your dead baby, to term, then pay to have a funeral for it.
> Do you have any clue what physiological effect that has on a woman? The suicide rate of dealing with that? What that does to a marriage? A family?
> 
> But lets not be disrespectful.





RavishingRickRules said:


> All of those are political issues, he wasn't at work right that minute. Do I think those things should be opposed? Hell yes. Do I think it's right to do it when a man has paid for a ticket to chill and see a show? Absolutely not. It's evident you're very angry, but you're directing that anger towards the wrong person. I'm not a Trump supporter, a Pence supporter or even in the USA, I'm not to blame for the fact there's a politician in the USA you don't like who's been given power. How would you like it if a client/customer/patron of your workplace followed you around after work criticising you? Is that fair? Be angry, that's fine, but don't do it in such an idiotic, disrespectful way, all you achieve is proving those right-wingers you dislike so much right about the left. Your choice, not mine.





Miss Sally said:


> You're 100% right, I hate Hillary but if her and Huma were having a burger somewhere I'd not bother them, there's a time and place for that. We speaking rhetoric to them about how Hillary is evil isn't going to do anything productive. I interrupted their mean, woopty fuckin doo! I hope people who say harassing a guy going out for the eve would be this understanding if someone thought they were a cunt and just harassed them everywhere they went. :grin2:


And then people wonder why there is no unity in America anymore. And I speak as someone who has no intention of sending either presidential candidate a Christmas card. Chances are I'm not going to approach either one of them but if they attempted to interact with me I'd be polite about it and not be a complete dickhead about it. All this does is feed the fire on both sides where the flame-throwers are fapping while imagining how rude they can be about the opposite side.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



BruiserKC said:


> And then people wonder why there is no unity in America anymore. And I speak as someone who has no intention of sending either presidential candidate a Christmas card. Chances are I'm not going to approach either one of them but if they attempted to interact with me I'd be polite about it and not be a complete dickhead about it. All this does is feed the fire on both sides where the flame-throwers are fapping while imagining how rude they can be about the opposite side.


True but on the other hand it sounds like not many of us who have commented in the same vain are too personally effected by his views on abortion, gay marriage etc.

If I was someone who had been personally damaged by the consequences of his and his ilk's views and powers I might not be able to control my emotions so well.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

https://vimeo.com/192383943


----------



## samizayn

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RavishingRickRules said:


> All of those are political issues, he wasn't at work right that minute. Do I think those things should be opposed? Hell yes. Do I think it's right to do it when a man has paid for a ticket to chill and see a show? Absolutely not. It's evident you're very angry, but you're directing that anger towards the wrong person. I'm not a Trump supporter, a Pence supporter or even in the USA, I'm not to blame for the fact there's a politician in the USA you don't like who's been given power. How would you like it if a client/customer/patron of your workplace followed you around after work criticising you? Is that fair? Be angry, that's fine, but don't do it in such an idiotic, disrespectful way, all you achieve is proving those right-wingers you dislike so much right about the left. Your choice, not mine.


VPOTUS isn't a job you can just clock out of, though. Not when you're that high up in power.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



samizayn said:


> VPOTUS isn't a job you can just clock out of, though. Not when you're that high up in power.


I disagree. Everybody has the right to down time, time with their family, time to just kick back and have fun. Having a position of power doesn't stop you being a person. You're not going to change anything or convince a politician to be on your side by accosting them in public, how would you like it? You'll get much better responses from people when you treat them with respect than when you hound and badger them with your grievances when they're out for a night of entertainment, or a meal, or anything people do when they're trying to relax or enjoy themselves. We're talking about people who're already overly scrutinised by the press and have sacrificed a lot of privacy for the position they're in, and you think it's an ok thing to also deprive them of their down time? Nah, I think you're way off-base there. Stop seeing people as their title and position and instead see a person, then think about how you'd feel in similar situations. Once you've done that, I'm sure you'll see that taking advantage of seeing a politician when they're outside of a work setting to further your own agenda is a lot less likely to achieve positive results than you think.


----------



## samizayn

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RavishingRickRules said:


> I disagree. Everybody has the right to down time, time with their family, time to just kick back and have fun. Having a position of power doesn't stop you being a person. You're not going to change anything or convince a politician to be on your side by accosting them in public, how would you like it? You'll get much better responses from people when you treat them with respect than when you hound and badger them with your grievances when they're out for a night of entertainment, or a meal, or anything people do when they're trying to relax or enjoy themselves. We're talking about people who're already overly scrutinised by the press and have sacrificed a lot of privacy for the position they're in, and you think it's an ok thing to also deprive them of their down time? Nah, I think you're way off-base there. Stop seeing people as their title and position and instead see a person, then think about how you'd feel in similar situations. Once you've done that, I'm sure you'll see that taking advantage of seeing a politician when they're outside of a work setting to further your own agenda is a lot less likely to achieve positive results than you think.


-I'd hate it a lot. Which is why I would never get into that kind of job. You talk about "sacrifice" like Pence assumed the position out of the grace of his heart, which, lol. 

-I agree with your principle regarding most things. When people hear there's a doctor at a party and decide that right then is the perfect time to ask about that weird toe growth before they've even said hello... yeah, inappropriate. POTUS and Veep should be in that position but the shit they're in charge of is actually that deep to a lot of people. The cast of Hamilton certainly did absolutely no mind-changing there, but when you're in the presence of someone that holds that power and you have reason to believe they very well may use that newly-gained power to fuck you, damn right you're not gonna write a shitty little letter to your local representative. You do everything you possibly can, even if that means trying to push over a brick wall.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



samizayn said:


> -I'd hate it a lot. Which is why I would never get into that kind of job. You talk about "sacrifice" like Pence assumed the position out of the grace of his heart, which, lol.
> 
> -I agree with your principle regarding most things. When people hear there's a doctor at a party and decide that right then is the perfect time to ask about that weird toe growth before they've even said hello... yeah, inappropriate. POTUS and Veep should be in that position but the shit they're in charge of is actually that deep to a lot of people. The cast of Hamilton certainly did absolutely no mind-changing there, but when you're in the presence of someone that holds that power and you have reason to believe they very well may use that newly-gained power to fuck you, damn right you're not gonna write a shitty little letter to your local representative. You do everything you possibly can, even if that means trying to push over a brick wall.


Then you have noone to blame but yourself when that politician you pissed off fucks you in the ass. It's that simple really. Like any person in the world, they're not going to respond well to you ruining their down time. And why should they? It's literally the same situation as the doctor one you used, or treating your waiter like shit and not expecting a loogie in your meal. If you want people to listen to you, and respond in a positive way, give them their privacy and treat them with respect. If you want to make a guaranteed enemy of someone, badger them, hound them, piss them off when they're just trying to enjoy themselves in their down time. It's really not rocket science. I'm not a Pence supporter, a Republican (well, in the American sense, I'm a British Republican but here that means being anti-monarchy, not right wing) a right winger or any of it. However, I do believe you will always be treated better if you show respect to people instead of thinking you have a right to their time just because of a position they hold.


----------



## Slickback

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*






Don't know if this has been posted or not, but this is just too glorious.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RavishingRickRules said:


> I disagree. Everybody has the right to down time, time with their family, time to just kick back and have fun. Having a position of power doesn't stop you being a person. You're not going to change anything or convince a politician to be on your side by accosting them in public, how would you like it? You'll get much better responses from people when you treat them with respect than when you hound and badger them with your grievances when they're out for a night of entertainment, or a meal, or anything people do when they're trying to relax or enjoy themselves. We're talking about people who're already overly scrutinised by the press and have sacrificed a lot of privacy for the position they're in, and you think it's an ok thing to also deprive them of their down time? Nah, I think you're way off-base there. Stop seeing people as their title and position and instead see a person, then think about how you'd feel in similar situations. Once you've done that, I'm sure you'll see that taking advantage of seeing a politician when they're outside of a work setting to further your own agenda is a lot less likely to achieve positive results than you think.


If you were making this argument about a celebrity, I would agree with you. About the VP, not so much; especially at such a public setting. Sure, you have a right to down time in a private setting but if being VP is what you want to do with your life, you've already knowingly and willingly signed away your right to privacy while in public. When you're in the position that Pence is in and your policies are destroying people's lives, saying they should keep quiet and let him have a good time when he comes into their theater is bullshit. This is not like protestors were surrounding his home when he is trying to have a private evening with his family. He was at their place of business and they had every right to speak their minds.

You wouldn't suggest that Hitler be able to walk into a Jewish temple and watch a play during the middle of WWII, now would you? People are_ dying_ thanks to the policies of people like Mike Pence. The idea that they shouldn't bother him in public while he is trying to have fun and relax is preposterous. You don't get to fuck people over and expect them to take it with a polite smile. That ain't how the world works.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> If you were making this argument about a celebrity, I would agree with you. About the VP, not so much; especially at such a public setting. Sure, you have a right to down time in a private setting but if being VP is what you want to do with your life, you've already knowingly and willingly signed away your right to privacy while in public. When you're in the position that Pence is in and your policies are destroying people's lives, saying they should keep quiet and let him have a good time when he comes into their theater is bullshit. This is not like protestors were surrounding his home when he is trying to have a private evening with his family. He was at their place of business and they had every right to speak their minds.
> 
> You wouldn't suggest that Hitler be able to walk into a Jewish temple and watch a play during the middle of WWII, now would you? People are_ dying_ thanks to the policies of people like Mike Pence. The idea that they shouldn't bother him in public while he is trying to have fun and relax is preposterous. You don't get to fuck people over and expect them to take it with a polite smile. That ain't how the world works.


I wasn't talking about the actors, I actually think they got their point across in a very polite way. I was talking about the crowd booing him, in the middle of a theatre, with a performance about to go on. That's idiotic. Exactly what policies did Pence implement that are costing lives? I'm actually asking as I'm not in the US. Also, don't ever use Hitler as an example, that's retarded, is Pence remotely Hitler? Has he lead a country to commit genocide on millions of people? Has he caused horrific experiments in concentration camps? Started a war with half of the world? Gassed people in chambers? No? Then he's probably not a good analogy to use to prove your point. Our government was recently investigated by the UN human rights commission and found directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of vulnerable people. Is me standing outside Conservative Clubs booing them going to change anything? Not likely. Again I disagree with you. Being a politician doesn't make you the property of the people to do what you like with. It's a job. An important job? Absolutely, but it's still a job. If you have issues with Pence, go demonstrate outside his offices, disrupt his place of business. Showing little to no class by booing a man just for walking into a theatre, is another one of those reasons why the "left" are getting so vilified right now.


----------



## MillionDollarProns

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Machiavelli said:


> Don't know if this has been posted or not, but this is just too glorious.


Joke about "being a cuck."
Watch your candidate get destroyed.
???
Profit.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RavishingRickRules said:


> I wasn't talking about the actors, I actually think they got their point across in a very polite way. I was talking about the crowd booing him, in the middle of a theatre, with a performance about to go on. That's idiotic. Exactly what policies did Pence implement that are costing lives? I'm actually asking as I'm not in the US. Also, don't ever use Hitler as an example, that's retarded, is Pence remotely Hitler? Has he lead a country to commit genocide on millions of people? Has he caused horrific experiments in concentration camps? Started a war with half of the world? Gassed people in chambers? No? Then he's probably not a good analogy to use to prove your point. Our government was recently investigated by the UN human rights commission and found directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of vulnerable people. Is me standing outside Conservative Clubs booing them going to change anything? Not likely. Again I disagree with you. Being a politician doesn't make you the property of the people to do what you like with. It's a job. An important job? Absolutely, but it's still a job. If you have issues with Pence, go demonstrate outside his offices, disrupt his place of business. Showing little to no class by booing a man just for walking into a theatre, is another one of those reasons why the "left" are getting so vilified right now.


Ask the millions of dead people around the world thanks to the military industrial complex if the USA's foreign policy is costing lives. Ask the tens of thousands of Americans who die every year due to a lack of basic healthcare if our government's policies are costing lives. Ask the people in Indiana with lead poisoning from contaminated drinking water that Pence didn't do a fucking thing to fix if his policies are costing lives. This jackass would rather give tax cuts to his rich buddies than provide clean drinking water for his constituents.

You completely missed the point of the Hitler comparison. I wasn't comparing Mike Pence to Hitler to say that he is a genocidal maniac. I was using Hitler and Jews as an example of a leader and a group of people dying because of that leader. Don't like Hitler? Fine, pick any leader and any group of people fucked over by that leader. You don't get to fuck over a group of people as a leader and then expect to hang out and have fun with those people without some kind of backlash. There are people dying because of leaders like Mike Pence and it's fucking retarded to bitch about people booing him after they have been fucked over by him and the government he represents. He is a long serving member of a government that has committed all kinds of atrocities around the world and at home and now he is the VP elect. If you think that isn't a good reason to boo someone, then you must think no one deserves to be booed ever.

This is not a "left vs right" issue. This is a "the United States government fucking sucks" issue. Damn near every one of them deserves to be booed.

You think it's classless to boo Mike Pence in public? I think it's classless that people are dying because of jackasses like Mike Pence.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I can't believe none of you realize what trump is doing.

He re-framed the safe space argument against SJWs.

@CamillePunk You read Scot Adams, you get it.


@Tater Way off about pence. Trump nor he want anyone killed.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> Ask the millions of dead people around the world thanks to the military industrial complex if the USA's foreign policy is costing lives. Ask the tens of thousands of Americans who die every year due to a lack of basic healthcare if our government's policies are costing lives. Ask the people in Indiana with lead poisoning from contaminated drinking water that Pence didn't do a fucking thing to fix if his policies are costing lives. This jackass would rather give tax cuts to his rich buddies than provide clean drinking water for his constituents.
> 
> You completely missed the point of the Hitler comparison. I wasn't comparing Mike Pence to Hitler to say that he is a genocidal maniac. I was using Hitler and Jews as an example of a leader and a group of people dying because of that leader. Don't like Hitler? Fine, pick any leader and any group of people fucked over by that leader. You don't get to fuck over a group of people as a leader and then expect to hang out and have fun with those people without some kind of backlash. There are people dying because of leaders like Mike Pence and it's fucking retarded to bitch about people booing him after they have been fucked over by him and the government he represents. He is a long serving member of a government that has committed all kinds of atrocities around the world and at home and now he is the VP elect. If you think that isn't a good reason to boo someone, then you must think no one deserves to be booed ever.
> 
> This is not a "left vs right" issue. This is a "the United States government fucking sucks" issue. Damn near every one of them deserves to be booed.
> 
> You think it's classless to boo Mike Pence in public? I think it's classless that people are dying because of jackasses like Mike Pence.


Nah sorry, on the Hitler comparison you were way off-base. You can't use Hitler in that comparison because the sheer volume of evil is beyond comparison. Your analogy fell down the minute you used Hitler as your example. I also didn't say "leader like Mike Pence" I said, specifically, what did Mike Pence HIMSELF put into legislation which is causing so many deaths? He isn't responsible for the entire American military complex, so that's irrelevant to this discussion, as is anything else you're dealing with in hypotheticals or "people like him." 

See you're doing the "rant and rave like a maniac" thing and it just comes across a little over the top and weak when frankly, I'm not one of this man's supporters, I'm just advocating acting like civilised adults and not spoiled, petulant children (you know, the reason Trump got elected.) Why are you even ranting this hard at me in the first place? Because I defend a man's right to privacy and a life outside of his employment? That's worth the aggressive tone like I'm remotely one of the people who support your government? Really? OK. Again, you're also assuming I have a clue what the fuck you're talking about with his actions, despite me specifically asking you for EXAMPLES because I'm not aware of him, you know, being a non-American and all and him not remotely being famous anywhere else. When you start getting aggressive and throwing out idiotic shit like comparing politicians to Hitler (again, this does not work, see Trump for reference) all you're doing is pushing people away from discussion with the gross overreaction. I could have met a lot more of my family if it wasn't for Hitler, see that's something a lot of us in Europe can say. Hitler's army ACTUALLY killed my family, so forgive me if I don't agree with you using him as a comparison to a man who by any stretch of the imagination is nowhere near as bad as Hitler was. 

The water thing sounds sketchy, but do I think the way to fix it is to boo a man in the theatre? Hell no. You'll have to fill me in a little more about the situation though, as googling "Mike Pence Drinking Water" actually only brought up one article, which said that there was lead poisoning in Indiana that affected people's homes, but "the contamination hasn't affected drinking water in this case" which they compared to Flint, MI which I have heard about because it was all over the press even out here. So how exactly is Mike Pence specifically such an evil person with legislation he's implemented? Not "he thinks this so he might" that's irrelevant, not "he's part of the machine who" as again, that's not him being directly responsible. Hypothetically calling people Hitler and the devil doesn't do much these days beyond make you look like you can't be rational. So be rational, give me some actual evidence against the man. i'm no Trump supporter or hard-righter, I'm open to listen. However, it'll have to be something pretty damning for me to change my opinion on having a little self-dignity and approaching things in the right way. Where I'm from, it's much better to do things with decorum and purpose than randomly dissent at times where there's no real chance of it affecting anything in the positive (like you know, booing someone you want to move in a different direction when they're simply going to see a play - for a start, booing doesn't even let the person know what you're disagreeing with.) The actors had the right idea, they did their job, then they actually spoke politely to the man with their concerns. Something that's far more likely to achieve results than booing without discussion.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I always felt the Hitler and Nazi comparisons is how a charismatic leader can make ordinary people consent to horrible things being done. :shrug


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> I always felt the Hitler and Nazi comparisons is how a charismatic leader can make ordinary people consent to horrible things being done. :shrug


Guess it depends on the perspective. When you grow up in a country that was heavily bombed, have family who died in those bombings and serving in the war and have Jewish ancestors who fled Nazi Germany, comparisons to Hitler are comparisons to his acts, not his charisma.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Guess it depends on the perspective. When you grow up in a country that was heavily bombed, have family who died in those bombings and serving in the war and have Jewish ancestors who fled Nazi Germany, comparisons to Hitler are comparisons to his acts, not his charisma.


I guess Hitler is a trigger word then?


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> I guess Hitler is a trigger word then?


Not really, I wasn't the "triggered" one in the discussion I was having. I've been calm and rational throughout. The ranting was done by Tater after I disagreed with him using the Hitler comparison. Beyond my obvious dislike of it, I also tried to illustrate that comparing these people to Hitler is a bad move. I saw a whole mess of "Trump is Hitler" before the election. I also saw the massive post-election backlash of people who flat out said they were sick of "leftists" (I hate that term tbh) calling them racists and comparing them to Hitler. It's a terrible comparison to make, because almost everyone you see it used on doesn't come close to that level of evil in action or philosophy. Being "against" a group of people is massively different from putting them in camps and gassing them in the showers.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



















(@Goku gets it. :trump)


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Just put and end to the Hitler nonsense in this thread because it's the height of anti-intellectualism and not even worth entertaining.

Looks to me like today's youth are either too young to be aware of Godwin's Law, or just don't care and that's even worse.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Just put and end to the Hitler nonsense in this thread because it's the height of anti-intellectualism and not even worth entertaining.
> 
> Looks to me like today's youth are either too young to be aware of Godwin's Law, or just don't care and that's even worse.


Do to the over usage of comparing everyone to "Hitler", it will end up being a term used for people trolling to get a reaction in 10 years time and nobody will realize what exactly the name even meant. It's funny, we have access to endless information at our fingertips yet we seem to make that information useless because we make words meaningless. So how can we learn from the past when we constantly minimize the very gravity of it?


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> Do to the over usage of comparing everyone to "Hitler", it will end up being a term used for people trolling to get a reaction in 10 years time and nobody will realize what exactly the name even meant. It's funny, we have access to endless information at our fingertips yet we seem to make that information useless because we make words meaningless. So how can we learn from the past when we constantly minimize the very gravity of it?


I really hope not. I honestly think that it'll be a very sad day for humanity when people forget the significance and evil attached to that man and his name. I can add this to the list of reasons I'm 100% against comparisons with Hitler. Sigh.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RavishingRickRules said:


> I really hope not. I honestly think that it'll be a very sad day for humanity when people forget the significance and evil attached to that man and his name. I can add this to the list of reasons I'm 100% against comparisons with Hitler. Sigh.


Maybe it's a testament to their overly pampered lives that today's youth can easily bestow the title of LITERALLY Hitler on whomever they personally dislike - but hopefully there are enough of us who've actually experienced some hardship in life at the hands of real fascist governments, or have actually studied the horrors of the holocaust and the aftermath on german citizens and women, who will make sure LITERALLY Hitler never becomes just another meaningless word like bigot, racist, homophobe, sexist blah blah blah.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Maybe it's a testament to their overly pampered lives that today's youth can easily bestow the title of LITERALLY Hitler on whomever they personally dislike - but hopefully there are enough of us who've actually experienced some hardship in life at the hands of real fascist governments, or have actually studied the horrors of the holocaust and the aftermath on german citizens and women, who will make sure LITERALLY Hitler never becomes just another meaningless word like bigot, racist, homophobe, sexist blah blah blah.


I've actually visited Auschwitz. These kids need to go out there and see how comfortable they feel throwing around that accusation, I can't see many people continuing to do so. I just hope one day these kids wake up to the reality of the things they use as insults.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Maybe it's a testament to their overly pampered lives that today's youth can easily bestow the title of LITERALLY Hitler on whomever they personally dislike - but hopefully there are enough of us who've actually experienced some hardship in life at the hands of real fascist governments, or have actually studied the horrors of the holocaust and the aftermath on german citizens and women, who will make sure LITERALLY Hitler never becomes just another meaningless word like bigot, racist, homophobe, sexist blah blah blah.


The biggest threat is the words not only losing meaning but being embraced, someone makes a tasteless joke, funny or not and get's called a racist and people shrug it off. When real racism happens it will be seen as overreaction since they sensationalized the word. Apathy is humanities greatest nemesis, desensitizing people to things that should have great impact on them is a one way ticket to those things happening and nobody caring.


----------



## samizayn

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Then you have noone to blame but yourself when that politician you pissed off fucks you in the ass. It's that simple really. Like any person in the world, they're not going to respond well to you ruining their down time. And why should they? It's literally the same situation as the doctor one you used, or treating your waiter like shit and not expecting a loogie in your meal. If you want people to listen to you, and respond in a positive way, give them their privacy and treat them with respect. If you want to make a guaranteed enemy of someone, badger them, hound them, piss them off when they're just trying to enjoy themselves in their down time. It's really not rocket science. I'm not a Pence supporter, a Republican (well, in the American sense, I'm a British Republican but here that means being anti-monarchy, not right wing) a right winger or any of it. However, I do believe you will always be treated better if you show respect to people instead of thinking you have a right to their time just because of a position they hold.


LOL I am sorry, but please hold elected officials to a higher standard. Emphasis on elected. Which doesn't happen for long if you choose to spend your time on petty vendettas going around targeting people you feel have slighted you. It is not the same as treating your waiter like shit at all.

Regarding privacy, they have none but in their workplace and the comfort of their own home - not as future govt officials in a public setting! And again, Pence was treated with respect. I don't know why this word keeps coming up. 

You are blowing this out of proportion, also. No one is screaming at the guy and chasing him down the street. And as I outlined already, as an elected official with that high a seat in office, the people most certainly do have a right to that man's time.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Maybe it's a testament to their overly pampered lives that today's youth can easily bestow the title of LITERALLY Hitler on whomever they personally dislike - but hopefully there are enough of us who've actually experienced some hardship in life at the hands of real fascist governments, or have actually studied the horrors of the holocaust and the aftermath on german citizens and women, who will make sure LITERALLY Hitler never becomes just another meaningless word like bigot, racist, homophobe, sexist blah blah blah.


the rise of Hitler and Trump are very similar. Trump is a fascist and you can easily see it by some of the things he wants to implement. Down playing Trump like they did with Hitlers rise would be a huge disaster. You want to normalize Trump which is dangerous. We need to keep pointing out how Trump[ is a racist, bigot, sexist, fascist etc


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> the rise of Hitler and Trump are very similar. Trump is a fascist and you can easily see it by some of the things he wants to implement. Down playing Trump like they did with Hitlers rise would be a huge disaster. You want to normalize Trump which is dangerous. We need to keep pointing out how Trump[ is a racist, bigot, sexist, fascist etc


:heston


----------



## Reggie Dunlop

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> :heston


Maybe we should start a pool on which group Trump is going to try to exterminate first. That seems to be where that poster above you is going here. Obviously if you're not male, white and rich, you're fucked. I wonder where he stands on middle-age, middle-class bald guys. Jesus fuck, I could be next.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> I think it's about time we threw out the rule book when it comes to media/satire/comedy and all that jazz impacting public opinion.
> 
> I'm not against political satire at all. I just think that 2016 has proven it to be completely irrelevant and may in fact even be contributing to the rise in nationalism.
> 
> The conventions of satire dictate a certain degree of factual correctness and "comedians" (especially those on the left more so than the right) have geared their acts around uncouth character assassinations and mischaracterizations which barely pass for comedy let alone political commentary - and it's backfiring. Consistently.


The reason why Trump gets so pissed at Baldwins portrayal of him is because it's spot on and all true. Trump is so thin skinned. For a guy who loves to trash talk, he really can't take it back. 

As for barely passing for comedy, funny how his Trump portrayal gets some fo the biggest laughs and is one of the funniest bits of the show


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> the rise of Hitler and Trump are very similar. Trump is a fascist and you can easily see it by some of the things he wants to implement. Down playing Trump like they did with Hitlers rise would be a huge disaster. You want to normalize Trump which is dangerous. We need to keep pointing out how Trump[ is a racist, bigot, sexist, fascist etc


Do you even think about what you say before posting? Democrats lost the election by doing the very same thing you're doing right now and what do you do? Double down . You throw around word phrases like "racist" , "bigot" , "sexist" and "fascist" but you don't understand the true meaning of those words. You throw them around so much they've lost all meaning because the left will say that about everyone that oppose them regardless if its true or not just to stifle debate and shame people into being on their side. You'll never learn


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Stinger Fan said:


> Do you even think about what you say before posting? Democrats lost the election by doing the very same thing you're doing right now and what do you do? Double down . You throw around word phrases like "racist" , "bigot" , "sexist" and "fascist" but you don't understand the true meaning of those words. You throw them around so much they've lost all meaning because the left will say that about everyone that oppose them regardless if its true or not just to stifle debate and shame people into being on their side. You'll never learn


The democrats lost because they fucked over Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders would have destroyed Trump and he would have pointed out the same things. 

We have been over this a million times, Trump is all of those things, the people that don't understand those terms are either some of or all of those thins themselves or just ignorant of what the words mean. there is no defending the shit Trump says. 

We have to keep pointing how Trump is these things so he does not become normalized which is what people like you are trying to do. It's laughable anyone would claim Trump is not these things.

Its people like you that try to shame people into not calling Trump those things when he is them. But it's not going to work. The more Trump does those things, the more he will be called out for it.


----------



## Reggie Dunlop

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

There's just no bottom to this salt pit, is there. :trump


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> The democrats lost because they fucked over Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders would have destroyed Trump and he would have pointed out the same things.
> 
> We have been over this a million times, Trump is all of those things, the people that don't understand those terms are either some of or all of those thins themselves or just ignorant of what the words mean. there is no defending the shit Trump says.
> 
> We have to keep pointing how Trump is these things so he does not become normalized which is what people like you are trying to do. It's laughable anyone would claim Trump is not these things.
> 
> Its people like you that try to shame people into not calling Trump those things when he is them. But it's not going to work. The more Trump does those things, the more he will be called out for it.


Bernie Sanders would have lost all the same. People aren't going to vote for his policies, people aren't stupid to vote for him. Not to mention this is a guy who attacked white people , claiming they cant be poor, have white privilege etc etc just so he could get the minority vote, that woudl have hurt him. Again, you don't seem to understand why Trump got votes in states that Romney lost. Trump did better with minorities than Romney did, this notion that Trump would have been "crushed" is ridiculous. 

You keep using buzz phrases to "win" , you'll always downplay those words because its so readily available for you to hurl at anyone. 

Oh and cut the bullshit with me "shaming" you or anyone for that matter. I didn't attack you personally , which is what the Liberals have been doing since forever. Don't like Obama? You're a racist. Don't like Hillary? You're a sexist. I criticize the method which is why you'll resort to name calling and insults when you don't have anything , then blame everyone else for what you're doing. You have to remember, for the past year now its been the Democrats who have been inciting far more violence than the Republicans have but for whatever reason Republicans are to be blamed. Its absurd.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Stinger Fan said:


> Bernie Sanders would have lost all the same. People aren't going to vote for his policies, people aren't stupid to vote for him. Not to mention this is a guy who attacked white people , claiming they cant be poor, have white privilege etc etc just so he could get the minority vote, that woudl have hurt him. Again, you don't seem to understand why Trump got votes in states that Romney lost. Trump did better with minorities than Romney did, this notion that Trump would have been "crushed" is ridiculous.
> 
> You keep using buzz phrases to "win" , you'll always downplay those words because its so readily available for you to hurl at anyone.
> 
> Oh and cut the bullshit with me "shaming" you or anyone for that matter. I didn't attack you personally , which is what the Liberals have been doing since forever. Don't like Obama? You're a racist. Don't like Hillary? You're a sexist. I criticize the method which is why you'll resort to name calling and insults when you don't have anything , then blame everyone else for what you're doing. You have to remember, for the past year now its been the Democrats who have been inciting far more violence than the Republicans have but for whatever reason Republicans are to be blamed. Its absurd.


No he wouldn't have LOL Don't be silly. Sanders would have crushed Trump. 

Sanders never would have lost the blue states Hillary did, not to mention Sanders would have gotten more people out to vote than Hillary did. Sanders was beating Trump by double digits. 

Just read this article http://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-sanders-would-have-crushed-trump/

Even Trump knew and that is why he did not want to face Sanders.

No one has ever said if you dont like Obama you are racist, but if you call him a slur like some do that don't like him, they are racist. 

And it's totally bullshit the democrats have bene incite more violence. It all started with Trump. Trump directed his supporters to start the violence. So stop making shit up.

Now that the democrats are wrongly doing the same thing of course you a big deal is made of it.

Sorry if the truth hurts but people like you do shame people when they point out how Trump is those things because you know you can't defend him.

the right is alway making personal attacks aginst the left, just look when they point out how someone is being racist or a bigot they go oh look you are being a SJW.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Saying Bernie would have crushed Trump is silly, remember everyone was saying Hillary was going to crush Trump and it didn't happen. Bernie is no friend to the working class, the only people he appealed to were rich celebs who never would have paid his taxes and white millennials. Nonwhites and working class nonwhites/whites didn't jive with him. In fact he pretty much shit on whites by saying they didn't know what it was like to be poor, given the fact that poor whites are the largest number of poor, I'd say Bernie a guy who's never really worked had no clue about the demographics of this nation.

He was weak on several occasions, his followers had already been harpooned by Hillary supporters and let's be honest, many of his followers were people you'd not want to be around.

Maybe he would have beaten Trump bad, but we'll never know since he bowed out like a bitch instead of fighting for what he believed in. If he gave up that easy "for the health of the party" I could just imagine him in power giving in left and right on everything be promised. He got screwed but him pretending like it was for the best isn't exactly a vote of confidence on what the man would have done in office.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

yeah bernie would've crushed trump :duck














































































































:duck


----------



## Flair Flop

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> the rise of Hitler and Trump are very similar. Trump is a fascist and you can easily see it by some of the things he wants to implement. Down playing Trump like they did with Hitlers rise would be a huge disaster. You want to normalize Trump which is dangerous. We need to keep pointing out how Trump[ is a racist, bigot, sexist, fascist etc


This is so rich coming from someone that I firmly believe would toss southerners in concentration camps if you had the power. 

You toss blanket labels of bigotry on all of us based on a geographical location 

You've heavily implied that the southern states should be forcefully removed from the country. Far more extreme than wanting to make it harder for Muslims to get in the country. 

Constant ramblings about your own superiority over us. Which happens to be more Like Hitler than Trump. 


Now tell me again how you are any different in regards to the accusations you make towards Trump. Even when it's clear that his ideas aren't nearly as radical as your own.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> No he wouldn't have LOL Don't be silly. Sanders would have crushed Trump.
> 
> Sanders never would have lost the blue states Hillary did, not to mention Sanders would have gotten more people out to vote than Hillary did. Sanders was beating Trump by double digits.
> 
> Just read this article http://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-sanders-would-have-crushed-trump/
> 
> Even Trump knew and that is why he did not want to face Sanders.
> 
> No one has ever said if you dont like Obama you are racist, but if you call him a slur like some do that don't like him, they are racist.
> 
> And it's totally bullshit the democrats have bene incite more violence. It all started with Trump. Trump directed his supporters to start the violence. So stop making shit up.
> 
> Now that the democrats are wrongly doing the same thing of course you a big deal is made of it.
> 
> Sorry if the truth hurts but people like you do shame people when they point out how Trump is those things because you know you can't defend him.
> 
> the right is alway making personal attacks aginst the left, just look when they point out how someone is being racist or a bigot they go oh look you are being a SJW.


You're still doing it

Sanders wouldn't have destroyed Trump, like I said his policies and race baiting would have hurt him all the same. Would the race have been closer? It's certainly possible, but a total crushing of Trump? It's highly unlikely. Regular Americans aren't going to vote in favor of making colleges and universities free, raising minimum wages which makes cost of food and living higher for the people who aren't going to see an increase in their wages. 

Your link is irrelevant and you want to know why? Hillary crushed Trump in virtually every poll and everything turned out to be wrong. Seeing as how the election was lost, people are going to do anything they can to claim that this person or that person would have won but its all assuming that people would turn out for Sanders based solely on polls that ended up being wrong in the first place. 

Actually many people for years claimed that if you don't like Obama you "must" be a racist. You saw it on media outlets, you see it after this election is over with the claims of "white lash", or "sexism" among voters. Even Hillary claimed that people should vote for her because she's a woman. You'll always see accusations of people who are against Obama is because they "cant handle a black President". How you can ignore that, I'll never understand 

Democrats were the ones who were protesting at Trump rallies , not the other way around. Democrats are still protesting even after the election but I'm supposed to believe that its the Democrats who are the peace keepers? They're the ones who tried to stop Trump rallies from happening . I've never defending Trump or Trump supporters who incited violence just because I criticize one party doesn't mean I defend the other. 

You're accusing me of shaming people simply because you don't like what I have to say. This is the problem with the left that they haven't learned from yet. Just because you accuse someone of being something, doesn't actually make it true. You need to learn that but it seems like you've doubled down on that narrative


----------



## skypod

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Stinger Fan said:


> Actually many people for years claimed that if you don't like Obama you "must" be a racist. You saw it on media outlets, you see it after this election is over with the claims of "white lash", or "sexism" among voters. Even Hillary claimed that people should vote for her because she's a woman. You'll always see accusations of people who are against Obama is because they "cant handle a black President". How you can ignore that, I'll never understand


Not saying the whole group is like that but there's plenty of video evidence of people at rallies doing the whole "he's not even Amuriken!" bullshit and saying how he's an Arab and a Muslim. The uproar when he became president was more than what it would have been if it was any other Democrat, not sure how you could deny that. Especially if you take into account the things Obama ran on in 2008 would be popular today if people still bought those things. 

Probably is you'll rather spend 100% of the time saying that you're side isn't all racist but still attends rallies with these idiots and not actually point anything out about them. If I supported a political candidate but I saw what kind of people he/she attracted I'd probably rethink my position or what kind of values this person is attracting.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Trump supporters keep showing how delusional and uninformed they are lol.

But like Trump said he loves you guys. And this is why.

As for the polls showing Hillary would crush Trump, simply not true, the polls right before the election had her up 3 points. Sanders was beating Trump by double digits.


----------



## Narcisse

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump supporters keep showing how delusional and uninformed they are lol.
> 
> But like Trump said he loves you guys. And this is why.
> 
> As for the polls showing Hillary would crush Trump, simply not true, the polls right before the election had her up 3 points. Sanders was beating Trump by double digits.



I have ploughed through all your posts in this thread and what has become incredibly unpalatable to me is your derogatory attitude towards anyone whose opinion differs from your own. You genuinely do believe that you are morally, intellectually and politically superior. That amuses me.
As somebody who is not in the US, and therefore has no axe to grind, I find it incredibly interesting that people who consider themselves to be a cut above intellectually didn't consider that it might not be such a good idea politically speaking to effectively ignore the largest sector of voters, in favour of PC idealism. Very worthy, but doesn't win elections.
In the UK, where I am, we are watching the reactions with great interest and believe me when I tell you, right now it's not the Trump supporters who are looking the worst.
Here's a little extra reading you might find interesting, just to show you that this opinion is not solely my own and to give you a little flavour of what the rest of the world thinks of all the Lefts bitter hand wringing. Enjoy. 
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/11/sneering-response-trumps-victory-reveals-exactly-won/


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

This contempt for the poor and middle class for "voting wrong" reminds me of when I played Tropico 5 and made the constitution to say that only the "right (rich) people" could vote then tanked the wages of the opposition and gunned down those who refused in the streets

Now my voters were 100% "informed voters" who knew what was in their best interest

and i still had to rig the election (fucking communists and environmentalists)


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump supporters keep showing how delusional and uninformed they are lol.
> 
> But like Trump said he loves you guys. And this is why.


Ok, I have to say it man. Irrespective of where anyone lies on the political spectrum, if people are uninformed, then inform them without just insulting them. The insults and aggression aren't working so dial it back a bit and just engage in discussion with more substance than "argggh uninformed idiots" vs "arrggh leftie sjw idiots." You do actually have points to make, but the way you're making them isn't doing you any favours at all right now. Seriously, dial it back a little, stop giving it the knee-jerk reaction and jumping straight into attack mode and come in with a clear head and a collected approach. You're never going to get any results if you just keep trying to throw insults for real.


----------



## krai999

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

here's your guy with the best chance to beat Trump in 2020


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Nah sorry, on the Hitler comparison you were way off-base. You can't use Hitler in that comparison because the sheer volume of evil is beyond comparison. Your analogy fell down the minute you used Hitler as your example. I also didn't say "leader like Mike Pence" I said, specifically, what did Mike Pence HIMSELF put into legislation which is causing so many deaths? He isn't responsible for the entire American military complex, so that's irrelevant to this discussion, as is anything else you're dealing with in hypotheticals or "people like him."


If Hitler and the Jews as a comparison doesn't work for you, use Andrew Jackson and Native Americans. Should he have been able to attend a tribal ceremony to have fun and relax after the Trail of Tears? Want something on a smaller scale? Should the Tate family be okay with Charlie Manson coming over for Thanksgiving dinner after the death of Sharon Tate? Stop being obtuse and ignoring the point being made because you don't like the mention of Hitler. Ya don't get to fuck people over and then expect them to be civil and show you respect in your down time. The idea that you would even suggest that is absurd. 

What has Mike Pence specifically done that has caused so many deaths? Oh, I dunno, how about not only voting for the invasion of Iraq as a member of Congress but fucking co-sponsoring the war resolution? Ya know, that little illegal war that led to the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians? Ya think maybe we can boo the people responsible for that itty bitty atrocity?

You don't seem to be able to see the forest for the trees. The United States government commits atrocities every single day. Mike Pence has long been a part of that government. Had it been Obama, I'd have said people should be booing him too because of all the fucked up things he has done. People are having their lives destroyed and are dying because of the actions and policies of the United States government and you're worried about it's politicians not getting booed when they are trying to have fun? And you don't see how monumentally fucked up your priorities are? unk2


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Its really "classism" that runs at the core of all this dispute

There is a reason that racism, sexism and biggotry mostly exist among the poorest members of society 

its not because "lol they dumb" its because no one wants to be at the bottom of society so they seek ways that make them "inherently" better than others 

A poor white trash motherfucker can take comfort in "I may have nothing but at least I am not black/gay" because they seek something that they feel cannot not be disputed nor taken away that can make them "superior" 

its not poor people who benefit from slavery or lack of women's rights but they were some off the biggest oppositions to civil rights because of fear of being on the bottom rung

Telling them that they are "bad people" and the need to starting "thinking correctly" is not going to fix and these people are unshakable with shame, when you are living paycheck to paycheck and barely getting by its hard to be ashamed for not being "intellectual"


----------



## Flair Flop

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> Should the Tate family be okay with Charlie Manson coming over for Thanksgiving dinner after the death of Sharon Tate?


I'd love to have Charlie over for Thanksgiving dinner. Give him some good drugs and just tell him to start ranting. Hours of entertainment.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



skypod said:


> Not saying the whole group is like that but there's plenty of video evidence of people at rallies doing the whole "he's not even Amuriken!" bullshit and saying how he's an Arab and a Muslim. The uproar when he became president was more than what it would have been if it was any other Democrat, not sure how you could deny that. Especially if you take into account the things Obama ran on in 2008 would be popular today if people still bought those things.
> 
> Probably is you'll rather spend 100% of the time saying that you're side isn't all racist but still attends rallies with these idiots and not actually point anything out about them. If I supported a political candidate but I saw what kind of people he/she attracted I'd probably rethink my position or what kind of values this person is attracting.


Oh, don't get me wrong, there are definitely racist and sexist people who are republicans but the fact of the matter is that they aren't nearly that large of a group that people want to claim they are. I never defended those who claim Obama wasn't born in the USA or a Muslim(though thats a topic for another day) but every Republican gets lumped into one group labelled "bigots" and to me, thats not only incredibly ignorant but bigoted as well 

Also, I really dislike this notion that some how Trump "lured" the KKK to vote for him. At the end of the day, we all know which side they'll vote for and will support majority of the candidates on the Republican side of things. They're also a dying breed , they're not nearly as large as people want to believe they are and I find it very hard to believe that all even half of the Republican votes were white supremacists and all the stats indicate that to be inaccurate .


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Narcisse said:


> I have ploughed through all your posts in this thread and what has become incredibly unpalatable to me is your derogatory attitude towards anyone whose opinion differs from your own. You genuinely do believe that you are morally, intellectually and politically superior. That amuses me.
> As somebody who is not in the US, and therefore has no axe to grind, I find it incredibly interesting that people who consider themselves to be a cut above intellectually didn't consider that it might not be such a good idea politically speaking to effectively ignore the largest sector of voters, in favour of PC idealism. Very worthy, but doesn't win elections.
> In the UK, where I am, we are watching the reactions with great interest and believe me when I tell you, right now it's not the Trump supporters who are looking the worst.
> Here's a little extra reading you might find interesting, just to show you that this opinion is not solely my own and to give you a little flavour of what the rest of the world thinks of all the Lefts bitter hand wringing. Enjoy.
> http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/11/sneering-response-trumps-victory-reveals-exactly-won/


yeah because Trump supporters seem to like to ignore the facts so it gets old. And they always make excuses for Trump. Also don't act like some Trump supporters on this thread don't do exactly what I do. 

If you don't want to accept the facts I am going to call you out on it. No one acts more superior on here than Reaper but of course since Trump supporters agree with him, they are ok with him doing it. That is what I always find amusing. And reaper even said that in a post of his.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> No one acts more superior on here than Reaper but of course since Trump supporters agree with him, they are ok with him doing it. That is what I always find amusing. And reaper even said that in a post of his.


:heston

I have no reason to fake humility. Never have. Never will. I know who I'm better than and whom I'm not and I acknowledge and graciously accept that hierarchy instead of pretending to believe in the existence of some pseudo-scientific notion of social equality :kobelol and then eventually coming across as a hypocrite.


----------



## Narcisse

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> yeah because Trump supporters seem to like to ignore the facts so it gets old. And they always make excuses for Trump. Also don't act like some Trump supporters on this thread don't do exactly what I do.
> 
> If you don't want to accept the facts I am going to call you out on it. No one acts more superior on here than Reaper but of course since Trump supporters agree with him, they are ok with him doing it. That is what I always find amusing. And reaper even said that in a post of his.


But I wasn't talking about Reaper, I was talking abut you. It's very hard to maintain that moral high ground when you look so resolutely down on others who are just as entitled to their opinions as you. It's so much easier just to see them as uneducated racist bigots though isn't it, while displaying blatant bigotry of your own. But of course your bigotry doesn't matter because you think you are "right". You keep calling people out for their views, and I will keep calling you out for yours. I'm no Trump supporter, just a human being disgusted by your contempt for other human beings.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> If Hitler and the Jews as a comparison doesn't work for you, use Andrew Jackson and Native Americans. Should he have been able to attend a tribal ceremony to have fun and relax after the Trail of Tears? Want something on a smaller scale? Should the Tate family be okay with Charlie Manson coming over for Thanksgiving dinner after the death of Sharon Tate? Stop being obtuse and ignoring the point being made because you don't like the mention of Hitler. Ya don't get to fuck people over and then expect them to be civil and show you respect in your down time. The idea that you would even suggest that is absurd.
> 
> What has Mike Pence specifically done that has caused so many deaths? Oh, I dunno, how about not only voting for the invasion of Iraq as a member of Congress but fucking co-sponsoring the war resolution? Ya know, that little illegal war that led to the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians? Ya think maybe we can boo the people responsible for that itty bitty atrocity?
> 
> You don't seem to be able to see the forest for the trees. The United States government commits atrocities every single day. Mike Pence has long been a part of that government. Had it been Obama, I'd have said people should be booing him too because of all the fucked up things he has done. People are having their lives destroyed and are dying because of the actions and policies of the United States government and you're worried about it's politicians not getting booed when they are trying to have fun? And you don't see how monumentally fucked up your priorities are? unk2


Could you point me to the legal ruling concluding the Iraq War was illegal and the United States was responsible for the deaths caused by Shiite militias and Sunni terrorist groups in Iraq? I can't seem to find it...

Of course it wasn't illegal no matter how steamed that gets you, and in a dispassionate court of law the United States would never be held accountable for the actions of those it was actively fighting. A political kangaroo court on the other hand... and we can see the sleight of hand that would be used. See, it wasn't the US that killed them. The US was fighting the people that killed them. But the actions of the US "led to" their being killed so the US is responsible. 

Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees. No responsibility accrues to those who actually killed 80-90% of the civilians killed in Iraq. Only to the United States. 

Is that kind of like how the US is responsible for all malnutrition deaths and deaths from lack of medicine in Arab Iraq in the 1990s, while death rates from malnutrition and lack of medicine in Kurdish-majority areas remained at southern European levels, because the Kurds got their Oil-for-Food money direct and not through Saddam and they spent it on food and medicine, while Saddam spent the Oil-for-Food money he got on new palaces? 

As to your attitude that the perceived crimes of politicians make any public appearance a fair opportunity to go after them, that's a dangerous attitude with dangerous ends if it runs unchecked. Now you can get all huffy and outraged but the fact still remains that trying to turn as many seconds of life as possible into political seconds is everyone's right but it's a really bad idea and the 20th century has about 150 million dead bodies to show you why it's a bad idea.

If Mike Pence is a war criminal then booing him at a theater is some weak pathetic shit. It _is_ a lot easier than convincing people he should be arrested and put on trial. I guess everybody tilts at their windmills in their own way though.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Stinger Fan said:


> Oh, don't get me wrong, t*here are definitely racist and sexist people who are republicans but the fact of the matter is that they aren't nearly that large of a group that people want to claim they are. *I never defended those who claim Obama wasn't born in the USA or a Muslim(though thats a topic for another day) but every Republican gets lumped into one group labelled "bigots" and to me, thats not only incredibly ignorant but bigoted as well
> 
> Also, I really dislike this notion that some how Trump "lured" the KKK to vote for him. At the end of the day, we all know which side they'll vote for and will support majority of the candidates on the Republican side of things. They're also a dying breed , they're not nearly as large as people want to believe they are and I find it very hard to believe that all even half of the Republican votes were white supremacists and all the stats indicate that to be inaccurate .


I would totally agree with you, and suggest the same can be said for democrats and so -called leftists who you claimed have the attitude of automatically labelling their opponents racist against Obama, sexist against Hillary etc. It's not the majority it's the fringe groups who yell the loudest and ruin everything for the sane ones.


Just on Trump v Bernie as well, I'm not convinced Bernie would've won at all had he replaced Hillary. The socialist / communist button would've been pushed big time on him, and considering Trump's record of defying expectations from day one I'm not sure he could've been stopped quite frankly.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Allow me to interrupt this garbage tier discussion about LITERALLY HITLER to post this glorious image:










Newest national monument pls


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> Allow me to interrupt this garbage tier discussion about LITERALLY HITLER to post this glorious image:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newest national monument pls


Wow that really is fantastic


----------



## amhlilhaus

CamillePunk said:


> Allow me to interrupt this garbage tier discussion about LITERALLY HITLER to post this glorious image:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newest national monument pls


That person is talented


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/153480921421/persuasion-versus-populism

Fantastic article by Scott Adams talking about the real reasons why Trump won (from the person who predicted it over a year ago), why there's no reason to fear Trump is incompetent, racist, or anti-Semitic, and why young people protesting Trump have no idea what they're on about. :clap


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> http://blog.dilbert.com/post/153480921421/persuasion-versus-populism
> 
> Fantastic article by Scott Adams talking about the real reasons why Trump won (from the person who predicted it over a year ago), why there's no reason to fear Trump is incompetent, racist, or anti-Semitic, and why young people protesting Trump have no idea what they're on about. :clap


http://www.salon.com/2016/06/08/no_...es_donald_trump_so_why_cant_he_just_admit_it/




TOPICS: DILBERT, DONALD TRUMP, ELECTIONS 2016, HILLARY CLINTON, SCOTT ADAMS, ELECTIONS NEWS, MEDIA NEWS, NEWS, POLITICS NEWS

Dilbert has gone fascist: The strange unrequited love Scott Adams seems to have for Donald Trump
Donald Trump, Scott Adams (Credit: Reuters/L.E. Baskow/AP/Marcio Jose Sanchez)
Scott Adams, the creator of “Dilbert,” wants you to know he does not love Donald Trump. Sure, he probably sleeps with Trump’s picture under his pillow every night and spends his days imagining himself running, hand-in-hand, with Trump down the beach, laughing at all those liberals and how sorry they’ll be when there’s a President Trump. But he is totally not a Trump fanboy and he isn’t voting for him. He swears!

Of all the bizarre spectacles that the Trump campaign has created, at the top of the list is the obsession the “Dilbert” cartoonist has with trying to convince America that his obvious hero worship of Trump is somehow a cool, detached analysis from a man who isn’t even interested in voting for the guy.

Adams talks about Trump a lot, but always hastens to assure people that he is in no way supporting Trump. In an interview with the Washington Post back in March, Adams insistently demanded that he doesn’t think his “political views align with anybody” and that his praise for Trump should not be mistaken for support. He tacitly admits that Hillary Clinton has “greater mastery of the issues.” Nearly every post he writes includes some kind of disclaimer about how he has “disavowed all of the candidates.”

Adams really, really, really wants you to believe he’s not a Trump supporter, because he knows, on some level, that outing yourself as a Trump supporter is like admitting in public that your mom still pins your address inside your clothes in case you get lost. But, for all that Adams loves to wax on about how he is an expert on the art of persuasion — he even brags about his supposed ability to hypnotize “everyone” — he can’t even manage, despite intense repetition, to convince readers that he wouldn’t lick Trump’s shoes if given the opportunity to do so.

Some phrases that Adams has used to describe Trump:

“fIf you understand persuasion, Trump is pitch-perfect most of the time. “
“The Master Persuader will warp reality until he gets what he wants….”
“A lot of the things that the media were reporting as sort of random insults and bluster and just Trump being Trump, looked to me like a lot of deep technique that I recognized from the fields of hypnosis and persuasion.”
“Trump has the best persuasion skills I have ever seen.”
“You see apple pie and flags and eagles coming out of his ass when he talks.”
In the real world, Trump has off-the-charts unfavorability ratings, but in the world of Scott Adams, Trump is a svengali of politics, headed for a landslide in November, due to the enormous persuasive power of racist cracks and non sequitur ramblings. If you read enough of Adams’s blog, it becomes quickly apparent that the only reason Adams thinks this is because he himself is persuaded to vote for Trump. And, like his fellow narcissistic Donald Trump, Adams mistakes his views for the majority.

Despite claiming not to support anyone, Adams has largely handed his blog over to defending Trump from his critics.

Trump makes a blatantly racist remark about Judge Gonzalo Curiel being “Mexican” and therefore, in Trump’s opinion, unable to render an impartial verdict in the Trump U case? Adams says that Trump critics must therefore be saying Curiel is a “robot” because “100% of humans are biased about just about everything.” (Except, of course, Adams, who is most definitely not biased towards Trump because he is infatuated with him.)

People note that it’s dangerous handing the nuclear codes to Trump, a man who is so vindictive he denounces entire countries because he made less money than he hoped on a business deal there? Adams writes a whole blog post sneering at the very idea that one is capable of predicting a person’s future behavior on their past record.

Trump pushes the conspiracy theory that climate change is a hoax, which alarms people who know that it is not? Adams responds with a blog post reassuring everyone he doesn’t mean it and that he’s totally going to get on board with fighting climate change because “he is a rational person in his private dealings” and therefore he just needs a policy briefing to get with the program.

Not that someone who believes that should ever be considered a legitimate judge of what is “rational”.

Now Adams has a real doozy of post, where he pretends to endorse Clinton, but of course it’s a cover story for his real endorsement: Trump. In the post, Adams literally accuses Clinton of trying to get Trump killed because, “once you define Trump as Hitler, you also give citizens moral permission to kill him.”

(Worth noting: Clinton has not defined Trump as Hitler.)

“So I’ve decided to endorse Hillary Clinton for president, for my personal safety,” Adams adds, arguing that if Trump is in danger from the supposedly murderous Clinton crew, then so is anyone that doesn’t support Clinton.

Obviously, this is not a Clinton endorsement. The purpose of this is to try to convince people that Clinton is some kind of dangerous fascist demagogue who will send her brownshirts into the street to force people into compliance with violence. This opinion, of course, has nothing to do with the real life Clinton and everything to do with Adams’s fantasy version of her.

It’s a fantasy version of Clinton that is quite obviously a direct result of Adams’s own bizarre hang-ups about women. Adams has a long history of being obsessed with the idea that women have grown too powerful and they are pushing hapless men around in our new feminist dystopia.

For instance, there is the classic post where he argued that ours is a “female-dominated” society, because, in what he clearly believes is a grave injustice, “access to sex is strictly controlled by the woman.” They are allowed to turn you down even if you pay for dinner first. And you ladies think you have it bad just because you get paid less, are far likelier to be raped, and have to endure politicians trying to force childbirth on you against your will.

Or, in another post, he moans about how unfair it is to hold men responsible for ” behaving badly, e.g. tweeting[by which he means sending harassing messages and dick pics to women], raping, cheating, and being offensive to just about everyone in the entire world.”

“The part that interests me is that society is organized in such a way that the natural instincts of men are shameful and criminal while the natural instincts of women are mostly legal and acceptable,” he continues. “In other words, men are born as round pegs in a society full of square holes.” He concludes that the only solution to this problem is to “come up with a drug that keeps men chemically castrated” and eliminate all copulation, because clearly, in his mind, the only way men can express themselves sexually is by abusing women.

Under the circumstances, it’s no surprise that Adams loves Trump, a man who clearly shares his worldview where men and women are natural enemies and sex isn’t a mutual desire so much as what happens when a man conquers a woman. The only real question is why Adams doesn’t just come out and tell the world the truth about his Trump love.

Amanda Marcotte
Amanda Marcotte is a politics writer for Salon. She's on Twitter @Amandamarcotte


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Don't fucking source Salon

They wrote an editorial saying that Trump had relatively high votes in women because they their husbands were watching and would beat them if they found out they did not vote for Trump


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



stevefox1200 said:


> Don't fucking source Salon
> 
> They wrote an editorial saying that Trump had relatively high votes in women because they their husbands were watching and would beat them if they found out they did not vote for Trump


Oh dear...really? That's pretty terrible lol, got a link? I need to read this now.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



stevefox1200 said:


> Don't fucking source Salon
> 
> They wrote an editorial saying that Trump had relatively high votes in women because they their husbands were watching and would beat them if they found out they did not vote for Trump


Yeah lets not source salon but lets source Dilbert LOL










Also LOL at the logic because one writer there said that (if they did which Ill take your word for it) that means everyone that writes at salon believes it

Now if the same writer of the article also wrote the one you are talking about then you can make a case but if its a different writer, its irrelevant.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Oh dear...really? That's pretty terrible lol, got a link? I need to read this now.


http://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the...-for-more-than-intelligence-grace-or-decency/

It implies that the photo where Trump was looking over his voting booth into his wife's (which was clearly a joke) was sending a message to women that that "the man is watching" and will punish any misbehavior

Its not literal but is basically saying that women are still living in fear and vote republican to try "reach male approval to be spared their hatred even if they have to demean themselves"


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



stevefox1200 said:


> http://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the...-for-more-than-intelligence-grace-or-decency/
> 
> It *implies* that the photo where Trump was looking over his voting booth into his wife's (which was clearly a joke) was sending a message to women that that "the man is watching" and will punish any misbehavior
> 
> Its *not literal* but is basically saying that women are still living in fear and vote republican to try "reach male approval to be spared their hatred even if they have to demean themselves"


So you lied then. good to know.

You are implying something that was not even there. Just shows where you mind goes.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Yeah lets not source salon but lets source Dilbert LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also LOL at the logic because one writer there said that (if they did which Ill take your word for it) that means everyone that writes at salon believes it
> 
> Now if the same writer of the article also wrote the one you are talking about then you can make a case but if its a different writer, its irrelevant.


Unfortunately it is actually the exact same writer. 



stevefox1200 said:


> http://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the...-for-more-than-intelligence-grace-or-decency/
> 
> It implies that the photo where Trump was looking over his voting booth into his wife's (which was clearly a joke) was sending a message to women that that "the man is watching" and will punish any misbehavior
> 
> Its not literal but is basically saying that women are still living in fear and vote republican to try "reach male approval to be spared their hatred even if they have to demean themselves"


Yeah tbh after reading it...it's not the best article I've ever read. There's an evident chip on her shoulder against white males in general and tbh, if I showed some of my female friends this they'd be incredibly pissed off that this woman thinks they're so weak willed that they have to "reach male approval" in the first place. I certainly don't think I could personally consider this woman credible in any of her other articles after this one. It's all sensationalist nonsense.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Unfortunately it is actually the exact same writer.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah tbh after reading it...it's not the best article I've ever read. There's an evident chip on her shoulder against white males in general and tbh, if I showed some of my female friends this they'd be incredibly pissed off that this woman thinks they're so weak willed that they have to "reach male approval" in the first place. I certainly don't think I could personally consider this woman credible in any of her other articles after this one. It's all sensationalist nonsense.


Nothing Steve said was even true. He is implying it from the article. But nice try on his part.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Yeah tbh after reading it...it's not the best article I've ever read. There's an evident chip on her shoulder against white males in general and tbh, if I showed some of my female friends this they'd be incredibly pissed off that this woman thinks they're so weak willed that they have to "reach male approval" in the first place. I certainly don't think I could personally consider this woman credible in any of her other articles after this one. It's all sensationalist nonsense.


The more shit you read from modern feminists, the more you'll realize that no one actually hates women more than feminists themselves. Their entire modern dogma is based on divisiveness and hatred of women that disagree with them. We all know that women have always historically been more vicious to other women. Feminism basically gives that group of women more tools to intensify their hatred. 

Have you seen the Anna Kasparian melt down over Trump's female support?


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Nothing Steve said was even true. He is implying it from the article. But nice try on his part.


I just read the article, it's a bunch of crap to be honest. Everything she says is riddled with ridiculous bias and speculation with little evidence. She might as well have just written: Trump - bad, sexist for white men, Clinton - saint, representative of all women who aren't racist and martyr to the machine. It's nonsense. If anyone truly believes that the machine was on Trump's side and were destroying Hillary with sexism then I honestly don't know what to say, from my perspective the entire establishment was pro-Hillary, it just doesn't add up with what this woman writes about in the slightest.



Carte Blanche said:


> The more shit you read from modern feminists, the more you'll realize that no one actually hates women more than feminists themselves. Their entire modern dogma is based on divisiveness and hatred of women that disagree with them. We all know that women have always historically been more vicious to other women. Feminism basically gives that group of women more tools to intensify their hatred.
> 
> Have you seen the Anna Kasparian melt down over Trump's female support?


I haven't seen it, I'll search for it later, sounds interesting. Extremists everywhere these days it seems. It's always "us or them" and nobody able to see that usually, people don't all fit nicely into one of 2 boxes "republican or democrat" "leftist or right winger" "feminist or sexist" it's just silly. I've never met somebody who isn't multi-dimensional with views drawn from across the spectrum in order to make their own personal views, so I do struggle with the whole enforced dichotomy shit that's being thrown around these days. As a fairly centrist person there are some things I like from the left (social responsibility for example) and some things I like from the right (free market trade for example) but far too many people these days try and forcibly push everybody into "left vs right." It's terribly frustrating sometimes that people not only attempt to force others into those boxes but also that they use their own box as an impenetrable shield against rational thinking and live in a state of perpetual war because they refuse to "see the other side." Until that stops, the chances of us ever moving forward into a more enlightened age are very slim. As somewhat of a progressive it's also incredibly frustrating to be called "leftist" or a "liberal" as an insult as if I'm being thrown into that box with the SJW's, rabid feminazis and PC brigade. Not all of us who hope to move forward into a new, better place are near that crazy lol.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*










http://archive.is/sCig3

DIE, ESTABLISHMENT. DIE.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> http://archive.is/sCig3
> 
> DIE, ESTABLISHMENT. DIE.


:sodone That is amazing. That is who we voted for. Fuck off and die, MSM. You've lost all credibility and have been exposed as actively trying to corrode western civilization.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RavishingRickRules said:


> I've never met somebody who isn't multi-dimensional with views drawn from across the spectrum in order to make their own personal views, so I do struggle with the whole enforced dichotomy shit that's being thrown around these days.


Sounds like you left college at least a decade ago. Am I right? 

The worrying trend isn't what exists now for me. The worrying trend is the re-education centres that are propping up all over America which are forcing students to study intersectional feminist theories like rape culture and white privilege even in programs that have nothing to do with their political advocacy - and the fact that Obama's federal government is responsible for making the path easier for these ideologues to poison our young people. 

Salon, Slate, Huffpo - and even CNN, MSNBC and NYT have been infilterated with so-called "PhD's" and "MA's" who are fully brainwashed into the feminist cult. 

The future is what concerns me. Not the present because yes, most people still have fairly nuanced positions. 



> As a fairly centrist person there are some things I like from the left (social responsibility for example) and some things I like from the right (free market trade for example) but far too many people these days try and forcibly push everybody into "left vs right."


I don't think that's necessarily the intent of the left vs right dichotomy. 

Personally, the reason why I never claim "not all are like that" (and freely lump people in mostly intentionally) is simply because I don't need to nor do I think that I should need to create divisions within divisions; I would rather assume that the person I'm addressing has the intellectual fortitude to realize the implication on his/her own. 

Forcing someone to claim anything but absolute to me indicates inexperience in debating and I consider it a distraction tactic in order to shy away from addressing the point directly. To assume "all" and attack that person as someone who hates an entire group of people is essentially the debating strategy of someone who's already lost the debate and is looking for a way to discredit the person who makes the point as opposed to the point itself. Not once has anyone actually taken the time to address the findings of the Pew Research on attitudes of Muslims - and yet they'll free languish the word Islamophobe about as though that's somehow going to convince me that facts are racist in and of themselves. No one addresses the issue of high crime rates within minority groups in America and yet people are white nationalists for simply bringing up facts as though that makes them a sumpremacist. 

That's my reason for talking the way I talk anyways. I couldn't care less if it offends or upsets anyone. Appeasement is not why I exist and while I have empathy for my fellow human beings, I leave that empathy behind for people who are clearly in a better demographic if they can access the internet than the ones I feel empathy for if you know what I mean :shrug 

Nuanced discussion is boring. I've tried it, and it simply ends up being a waste of time. Most people who hold nuanced opinions already tend to be more apathetic than people who talk in extremes. My strategy is to try a nuanced approach at first, but I know that does not work anymore. 

I've been called far too many things that I'm not going to give people who do that sort of shit on a regular basis any sort of leeway at all anymore. 

And that's probably one reason why conversation between the left and the right is breaking down.


----------



## 35 Kanyon

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

It simple and it the same thing happen in Europe,people are tired of elisted politics and rulers,That why the BBC won't let on UKIP and Nigel Farge have a say or treat the public like there stupid.And it is the same in the USA on FOX and CNN and ABC news they won't let people say good thing about,Donald Trump and treat him and his voters as evil,racist and facist.Yet they let the band Green Day go on stage with there anti American stance like it is normal and should be praised.It is like this no one makes a noise about it and if they are so anti American well go to Iran and North Korea then.It time we all finished all this PC nonsense in society it time for people too say what they feel again.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@DesolationRow @Carte Blanche @Miss Sally @Goku @Fringe @deepelemblues @virus21 @Sweenz @L-DOPA @CamillePunk @BruiserKC @Pratchett






This. THIS MAN HERE! *THIS IS MY PRESIDENT AND YOURS, TOO!*


----------



## skypod

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

What's done is done now and he's won, but I sometimes wonder if Trump had just stuck to speaking about trade and the economy, maybe some stuff about ending ISIS, and selected a fairly inoffensive moderate VP, if he still would have won? Instead the conversation became about racist and the division in the country (blame for this can be attributed to both Trump and the media for that).


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> I would totally agree with you, and suggest the same can be said for democrats and so -called leftists who you claimed have the attitude of automatically labelling their opponents racist against Obama, sexist against Hillary etc. It's not the majority it's the fringe groups who yell the loudest and ruin everything for the sane ones.
> 
> 
> Just on Trump v Bernie as well, I'm not convinced Bernie would've won at all had he replaced Hillary. The socialist / communist button would've been pushed big time on him, and considering Trump's record of defying expectations from day one I'm not sure he could've been stopped quite frankly.


Ultimately it comes down to my poor use of language . When I say democrats I really mean leftist or liberals, which don't make up the entirety of the democratic party or people who vote Democrat. Seeing as Democrat isn't mutually exclusive which is why I'd use that term more on accident than on purpose but it isn't the right term I should use or mean.


----------



## FTorres9

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Cant stump the Trump


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> http://archive.is/sCig3
> 
> DIE, ESTABLISHMENT. DIE.


Answer to every question:

ASK SEAN HANNITY


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

LOL using a Salon article? Really? May as well use an Onion article. CNN and Fox have 10 times the credibility of Salon.


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

http://variety.com/2016/tv/news/donald-trump-tv-news-cnn-nbc-meeting-1201923976/



> In what two people familiar with the incident described as a tough sit-down between the nation’s major TV-news outlets and the President-elect and his top advisers, Trump dressed down top executives and anchors Monday afternoon, reserving particularly harsh words for CNN and NBC News. The off-the-record meeting, convened by Trump’s staff over the last day or two, was rancorous, one of these people said, and not much substantive discussion was held, although there was some talk about his goals for shaping immigration policy, this person said.
> 
> Spokespersons for CNN and NBC News did not offer immediate comment. A Trump spokesperson could not be reached for immediate comment. Executives and anchors from CBS News, ABC News and Fox News were also in attendance.
> 
> The meeting could serve to dash hopes that the Trump administration would prove willing to discuss issues of media coverage and candidate access, which have been sore points with media outlets in recent weeks. The U.S. President and President-elect both typically travel with a “protective pool” of reporters in tow, but in at least two instances in recent days, Trump has moved without a press entourage. He and his family went out for dinner without notifying a pool assigned to him, and he also traveled to Washington, D.C., without press alongside him.
> 
> The meeting was viewed as something of a “re-set,” one of the people said. Trump hoped his severe talk, which also included a walk through the way his campaign boosted cable-news ratings and a dig at a popular female anchor whose identity could not be immediately confirmed, would start a new chapter between his administration and the media. He is expected to meet with New York Times executives and editorial personnel this week.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



35 Kanyon said:


> It simple and it the same thing happen in Europe,people are tired of elisted politics and rulers,That why the BBC won't let on UKIP and Nigel Farge have a say or treat the public like there stupid.And it is the same in the USA on FOX and CNN and ABC news they won't let people say good thing about,Donald Trump and treat him and his voters as evil,racist and facist.Yet they let the band Green Day go on stage with there anti American stance like it is normal and should be praised.It is like this no one makes a noise about it and if they are so anti American well go to Iran and North Korea then.It time we all finished all this PC nonsense in society it time for people too say what they feel again.


Tbh that's dead wrong. UKIP and Nigel Farage barely get a say because they're not elected officials for the most part. See the Green Party, Yorkshire Party, Plaid Cymru and any other party that isn't one of the top 2. Farage couldn't even get himself elected into Parliament last year, in his own constituency. There's no conspiracy with regards to Farage and UKIP, they just don't have anywhere near the support you think they do. I can't comment on the USA stuff because I'm not that clued up on it, but with regards to the UK you're dead wrong there. I'm not sure what the perception of Farage is from an outsider, but here he's mostly a joke. Boris Johnson was far more instrumental in achieving Brexit than Farage was (that man ACTUALLY has support - former Mayor of London and elected to Parliament.)


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/800887087780294656
:lmao There is no special interests at all here. Nothing to see. :lol


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/800887087780294656
> :lmao There is no special interests at all here. Nothing to see. :lol



Lol when you live in the UK, that Tweet could almost be considered satire it's that hilarious. We've actually just had an uproar from the public over here as "anti-establishment" Farage was rumoured to be getting a Conservative Peership (making him an unelected official with a lifetime position in Parliament for the most entrenched party in our establishment fyi) and the Prime Minister was getting harassed over it. Nobody, the government included, wants Farage to be remotely given that much power but Trump's liking of him is putting them in an awkward position. Trump may well get his buddy a special role in government but being a Conservative member of the House of Lords is looking incredibly unpopular even within his UKIP support as he'll be essentially joining a party he's slammed ever since he left them to found UKIP in the first place. For anyone interested, the UKIP manifesto is filled with policies from the BNP (an actual Neo-nazi party.) Farage, by all accounts, is not a very nice gentleman OR a very capable politician.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Lol when you live in the UK, that Tweet could almost be considered satire it's that hilarious. We've actually just had an uproar from the public over here as "anti-establishment" Farage was rumoured to be getting a Conservative Peership (making him an unelected official with a lifetime position in Parliament for the most entrenched party in our establishment fyi) and the Prime Minister was getting harassed over it. Nobody, the government included, wants Farage to be remotely given that much power but Trump's liking of him is putting them in an awkward position. Trump may well get his buddy a special role in government but being a Conservative member of the House of Lords is looking incredibly unpopular even within his UKIP support as he'll be essentially joining a party he's slammed ever since he left them to found UKIP in the first place. For anyone interested, the UKIP manifesto is filled with policies from the BNP (an actual Neo-nazi party.) Farage, by all accounts, is not a very nice gentleman OR a very capable politician.


Farage is based. He won.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> Farage is based. He won.


He won what? He's not a member of Parliament, he couldn't get elected. He's essentially a political commentator with no power.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The Absolute said:


> http://variety.com/2016/tv/news/donald-trump-tv-news-cnn-nbc-meeting-1201923976/




"Back down or get beat down" 

I just want to hear Trump say that lol :nerd:


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I'm assuming that "dig at a popular female anchor" was Megyn Kelly.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The Absolute said:


> I'm assuming that "dig at a popular female anchor" was Megyn Kelly.


I'm not sure about popular, I believe her show loses out to Maddow and Maddow is a cunt. Though I'm pretty sure the dig was at Kelly.


----------



## FTorres9

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Sounds like you left college at least a decade ago. Am I right?
> 
> The worrying trend isn't what exists now for me. The worrying trend is the re-education centres that are propping up all over America which are forcing students to study intersectional feminist theories like rape culture and white privilege even in programs that have nothing to do with their political advocacy - and the fact that Obama's federal government is responsible for making the path easier for these ideologues to poison our young people.
> 
> Salon, Slate, Huffpo - and even CNN, MSNBC and NYT have been infilterated with so-called "PhD's" and "MA's" who are fully brainwashed into the feminist cult.
> 
> The future is what concerns me. Not the present because yes, most people still have fairly nuanced positions.
> 
> I don't think that's necessarily the intent of the left vs right dichotomy.
> 
> Personally, the reason why I never claim "not all are like that" (and freely lump people in mostly intentionally) is simply because I don't need to nor do I think that I should need to create divisions within divisions; I would rather assume that the person I'm addressing has the intellectual fortitude to realize the implication on his/her own.
> 
> Forcing someone to claim anything but absolute to me indicates inexperience in debating and I consider it a distraction tactic in order to shy away from addressing the point directly. To assume "all" and attack that person as someone who hates an entire group of people is essentially the debating strategy of someone who's already lost the debate and is looking for a way to discredit the person who makes the point as opposed to the point itself. Not once has anyone actually taken the time to address the findings of the Pew Research on attitudes of Muslims - and yet they'll free languish the word Islamophobe about as though that's somehow going to convince me that facts are racist in and of themselves. No one addresses the issue of high crime rates within minority groups in America and yet people are white nationalists for simply bringing up facts as though that makes them a sumpremacist.
> 
> That's my reason for talking the way I talk anyways. I couldn't care less if it offends or upsets anyone. Appeasement is not why I exist and while I have empathy for my fellow human beings, I leave that empathy behind for people who are clearly in a better demographic if they can access the internet than the ones I feel empathy for if you know what I mean :shrug
> 
> Nuanced discussion is boring. I've tried it, and it simply ends up being a waste of time. Most people who hold nuanced opinions already tend to be more apathetic than people who talk in extremes. My strategy is to try a nuanced approach at first, but I know that does not work anymore.
> 
> I've been called far too many things that I'm not going to give people who do that sort of shit on a regular basis any sort of leeway at all anymore.
> 
> And that's probably one reason why conversation between the left and the right is breaking down.


Are you following Milo yet ? We have the same opinions, Can't stand whats going on socially now days


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

:lol CNN just called out 4chan as "Fake news" :lmao


THAT EVIL FROG, DAMN IT!


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> "Back down or get beat down"
> 
> I just want to hear Trump say that lol :nerd:


And have a boss control panel next to him with a lever that activates options like:

* Release the hounds
* Re-Enact Red Wedding
* Transport to The Upside-Down
* Release the hounds with bees in their mouths
* Hannity


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> And have a boss control panel next to him with a lever that activates options like:
> 
> * Release the hounds
> * Re-Enact Red Wedding
> * Transport to The Upside-Down
> * Release the hounds with bees in their mouths
> * Hannity


LMAO! I read that and thought of the Richard Simmons robot. That's a hilarious list!


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Sounds like you left college at least a decade ago. Am I right?


Bang on the money, I graduated from Cambridge in 2003, reading philosophy.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FTorres9 said:


> Are you following Milo yet ? We have the same opinions, Can't stand whats going on socially now days


Used to before his American campus tours. Still makes good points once in a while but don't really care much for him. I don't know if he's the best spokesperson for right wingers because he's condemned his own standing as an act so he's less likely to be taken seriously. I much prefer Sargon and Shapiro over him. 


RavishingRickRules said:


> Bang on the money, I graduated from Cambridge in 2003, reading philosophy.


Could tell. I left college about 11 years ago myself and it took some relearning to find out why the situation is so bad in colleges now.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Could tell. I left college about 11 years ago myself and it took some relearning to find out why the situation is so bad in colleges now.


Yeah understandable. From your earlier post it certainly does seem to be an issue you have out there, in my mind a huge part of education should be learning to look at a situation from all sides before making your own mind up on things like Politics, Philosophy and Theology. The indoctrination into a very specific branch of left-wing ideals is definitely something to be concerned about. From my own experiences with British universities (my long term girlfriend has completed her degree last year) thankfully they still teach from all sides and encourage questioning and re-evaluating your stance with the research you do. I'm of the opinion that we need both right and left wing elements to society (obviously the rational elements of each side rather than the rabid extremists both sides have) in order to achieve the best results, not indoctrinate the youth into a predefined set of thinking which ultimately hinders both the individual and the collective - that stinks a little too much of extremism be it Communism, Fascism or any other extreme political model, bad news. Imposing the will of any one side hinders evolution/progress/new ideas, how do you refine your opinions if everybody thinks the same? Scary. I don't even know how you combat something like that if it's so entrenched in the education system? When education no longer includes investigation, evaluation and independent thought, is it really still education? Replacing education with indoctrination is legitimately one of the scariest and most dangerous actions I can imagine....


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*






Feels like this will trigger a lot of people in this thread. You have your safe places if it is too much. :troll


----------



## amhlilhaus

The Absolute said:


> I'm assuming that "dig at a popular female anchor" was Megyn Kelly.


It wasnt her. The nypost said he mentioned a nbc reporter and one who moderated a presidential debate. Kelly just did a republican one.

The post said trump just ranted and raved, calling them a bunch of liars.

Oprahs rug munching friend, gayle king supposedly asked how trump proposed to work with the media.

Why should trump work with the media??? They will distort everything he does at BEST, and if what trump does proves to be popular they will have no moral or ethical hurdle to simply LIE.

Its said trump only ran to satisfy his ego. Reality check: all presidents ran for their egos. What trump has already done is historic. He has a chance to go down as alegendary figure. If he works hard at it, he could destroy the establishment, the republicans, the democrats and the mainstream media while leaving the country in a better place.

He just better make sure the security around him is AIRTIGHT.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Replacing education with indoctrination is legitimately one of the scariest and most dangerous actions I can imagine....


TBF, the only real indoctrination is coming from sociologists and feminists - primarily led by intersectional feminism which has convinced its faculty and students that feminist dogma belongs in every single school of thought so they have even students of literature forcing feminist ideals into their students minds. 

My sister is a college professor in Canada and she consistently brings feminism into her english class - and she's the type that believes the same shit SJW's do - including the shit about AC's being sexist. Once I refuted her claims, she sent me a message to back the fuck off and we haven't spoken to each other on facebook since (ended up blocking her because the dialogue wasn't going anywhere). 

It's distressing to say the least not just because of the canadians she's brainwashing, but also her own children and obviously I'm not allowed to talk to her kids about social issues because I'm about as far right libertarian as I could possibly be. I gave up the pretense of being a centrist a long time ago because I realized that centrism is a lot like agnosticism and that's just not something I'm comfortable with :shrug

America is in the midst of the left/right cultural war right now. However, I do think that much of the west has already lost the battle though I feel like England is starting to fight back and that's a healthy sign.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I wouldn't say the only real indoctrination is coming from sociologists and feminists.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Goku said:


> I wouldn't say the only real indoctrination is coming from sociologists and feminists.


I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on who else.


----------



## amhlilhaus

Goku said:


> I wouldn't say the only real indoctrination is coming from sociologists and feminists.


Im sure religon plays a part in brainwashing too


----------



## skypod

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

If teaching people about misogyny is wrong and all this indoctrination is brainwashing is bad, how do you propose dealing with general misogyny and sexism towards women? Granted I'll argue with a feminist as much as anyone but you have to realise all this comes about because there's problems in society in the first place. Again you're arguing against people trying to fix things rather than actually arguing with the sexist or racist people themselves. That may not make you those things but it makes you come across as a bigot apologiser. 

I'd say 100% of the males I know see less value in females and have a complete narrative in their head in the role a female should play in their life and the lives of others. When you argue against this you come across as someone who doesn't like being told to change your ways.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> Feels like this will trigger a lot of people in this thread. You have your safe places if it is too much. :troll


 :troll
muahaha! YOU HAVE NO POWER HERE.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



skypod said:


> I'd say 100% of the males I know see less value in females and have a complete narrative in their head in the role a female should play in their life and the lives of others. When you argue against this you come across as someone who doesn't like being told to change your ways.


That says more about the people you know than people in general :lmao


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> :troll
> muahaha! YOU HAVE NO POWER HERE.


So who did you copy that from? :lmao


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> TBF, the only real indoctrination is coming from sociologists and feminists - primarily led by intersectional feminism which has convinced its faculty and students that feminist dogma belongs in every single school of thought so they have even students of literature forcing feminist ideals into their students minds.
> 
> My sister is a college professor in Canada and she consistently brings feminism into her english class - and she's the type that believes the same shit SJW's do - including the shit about AC's being sexist. Once I refuted her claims, she sent me a message to back the fuck off and we haven't spoken to each other on facebook since (ended up blocking her because the dialogue wasn't going anywhere).
> 
> It's distressing to say the least not just because of the canadians she's brainwashing, but also her own children and obviously I'm not allowed to talk to her kids about social issues because I'm about as far right libertarian as I could possibly be. I gave up the pretense of being a centrist a long time ago because I realized that centrism is a lot like agnosticism and that's just not something I'm comfortable with :shrug
> 
> America is in the midst of the left/right cultural war right now. However, I do think that much of the west has already lost the battle though I feel like England is starting to fight back and that's a healthy sign.


There's very little "war" here tbh, we've been right-wing dominated since Thatcher was in power. Even Tony Blair turned the "left-wing party" into neo-cons, and in fact it's only now with the rise of Jeremy Corbyn that we even have a major left wing party - for the first time in my life time. Very little is changing here beyond the gov privatising public services so they and their friends can profit, all the politicians arguing over how best to implement Brexit and a potential breakdown of the Union if Nicola Sturgeon has anything to say about it. Don't be fooled by the Farage hype either, he's not the "British Trump" in the slightest. He's a man who couldn't even get elected to Parliament who used to head a party that has literally one seat in Parliament (and is currently imploding with MEP's defecting to become independents.) The worst was the recent discovery that Farage's narrative of "EU politicians shamelessly spending taxpayers money" was actually mostly perpetrated by his own party who spent EU taxpayers (not just UK) money on the Brexit campaign to the princely sum of 450m Euros. The most hilarious thing about Farage is that he's actually done himself out of a job, he's very unlikely to ever win a seat in Parliament and once Brexit happens he won't be one of those "unelected EU politicians" he hates so much either (lol.) I'm willing to see where Trump goes before passing judgement, his moves right after the election showed a lot of his talking points weren't hardline as much as great persuasion tools - I might not like the way he did it, but he did it and won so fair play. Farage however has shown his colours and been proven false, no more chances left for such a blustering fool.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RavishingRickRules said:


> There's very little "war" here tbh, we've been right-wing dominated since Thatcher was in power. Even Tony Blair turned the "left-wing party" into neo-cons, and in fact it's only now with the rise of Jeremy Corbyn that we even have a major left wing party - for the first time in my life time. Very little is changing here beyond the gov privatising public services so they and their friends can profit, all the politicians arguing over how best to implement Brexit and a potential breakdown of the Union if Nicola Sturgeon has anything to say about it. Don't be fooled by the Farage hype either, he's not the "British Trump" in the slightest.


I'm not as interested in Farage as much as I am with the rise in the young british alt-right as well as those who did vote in the referrendum to vote in favor of brexit. 

Yes, Farage and the right-wingers in Britain did manipulate people, but the thing is that if the left (which would be the remain side) had not abandoned the voter to the extent that it has, they would have known how to counter. The elected elite and the social liberals have focused so much on winning all the time by appealing to people's empathy and empathy alone that they no longer know how to appeal to reason ... 

That's where the inherent problem lies with people who can persuade others to get on their side. Even if someone's premise is flawed and then make a logical argument in favor of that flawed premise, they can pursuade people to accept their premise. The right-wingers seem to be doing that now better than the left .. where the left's defence of their premise is flawed to the point where it no longer persuades people to take their side. 

At least here in America the left is a group that has been getting people on their side for decades through generational indoctrination and over time have refused to update their dogma with current facts and figures which tell a completely different story than the one the left narrates. You see where I'm going with this? 

If you tell me that women are still disadvantaged based on a 1990's study but a 2015 study says that they're making more money than men in many fields ... Who am I going to believe? This applies to many of the left's talking points. When they talk about racism, they either talk about slavery or institutionalized racism (something they haven't been able justify with facts). When they talk about Islamophobia they forget that this is the same liberal left that hates the Christians while loving the Muslims. So on and so forth. 

Until the left re-embraces science and not pseudo-science to back up their points, they'll lose the persuasion wars to people like Farage. 

While there are some components of the right that fudge the facts, the ones that talk about the disadvantaged male youth of 2016 are now currently backed up by recent facts and no matter how you look at it, the white voter base which has been beaten upside the head for every evil under the sun is just refusing to take it anymore. There's more brit right-wingers I know that there are Americans tbh and I think the brits are leading the charge actually, but that's just my opinion. :shrug


----------



## skypod

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> That says more about the people you know than people in general :lmao


So from knowing hundreds of men on my 26 years on this planet, from China to Scotland to America to Mexico, i've just been really unfortunate that I've met all these men?


Sexist people don't realise they're sexist, and there's a lot of complex in the middle things which is why words like racist, homophobic and sexist are quite loaded, as no-one can decide what actually makes those things what they are.

You could watch a movie where all the men are company executives and all the women are high maintenance swimsuit models, and you don't see the issue with it. But a feminist has a bitch fit about it and you think it's insane. Maybe if people such as yourself fought that battle more you wouldn't have to listen to feminists taking it to the extreme. Like it or not people are shaped from a young age from the general media, advertising, tv, films, family dynamics etc around them. I know people like to think they're strong willed and unique but nobody realises how brainwashed we are. Thinking a female is your side piece and not of the same intellectual value as yourself is part of that brainwashing. It's amazing to me people can't see this. 

A man can love his wife and be with her for 30 years and never cheat on her. And people would say it's respect but it doesn't really prove he thinks she has the same value as him. All this stuff is really complicated and it's frustrating to see both sides try and simplify this shit and either be like "there are no genders and we should all be free and all men are rapists" and men on the other side who couldn't give a fuck about the oppression of anyone. 


Anyway as off topic as this is, TL : DR everyone on earth makes me sick.


----------



## amhlilhaus

skypod said:


> Carte Blanche said:
> 
> 
> 
> That says more about the people you know than people in general
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So from knowing hundreds of men on my 26 years on this planet, from China to Scotland to America to Mexico, i've just been really unfortunate that I've met all these men?
> 
> 
> Sexist people don't realise they're sexist, and there's a lot of complex in the middle things which is why words like racist, homophobic and sexist are quite loaded, as no-one can decide what actually makes those things what they are.
> 
> You could watch a movie where all the men are company executives and all the women are high maintenance swimsuit models, and you don't see the issue with it. But a feminist has a bitch fit about it and you think it's insane. Maybe if people such as yourself fought that battle more you wouldn't have to listen to feminists taking it to the extreme. Like it or not people are shaped from a young age from the general media, advertising, tv, films, family dynamics etc around them. I know people like to think they're strong willed and unique but nobody realises how brainwashed we are. Thinking a female is your side piece and not of the same intellectual value as yourself is part of that brainwashing. It's amazing to me people can't see this.
> 
> A man can love his wife and be with her for 30 years and never cheat on her. And people would say it's respect but it doesn't really prove he thinks she has the same value as him. All this stuff is really complicated and it's frustrating to see both sides try and simplify this shit and either be like "there are no genders and we should all be free and all men are rapists" and men on the other side who couldn't give a fuck about the oppression of anyone.
> 
> 
> Anyway as off topic as this is, TL : DR everyone on earth makes me sick.
Click to expand...

If men think women have no value or not as much as them, theyre wrong.

Women who think they are the same as men are wrong.

We are equals yet seperate, to think otherwise is ridiculous and false.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> I'm not as interested in Farage as much as I am with the rise in the young british alt-right as well as those who did vote in the referrendum to vote in favor of brexit.
> 
> Yes, Farage and the right-wingers in Britain did manipulate people, but the thing is that if the left (which would be the remain side) had not abandoned the voter to the extent that it has, they would have known how to counter. The elected elite and the social liberals have focused so much on winning all the time by appealing to people's empathy and empathy alone that they no longer know how to appeal to reason ...
> 
> That's where the inherent problem lies with people who can persuade others to get on their side. Even if someone's premise is flawed and then make a logical argument in favor of that flawed premise, they can pursuade people to accept their premise. The right-wingers seem to be doing that now better than the left .. where the left's defence of their premise is flawed to the point where it no longer persuades people to take their side.
> 
> At least here in America the left is a group that has been getting people on their side for decades through generational indoctrination and over time have refused to update their dogma with current facts and figures which tell a completely different story than the one the left narrates. You see where I'm going with this?
> 
> If you tell me that women are still disadvantaged based on a 1990's study but a 2015 study says that they're making more money than men in many fields ... Who am I going to believe? This applies to many of the left's talking points. When they talk about racism, they either talk about slavery or institutionalized racism (something they haven't been able justify with facts). When they talk about Islamophobia they forget that this is the same liberal left that hates the Christians while loving the Muslims. So on and so forth.
> 
> Until the left re-embraces science and not pseudo-science to back up their points, they'll lose the persuasion wars to people like Farage.
> 
> While there are some components of the right that fudge the facts, the ones that talk about the disadvantaged male youth of 2016 are now currently backed up by recent facts and no matter how you look at it, the white voter base which has been beaten upside the head for every evil under the sun is just refusing to take it anymore. There's more brit right-wingers I know that there are Americans tbh and I think the brits are leading the charge actually, but that's just my opinion. :shrug


Actually, the majority of the right was pro-remain, not Brexit. Similarly the "alt-right" in the UK is a lot less on the rise than you think it is. One seat in Parliament, that's it. The majority of our "alt-right" in politics probably has less chance at getting elected than you would if you came here. We have essentially: UKIP - eurosceptic, nationalists, 1 seat in parliament, currently imploding. BNP - Fascist, totally imploded. Britain First - struggle to get 100 people to attend any of their events, then a whole mess of very unsavoury criminals who worship Hitler ie Combat 18 (1 = a, 8 = h - adolf hitler) the EDL, the infidels and all the other "alt-right" groups who struggle to get more than 20 people on a "protest" (usually a few drunken thugs surrounded by a hundred policemen costing us millions in taxpayers money every year.) I honestly don't know what to tell you, but you've been grossly misinformed. Brexit was less about the alt-right and more about the class divide to be honest. We're very much still a country dominated by the 2 major parties both of which are almost entirely neo-cons, though the Labour party seems to be shifting to the left now after Corbyn saw off all of their attempts to dethrone him. In fact, the ONLY political movement gaining a lot of steam right now, like it or not, is the left. Since the socialist Corbyn got the leadership Labour's membership has swelled to the party in Europe with the largest number of registered members with 551,000 in September. The funny thing is we're almost in the opposite situation you've just had, the entire establishment is anti-Corbyn, to the point his own party rebelled on him and tried to remove him from leadership, multiple times. He gets character assassinated in every part of our MSM and he's got more "common man" support than any politician in the country right now. I personally don't like the man, I think he lives in dream land. But to say anyone else has the personal support and momentum he has from the people right now in the UK would just be false. You just had a right-wing politician fighting the liberal media. Here we have a left wing politician fighting our overwhelmingly right-wing media.


----------



## -XERO-

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/801054513134178304


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

^Saw that coming.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



-PerfectDarkness- said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/801054513134178304















BOOOOOOOOOO! She and her shitty charity needs to be checked out!


----------



## -XERO-

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


>


:lol


----------



## amhlilhaus

-PerfectDarkness- said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/801054513134178304


Disappointing.

Whatever deal trump cut with them, they will break it.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Ah shit. I have to admit, the one thing I was REALLY hoping he'd stick to was pushing forward with investigation that corrupt woman and her dodgy dealings. Obviously it was wishful thinking, but I would've loved to see her get her just desserts. Fuckin politicians are untouchable grrr. I'm legitimately annoyed by this, in a bad mood about corrupt politicians right now with Blair coming back to politics.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Ah shit. I have to admit, the one thing I was REALLY hoping he'd stick to was pushing forward with investigation that corrupt woman and her dodgy dealings. Obviously it was wishful thinking, but I would've loved to see her get her just desserts. Fuckin politicians are untouchable grrr. I'm legitimately annoyed by this, in a bad mood about corrupt politicians right now with Blair coming back to politics.


I think I was one of the few that pretty much knew right from the start that there's no way Trump is touching one of his close friends ... I do feel bad for the people who thought he might.

Sometimes even when you support someone as I did in the case of Trump, you still have to accept that there are instances when that person is obviously lying in order to get votes and while I never came out and claimed which parts I thought he was lying about, I have an ongoing list in my head where I know that there are some things he just will not deliver on at all - this being one of them. The others I'll mention as time goes on.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> I think I was one of the few that pretty much knew right from the start that there's no way Trump is touching one of his close friends ... I do feel bad for the people who thought he might.


I'll hold my hands up. When it all first started I first thought that he was only running to get her elected - obviously it's well documented he was a Clinton supporter in the past - but he actually convinced me the further he went on that he was out for her blood. I got worked like the rest on that one, I'm probably also more susceptible to those arguments since the whole Blair fiasco. I really hate when politicians get away with shit like that.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> I think I was one of the few that pretty much knew right from the start that there's no way Trump is touching one of his close friends ... I do feel bad for the people who thought he might.
> 
> Sometimes even when you support someone as I did in the case of Trump, you still have to accept that there are instances when that person is obviously lying in order to get votes and while I never came out and claimed which parts I thought he was lying about, I have an ongoing list in my head where I know that there are some things he just will not deliver on at all - this being one of them. The others I'll mention as time goes on.


That bitch and the rest of her cronies need to be investigated and if found guilty, dealt with! I got my torch and cleaver ready, let's turn them into chimichangas! I hope the Democrats gave a sweet deal for this because this could have sunk them even lower once all the juicy stuff came out. I am really disappointed by this and think I won't be the only one. America needs to get rid of these corrupt politicians! We'll know for sure in a while.. those FBI agents who weren't happy with Clinton getting away with stuff won't sit by idle...


----------



## -XERO-

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Chimichangas :yum:


----------



## amhlilhaus

Miss Sally said:


> Carte Blanche said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think I was one of the few that pretty much knew right from the start that there's no way Trump is touching one of his close friends ... I do feel bad for the people who thought he might.
> 
> Sometimes even when you support someone as I did in the case of Trump, you still have to accept that there are instances when that person is obviously lying in order to get votes and while I never came out and claimed which parts I thought he was lying about, I have an ongoing list in my head where I know that there are some things he just will not deliver on at all - this being one of them. The others I'll mention as time goes on.
> 
> 
> 
> That bitch and the rest of her cronies need to be investigated and if found guilty, dealt with! I got my torch and cleaver ready, let's turn them into chimichangas! I hope the Democrats gave a sweet deal for this because this could have sunk them even lower once all the juicy stuff came out. I am really disappointed by this and think I won't be the only one. America needs to get rid of these corrupt politicians! We'll know for sure in a while.. those FBI agents who weren't happy with Clinton getting away with stuff won't sit by idle...
Click to expand...

Whatever deal there was, and there was one, will break.

Trumps naive to trust them.

Announcing this has me salty as shit. I thought that obama would pardon her to give trump the out.

Now obama will just pardon all her aides and bam, everybody walks free.

Also, whoever runs against trump in 2020 will definitely use this, and it will hurt him immensely especially if fbi guys go rogue and leak shit that proves shes guilty.

Trumps a confidant mfer, he better enact most of the shit he says he will, hope it works fast or hes done in 1 term.

Maybe this was a deal cut with the media to back off a bit.

We will see about that with the tone of the stories written about it.

Hasnt taken the oath yet, already breaking campaign promises


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Lmao, apparently I'm morally bankrupt and a coward for opposing people using comparisons to Hitler and other perpetrators of genocide when talking about politicians and other people who you disagree with, and I'm going to "watch the world burn around me." @Tater grow the fuck up you overdramatic fruit loop, the world isn't going to burn, and you're still dead wrong using ridiculous comparisons to people who bear little to no resemblance to the monsters you like to compare them to. So over the top, and you wonder why you and BM get ganged up on....beggars belief.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



> *My meeting with Donald Trump*
> 
> As you have no doubt heard by now, I met with President-elect Donald Trump earlier today.
> 
> He asked me to meet with him to discuss our current policies regarding Syria, our fight against terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS, as well as other foreign policy challenges we face.
> 
> It would have been easier for me to refuse this meeting. The establishment and social media has been talking about this all day. But I never have and never will play politics with American and Syrian lives.
> 
> In fact, like President Obama, I strongly believe that now is the time for us to put our country first, and come together, regardless of political party, and tackle the many challenges we face.
> 
> This was an opportunity to advocate for peace — and I felt it was important to take the opportunity to meet with the President-elect to counteract neocons’ steady drumbeats of war, which threaten to drag us into an escalation of the war to overthrow the Syrian government.
> 
> This war has already cost hundreds of thousands of lives and forced millions of refugees to flee their homes in search of safety for themselves and their families. It has also strengthened al-Qaeda and other violent, extremist groups in the region. It would have been irresponsible not to accept this invitation. I feel it is my duty to take every single opportunity I get to advocate for peace, no matter the circumstances of those meetings.
> 
> I shared with him my grave concerns that escalating the war in Syria by implementing a so-called no fly/safe zone would be disastrous for the Syrian people, our country, and the world. It would lead to more death and suffering, exacerbate the refugee crisis, strengthen ISIS and al-Qaeda and bring us into a direct conflict with Russia–potentially resulting in a nuclear war. We discussed my bill to end our country’s illegal war to overthrow the Syrian government and the need to focus our precious resources on rebuilding our own country, and on defeating al-Qaeda, ISIS, and other terrorist groups who pose a threat to the American people.
> 
> In addition, where I disagree with President-elect Trump on issues, I will not hesitate to express that disagreement. You didn’t send me to Washington to make friends with the political elite. You sent me to represent you, and I am committed to doing just that.
> 
> In short: I will never allow partisanship to undermine our national security when the lives of countless people lay in the balance.
> 
> If that earns me enemies in Washington or at the State Department, then so be it.
> 
> I hope you’ll continue to stand with me and stay engaged. The cause of peace is too great for us to allow political disagreements or partisanship to stand in our way.
> 
> Aloha,
> 
> Tulsi Gabbard
> 
> SOURCE


:applause

Tulsi has received nothing but heat from the Democratic Establishment ever since she decided to stand by her principles and not fall in line like a good little puppet and now they're mad at her for having this meeting with Trump. It's nice to see that there are still some politicians left in DC with some integrity. The DNC would love nothing more than to get rid of her but that shit ain't happening because we fuckin' love Tulsi out here in the islands. She won her primary with over 84% of the vote and won her re-election in the general with over 81% of the vote. Let's just hope Trump listens more to people like Tulsi Gabbard and less to people like John Bolton. I give Trump credit for even inviting her to the meeting. Time will tell if she got through to him.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Oh that's another thing I was going to point out that some of the GOP seemed to be upset Trump was looking at Democrats for certain things, here's the thing when he was going to pick a VP he said even then he was open to everyone (Democrats and Libertarians) and frankly that's fine for me. I think there needs to be some Democrats there to baance things out and really the Politicians are supposed to work for the people, not their parties.


As for the Clinton thing...I'm less mad now, if he is naive and trusts them he deserves to be fucked. However, if the Democrats fuck him over he can use the fact that the Democrats made a deal with him and got the media off his back which would be pretty bad for them! So I could see him banking in favors that he can use against his opposition!

Trump has a good Trump card if so!


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...er-speech-npi/508379/?utm_source=atlfbcomment

This can't be doing Trump any favours right? Obviously that's not him saying it (or giving the Nazi salutes,) but this can only fuel the fires of the more rabid protesters I'd imagine?


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RavishingRickRules said:


> https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...er-speech-npi/508379/?utm_source=atlfbcomment
> 
> This can't be doing Trump any favours right? Obviously that's not him saying it (or giving the Nazi salutes,) but this can only fuel the fires of the more rabid protesters I'd imagine?


I doubt the alt-right would be doing anything to fuck up their plans to get favors from Trump so this could be taken out of context. I'd need verification but it doesn't make sense if their goal is to become a national movement.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RavishingRickRules said:


> https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...er-speech-npi/508379/?utm_source=atlfbcomment
> 
> This can't be doing Trump any favours right? Obviously that's not him saying it (or giving the Nazi salutes,) but this can only fuel the fires of the more rabid protesters I'd imagine?


Trump supporters have also been using Nazi terms against the press as well saying "Lugenpresse" which means lying press. http://time.com/4544562/donald-trump-supporters-lugenpresse/

Groups like this are only going to grow under Trump now that he is president and his racism and bigotry was not hidden during the election. Trump taught them they dont have to hide it anymore.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> I doubt the alt-right would be doing anything to fuck up their plans to get favors from Trump so this could be taken out of context. I'd need verification but it doesn't make sense if their goal is to become a national movement.


I dunno, I'm not sure how "out of context" Nazi salutes can ever be taken. Now, I'm not putting this on Trump directly because that'd be silly, but there's a point where you have to look at people and see them for what they are. These people right here, are white supremacists/Nazis. I'm not saying all the groups out there are, but this one is. He'd do well to denounce this group in particular as those are not the sort of associations you want to have.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> I doubt the alt-right would be doing anything to fuck up their plans to get favors from Trump so this could be taken out of context. I'd need verification but it doesn't make sense if their goal is to become a national movement.


Watch the speech its not taken out of context.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RavishingRickRules said:


> I dunno, I'm not sure how "out of context" Nazi salutes can ever be taken. Now, I'm not putting this on Trump directly because that'd be silly, but there's a point where you have to look at people and see them for what they are. These people right here, are white supremacists/Nazis. I'm not saying all the groups out there are, but this one is. He'd do well to denounce this group in particular as those are not the sort of associations you want to have.


I wouldn't defend Spencer. The stuff he says can't be taken out of context because he is pretty specific about his white nationalism demanding the creation of a white national state within America. 

Spencer is the one that coined the term Alt-right, but the alt-right has since split into various groups many of which are not white supremacist groups. Also, we need to remember that there is a difference between white nationalism that supports protectionism and glorification of white culture and white supremacists who claim that their culture is innately superior as a result of race. KKK is a white supremacist group. The "alt-right" movement cannot be pinned to have a standard dogma like the KKK does because it does not have a specific manifesto and there is significant disagreement in that group mostly centered around protectionism and how to go about doing it. 

His support for Trump also does not mean that Trump believes in the same things obviously and at this point in time the alt-right is probably going to be re-organizing itself into the moderate and extreme brands of conservatism. While I agree with certain aspects of white nationalism myself even though I'm not white, there are aspects of the alt-right that I'm not shy about opposing. 

We need to move away from the guilt by association fallacy however when it comes to Trump. Just because a white nationalist (or supremacist) _supports_ him and thinks that he's going to do what _he _wants doesn't make Trump a white nationalist obviously. Trump's administration has already denounced Spencer and remarks make at that meeting.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> I wouldn't defend Spencer. The stuff he says can't be taken out of context because he is pretty specific about his white nationalism demanding the creation of a white national state within America.
> 
> Spencer is the one that coined the term Alt-right, but the alt-right has since split into various groups many of which are not white supremacist groups. Also, we need to remember that there is a difference between white nationalism that supports protectionism and glorification of white culture and white supremacists who claim that their culture is innately superior as a result of race. KKK is a white supremacist group. The "alt-right" movement cannot be pinned to have a standard dogma like the KKK does because it does not have a specific manifesto and there is significant disagreement in that group mostly centered around protectionism and how to go about doing it.
> 
> His support for Trump also does not mean that Trump believes in the same things obviously and at this point in time the alt-right is probably going to be re-organizing itself into the moderate and extreme brands of conservatism. While I agree with certain aspects of white nationalism myself even though I'm not white, there are aspects of the alt-right that I'm not shy about opposing.
> 
> We need to move away from the guilt by association fallacy however when it comes to Trump. Just because a white nationalist (or supremacist) _supports_ him and thinks that he's going to do what _he _wants doesn't make Trump a white nationalist obviously.


the reason why they support Trump is because Trump says a lot of the things they stand for. That is why they love Trump. Trump went for the racist group to get them to vote for him. He used all the buzz words they love. 

We all know when Trump says make America great again, its dog whistle for make America white again.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> I wouldn't defend Spencer. The stuff he says can't be taken out of context because he is pretty specific about his white nationalism demanding the creation of a white national state within America.
> 
> Spencer is the one that coined the term Alt-right, but the alt-right has since split into various groups many of which are not white supremacist groups. Also, we need to remember that there is a difference between white nationalism that supports protectionism and glorification of white culture and white supremacists who claim that their culture is innately superior as a result of race. KKK is a white supremacist group. The "alt-right" movement cannot be pinned to have a standard dogma like the KKK does because it does not have a specific manifesto and there is significant disagreement in that group mostly centered around protectionism and how to go about doing it.
> 
> His support for Trump also does not mean that Trump believes in the same things obviously and at this point in time the alt-right is probably going to be re-organizing itself into the moderate and extreme brands of conservatism. While I agree with certain aspects of white nationalism myself even though I'm not white, there are aspects of the alt-right that I'm not shy about opposing.
> 
> We need to move away from the guilt by association fallacy however when it comes to Trump. Just because a white nationalist (or supremacist) _supports_ him and thinks that he's going to do what _he _wants doesn't make Trump a white nationalist obviously.


Oh I agree, that's why I was focusing on that one group in particular rather than tarring everybody with the same brush because of the actions of said group. If this story doesn't go anywhere and stays low key/below the radar I wouldn't hold it against Trump tbh, I'm sure he's got a lot on his plate already. Though if it does blow up, I don't think it'd be remiss for him to clearly denounce them or at least state openly that he does not agree with their views - sometimes it's worth acknowledging and dismissing the connection if only as a clear sign that no, these people may support me, but it is not mutual. UKIP actually faced a similar situation in our general election last year when Britain First (actual fascists) began promoting UKIP as their candidate of choice. UKIP denounced their support as not sharing the same values, and let everybody know that the connection was not a mutual one. I don't particularly like UKIP, but I respected them for doing that. Obviously there are some people you're never going to persuade out of their opinions, but I think a leader standing up and flat out stating "they might be for me, but I'm not for them" sends a clear message to those who may have doubts that it's a one-sided arrangement, and that can go a long way.

edit: Just saw your edit with him denouncing them. As far as I'm concerned, it's been dealt with the right way and can be put to bed now.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I heard :trump was a YUGE fan of the Black White Supremacist sketch. Just goes to show what a rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrracist he is!

Broken record BM has found a new record to break, are you prepared for him to bore you for the next four years with "dog whistles" and "white nationalism"? 

BM doing his part to double down on the mistakes from the Left that got :trump elected. :trump 's re-election must be assured! And the surest way of accomplishing that is to freak out every single day over how racist he is. 

Meanwhile all those :trump voters are thinking 'these guys are just gonna keep calling :trump and the rest of us racist, they can't argue their political position without calling people racists, just confirms that I need to vote for :trump again.' 

May he never figure out that calling :trump racist didn't work and continuing to do it only helps :trump .


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



-PerfectDarkness- said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/801054513134178304


Leave the memories alone.






:mj2


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



-PerfectDarkness- said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/801054513134178304


Well, at least people can't say he's not a real politician now. :meowth


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



deepelemblues said:


> I heard :trump was a YUGE fan of the Black White Supremacist sketch. Just goes to show what a rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrracist he is!
> 
> Broken record BM has found a new record to break, are you prepared for him to bore you for the next four years with "dog whistles" and "white nationalism"?
> 
> BM doing his part to double down on the mistakes from the Left that got :trump elected. :trump 's re-election must be assured! And the surest way of accomplishing that is to freak out every single day over how racist he is.
> 
> Meanwhile all those :trump voters are thinking 'these guys are just gonna keep calling :trump and the rest of us racist, they can't argue their political position without calling people racists, just confirms that I need to vote for :trump again.'
> 
> May he never figure out that calling :trump racist didn't work and continuing to do it only helps :trump .


You can support racist/bigoted Trump all you want but that won't stop people from calling him out on it. 

Again the mistakes were not calling out Trump on his bigotry, it was having someone like Hillary Clinton opposing him. Sanders would have mopped the floor with Trump, it would not have even been close. Sanders would have gotten all the people out to vote that Hillary couldn't. Half the country did not even vote. 

But keep supporting Trumps racism and bigotry.


----------



## skypod

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I don't associate Trump with any of these groups, but I have to wonder, what exactly is disappearing about white culture that it needs a group? White people in the US are a group of different migrants from Europe. I wouldn't say anyone's really the same but can't see anything culturally being stepped on either. Are people concerned yellow school buses and picnics by the lake aren't going to be a thing anymore?


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

That Scott Adams article is great. It's at least 100 times better than that Amanda Marcotte absolute garbage.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



skypod said:


> I don't associate Trump with any of these groups, but I have to wonder, what exactly is disappearing about white culture that it needs a group? White people in the US are a group of different migrants from Europe. I wouldn't say anyone's really the same but can't see anything culturally being stepped on either. Are people concerned yellow school buses and picnics by the lake aren't going to be a thing anymore?


And why don't you? His rhetoric is very similar to their views. It's why they support Trump. Trump even played dumb to get them on his side saying Oh I don't know anything about David Duke until he kept getting called out for it.




MrMister said:


> That Scott Adams article is great. It's at least 100 times better than that Amanda Marcotte absolute garbage.


Sorry if the truth hurts about Trump.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

The Adams article is written by an actual writer while the other one is by a hack. 

You keep thinking I like Donald Trump. I don't. I have a lot of concerns about him being president. I had more concerns about Hillary Clinton being president though.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



skypod said:


> I don't associate Trump with any of these groups, but I have to wonder, what exactly is disappearing about white culture that it needs a group? White people in the US are a group of different migrants from Europe. I wouldn't say anyone's really the same but can't see anything culturally being stepped on either. Are people concerned yellow school buses and picnics by the lake aren't going to be a thing anymore?


The vast majority of white people in the US were born in the US. They aren't migrants. 

Sorry I'm not a migrant because in 1820 my great-great-great-great grandfather came here from Ireland. He was a migrant. I'm not. I've never been to Ireland. I'm not from Ireland. I was born in America. The Irish government sure as shit isn't going to say I'm Irish. On my mother's side the Czech, Austrian and German governments sure as shit aren't going to say I'm a Czech, Austrian or German. They'd say I'm American. Because I am. I'm living in the country I was born in. I didn't migrate from somewhere else. No one in my family came from anywhere else. They were all born in America. We aren't part of some group of different migrants from Europe. 

If that's the game being played then nearly everyone on earth is a migrant because if you go back far enough nearly everybody's ancestors came from somewhere else.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



MrMister said:


> The Adams article is written by an actual writer while the other one is by a hack.
> 
> You keep thinking I like Donald Trump. I don't. I have a lot of concerns about him being president. I had more concerns about Hillary Clinton being president though.


yeah a writer of Dilbert lol




this is something scott adams wrote a few years ago 

*How I would like to speak directly to my male readers who feel unjustly treated by the widespread suppression of men’s rights:

Get over it, you bunch of pussies.

The reality is that women are treated differently by society for exactly the same reason that children and the mentally handicapped are treated differently. It’s just easier this way for everyone. You don’t argue with a four-year old about why he shouldn’t eat candy for dinner. You don’t punch a mentally handicapped guy even if he punches you first. And you don’t argue when a women tells you she’s only making 80 cents to your dollar. It’s the path of least resistance. You save your energy for more important battles.

How many times do we men suppress our natural instincts for sex and aggression just to get something better in the long run? It’s called a strategy. Sometimes you sacrifice a pawn to nail the queen. If you’re still crying about your pawn when you’re having your way with the queen, there’s something wrong with you and it isn’t men’s rights.*


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

LITERALLY HITLER


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

BM couldn't even find a picture of Hitler actually doing the real Nazi salute :heston

Why BM is allowed to shitpost the way he does :draper2

At least it used to be like 1/3 shitposting 2/3 him actually trying to have a conversation, since November 8th it's been like 90% shitposting


----------



## skypod

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



deepelemblues said:


> The vast majority of white people in the US were born in the US. They aren't migrants.
> 
> Sorry I'm not a migrant because in 1820 my great-great-great-great grandfather came here from Ireland. He was a migrant. I'm not. I've never been to Ireland. I'm not from Ireland. I was born in America. The Irish government sure as shit isn't going to say I'm Irish. On my mother's side the Czech, Austrian and German governments sure as shit aren't going to say I'm a Czech, Austrian or German. They'd say I'm American. Because I am. I'm living in the country I was born in. I didn't migrate from somewhere else. No one in my family came from anywhere else. They were all born in America. We aren't part of some group of different migrants from Europe.
> 
> If that's the game being played then nearly everyone on earth is a migrant because if you go back far enough nearly everybody's ancestors came from somewhere else.



Regardless of how you see yourself (in my experience most Americans i've met seem to be obsessed with saying they're Irish/Polish/Russian whatever. I don't disagree with you that you're just American.

But none of what you said explains how white culture is being taken away.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



deepelemblues said:


> BM couldn't even find a picture of Hitler actually doing the real Nazi salute :heston
> 
> Why BM is allowed to shitpost the way he does :draper2
> 
> At least it used to be like 1/3 shitposting 2/3 him actually trying to have a conversation, since November 8th it's been like 90% shitposting


All you do is shit post as does posters like beatles but you guys all circle jerk each other so you think its ok. I just do what you guys do to mock you and then you need your safe spaces when you get some of that back.

At least I post real info unlike most of you. The reason you get so pissed is because you know you cant dispute what i post about Trump so you throw a hissy fit


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



skypod said:


> Regardless of how you see yourself (in my experience most Americans i've met seem to be obsessed with saying they're Irish/Polish/Russian whatever. I don't disagree with you that you're just American.
> 
> But none of what you said explains how white culture is being taken away.


I don't think white people think it is in the sense that most white people don't think there is a white culture. 

I think they think that they are being marginalized economically, culturally, and socially, by people who laugh and wave their dicks at them while marginalizing them (and most of these people doing it are white). And they've been real fucking fed up with it for a long time, and so they jumped at the first guy who said he still respects them and doesn't think their sole uses are as the target of blame for everything wrong in society and as props for racist Tweets and Samantha Bee diatribes.

btw sadly BM you're on the ignore list now. Took a while to make the decision but if I want to see mindless shitposts about :trump being Hitler and endless knob-slobbing of Bernie Sanders I can just go to Facebook.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



deepelemblues said:


> I don't think white people think it is in the sense that most white people don't think there is a white culture.
> 
> I think they think that they are being marginalized economically, culturally, and socially, by people who laugh and wave their dicks at them while marginalizing them (and most of these people doing it are white). And they've been real fucking fed up with it for a long time, and so they jumped at the first guy who said he still respects them and doesn't think their sole uses are as the target of blame for everything wrong in society and as props for racist Tweets and Samantha Bee diatribes.
> 
> btw sadly BM you're on the ignore list now. Took a while to make the decision but if I want to see mindless shitposts about :trump being Hitler and endless knob-slobbing of Bernie Sanders I can just go to Facebook.


Its because 






skypod said:


> Regardless of how you see yourself (in my experience most Americans i've met seem to be obsessed with saying they're Irish/Polish/Russian whatever. I don't disagree with you that you're just American.
> 
> But none of what you said explains how white culture is being taken away.


Its because its not. They just think if other cultures get equal time that means theirs is being taken away.


----------



## skypod

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



deepelemblues said:


> I don't think white people think it is in the sense that most white people don't think there is a white culture.
> 
> I think they think that they are being marginalized economically, culturally, and socially, by people who laugh and wave their dicks at them while marginalizing them (and most of these people doing it are white). And they've been real fucking fed up with it for a long time, and so they jumped at the first guy who said he still respects them and doesn't think their sole uses are as the target of blame for everything wrong in society and as props for racist Tweets and Samantha Bee diatribes.


I agree its hard to pin point a white culture. And actually if you try and do so it ends up sounding incredibly racist to say "these middle class things are white things"

However I find it funny that the right are the first one to call out other minorities on this sympathy culture and how they don't have it that bad, but now they've decided to try and compare their suffering to those of Blacks in the 50's. Hilariously ironic and misguided. 

I keep finding that everything each side throws at the other, that same side is guilty of the exact same thing. 

People get a sense of power from being a sad case in 2016, and everyone now wants a piece of the pie.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



skypod said:


> I agree its hard to pin point a white culture. And actually if you try and do so it ends up sounding incredibly racist to say "these middle class things are white things"
> 
> However I find it funny that the right are the first one to call out other minorities on this sympathy culture and how they don't have it that bad, but now they've decided to try and compare their suffering to those of Blacks in the 50's. Hilariously ironic and misguided.
> 
> I keep finding that everything each side throws at the other, that same side is guilty of the exact same thing.
> 
> People get a sense of power from being a sad case in 2016, and everyone now wants a piece of the pie.


What exactly is white culture? When they say that do they mean American or just being white as a race?

Because when most blacks are proud to be African American they are proud their answers are from Africa, or people that have Mexican pride are proud their ancestors are from Mexico. 

So I can see African and Mexican pride and Even American pride but what is white pride?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



skypod said:


> However I find it funny that the right are the first one to call out other minorities on this sympathy culture and how they don't have it that bad, *but now they've decided to try and compare their suffering to those of Blacks in the 50's. *Hilariously ironic and misguided.


Source.


----------



## skypod

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Source.



Look at the conversation I was quoting



> I think they think that they are being marginalized economically, culturally, and socially, by people who laugh and wave their dicks at them while marginalizing them


.




Still not really had someone be able to tell me how white America is in danger :serious:


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



skypod said:


> I agree its hard to pin point a white culture. And actually if you try and do so it ends up sounding incredibly racist to say "these middle class things are white things"
> 
> However I find it funny that the right are the first one to call out other minorities on this sympathy culture and how they don't have it that bad, but now they've decided to try and compare their suffering to those of Blacks in the 50's. Hilariously ironic and misguided.
> 
> I keep finding that everything each side throws at the other, that same side is guilty of the exact same thing.
> 
> People get a sense of power from being a sad case in 2016, and everyone now wants a piece of the pie.


I was taught in school (1990s) that everybody has equality in terms of human dignity and nobody should be treated like garbage because of their 'group.'

Now I'm an adult and all I see are bigoted things said all the time about white people, heterosexual males, Christians, what-have-you, those bigoted things being said are a source of humor and very few people in positions of power ever say it's wrong to talk like that, and it doesn't matter that I don't view whites as an ethnic bloc. Other people sure do and they attack me and every other white person about it. When humans are attacked physically or verbally they look for means of defense. Getting a group of people to defend each other is a very common response. All the hatred and condescension and general high school assholery directed at white people has - and this is very unfortunate - caused the resurgence of white ethnic bloc identity. 

I don't think white people need to band together and vote a certain way as 'regular' white people or because they are 'regular' white people but that is certainly what they are being pushed towards by the unrelenting classist hostility towards them by the economic and cultural elite (which is, of course majority white itself). 

If people don't want whites to feel put upon because they are white then people need to stop putting upon whites because they are white. The unvarnished racism of so many post-election "analyses" that generalize whites as bigoted reactionary bad people who need to be defeated certainly haven't helped.

Awww, lots of whites are feeling the economic pinch? HAHA, those dumb racists are just reaping what they sowed by being dumb racists. They're going to be the minority anyway and then we can just ignore them like the dumb racists deserve. <-- this has been a recurring and dominant theme in popular entertainment, popular political media, and Democratic party politics for the last 8 years. That is why white people feel threatened. People keep threatening them.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



skypod said:


> Look at the conversation I was quoting
> 
> Still not really had someone be able to tell me how white America is in danger :serious:


Considering that blacks were legally discriminated against, how is that claim the same as claiming that they were oppressed like black people? Where did they say that whites are being publicly lynched, segregated, kicked out of restaurants, forced to drink out of separate fountains, forced to use separate washrooms? You made a claim about whites comparing their plight to blacks in the 50's. That's a tall claim and requires some evidence to be backed up which you didn't provide. 

What you did is a logical fallacy. 

TBH, I don't actually think you're interested in learning or changing your view therefore I don't think you're going to get a serious answer since you'll likely dismiss it outright anyways just as you outright dismissed the person's claim and created a strawman out of it instead. 

Some discussions are just not worth having with some people :shrug


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Considering that blacks were legally discriminated against, how is that claim the same as claiming that they were oppressed like black people? Where did they say that whites are being publicly lynched, segregated, kicked out of restaurants, forced to drink out of separate fountains, forced to use separate washrooms? You made a claim about whites comparing their plight to blacks in the 50's. That's a tall claim and requires some evidence to be backed up which you didn't provide.
> 
> What you did is a logical fallacy.
> 
> TBH, I don't actually think you're interested in learning or changing your view therefore I don't think you're going to get a serious answer since you'll likely dismiss it outright anyways just as you outright dismissed the person's claim and created a strawman out of it instead.
> 
> Some discussions are just not worth having with some people :shrug


And you are one of those people who are not worth it.

just because someone wrongly feels like they are being discriminated against more than blacks were in the 50s does not mean they really are. That is the whole point you are missing.

Some white people FEEL LIKE they are being discriminated against like blacks were in the 50s. that is why its stupid for the people that feel that way to claim that.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> What exactly is white culture? When they say that do they mean American or just being white as a race?
> 
> Because when most blacks are proud to be African American they are proud their answers are from Africa, or people that have Mexican pride are proud their ancestors are from Mexico.
> 
> So I can see African and Mexican pride and Even American pride but what is white pride?


If there is African and Mexican pride than wouldn't white pride be European pride? I mean that seems like the logical conclusion.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> If there is African and Mexican pride than wouldn't white pride be European pride? I mean that seems like the logical conclusion.


They would have Irish pride for example not white pride.
Or if they are from England English pride. they don't celebrate being white they celebrate the pride of their country just like with Mexicans and African American.

Same goes for Canada.

Most people celebrate their nationality not their race. Like I am white and mostly Irish , I would not celebrate being white, I would celebrate being Irish.


----------



## Genking48

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> And why don't you? His rhetoric is very similar to their views. It's why they support Trump. Trump even played dumb to get them on his side saying Oh I don't know anything about David Duke until he kept getting called out for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry if the truth hurts about Trump.


Anyone can play that game


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Genking48 said:


> Anyone can play that game


Hillary is not a fascist like Trump is though.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> They would have Irish pride for example not white pride.
> Or if they are from England English pride. they don't celebrate being white they celebrate the pride of their country just like with Mexicans and African American.
> 
> Same goes for Canada.
> 
> Most people celebrate their nationality not their race. Like I am white and mostly Irish , I would not celebrate being white, I would celebrate being Irish.


That would make sense if you were full Irish, but that sort of thought could be applied to Mexican or African pride right? Black pride is essentially African pride, well Africa isn't just one giant culture but several with different regions having it's own, so really black pride should be Niger pride or Chad pride etc correct? Because even Africans have tribal differences between them. It was common for one tribe to enslave another much like how Europeans or the Natives of South America did with each other.

So many American whites are mixtures of many Europeans that there would be no way to list them all, so it's easier to say White pride, Black pride, Brown pride, Asian pride etc.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> That would make sense if you were full Irish, but that sort of thought could be applied to Mexican or African pride right? Black pride is essentially African pride, well Africa isn't just one giant culture but several with different regions having it's own, so really black pride should be Niger pride or Chad pride etc correct? Because even Africans have tribal differences between them. It was common for one tribe to enslave another much like how Europeans or the Natives of South America did with each other.
> 
> So many American whites are mixtures of many Europeans that there would be no way to list them all, so it's easier to say White pride, Black pride, Brown pride, Asian pride etc.


You don't have to be full anything to celebrate being it. As for your African pride question, you would have to ask a black person that, when I see African Americans celebrating African pride, I just see them celebrating Africa. Do you have a problem with them doing that? I am sure some celebrate specific countries like Kenya for example. 

And sorry but no it's not easier to say white pride, black pride etc

Because like I said most of those people are not saying oh I am proud to be white, or black etc. They are celebrating their nationality.

Nobody I know says oh they have white pride or black pride. They celebrate their nationality.

that is why St Paddys day is so huge in MA because people are celebrating being partly Irish not being white.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> You don't have to be full anything to celebrate being it. As for your African pride question, you would have to ask a black person that, when I see African Americans celebrating African pride, I just see them celebrating Africa. Do you have a problem with them doing that? I am sure some celebrate specific countries like Kenya for example.
> 
> And sorry but no it's not easier to say white pride, black pride etc
> 
> Because like I said most of those people are not saying oh I am proud to be white, or black etc. They are celebrating their nationality.
> 
> Nobody I know says oh they have white pride or black pride. They celebrate their nationality.
> 
> that is why St Paddys day is so huge in MA because people are celebrating being partly Irish not being white.


Yes but I'm asking why you'd accept Black pride aka African pride, Latino pride or Asian pride when all those people have in common is their nationality just like white people have. Africa is a very diverse place culturally speaking. Europe is a culturally diverse place, Asia is too, South America as well.

Black pride would be celebrating their nationality no matter from what place they came from or are living. 

Basically every skin color has collectivized itself, in America you have groups dedicated to the advancement and celebration of all things Asian or whatever, yet somehow you think White does not qualify for this whereas everyone else does. 

Frankly I have zero issue if someone tells me they're proud to be Black because I assume that it celebrates all the cultures and different peoples within the Black community but it seems a little silly to say every group can have their own group but White people must specifically mention the -exact- thing they're proud of. Really the whole pride thing is silly when you look at it but people are collective by nature.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> Really the whole pride thing is silly when you look at it but people are collective by nature.


I concur with this. It'd be nice if we lived in a world where everyone simply viewed each other as fellow human beings but that is sadly not the case.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> That would make sense if you were full Irish, but that sort of thought could be applied to Mexican or African pride right? Black pride is essentially African pride, well Africa isn't just one giant culture but several with different regions having it's own, so really black pride should be Niger pride or Chad pride etc correct? Because even Africans have tribal differences between them. It was common for one tribe to enslave another much like how Europeans or the Natives of South America did with each other.
> 
> So many American whites are mixtures of many Europeans that there would be no way to list them all, so it's easier to say White pride, Black pride, Brown pride, Asian pride etc.


Actually, this is a weird one that mostly only pertains to African Americans. If an African American is descended from slaves there's almost no way of finding out where there origins are. So they in some cases they actually couldn't do "Ghana pride" or whatever because they have no way of actually knowing which country they're from. People are mistaken here about "pride movements" in general. The two largest ones would be "gay pride" and "black pride." The point of these movements wasn't to display anything other than PRIDE in the face of adversity (which is very different from "black power" which I'll go into in a moment.) When you get a "black pride march" or a "gay pride march" that's a march to say "yes, you may beat us down for it, you may murder us for it but we are PROUD to be who we are regardless." There's nothing wrong with showing "pride" in anything at all tbh. If you wanted to organise a "hispanic american pride march" then anybody rational should have no problem with it, you're celebrating all that you are and I'm sure you've also faced at least a little discrimination (I don't know anyone these days who hasn't) though that element of pride movements is understandably less of a deal than it was for blacks in the 60's and gays in the 80's. People should have no problems at all with a "white pride march" either, that's all it is, it's a march to be PROUD of whatever you're marching for. 

The actual "bad" ones are the "***********" "black power" "insert any other group vying for dominance here power" organisations. That's where things get nastier because your movement is no longer one of pride or pride weathering adversity and has instead become one of superiority and dominance over anybody else in that group. *********** - bad, white pride - good (and people should be proud of who they are.) You'd rarely get a "european pride" movement because we're not really connected to the continent (or the EU) in the same way we are to the nations that make up said continent. British Pride is definitely a thing, we're not as lofty as the #2 patriotic country in the world (that's the USA) but we're still in 4th and we can wave a flag and dress in red, white and blue like a champ when we want to. Similarly my parents aren't British and I have pride in my roots there too. The one thing that many African Americans don't have sadly is the ability to find out those roots pre-slavery, so you're more likely to see "black pride" (born of the civil rights movement when like gay pride it was more of a symbol of pride against adversity) and "african pride" which would be more of an attempt at pride in a nation which is replaced with a continent in the absence of a way to discover said nation.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

CNN caught being Fake News again. :lol

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=55875


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> Yes but I'm asking why you'd accept Black pride aka African pride, Latino pride or Asian pride when all those people have in common is their nationality just like white people have. Africa is a very diverse place culturally speaking. Europe is a culturally diverse place, Asia is too, South America as well.
> 
> Black pride would be celebrating their nationality no matter from what place they came from or are living.
> 
> Basically every skin color has collectivized itself, in America you have groups dedicated to the advancement and celebration of all things Asian or whatever, yet somehow you think White does not qualify for this whereas everyone else does.
> 
> Frankly I have zero issue if someone tells me they're proud to be Black because I assume that it celebrates all the cultures and different peoples within the Black community but it seems a little silly to say every group can have their own group but White people must specifically mention the -exact- thing they're proud of. Really the whole pride thing is silly when you look at it but people are collective by nature.


Because someone saying that they are proud to be from African is not the same thing as saying they are proud of being black.
Just like saying oh someone is proud of being Irish means they are proud of being white.


Here is the thing. Maybe we can agree on this. *If someone wants to celebrate being white as long as they don't claim being white is being superior to being black or another race then it's not really a big deal.*

Me personally just find it weird that some people celebrate being white or black rather than their nationality, like Irish, African (maybe Kenyan) or even saying oh proud to be an American.

IMO the KKK gives white pride a bad name because with that group they put down any other race as inferior.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> CNN caught being Fake News again. :lol
> 
> http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=55875


Like fox news does not do that.

Cant we all agree CNN, Fox, MSNBC is all fake news at this point.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Because someone saying that they are proud to be from African is not the same thing as saying they are proud of being black.
> Just like saying oh someone is proud of being Irish means they are proud of being white.
> 
> 
> Here is the thing. Maybe we can agree on this. *If someone wants to celebrate being white as long as they don't claim being white is being superior to being black or another race then it's not really a big deal.*
> 
> Me personally just find it weird that some people celebrate being white or black rather than their nationality, like Irish, African (maybe Kenyan) or even saying oh proud to be an American.
> 
> IMO the KKK gives white pride a bad name because with that group they put down any other race as inferior.


The KK is ***********, not white pride. Read my post above, I'm not typing all that shit out again haha. Black pride doesn't come from national or cultural celebration, it's about pride in the face of overwhelming adversity, it's like "gay pride."


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RavishingRickRules said:


> The KK is ***********, not white pride. Read my post above, I'm not typing all that shit out again haha. Black pride doesn't come from national or cultural celebration, it's about pride in the face of overwhelming adversity, it's like "gay pride."


 I disagree.


case and point

https://www.buzzfeed.com/davidmack/...llboard-arkansas?utm_term=.rqOx7j6d#.keYLm1Eg


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Because someone saying that they are proud to be from African is not the same thing as saying they are proud of being black.
> Just like saying oh someone is proud of being Irish means they are proud of being white.
> 
> 
> Here is the thing. Maybe we can agree on this. *If someone wants to celebrate being white as long as they don't claim being white is being superior to being black or another race then it's not really a big deal.*
> 
> Me personally just find it weird that some people celebrate being white or black rather than their nationality, like Irish, African (maybe Kenyan) or even saying oh proud to be an American.
> 
> IMO the KKK gives white pride a bad name because with that group they put down any other race as inferior.


I can agree with this. Pride doesn't equal Power. I think a lot of people confuse the two and even then Power doesn't have to be used in a bad term but it's something anyone shouldn't really use. It's too slippery of a slope but happy we reached a consensus!


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> I disagree.
> 
> 
> case and point
> 
> https://www.buzzfeed.com/davidmack/...llboard-arkansas?utm_term=.rqOx7j6d#.keYLm1Eg


How does that discount anything I said in my original post exactly? Just because *********** supremacists dress themselves up under a more palatable "white pride" banner doesn't make them 1. Truthful or 2. The way all white pride movements would be defined. But yeah will call it a day there. I can't be bothered being insulted by you the way I was by Tater simply for disagreeing, so whatever man. Do you.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> CNN caught being Fake News again. :lol
> 
> http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=55875


"Again" ...? It's a permanent condition with the MSM.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> "Again" ...? It's a permanent condition with the MSM.


Some people say racial tensions will break the country out into violence, I say it will be the MSM. I think something will happen so huge and when it turns out to be false and you got millions of people who bought into the lie realizing they been lied to a lot.. we're going to see a full violent rejection of the media.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RavishingRickRules said:


> How does that discount anything I said in my original post exactly? Just because *********** supremacists dress themselves up under a more palatable "white pride" banner doesn't make them 1. Truthful or 2. The way all white pride movements would be defined. But yeah will call it a day there. I can't be bothered being insulted by you the way I was by Tater simply for disagreeing, so whatever man. Do you.


Because it proves my point the KKK also uses that term to corrupt it . 

Also how did I insult you by saying I disagree and showing where the KKK uses that term?


----------



## skypod

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



deepelemblues said:


> I was taught in school (1990s) that everybody has equality in terms of human dignity and nobody should be treated like garbage because of their 'group.'
> 
> Now I'm an adult and all I see are bigoted things said all the time about white people, heterosexual males, Christians, what-have-you, those bigoted things being said are a source of humor and very few people in positions of power ever say it's wrong to talk like that, and it doesn't matter that I don't view whites as an ethnic bloc. Other people sure do and they attack me and every other white person about it. When humans are attacked physically or verbally they look for means of defense. Getting a group of people to defend each other is a very common response. All the hatred and condescension and general high school assholery directed at white people has - and this is very unfortunate - caused the resurgence of white ethnic bloc identity.
> 
> I don't think white people need to band together and vote a certain way as 'regular' white people or because they are 'regular' white people but that is certainly what they are being pushed towards by the unrelenting classist hostility towards them by the economic and cultural elite (which is, of course majority white itself).
> 
> If people don't want whites to feel put upon because they are white then people need to stop putting upon whites because they are white. The unvarnished racism of so many post-election "analyses" that generalize whites as bigoted reactionary bad people who need to be defeated certainly haven't helped.
> 
> Awww, lots of whites are feeling the economic pinch? HAHA, those dumb racists are just reaping what they sowed by being dumb racists. They're going to be the minority anyway and then we can just ignore them like the dumb racists deserve. <-- this has been a recurring and dominant theme in popular entertainment, popular political media, and Democratic party politics for the last 8 years. That is why white people feel threatened. People keep threatening them.



I think I'll just have to chalk it up to the differences between the US and the UK. I've never felt in my life ashamed, or proud, or embarrassed, or that I've been treated any worse for being white. But then again Scotland is like 98% white or something. 

I grew up in East Asia where white is seen as an ultimate, all models on posters are white people, they photoshop their own race as whiter because it's seen as clean, rich and pure. If you want to be a TV star in China you'll have better luck being from a city or more Northern because you'll have lighter skin, as darker skin means you're from Southern hotter parts and most likely work outside. This theme is pretty common throughout the world though. 

But the majority of media I consume is American. And every time someone takes a shot at white people being unfair or dominant, I dunno it just doesn't bother me. Maybe that's an inner racism within me that I think nothing can affect us white people or something so I can brush it off. 

I mean, one thing I can feel would be annoying would be a stereotype that white people are sitting in surburbia with their 4x4's and attached garages when that basically ignores the struggle of white people living in crummy apartments in the city trying to earn enough money to feed themselves.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



skypod said:


> I think I'll just have to chalk it up to the differences between the US and the UK. I've never felt in my life ashamed, or proud, or embarrassed, or that I've been treated any worse for being white. But then again Scotland is like 98% white or something.
> 
> I grew up in East Asia where white is seen as an ultimate, all models on posters are white people, they photoshop their own race as whiter because it's seen as clean, rich and pure. If you want to be a TV star in China you'll have better luck being from a city or more Northern because you'll have lighter skin, as darker skin means you're from Southern hotter parts and most likely work outside. This theme is pretty common throughout the world though.
> 
> But the majority of media I consume is American. And every time someone takes a shot at white people being unfair or dominant, I dunno it just doesn't bother me. Maybe that's an inner racism within me that I think nothing can affect us white people or something so I can brush it off.
> 
> I mean, one thing I can feel would be annoying would be a stereotype that white people are sitting in surburbia with their 4x4's and attached garages when that basically ignores the struggle of white people living in crummy apartments in the city trying to earn enough money to feed themselves.


It's probably because you've never had to deal with being told you're bad or have power based on your skin tone when in reality you as a person have none and have as much in common with rich people as the next darker skinned person which would be little to nothing.


----------



## Vic Capri

The bad: Trump not going after Hillary (although like Ford pardoning Nixon, I can see this as an act for the country to move on as well as save taxpayer dollars.)

The good: Dow Jones closes above 19,000 for first time in its 120-year history!!! :mark:

- Vic


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

If you're upset about all these verbal attacks on white culture just remind yourself it's all about respecting free speech and not to be so sensitive to mere words. Besides if you need it, there's sure to be a safe space near by to retreat to.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Vic Capri said:


> *The bad: Trump not going after Hillary (although like Ford pardoning Nixon, I can see this as an act for the country to move on as well as save taxpayer dollars.)*
> 
> The good: Dow Jones closes above 19,000 for first time in its 120-year history!!! :mark:
> 
> - Vic


You win the prize for the first justification of the latest Trump backflip! What's he won Johnny?

I had my money on Beatles for the first.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> If you're upset about all these verbal attacks on white culture just remind yourself it's all about respecting free speech and not to be so sensitive to mere words. Besides if you need it, there's sure to be a safe space near by to retreat to.


Just because there is Free Speech does not mean one cannot be upset about narratives especially when they're blatantly false. That being said it's better to face down such opinions and debate them down or ignore them. Silencing stupidity doesn't mean that the stupidity is now gone, in fact it just makes the silenced person feel like a victim and feel all the more right. The best way to deal with moronic or false opinions is to simply debate, pick your battles and let the people shouting, eventually shout themselves out and let people see that they're wrong. It's only when an opinion is exposed for all to see is when we can be sure if it's credible or not.

All safe spaces do is create an echo chamber of inflamed rhetoric, anti-facts, victimhood and self-righteousness. Without being challenged opinions can develop a Religious cult like overtone. This is why Free of Speech must be protected at all costs, even if you hate the opinion. It's better to listen to a thousand false opinions than to silence the one opinion that may very well protect our freedoms. 

Besides there will always be stupid people and stupid opinions and eventually they fade away. It's a never ending cycle and silencing them isn't the solution. :smile2:


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> All safe spaces do is create an echo chamber of inflamed rhetoric, anti-facts, victimhood and self-righteousness. Without being challenged opinions can develop a Religious cult like overtone. This is why Free of Speech must be protected at all costs, even if you hate the opinion. *It's better to listen to a thousand false opinions than to silence the one opinion that may very well protect our freedoms. *


Well, it's probably better to make the effort to expose yourself to a wife array of different opinions, false opinions don't really exist per se, they're just opinions.

I agree about not silencing, unless you are clearly inciting violence and great harm to others.


I would say based on your definition of safe spaces this and the previous thread were very safe spaces for Team Trumpsters, and the Political Correctness Thread is a total safe space for the Alt Righters, wouldn't you agree? 

"The ironing is delicious" - Bart Simpson


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Well, it's probably better to make the effort to expose yourself to a wife array of different opinions, false opinions don't really exist per se, they're just opinions.
> 
> I agree about not silencing, unless you are clearly inciting violence and great harm to others.
> 
> 
> I would say based on your definition of safe spaces this and the previous thread were very safe spaces for Team Trumpsters, and the Political Correctness Thread is a total safe space for the Alt Righters, wouldn't you agree?
> 
> "The ironing is delicious" - Bart Simpson


I disagree, the last thread had many anti-trump supporters in it, if all things I'd say that the lack of Clinton And Bernie supporters made it a little slow at times but there were plenty of debate going on, although it turns out many of the people who opposed Trump were proven wrong about the vote and how it would turn out. It was hardly an echo chamber and one might point out had more actual facts instead of rhetoric been brought out, there may have been a bigger voice for anyone that opposed Trump. It was hardly a safe space, nobody didn't stop anyone from posting what they wanted - just to keep it civil which it was for the most part.

The PC thread is a thread for crazy PC articles and such, it's not really an opinion thread but more of a posting thread about Political Correctness. The thread is specific, it cannot be helped that a certain group pushes crazy PC nonsense more than the other.

I would say false opinions exist if they're blatant lies. Well i should say lies disguised as objective opinions are false.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> You win the prize for the first justification of the latest Trump backflip! What's he won Johnny?
> 
> I had my money on Beatles for the first.


Beatles only parrot what others say. So you would have lost anyway.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> I disagree, the last thread had many anti-trump supporters in it, if all things I'd say that the lack of Clinton And Bernie supporters made it a little slow at times but there were plenty of debate going on, although it turns out many of the people who opposed Trump were proven wrong about the vote and how it would turn out. It was hardly an echo chamber and one might point out had more actual facts instead of rhetoric been brought out, there may have been a bigger voice for anyone that opposed Trump. It was hardly a safe space, nobody didn't stop anyone from posting what they wanted - just to keep it civil which it was for the most part.
> 
> The PC thread is a thread for crazy PC articles and such, it's not really an opinion thread but more of a posting thread about Political Correctness. The thread is specific, it cannot be helped that a certain group pushes crazy PC nonsense more than the other.
> 
> I would say false opinions exist if they're blatant lies. Well i should say lies disguised as objective opinions are false.


10% anti trump still makes essentially a Trump echo chamber. Actual facts instead of rhetoric you say? Facts from the likes of Molyneaux and Adams? Their completely biased diatribe was given a pass for the most part whereas counter opinions were mocked and sources derided every time.

Oh puhleeese.


----------



## FITZ

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Someone getting elected president and then having the government go after the person he just beat in the election is a bad look. She probably deserves to be prosecuted but it's still not something that looks good. It reminds me a lot of a revolutionary party taking out the opposition party after they seize power. You can't have that stuff.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FITZ said:


> Someone getting elected president and then having the government go after the person he just beat in the election is a bad look. She probably deserves to be prosecuted but it's still not something that looks good. It reminds me a lot of a revolutionary party taking out the opposition party after they seize power. You can't have that stuff.


You know what's a worse look? Giving criminals a free pass because you're worried about appearances.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

And in six months no one will give a shit as Hillary putters more or less aimlessly around Bill's Harlem office trying to keep him from pinching too many asses.

That's worse than jail if you ask me. 

Maybe she really is sick as fuck and :trump knows it :draper2

He's got better things to spend his political capital on than going after her. Sad but true. Appointing a special investigator/prosecutor and going through the whole shitstorm probably means a minimum of two other big things he wants to do don't get done. So what things - all of them more important in the long run - are you willing to sacrifice to see Hillary maybe - MAYBE - do a vacation at Club Fed?

:trump is going to have plenty of opportunities to restore the rule of law to the government too as much as he possibly can. Nominating Sessions for AG is a very good sign.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Ultimately what Donald Trump wants to see happen to Hillary Clinton and the Clintons in terms of the five ongoing FBI field office investigations should be almost irrelevant. He appoints a new Attorney General, and that Attorney General takes the information relayed both to and through the Department of Justice and does what he believes is necessary. When Trump engaged in hyperbole in Debate #2 with Hillary that he would have his Attorney General appoint a special prosecutor, he was outlining what he would want to have happen. Someone must have informed Trump, or reminded him, or he caught himself later, or whatever, but in any event he realized that it was not his place to order or direct his Attorney General to make such a move. All the president can constitutionally do is make the suggestion. Granted, if Trump is sincere about not wanting to pursue Hillary and/or the Clintons for #servergate or #ClintonFoundationgate , his "suggestion" will doubtless be weighed by the Attorney General as well as the FBI Director. 

The way the government is supposed to function is that the president nominates and/or appoints the Attorney General, CIA Director and FBI Director, and he gets out of their way to fulfill their functions. 

Kellyanne Conway saying, "There is no intent on the part of the incoming Trump administration..." to prosecute the respective cases against Hillary Clinton has no legal binding. The same goes for president-elect Trump. 

There remains the distinct possibility that Trump is aware of all of this. The Congressional investigations are still ongoing, and the Trump administration could easily play a part in bringing these investigations back up a year from now once Trump has already expended considerable political capital on, arguably, more constructive endeavors. 

Who knows what is being discussed among Team Trump? 

President Thomas Jefferson believed that by refusing to appear in the defense of Aaron Burr, his former vice president, after Burr had been hunted down and arrested for treason in his seditious plot to conspire with Great Britain and Spain to carve out a fiefdom from the North American continent over which Burr would rule, after having already been charged with the 1804 murder of Alexander Hamilton while he was still Vice President Burr, and withholding all but a few scant documents which Burr had requested for his defense, Burr would be found guilty. Jefferson was confident that by acting as he had, in part to protect his presidential prerogative to protect the public interest, Burr would be finished but the plan boomeranged, and Jefferson's old thorn in the side, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall, dating back to at least _Marbury v. Madison_ in 1803, shocked the third president by finding Burr not guilty--for lack of evidence. 

If Trump expressly directs his Attorney General, as the president, to kill off investigations pertaining to the Clintons, he will have overstepped his bounds, and there is no getting around that. At this point, though, with still two months remaining until he takes the oath, it is difficult to surmise particularly much from wishy-washy, non-binding rhetoric concerning the various cases which directly relate to the Clintons. 

The odds are still high that the Republican Congress and Attorney General Jeff Sessions will oversee the naming of a special prosecutor, and, again, if Trump attempts to block that he will be in serious trouble. 

Remember: the naming of a special prosecutor does not mean, "Hillary's goin' behind bars! Wheee!" Either the evidence gathered dictates what must be done--about the server matter, about Hillary's pay-to-play scheme as Secretary of State, and the interconnected controversies of the Clinton Foundation--and a special prosecutor will be named to get to the bottom of it all, or it does not, but just as Hillary Clinton would deserve her day in court, as it were, with the condition of being considered innocent until proven guilty in that case (or cases), the agents of the FBI and Justice Department deserve to not have their investigations short-circuited for political reasons. 

It is in Trump's political interest to rhetorically back off now in an effort to bring this drastically divided country together, but none of it should matter, and, if it does under a new Attorney General and FBI Director, something is rotten in Washington. 

Of course, a good rule of thumb with regard to the Clintons is they always get away with everything in the end. 

The way Hillary Clinton is looking and sounding these days, though, it would seem that this may not be altogether true. If Woodrow Wilson and John F. Kennedy have taught us anything, it should be that to take anyone's good health for granted is a terrible mistake.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

^ This guy comparing Trump with Jefferson!

My good manners restrict me from ejecting you from my home sir, but rest assured I shall not be offering you a second glass of lemonade!


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



DesolationRow said:


> President Thomas Jefferson believed that by refusing to appear in the defense of Aaron Burr, his former vice president, after Burr had been hunted down and arrested for treason in his seditious plot to conspire with Great Britain and Spain to carve out a fiefdom from the North American continent over which Burr would rule, after having already been charged with the 1804 murder of Alexander Hamilton while he was still Vice President Burr, and withholding all but a few scant documents which Burr had requested for his defense, Burr would be found guilty. Jefferson was confident that by acting as he had, in part to protect his presidential prerogative to protect the public interest, Burr would be finished but the plan boomeranged, and Jefferson's old thorn in the side, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall, dating back to at least _Marbury v. Madison_ in 1803, shocked the third president by finding Burr not guilty--for lack of evidence.


Fascinating, I've read Marbury v Madison and am aware of its history, but all the rest is totally new to me.


----------



## amhlilhaus

birthday_massacre said:


> Genking48 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone can play that game
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary is not a fascist like Trump is though.
Click to expand...

Youre right, shes much worse


----------



## amhlilhaus

yeahbaby! said:


> Vic Capri said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The bad: Trump not going after Hillary (although like Ford pardoning Nixon, I can see this as an act for the country to move on as well as save taxpayer dollars.)*
> 
> The good: Dow Jones closes above 19,000 for first time in its 120-year history!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Vic
> 
> 
> 
> You win the prize for the first justification of the latest Trump backflip! What's he won Johnny?
> 
> I had my money on Beatles for the first.
Click to expand...

Others have made justifications.

Mine was its part of a deal made with democrats, and theyre going to break whatever it was


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I would be content with allowing Hillary Clinton to not face charges provided she close the Foundation down as it is and if she re-opens one in the future for it to be in the likeness of a true charitable foundation. 

At the same time...Trump is starting to walk down a path that I have had a concern about. I fully understand that our Presidents are not able to keep ALL the promises that they make during the course of their campaign. However, I expect them to keep the core promises of said campaign, or at least make the effort to fulfill the promises before realizing they are unable to. This was one of the core promises of the Trump presidential campaign that he was going to bring Hillary Rodham Clinton to justice...the chants of "Lock Her Up" still ring in the ears of many. People voted for Trump because they are tired of the broken promises of our leaders...his decision to not pursue her is not sitting well right now with many of his supporters. In fact, a few places I've seen that some are now his ex-supporters and are turning on him. 

If he goes down the path of the other politicians that went back on what they promised, I shudder to think about what all his deplorables will say.


----------



## Stephen90

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Like fox news does not do that.
> 
> Cant we all agree CNN, Fox, MSNBC is all fake news at this point.


I've been staying this for years. CNN,FOX NEWS and MSNBC are just propaganda stations.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



BruiserKC said:


> If he goes down the path of the other politicians that went back on what they promised, I shudder to think about what all his deplorables will say.


Buckle your seat belt because Trump is about to become the most Establishment president of all time. Something tells me that Trump's "deplorables" won't take it lying down the same way Obama's "liberals" did 8 years ago.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



BruiserKC said:


> If he goes down the path of the other politicians that went back on what they promised, I shudder to think about what all his deplorables will say.


You know, I've spent the better part of the last 14 odd days trying to figure out who these deplorables are. 

I see the following groups that voted for Trump:

1. Loyal / Legacy GOP voters that will not switch their party alliance no matter who runs for president
2. White middle / working class up in the Rust belt that voted Obama twice so they're obviously not deplorables
3. White college youth that are sick of the extreme PC culture that's ruining their campuses who voted to try to curb the tide of liberal fascism
4. Women who've seen the worth and value of their men degrade during a long Obama reign who feel their husbands and sons lost their manufacturing jobs
5. War veterans who are sick of fighting proxy wars and being restricted from actually fighting for something of value
6. Wives and mothers who lost their men during the last 12 years of meaningless violence in wars led by previous administrations
7. KKK and other white supremacist groups which vote Republican anyways and are deplorable regardless so they can't be specifically called "Trump's deplorables"
8. Disenfranchised legal immigrants that have fewer rights than illegal immigrants in non sanctuary states

No matter how I analyze the voting data and patterns, I see no "deplorables". Pretty much every group I can think of voted for perfectly valid reasons.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

http://www.forbes.com/sites/maureen...ollowing-donald-trumps-election/#3588cd587bea

Not surprising that the lion's share of verified political violence post-election has been against :trump supporters while attacks allegedly because of :trump are vague and lacking in detail.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Interesting couple of cabinet choices from Trump today 

Nikki Haley for UN Ambassador who's an anti-illegal immigration advocate that was not one of his loyalists. She's also the daughter of a couple of Indian immigrants. I think this is a good move in that she would directly look out for the interests of legal immigrants while also making sure the UN does not find ways to circumvent the american legal system by forcing unconstitutional refugee settlements across America. 






And Betsy DeVos who's a pro-school voucher advocate. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...d66b94-af96-11e6-840f-e3ebab6bcdd3_story.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/who-is-nikki-haley/


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> ^ This guy comparing Trump with Jefferson!
> 
> My good manners restrict me from ejecting you from my home sir, but rest assured I shall not be offering you a second glass of lemonade!


Since liberals aren't allowed to view Thomas Jefferson positively anymore I assume your objection comes in defense of :trump.



Carte Blanche said:


> And Betsy DeVos who's a pro-school voucher advocate.
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...d66b94-af96-11e6-840f-e3ebab6bcdd3_story.html


Quite happy with this. The more kids who are able to escape those ghastly indoctrination centers known as "public schools" the better.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> Since liberals aren't allowed to view Thomas Jefferson positively any more I assume your objection comes in defense of :trump.


OH look you defending another racist why am i not surprised.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Some of the best men in history were racists.

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/153559105081/a-lesson-in-cognitive-dissonance

Scott Adams with another excellent article, this time speaking on the escalating cognitive dissonance of the left as the "Trump is Hitler 2.0" narrative fails to materialize.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Dr. Ben Carson has accepted the offer of :trump to be the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

Hopefully going to see some YUGE changes in the shitty public housing available in inner cities, the run-down neighborhoods that are mostly single-home and the lack of business investment in them as well.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> Since liberals aren't allowed to view Thomas Jefferson positively anymore I assume your objection comes in defense of :trump.


Only because Trump's reality TV show was way better.




CamillePunk said:


> http://blog.dilbert.com/post/153559105081/a-lesson-in-cognitive-dissonance
> 
> Scott Adams with another excellent article, this time speaking on the escalating cognitive dissonance of the left as the "Trump is Hitler 2.0" narrative fails to materialize.


Ok I'll bite even though I'm pretty sure you're continuing to post Adams' simply to Troll.



> Now imagine watching the news as Trump reveals in slow-motion that he’s flexible and pragmatic on just about everything. Thomas Friedman at the New York Times just reported that Trump is – as of yesterday anyway – open-minded about climate-change science, and Trump is no longer in favor of waterboarding terror suspects.
> 
> You also watched Trump move to the middle on his immigration policies. And you watched as Trump said he plans to keep the good parts of Obamacare instead of jettisoning it whole.
> 
> And you saw Trump say he wasn’t interested in prosecuting Clinton. Her supporters were worried that Trump was going to go full-dictator and jail his adversaries. That won’t happen, apparently.
> 
> And Trump also told the New York Times that they don’t need to worry about changes in libel laws. That means it will not become easier for people such as Trump to sue them out of business. That was one of the possibilities that scared people.


In Adams' movie, Trump is 'flexible' and 'pragmatic', but in reality he is literally doing reversals on literal core promises. He literally said Obamacare would go. He literally said Clinton would go down. He literally said climate change was garbage (in a tweet so let's just cancel that out actually).

Now, I'm not expecting Trump to be some super politician who keeps every single wild promise he made to get elected, that's the game he's in, it's a dirty game, and that's what you need to do to get the top prize. I accept that. If I wanted to be hardcore about it I could he lied but I won't because it's all a game and the rules are dirty. 

What I do expect is intellectual commentators like Adams to man up and call it for what it is - it's not the left misconstruing an interpretation of Trump like he's clearly implying in this article, it's Trump going back on his word. What destroys Adams' credibility is his refusal to lay any responsibility on Trump and instead play the easiest game in the world - blame the left.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> Some of the best men in history were racists.
> 
> http://blog.dilbert.com/post/153559105081/a-lesson-in-cognitive-dissonance
> 
> Scott Adams with another excellent article, this time speaking on the escalating cognitive dissonance of the left as the "Trump is Hitler 2.0" narrative fails to materialize.


Just because Trump is moving to the center or even left on some things, and even if you want to claim Trump never believed those things or meant them, that still does not mean what he said or planned on doing was not racist, sexist, bigoted etc

Of course Trump will now disavow them once he got their votes and won. Even him disavowing them now still does now mean those groups did not like him for his bigotry.

People all the time claim they are not racist but say racist things. Most don't even know what they are saying is racist. You can disavow the KKK all you want but if you are saying a lot of their buzz phrases chances are you are a racist.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Just because Trump is moving to the center or even left on some things, and even if you want to claim Trump never believed those things or meant them, that still does not mean what he said or planned on doing was not racist, sexist, bigoted etc
> 
> Of course Trump will now disavow them once he got their votes and won. Even him disavowing them now still does now mean those groups did not like him for his bigotry.
> 
> People all the time claim they are not racist but say racist things. Most don't even know what they are saying is racist. You can disavow the KKK all you want but if you are saying a lot of their buzz phrases chances are you are a racist.


I'd like to put my hand up as racist myself! I prefer casual comments and resorting to worn out stereotypes - think Roddy Piper and the 80s/ early 90s WWF in general.

I like to think as Avenue Q puts it, "Everyone's a little bit racist".


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Betsy Devos is going to make Arne Duncan look like an advocate for public schools. :lol

Her family ties with Amway and should give people pause for concern. Guess another 'drain the swamp' hire. :lol


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Interesting couple of cabinet choices from Trump today
> 
> Nikki Haley for UN Ambassador who's an anti-illegal immigration advocate that was not one of his loyalists. She's also the daughter of a couple of Indian immigrants. I think this is a good move in that she would directly look out for the interests of legal immigrants while also making sure the UN does not find ways to circumvent the american legal system by forcing unconstitutional refugee settlements across America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Betsy DeVos who's a pro-school voucher advocate.
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...d66b94-af96-11e6-840f-e3ebab6bcdd3_story.html
> 
> http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/who-is-nikki-haley/


The refugee issue is perplexing, as I stated before in the old thread that they want to bring in multitudes of "refugees", give them homes and food and money yet we have millions of hungry and impoverished children and families from all over the spectrum that go unaided and ignored. You think they would be trying to solve the rampaging crime in certain cities and dealing with the poor educational system but no, got to virtue signal while ignoring your own citizens and their plight.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> In Adams' movie, Trump is 'flexible' and 'pragmatic', but in reality he is literally doing reversals on literal core promises. He literally said Obamacare would go. He literally said Clinton would go down. He literally said climate change was garbage (in a tweet so let's just cancel that out actually).
> 
> Now, I'm not expecting Trump to be some super politician who keeps every single wild promise he made to get elected, that's the game he's in, it's a dirty game, and that's what you need to do to get the top prize. I accept that. If I wanted to be hardcore about it I could he lied but I won't because it's all a game and the rules are dirty.
> 
> What I do expect is intellectual commentators like Adams to man up and call it for what it is - it's not the left misconstruing an interpretation of Trump like he's clearly implying in this article, it's Trump going back on his word. What destroys Adams' credibility is his refusal to lay any responsibility on Trump and instead play the easiest game in the world - blame the left.


Why would Scott Adams, who isn't a Trump supporter and doesn't support the policies laid out during his campaign, and has only been commenting on the election cycle and the Donald Trump phenomenon through the filter of persuasion, care about any of that? He's said numerous times neither Trump or Clinton's views aligned anywhere close to his own, and he doesn't even vote.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Now you are claiming Scott Adams isn't a Trump supporter? :lmao About as legit as your claim during the election that Scott Adams endorsed Hillary by taking him saying he was endorsing Hillary at face value. :lmao


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> Now you are claiming Scott Adams isn't a Trump supporter? :lmao About as legit as your claim during the election that Scott Adams endorsed Hillary by taking him saying he was endorsing Hillary at face value. :lmao


Both claims were 100% legit at the times each were made. Thank you for the apt comparison.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> You know, I've spent the better part of the last 14 odd days trying to figure out who these deplorables are.
> 
> I see the following groups that voted for Trump:
> 
> 1. Loyal / Legacy GOP voters that will not switch their party alliance no matter who runs for president
> 2. White middle / working class up in the Rust belt that voted Obama twice so they're obviously not deplorables
> 3. White college youth that are sick of the extreme PC culture that's ruining their campuses who voted to try to curb the tide of liberal fascism
> 4. Women who've seen the worth and value of their men degrade during a long Obama reign who feel their husbands and sons lost their manufacturing jobs
> 5. War veterans who are sick of fighting proxy wars and being restricted from actually fighting for something of value
> 6. Wives and mothers who lost their men during the last 12 years of meaningless violence in wars led by previous administrations
> 7. KKK and other white supremacist groups which vote Republican anyways and are deplorable regardless so they can't be specifically called "Trump's deplorables"
> 8. Disenfranchised legal immigrants that have fewer rights than illegal immigrants in non sanctuary states
> 
> No matter how I analyze the voting data and patterns, I see no "deplorables". Pretty much every group I can think of voted for perfectly valid reasons.


I don't mean deplorable in the negative fashion. However many voted for him because of what they see as politicians not keeping their promises. The GOP especially have promised to be the party of smaller government and more freedoms. Time and again they have failed to keep those promises and this was supposed to be the man to turn shit upside down. As angry as many voters were they will be even angrier if he goes establishment.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> Why would Scott Adams, who isn't a Trump supporter and doesn't support the policies laid out during his campaign, and has only been commenting on the election cycle and the Donald Trump phenomenon through the filter of persuasion, care about any of that? He's said numerous times neither Trump or Clinton's views aligned anywhere close to his own, and he doesn't even vote.


You have proven once again you don't know what you are talking about

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/150919416661/why-i-switched-my-endorsement-from-clinton-to

Why I Switched My Endorsement from Clinton to Trump

He admitted it in his own blog in Sept.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I posted that very article in the previous thread. He also endorsed Hillary prior to that, and Gary Johnson after that. Does that mean he was a Clinton supporter and then a Johnson supporter, even though he never had anything positive to say about either's policies or expressed any desire to see them win the White House? Of course not. He explains the reasons behind his endorsements, but you have to read and comprehend them, which is a task some of you have shown that you are not up to.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> I posted that very article in the previous thread. He also endorsed Hillary prior to that, and Gary Johnson after that. Does that mean he was a Clinton supporter and then a Johnson supporter, even though he never had anything positive to say about either's policies or expressed any desire to see them win the White House? Of course not. He explains the reasons behind his endorsements, but you have to read and comprehend them, which is a task some of you have shown that you are not up to.


You don't seem to understand what the terms "switched" and "endorsement" mean. 

If you switch your endorsement it means you change who you support. 

You are wrong about him only commenting on the election cycle. He flat out said in that blog he changed his endorsement from Clinton to Trump.

But that is typical of you. You ignore exactly what the person said and claims they really mean something different.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Adams isn't a Trump supporter? Jesus Camille come on.

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck....

You're being deliberately obtuse and I think you know it.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> The refugee issue is perplexing, as I stated before in the old thread that they want to bring in multitudes of "refugees", give them homes and food and money yet we have millions of hungry and impoverished children and families from all over the spectrum that go unaided and ignored. You think they would be trying to solve the rampaging crime in certain cities and dealing with the poor educational system but no, got to virtue signal while ignoring your own citizens and their plight.


I'm more than annoyed at the refugees coming into America. Going through legal immigration myself, I was offered nothing from the federal or state governments (and I don't want anything either), however my wife and her employer had to guarantee through written paper work and tax returns that she will be able to financially support me long term (at least one year) before they would even consider her to be eligible to become a sponsor. 

Meanwhile here's a quick comparison of federal budget per capita: 

The federal allocation of funds for approximately 633k homeless in America is about 5.4 billion. (2.5 billion of this is allocated for urban development so the homeless actually don't see this money at all, but builders do)
The federal allocation of funds for approximately 85,000 refugees for 2016 has been allocated at 1.5 billion. 

*The money spent on a single homeless person in America = $8,666
The money spent on a single refugee in America = $17,647*

This is a fucking ridiculous disparity no matter how you look at it. 

Sources: 

https://www.usich.gov/resources/upl...get_Fact_Sheet_on_Homelessness_Assistance.pdf
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ow-much-the-united-states-spends-on-refugees/

Edit: Found the actual number. It's 85000, so that doesn't impact the disparity much at all:

Source: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/05/u-s-admits-record-number-of-muslim-refugees-in-2016/


----------



## amhlilhaus

birthday_massacre said:


> CamillePunk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since liberals aren't allowed to view Thomas Jefferson positively any more I assume your objection comes in defense of
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> OH look you defending another racist why am i not surprised.
Click to expand...

How was jefferson racist? He got busy with his slaves?


----------



## amhlilhaus

Carte Blanche said:


> Miss Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> The refugee issue is perplexing, as I stated before in the old thread that they want to bring in multitudes of "refugees", give them homes and food and money yet we have millions of hungry and impoverished children and families from all over the spectrum that go unaided and ignored. You think they would be trying to solve the rampaging crime in certain cities and dealing with the poor educational system but no, got to virtue signal while ignoring your own citizens and their plight.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm more than annoyed at the refugees coming into America. Going through legal immigration myself, I was offered nothing from the federal or state governments (and I don't want anything either), however my wife and her employer had to guarantee through written paper work and tax returns that she will be able to financially support me long term (at least one year) before they would even consider her to be eligible to become a sponsor.
> 
> Meanwhile here's a quick comparison of federal budget per capita:
> 
> The federal allocation of funds for approximately 633k homeless in America is about 5.4 billion.
> The federal allocation of funds for approximately 80,000 refugees for 2016 has been allocated at 1.5 billion.
> 
> The money spent on a single homeless person in America = $8,666
> The money spent on a single refugee in America = $18,750
> 
> This is a fucking ridiculous amount no matter how you look at it.
> 
> Sources:
> 
> https://www.usich.gov/resources/upl...get_Fact_Sheet_on_Homelessness_Assistance.pdf
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ow-much-the-united-states-spends-on-refugees/
Click to expand...

We dont want refugees. Look what theyre doing to europe


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



amhlilhaus said:


> We dont want refugees. Look what theyre doing to europe


Fine to lump them all together eh. No need to see them as individual, you know, humans. It must all their fault.

I say, the US of A was a big part of fucking up their homeland, they can be part of the solution too.


----------



## skypod

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Was speaking to a taxi driver in New York a few months ago, and he was talking about immigration and how it's good to have a lot of people come in from other countries and get jobs (not amazing jobs, just jobs) and pay taxes on that. The tax money is what the government is looking for.

The only thing I can think is that refugees are looked at as long term prospects, and will eventually be put into the system and get a job and pay taxes. Homeless people (not sure what the demographics are on this eg. age, gender, qualifications etc.) may be looked at as lost prospects. Obviously you can't assume all homeless people are 50-80 year old men but has something like this been tallied before?

Not saying either situaton is morally right or wrong or even sensible, I just wonder if governments look at these things along these lines.

I also think you get a good media spin out of letting in refugees, much more of one you would get if the headline was "blah blah administration puts £x billion into the community". That headline is bound to get buried because it's not controversial and putting money into a community or a homeless or education system is more paint by numbers and its not what the media publicizes.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



skypod said:


> Was speaking to a taxi driver in New York a few months ago, and he was talking about immigration and how it's good to have a lot of people come in from other countries and get jobs (not amazing jobs, just jobs) and pay taxes on that. The tax money is what the government is looking for.


Those are called economic migrants and by and large Americans are not anti-immigrant, they are anti-immigrant from certain parts of the world without proper vetting to determine if they would be a good fit for American social values or not. 

Do you really want 70,000 people to come in 95% of who believe that homosexuality is a sin and that gays are sinners? I don't want homophobes and their taxes if I can prevent any more of them entering this country. Last year America let in 38,000 Muslim refugees. According to a Pew research the vast majority of muslims are homophobes. They just let in a vast majority of homophobes into America :clap 

I'd rather let in 70,000 people and only 5% of who believe that homosexuality is immoral. 

Which one fits better with social liberal values? Why are the social liberals ignoring the proven fact that 95% of muslims from the middle-east are homophobes? Even mexicans are religious and social conservatives. What is the future going to be like once people who hold socially conservative values actually become the majority - which america has spent hundreds of years trying to keep from becoming the majority. It's just undoing century's worth of social progress. 

This is part of why I didn't want to get into the cultural degredation argument with you because immigrants, and minorities are social conservatives through and through. Americans that have always been here went through significant culture wars to make the kind of cultural progress they did. Multiculturalism is incompatible in many things such as gay rights, women's rights and even children's rights. I have no issues with multiethnic societies as long as the culture of social liberty is understood and accepted by the vast majority. 



> The only thing I can think is that refugees are looked at as long term prospects, and will eventually be put into the system and get a job and pay taxes. Homeless people (not sure what the demographics are on this eg. age, gender, qualifications etc.) may be looked at as lost prospects. Obviously you can't assume all homeless people are 50-80 year old men but has something like this been tallied before?


The anti-refugees are also viewing them from a future point of view. People who have regressive social attitudes, who will then have children which will be indoctrinated into those regressive social attitudes and cause problems down the line, in much the same way third culture kids are causing in many parts of Europe. 



> I also think you get a good media spin out of letting in refugees, much more of one you would get if the headline was "blah blah administration puts £x billion into the community". That headline is bound to get buried because it's not controversial and putting money into a community or a homeless or education system is more paint by numbers and its not what the media publicizes.


If you're gonna allocate federal funds to help people, then make it equal ... not have a 10k disparity between locals and refugees.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



skypod said:


> Was speaking to a taxi driver in New York a few months ago, and he was talking about immigration and how it's good to have a lot of people come in from other countries and get jobs (not amazing jobs, just jobs) and pay taxes on that. The tax money is what the government is looking for.
> 
> The only thing I can think is that refugees are looked at as long term prospects, and will eventually be put into the system and get a job and pay taxes. Homeless people (not sure what the demographics are on this eg. age, gender, qualifications etc.) may be looked at as lost prospects. Obviously you can't assume all homeless people are 50-80 year old men but has something like this been tallied before?
> 
> Not saying either situaton is morally right or wrong or even sensible, I just wonder if governments look at these things along these lines.
> 
> I also think you get a good media spin out of letting in refugees, much more of one you would get if the headline was "blah blah administration puts £x billion into the community". That headline is bound to get buried because it's not controversial and putting money into a community or a homeless or education system is more paint by numbers and its not what the media publicizes.


Illegals pay no taxes. Nobody is saying immigration is bad. It costs a lot more to help "refugees" than it does to help people already here, many who are citizens. You can help more people displaced in their own countries than you can by bringing them over. It's silly that these people are afforded opportunities that legal immigrants and people who the system was supposed help but don't get. Refugees as long term projects? How? The very point of refugees is to find a safe haven to stay at until they can return home, if they're projects then they're not refugees. 

I love this thinking, current people could be lost prospects but people who are supposedly supposed to be here only until it's safe for them to return, who aren't assimilated, have a large cultural divide and possibly language barrier are great prospects? Oh boy. There are thousands of homeless people in the US who are minors and who come from the most impoverished. I believe citizens should come first.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> Illegals pay no taxes. Nobody is saying immigration is bad. It costs a lot more to help "refugees" than it does to help people already here, many who are citizens. You can help more people displaced in their own countries than you can by bringing them over. It's silly that these people are afforded opportunities that legal immigrants and people who the system was supposed help but don't get. Refugees as long term projects? How? The very point of refugees is to find a safe haven to stay at until they can return home, if they're projects then they're not refugees.
> 
> I love this thinking, current people could be lost prospects but people who are supposedly supposed to be here only until it's safe for them to return, who aren't assimilated, have a large cultural divide and possibly language barrier are great prospects? Oh boy. There are thousands of homeless people in the US who are minors and who come from the most impoverished. I believe citizens should come first.


Sally, refugees aren't illegals. It is not illegal to seek asylum as a refugee and that's a fact. 

If you want to paint them all or the majority as illegals then source the stats that show they fail at being vetted as genuine 'fugees'.


It's funny, when I was growing up the refugee issue was simply seen as a humanitarian issue. There was never any mention of being illegal, of tax payers being ripped off etc etc. Somewhere along the way it became a political point scoring machine and here we are.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Sally, refugees aren't illegals. It is not illegal to seek asylum as a refugee and that's a fact.
> 
> If you want to paint them all or the majority as illegals then source the stats that show they fail at being vetted as genuine 'fugees'.
> 
> 
> It's funny, when I was growing up the refugee issue was simply seen as a humanitarian issue. There was never any mention of being illegal, of tax payers being ripped off etc etc. Somewhere along the way it became a political point scoring machine and here we are.


Oh I apologize I wasn't saying refugees are illegal, skypod was saying that immigration brings in people who pay taxes. I was saying that nobody is against legal immigration but illegal immigration as they pay no taxes and are a tax burden. I should have clarified that.

My point on refugees was that bringing them here costs money that could be used to help them in their own countries. I also dislike the fact that we virtue signal bringing them here when our own homeless and poverty problem is escalating, not getting better. It's mind blowing that citizens are being ignored for this virtue signaling, refugees cannot be long term projects because they're temporary guests, not immigrants.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

^ Oh cool. Well yeah the Govt should be doing both. Perhaps just buy one less fighter jet to free up the money?


----------



## skypod

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I'm not saying the pattern is right, or that there should be a huge influx of Muslims from the Middle East into America. I'm just looking at it at the perspective of the administration in power, who are very rarely going to take morals into consideration. I'm trying to make sense of what they see as a prospect and why.

And believe me I argue against Middle Eastern backwards Muslim culture all day and night, even if in 2016 we only chastise people when its relevant to do so, IE straight white males. Although I'm not sure what's more dangerous, having nobody immigrant Muslims on the streets who are homophobic or people in power in government who are homophobic. Socially you're going to have more problems with issues happening on then] streets and quite possibly murders of gay people bringing in Muslims who are homophobic. But electing people like Pence who opposed the Matthew Shepard hate crimes act isn't exactly that great either. One ends up feeding the other.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



skypod said:


> I'm not saying the pattern is right, or that there should be a huge influx of Muslims from the Middle East into America. I'm just looking at it at the perspective of the administration in power, who are very rarely going to take morals into consideration. I'm trying to make sense of what they see as a prospect and why.
> 
> And believe me I argue against Middle Eastern backwards Muslim culture all day and night, even if in 2016 we only chastise people when its relevant to do so, IE straight white males. Although I'm not sure what's more dangerous, having nobody immigrant Muslims on the streets who are homophobic or people in power in government who are homophobic. Socially you're going to have more problems with issues happening on then] streets and quite possibly murders of gay people bringing in Muslims who are homophobic. But electing people like Pence who opposed the Matthew Shepard hate crimes act isn't exactly that great either. One ends up feeding the other.


Except Pence does not have any power except to break the Senate Tie and Trump has repeatedly claimed that gay marriage law is law and it's not his agenda. Even IF he appoints a homophobe to the supreme court, there still won't be a majority to over-turn either abortion legislation or gay marriage (because the judge he's going to replace was already one of the most conservative in American history). It's just not going to happen and it'll be a battle Trump and Pence will lose so they won't even try to take it up at the federal level. 

The States might, but again, it's very unlikely that the Supreme Court will over-turn their own ruling. Also, I may be wrong about this (and I'm only slightly unsure), but as long as gay marriage has been legalized through the constitution, it is damn near impossible for the states to make it illegal in their states. 

Finally, even American Social Conservatives (the whites anyways) are still far more socially liberal than muslims from the Middle East. It's not even a remotely valid comparison at all. Therefore, the most pressing issue at hand is to prevent more homophobes entering the country to increase the numbers that already exist here and make the situation worse. Oh and it's not just about Muslims either. Mexicans are also by and large social conservatives so restricting their inflow is in my opinion (and this is a weak one because I don't feel as strongly about it) is also a good thing. Though I don't really care much for letting them in legally. They're only going to end up in blue states where they'll be the minorities when it comes to voting on social issues - and that's fine.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> ^ Oh cool. Well yeah the Govt should be doing both. Perhaps just buy one less fighter jet to free up the money?


I was just thinking this, instead of bombing people, destabilizing Governments we don't like and causing rampant chaos, we should be using our military to help people. If our military is a "Global Force for good" than we should be using them to protect refugee areas and fighting insurgents who try to attack refugees. 

We should not be arming radical religious ******* in the desert, we shouldn't be virtue signaling, we should be doing actual virtue. You know, protecting people, setting up schools, hospitals, recreation areas, training people to help protect their own country instead of us setting it on fire. 

When people see that the US forces are protecting them against these jackasses they'll maybe change their minds on America, maybe, just maybe people won't be anti-American if you don't shoot at them, maybe and this is a big maybe, we'd have less terrorism if we financed proper education so that hardliner religious zealots didn't have their pick of endless amounts of uneducated poor people. Are they all going to be pro American? Probably not but some would appreciate the help and eventually they could make a stable society. That would be the real enemy of terrorism right there.

I'm sick of war, of phony philanthropy, of supporting asshole rebels, of taking the best and brightest of an already struggling society and of people who think ignoring your own somehow makes you virtuous. 

Want to end terrorism? It starts with helping a society become more educated and stand on their own feet and then backing them up with a strong military force so these nutjobs cannot derail society for their own dubious means.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



amhlilhaus said:


> How was jefferson racist? He got busy with his slaves?


You mean he raped his slaves?

You can easily just google how he was a racist. You dont have to take my word for it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/01/opinion/the-real-thomas-jefferson.html
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-dark-side-of-thomas-jefferson-35976004/
http://www.phillymag.com/news/2014/...sons-monticello-national-constitution-center/


----------



## Stipe Tapped

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Fine to lump them all together eh. No need to see them as individual, you know, humans. It must all their fault.
> 
> I say, the US of A was a big part of fucking up their homeland, they can be part of the solution too.


----------



## Oxidamus

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Why does Australia not have an issue with Islamic terrorism, yet it's such a big problem in the US?


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Zydeco said:


>


Maybe if we stop bombing Muslim countries all the fucking time, there wouldn't be as many Muslims who want to commit acts of terror against the USA. Just a thought.


----------



## Cipher

Aido Get Laido said:


> Why does Australia not have an issue with Islamic terrorism, yet it's such a big problem in the US?


Well, the Invasion of Iraq for one. The US isn't exactly the good guy in most situations.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Aido Get Laido said:


> Why does Australia not have an issue with Islamic terrorism, yet it's such a big problem in the US?





Cipher said:


> Well, the Invasion of Iraq for one. The US isn't exactly the good guy in most situations.


Australia was in Iraq too.

And haven't you been listening to Peter Dutton Aido? We made a mistake in the 70s by letting in all the lebanese because 22 of them (out of 180,000) have been charged with terror offences.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> Maybe if we stop bombing Muslim countries all the fucking time, there wouldn't be as many Muslims who want to commit acts of terror against the USA. Just a thought.


America wasn't bombing the Saudis in the 60's through 80's nor was in any conflict against Muslims when Palestinian terror groups and eventually Al Qaeda decided to attack Americans all over the world. 

Who was the US bombing in the 80's when modern Islamic terrorism started? Who were they in conflict with in the 60's and the 70's? Certainly not muslims - and yet the muslims have been creating and funding terror organizations throughout those decades where sporadic attacks against Americans and Israel whereever they could. 

In fact during the 80s Americans and Muslims were allies against Russia? First they helped Muslims against Russian invaders then in the 90's helped Kuwaitis against Iraqi invaders as well as extending as much help to Bosnian Muslims as was possible without entering into open conflict. 

The Muslim threat exists against the west with or without western interference because certain ideologues within the Muslim world want global domination and a return of the caliphate while other groups want the complete and utter banishment of Jews from Israel --- Much of the anti-western sentiment is a result of pro-Israeli policies and the origins of Islamic terrorism can be traced back to the creation of Israel and the subsequent reactions of muslim governments and local groups which galvanized into terrorist organizations with full ideological and financial support from Muslim governments. As long as Israel exists Muslim terror groups will not stop attacking those who continue to support its existence. Anti-west sentiment in the muslim world dates back to the creation of Israel therefore claiming that ending the modern conflict will end Islamic terrorism at this point is probably wishful thinking. 

Though I do agree that a change in tactics is necessitated.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Aido Get Laido said:


> Why does Australia not have an issue with Islamic terrorism, yet it's such a big problem in the US?


I'm not an expert in world history, but Australia's instrumentality in the creation of Israel and supporting Israel is either unknown, or unimportant. 

The primary conflict between Muslims and America is a result of Israel's creation and the absolute disgust that has perpetrated throughout the muslim world. People love to ignore the fact that Muslims hate Jews and have been funding terrorist organizations against Israel since the 60's - and the hate for America is a result of America's continued support for the existence of the Jewish state. 

It's not as recent as some people have come to falsely believe and it won't magically disappear if America pulls out of the middle-east. 

As long as Israel exists, Muslim governments and anti-semites will continue to fund terrorists and those terrorists will continue to attack America which they see as the primary supporter of Israel. 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/target/etc/modern.html



Cipher said:


> Well, the Invasion of Iraq for one. The US isn't exactly the good guy in most situations.


Hate to say it, but you guys need to brush up on world history ... I'm no expert, but claiming that Muslim problems with America started with the invasion of Iraq is just completely and utterly wrong. The conflict started with the creation of Israel and for Muslims won't end till the Jews are banished from the middle-east - which obviously should not happen and cannot happen. 

There is no simple solution to the Islamist terror problem. If it wasn't Iraq, or Syria or some other country, the muslim terrorists will find another excuse. If all conflicts are ended in the middle east somehow, they'll go back to using Israel as their primary excuse.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Aido Get Laido said:


> Why does Australia not have an issue with Islamic terrorism, yet it's such a big problem in the US?


They have their own issue with Islamic terrorism. The rhetoric just hasn't scored as much political points due to the close proximity to majority Muslim neighbour countries which make them less likely to fall into the Islam is the devil extreme position. Having said that, Australia still have their Pauline Hansons elected. :shrug

The difference I feel is America has a more organised and powerful fundamentalist base. The fundamentalists in Islamic countries use the US and Israel as 'the others' to mask the inability to improve quality of life or to maintain a mandate to govern. Same as in America where the fundamentalists use Muslims and Mexico as the 'others' to mask the failings of their ideology or to rally the votes.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Aido Get Laido said:


> Why does Australia not have an issue with Islamic terrorism, yet it's such a big problem in the US?





FriedTofu said:


> The difference I feel is America has a more organised and powerful fundamentalist base. The fundamentalists in Islamic countries use the US and Israel as 'the others' to mask the inability to improve quality of life or to maintain a mandate to govern. Same as in America where the fundamentalists use Muslims and Mexico as the 'others' to mask the failings of their ideology or to rally the votes.


You do realize that Trump got voted in largely because he didn't want to continue the war with muslims right. So for him it was literally the opposite of what you're claiming :lmao 

And no, the voting public here is completely unswayed by the claims of mexican-led violence because the rust belt (which voted democrat for 2 straight terms) which was the deciding factor in Trump's election didn't switch their votes because they suddenly bought into the "racist" anti-mexican rhetoric :lmao 

"America has a more organized and powerful fundamentalist base" :lmao

Just who are these "fundamentalists" :lol


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> You do realize that Trump got voted in largely because he didn't want to continue the war with muslims right. So for him it was literally the opposite of what you're claiming :lmao
> 
> And no, the voting public here is completely unswayed by the claims of mexican-led violence because the rust belt (which voted democrat for 2 straight terms) which was the deciding factor in Trump's election didn't switch their votes because they suddenly bought into the "racist" anti-mexican rhetoric :lmao
> 
> :lmao


You live in your fairyland if you think Trump got voted in largely due to not wanting to continue the war with Muslims. 

You think the rust belt wasn't swayed by his Mexico is stealing your jobs claims? :lmao Trump even falsely boasted he got Ford to not close down a factory after he got elected FFS.

You can't even stop spinning after your side won, to reassure yourself that you didn't support a campaign that shameless covert the deplorable vote. Who is now backtracking on almost all of the incendiary rhetoric during the campaign. Trump basically said Hillary and Jeb Bush are shit, then adopted their policies with a few subtle changes to fit a narrative. Same as his businesses nowadays, license the name while others do the work.


----------



## amhlilhaus

yeahbaby! said:


> Miss Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> Illegals pay no taxes. Nobody is saying immigration is bad. It costs a lot more to help "refugees" than it does to help people already here, many who are citizens. You can help more people displaced in their own countries than you can by bringing them over. It's silly that these people are afforded opportunities that legal immigrants and people who the system was supposed help but don't get. Refugees as long term projects? How? The very point of refugees is to find a safe haven to stay at until they can return home, if they're projects then they're not refugees.
> 
> I love this thinking, current people could be lost prospects but people who are supposedly supposed to be here only until it's safe for them to return, who aren't assimilated, have a large cultural divide and possibly language barrier are great prospects? Oh boy. There are thousands of homeless people in the US who are minors and who come from the most impoverished. I believe citizens should come first.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> It's funny, when I was growing up the refugee issue was simply seen as a humanitarian issue. There was never any mention of being illegal, of tax payers being ripped off etc etc. Somewhere along the way it became a political point scoring machine and here we are.
Click to expand...

Its also funny that growing up refugees werent committing a shitload of crime and trying to change the countries willing to have them into replicas of the hell holes they left.


----------



## amhlilhaus

Miss Sally said:


> yeahbaby! said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^ Oh cool. Well yeah the Govt should be doing both. Perhaps just buy one less fighter jet to free up the money?
> 
> 
> 
> I was just thinking this, instead of bombing people, destabilizing Governments we don't like and causing rampant chaos, we should be using our military to help people. If our military is a "Global Force for good" than we should be using them to protect refugee areas and fighting insurgents who try to attack refugees.
> 
> We should not be arming radical religious ******* in the desert, we shouldn't be virtue signaling, we should be doing actual virtue. You know, protecting people, setting up schools, hospitals, recreation areas, training people to help protect their own country instead of us setting it on fire.
> 
> When people see that the US forces are protecting them against these jackasses they'll maybe change their minds on America, maybe, just maybe people won't be anti-American if you don't shoot at them, maybe and this is a big maybe, we'd have less terrorism if we financed proper education so that hardliner religious zealots didn't have their pick of endless amounts of uneducated poor people. Are they all going to be pro American? Probably not but some would appreciate the help and eventually they could make a stable society. That would be the real enemy of terrorism right there.
> 
> I'm sick of war, of phony philanthropy, of supporting asshole rebels, of taking the best and brightest of an already struggling society and of people who think ignoring your own somehow makes you virtuous.
> 
> Want to end terrorism? It starts with helping a society become more educated and stand on their own feet and then backing them up with a strong military force so these nutjobs cannot derail society for their own dubious means.
Click to expand...

Actually the studies show that most muslim extremists are from well educated upper class families. Almost like the bored rich kid syndrome


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> You live in your fairyland if you think Trump got voted in largely due to not wanting to continue the war with Muslims.


Just another baseless claim then. Trump is anti-war. Trump got voted in. Therefore Trump voters are anti-war. Simple logic :lmao 



> You think the rust belt wasn't swayed by his Mexico is stealing your jobs claims? :lmao Trump even falsely boasted he got Ford to not close down a factory after he got elected FFS.


Mexico has taken American manufacturing jobs. 

- However claiming that NAFTA has hurt Americans creating a job and trade deficit isn't racist. 
- People wanting their manufacturing jobs back isn't because they're racist. 
- People wanting to earn a living isn't racist
- Facing unfair competition from another country that can be prevented isn't racist

What a dumb ass claim to make that wanting jobs is now racist :lmao 

You're turning into one of those people who think that simply using the names of countries is now somehow "racist" :lmao 

Apparently everything is racist for you ... even wanting jobs to stay within one's own country is racist :kobelol 



> You can't even stop spinning after your side won, to reassure yourself that you didn't support a campaign that shameless covert the deplorable vote. Who is now backtracking on almost all of the incendiary rhetoric during the campaign. Trump basically said Hillary and Jeb Bush are shit, then adopted their policies with a few subtle changes to fit a narrative. Same as his businesses nowadays, license the name while others do the work.


No the real spin is the false belief there was somehow a surge in racism that led to Trump's election when facts simply do not support that ridiculous notion :lmao


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Just another baseless claim then :lmao


You are telling the one telling me Trump got voted in largely because he didn't want to continue the war on Muslims. The same guy that called for a total ban on Muslims in America. The guy that gained support from people that want Muslims out of America. And I'm the one with a baseless claim? I am willing to concede Trump did better with Muslim voters than Romney, due to the dislike for Hillary's ME positions, but to claim he won 'largely' due to not wanting war with Muslims? Come on. You are better than this in spin.



> Mexico has taken American manufacturing jobs.
> 
> - However claiming that NAFTA has hurt Americans creating a job and trade deficit isn't racist.
> - People wanting their manufacturing jobs back isn't because they're racist.
> - People wanting to earn a living isn't racist
> - Facing unfair competition from another country that can be prevented isn't racist
> 
> What a dumb ass claim to make that wanting jobs is now racist :lmao
> 
> You're turning into one of those people who think that simply using the names of countries is now somehow "racist" :lmao
> 
> Apparently everything is racist for you ... even wanting jobs to stay within one's own country is racist :kobelol


Using Mexico as the other can be xenophobia if you want to be pedantic about it. Or nativism. :draper2 I have always maintained racism is evident in everyone of us. It is simple tribalism. It is those that have the most racist tendencies that get triggered by the use of the racist word. Just like you and so many Trump supporters that always get triggered if someone even remotely use the racist label.




> No the real spin is the false belief there was somehow a surge in racism that led to Trump's election when facts simply do not support that ridiculous notion :lmao


I didn't say there was a surge in racism that led to Trump's election? My position is Trump's campaign embolden these people and gave them a nominee to vote for that they didn't have in the past. Now who is making the baseless claim?


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

A general question.

Do you guys think the left and right views expressed in this thread and across this forum reflect a fair portion of people across the spectrum? Obviously I'm not asking whether it's a perfect representation, but how much do you think people at large who identify with either liberalism or conservatism are similar to the liberals and conservatives who post on this board?

Also I think there is 1 centrist. Would like his opinion too.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> You are telling the one telling me Trump got voted in largely because he didn't want to continue the war on Muslims. The same guy that called for a total ban on Muslims in America. The guy that gained support from people that want Muslims out of America. And I'm the one with a baseless claim? I am willing to concede Trump did better with Muslim voters than Romney, due to the dislike for Hillary's ME positions, but to claim he won 'largely' due to not wanting war with Muslims? Come on. You are better than this in spin.


Taking his muslim ban away was done *well* before election time and he stopped speaking about it at his rallies as well. How much support he gained from the Muslim ban is not even up for debate because according to the FACTS the people who voted for him showed no significant upsurge in any voter base over Romney other than minorities, white millennials and the rust belt. White millennials and rust belt both are groups that voted Obama so they did not suddenly become anti-Muslim. As you yourself pointed out, these people realized just how hawkish Hillary is and decided to vote for the candidate that offered them jobs and a war-free America :lmao 



> Using Mexico as the other can be xenophobia if you want to be pedantic about it. Or nativism. :draper2 I have always maintained racism is evident in everyone of us. It is simple tribalism. It is those that have the most racist tendencies that get triggered by the use of the racist word. Just like you and so many Trump supporters that always get triggered if someone even remotely use the racist label.


It's not xenophobia either. You guys really need to learn the definitions of the words you love to toss about because it just shows a complete lack of understanding of the concepts. Xenophobia is an irrational dislike and fear of people from other countries. Isolationism can happen as a result of Xenophobia (this is something you largely see in the conflict between pakistan and india where both governments have an irrational fear of the other .. or in the hatred of Muslim countries of Israeli Jews) ... 

Wanting to curtail, destroy or re-negotiate a trade agreement and renewed desire for isolationism has *NOTHING *to do with Xenophobia. Stop using words that you don't know the meaning of. 

There's no one being triggered here. It's another word you and other lefties have taken to misusing because again, it's another word that you have no idea what it means. Countering a false accusation of racism isn't being "triggered" by it :lmao 



> I didn't say there was a surge in racism that led to Trump's election? My position is Trump's campaign embolden these people and gave them a nominee to vote for that they didn't have in the past. Now who is making the baseless claim?


Talk about contradicting yourself. In just the comment above you're trying to rationalize the rust belt vote as a racist / xenophobic vote now denying it just a comment later. It's almost like you don't even understand what you yourself claim :lmao


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Goku said:


> A general question.
> 
> Do you guys think the left and right views expressed in this thread and across this forum reflect a fair portion of people across the spectrum? Obviously I'm not asking whether it's a perfect representation, but how much do you think people at large who identify with either liberalism or conservatism are similar to the liberals and conservatives who post on this board?
> 
> Also I think there is 1 centrist. Would like his opinion too.


It's a very hard thing to judge. I would say that this board is not that representative of the typical liberals/conservatives because I've noticed that far fewer people on here are authoritarians and generally more inclined towards some form of anti-establishment/anti-authoritarian mindsets which I don't believe are representative of the public at large. I've tried to have conversations outside this board and they are far worse than conversations I've had on here largely because I've noticed that the general public is more authoritarian and less pro-liberty than people here. 

Outside of what I post on this board which is mostly to counter the left-spin (which I know makes me come across as more conservative authoritarian since I lent my support to some things that I have in common with the GOP), I'm actually a strong proponent of a government free society where individuals are free to govern themselves under rule of law specific to governing small groups as opposed to a larger nation group, which would probably put me somewhere within the classical liberal camp or right libertarian.


----------



## THE HAITCH

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

*Mexican cement maker ready to help Trump build border wall*


----------



## Stipe Tapped

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> Maybe if we stop bombing Muslim countries all the fucking time, there wouldn't be as many Muslims who want to commit acts of terror against the USA. Just a thought.


As long as radical Islam exists, there'll be terror attacks, whether you stop bombing Muslim countries or not. We tried being compassionate and letting in hundreds of thousands into Europe earlier this year. A child could have seen what was going to happen, and sure enough, it did. Europe bent over backwards for the refugees and look where it got us.

It's true that the vast majority aren't terrorists. The majority don't sympathise with the terrorists either (although a frighteningly high amount still do). Stricter policy would lead to many legitimate refugees being turned away, but there comes a point when you have to be somewhat selfish and act in self-preservation. It's a natural response to what's been going on in Europe this year.

With rampant violence, sexual assault, welfare drains and societal tensions stemming from the unwillingness to assimilate, certain parts of Europe have been ravaged. It'd be incredibly naive for Americans to assume that if you just be nice to them they'll return the kindness. All you have to do is look at Europe. Merkel decided that we were going to be the canary sent into the mine of uninhibited immigration, and it should serve as a warning to you guys to take a more cautious approach.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> Maybe if we stop bombing Muslim countries all the fucking time, there wouldn't be as many Muslims who want to commit acts of terror against the USA. Just a thought.


Or we could stop thinking dumb thoughts that reduce jihadists to mindless reactionary props in a KGB-developed agitprop show with no agency of their own.

They weren't sitting around twiddling their thumbs until MURICA, FUCK YEAH then all of a sudden in response to American provocation they decided to kill Jews and other Westerners. 

Really all it is is bullshit the KGB spun up in the 1930s when it was still the NKVD, the whole "it's our fault they hate us because we did them wrong" agitprop line of argument. Whoever "they" happen to be. They don't have agency or minds of their own, their behavior is purely reactionary and deterministic. 

Sure it is.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



deepelemblues said:


> Or we could stop thinking dumb thoughts that reduce jihadists to mindless reactionary props in a KGB-developed agitprop show with no agency of their own.
> 
> They weren't sitting around twiddling their thumbs until MURICA, FUCK YEAH then all of a sudden in response to American provocation they decided to kill Jews and other Westerners.
> 
> Really all it is is bullshit the KGB spun up in the 1930s when it was still the NKVD, the whole "it's our fault they hate us because we did them wrong" agitprop line of argument. Whoever "they" happen to be. They don't have agency or minds of their own, their behavior is purely reactionary and deterministic.
> 
> Sure it is.


Well ... if you really wanna go back, then let's go all the way back to the time when Muslims were told that they have a natural dominion over the earth and that their primary goal is to convert the entire world to Islam. 

While the majority of Muslims have resigned to the fact that they simply cannot achieve this dream, many of them continue to harbor the desire to have the entire planet submit to Allah. 

The hardliners merely take up arms to complete that goal. The primary goal of the terrorists is global domination and that's not even an exaggeration or over-simplification. It's their primary call to action.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Zydeco said:


> As long as radical Islam exists, there'll be terror attacks, whether you stop bombing Muslim countries or not. We tried being compassionate and letting in hundreds of thousands into Europe earlier this year. A child could have seen what was going to happen, and sure enough, it did. Europe bent over backwards for the refugees and look where it got us.
> 
> It's true that the vast majority aren't terrorists. The majority don't sympathise with the terrorists either (although a frighteningly high amount still do). Stricter policy would lead to many legitimate refugees being turned away, but there comes a point when you have to be somewhat selfish and act in self-preservation. It's a natural response to what's been going on in Europe this year.
> 
> With rampant violence, sexual assault, welfare drains and societal tensions stemming from the unwillingness to assimilate, certain parts of Europe have been ravaged. It'd be incredibly naive for Americans to assume that if you just be nice to them they'll return the kindness. All you have to do is look at Europe. Merkel decided that we were going to be the canary sent into the mine of uninhibited immigration, and it should serve as a warning to you guys to take a more cautious approach.


Um, you got all that from me saying maybe there wouldn't be as many terrorists if we stopped bombing Muslim countries all the time? :aries2

I'm not saying that there wouldn't be any terrorists if we stopped bombing all the Muslim countries. I'm suggesting that there wouldn't be as many. In the 15 years since 9/11, all we have done is fuck things up even worse than they were before. Maybe instead of doubling down, we should try a different approach.

And no, I'm not suggesting we be like Europe and allow in hundreds of thousands of refugees. I'm not saying "we should be nice" to them either. I'm saying we should stay the fuck out of the Middle East altogether. Also, very importantly, _*stop fucking arming them*_. No more billions in arms deals to places like Saudi Arabia. If the Middle East wants to war themselves back into the stone age, I say we let them. Eventually they'll be fighting with sticks and rocks if we focused our efforts on preventing the world from sending them more weapons to fight with.

Tater's Official Middle Eastern Foreign Policy: Fuck 'Em.


----------



## Flair Flop

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> Just like you and so many Trump supporters that always get triggered if someone even remotely use the racist label.


Actually that word has been misused and has reached a point of saturation where it has about the same impact as the words "and" or "but" to me these days when it's coming from someone I know is firmly on the left. Sort of sad as it's supposed to mean something. It's like getting a bucket of water tossed on me yet the person tossing it still thinks they are throwing corrosive acid. Last year on another forum I mod I had to watch that term thrown at people at a frequency that would make even BM jealous. What prompted these accusations? Glad you asked. They simply said that they don't find a fictional character to be interesting. Had to even ban the more extreme ones as they were stalking people on their social media and making real life attacks on them sending their friends and families messages saying they are a racist piece of shit for not like a fictional tv character. 

So no, it not a matter of being triggered. I pity the people that use it as their first line of defense. Inaccurately using incendiary terms to shame a person shows just how little someone believes in what they are saying and speaks volumes about their ability to persuade a person of their point of view. Just shows that as opposed to simply talking to another person they disagree with and trying to find some common ground that they'd rather further that divide in a pathetic attempt of shaming them.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Taking his muslim ban away was done *well* before election time and he stopped speaking about it at his rallies as well. How much support he gained from the Muslim ban is not even up for debate because according to the FACTS the people who voted for him showed no significant upsurge in any voter base over Romney other than minorities, white millennials and the rust belt. White millennials and rust belt both are groups that voted Obama so they did not suddenly become anti-Muslim. As you yourself pointed out, these people realized just how hawkish Hillary is and decided to vote for the candidate that offered them jobs and a war-free America :lmao


Why isn't his Muslim rhetoric up for debate when that base carried him to victory in the primaries? My totally baseless theory is the upsurge in vote from minorities is a rejection of a matriarchy that a Clinton victory promises to advance. Which isn't unreasonable given that the world is still a patriarchy.

You are the one saying he got voted in *largely* due to being against a war on Muslims. Where is the FACTS for that?



> It's not xenophobia either. You guys really need to learn the definitions of the words you love to toss about because it just shows a complete lack of understanding of the concepts. Xenophobia is an irrational dislike and fear of people from other countries. Isolationism can happen as a result of Xenophobia (this is something you largely see in the conflict between pakistan and india where both governments have an irrational fear of the other .. or in the hatred of Muslim countries of Israeli Jews) ...
> 
> Wanting to curtail, destroy or re-negotiate a trade agreement and renewed desire for isolationism has *NOTHING *to do with Xenophobia. Stop using words that you don't know the meaning of.


Definition of xenophobia
: fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign

I think you are the one that needs to learn the definition of the word. How many Trump supporters feel that immigrants or foreign countries are stealing their jobs? :draper2 



> There's no one being triggered here. It's another word you and other lefties have taken to misusing because again, it's another word that you have no idea what it means. Countering a false accusation of racism isn't being "triggered" by it :lmao


You get triggered all the time by that word in here when someone uses it against the GOP, posting at length to try to assure yourself that the party did not propose certain policies to disenfranchise certain groups.



> Talk about contradicting yourself. In just the comment above you're trying to rationalize the rust belt vote as a racist / xenophobic vote now denying it just a comment later. It's almost like you don't even understand what you yourself claim :lmao


I just said the rust belt vote switched due to the nativism rhetoric by the Trump campaign. The racist vote might be the extra kick that increase turnout from those that usually don't vote that carried him over the line. How about you try to explain your original position that Trump largely won because he is against a war on Muslims?



Whorse said:


> Actually that word has been misused and has reached a point of saturation where it has about the same impact as the words "and" or "but" to me these days when it's coming from someone I know is firmly on the left. Sort of sad as it's supposed to mean something. It's like getting a bucket of water tossed on me yet the person tossing it still thinks they are throwing corrosive acid. Last year on another forum I mod I had to watch that term thrown at people at a frequency that would make even BM jealous. What prompted these accusations? Glad you asked. They simply said that they don't find a fictional character to be interesting. Had to even ban the more extreme ones as they were stalking people on their social media and making real life attacks on them sending their friends and families messages saying they are a racist piece of shit for not like a fictional tv character.
> 
> So no, it not a matter of being triggered. I pity the people that use it as their first line of defense. Inaccurately using incendiary terms to shame a person shows just how little someone believes in what they are saying and speaks volumes about their ability to persuade a person of their point of view. Just shows that as opposed to simply talking to another person they disagree with and trying to find some common ground that they'd rather further that divide in a pathetic attempt of shaming them.


I don't disagree that the left have abused the word to suit their narrative to absurd level of comedy. My pet peeves is minorities can't be racist as if being minority somehow make a person immune to developing prejudices.

My point is the right is just as easily triggered by the label and try desperately to rationalise certain beliefs or actions that are rooted in prejudice or bigotry as not racist in nature to equally absurd levels.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> Why isn't his Muslim rhetoric up for debate when that base carried him to victory in the primaries? My totally baseless theory is the upsurge in vote from minorities is a rejection of a matriarchy that a Clinton victory promises to advance. Which isn't unreasonable given that the world is still a patriarchy.


:lmao :lmao :lmao 

So now the minorities voted for Trump because they're sexist. 



> You are the one saying he got voted in *largely* due to being against a war on Muslims. Where is the FACTS for that?


Probably could have phrased that better. Let's say it was one of the reasons amongst many. 


> Definition of xenophobia
> : fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign


How can someone look at a definition of a word and still not understand what it means. Fear of losing their jobs to people in other countries is not the same as fearing those people. Xenophobia explicitly refers to irrational fear based on prejudices. There is nothing xenophobic about preserving local jobs because that's not an irrational fear and is based on actual fact, not baseless assumptions; assumptions that lie at the heart of actual xenophobia, not your contorted version of it :lmao 



> You get triggered all the time by that word in here when someone uses it against the GOP, posting at length to try to assure yourself that the party did not propose certain policies to disenfranchise certain groups.


How "Triggered" is used by people who target the left with it use it for those individuals who have an emotional over-reaction which is characterized by fits, anxiety, anger and basically an incapability of functioning because the emotions are so strong that the person can no longer make any rational arguments. Not engage in rational discussion where claims are being refuted :lmao 

Then again, you can even look at a definition of something and still not understand what that means, so I'm not surprised that you're trying to justify the misuse of a word using your own fantastical understanding of that word just like you did with xenophobia :lmao 



> I just said the rust belt vote switched due to the nativism rhetoric by the Trump campaign. The racist vote might be the extra kick that increase turnout from those that usually don't vote that carried him over the line. How about you try to explain your original position that Trump largely won because he is against a war on Muslims?


Claiming that a trade deal puts Americans at a disadvantage and forced manufacturing jobs out of the country is not a nativist argument. Nativism specifically refers to giving locals an advantage over immigrants within ones own country, not jobs lost to exportation of those jobs elsewhere. Having a preferred status for citizens and *legal* immigrants is not at all nativism. Countering losing jobs externally is not nativism. Americans are not opposed to legal immigration. Americans are opposed to illegal immigration. Being opposed to illegal immigration does not make them xenophobes, nativists or racists. 

Yet another word you just tossed in there without understanding what it means at all :lmao 



> My point is the right is just as easily triggered by the label and try desperately to rationalise certain beliefs or actions that are rooted in prejudice or bigotry as not racist in nature to equally absurd levels.


Rationalizing a false accusation is not a "triggered" response :lmao ... You seem completely incapable of understanding what certain words mean and how they apply so you try to use them however you feel like you want to use them and any counter to your perceived understanding of that word is simply and blatantly rejected.


----------



## KingCosmos

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Still waiting for Trumps apology to the Central park 5....


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> :lmao :lmao :lmao
> 
> So now the minorities voted for Trump because they're sexist.


What's so funny about that theory when even here many have said the democrats lost because of the overreach by SJWs in gender politics? Or are you just incapable of accepting that people are reluctant to change the social order? Maybe sexism is another trigger word for you?



> Probably could have phrased that better. Let's say it was one of the reasons amongst many.


That's the whole basis of this back and forth and you dismissing it just like that just shows how you sucked at defending your stupid spin in here, always attempting to go on the offensive to divert attention from your shitty positions.



> How can someone look at a definition of a word and still not understand what it means. Fear of losing their jobs to people in other countries is not the same as fearing those people. Xenophobia explicitly refers to irrational fear based on prejudices. There is nothing xenophobic about preserving local jobs because that's not an irrational fear and is based on actual fact, not baseless assumptions; assumptions that lie at the heart of actual xenophobia, not your contorted version of it :lmao


By your definition, nothing can be labelled as xenophobic because anything can be 'rational' and just pluck any 'fact' and say fearing foreigners is based on 'that' so it doesn't count. You seem to forget to include hatred in that definition too. :shrug. But then again, you will spin it into not really hating them because they are foreigners so it doesn't count.

How convenient that you left out me saying Trump supporters feelings about immigrants stealing their jobs because it doesn't suit your narrative of me not understanding the word. :lmao

But then again, hey you seem to keep assuming people who disagree with you lack a command of the English language. Maybe you can teach me where you find the irrational part of the word in the definition. Maybe you can provide a better definition than the dictionaries out there.




> How "Triggered" is used by people who target the left with it use it for those individuals who have an emotional over-reaction which is characterized by fits, anxiety, anger and basically an incapability of functioning because the emotions are so strong that the person can no longer make any rational arguments. Not engage in rational discussion where claims are being refuted :lmao
> 
> Then again, you can even look at a definition of something and still not understand what that means, so I'm not surprised that you're trying to justify the misuse of a word using your own fantastical understanding of that word just like you did with xenophobia :lmao


Seems like it fits your description in here. Just saying. Do you need your safe space so people don't point out your errors and we can all move forward?





> Claiming that a trade deal puts Americans at a disadvantage and forced manufacturing jobs out of the country is not a nativist argument. Nativism specifically refers to giving locals an advantage over immigrants within ones own country, not jobs lost to exportation of those jobs elsewhere. Having a preferred status for citizens and *legal* immigrants is not at all nativism. Countering losing jobs externally is not nativism. Americans are not opposed to legal immigration. Americans are opposed to illegal immigration. Being opposed to illegal immigration does not make them xenophobes, nativists or racists.
> 
> 
> Yet another word you just tossed in there without understanding what it means at all :lmao


Keep telling yourself that his supporters are largely swayed by the anti-trade deal talks. Are you forgetting what the words on the top his red cap? Hopefully you won't be affected the next 4 years or more when Trump starts blaming immigrants like you in his reelection for jobs not going to 'real' Americans. But then again, maybe not because I enjoy schadenfreude as much as you appear to. :lmao 

I said Americans were swayed by his nativism rhetoric, because it seemed like an easy 'out' to explain away their struggles. And the racist voters that came out this election push Trump over the line. But hey, anything to fit your narrative that people who disagree with you don't understand simple English. :lol 



> Rationalizing a false accusation is not a "triggered" response :lmao ... You seem completely incapable of understanding what certain words mean and how they apply so you try to use them however you feel like you want to use them and any counter to your perceived understanding of that word is simply and blatantly rejected.


You started this whole back and forth because you were triggered by even the remote chance that Trump's campaign was fuelled by religious fundamentalists who you hated in Muslim majority countries and overreached by claiming Trump won due to him not wanting a war against Muslims. :lol

Anyone claiming there are racist or sexist elements in the GOP or the Trump campaign seem to trigger you in here. :shrug


----------



## amhlilhaus

Goku said:


> A general question.
> 
> Do you guys think the left and right views expressed in this thread and across this forum reflect a fair portion of people across the spectrum? Obviously I'm not asking whether it's a perfect representation, but how much do you think people at large who identify with either liberalism or conservatism are similar to the liberals and conservatives who post on this board?
> 
> Also I think there is 1 centrist. Would like his opinion too.


Broadly yes.

Both sides thinks the other is dead wrong on every issue


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Goku said:


> A general question.
> 
> Do you guys think the left and right views expressed in this thread and across this forum reflect a fair portion of people across the spectrum? Obviously I'm not asking whether it's a perfect representation, but how much do you think people at large who identify with either liberalism or conservatism are similar to the liberals and conservatives who post on this board?
> 
> Also I think there is 1 centrist. Would like his opinion too.


Interesting question. When comparing the people in this thread to the people I know in real life then I'd say for the most part the right-wingers in this thread are further right than the right wingers I know and similarly with the left wingers. I'm not sure if that's a reflection of the difference between UK and US politics or not, but most of the right-wing supporters I know are more moderate, and none of the left-wingers I know would appear to be as far left as someone like BM appears to be. As a centrist I'd say that the people I know here in the UK appear to be a lot more open to react positively to discussions from the other side (unless they're real die-hard tories) and at times people could possibly be described more as "centre-left" or "centre-right." It seems that many in this thread are aggressively against anything from the opposing side of the political spectrum and are quick to jump in to denounce anything that doesn't fit in their own little box, I don't see that as often in real life. I've never once heard one of my right wing friends use "liberals" or "leftist" as an insult either, I think again that's more of an American thing.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Interesting question. When comparing the people in this thread to the people I know in real life then I'd say for the most part the right-wingers in this thread are further right than the right wingers I know and similarly with the left wingers. I'm not sure if that's a reflection of the difference between UK and US politics or not, but most of the right-wing supporters I know are more moderate, and none of the left-wingers I know would appear to be as far left as someone like BM appears to be. As a centrist I'd say that the people I know here in the UK appear to be a lot more open to react positively to discussions from the other side (unless they're real die-hard tories) and at times people could possibly be described more as "centre-left" or "centre-right." It seems that many in this thread are aggressively against anything from the opposing side of the political spectrum and are quick to jump in to denounce anything that doesn't fit in their own little box, I don't see that as often in real life. I've never once heard one of my right wing friends use "liberals" or "leftist" as an insult either, I think again that's more of an American thing.


My theory is based on my limited understanding and knowledge is that the extreme bipartisanship is very much an american exclusive ideology and it's mainly the extremes created first by the war of independence and the ideals behind it and then by the civil war which was over a great many things - one of which being the federal union asserting its ideal of converting the republic back to a centralized government - something the right here continues to believe is against the original values of the founding fathers which is why our constitution remains largely untampered. 

America is and always will be a constitutional republic which is built on the foundation of liberty and how people want to achieve that is what differs. Right believes that large centralized governments eventually lead to fascism, while left believes that the right's social values and desire to restrict social freedoms based on their religious values is what's fascist. It was forced integration that allowed african americans to finally start becoming a part of American society and that was led by a centralized government while the right continues to believe that states and groups of people should be allowed to evolve on their own without having their values forced upon them. This sort of divide is fundamental and both sides preach liberty .. It's just whose liberty they're speaking for is where the divide is at its worst. 

Ridding America of British rule was basically about preserving conservative values and freedom from a large centralized government ... meanwhile one of the core issues of the civil war was about returning more power to the federal government. 

This created the pockets of dissent against federalism within the south and central parts of America which then eventually started being held up by rural communities. Originally, it was rural america that fought against the british centralization and then it was again the same rural south that tried to fight against federalism. 

I find that both left and right are about freedom as a whole, but recently the left has noticeably moved farther left in terms of wanting a bigger government to impose their ideals of freedom (while imo basterdizing what freedom actually is since the left wing has adopted some largely debateable positions and fascist policy-making) while the right has continued to oppose big government control and using that argument to be less socially progressive (in terms of things like abortion and gay rights). 

Big government vs small government is a fundamental difference in values in America while I've noticed that when it comes to the rest of the first world they tend to simply assume that the government should be a powerful centralized body and don't even bother questioning the need for its existence for the most part which is why the opposition to an elected government is barely there - meanwhile at least here we can control the government's power through the bipartisanship that exists as a part of our system and I don't think that it's going to go away any time soon if ever.

We also finally have a small movement of libertarians like myself that just want the government to fuck off and let people govern themselves, but in America our numbers are far, far too low to matter in terms of political power therefore we end up choosing sides in the end. Left libertarians tend to go democrat while Right libertarians like myself get swayed by GOP more.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> My theory is based on my limited understanding and knowledge is that the extreme bipartisanship is very much an american exclusive ideology and it's mainly the extremes created first by the war of independence and the ideals behind it and then by the civil war which was over a great many things - one of which being the federal union asserting its ideal of converting the republic back to a centralized government - something the right here continues to believe is against the original values of the founding fathers which is why our constitution remains largely untampered.
> 
> America is and always will be a constitutional republic which is built on the foundation of liberty and how people want to achieve that is what differs. Right believes that large centralized governments eventually lead to fascism, while left believes that the right's social values and desire to restrict social freedoms based on their religious values is what's fascist. It was forced integration that allowed african americans to finally start becoming a part of American society and that was led by a centralized government while the right continues to believe that states and groups of people should be allowed to evolve on their own without having their values forced upon them. This sort of divide is fundamental and both sides preach liberty .. It's just whose liberty they're speaking for is where the divide is at its worst.
> 
> Ridding America of British rule was basically about preserving conservative values and freedom from a large centralized government ... meanwhile one of the core issues of the civil war was about returning more power to the federal government.
> 
> This created the pockets of dissent against federalism within the south and central parts of America which then eventually started being held up by rural communities. Originally, it was rural america that fought against the british centralization and then it was again the same rural south that tried to fight against federalism.
> 
> I find that both left and right are about freedom as a whole, but recently the left has noticeably moved farther left in terms of wanting a bigger government to impose their ideals of freedom (while imo basterdizing what freedom actually is since the left wing has adopted some largely debateable positions and fascist policy-making) while the right has continued to oppose big government control and using that argument to be less socially progressive (in terms of things like abortion and gay rights).
> 
> Big government vs small government is a fundamental difference in values in America while I've noticed that when it comes to the rest of the first world they tend to simply assume that the government should be a powerful centralized body and don't even bother questioning the need for its existence for the most part which is why the opposition to an elected government is barely there - meanwhile at least here we can control the government's power through the bipartisanship that exists as a part of our system and I don't think that it's going to go away any time soon if ever.
> 
> We also finally have a small movement of libertarians like myself that just want the government to fuck off and let people govern themselves, but in America our numbers are far, far too low to matter in terms of political power therefore we end up choosing sides in the end. Left libertarians tend to go democrat while Right libertarians like myself get swayed by GOP more.


It's interesting actually looking at it when taking the War of Independence and the American Civil War into account, I'll have to look into that further as it seems quite an interesting subject in general. It's also interesting how different the perception of left-wing politics differs between here and the US. Over here the left is about as far away from "fascism" as you can get, where the right exhibits way more of those characteristics (see recent policy introduced by the Conservative party, especially the "snooper's charter.") We've been dominated by the right for a long time now (the last time our "left wing" party were in power they did so after a transformation from a socialist party to a neo-con party) with very little to distinguish our 2 main political parties beyond the names of the politicians. The whole big/small government is less of an issue here than there tbh so our parties aren't remotely defined by that, here it's much more about financial and social policies. At the moment, the right-wing believes in austerity for everyone except the ruling class and social policies that were investigated by the UN human rights commission and found to be "in breach of human rights responsibilities" and have found to be directly responsible in the deaths of thousands of vulnerable and disabled people. The left stand for taxing the corporations, regaining public assets that have either been sold or privatised by the Conservatives in order to profit (the sheer volume of businesses getting governmental contracts that're owned by members of the government and their family is beyond ridiculous) and giving voice to the working and lower middle classes. I'm sure it's easy to see why the fastest growing political party by paid membership is the (now socialist again) left wing party. Part of the difference may also be the less extreme leanings of the major parties over here I'd imagine, our socialists aren't remotely close to communists and our conservatives aren't remotely close to fascists. Our more extreme parties tend to garner very little support all told, we don't tend to have "extreme left" very often, but when we do they're relative unknowns politically and the far-right are more concerned with rioting and drunken marches than any real political ambition. Definitely interesting to see just how different we are from the US though.


----------



## skypod

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Not sure I've really had a conversation with someone in Scotland that would consider themselves on the right. I think there's some basic rights and policies everyone in the UK agrees on, which is why it generally feels less hostile. I'm not sure if what the Tories actually DO is indicative of what people on the right actually want either, but like I said I'm not sure I've even met a Tory up here. 

I will say some people I speak to seem to want free everything, and the issue seems to be moreso the care of existing poor people rather than avoiding the buildup of unemployment over the next 20 years. That's when I put my head in my hands and think "well how do you expect to pay for everything?"


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



skypod said:


> I will say some people I speak to seem to want free everything, and the issue seems to be moreso the care of existing poor people rather than avoiding the buildup of unemployment over the next 20 years. That's when I put my head in my hands and think *"well how do you expect to pay for everything?"*


And the answer to that question gave birth to over-taxed corporations, minimum wages, social welfare programs, medicaid (in America), food stamps ... using "economic equality" rationalizations to punish entrepreneurs who responded by finding increasingly inventive ways of moving jobs off-shore eventually - creating this endless loop of increased taxes leading to lost jobs etc etc. 

It's a very complex model that I don't feel like explaining right now, but ultimately every single social welfare economy where there's higher regulations is a smaller overall economy and stunted GDP growth than countries that have adopted policies closest to free market capitalism ... This is where countries like South Korea, Japan, China, India and America have boomed while much of the west has floundered.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



skypod said:


> Not sure I've really had a conversation with someone in Scotland that would consider themselves on the right. I think there's some basic rights and policies everyone in the UK agrees on, which is why it generally feels less hostile. I'm not sure if what the Tories actually DO is indicative of what people on the right actually want either, but like I said I'm not sure I've even met a Tory up here.
> 
> I will say some people I speak to seem to want free everything, and the issue seems to be moreso the care of existing poor people rather than avoiding the buildup of unemployment over the next 20 years. That's when I put my head in my hands and think "well how do you expect to pay for everything?"


One of the many many things I love about Scotland is the lack of Tories actually, both as elected officials and in the general populace. I'm actually looking to move to Edinburgh in the new year myself, my favourite city in the UK by a substantial margin. I wish I could confirm that what the Tories are doing is against the will of the right but sadly it really isn't. I have many right-wing friends, some of whom even campaign for the Tories every election and they're revelling in the current regime. Regarding the social issues of welfare and employment, the Tories aren't really too fussed about either if you look at their policies. Generally the theme revolves around punishing those who work on low income earnings and putting the vulnerable at considerable risk - all whilst taking away employee rights and making it easier for the upper middle class and upper class to earn a lot more at the expense of the workforce. Giving tax breaks to the wealthiest whilst punishing the poorest (and I mean poorest workers, not those on welfare.) You're in a much better place with the SNP watching your backs up there than we are in England right now, I know that much. Labour aren't massively better than the Tories, however, their focus is on actually charging large corporations tax (6 out of our 10 biggest businesses paid zero tax in 2014 as an example of how much income we're losing out on) and using those taxes to pay for their various policies. Tories are privatising the NHS and lining Branson's pockets despite their General Election promises to protect the NHS from that very fate, Labour are more interested in paying doctors and nurses fairly and giving the NHS the funding it deserves. Now, I'm not fully sold on Labour or Corbyn myself, but on policy alone they're far more friendly to the "little guy" and a lot less concerned with cutting deals for their wealthy buddies at our expense. I'd honestly vote SNP if that was an option for here, whether you like Sturgeon or not, one thing she's made very clear is that she actually FIGHTS for her constituents. I can get behind a politician who shows their dedication to the job with action. Corbyn does seem like a genuinely decent bloke, especially compared to the average British politician, but he also comes with a party full of neo-cons who're very similar to the Tory party at large. It's a shitty time for politics in the UK right now, especially with Blair popping his ugly mug back up at a time where the majority of Labour is looking for a way to get out from under the left-wing elements of the party.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



amhlilhaus said:


> Broadly yes.
> 
> Both sides thinks the other is dead wrong on every issue


i don't think everybody including me is dead wrong on every issue

i know it


----------



## The RainMaker

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Looks like Trump convinced Carrier AC to stay in America.


Dickheat is too strong. MAGA.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Very interesting conversation about left and right wing views. On the whole I do think the people in this thread are broadly more radical in terms of their political ideology whether it be left or right wing. In general I think people who know me can figure out I'm more attached to the political system of the US than in my own country the UK due to the checks and balances a constitutional republic has which at least in part stops complete authoritarian big government control, though both parties have done a good job in undermining the bill of rights at every turn, particularly with the patriot act which has essentially destroyed both the 4th and 8th amendments.

As a libertarian/classical liberal in the UK, I'm very much on the fringes which is why I do not identify with any political party. @RavishingRickRules is right to say that big vs small government at least in 2016 is hardly a blip on the issues when it comes to British politics. Any person who understands the concepts of liberty and individualism knows that big centralized government is more prone to abusing power and stripping away civil liberties and the rights of the people when unchecked and by in large all the political parties to some degree or another possess a big authoritarian streak. Whilst Theresa May and the Tories did introduce the investigatory Powers Act (or more commonly known as the snoopers charter), it is was overwhelmingly supported by parliamentary Labour MP's. It has essentially guaranteed I won't be voting for either of the main parties in the next general election. The left in the UK in particular are in the business of policing language and "Hate Speech" in the name of social justice in the same way that the authoritarian left in the US wants to. The difference is here, it has been legislated into law and you can by law be arrested and thrown in jail for saying things that are deemed socially unacceptable. This not only includes racism and homophobia but also sexism due to the fact that misogyny has been made a hate crime. This has also been supported by a large number of Conservatives meaning that both main parties believe in the regulation of free speech, completely undermining the fabric of a free and open society. Both parties do not believe in free speech or it's conception. That to me makes both parties authoritarian.

The interesting thing is with the Labour party there is a big divide between the membership and the majority of the parliamentary MP's. The Tony Blair years of the Labour party saw it abandon their socialist roots to morph into a more neo-liberal and corporatist party not too dissimilar to the Democrats in the US. With Corbyn however, you see both him and his supporters wanting to drag the party back to it's 1970's and 80's agenda of essentially nationalizating the majority of the economic sectors starting with the railways and energy. They may not say it and it might not be their official platform but knowing Corbyn's roots and his supporters it certainly is their goal. And to say that goes against what I believe in politically would be an understatement.

I may be mistaken for a hardline Tory with some of my beliefs but there is also certainly a lot about them which I also despise. Of course the surveillance state and the intrusion of privacy and civil liberties being one of them. Another being their insistence on corporate welfare and giving out tax breaks and subsidies to big businesses who don't need it. It is the very definition of cronyism and goes against my largely free market policies. Furthermore, both Cameron and May have proven to be staunch interventionists and the Tories would have dragged us into war with Syria had it not been voted down in parliament. They also in my mind have not gone far enough in their goal of decentralization and have had examples of them acting directly against the principle. A good example being overturning Nottinghamshire councils decision to not allow Fracking to go ahead in their constituencies. The Tories, clearly not believing in allowing more power for local authorities (at least in May's Conservative Party), overturned that decision and forced Nottinghamshire to undergo fracking despite that local government and the majority of people living there being against it. Even as someone who is not against fracking, it was something that went against beliefs that I hold in terms of decentralizing power and giving more control, liberty and freedom as close to the individual as possible.

Where I am on the fringes of UK politics is in a few specific cases especially. For one, I want government in the UK to be much much smaller than it currently is now. I find some agencies to be intrusive whilst others simply either inefficient or simply not needed and a waste of money. With the deficits and debt climbing higher, in order for us to balance the budget, one of the major things in my mind that needs to doing is big governmental reform in Westminister whereby we both assess and reduce the size of the state to a less bureaucratic and more manageable level. The second thing I'd to see is decentralization taken to the point where we reform the UK into a federal system whereby the counties get reformed into state like provinces given the power to legislate their own laws and handle their own budgets. This would include control over funding for education, healthcare (because the NHS isn't going to go anywhere) and emergency services. In addition to that I'd like to see our own constitution and bill of rights whereby we restrict and restrain the power the government has over the people. Unfortunately we are going in a direction well away from that...

Thirdly and by far the most unpopular view I have is I believe that we need to change our education and especially our healthcare system whereby we get rid of the NHS. This is where I probably will be seen as a "hardline tory" by UK users on here. I could into detail why I want the healthcare system changed and it would be essentially be an essay. The short of it is that I don't see this like most people as a nationalization vs privatization issue rather it is an issue whereby the NHS has a monopoly on the healthcare system and due to that it is effecting the quality of healthcare provided and most importantly it fundamentally takes away the freedom for people to choose and have control over their own healthcare and coverage. Because of the issue of monopoly it also means I am also very much against the privatization of the NHS to big corporate insurance companies as it is essentially the transfer of one monopolistic entity to another and instead of having the problem of bureaucracy and inefficiency what we are seeing is the problem of the profit motive not being realized and being abused due to the lack of competition. So I'd rather see free market private insurance based system (not like the heavily corporate US system thank you very much before anyone says anything) and if it has to be a universal healthcare system I'd love it if it were based of the highly successful swiss model which is considered the best in Europe and among the elite healthcare systems in the world.

By in large though, I disagree with all the parties. I have areas in which they do appeal to me though, Liberal Democrats have come out in favour of legalizing weed for example...Corbyn came out in favour of legalizing prostitution out of nowhere which was hilarious but awesome. UKIP wanting a Australian Points based immigration system appeals to me as someone who has seen the damaging effects of mass open immigration particularly with the European Migrant Crisis as well...so there are obviously good points but at this rate I doubt I'm even going to vote in the next general election :lol.


----------



## amhlilhaus

deepelemblues said:


> amhlilhaus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Broadly yes.
> 
> Both sides thinks the other is dead wrong on every issue
> 
> 
> 
> i don't think everybody including me is dead wrong on every issue
> 
> i know it
Click to expand...

If you talk to a die hard progressive and a equally die hard conservative, i have no idea what they would agree on, except the other side sucks ass


----------



## ST1TCH

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

That's because the conservatives can't be reasoned with.

They want to reinstate slavery and put gays in concentration camps. Yeah, I read twitter.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



ST1TCH said:


> They want to reinstate slavery and put gays in concentration camps. Yeah, I read twitter.


Well, aren't slavery and concentration camps better than chopping rich people's heads off with guillotines and dropping 12.5 kilotons and 20 kilotons of liberty on civilians? :draper2


----------



## ST1TCH

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Well, aren't slavery and concentration camps better than chopping rich people's heads off with guillotines and dropping 12.5 kilotons of liberty on civilians? :draper2


Um, rich people deserve to be dead because they have more money than me and they did nothing to earn it.

Nice try.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Interesting question. When comparing the people in this thread to the people I know in real life then I'd say for the most part the right-wingers in this thread are further right than the right wingers I know and similarly with the left wingers. I'm not sure if that's a reflection of the difference between UK and US politics or not, but most of the right-wing supporters I know are more moderate, and none of the left-wingers I know would appear to be as far left as someone like BM appears to be. As a centrist I'd say that the people I know here in the UK appear to be a lot more open to react positively to discussions from the other side (unless they're real die-hard tories) and at times people could possibly be described more as "centre-left" or "centre-right." It seems that many in this thread are aggressively against anything from the opposing side of the political spectrum and are quick to jump in to denounce anything that doesn't fit in their own little box, I don't see that as often in real life. I've never once heard one of my right wing friends use "liberals" or "leftist" as an insult either, I think again that's more of an American thing.


Dude its like wrestling when they take a stereotype and crank it up to 11 

Right wingers are impassioned commie killing ********, left wingers are college Marxists who want to murder anyone who has more money, and centralists have no personality (like me)

you have to play the stereotype as hard as possible so even the dumbest audience member gets it


----------



## skypod

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

If the far right or far left were in complete power of a country, and say let's talk about someone that's become disabled or can't work for some reason. They have no family support and are living off pennies. You can argue one side of the political spectrum limits the amount of these people, which is fine. But on the left it seems that person has the safety net of the healthcare system and the welfare state, even if you can criticise those things all day and night, as these things will never be perfect. 

But what is the right's "safety net" for people that have genuinely fallen into bad luck in their life? Not criticising or saying they don't have one, I honestly want to know what the policy on the right is for this.

I pay higher taxes than an American, but I like that I can book a doctors appointment today for a skin rash, go in 4-10 days later, be seen by a doctor near my house where i'm registered (which was a very short form to fill out) and be given something for that rash immediately after a 5 minute wait. My wallets never come out of my pocket and I've been seen in a relatively short time. There's a calming feeling that no matter what small thing pops up, whether I'm employed or not I have that to fall back on.


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

*4-10 days seems like a mighty long time to wait for a doctor appointment. *


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



skypod said:


> But what is the right's "safety net" for people that have genuinely fallen into bad luck in their life? Not criticising or saying they don't have one, I honestly want to know what the policy on the right is for this.


There is no right-wing solution to over-priced healthcare because being a necessity good the healthcare industry has been able to get away with breaking away from laissez-faire capitalism that's based on demand and supply. Being a necessity good, the demand is absolute (meaning if you don't get it, you die) therefore price equilibriums can pretty much never be reached and that encourages greed. 

The left wing solution of nationalized healthcare is also not the right solution because people continue to pay for services they don't need. 

Let's take healthy 20-50 year olds for example. On average a Canadian pays $4000 a year in healthcare (I'm guessing it would be the same for Scots or might even be more). If they pay that amount of 25 years, they've already paid something like $100,000 and if they don't need advanced medical treatment for a life-threatening disease, then they're by and large over-paying for the services as well ... Essentially what you consider "free" is just a nationalised saving account where you never know how much you'd actually save and how much of it is actually your money and your spending on your healthcare. But worse, because it's "savings" that you may never get. It's like gambling basically where if you're healthy and consistently so, you never see a dime of your money. 

It's less control and lack of knowledge of costs means you could actually be paying way, way, way more than you would for your treatment over a long period of time since it's fixed and mandated. 

The end is the same even if the means are different. By and large most of the population is healthy and will actually not spend $100,000 in treatment over 25 years ... so a "free" healthcare system is potentially just as expensive, or may even be more expensive than a privatized one.

In America we do have stronger culture of philanthropy and charity where there are not just government organizations, but also NGO's that will help pay off your bills if you're poor. Worst case scenario, it goes on your debt and destroys your credit --- but by and large you can work out how to pay the money back in installments or whatever. You can't be jailed for not being able to pay for your medical treatment and by law hospitals are required to treat patients so it's not like the poor don't receive medical treatment at all.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-...d-in-self-dealing-irs-filing-shows-1479829984

Seems like his rhetoric against Clinton is just projection. :lmao

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-23/modern-democracy-has-plenty-of-trump-precedents

Berlusconi, Duterte or Thaksin? Which will Trump turn out to be?


----------



## skypod

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



AryaDark said:


> *4-10 days seems like a mighty long time to wait for a doctor appointment. *


I've heard of people who wait weeks, and when they get to the Doctors it's still a 2 hour wait past their appointment window. I expect every area of every country has specific issues with that, but if I had a problem that required immediate attention I would go to a hospital in Accident and Emergency. 




> There is no right-wing solution to over-priced healthcare because being a necessity good the healthcare industry has been able to get away with breaking away from laissez-faire capitalism that's based on demand and supply. Being a necessity good, the demand is absolute (meaning if you don't get it, you die) therefore price equilibriums can pretty much never be reached and that encourages greed.
> 
> The left wing solution of nationalized healthcare is also not the right solution because people continue to pay for services they don't need.
> 
> Let's take healthy 20-50 year olds for example. On average a Canadian pays $4000 a year in healthcare (I'm guessing it would be the same for Scots or might even be more). If they pay that amount of 25 years, they've already paid something like $100,000 and if they don't need advanced medical treatment for a life-threatening disease, then they're by and large over-paying for the services as well ... Essentially what you consider "free" is just a nationalised saving account where you never know how much you'd actually save and how much of it is actually your money and your spending on your healthcare. It's less control and lack of knowledge of costs means you could actually be paying way, way, way more than you would for your treatment over a long period of time since it's fixed and mandated.
> 
> The end is the same even if the means are different. By and large most of the population is healthy and will actually not spend $100,000 in treatment over 25 years ... so a "free" healthcare system is potentially just as expensive, or may even be more expensive than a privatized one.


Not sure about Canadas system as it seems a little high. I put in a figure of £20,000 income a year (about £1800 taxable because your first £11,000 is tax free) into a UK tax calculator site and 20% goes towards pensions, 18% healthcare, 11% education, 6% defence and a few other things.

I mean the thought it right, I'm spending money for other people to have surgeries or treat their STDs or pay for abortions or whatever else. But I suppose it's part of the known culture growing up here that you pay for others because you could be in that position of being jobless and sick one day. But like I said that system is far from perfect, as any government system is it needs to be looked at and criticised to get better.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*





 @DesolationRow, @CamillePunk, @L-DOPA --- What do you guys think Jill Stein is up to and who's actually behind this?


----------



## amhlilhaus

ST1TCH said:


> That's because the conservatives can't be reasoned with.
> 
> They want to reinstate slavery and put gays in concentration camps. Yeah, I read twitter.


Correct as usual.

The left wants to destroy the middle class so they have to turn to government in order to survive, thus ensuring themselves votes


----------



## amhlilhaus

Carte Blanche said:


> @DesolationRow, @CamillePunk, @L-DOPA --- What do you guys think Jill Stein is up to and who's actually behind this?


Soros

The lefts still trying to steal the election. 

Imagine if they succeeded, clinton would have no credibility at all


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



amhlilhaus said:


> Soros
> 
> The lefts still trying to steal the election.
> 
> Imagine if they succeeded, clinton would have no credibility at all


Man, I miss the good old days when the fucking oligarchs used to operate less blatantly than this and we'd actually have to do some real digging. 

Everything is so out in the open now and they don't even seem to care for secrecy ...


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> @DesolationRow, @CamillePunk, @L-DOPA --- What do you guys think Jill Stein is up to and who's actually behind this?


Soros, Zuckerberg and many of the giants who wanted Hillary in power. Jill was very anti-Clinton and this is a little sketchy. It's funny the Democrats want recounts considering the election fraud they pulled in their own DNC nonsense and how the machines were turning Republican votes to Democrat. It's funny how the machines always seem to do that. If they cannot change the EC they will just attack the voting process etc. They won't let this go, we may actually have voter ID championed by the Democrats soon.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> @DesolationRow, @CamillePunk, @L-DOPA --- What do you guys think Jill Stein is up to and who's actually behind this?


I'd like to think sheer greed is what this is all about (and this is indeed my first instinct), with Jill Stein being a carny to Democratic donors and operatives' rubes soaking them for millions for an obviously doomed cause, but apparently the state of Wisconsin _is_ going to perform a complete recount. 

I'm seeing no reason whatsoever for a recount in _Michigan_, however, which only has paper ballots, and whose election results in the presidential category were finally just certified a day and a half ago or so. :lmao

Carnies and rubes, @AryaDark, carnies and rubes! Right?


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



L-DOPA said:


> Very interesting conversation about left and right wing views...



I agree with a lot of the things you say, some less so. The NHS services have already been largely privatised at this point (mostly Virgin actually) and it's not improved healthcare at all, in fact, the quality is getting worse, not better. There's also no monopoly at all, if you want to actually pay for privatised healthcare at a premium (like in the US) you have the right to do so and there are plenty of private practises and hospitals throughout the UK. If you remove the NHS you just remove the free healthcare for those who can't afford private health, it does nothing to improve the private sector at all. Last time I was in a private hospital (back surgery) I was treated like a king, top quality catering and the works. 

Actually there are a few things you seem to be massively behind the times on in terms of your knowledge base, Corbyn brought up prostitution being legal is one, as prostitution itself has actually been legal since 2009. As long as the prostitute is working in private and for themselves, that's a legal transaction. Outcall escorts similarly, are legal. Similarly the Liberal Democrats have been pro-legalisation of ALL drugs since the early 00's, it's not a new development that they're pro-weed at all. These are less new developments and just things you've only recently become aware of yourself. 

It's also interested that you level censorship at the left-wing parties in the UK, that's actually not true. Pretty much all of the censorship legislation has been introduced by the Conservative party, as well as the more intrusive surveillance acts. They may have gained support from the Labour party members (as most of them are quite firmly conservative in the first place - not "liberal" in the slightest) but none of these bills are being introduced by centre-left parties, they're all being introduced by right wing parties. I'm not even a Labour supporter either, I can't stand the neo-con side of the party and I think the Corbynite left-wingers are living in cloud cuckoo land, but you can't make blatantly false statements about the nature of the parties - the majority of the parliamentary Labour party are not "neo liberals" they're "neo-conservatives" in the exact same mold as the majority of the Conservative party. 

Interestingly, the Labour party is gaining more momentum under Corbyn as the fastest growing political party in Europe since that shift of Leadership from centre-right to quite firmly left, whereas the Conservative party under the "moderate" Theresa May appear to be losing support. I wonder if Boris' power play had won-out whether the Tories would also be gaining more support? It's well known Boris was the representative of the hard-line right-wingers in the Tory party. I think a lot of the apathy caused in our political system these days is caused by the fact that most of our politicians are essentially identical in their politics. Neo-cons everywhere, in most of the major parties, perhaps people are ready to move away from the centre-right, whether that be towards the left with Corbyn, or further to the right should Theresa May be less than successful in her current role (which seems likely as she's cocking it right up so far.)


----------



## amhlilhaus

Carte Blanche said:


> amhlilhaus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Soros
> 
> The lefts still trying to steal the election.
> 
> Imagine if they succeeded, clinton would have no credibility at all
> 
> 
> 
> Man, I miss the good old days when the fucking oligarchs used to operate less blatantly than this and we'd actually have to do some real digging.
> 
> Everything is so out in the open now and they don't even seem to care for secrecy ...
Click to expand...

We didnt have the internet.

Its ironic, in enriching themselves they give us the tools to see through, or steal (wikileaks) their secrets.

I dont hate super rich people. Its how society will always work. As long as they provide innovation through products and services to better our lives, make your paper boo boo.

But when they enrich themselves, decide they should run our lives then its a problem.

I dont think they no longer care for secrecy, its just that theyre not so much smarter than the rest of us. The worlds caught on to their bullshit. In the us, when minorities catch on that democrats and their policies are epic failures, ignore the lefts fear mongering about the rights all being racists and give conservatism a chance the left will crumble into the steaming pile of shit that we know theyve been since the 60s.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

BASED GOD EMPEROR embarrassing all the cucks like Trudeau with his statement on Castro going to hell. 

Canadians must be so proud they have a prime minister who fell all over himself to slob the knob of a dead mass murderer one more time.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



> Officials in the Obama administration threw cold water on the effort to recount votes in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania on Friday.
> 
> The effort was spearheaded by Green Party candidate Jill Stein, who echoed arguments that Russia may have hacked US voting machines to interfere with the outcome of the November 8 election.
> 
> A statement from the Obama administration cited by The New York Times acknowledged that the Kremlin likely expected the hacking of some Democratic Party entities in the run-up to Election Day to raise questions about the voting process and the legitimacy of President-elect Donald Trump's victory.
> 
> "Nevertheless, we stand behind our election results, which accurately reflect the will of the American people," the statement read.
> 
> Speculation that electronic voting machines could be hacked has largely been debunked, primarily because the machines are not connected to the internet.
> 
> Stein contended that this was a "hack-riddled election" that warrants a second look at the votes. Trump won by thin margins in the three states Stein aims to contest.
> 
> The Green Party sought to raise $7 million to fund the recount. Fundraising surpassed the $5 million mark on Friday. For her part, Stein only received one percent of the vote nationally.
> 
> Jill Stein
> Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein answers questions during a press conference at the National Press Club August 23, 2016 in Washington, DC. Getty/Win McNamee
> 
> Election officials in Wisconsin accepted a recount petition on Friday and announced that the effort was underway.
> 
> The Times notes that officials close to Democrat Hillary Clinton's campaign allegedly wanted nothing to do with the recount effort. During a raucous election campaign in which Trump routinely trumpeted unsubstantiated claims of a "rigged" election, Clinton frequently chided that rhetoric and called on Trump to accept the eventual outcome.
> 
> Clinton conceded the election hours after it became clear that Trump would secure enough electoral votes to win the White House.
> 
> On Saturday, the Clinton campaign's general counsel, Marc Elias signaled that the campaign would indeed participate in the recount, citing "claims of abnormalities and irregularities." Elias added, however, that there is so far no evidence that the results were manipulated.
> 
> "We believe we have an obligation to the more than 64 million Americans who cast ballots for Hillary Clinton to participate in ongoing proceedings to ensure that an accurate vote count will be reported," Elias wrote.
> 
> Weeks after the election, some supporters of the recount have pointed to Clinton's growing lead in the popular vote as reason to question the electoral outcome.
> 
> As of Friday, Clinton had secured two million more votes than the president-elect.


http://www.businessinsider.com/audit-the-vote-recount-jill-stein-election-hillary-clinton-trump-2016-11


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Perhaps it's just me, but throwing away $5m on election recounts seems like a massive waste of cash...Surely there has to be a better use for $5m than that?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Perhaps it's just me, but throwing away $5m on election recounts seems like a massive waste of cash...Surely there has to be a better use for $5m than that?


Not when you're a group of establishment billionaires convinced that you can over-turn a democratic election.

This money is not being put up by Jill Stein. It's not been donated by supporters of Jill Stein or even people who want a recount. This has nothing to do with the normal public on either side at all - which is why the recount is only targeted at battlegrounds Trump won and not the battlegrounds Hillary won. 

There was a meeting held by George Storos and other DNC tycoons a few weeks ago and this is the solution they came up with.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Not when you're a group of establishment billionaires convinced that you can over-turn a democratic election.
> 
> This money is not being put up by Jill Stein. It's not been donated by supporters of Jill Stein.
> 
> There was a meeting held by George Storos and other DNC tycoons a few weeks ago and this is the solution they came up with.


Ahhh good to know, I guess I made the assumption it was from her own supporters as she's Green Party not Democrat. Always makes me wonder whether said billionaires realise how much good they could do with that cash if they put their own poor sportmanship aside?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Ahhh good to know, I guess I made the assumption it was from her own supporters as she's Green Party not Democrat. Always makes me wonder whether said billionaires realise how much good they could do with that cash if they put their own poor sportmanship aside?


All you need to know about Jill Stein is that Harambe was polling better than her prior to election and had Harambe been on the ballot, he would have received more votes. 

Stein raised more money for a recount in a day than she did during her entire campaign. Obvious foul play is obvious.

This just in, Clinton has joined the push for a recount. As was expected.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> All you need to know about Jill Stein is that Harambe was polling better than her prior to election and had Harambe been on the ballot, he would have received more votes.
> 
> Stein raised more money for a recount in a day than she did during her entire campaign. Obvious foul play is obvious.


Yeah I just read the article you linked, certainly points to some sort of shadiness. I must admit I only even knew who she was at election time because a musician I follow had posted support for her. Beyond Trump and Clinton, Gary Johnson was the other candidate I saw some people supporting, without that one musician I doubt she would've been on my radar in the slightest. Surely these recounts aren't likely to actually achieve anything though right? I mean, if the voting stations weren't even online then how can they even feasibly suggest they were hacked? The Russians had KGB in the polling stations manually tweaking the boxes? LOL


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Yeah I just read the article you linked, certainly points to some sort of shadiness. I must admit I only even knew who she was at election time because a musician I follow had posted support for her. Beyond Trump and Clinton, Gary Johnson was the other candidate I saw some people supporting, without that one musician I doubt she would've been on my radar in the slightest. Surely these recounts aren't likely to actually achieve anything though right? I mean, if the voting stations weren't even online then how can they even feasibly suggest they were hacked? The Russians had KGB in the polling stations manually tweaking the boxes? LOL


The other thing is, Stein was also pretty openly anti-Hillary, more so than anti-Trump towards the end of the campaign trail. No matter how you look at it, there's just no credibility at all in her call for the recount as a third party candidate. The only thing that makes sense is that she was either put up by Soros and his buddies, or Clinton and the DNC - or both. 

Michigan will recount, but they did an unofficial verification and there are sites claiming that Trump still won the state by 10k votes. Which is why Hillary's support is restricted to WI. 

It's unlikely that this is going to achieve anything, but it should serve to remind the democrats just how filthy and corrupt their party has become and if they don't switch allegiances now, then they probably never will.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@DesolationRow @L-DOPA @Sincere @Pratchett @Carte Blanche @Miss Sally @AryaDark @MrMister






Hope y'all don't mind if I post a video that isn't over a half hour long for a change. :mj Paul Joseph Watson obliterates those on the left who claim Trump is in any way against blacks, latinos, or gays.


----------



## ShiningStar

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Jill Stein is Pimp

You just know she is pocketing most of that money and doesn't care either way.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Jill just wants it on record she beat Hitler, a Ham Sandwich and the ghost of Jimmy Carter (which is odd because he is still alive)


----------



## Trivette

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

:lmao


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> @DesolationRow @L-DOPA @Sincere @Pratchett @Carte Blanche @Miss Sally @AryaDark @MrMister
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hope y'all don't mind if I post a video that isn't over a half hour long for a change. :mj Paul Joseph Watson obliterates those on the left who claim Trump is in any way against blacks, latinos, or gays.


Always love how people try to explain away or make excuses why Trump is not a racist/bigot. All you have to do is listen to the shit he said and the racist and bigots he is filling his cabinet with. 

Anyone that is not a racist/bigot would not have Pence as VP and trying to put people like Flynn, Bannon, Sessions etc in his cabinet.


----------



## amhlilhaus

RavishingRickRules said:


> Carte Blanche said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not when you're a group of establishment billionaires convinced that you can over-turn a democratic election.
> 
> This money is not being put up by Jill Stein. It's not been donated by supporters of Jill Stein.
> 
> There was a meeting held by George Storos and other DNC tycoons a few weeks ago and this is the solution they came up with.
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh good to know, I guess I made the assumption it was from her own supporters as she's Green Party not Democrat. Always makes me wonder whether said billionaires realise how much good they could do with that cash if they put their own poor sportmanship aside?
Click to expand...

To them, 5 millions like 20 dollars to us.

I suspect when you reach a certain wealth level, money ceases being real and its like monopoly money. Sure theyre not gonna lose all of it, but whats a million here when you have 3000 millions and you make 500 million a year?


----------



## amhlilhaus

birthday_massacre said:


> CamillePunk said:
> 
> 
> 
> @DesolationRow @L-DOPA @Sincere @Pratchett @Carte Blanche @Miss Sally @AryaDark @MrMister
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hope y'all don't mind if I post a video that isn't over a half hour long for a change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paul Joseph Watson obliterates those on the left who claim Trump is in any way against blacks, latinos, or gays.
> 
> 
> 
> Always love how people try to explain away or make excuses why Trump is not a racist/bigot. All you have to do is listen to the shit he said and the racist and bigots he is filling his cabinet with.
> 
> Anyone that is not a racist/bigot would not have Pence as VP and trying to put people like Flynn, Bannon, Sessions etc in his cabinet.
Click to expand...

Yeah hes racist when he has minorities in his company in senior executive positions.

Hes already said gay marriage stays and announced, even though he shouldnt have bothered since its ridiculous the alt right.

Trump says i disavow the support from the kkk

Media shouldnt he have said it stronger?

Meanwhile their gay president says nothing about the rash of cop killings


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



amhlilhaus said:


> Yeah hes racist when he has minorities in his company in senior executive positions.
> 
> Hes already said gay marriage stays and announced, even though he shouldnt have bothered since its ridiculous the alt right.
> 
> Trump says i disavow the support from the kkk
> 
> Media shouldnt he have said it stronger?
> 
> Meanwhile their gay president says nothing about the rash of cop killings


Trump has always said he is against same sex marriage, he ran on being against it. Trump also can on him being racist and bigoted that is why the alt right aka neo nazi's and racist love him. Now that he won he is walking back on that stuff but he is still putting racist and bigots in his cabinet, so he can say, well I'm not saying that stuff or dong it, its my cabinet.


Most of Trumps platform was on racism and bigotry, he can't take that back. Trump pretended he did not even know who David Duke was in the beginning until he was pressured to denounce him. You should not have to have people tell you htat you need to.

And their gay president? Are you calling Obama gay as an insult? LOL

Still love how you ignore everything about his racist and bigoted cabinet that will do his dirty work for him, so he can play all innocent.


----------



## amhlilhaus

birthday_massacre said:


> amhlilhaus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah hes racist when he has minorities in his company in senior executive positions.
> 
> Hes already said gay marriage stays and announced, even though he shouldnt have bothered since its ridiculous the alt right.
> 
> Trump says i disavow the support from the kkk
> 
> Media shouldnt he have said it stronger?
> 
> Meanwhile their gay president says nothing about the rash of cop killings
> 
> 
> 
> Trump has always said he is against same sex marriage, he ran on being against it. Trump also can on him being racist and bigoted that is why the alt right aka neo nazi's and racist love him. Now that he won he is walking back on that stuff but he is still putting racist and bigots in his cabinet, so he can say, well I'm not saying that stuff or dong it, its my cabinet.
> 
> 
> Most of Trumps platform was on racism and bigotry, he can't take that back. Trump pretended he did not even know who David Duke was in the beginning until he was pressured to denounce him. You should not have to have people tell you htat you need to.
> 
> And their gay president? Are you calling Obama gay as an insult? LOL
> 
> Still love how you ignore everything about his racist and bigoted cabinet that will do his dirty work for him, so he can play all innocent.
Click to expand...

Let me borrow a page from the lefts playbook

Lalalalala cant hear u lol:dog:


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Always love how people try to explain away or make excuses why Trump is not a racist/bigot. All you have to do is listen to the shit he said and the racist and bigots he is filling his cabinet with.
> 
> Anyone that is not a racist/bigot would not have Pence as VP and trying to put people like Flynn, Bannon, Sessions etc in his cabinet.


If you keep listening to CNN, you'll hear how every person that is associated with Trump are super KKK members. What else is new


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@CamillePunk @DesolationRow @Carte Blanche @MissSally;

http://www.thelibertyconservative.com/donald-trump-appoints-libertarian-key-white-house-position/



> Donald Trump has appointed Don McGahn, a former member of the Federal Election Commission and the Trump campaign’s counsel, as the White House Counsel.
> 
> The White House Counsel advises the President on all legal issues surrounding the administration.
> 
> Interestingly, the Washington Post has described McGahn as a “libertarian election lawyer”, quoting President Obama’s White House Counsel, Robert F. Bauer, as saying “it will be interesting to see how Don’s suspicion of government — his deep libertarianism — will affect his advice on questions of executive authority.”
> 
> Bauer then added, “and as somebody who has never shied away from a fight, he would not likely be a ‘yes man’ in this or any other aspect of the job.”
> 
> Ken Jones, a colleague of McGahn’s at the law firm Patton Boggs, concurred in a profile of McGahn for Newsweek: “I would never have characterized [McGahn] as a go-along, get-along guy.”
> 
> Forbes noted that McGahn used to work for Freedom Partners, a non-profit free market organization closely associated with the Koch brothers, who are well known for their libertarian-leaning political views.
> 
> The appointment of McGahn should serve as some consolation to those concerned about the future of civil liberties under the Trump administration. If Bauer and Jones are correct about McGahn, we should expect him to be unafraid of standing up for his principles of limited, constitutional government, even when challenged by the President.


This is very encouraging news and without a doubt the best appointment made by the Donald thus far.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I don't know much about him, but as a libertarian this is a great appointment and much needed in America. 

Based Trump putting together a great team :trump2


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Good to see Kellyanne Conway speaking out against the potential appointment of Mitt Romney as Secretary of State. Hopefully the Donald heeds her concerns.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@AryaDark @CamillePunk @Carte Blanche @Fringe @Miss Sally @Sincere

That is a fantastic pick, @L-DOPA. I actually made up a "Trump Administration Dream Team" a few days ago on a piece of paper while thinking about it for a moment, with such oddity possibilities as Andrew Bacevich for Secretary of Defense, haha--having said that, General James Mattis for Secretary of Defense is probably a good pick, too--and I had "Don McGahn" written down for White House Counsel. 

With Trump and the crew purging the lobbyists, Chris Christie, backing off from the possibility of Rudy Giuliani as Secretary of State with the mere faint whiff of a sour smell due to Giuliani's many foreign dealings, it would appear that, rather quietly, Trump and his staff are endeavoring to create as transparent an administration as possible. Exciting, even if one cannot expect complete, sacrosanct propriety. (It's good to aim high, however.)



CamillePunk said:


> Good to see Kellyanne Conway speaking out against the potential appointment of Mitt Romney as Secretary of State. Hopefully the Donald heeds her concerns.


I don't believe Romney was ever going to be appointed to that, and, were it considered at one point, now it would be difficult to see possible. Firstly, if Trump is stipulating that Romney must "take back" at least some of his more heated rhetoric against Trump in order to land the job, were Romney to perform a _mea culpa_ and not receive the appointment, he would be forever humiliated. 

Romney for Veterans Affairs might be a genuinely good pick if one wants to believe that he could turn the VA around. 

I'm still holding out hope for Dana Rohrbacher for Secretary of State. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/802415226989768704
:banderas Told ya The Donald was behind it, @Goku. These Cuban-Americans realize the truth. :trump

Actually, Fidel Castro died on both "Black Friday" and Augusto Pinochet's birthday... :lmao :lmao :sodone


----------



## amhlilhaus

I hope trump realizes what he could do.

If he improves the economy and steers jobs into the inner cities while continuing to court minority voters and points out the democrats epic failures in running the cities he could crush the democrats for decades

If trump only did this for ego, pulling minorities away from democrats could do it


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



amhlilhaus said:


> If trump only did this for ego, pulling minorities away from democrats could do it












Well, it's true what they say about once you go black .... :kobelol


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



amhlilhaus said:


> I hope trump realizes what he could do.
> 
> If he improves the economy and steers jobs into the inner cities while continuing to court minority voters and points out the democrats epic failures in running the cities he could crush the democrats for decades
> 
> If trump only did this for ego, pulling minorities away from democrats could do it


That's a big IF and I don't buy it. The popular story before the shock result is the Repubs were going to be destroyed and never recover, look how wrong that was. People get sick of one mob, they move to the other, and then back again, they don't have long memories.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Well, it's true what they say about once you go black .... :kobelol


Corey Booker is a terrible choice, it should be Ellison, Sanders or Warren.




Stinger Fan said:


> If you keep listening to CNN, you'll hear how every person that is associated with Trump are super KKK members. What else is new


I dont watch CNN and all you have to do is look at the history of his cabinet members and you will see it.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> I dont watch CNN and all you have to do is look at the history of his cabinet members and you will see it.


Ya, I call bullshit on you not getting your information from CNN lol. Does his cabinet have some members that aren't particularly that great? Sure, but the fact remains is that every person he names, immediately gets labelled a bigot of some kind and that every member is more evil than the last. It's ridiculous and buying into this type of narrative will make anyone go crazy. You can't defend one candidate and try to claim that they've "changed", but the same wont apply to people on the other side. It's going to be a long 4 years if you're goign to complain about Trump and his cabinet being the creators of the KKK


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Stinger Fan said:


> Ya, I call bullshit on you not getting your information from CNN lol. Does his cabinet have some members that aren't particularly that great? Sure, but the fact remains is that every person he names, immediately gets labelled a bigot of some kind and that every member is more evil than the last. It's ridiculous and buying into this type of narrative will make anyone go crazy. You can't defend one candidate and try to claim that they've "changed", but the same wont apply to people on the other side. It's going to be a long 4 years if you're goign to complain about Trump and his cabinet being the creators of the KKK


You can believe what ever you want, i have been bashing CNN this whole election cycle. 


You have seen what the people stand for that he is putting in his cabinet haven't you? Sessions was said to be too racist to be a judge in the 80s. How do you explain that one away? He said the KKK was ok until he found out they smoke pot lOL


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



L-DOPA said:


> @CamillePunk @DesolationRow @Carte Blanche @MissSally;
> 
> http://www.thelibertyconservative.com/donald-trump-appoints-libertarian-key-white-house-position/
> 
> 
> 
> This is very encouraging news and without a doubt the best appointment made by the Donald thus far.


Don't know much of the guy to judge to be honest. But it is funny that your link praised the hire but cited newsweek and forbes which both caution against the hire as a boon for special interests. He is probably there to help Trump with conflict of interests accusations more than upholding libertarian views, unless you count less oversight as the only libertarian rule of course.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



L-DOPA said:


> @CamillePunk @DesolationRow @Carte Blanche @MissSally;
> 
> http://www.thelibertyconservative.com/donald-trump-appoints-libertarian-key-white-house-position/
> 
> 
> 
> This is very encouraging news and without a doubt the best appointment made by the Donald thus far.


Sounds good in theory, as many things do. In practice, it's another matter entirely. I will keep my skepticism intact, as I've done with all of his other appointments so far. Only time will tell whether this is effective or not.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> Don't know much of the guy to judge to be honest. But it is funny that your link praised the hire but cited newsweek and forbes which both caution against the hire as a boon for special interests. He is probably there to help Trump with conflict of interests accusations more than upholding libertarian views, unless you count less oversight as the only libertarian rule of course.


Time will tell, on paper it looks like a very good hire in principle so we will see.

I will have to look into the newsweek and forbes articles.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I'm hoping that the SoS is someone who isn't a warhawk, don't care what political affiliation but we need someone who won't rock the boat. The problem is that the GOP isn't interested in what the voters want so they maybe trying to force a square peg into a round hole. 

This is a crucial time for both main Parties, if the Republicans are successful in building a good political scheme and win over more Hispanics, Blacks and Asians and put a stop to the drafting of rank and file voters due to amnesty projects, the Democrats could very well be out of the game for a long time as they hedged their bets with millennials. The same can be said of the Republicans, the people they won over this election will turn their backs on them if they pull any sort of bullshit. 

Both parties are under the microscope and people will be watching. The likes of Soros and the Zuckerberg should watch their step.. their meddling isn't going unnoticed.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/802972944532209664
:lmao


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Could actually be true.

Let's hope the voter rolls are all purged! :mark:


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/802972944532209664
> :lmao


There is some suspected truth to this. Thousands of Mexicans crossed over before Trump got elected and it's not like there wasn't election fraud during this election. People voting illegally especially in some certain states wouldn't shock me. opcorn


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> There is some suspected truth to this. Thousands of Mexicans crossed over before Trump got elected and it's not like there wasn't election fraud during this election. People voting illegally especially in some certain states wouldn't shock me. opcorn


Evidence of voter fraud this election? The president elect is having a twitter meltdown because Jill Stein wanted a recount.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/803033642545115140
opcorn


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> Evidence of voter fraud this election? The president elect is having a twitter meltdown because Jill Stein wanted a recount.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/803033642545115140
> opcorn


I'm pretty sure I said election fraud, not voter fraud and that voter fraud wouldn't shock me considering what people were expecting of Trump especially with the possibility of the elimination amnesty. I'm unsure of the your point of the tweet. Looking at the actions of the DNC and at the Wikileaks, one wouldn't be surprised at any tactics they use. The whole silliness of the situation is that Hillary conceded, the Obama Admin says the election results are standing and now Jill suddenly wants a recount which makes zero sense on her end. All this is doing is fracturing the country even more.

I welcome a recount. If people put up the money, by all means recount and if it's true there was something fishy it should be brought up but if the Democrats are indeed recipients of fraudulent votes than it should be exposed and punished. Watching the DNC have something else explode in their faces would be funny. But if this is the case, will the protesters finally give up the ghost?

:laugh:


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> I'm pretty sure I said election fraud, not voter fraud and that voter fraud wouldn't shock me considering what people were expecting of Trump especially with the possibility of the elimination amnesty. I'm unsure of the your point of the tweet. Looking at the actions of the DNC and at the Wikileaks, one wouldn't be surprised at any tactics they use. The whole silliness of the situation is that Hillary conceded, the Obama Admin says the election results are standing and now Jill suddenly wants a recount which makes zero sense on her end. All this is doing is fracturing the country even more.
> 
> I welcome a recount. If people put up the money, by all means recount and if it's true there was something fishy it should be brought up but if the Democrats are indeed recipients of fraudulent votes than it should be exposed and punished. Watching the DNC have something else explode in their faces would be funny. But if this is the case, will the protesters finally give up the ghost?
> 
> :laugh:


So let me rephrase it, evidence of election fraud? And the way you phrased your reply about voters voting illegally is voter fraud? :shrug

He lost by 2 million votes in the popular vote. He said he would have won the popular vote if he campaigned in other areas, neglecting to mention the opportunity cost of doing so. He allege fraud in 3 states he lost in. Just seem like being a sore winner.

To be honest, I feel his tweeting is just another ploy to distract the media's attention from doing more in-depth research on his questionable hires to fill up the swamp after most of his picks have been bashed by the media.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> Evidence of voter fraud this election? The president elect is having a twitter meltdown because Jill Stein wanted a recount.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/803033642545115140
> opcorn


And in the states she wants the recount Trump won by like 1% or less which should demand a recount anyways.


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Jan 20 cant come fast enough


----------



## Rick_James

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Trump pulled a Sun Tzu level of move with his recent tweets. He pretty much accomplished a bunch of goals all at once:

1. Using the left's sudden desire to "weed out voter fraud" by turning it into ammo to implement voter ID laws. He can go off of their very claims to want clean elections here and they won't have any sort of real retort.
2. Displays the hypocrisy, if they counter him by saying "you are creating a conspiracy that lacks evidence" he can point out that they are doing the exact same thing with the recount lol. Except we know that some illegal aliens do have the capability to vote. 
3. His tweet muddies the waters with the whole "he did not win the election legitimately" thing, he now has ammo to suggest the left lost despite having voter fraud favoring them
4. He triggered a bunch of assholes in the process.

I know for the lefties it's cool to talk shit about Trump and they don't understand why people voted for him, it's because of stuff like this. He pretty much combo'ed the shit out of the left and turned negative publicity into a big advantage for him.


----------



## Rick_James

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Rick_James said:


> Trump pulled a Sun Tzu level of move with his recent tweets. He pretty much accomplished a bunch of goals all at once:
> 
> 1. Using the left's sudden desire to "weed out voter fraud" by turning it into ammo to implement voter ID laws. He can go off of their very claims to want clean elections here and they won't have any sort of real retort.
> 2. Displays the hypocrisy, if they counter him by saying "you are creating a conspiracy that lacks evidence" he can point out that they are doing the exact same thing with the recount lol. Except we know that some illegal aliens do have the capability to vote.
> 3. His tweet muddies the waters with the whole "he did not win the election legitimately" thing, he now has ammo to suggest the left lost despite having voter fraud favoring them
> 4. He triggered a bunch of assholes in the process.
> 
> I know for the lefties it's cool to talk shit about Trump and they don't understand why people voted for him, it's because of stuff like this. He pretty much combo'ed the shit out of the left and turned negative publicity into a big advantage for him.


Trump needs his Twitter taken off him forcibly again, the most he'll do with it is embarrass himself.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

One of Trump's staff needs to take his Twitter away from him again. If "millions of people illegally voted" then he is just furthering the discussion for a recount. Lol

Trump's outbursts on Twitter are going to be so weird when he's actually President. FDR had the fireside chats, Trump has the angry tweeting.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> So let me rephrase it, evidence of election fraud? And the way you phrased your reply about voters voting illegally is voter fraud? :shrug
> 
> He lost by 2 million votes in the popular vote. He said he would have won the popular vote if he campaigned in other areas, neglecting to mention the opportunity cost of doing so. He allege fraud in 3 states he lost in. Just seem like being a sore winner.
> 
> To be honest, I feel his tweeting is just another ploy to distract the media's attention from doing more in-depth research on his questionable hires to fill up the swamp after most of his picks have been bashed by the media.



Smoking gun? No, but the wiki leaks and sabotaging of Bernie and the questionable results during the DNC fiasco does make it suspect. There is evidence of machines turning Republican votes to Democrat while the vise versa didn't appear to happen. 

The paid protesters and the violence and the MSM being caught working with the DNC does make a pretty convincing argument fraud is possible. 

I should have worded that better when I mentioned election fraud. 

Again I support a recount if the accusers pay for it. But I'd want an entire recount, including California, Arizona and New Mexico among them. This is a double edge sword for the Democrats. If there is fraud then it should be taken care of. 

If there is evidence of illegals voting, especially in places with sanctuary cities then it needs to be taken care of. By bring up this fraud the may have unwilling brought about voter IDs. So I fully support any recounts and if Trump did win the popular vote then then I'd hope the proposed EC changes get dropped.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

trump on twitter is the best thing going.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Goku said:


> trump on twitter is the best thing going.


I love when the media presses him or his surrogates about his tweets. :lol These are not serious people.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> I love when the media presses him or his surrogates about his tweets. :lol These are not serious people.


I'm actually surprised that the media/shocked people haven't realized their definitions and standards are no longer valid.


----------



## 307858

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> Smoking gun? No, but the wiki leaks and sabotaging of Bernie and the questionable results during the DNC fiasco does make it suspect. There is evidence of machines turning Republican votes to Democrat while the vise versa didn't appear to happen.
> 
> The paid protesters and the violence and the MSM being caught working with the DNC does make a pretty convincing argument fraud is possible.
> 
> I should have worded that better when I mentioned election fraud.
> 
> Again I support a recount if the accusers pay for it. But I'd want an entire recount, including California, Arizona and New Mexico among them. This is a double edge sword for the Democrats. If there is fraud then it should be taken care of.
> 
> If there is evidence of illegals voting, especially in places with sanctuary cities then it needs to be taken care of. By bring up this fraud the may have unwilling brought about voter IDs. So I fully support any recounts and if Trump did win the popular vote then then I'd hope the proposed EC changes get dropped.


The Democrats aren't the ones filing for the recounts. The Green Party has consistently asked for election reform and election recounts. Jill Stein filed in these three states specifically because there's a discrepancy between exit polls and the vote results. She funded the campaign, of which anyone could have donated from Democrats, independents, and Republicans. We don't know the composition of the donors with respect to party affiliation. 

Jill polled stronger in these states versus the results. She may have lost votes to Hillary if anything, so I don't think she's supporting her. The Green Party needs a threshold 5% to get federal funding in the next election which is the first step in breaking our bipartisan paradigm. 

I agree that audits should be the norm and state funded to uphold election integrity. However, with thr current system, here are deadlines and fees for a recount/state. I personally want the Republicans to put their money where their mouths are, I.e., their claim of voter fraud, by funding recounts in California where this alleged voter fraud occurred. I want them to substantiate their claims with evidence. If you want CA, NM, and AZ recounted, go ahead and file a claim and pay the fees. No one is stopping you.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Here is something that concerns me...if this is true. 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...class-trump-plan-would-mean-tax-increase.html

While the majority of families (especially in higher tax brackets) would see lower taxes, elimination of some deductions and the head-of-household deduction would lead to the raising of taxes especially among single-parent households and those with larger families. That and his talking about a $1 trillion infrastructure plan with us already $20 trillion in the hole, I pray he doesn't go down the road of tax-and-spend liberal which has clearly not been working. I also want to note that as far as we know he has still not followed through on signing the Americans For Tax Reform pledge that he will not raise taxes that is standard fare these days for conservatives. 

The simple math is that tax cuts don't fully work unless you are going to cut spending at the federal level. We need to find a way to tighten the belt before our national debt reaches a point where the cuts end up being severe and immediately felt. 




CamillePunk said:


> Good to see Kellyanne Conway speaking out against the potential appointment of Mitt Romney as Secretary of State. Hopefully the Donald heeds her concerns.


We all know that Trump does not like to be challenged, especially out in public. I have a feeling that this was planned by them. To me, there is no intention of making Romney the Secretary of State so Trump makes it look like he wants to but Conway plays her role and speaks out against it in the open to further push that thought away. Yes, he is wanting Haley as ambassador to the UN but she eventually cooled down her rhetoric and even voted for him. Romney stayed defiant to the very end. Besides, if Trump was against her coming out for this we'd have heard about it already. He trots her out there to bash Romney, eventually Romney pulls his name out of consideration (if that was even out there to start with). 

It's all a smokescreen, somewhat of giving Romney his comeuppance. There is no way that he is going to seriously consider Romney for SoS. This is all for show.


----------



## amhlilhaus

FriedTofu said:


> Miss Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure I said election fraud, not voter fraud and that voter fraud wouldn't shock me considering what people were expecting of Trump especially with the possibility of the elimination amnesty. I'm unsure of the your point of the tweet. Looking at the actions of the DNC and at the Wikileaks, one wouldn't be surprised at any tactics they use. The whole silliness of the situation is that Hillary conceded, the Obama Admin says the election results are standing and now Jill suddenly wants a recount which makes zero sense on her end. All this is doing is fracturing the country even more.
> 
> I welcome a recount. If people put up the money, by all means recount and if it's true there was something fishy it should be brought up but if the Democrats are indeed recipients of fraudulent votes than it should be exposed and punished. Watching the DNC have something else explode in their faces would be funny. But if this is the case, will the protesters finally give up the ghost?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So let me rephrase it, evidence of election fraud? And the way you phrased your reply about voters voting illegally is voter fraud?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He lost by 2 million votes in the popular vote. He said he would have won the popular vote if he campaigned in other areas, neglecting to mention the opportunity cost of doing so. He allege fraud in 3 states he lost in. Just seem like being a sore winner.
> 
> To be honest, I feel his tweeting is just another ploy to distract the media's attention from doing more in-depth research on his questionable hires to fill up the swamp after most of his picks have been bashed by the media.
Click to expand...

Anybody trump picks is going to be bashed. The msm has nothing positive to say about conservatives unless its a rhino working with dems against their parties stated stances. Then they turn once he returns to the party

Look at mccain. The maverick republican. Old fucking fool thought he might be not get eviscerated if he ran, then he was turned on immediately


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> Smoking gun? No, but the wiki leaks and sabotaging of Bernie and the questionable results during the DNC fiasco does make it suspect. There is evidence of machines turning Republican votes to Democrat while the vise versa didn't appear to happen.
> 
> The paid protesters and the violence and the MSM being caught working with the DNC does make a pretty convincing argument fraud is possible.
> 
> I should have worded that better when I mentioned election fraud.
> 
> Again I support a recount if the accusers pay for it. But I'd want an entire recount, including California, Arizona and New Mexico among them. This is a double edge sword for the Democrats. If there is fraud then it should be taken care of.
> 
> If there is evidence of illegals voting, especially in places with sanctuary cities then it needs to be taken care of. By bring up this fraud the may have unwilling brought about voter IDs. So I fully support any recounts and if Trump did win the popular vote then then I'd hope the proposed EC changes get dropped.


So you believe in the conspiracy that the DNC somehow had more influence in the elections when the GOP control majority of the states because the DNC tried to maintain party control to prevent a hijacking of the party by a demagogue their primaries?

You realise the same 'smoking gun' applies to the president elect as well? Breitbart jumped on the bandwagon early on in the year and shameless plugged for on candidate throughout the process. Fox News has been the propaganda arm of conservative movement for how long? Roger Stone peddles in falsehood and tried to put up a voter intimidation team for the elections. Politics is a dirty game.

The accusers are paying for the recount. You agree with it. Then why are you trying to spin the president elect throwing a hissy fit over it? What if there is evidence of election fraud in GOP controlled states like Wisconsin? Wasn't there a case of voter fraud earlier and she clearly wasn't voting for Clinton?

It is one thing to ask for a recount, it is another to throw accusations without evidence like Pat McCrory when asking for a recount. :shrug



amhlilhaus said:


> Anybody trump picks is going to be bashed. The msm has nothing positive to say about conservatives unless its a rhino working with dems against their parties stated stances. Then they turn once he returns to the party
> 
> Look at mccain. The maverick republican. Old fucking fool thought he might be not get eviscerated if he ran, then he was turned on immediately


Your same criticism can be said for the conservative media bashing on democrats. Do you need a reminder of how long the birther movement was kept in the spotlight, and morphed from asking for his birth certificate into questioning Obama's Harvard credentials? 

The president elect is a rino but the msm still bash him. :shrug The same conservative media that bashed the left for infrastructure spending are salivating at how the president elect's spending is going to spur growth. The same media that bashed Kerry for flip-flopping on positions praises it now as being flexible. Hilary is bashed for cronyism yet the president elect is praised for rewarding loyalty. It is just how each side spin the same situation.

I don't remember McCain being eviscerated by the media when he ran until he picked the joker as his running mate. John Kerry had it much worse with the swift boat controversy. Obama and Romney got it much worse than McCain 4 years later too with the 47% and the constant blame Obama for anything campaign. Also the economy tanked hard late in the elections which meant McCain had no chance as a GOP candidate that year.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> So you believe in the conspiracy that the DNC somehow had more influence in the elections when the GOP control majority of the states because the DNC tried to maintain party control to prevent a hijacking of the party by a demagogue their primaries?
> 
> You realise the same 'smoking gun' applies to the president elect as well? Breitbart jumped on the bandwagon early on in the year and shameless plugged for on candidate throughout the process. Fox News has been the propaganda arm of conservative movement for how long? Roger Stone peddles in falsehood and tried to put up a voter intimidation team for the elections. Politics is a dirty game.
> 
> The accusers are paying for the recount. You agree with it. Then why are you trying to spin the president elect throwing a hissy fit over it? What if there is evidence of election fraud in GOP controlled states like Wisconsin? Wasn't there a case of voter fraud earlier and she clearly wasn't voting for Clinton?
> 
> It is one thing to ask for a recount, it is another to throw accusations without evidence like Pat McCrory when asking for a recount. :shrug
> 
> .


Trump complaining about rigging doesn't bother me because Bernie and his legion of followers did too, if the DNC was willing to sabotage Bernie, surely the Democrats would be willing to do the same to him. Let's not forget the entire media bias against Trump and pretty much all the cards stacked against him, this is an establishment that put Hillary, a corrupt politician who is owned by banks and soros as their front runner, come on now. Who wouldn't think that any election results shouldn't be looked over?

I'm fine with the recount, as I said if there is something fishy regardless of side it should be brought up, I said this twice already and this is the third time. I, Sally of sound mind and body approve of a recount and will accept any results of an accurate recount. I also want recounts of California and sanctuary cities. I want it to be public, I want it to be out. 

I want voter ID cards, I don't give a shit who commits the fraud, it needs to stop. 

It's a ironic that a bunch of people who bash Trump for saying the election was rigged, totally ignore the Bernie fiasco, the shady machines which were changing votes, the DNC wikileaks and the constant media bias which was so bad that even the Left was calling it out. 

A recount can only do good, it can expose any fraud if any was committed and boy if it turns out illegals were voting than the Green Party and the Democrats who are vying for an EC change or for a recount for Hillary are going to be the ones that push voter IDs! If it does indeed turn out Trump won the popular vote when you take away the illegal votes, then it will be even more fun as those people crying about the popular vote have to eat big.. salty crow with a helping of humble pie!

You think a recount bothers me? Or that Trump fears a recount? I doubt it, there is a reason why President Peace Prize and his minions don't want one and why some Democrats are nervous about it. There is literally nothing to lose.

Let the recount begin, either way I get what I want, which is voter IDs and a more transparent election process!


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> Trump complaining about rigging doesn't bother me because Bernie and his legion of followers did too, if the DNC was willing to sabotage Bernie, surely the Democrats would be willing to do the same to him. Let's not forget the entire media bias against Trump and pretty much all the cards stacked against him, this is an establishment that put Hillary, a corrupt politician who is owned by banks and soros as their front runner, come on now. Who wouldn't think that any election results shouldn't be looked over?
> 
> I'm fine with the recount, as I said if there is something fishy regardless of side it should be brought up, I said this twice already and this is the third time. I, Sally of sound mind and body approve of a recount and will accept any results of an accurate recount. I also want recounts of California and sanctuary cities. I want it to be public, I want it to be out.
> 
> I want voter ID cards, I don't give a shit who commits the fraud, it needs to stop.
> 
> It's a ironic that a bunch of people who bash Trump for saying the election was rigged, totally ignore the Bernie fiasco, the shady machines which were changing votes, the DNC wikileaks and the constant media bias which was so bad that even the Left was calling it out.
> 
> A recount can only do good, it can expose any fraud if any was committed and boy if it turns out illegals were voting than the Green Party and the Democrats who are vying for an EC change or for a recount for Hillary are going to be the ones that push voter IDs! If it does indeed turn out Trump won the popular vote when you take away the illegal votes, then it will be even more fun as those people crying about the popular vote have to eat big.. salty crow with a helping of humble pie!
> 
> You think a recount bothers me? Or that Trump fears a recount? I doubt it, there is a reason why President Peace Prize and his minions don't want one and why some Democrats are nervous about it. There is literally nothing to lose.
> 
> Let the recount begin, either way I get what I want, which is voter IDs and a more transparent election process!


Trump and the RNC were also doing the rigging just like the DNC and Hillary were doing against Sanders in the primary.

That is why its laughble Trump is claiming it was rigged against him in the general when it was his side doing it.

As for voter IDs that will never happen unless they can give everyone for free. If the GOP can do that then go for it.


----------



## The Phenom One

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump and the RNC were also doing the rigging just like the DNC and Hillary were doing against Sanders in the primary.
> 
> That is why its laughble Trump is claiming it was rigged against him in the general when it was his side doing it.
> 
> As for voter IDs that will never happen unless they can give everyone for free. If the GOP can do that then go for it.


Are you claiming the RNC rigged the primaries for Trump? ?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The Phenom One said:


> Are you claiming the RNC rigged the primaries for Trump? &#55357;&#56834;


the RNC did rig some states with voter suppression. Just like the DNC did in the primaries which is ironic. The whole cross check thing the RNC did which kicked off legit voters off the register was total BS.

Plus a number of states had a pretty big discrepancy in what the polls showed in favor of Trump. Dont even try to pretend there was no voter suppression in the general.


----------



## Neuron

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@DesolationRow @CamillePunk @Miss Sally @Goku @L-DOPA @Carte Blanche






Will Trump complete the system of German Idealism?


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

So the polls were right all along and the Republicans just stole the election. :banderas Always fascinating to hear about what the world looks like in BM's movie.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> So the polls were right all along and the Republicans just stole the election. :banderas Always fascinating to hear about what the world looks like in BM's movie.


This isn't targeted at BM when I often read articles or listen to white SJWs and "Leftists" speak of nonwhites, they speak as if they are Prometheus descending from the heavens giving us nonwhites the gift of fire and knowledge. I'm unaware if you know the story but when Prometheus first brought fire, man was scared and hiding in caves, stupid and helpless, I assume that's how they view us lol


----------



## amhlilhaus

FriedTofu said:


> Miss Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> Smoking gun? No, but the wiki leaks and sabotaging of Bernie and the questionable results during the DNC fiasco does make it suspect. There is evidence of machines turning Republican votes to Democrat while the vise versa didn't appear to happen.
> 
> The paid protesters and the violence and the MSM being caught working with the DNC does make a pretty convincing argument fraud is possible.
> 
> I should have worded that better when I mentioned election fraud.
> 
> Again I support a recount if the accusers pay for it. But I'd want an entire recount, including California, Arizona and New Mexico among them. This is a double edge sword for the Democrats. If there is fraud then it should be taken care of.
> 
> If there is evidence of illegals voting, especially in places with sanctuary cities then it needs to be taken care of. By bring up this fraud the may have unwilling brought about voter IDs. So I fully support any recounts and if Trump did win the popular vote then then I'd hope the proposed EC changes get dropped.
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe in the conspiracy that the DNC somehow had more influence in the elections when the GOP control majority of the states because the DNC tried to maintain party control to prevent a hijacking of the party by a demagogue their primaries?
> 
> You realise the same 'smoking gun' applies to the president elect as well? Breitbart jumped on the bandwagon early on in the year and shameless plugged for on candidate throughout the process. Fox News has been the propaganda arm of conservative movement for how long? Roger Stone peddles in falsehood and tried to put up a voter intimidation team for the elections. Politics is a dirty game.
> 
> The accusers are paying for the recount. You agree with it. Then why are you trying to spin the president elect throwing a hissy fit over it? What if there is evidence of election fraud in GOP controlled states like Wisconsin? Wasn't there a case of voter fraud earlier and she clearly wasn't voting for Clinton?
> 
> It is one thing to ask for a recount, it is another to throw accusations without evidence like Pat McCrory when asking for a recount.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amhlilhaus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anybody trump picks is going to be bashed. The msm has nothing positive to say about conservatives unless its a rhino working with dems against their parties stated stances. Then they turn once he returns to the party
> 
> Look at mccain. The maverick republican. Old fucking fool thought he might be not get eviscerated if he ran, then he was turned on immediately
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your same criticism can be said for the conservative media bashing on democrats. Do you need a reminder of how long the birther movement was kept in the spotlight, and morphed from asking for his birth certificate into questioning Obama's Harvard credentials?
> 
> The president elect is a rino but the msm still bash him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same conservative media that bashed the left for infrastructure spending are salivating at how the president elect's spending is going to spur growth. The same media that bashed Kerry for flip-flopping on positions praises it now as being flexible. Hilary is bashed for cronyism yet the president elect is praised for rewarding loyalty. It is just how each side spin the same situation.
> 
> I don't remember McCain being eviscerated by the media when he ran until he picked the joker as his running mate. John Kerry had it much worse with the swift boat controversy. Obama and Romney got it much worse than McCain 4 years later too with the 47% and the constant blame Obama for anything campaign. Also the economy tanked hard late in the elections which meant McCain had no chance as a GOP candidate that year.
Click to expand...

Seem to remember some of obamas picks were so ridiculous he had to get rid of them. Like van 'whitelash' jones. Obama dumped rev wright as well. Its tit for tat, but the liberal media perfected smear campaigns. 

Wait for it


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

:lmao :lmao :lmao

Pennsylvania State Department says Stein missed recount deadline



> Jill Stein has everything she needs to launch a presidential recount. She's got the cash, the grassroots fervor and the spotlight of an adoring media. But there's one thing she needs to overturn Trump's victory: a calendar.
> 
> Stein missed Pennsylvania's deadline to file for a voter-initiated recount. That blown deadline is a huge blow for Democrats who have pinned their hopes on recounts in the Keystone State, Michigan and Wisconsin.


:beckylol


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Sincere said:


> :lmao :lmao :lmao
> 
> Pennsylvania State Department says Stein missed recount deadline
> 
> 
> 
> :beckylol


I still want recounts for places with high levels of illegals and sanctuary cities. If the EC is going to be debated over and "Real Democracy" is supposedly going to take it's place, would be nice to see how many votes were legit.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Trump is backing down from his stance on torture, which everyone should be pleased about:

http://www.businessinsider.com/james-mattis-trump-torture-2016-11?r=US&IR=T&IR=T


----------



## Oxidamus

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Cipher said:


> Well, the Invasion of Iraq for one. The US isn't exactly the good guy in most situations.





Alkomesh2 said:


> Australia was in Iraq too.
> 
> And haven't you been listening to Peter Dutton Aido? We made a mistake in the 70s by letting in all the lebanese because 22 of them (out of 180,000) have been charged with terror offences.


Aye we had/have a hand in the Middle East too. Australia gladly does the bidding of the Anglosphere these days. If not the bidding of America, then England. Turnbull was quick to jump at the opportunity to make Trump happy when he won the election recently. I'm not sure if I feel it's a good or a bad idea (connections with the US are very important for us... setting up "defence" around China, not so much) but it does speak to what I'm saying.

It was a bit of a rhetorical question, I know most of the answers.



Carte Blanche said:


> I'm not an expert in world history, but Australia's instrumentality in the creation of Israel and supporting Israel is either unknown, or unimportant.


Hired mercenaries don't usually get the brunt of revenge. 
As for the rest, that certainly sounds more than plausible. Again though, it's more about why Australia is fine despite being a bit of a lapdog when America takes, as I said, the brunt of it all.



FriedTofu said:


> They have their own issue with Islamic terrorism. The rhetoric just hasn't scored as much political points due to the close proximity to majority Muslim neighbour countries which make them less likely to fall into the Islam is the devil extreme position. Having said that, Australia still have their Pauline Hansons elected. :shrug
> 
> The difference I feel is America has a more organised and powerful fundamentalist base. The fundamentalists in Islamic countries use the US and Israel as 'the others' to mask the inability to improve quality of life or to maintain a mandate to govern. Same as in America where the fundamentalists use Muslims and Mexico as the 'others' to mask the failings of their ideology or to rally the votes.


I am Australian btw. The Islamophobic (I'm talking about actual HATE, not just the anti immigration crowd) stance of people in our country is really absurd. We have no reason to be frightened of terrorism or worried for our culture. Hanson/One Nation being elected again is kinda awful but in its own way a good indicator of a... kinda... working democracy.

I can see America having a reason to have a big issue with Islam, and I can see Europe and the UK too. But Australia is so different with our history of immigration and a complete lack of actual "culture". Our culture is a mix of all, always has been and always should be.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> Trump is backing down from his stance on torture, which everyone should be pleased about:
> 
> http://www.businessinsider.com/james-mattis-trump-torture-2016-11?r=US&IR=T&IR=T


Wouldn't be surprised if democrats and their supporters now suddenly will become pro-torture just because Trump has decided that he doesn't like it anymore.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Aido Get Laido said:


> I am Australian btw. The Islamophobic (I'm talking about actual HATE, not just the anti immigration crowd) stance of people in our country is really absurd. We have no reason to be frightened of terrorism or worried for our culture. Hanson/One Nation being elected again is kinda awful but in its own way a good indicator of a... kinda... working democracy.
> 
> I can see America having a reason to have a big issue with Islam, and I can see Europe and the UK too. But Australia is so different with our history of immigration and a complete lack of actual "culture". Our culture is a mix of all, always has been and always should be.


America has the same melting pot background too. :shrug Australians have the benefits of having predominantly Muslim neighbours, and have a smaller population of the religiously devout compared to the US.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Wouldn't be surprised if democrats and their supporters now suddenly will become pro-torture just because Trump has decided that he doesn't like it anymore.


The narrative will be he is a flip-flopper who will say anything to get elected. Sounds familiar?


----------



## Oxidamus

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> America has the same melting pot background too. :shrug Australians have the benefits of having predominantly Muslim neighbours, and have a smaller population of the religiously devout compared to the US.


Disagree. I believe America evolved throughout time to sustain a more multicultural existence, but it didn't begin that way. The English certainly didn't land in the US with as many ties to all kinds of countries as they did when they landed in Australia. Hell I'm pretty sure the English were so desperate to make Australia, that they invited just about any allying country or country known to them to create a new life there, which is why we have such relatively large populations of Indians (through the commonwealth), Italians (through the EU) and heaps of immigrants from miscellaneous Asian and Middle Eastern countries.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Aido Get Laido said:


> Disagree. I believe America evolved throughout time to sustain a more multicultural existence, but it didn't begin that way. The English certainly didn't land in the US with as many ties to all kinds of countries as they did when they landed in Australia. Hell I'm pretty sure the English were so desperate to make Australia, that they invited just about any allying country or country known to them to create a new life there, which is why we have such relatively large populations of Indians (through the commonwealth), Italians (through the EU) and heaps of immigrants from miscellaneous Asian and Middle Eastern countries.


The English brought with them Africans to America as well. :shrug

Most of the large population of minorities in Australia currently is the result of immigration after WW2 is it not?


----------



## Oxidamus

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> The English brought with them Africans to America as well. :shrug
> 
> Most of the large population of minorities in Australia currently is the result of immigration after WW2 is it not?


Yea, but not as "people".

I am not sure. I wouldn't be surprised. I know a lot of people from the UK immigrated post WW2 (my family and some friends' for example) so if anything, it was most likely an all-invite for allies. An answer is probably easily found through Google but I am too lazy. :side:


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

As if having Mittens as a front-runner for SoS wasn't enough, Teflon Don Juan is continuing his superb trolling by suggesting a year in jail or revoking citizenship for folks that burn the U.S. flag.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/29/politics/donald-trump-flag-burning-penalty-proposal/

:trump


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Very nicely done. This lady is a rising star in terms of online rationalists and she's done really well in explaining a very complex movement.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> As if having Mittens as a front-runner for SoS wasn't enough, Teflon Don Juan is continuing his superb trolling by suggesting a year in jail or revoking citizenship for folks that burn the U.S. flag.
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/29/politics/donald-trump-flag-burning-penalty-proposal/
> 
> :trump


I doubt Mittens is Trump's choice but the GOP's which is insane because Mitt opposed Trump every step of the way and the GOP expects this fuck head to be made SoS? GOP is off to a great start by tying their own running shoe laces together before sprinting. Nobody else wants Mitt as SoS.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> I doubt Mittens is Trump's choice but the GOP's which is insane because Mitt opposed Trump every step of the way and the GOP expects this fuck head to be made SoS? GOP is off to a great start by tying their own running shoe laces together before sprinting. Nobody else wants Mitt as SoS.


With him and Romney having dinner tonight to further talks of him coming on board, I honestly expect him to merely snatch the carrot away from Mittens and the GOP at the very last second after expertly dangling it in their faces like this.

Definitely not big on Petraeus or Giuliani getting the gig, since one had e-mail fuckery like Hilldog and the other has rubbed me the wrong way due to his hard-on for the Iraq War. Gonna be interesting to see who he picks.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> With him and Romney having dinner tonight to further talks of him coming on board, I honestly expect him to merely snatch the carrot away from Mittens and the GOP at the very last second after expertly dangling it in their faces like this.
> 
> Definitely not big on Petraeus or Giuliani getting the gig, since one had e-mail fuckery like Hilldog and the other has rubbed me the wrong way due to his hard-on for the Iraq War. Gonna be interesting to see who he picks.


If Trump really doesn't want war he should put someone anti-war as SoS, someone who isn't on the soros bankroll. Giuliani can have a job doing something else.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> So the polls were right all along and the Republicans just stole the election. :banderas Always fascinating to hear about what the world looks like in BM's movie.


Yeah because I deal in reality unlike you.


----------



## amhlilhaus

birthday_massacre said:


> CamillePunk said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the polls were right all along and the Republicans just stole the election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Always fascinating to hear about what the world looks like in BM's movie.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah because I deal in reality unlike you.
Click to expand...

Isnt it a part of some theory that there is unlimited realities?

Saw it on youtube


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



amhlilhaus said:


> Isnt it a part of some theory that there is unlimited realities?
> 
> Saw it on youtube


The many-worlds theory, or Everett theory, of quantum mechanics states that different realities split off from existing ones at the quantum level and that while there are an infinite number of universes identical to this one save for differences (even just one) at the quantum level, there are also infinite realities where things including the course of human history are very different from this reality. That's a pretty lazy explanation but I'm too high to go into detail right now 

So yes, there are realities where Jeb Bush is president-elect :lmao

An infinite number of them probably 

The poor saps in those realities :lmao


----------



## amhlilhaus

deepelemblues said:


> amhlilhaus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isnt it a part of some theory that there is unlimited realities?
> 
> Saw it on youtube
> 
> 
> 
> The many-worlds theory, or Everett theory, of quantum mechanics states that different realities split off from existing ones at the quantum level and that while there are an infinite number of universes identical to this one save for differences (even just one) at the quantum level, there are also infinite realities where things including the course of human history are very different from this reality. That's a pretty lazy explanation but I'm too high to go into detail right now
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So yes, there are realities where Jeb Bush is president-elect
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An infinite number of them probably
> 
> The poor saps in those realities
Click to expand...

I was thinking more along the lines that socialism works.

Cause its not the one we live in


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Can I be in the reality where it's my own private universe with heavily restricted access? That would be wonderful.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> As if having Mittens as a front-runner for SoS wasn't enough, Teflon Don Juan is continuing his superb trolling by suggesting a year in jail or revoking citizenship for folks that burn the U.S. flag.
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/29/politics/donald-trump-flag-burning-penalty-proposal/
> 
> :trump


Never fear he'll do a backflip on that soon enough too.


----------



## skypod

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

More like appeasing the base. Americans and their flags unk4


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



amhlilhaus said:


> I was thinking more along the lines that socialism works.
> 
> Cause its not the one we live in


Yet socialism does work in real reality lol 

its trickle-down economics that does not work. Just shows how delusional you are.


and oh look at Trumps pick for Treasury Sectary, so much for draining the swamp. Trump played you guys so badly lol he is Bush 2.0 only worse. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/us/politics/steven-terner-mnuchin-trump-treasury-secretary.html


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

*The whole flag burning thing is pretty ridiculous. It doesn't surprise me that Trump feels that way. Feeling that way and trying to make it law are hopefully two separate thing. But with Trump you never know. You gotta remember when this issue came up to the Supreme Court it was a 5-4 decision to allow it under the Constitution. That's as close as it can get. And one of those people that voted to allow it is now dead and will be replaced by..... yep.... Donald Trump. 

Personally I think it should be allowed under free speech. I hate it myself and you can burn your flag anytime you want as far as I'm concerned. But you will not burn my flag *lol no I don't have one...it's a figure of speech* and you wont burn your flag on my property. Other than that burn your little fingers off until you're content sweety and bless your heart.*


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



> (K.R.) One of Donald Trump's most memorable moments in the campaign was when he attacked air conditioning company Carrier for its decision to eliminate 1,400 employees at its Indiana location and move the jobs to Mexico. Trump promised to reform America's taxation and regulatory climate to make domestic business more competitive with foreign industry, and also to punish companies that off-shored American jobs. It's a promise that resonated with voters, especially in rust belt states.
> Well, apparently Trump is already keeping his promise, at least for those Carrier employees. Carrier confirmed via Twitter that it has reached an agreement with the incoming administration to keep 1,000 manufacturing jobs in Indiana. The deal reportedly will keep a majority of the jobs in the state in exchange for friendlier U.S. business regulations and an overhauling of the country's corporate tax code.
> What's just as likely is that Trump leveraged the fact that Carrier's parent company, United Technologies, earns about $5.6 billion in annual revenue from U.S. government contracts, equal to about 10% of its overall revenue. That dwarfs the $65 million in labor cost savings that Carrier expected to save by relocating its Indiana operations to Mexico.
> The move follows a similar announcement from Ford several weeks ago, saying it would not move production of one of its SUV lines to Mexico after discussions with Trump officials. "We are encouraged that President-elect Trump and the new Congress will pursue policies that will improve U.S. competitiveness and make it possible to keep production of this vehicle here in the United States," a Ford spokeswoman wrote. It's not clear in the case of Ford whether jobs were saved, however, as plans to move them were never finalized.
> Either way, these announcements have given Trump an important early success to point to when negotiations over lowering America's tax and regulatory burdens begin.
> 
> http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...-reaches-deal-to-keep-1000-carrier-jobs-in-us


I don't really have much to say about it .. simply because I don't know what he gave up to get these jobs to stay.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

He took a page out of comrade Bernie's tactics to pressure Carrier's parent company to keep a less efficient operation on going using the government's purchasing power as leverage.

But kudos to him keeping at least one campaign promise.


----------



## amhlilhaus

birthday_massacre said:


> amhlilhaus said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was thinking more along the lines that socialism works.
> 
> Cause its not the one we live in
> 
> 
> 
> Yet socialism does work in real reality lol
> 
> its trickle-down economics that does not work. Just shows how delusional you are.
> 
> 
> and oh look at Trumps pick for Treasury Sectary, so much for draining the swamp. Trump played you guys so badly lol he is Bush 2.0 only worse.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/us/politics/steven-terner-mnuchin-trump-treasury-secretary.html
Click to expand...

Do pray tell where it works 

Actually, dont bother because our definitions of what 'works' is radically different.

What creates far more wealth is trickle down, in a capitalistic society its on you if your yacht isnt raised by the tide

Im sure your idea of what works is govt education and health care, not mentioning the miseries associated with it, how only the elites have anything nice.

But im sure you believe it regardless, and like the civil war caused by slavery argument you have a slew of quotes ready prepared by keynesian economists who praise it and bash capitalism.


----------



## amhlilhaus

FriedTofu said:


> He took a page out of comrade Bernie's tactics to pressure Carrier's parent company to keep a less efficient operation on going using the government's purchasing power as leverage.
> 
> But kudos to him keeping at least one campaign promise.


Its unfair trade, lol

Short term hes going to be heavy handed. If it works and he gets a 2nd term then maybe then he will be nicer, evolve his thinking


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



amhlilhaus said:


> Do pray tell where it works
> 
> Actually, dont bother because our definitions of what 'works' is radically different.
> 
> What creates far more wealth is trickle down, in a capitalistic society its on you if your yacht isnt raised by the tide
> 
> Im sure your idea of what works is govt education and health care, not mentioning the miseries associated with it, how only the elites have anything nice.
> 
> But im sure you believe it regardless, and like the civil war caused by slavery argument you have a slew of quotes ready prepared by keynesian economists who praise it and bash capitalism.


What he doesn't have is a quote from any consequential socialist thinker ever backing him up on his claim that any public spending = socialism = we're all socialist countries. 

Lenin would spit on his shadow for saying the United States is ahxtually soshulist.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@DesolationRow @Carte Blanche @L-DOPA @Sincere @Fringe @Miss Sally @AryaDark @MrMister @Oda Nobunaga @Goku @Pratchett

Paul Joseph Watson incisive as ever as he takes aim at Jill Stein and her recount campaign:


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

NOT EVEN SWORN IN, SAVED 1000 JOBS.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-deal-with-trump-to-keep-jobs-in-indiana.html

BAH GOD, TRUMP JUST BROKE @birthday_massacre IN HALF!!!!! :jr


----------



## MillionDollarProns

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

The Donald Trump thread has ascended to new levels, talking about alternate realities


----------



## CenaBoy4Life

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Obama should just start packing early and play golf for another 6 weeks. What a freaking loser, and he has no legacy except carrying on Bush wars, and the failed obamacare.


Trump has done more good in -52 days than Obama has in 8 years.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



AryaDark said:


> *The whole flag burning thing is pretty ridiculous. It doesn't surprise me that Trump feels that way. Feeling that way and trying to make it law are hopefully two separate thing. But with Trump you never know. You gotta remember when this issue came up to the Supreme Court it was a 5-4 decision to allow it under the Constitution. That's as close as it can get. And one of those people that voted to allow it is now dead and will be replaced by..... yep.... Donald Trump.
> 
> Personally I think it should be allowed under free speech. I hate it myself and you can burn your flag anytime you want as far as I'm concerned. But you will not burn my flag *lol no I don't have one...it's a figure of speech* and you wont burn your flag on my property. Other than that burn your little fingers off until you're content sweety and bless your heart.*


Trumps view on what should happen to people that burn the flag shows what a fascist he is. He thinks they should have loss of citizenship. 

If Trump was smart he would bring up how Hillary said a few years ago that flag burning should be illegal and I believe she even proposed a law against it.




amhlilhaus said:


> Do pray tell where it works
> 
> Actually, dont bother because our definitions of what 'works' is radically different.
> 
> What creates far more wealth is trickle down, in a capitalistic society its on you if your yacht isnt raised by the tide
> 
> Im sure your idea of what works is govt education and health care, not mentioning the miseries associated with it, how only the elites have anything nice.
> 
> But im sure you believe it regardless, and like the civil war caused by slavery argument you have a slew of quotes ready prepared by keynesian economists who praise it and bash capitalism.


We have been over this a million times, I have shown how it works already over and over. Not doing it again.



Beatles123 said:


> NOT EVEN SWORN IN, SAVED 1000 JOBS.
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-deal-with-trump-to-keep-jobs-in-indiana.html
> 
> BAH GOD, TRUMP JUST BROKE @birthday_massacre IN HALF!!!!! :jr


How exactly did Trump break me in half? LOL If Trump saved jobs good on him. That is a good thing. 

I cant wait until he fucks you over on healthcare and you start crying the plan he puts in place is worse than Obamacare you will be lucky to even be covered under Trump since the guy he wants to put in wants to get rid of making insurance companies cover people with preexisting conditions. 

Dont say I did not want you on this a number of times.


----------



## CenaBoy4Life

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Trump was trolling and setting the media narrative with the flag. That's why he specifically said a year because it was Hillarys idea. 

He loves to troll the left and most didn't even get it. i doubt he really believes that or will push for it to happen.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

The Media narrative that he's a retard who doesn't know the basics of the American constitutional system?

I hate to break it to you, but that isn't a "media narrative" he's trying to set, he just is a retard without even a basic understanding of the American constitutional system.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CenaBoy4Life said:


> Trump was trolling and setting the media narrative with the flag. That's why he specifically said a year because it was Hillarys idea.
> 
> He loves to troll the left and most didn't even get it. i doubt he really believes that or will push for it to happen.


This. Something that's become far too apparent in recent months to all but those who oppose him.


----------



## amhlilhaus

MillionDollarProns said:


> The Donald Trump thread has ascended to new levels, talking about alternate realities


Were free thinkers like that.


----------



## amhlilhaus

birthday_massacre said:


> AryaDark said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The whole flag burning thing is pretty ridiculous. It doesn't surprise me that Trump feels that way. Feeling that way and trying to make it law are hopefully two separate thing. But with Trump you never know. You gotta remember when this issue came up to the Supreme Court it was a 5-4 decision to allow it under the Constitution. That's as close as it can get. And one of those people that voted to allow it is now dead and will be replaced by..... yep.... Donald Trump.
> 
> Personally I think it should be allowed under free speech. I hate it myself and you can burn your flag anytime you want as far as I'm concerned. But you will not burn my flag *lol no I don't have one...it's a figure of speech* and you wont burn your flag on my property. Other than that burn your little fingers off until you're content sweety and bless your heart.*
> 
> 
> 
> Trumps view on what should happen to people that burn the flag shows what a fascist he is. He thinks they should have loss of citizenship.
> 
> If Trump was smart he would bring up how Hillary said a few years ago that flag burning should be illegal and I believe she even proposed a law against it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amhlilhaus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do pray tell where it works
> 
> Actually, dont bother because our definitions of what 'works' is radically different.
> 
> What creates far more wealth is trickle down, in a capitalistic society its on you if your yacht isnt raised by the tide
> 
> Im sure your idea of what works is govt education and health care, not mentioning the miseries associated with it, how only the elites have anything nice.
> 
> But im sure you believe it regardless, and like the civil war caused by slavery argument you have a slew of quotes ready prepared by keynesian economists who praise it and bash capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have been over this a million times, I have shown how it works already over and over. Not doing it again.
> 
> 
> 
> Beatles123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOT EVEN SWORN IN, SAVED 1000 JOBS.
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-deal-with-trump-to-keep-jobs-in-indiana.html
> 
> BAH GOD, TRUMP JUST BROKE @birthday_massacre IN HALF!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How exactly did Trump break me in half? LOL If Trump saved jobs good on him. That is a good thing.
> 
> I cant wait until he fucks you over on healthcare and you start crying the plan he puts in place is worse than Obamacare you will be lucky to even be covered under Trump since the guy he wants to put in wants to get rid of making insurance companies cover people with preexisting conditions.
> 
> Dont say I did not want you on this a number of times.
Click to expand...

Im sorry, i missed large parts of the election thread because evil capitalism required me to work more as the oppressor known as my job required me to work more. It sucks cause i didnt make more...wait a minute! I DID make more, unlike what the soviets wouldve done.

In before you claim the democrats led me to that happy condition

And no, socialism doesnt work

Never has

Never will


----------



## amhlilhaus

CenaBoy4Life said:


> Obama should just start packing early and play golf for another 6 weeks. What a freaking loser, and he has no legacy except carrying on Bush wars, and the failed obamacare.
> 
> 
> Trump has done more good in -52 days than Obama has in 8 years.


I will disagree with this.

Obama goes down as a 2 term president. Trump will not be able to reverse all his policies. Like it or not, hes a historical figure and he will carry a large legacy.

Hes the first bonafide gay president for instance, hes got that going for him.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



AryaDark said:


> *The whole flag burning thing is pretty ridiculous. It doesn't surprise me that Trump feels that way. Feeling that way and trying to make it law are hopefully two separate thing. But with Trump you never know. You gotta remember when this issue came up to the Supreme Court it was a 5-4 decision to allow it under the Constitution. That's as close as it can get. And one of those people that voted to allow it is now dead and will be replaced by..... yep.... Donald Trump.
> 
> Personally I think it should be allowed under free speech. I hate it myself and you can burn your flag anytime you want as far as I'm concerned. But you will not burn my flag *lol no I don't have one...it's a figure of speech* and you wont burn your flag on my property. Other than that burn your little fingers off until you're content sweety and bless your heart.*


Completely agree about flag-burning. 

At the same time, the 1989 Supreme Court decision, _Texas v. Johnson_, was wrongly decided because it struck down the Texas law against flag desecration. While it is certainly easy to contend that the Texas law is, at best, questionable because it makes what is, arguably, a matter of speech and/or protest into a "crime," which demands that law enforcement officers follow the statute and apply force if/when necessary to uphold it, it is also true that flag-burning is a highly emotional issue for many for a host of reasons, and secondly can truly be dangerous. The chief reason the Supreme Court decision was wrong, however, because the stance the Court took was that the Fourteenth Amendment applies First Amendment guarantees against the states is a fallacy. Firstly, the Fourteenth Amendment never says that First Amendment protections for "free speech" are to be protected. Furthermore, police powers necessary to "keep order" are, or at least almost always are--and should be--local forces. 

More and more, ingesting the multifarious complexities of human societal order compels one to seek a truer prudence. In this way not even Edmund Burke stands up to what we may refer to as "conservatives"--i.e., people whose first obligation was to defend the aristocracy of lords and the village church which served as the hub of the common weal. Burke as a young man was a reforming Whig who in his youth was almost obsessed with overturning the world into which he had been born, of righting myriad wrongs. He wrote passionately about the Catholics in Ireland while writing in the magazine he founded as a student at the Trinity College Dublin, _The Reformer_, and quickly moved on from there to the struggles of British colonists in the New World of America, and the rough exploitation of India by Warren Hastings. It was not until Burke saw the rise of militant hyper-egalitarianism in the form of the Jacobins of France that he began to harden as a voice of what may be called "conservatism"; up until then he had, like nearly all within the British political sphere, barring the astonishing Samuel Johnson, and, for that matter, most of the Enlightenment-influenced Western political sphere, been influenced by the (what I would argue was often the false) sentimentality of the Enlightenment, as found in the works of Voltaire or John Dryden's _The Conquest of Granada_, perhaps the first Western work which lionized "the noble savage." 

The longer I live the more unavoidable it becomes that while much greatness is to be found in the philosophical schools which animated the Enlightenment, the very concept of "rights" has proven ultimately disharmonious at best, disastrous at worst. The men who framed the American republic possessed great, erudite minds, but they were children of the Enlightenment, and a thorough rethinking of the past millennia may be necessary for us to rediscover the politics of the good life. Responsibilities, of the sovereign state, of the county, of the community, of the town, of the family, of the person, are paramount. It is obscenely irresponsible, for instance, for the state to interfere with the rearing of parents' children; for the state to install sweeping mass surveillance of its population; for the state to confiscate the income of citizens, just as but a few examples. In the 1989 Supreme Court case example, it is irresponsible for the federal government to strike down a state's law which expresses the temperament and character of the polity of that state, however flawed it may be. 

Professor Randy Barnett makes a terrific point that the federal government contends


> to have the rightful or justified power to force those within its jurisdiction... to obey its laws... What (if anything) exactly gives [the federal government] this justified power? Normativity has now entered the picture, not because I have introduced it, but because those who claim the Constitution as their "authority" for their actions also claim the justified power to coerce others to accept their commands. It is then perfectly appropriate to ask whether this normative claim is warranted or not.


It should also be noted that not just Texas but 48 states of the U.S. had their own particular regulations for/against and laws prohibiting the burning of flags struck down by the Supreme Court's decision. 

And, while the relevance of it may be called into question, the case which went to the Supreme Court involved a mob of protesters who angrily and loudly shouted chants at people, destroyed property, shattered windows of businesses, threw trash along sidewalks and parks, threw diapers which had been soiled into the street, beer cans at people, and the very flag which would be used by the Supreme Court, in essence, to invalidate 48 different states' laws concerning flag-burning was _stolen property itself_, stolen by one protester and handed to Gregory Lee Johnson, who gleefully doused it with kerosene before lighting it on fire. 

Nonetheless, reading the arguments between the Supreme Court Justices is an underwhelming enterprise. They all go on and on about what the flag symbolizes or what it does not symbolize, or what "free speech" is, missing far greater pertinent legal and constitutional points. 

This rethinking of rights versus responsibilities would probably require a forty-fifth chief executive officer of the empire-elect to not be addicted to twitter, but if we cannot have either men of the Enlightenment or angels governing us, per James Madison's _Federalist No. 51_--"_If men were angels, no government would be necessary... If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary..._"--let us have trolls.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I have a very small argument against flag burning and I compare it to having a blasphemy law ... Something similar to burning a bible or a quran or saying something negative about god. 

A nation's symbol while deserving respect should not become a source so powerful that its veneration become religious or desecration becomes a criminal offense. 

It's just another form of a blasphemy law; maybe even more dangerous because while a blasphemy law entitles a state a supernatural doctrine to protect the divine, a law against protecting its symbols gives it power to protect itself and through making it a criminal offense, makes it tyrannical ... all of which is anti-liberty in and of itself.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> I have a very small argument against flag burning and I compare it to having a blasphemy law ... Something similar to burning a bible or a quran or saying something negative about god.
> 
> A nation's symbol while deserving respect should not become a source so powerful that its veneration become religious or desecration becomes a criminal offense.
> 
> It's just another form of a blasphemy law; maybe even more dangerous because while a blasphemy law entitles a state a supernatural doctrine to protect the divine, a law against protecting its symbols gives it power to protect itself and through making it a criminal offense, makes it tyrannical ... all of which is anti-liberty in and of itself.


Well funny enough you cannot show a Quran or Mohammed on TV being destroyed or anything if I recall correctly, can burn that flag though!


----------



## -XERO-

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/803937434127990784


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Neuron said:


> @DesolationRow @CamillePunk @Miss Sally @Goku @L-DOPA @Carte Blanche
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will Trump complete the system of German Idealism?


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I'm confused by Universities, they're saying they're going to become sanctuaries for illegals but these universities rely on state/fed funding.. so I wonder what happens if the Feds stop sending money? Maybe that's what should happen, or pull money and flood the campuses with refugees. These Universities are making jokes out of themselves.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Scott Adams on how Donald Trump distinguishes between facts that matter and facts that don't, how that helped him win the election, and how it will help him Make America Great Again:

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/153865618451/the-idea-you-are-least-likely-to-believe


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

What a disgusting display of mansplaining patriarchy by our outgoing lame-duck president.

I can't even with this CIS-HETERO-MALE MANSPLAINING that his wife will NEVER run for office.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*










Sums up Nancy Pelosi winning opposition leadership once again. 

Their house is burning (pun intended), and the democrats doing nothing to correct themselves.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

btw if you aren't paying attention to Reddit being destroyed by the war between r/The_Donald and basically the rest of Reddit you are missing out on some hilarious and interesting shit. A bunch of based radicals are mixing it up with the Man and it's a fascinating spectacle on so many levels.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> Scott Adams on how Donald Trump distinguishes between facts that matter and facts that don't, how that helped him win the election, and how it will help him Make America Great Again:
> 
> http://blog.dilbert.com/post/153865618451/the-idea-you-are-least-likely-to-believe


What an Orwellian and somewhat depressing notion - 'Facts that don't matter'.

I can only imagine the hysteria in here if an Anti Trumper tried to post a similar article about Hillary. But Trump will get a pass because the bar is already lower than kindergarten.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> What an Orwellian and somewhat depressing notion - 'Facts that don't matter'.
> 
> I can only imagine the hysteria in here if an Anti Trumper tried to post a similar article about Hillary. But Trump will get a pass because the bar is already lower than kindergarten.


Politics is theater and relevance in the plot is malleable when putting on a production

Always has been always will be


----------



## skypod

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> Well funny enough you cannot show a Quran or Mohammed on TV being destroyed or anything if I recall correctly, can burn that flag though!



Is that illegal though? People may not do it because of the heat but I'm not sure if that's not allowed and flag burning is? But I've not looked into what US policy is on this. Forgive me

This is why I think the right and left are the same. Right wants freedoms when it comes to not selling gay people wedding cakes or whatever and buying guns, and the left want to flag burn and have a lot of homosexual marriages.

Nobody actually gives a fuck about what freedom is or what it represents. They just want it to apply to them on that particular day.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



deepelemblues said:


> What a disgusting display of mansplaining patriarchy by our outgoing lame-duck president.
> 
> I can't even with this CIS-HETERO-MALE MANSPLAINING that his wife will NEVER run for office.


My understanding is he slapped her around when she expressed interest in the position, and then made her cook him dinner. It's just what I heard, make of it what you will.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



skypod said:


> Is that illegal though? People may not do it because of the heat but I'm not sure if that's not allowed and flag burning is? But I've not looked into what US policy is on this. Forgive me
> 
> This is why I think the right and left are the same. Right wants *freedoms when it comes to not selling gay people wedding cakes *or whatever and buying guns, and the left want to flag burn and *have a lot of homosexual marriages*.
> 
> Nobody actually gives a fuck about what freedom is or what it represents. They just want it to apply to them on that particular day.


How can you not see the clear difference here?

The right so called freedom is to discriminate against a certain group while the right wants all groups to have the same freedoms.

As for the whole gun control thing, no one is saying we should ban all guns. Most on the left just want common sense gun laws and to get rid of the loop holes like not needing a background check when buying a gun at a gun show

The right is always trying to take way others freedoms like with gay marriage or being able to not hire someone or serve someone because they are gay. That is just ridiculous. Turn gay into black people then see what would happen if the right tried pulling that .


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Alkomesh2 said:


> The Media narrative that he's a retard who doesn't know the basics of the American constitutional system?
> 
> I hate to break it to you, but that isn't a "media narrative" he's trying to set, he just is a retard without even a basic understanding of the American constitutional system.


No no, it's not a media narrative. It's a leftist narrative. One that you will probably carry throughout the duration of his tenure as president. If that happens, he will have done exactly what he should have done as far as this country's best interests. :troll


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I just wonder if people realize how badly they look when they describe their reality in which Donald Trump is a retard but is still a billionaire and the president. What's that make you? Or is SOCIETY to blame for the discrepancy? :lol


----------



## amhlilhaus

CamillePunk said:


> I just wonder if people realize how badly they look when they describe their reality in which Donald Trump is a retard but is still a billionaire and the president. What's that make you? Or is SOCIETY to blame for the discrepancy?


They can call him whatever they want. Its a free country. Just because theyre not as successful as he is and they have to vent is no cause to mock them. They deserve pity and understanding, give them a safe space


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> I just wonder if people realize how badly they look when they describe their reality in which Donald Trump is a retard but is still a billionaire and the president. What's that make you? Or is SOCIETY to blame for the discrepancy? :lol


trump is a kantian :trump


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



amhlilhaus said:


> They can call him whatever they want. Its a free country. Just because theyre not as successful as he is and they have to vent is no cause to mock them. They deserve pity and understanding, give them a safe space


They're free to say stupid shit and I'm free to mock their stupidity. :trump


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Trump isn't a retard, but someone who shameless borrows others policies and claims it as his own. It is amusing how TYT is giving Trump grief for the carrier deal when it was a similar strategy that Bernie proposed all along.


----------



## Oxidamus

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Flag burning is like real life trolling and those who do it should be fined. :trump3


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Aido Get Laido said:


> Flag burning is like real life trolling and those who do it should be fined. :trump3


Its one thing to say there should be a fine, its another to say it should be jail time or a loss of US citizenship.


----------



## .MCH

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> I just wonder if people realize how badly they look when they describe their reality in which Donald Trump is a retard but is still a billionaire and the president. What's that make you? Or is SOCIETY to blame for the discrepancy? :lol


Well most people don't get handed millions by daddy to start their lives and don't manage to ruin everything they touch.

And "billionaire" lol at you still buying that bullshit. 

So much for your Führer "draining the swamp". Then again, I don't think any of you actually care. Trump supporters never really developed critical thinking skills (a lack of education will do that to people) so they probably won't even realize what's going on over the next 4 years.


----------



## MillionDollarProns

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



.MCH said:


> And "billionaire" lol at you still buying that bullshit.


Sources on Donald Trump being a rich dude:

http://time.com/money/4426089/donald-trump-net-worth/
http://www.forbes.com/donald-trump/#1099c4ba790b
http://fortune.com/2016/05/23/doland-trump-net-worth/


----------



## Oxidamus

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



.MCH said:


> Trump supporters never really developed critical thinking skills (a lack of education will do that to people) so they probably won't even realize what's going on over the next 4 years.


lol at you still buying that bullshit.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

They still don't get it. 

Kellog's pulled its advertising from Brietbart on the basis of the leftist narrative against Bannon (who is no longer even associated with Brietbart) and is now facing a backlash by consumers :kobelol 

Personally, I eat their cornflakes every morning and have for over 25 years. Still gonna buy it because you know, I'm not the sort of person that punishes people and organizations for their beliefs and values. That's something weak-minded turds who can't compartmentalize and have silly priorities in life do imo.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Consumers backlash or Breitbart inciting their readers to boycott? I guess the editors at Breitbart are "weak-minded turds who can't compartmentalize and have silly priorities in life".

At least the right wingers are doing their part in getting America to eat healthier. :kobelol


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> I just wonder if people realize how badly they look when they describe their reality in which Donald Trump is a retard but is still a billionaire and the president. What's that make you? Or is SOCIETY to blame for the discrepancy? :lol


Trump inherited a lot and has since spent his life losing that inheritance, if he'd just put all he inherited in a bank he'd be richer today than he is, he is poorer than when he started, hardly a sign of intelligence. 

And yeah, him being elected says a lot more about his voters intelligence and what a terrible candidate Hilary was than his.

Him being unable to comprehend the system is going to become more and more obvious as the next 4 years roll on and he continuously suggests doing things he can't actually do, and you'll eventually be forced to accept that it isn't an act, it's just who he is and his level of intellectual capability.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

The boycott is silly though if it's true that Kelloggs uses illegal work then it would be funny, as they support a lot of far left leaning projects. It does show that companies regardless of political leaning or pet projects are out to make a buck.

It doesn't matter what their big wigs mark on the ballot, in the end they'll fuck you over for a buck if they can and if they can keep it quiet.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

http://www.politico.com/blogs/donal...choice-for-trumps-small-business-chief-232039

Interesting...wonder what that would hold for the future of the WWE if she took this role...not to mention many people within GOP circles look down on wrestling period...that's why I think many wouldn't pull the lever to vote for her during her Senate runs.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



BruiserKC said:


> http://www.politico.com/blogs/donal...choice-for-trumps-small-business-chief-232039
> 
> Interesting...wonder what that would hold for the future of the WWE if she took this role...not to mention many people within GOP circles look down on wrestling period...that's why I think many wouldn't pull the lever to vote for her during her Senate runs.


I don't think WWE will be affected much, besides maybe more favourable terms in operations side of things due to more political influences.

She's just having a token position in the administration as reward for the McMahons' contribution to his campaign.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> I don't think WWE will be affected much, besides maybe more favourable terms in operations side of things due to more political influences.
> 
> She's just having a token position in the administration as reward for the McMahons' contribution to his campaign.


On the surface from a business standpoint what the McMahons did with turning the WWE into a worldwide booming business from a small territory is impressive. While Linda is not a conservative by any means she and Vince obviously have business chops.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



BruiserKC said:


> On the surface from a business standpoint what the McMahons did with turning the WWE into a worldwide booming business from a small territory is impressive. While Linda is not a conservative by any means she and Vince obviously have business chops.


She has the business chops, but that doesn't exclude her contributions playing a much bigger role in her landing the gig.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Boycotts are a wonderful expression of democratic ideals

There should be more of them

From all sides


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



deepelemblues said:


> Boycotts are a wonderful expression of democratic ideals
> 
> There should be more of them
> 
> From all sides


I think that boycotts while pro-liberty tend to be anti-capitalist doing more harm than good if sustained :draper2

Brietbart's reach isn't near enough to put even a scratch on the juggernaut that Kellog's is, but for smaller companies calls for boycotts on the basis of ideological differences can put people out of work and destroy entrepreneurs - something I disagree with completely.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> I think that boycotts while pro-liberty tend to be anti-capitalist doing more harm than good if sustained :draper2


They aren't anti-capitalist though. Well they can be, but they aren't inherently.

Free exchange is a two-way street. No one has an obligation to spend their money on any particular product or service.



> Brietbart's reach isn't near enough to put even a scratch on the juggernaut that Kellog's is,


Well that remains to be seen doesn't it. Similar things were said about the Target boycott and that boycott has hurt Target. 



> but for smaller companies calls for boycotts on the basis of ideological differences can put people out of work and destroy entrepreneurs - something I disagree with completely.


I don't. 'I'm an entrepreneur and I employ people!' isn't a magic shield against pissing your customers off and losing them. Maybe next time Mr. or Ms. Entrepreneur will be smarter, and his or her employees can find other jobs. Creative destruction is capitalism, the destruction via being a sanctimonious dumbass who pisses off the customers is pretty creative but it's not outside the lines.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



deepelemblues said:


> They aren't anti-capitalist though. Well they can be, but they aren't inherently.
> 
> Free exchange is a two-way street. No one has an obligation to spend their money on any particular product or service.


A capitalist structure is simply based on the exchange of goods and/or services. Political ideology and beliefs have no business being part of that exchange because in the case of populism where beliefs shaped purchasing habits it would make it impossible for certain goods and services to exist for the minority. This could even extend to life-saving goods and basic necessities. For example, if the anti-vax movement becomes the majority movement then we could potentially see the vax business sink and that would be a disaster for everyone. Therefore when it comes to capitalism it is imperative that people compartmentalize. 



> Well that remains to be seen doesn't it. Similar things were said about the Target boycott and that boycott has hurt Target.


And by hurting Target, what has that movement actually achieved? I find the morality of revenge objectionable. 



> I don't. 'I'm an entrepreneur and I employ people!' isn't a magic shield against pissing your customers off and losing them. Maybe next time Mr. or Ms. Entrepreneur will be smarter, and his or her employees can find other jobs. Creative destruction is capitalism, the destruction via being a sanctimonious dumbass who pisses off the customers is pretty creative but it's not outside the lines.


Yah. That compartmentalization needs to go both ways. On that I'll agree.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*






Let the retractions begin. 

Now they're gonna whine about suppressing journalists, but never mention that there is such a thing as journalistic integrity. 

I'm all for freedom of speech, but if you're just gonna slander someone, then you deserve to be taken to court to prove your statements - as a journalist, accuracy is part of your oath to upholding freedom of speech. If you make up lies about someone, then be prepared to defend yourself in court.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I wonder if the feminists will support her. :mj

Another great new blog post by Scott Adams about how Trump's wins with Ford and Carrier represent "New CEO" moves that will have a bigger impact than the political press can understand: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/153905823756/the-new-ceos-first-moves-and-trump


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Daily Mail is known garbage.

:lol Daily Mail says that their statements were not intended to be taken as true :lol

Well this really does go without saying. If you don't realize that Daily Mail is a shitshow tabloid then I am sorry.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Let the retractions begin.
> 
> Now they're gonna whine about suppressing journalists, but never mention that there is such a thing as journalistic integrity.
> 
> I'm all for freedom of speech, but if you're just gonna slander someone, then you deserve to be taken to court to prove your statements - as a journalist, accuracy is part of your oath to upholding freedom of speech. If you make up lies about someone, then be prepared to defend yourself in court.


She won't get anything unless he can prove it harmed her financially which it has not.

Also tabloids post BS all the time and no one takes them seriously. Her making a huge deal about this, is going to get tons of people to now look into this.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



MrMister said:


> Daily Mail is known garbage.
> 
> :lol Daily Mail says that their statements were not intended to be taken as true :lol
> 
> Well this really does go without saying. If you don't realize that Daily Mail is a shitshow tabloid then I am sorry.


I believe the accurate term is "SHITESHOW"

FAKE NEWS 

FAKE NEWS

MRMISTER SPREADING FAKE NEWS ABOUT THE DAILY MAIL ERMAHGERD


----------



## amhlilhaus

FriedTofu said:


> Trump isn't a retard, but someone who shameless borrows others policies and claims it as his own. It is amusing how TYT is giving Trump grief for the carrier deal when it was a similar strategy that Bernie proposed all along.


Trump could offer to shoot himself on their show, and theyd refuse claiming hes just doing it for publicity


----------



## amhlilhaus

Alkomesh2 said:


> CamillePunk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just wonder if people realize how badly they look when they describe their reality in which Donald Trump is a retard but is still a billionaire and the president. What's that make you? Or is SOCIETY to blame for the discrepancy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump inherited a lot and has since spent his life losing that inheritance, if he'd just put all he inherited in a bank he'd be richer today than he is, he is poorer than when he started, hardly a sign of intelligence.
> 
> And yeah, him being elected says a lot more about his voters intelligence and what a terrible candidate Hilary was than his.
> 
> Him being unable to comprehend the system is going to become more and more obvious as the next 4 years roll on and he continuously suggests doing things he can't actually do, and you'll eventually be forced to accept that it isn't an act, it's just who he is and his level of intellectual capability.
Click to expand...

I did the math, its fun

Trumps quoted multiple places he started with a LOAN, not gift of 1 million.

@ 8% interest over 52 years hed be at 54 million.

@12% interest hed be at 355 million.

54 million or 355 billion.

Hes worth between 3.5 to 4.2 BILLION.

Your serve


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> Trump isn't a retard, but someone who shameless borrows others policies and claims it as his own. It is amusing how TYT is giving Trump grief for the carrier deal when it was a similar strategy that Bernie proposed all along.


I mean this completely seriously: your post is a joke, right?

Whatever one wishes to say about Donald Trump, he has been complaining about U.S. trade deals for approximately thirty years in public. He was adamant about Japanese predatory trade policies in the 1980s, and he was, as the _Fresno Bee_ reported of the October 1993 Bakersfield Business Conference, ninth annual, the one voice going against the tide of pro-NAFTA sentiment at the time it was being celebrated by the overwhelming majority of U.S. elites. Trump was rhetorically opposed by three former presidents at the conference--Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush, who all spoke in favor of NAFTA. 

From the _Bee_:



> Real estate magnate Trump was the only speaker swimming against the NAFTA current, criticizing the treaty not so much for its concept but rather for what he sees as poor negotiating by U.S. trade representatives.
> 
> NAFTA is poorly crafted, Trump said, as all our other trade treaties seem to be. “We never make a good deal.”


Attack Trump to your heart's content, but the idea that Trump decided to steal Bernie Sanders's policies in the realm of U.S. trade agreements is nothing short of hilarious. He's been irate with American "dealmakers" for decades. 


In any event, that is a wonderfully written piece on "The New CEO's First Moves (and Trump)," @CamillePunk. I too can confirm that this is wholly accurate, and has been known within the corporate world for decades. As my father, who worked for Walter Shorenstein in San Francisco, and others, noted to me while growing up, every time a new CEO shows up, he will invariably set out to leave an immediate mark of improvement, even if it is simply redesigning the company logo, or something more tangible which boosts morale throughout the entire corporation, all the way from the top to the bottom. As Scott Adams puts it, when you watch your CEO work late hours to give his employees a "win," so to speak, the warm and fuzzy feelings ripple across all who work for him. People want to be rewarded, they are psychologically hardwired to deliver better work, make more sacrifices and apply themselves most fully when they have been convinced that the person for whom they are working wants the best for them. And as Adams puts it, this is a big win for Trump and Pence disguised as a little win. Especially since this was a time-sensitive deal that required the president-elect to act some 50 days before he becomes president.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



amhlilhaus said:


> I did the math, its fun
> 
> Trumps quoted multiple places he started with a LOAN, not gift of 1 million.
> 
> @ 8% interest over 52 years hed be at 54 million.
> 
> @12% interest hed be at 355 million.
> 
> 54 million or 355 billion.
> 
> Hes worth between 3.5 to 4.2 BILLION.
> 
> Your serve



The whole "But Daddy gave him money!!11" crying is rather humorous, most parents give their child something to help them when they get older. It can be a car, education, letting the child stay rent free while in school, no interest loans or the child inheriting a business or method of procuring money. I don't see the difference in this case, Trump was loaned money and he made himself a fortune. What's the difference between this loan and let's say a father loaning his child 10k and that child goes onto having a successful business?

Only a fucking asshole parent wouldn't help their kid out, and yes some children don't get money and want to start out on their own but they usually have help educational wise from their parents so there is always some benefit, even if it isn't financial.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> She won't get anything unless he can prove it harmed her financially which it has not.
> 
> Also tabloids post BS all the time and no one takes them seriously. Her making a huge deal about this, is going to get tons of people to now look into this.


Let's say someone called your mother a whore just because they want your father to lose the election. Would you not make a big deal about it? Or would you tell your mother to shut up and take it because if she makes a big deal about it she'll get investigated and maybe they'll find out that she really was a whore. 

I'm not making this personal as an insult ... I'm just trying to drive home the point that your argument is essentially one of "shut up and take it bitch cuz if you don't, they'll come for you and make it worse". 

All I'm saying is that they have every right to say what they want, but then they should be ready to defend it in the court of law.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



DesolationRow said:


> I mean this completely seriously: your post is a joke, right?
> 
> Whatever one wishes to say about Donald Trump, he has been complaining about U.S. trade deals for approximately thirty years in public. He was adamant about Japanese predatory trade policies in the 1980s, and he was, as the _Fresno Bee_ reported of the October 1993 Bakersfield Business Conference, ninth annual, the one voice going against the tide of pro-NAFTA sentiment at the time it was being celebrated by the overwhelming majority of U.S. elites. Trump was rhetorically opposed by three former presidents at the conference--Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush, who all spoke in favor of NAFTA.
> 
> From the _Bee_:
> 
> 
> 
> Attack Trump to your heart's content, but the idea that Trump decided to steal Bernie Sanders's policies in the realm of U.S. trade agreements is nothing short of hilarious. He's been irate with American "dealmakers" for decades.
> 
> 
> In any event, that is a wonderfully written piece on "The New CEO's First Moves (and Trump)," @CamillePunk. I too can confirm that this is wholly accurate, and has been known within the corporate world for decades. As my father, who worked for Walter Shorenstein in San Francisco, and others, noted to me while growing up, every time a new CEO shows up, he will invariably set out to leave an immediate mark of improvement, even if it is simply redesigning the company logo, or something more tangible which boosts morale throughout the entire corporation, all the way from the top to the bottom. As Scott Adams puts it, when you watch your CEO work late hours to give his employees a "win," so to speak, the warm and fuzzy feelings ripple across all who work for him. People want to be rewarded, they are psychologically hardwired to deliver better work, make more sacrifices and apply themselves most fully when they have been convinced that the person for whom they are working wants the best for them. And as Adams puts it, this is a big win for Trump and Pence disguised as a little win. Especially since this was a time-sensitive deal that required the president-elect to act some 50 days before he becomes president.


As it turns out it isn't the stick that many assumed (me included) that got the carrier deal done. Indiana state gave a $7 million tax break carrot over 10 years to United Technologies to save 1000 jobs. So not Bernie's idea but more establishment idea. :shrug

I take the L on this one about using Bernie tactics. But look at all his campaign rhetoric about failed Jeb Bush and Hilary Clinton's policies. Yet what he is now favouring is remarkably similar to the positions those two campaigns have long held due to months and even years of policy crafting from soliciting think tank ideas. The public is now conditioned to praise him from backing down from absurd positions because he has said so many crazy things this past year. So after months of attacking establishment positions, he is now backtracking to them and being praised for it while the establishment still gets shit for taking those positions.

The CEO first's move is all great and all, but it needs to be backed by substance and years of Trump mismanagement in operations doesn't give us confidence. It is political grandstanding 101 and yet somehow this is rationalised by Scott Adams as a CEO move and not a politician move. Remember the grief Obama got for the motor industry bailout? Was that a CEO move or a politician move?

Also, his anti-trade deals tirade for decades didn't prevent him from hiring illegals to work on his buildings so let's not pretend it was done in the interests of the American workers. Could it be because he see his competitors can reduce the cost advantage he enjoyed by having access to cheaper labour that his mob connections allowed him to have? He is a crook, but most of his supporters don't care as long as he is a crook for them. The only problem is, he hasn't shown any history of willing to fight for the American workers, unless of course they bend the knee and kiss his ring.


----------



## blackholeson

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> most parents give their child something to help them when they get older.


*You're totally correct. However, most people aren't millionaires or billionaires. Very unfair example. Yes, parents want the best for their children. Others want the best, but certainly can't always afford it. This is what builds society, it's the driving force behind hard working Americans. Not just hard labor, but higher education as well. Getting a degree isn't easy, getting advanced degrees is even more complicated. Yet, hard working American men and women achieve this dream every year. Hard work with very little handed down. Society is going the opposite direction. Younger adults feel owed something more today than I can recall. People almost expect to be handed the key. However, we are still a hard working, or over worked society.*


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> The whole "But Daddy gave him money!!11" crying is rather humorous, most parents give their child something to help them when they get older. It can be a car, education, letting the child stay rent free while in school, no interest loans or the child inheriting a business or method of procuring money. I don't see the difference in this case, Trump was loaned money and he made himself a fortune. What's the difference between this loan and let's say a father loaning his child 10k and that child goes onto having a successful business?
> 
> Only a fucking asshole parent wouldn't help their kid out, and yes some children don't get money and want to start out on their own but they usually have help educational wise from their parents so there is always some benefit, even if it isn't financial.


The problem these people have is with the amount of money Trump started with - and yet they have no problems with other venture capitalists (I bet 99% of the people who whine about Trump starting off with money to make money don't even know what venture capitalism is) who do the same thing. They are the same people that consume everything that they consume without knowing that 100% of every single venture or business on earth is a result of money lending ... What does it matter if that money was $5000 converted to 5 billion or 1 million converted to 1 billion. In capitalism that is an irrelvancy because the fruit of wealth creation is enjoyed by pretty much everyone. Even though coke makes billions around the world, the fact that we have coke with our meals is a fruit of someone's business acumen somewhere. It's part of the great society we live in. 

It's just a hate-on for Trump because they've been told that they're supposed to hate him in particular. 

It's indoctrination 101. Not logic. Not even actual critical thought and determination through rationalization. It's just indoctrination. 

Which is why you see liberals attack only specific industries - you know, the ones that they've been taught to hate - but not the ones they themselves actually did any work to find out. This is why they hate the tobacco industry but want the marijuana industry to grow .. This is why they hate big oil, but support renewable energy .. This is why they buy iphones, but will boycott Target when they're told to do so .. 

It's all indoctrination into the cult of anti-capitalism where even the anti-capitalists simply choose specific industries to hate while supporting others. This is why you get so-clled modern anti-capitalist "anarchists" on the *internet* which is the ultimate achievement of capitalism, using the fruits of capitalism to shit on capitalism. Indoctrination. Nothing else.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

What is the response to people like me who don't whine about the amount of money he started with but the amount of influence he started with and the amount of bailout money Daddy gave him throughout his career? :troll


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> What is the response to people like me who don't whine about the amount of money he started with but the amount of influence he started with and the amount of bailout money Daddy gave him throughout his career? :troll


That you have no understanding of how capitalism works.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> What is the response to people like me who don't whine about the amount of money he started with but the amount of influence he started with and the amount of bailout money Daddy gave him throughout his career? :troll


I guess politics is a rich man's game. I would wager more presidents than not came from well off families.


----------



## amhlilhaus

FriedTofu said:


> What is the response to people like me who don't whine about the amount of money he started with but the amount of influence he started with and the amount of bailout money Daddy gave him throughout his career?


A million bucks doesnt go far in manhatten, keep trying


----------



## amhlilhaus

I would love to hear how liberals could rip his speech tonight.

Over and over he talked about american workers. He talked about minorities, women. 

He hammered the theme of jobs. 

Whats to hate about that


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> That you have no understanding of how capitalism works.


Care to explain how what I described is how capitalism is supposed to be?



yeahbaby! said:


> I guess politics is a rich man's game. I would wager more presidents than not came from well off families.


That isn't my intention at all. Politics is of course more appealing to those from more well-off background because either they have the means to fight for what the believe in or to gain more power. My issue is the president elect being presented as some superb businessman when he has failed when put in charge of decision making. His biggest success came from being in the real estate business with his father's ties giving him a huge advantage and licensing his name where he don't need to care about the success or failure of those ventures. Both of those industry rewards his overleveraging tendency, while almost all his other ventures that requires more measured qualities failed or did not have the same success.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



amhlilhaus said:


> A million bucks doesnt go far in manhatten, keep trying


70 million loan which would be around 220m today guaranteed by Daddy goes far enough. A few millions to prevent his casino from folding is something. Daddy's help is well documented.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



amhlilhaus said:


> I would love to hear how liberals could rip his speech tonight.
> 
> Over and over he talked about american workers. He talked about minorities, women.
> 
> He hammered the theme of jobs.
> 
> Whats to hate about that


But he said mean things and we can't have that


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> 70 million loan which would be around 220m today guaranteed by Daddy goes far enough. A few millions to prevent his casino from folding is something. Daddy's help is well documented.


So is it 1 million 14 million or 70 million? :draper2

Because I've never seen the 70 million number tossed out there before if it's allegedly so well documented.

I think Hillary would've been pleased as punch to say 70 million instead of 14 million. 14 million doesn't seem like that much to the modern American. 70 million is close enough to 100 million to seem like a YUGE amount of money. It's a psychological thing. 

But really what you're saying is :trump only made 220 million in today's money into 3 and half to 4 and a half billion dollars in today's money.

That's not really the biting criticism some apparently think it is. Getting a 16x-20.5x return on your principle is kinda uhhh not too shabby. 

:trump2

Anyway...

:trump said some powerful shit at his victory rally tonight. Best line:



> There is no global anthem. No global currency. No certificate of global citizenship. We pledge allegiance to one flag and that flag is the American flag.


:trump3

As an American nationalist it's quite gratifying to hear a president finally say that.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



deepelemblues said:


> So is it 1 million 14 million or 70 million? :draper2
> 
> Because I've never seen the 70 million number tossed out there before if it's allegedly so well documented.
> 
> I think Hillary would've been pleased as punch to say 70 million instead of 14 million. 14 million doesn't seem like that much to the modern American. 70 million is close enough to 100 million to seem like a YUGE amount of money. It's a psychological thing.
> 
> But really what you're saying is :trump only made 220 million in today's money into 3 and half to 4 and a half billion dollars in today's money.
> 
> That's not really the biting criticism some apparently think it is. Getting a 16x-20.5x return on your principle is kinda uhhh not too shabby.
> 
> :trump2
> 
> Anyway...
> 
> :trump said some powerful shit at his victory rally tonight. Best line:
> 
> 
> 
> :trump3
> 
> As an American nationalist it's quite gratifying to hear a president finally say that.


14 million is the amount that his father alleged loaned to help him out of his debt situation, including the infamous chips buying incident at one of his casino.

The 1 million amount is the amount he claimed his father loaned to him at the start of his career.

The 70 million is the amount the banks loaned to him that was co-guaranteed by his father that he would never have got approved if not for his father's name and reputation.

:draper2

Sure he bet big and won big. But he also bet big and lost big but Daddy and the banks (reluctantly) were there to bail him out. And he mange to ruin the salvage jobs others have done for him each time.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@DesolationRow @Carte Blanche @Pratchett @AryaDark @Sincere @L-DOPA @Fringe @Miss Sally @virus21 @Goku @Beatles123 @MillionDollarProns @Lumpy McRighteous

President-elect Trump spitting FIRE at his first post-VICTORY rally. NO ONE was safe.



















The most gangsta politician ever. :banderas Fucking love it.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> @DesolationRow @Carte Blanche @Pratchett @AryaDark @Sincere @L-DOPA @Fringe @Miss Sally @virus21 @Goku @Beatles123 @MillionDollarProns @Lumpy McRighteous
> 
> President-elect Trump spitting FIRE at his first post-VICTORY rally. NO ONE was safe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The most gangsta politician ever. :banderas Fucking love it.


Fun fact: The media elite's tears help me sustain my youth and vitality.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Trump was lent certain money while his father was still alive, but his wealth doesn't come from that loan, it comes from his father's fortune which he inherited when his father died.

Trump's father's worth was estimated at $200 Million in the 70s, $200 Million in the 70s is worth $1,254,774,535.81 ($1.25 Billion) in today's money according to the inflation calculator on www.dollartimes.com

Trump didn't turn 1 Million into 1 Billion, he turned 1.25 Billion into 1 Billion.

He has spent his life losing his inheritance.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> @DesolationRow @Carte Blanche @Pratchett @AryaDark @Sincere @L-DOPA @Fringe @Miss Sally @virus21 @Goku @Beatles123 @MillionDollarProns @Lumpy McRighteous
> 
> President-elect Trump spitting FIRE at his first post-VICTORY rally. NO ONE was safe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The most gangsta politician ever. :banderas Fucking love it.



The amount of rage and crying and delusions aimed at Trump would be enough to make a second sun.

I don't even think there was this much crying when Rome was sacked.


----------



## amhlilhaus

Alkomesh2 said:


> Trump was lent certain money while his father was still alive, but his wealth doesn't come from that loan, it comes from his father's fortune which he inherited when his father died.
> 
> Trump's father's worth was estimated at $200 Million in the 70s, $200 Million in the 70s is worth $1,254,774,535.81 ($1.25 Billion) in today's money according to the inflation calculator on www.dollartimes.com
> 
> Trump didn't turn 1 Million into 1 Billion, he turned 1.25 Billion into 1 Billion.
> 
> He has spent his life losing his inheritance.


Fascinating

Except trumps dad died 1n 1999, worth 200 million.

And trumps worth 3.7 billion, ???

Keep reaching, dont worry. Lots of people are confused by business, capitalism and big numbers, the schools dont teach those subjects.

But boi oh boi do they teach you how to discuss challenging things, and if it triggers you with coded words and micro aggression they got you a safe space


----------



## amhlilhaus

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> CamillePunk said:
> 
> 
> 
> @DesolationRow @Carte Blanche @Pratchett @AryaDark @Sincere @L-DOPA @Fringe @Miss Sally @virus21 @Goku @Beatles123 @MillionDollarProns @Lumpy McRighteous
> 
> President-elect Trump spitting FIRE at his first post-VICTORY rally. NO ONE was safe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The most gangsta politician ever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fucking love it.
> 
> 
> 
> Fun fact: The media elite's tears help me sustain my youth and vitality.
Click to expand...

Thats so fucking old school, gotta go listen to it now, get me some jungle love!


----------



## amhlilhaus

virus21 said:


> amhlilhaus said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would love to hear how liberals could rip his speech tonight.
> 
> Over and over he talked about american workers. He talked about minorities, women.
> 
> He hammered the theme of jobs.
> 
> Whats to hate about that
> 
> 
> 
> But he said mean things and we can't have that
Click to expand...

Mean things like help the inner cities?
Bringing together the country?

Oh i was wrong: he called the press dishonest

And said it was fun to fight hillary, so he reiterated hes a SEXIST!

Or will the media now spin it to where he abuses women, since he liked FIGHTING her?


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



amhlilhaus said:


> Fascinating
> 
> Except trumps dad died 1n 1999, worth 200 million.
> 
> And trumps worth 3.7 billion, ???
> 
> Keep reaching, dont worry. Lots of people are confused by business, capitalism and big numbers, the schools dont teach those subjects.
> 
> But boi oh boi do they teach you how to discuss challenging things, and if it triggers you with coded words and micro aggression they got you a safe space







Aussie advance math class!

Media just mad Trump bypasses them to talk to the people so they cannot put out sensationalized headlines and people being silly, don't bother to check if that's what he actually said.


----------



## amhlilhaus

Miss Sally said:


> amhlilhaus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fascinating
> 
> Except trumps dad died 1n 1999, worth 200 million.
> 
> And trumps worth 3.7 billion, ???
> 
> Keep reaching, dont worry. Lots of people are confused by business, capitalism and big numbers, the schools dont teach those subjects.
> 
> But boi oh boi do they teach you how to discuss challenging things, and if it triggers you with coded words and micro aggression they got you a safe space
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aussie advance math class!
> 
> Media just mad Trump bypasses them to talk to the people so they cannot put out sensationalized headlines and people being silly, don't bother to check if that's what he actually said.
Click to expand...

I hope trump does it his whole administration. Just release weekly videos to address the country. The medias going to lose its mind over trump. They already lost their reputation.


----------



## Flair Flop

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@DesolationRow; @Miss Sally; @virus21; @CamillePunk; 

Listening to these guys is all you need to hear to know why Clinton completely and utterly lost and has absolutely no business being anywhere near the leadership of America. Her campaign managers were completely and utterly off reality. 






Of course, this is MSNBC talking about what happened so you'll still have to sit through their nauseating spin :lol 

They still haven't learnt and it's clear now that they won't. They're not even listening to Obama who has categorically and repeatedly said that Hillary lost because she didn't campaign in the battleground states. Plain and simple. The dems are doubling down on their SJW rhetoric.

The full panel for those interested. It's hard to tell who's talking so if you recognize their voices, listen to it -- otherwise it's kind of pointless. Waiting for the official release.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...dern-american-history/?utm_term=.408665ea1166

Donald Trump is assembling the richest administration in modern American history



So much for draining the swamp. Trump was playing all you for the suckers that you are and you believed his BS LOL


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

nobody cares bm.

trump is gonna save america :trump


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Goku said:


> nobody cares bm.
> 
> trump is gonna save america :trump


Of course Trump fans don't care because Trump is played them for a fool. He is turning everyone he claimed he was against. We tried telling you this but they would not listen.

Trump is going to be way worse than GW ever was. Trump is filling the swamp not draining it. Its just hilarious to see Trump supporters making excuses.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

BM so disappointed Comrade President Sanders isn't the one filling his cabinet right now with failed 70s commune leaders who in essence couldn't economically manage a fucking small farm with plenty of free labor (not Bernie though, he got kicked out of the only commune he ever tried to join because he was TOO LAZY :heston ), who after their failure at creating mini-socialist utopias spent the last 40 years joining the 1% by getting sinecures at various colleges around the country and jacking tuition up at much more than the rate of inflation.


----------



## Headliner

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Is this tax plan the truth? Or just the media being "out to get him"?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/23/trump-tax-plan-cuts-wealthy-low-income-inequality


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Headliner said:


> Is this tax plan the truth? Or just the media being "out to get him"?
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/23/trump-tax-plan-cuts-wealthy-low-income-inequality


here is another from WSJ

http://www.wsj.com/articles/taxes-u...ess-and-the-richest-pay-a-lot-less-1480700891

Taxes Under Trump: Almost Everyone Pays Less and the Richest Pay a Lot Less
Nearly half the benefits of the plan, and a higher proportion of savings, would go to the top 1%










The rich will make out the best either wahy you look at it.

Forbes also says

Trump's Treasury Pick Describes A Very Different Tax Plan Than His Boss Campaigned On


http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway...lan-than-his-boss-campaigned-on/#7cc7dd6a2cdc

So maybe Trump wants one thing but the Treasury picks wants something else and now Trump can say well this guy is an expect so he is doing what is best or something like that.

in the end the rich will bennift and the middle and lower classes will suffer


----------



## Headliner

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> here is another from WSJ
> 
> http://www.wsj.com/articles/taxes-u...ess-and-the-richest-pay-a-lot-less-1480700891
> 
> Taxes Under Trump: Almost Everyone Pays Less and the Richest Pay a Lot Less
> Nearly half the benefits of the plan, and a higher proportion of savings, would go to the top 1%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rich will make out the best either wahy you look at it.


I think it is legit. Apparently Trump so far is putting together the richest administration in history. I don't see how you can expect them to look out for the issues in middle class. But, other people apparently think they will. Wait and see right?


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Headliner said:


> I think it is legit. Apparently Trump so far is putting together the richest administration in history. I don't see how you can expect them to look out for the issues in middle class. But, other people apparently think they will. Wait and see right?


I'm waiting and seeing if he actually does fuck-all for the inner cities. That's what I want to see most and if it doesn't happen I'm gonna be fucking pissed. They and de-industrialized rural America are the places that are the worst off and getting shit going again in both will do more for the country overall than anything else.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Headliner said:


> I think it is legit. Apparently Trump so far is putting together the richest administration in history. I don't see how you can expect them to look out for the issues in middle class. But, other people apparently think they will. Wait and see right?


This is all going according to plan for those of us who want to blow up the system. Trump is going to be the most Establishment president of all time. All the blame is going to land on him and his minions when we reach peak global economic meltdown.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> This is all going according to plan for those of us who want to blow up the system. Trump is going to be the most Establishment president of all time. All the blame is going to land on him and his minions when we reach peak global economic meltdown.


Didn't you hear, ZeroHedge is a fake news Russian cocksucker website :wink2:


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



deepelemblues said:


> I'm waiting and seeing if he actually does fuck-all for the inner cities. That's what I want to see most and if it doesn't happen I'm gonna be fucking pissed. They and de-industrialized rural America are the places that are the worst off and getting shit going again in both will do more for the country overall than anything else.


Inner cities need the most help, rural America also needs help but rural America has the benefit of not being overly controlled by garbage Democratic policies. Better schools, more Police presence (I know Police are bad but lack of policing hasn't helped out anyone.) and more opportunities via trade schools or helping small business could do wonders.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Headliner said:


> I think it is legit. Apparently Trump so far is putting together the richest administration in history. I don't see how you can expect them to look out for the issues in middle class. But, other people apparently think they will. Wait and see right?


I am sure it is legit, Trump is a so-called billionare and most of his buddies are too just look at his cabinet, he does not give two shits about the middle and lower classes. All those who are middle class and poorer will have a rude awakening when they see that what the progressives have been saying about Trump was right all along. WE are already seeing it now with his cabinet picks and his tax plan.

just wait until people with pre-existing conditions cant get coverage again they will be wishing they had Obamacare back


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> Inner cities need the most help, rural America also needs help but rural America has the benefit of not being overly controlled by garbage Democratic policies. Better schools, more Police presence (I know Police are bad but lack of policing hasn't helped out anyone.) and more opportunities via trade schools or helping small business could do wonders.


Yes the inner cities are definitely the areas that need help the most. You've got a couple-three tens of millions of people across the country who are contributing far less to themselves and the country than they could be and it isn't their fault. Everybody has failed them and it's a disgrace. They're Americans so they deserve better.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



deepelemblues said:


> Yes the inner cities are definitely the areas that need help the most. You've got a couple-three tens of millions of people across the country who are contributing far less to themselves and the country than they could be and it isn't their fault. Everybody has failed them and it's a disgrace. They're Americans so they deserve better.


If you think that why are you a Trump supporter then LOL


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

The Dems are doubling down on SJW because Clinton won the popular vote. This makes them think their bullshit is majority opinion. They probably won't examine it any further than wanting to be right. This is partially why Dems fail in most elections.


edit: As for Trump putting together the richest administration, this shouldn't shock anyone. Trump always said he's going to put very successful people in his cabinet.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> If you think that why are you a Trump supporter then LOL


because unlike some people i know how to read a history book and i know which party has controlled the inner cities for 50-80 years and has failed completely at providing a decent education system or an attractive environment for capital investment or even basic public order and public safety in the inner cities

hint it's the party with a donkey as its mascot


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

So much class warfare ITT. I don't care how rich the people being appointed to Trump's cabinet are. I care what policies will be implemented. 

Also, given that the rich already pay a hugely disproportionate amount (i.e, they pay way more) of all taxes, the possibility they would benefit the most from a Trump tax plan which seeks to cut taxes for everyone, is not particularly shocking or offensive to me as someone well-trained in the arts of arithmetic.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



MrMister said:


> The Dems are doubling down on SJW because Clinton won the popular vote. This makes them think their bullshit is majority opinion. They probably won't examine it any further than wanting to be right. This is partially why Dems fail in most elections.
> 
> 
> edit: As for Trump putting together the richest administration, this shouldn't shock anyone. Trump always said he's going to put very successful people in his cabinet.


Trump did the exact same thing when Romney was winning the popular vote but lost the EC before Obama pulled ahead.



















And don't even present if Clinton won the EC but Trump won by over 2 million votes he would not be doing the same thing right now.

Trump said he was going to drain the swamp and no go with the establishment which he claimed he was against yet he puts the most establishment people to be in his cabinet.




deepelemblues said:


> because unlike some people i know how to read a history book and i know which party has controlled the inner cities for 50-80 years and has failed completely at providing a decent education system or an attractive environment for capital investment or even basic public order and public safety in the inner cities
> 
> hint it's the party with a donkey as its mascot


You don't know anything about history and you have proven that over and over again in these threads.


----------



## amhlilhaus

deepelemblues said:


> Headliner said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is legit. Apparently Trump so far is putting together the richest administration in history. I don't see how you can expect them to look out for the issues in middle class. But, other people apparently think they will. Wait and see right?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm waiting and seeing if he actually does fuck-all for the inner cities. That's what I want to see most and if it doesn't happen I'm gonna be fucking pissed. They and de-industrialized rural America are the places that are the worst off and getting shit going again in both will do more for the country overall than anything else.
Click to expand...

At least trump keeps saying hes gonna help the inner cities.

Whens the last time a republican has said that?


----------



## amhlilhaus

birthday_massacre said:


> MrMister said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Dems are doubling down on SJW because Clinton won the popular vote. This makes them think their bullshit is majority opinion. They probably won't examine it any further than wanting to be right. This is partially why Dems fail in most elections.
> 
> 
> edit: As for Trump putting together the richest administration, this shouldn't shock anyone. Trump always said he's going to put very successful people in his cabinet.
> 
> 
> 
> Trump did the exact same thing when Romney was winning the popular vote but lost the EC before Obama pulled ahead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And don't even present if Clinton won the EC but Trump won by over 2 million votes he would not be doing the same thing right now.
> 
> Trump said he was going to drain the swamp and no go with the establishment which he claimed he was against yet he puts the most establishment people to be in his cabinet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deepelemblues said:
> 
> 
> 
> because unlike some people i know how to read a history book and i know which party has controlled the inner cities for 50-80 years and has failed completely at providing a decent education system or an attractive environment for capital investment or even basic public order and public safety in the inner cities
> 
> hint it's the party with a donkey as its mascot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know anything about history and you have proven that over and over again in these threads.
Click to expand...

Ok he doesnt know history. Consider the last 50-80 years 'current events'.

So whats wrong with his statements about dems running the cities?

My guess: youll deny dems run cities or, the evil republicans wouldnt give them enough money to make a difference


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



amhlilhaus said:


> At least trump keeps saying hes gonna help the inner cities.
> 
> Whens the last time a republican has said that?


Him saying and him actually doing it are two different things.
He is already proving he is going to fuck over the inner cities and will cater to the rich


If Trump supporters still cant see how full of shit he is and how he conned you, then they are really more pathetic than I thought

And LOL look at this










he admits Trump talks out of his ass all the time


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@Carte Blanche, that is a highly interesting back-and-forth for the reasons you state.

As to the present [email protected]_massacre @CamillePunk @Headliner @L-DOPA @Miss Sally...

Donald Trump is assembling the richest administration in history.

The last richest cabinet in history belonged to John F. Kennedy.

The previously richest cabinet in history before JFK's belonged to Franklin D. Roosevelt. 

Trump's been reasonably honest that his major tax-cutting would benefit the richest of the rich along with most of the middle class.

Shredding the corporate tax rate is an important building block to revitalize the American economy and heighten the U.S.'s international competitiveness. It's one thing that the U.S. features the highest statutory corporate tax rate, at 40% including both federal and state levies, topping all advanced economies; it's another that even with the plentiful tax breaks which are baked into corporate tax studies, the U.S.'s effective corporate tax rate remains at the peak of the advanced economic mountain, speaking internationally. Every day, more American companies are endeavoring to flee the reach of their own nation's Treasury Department in order to reduce the cost of business to as great a degree as possible. Scores upon scores of companies which are only barely accumulating any profits at all against their own costs of doing business are seeking ways to evade these tax rates. 

As the Congressional Budget Office estimated, workers bear approximately 70% of the corporate tax burden, which is hardly surprising. The more heavily taxed businesses are, the greater stinginess of the wages of their workers will be. Every 1% increase in corporate tax rates has been linked to an approximately 0.5% drop in wage rates for all workers for the majority of companies. Headquartered in Paris, France, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has habitually found that that corporate taxes are the single "most harmful for growth" of respective nations' economies of all taxes. 

Of course, the glaring problem remains the U.S. national debt, but at nearly $20 trillion and counting, and with nearly two-thirds of it now being represented by the inevitable explosion of Medicare- and Social Security-related costs as baby boomers become elderly (something prudent economists and financial voices predicted fifty years ago), it's becoming increasingly apparent that there will never be any paying down of the debt. Beginning with Ronald Reagan in 1981, U.S. debt has exploded from $900 billion in 1981 to nearly $20 trillion today with no signs of it slowing down at all; in fact, it is obviously on the path toward continuing its acceleration. 

Tax receipts have increased dramatically, 5.8-fold, from 1981 to today: from $900 billion to $3.5 trillion in 2016. The single biggest hurdle toward the U.S. ever even beginning to pay down the debt just a little bit to make it more manageable so that confidence in U.S. debt remains high (as it still mostly is today internationally) is that the U.S. has not produced a true budget surplus in any year since 1960. Since 1981, debt is up a little over 22x and tax revenue is "only" up 5.8x, it's stunningly evident today that the debt being repaid, even to modest degrees, just to keep the rotating debt of ten years from now as appetizing as it is today (per Alexander Hamilton) is not feasible. Based on Trump's comments on debt I am guessing that he at least vaguely understands this concept, so it will be interesting to see where the inevitable clashes related to the "debt ceiling" (ha!) go over the next four years.


----------



## Beatles123

https://twitter.com/search?q=Taiwan&src=tren

Your daily dose of Lib salt.

BM being angry makes me happy because he actually thinks we hate what trump is doing. i hope he hates every day of living in our new world. :trump Time for him to know my pain the last ten or so years.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> BM being angry makes me happy because he actually thinks we hate what trump is doing. i hope he hates every day of living in our new world. :trump.


Yeah, let's not go here, Beatles mang. Keep it cool. :trump3


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Businesses need to stop outsourcing to other countries and keep/create jobs here in the states. Can't do that if they're being taxed and regulated to death. They should be provided with incentives to stay. Carrier agreeing to keep 1,000 jobs in Indianapolis is a step in the right direction imo. Hoping more companies will follow suit. If the Trump administration can boost the economy and help as many Americans as possible (not just the 1%), then I don't really care how rich they are.

@birthday_massacre @Tater @Headliner

Those of you who are banging anti-Trump drum probably shouldn't be reveling in what you perceive as our country's imminent doom. After all, he's gonna be your president too (I'm assuming you're all Americans) and the policies he and the GOP-led Congress implement will effect all Americans, not just the ones who voted for him. I'm not saying you should incessantly post Trump smilies all over this forum and become a card-carrying member of the alt-right, but it doesn't seem ideal to hope/predict that the captain of our ship will steer us right into an iceberg.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Trump hasn't been in office yet and already offended the right wing nuts of China by taking a call with the president of Taiwan. This following him saying great things about Pakistan that angered the Indians.

Why is he trying to get the government of one third of the world angry at him before he become president?


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> Trump hasn't been in office yet and already offended the right wing nuts of China by taking a call with the president of Taiwan. This following him saying great things about Pakistan that angered the Indians.
> 
> Why is he trying to get the government of one third of the world angry at him before he become president?


I know the answer to this one already, I've asked similar questions about Trump in the past. Apparently diplomacy doesn't matter for Trump because he's not being elected to make friends, he's been elected to fuck shit up and make a change to the establishment. I guess that includes having good international relations.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> Trump hasn't been in office yet and already offended the right wing nuts of China by taking a call with the president of Taiwan. This following him saying great things about Pakistan that angered the Indians.
> 
> Why is he trying to get the government of one third of the world angry at him before he become president?


>Trump shouldn't accept the congratulatory call from the leader of a sovereign nation


JUST.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Oda Nobunaga said:


> Yeah, let's not go here, Beatles mang. Keep it cool. :trump3


Im sorry, man. Being in this, the best timeline, has made me too giddy, I'll lower my energy. :trump


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> >Trump shouldn't accept the congratulatory call from the leader of a sovereign nation
> 
> 
> JUST.


I think the issue is that it's not technically a sovereign nation at all. It's not been recognised as one by many countries in the world, hasn't been a member of the UN since 1971 and in fact if they officially declared independence from China, the Chinese military would likely destroy any "nation of Taiwan" outright. So yeah, it's not quite as cut and dry as you think it is at all.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> https://twitter.com/search?q=Taiwan&src=tren
> 
> Your daily dose of Lib salt.
> 
> BM being angry makes me happy because he actually thinks we hate what trump is doing. i hope he hates every day of living in our new world. :trump Time for him to know my pain the last ten or so years.


Yup your make America white world. I know you will love it

I cant wait until Trump totally screws you over when he gets in office then you will see I was right all along.

Dont say I did not warn you.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The Absolute said:


> Businesses need to stop outsourcing to other countries and keep/create jobs here in the states. Can't do that if they're being taxed and regulated to death. They should be provided with incentives to stay. Carrier agreeing to keep 1,000 jobs in Indianapolis is a step in the right direction imo. Hoping more companies will follow suit. If the Trump administration can boost the economy and help as many Americans as possible (not just the 1%), then I don't really care how rich they are.
> 
> @birthday_massacre @Tater @Headliner
> 
> Those of you who are banging anti-Trump drum probably shouldn't be reveling in what you perceive as our country's imminent doom. After all, he's gonna be your president too (I'm assuming you're all Americans) and the policies he and the GOP-led Congress implement will effect all Americans, not just the ones who voted for him. I'm not saying you should incessantly post Trump smilies all over this forum and become a card-carrying member of the alt-right, but it doesn't seem ideal to hope/predict that the captain of our ship will steer us right into an iceberg.


yeah he paid Carrier to only keep less than half of the jobs and they will move more jobs overseas than they will keep here. Oh what an incentive. He claimed he would heavily tax or traffit any company that moves jobs overseas and he is already breaking that promise with carrier just because they are keeping less than half of the jobs here. Carrier just exposed how to beat Trump.

Also you need regulations, there is a reason why we have things like OSHA, and other regulations like with the FDA.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RavishingRickRules said:


> I know the answer to this one already, I've asked similar questions about Trump in the past. Apparently diplomacy doesn't matter for Trump because he's not being elected to make friends, he's been elected to fuck shit up and make a change to the establishment. I guess that includes having good international relations.


 Except, he is trying to make friends without thinking about the consequences. This is the guy that praised Saddam and Kim Jong Un for shock value during the campaign.



Beatles123 said:


> >Trump shouldn't accept the congratulatory call from the leader of a sovereign nation
> 
> 
> JUST.


Because China is sensitive about Taiwan just like people like you are sensitive about the confederate flag?


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> Except, he is trying to make friends without thinking about the consequences. This is the guy that praised Saddam and Kim Jong Un for shock value during the campaign.


Oh don't get me wrong, I don't agree with what they told me, I was just repeating the answer I'd been given when I asked whether someone with a severe lack of diplomatic experience and skill-set was a wise choice for president. The thing with Taiwan isn't just sensitivity either, it's a pretty serious diplomatic goof as the UN don't recognise Taiwan as a sovereign nation at all. The equivalent would be for a civil war to break out in the US and the former government being driven back to Hawaii which then becomes their defacto "nation" and then the new Prime Minister of the UK taking calls from that group and treating them as if they're a sovereign nation in their own right. Pretty murky waters I reckon.


----------



## Headliner

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The Absolute said:


> Businesses need to stop outsourcing to other countries and keep/create jobs here in the states. Can't do that if they're being taxed and regulated to death. They should be provided with incentives to stay. Carrier agreeing to keep 1,000 jobs in Indianapolis is a step in the right direction imo. Hoping more companies will follow suit. If the Trump administration can boost the economy and help as many Americans as possible (not just the 1%), then I don't really care how rich they are.
> 
> @birthday_massacre @Tater @Headliner
> 
> Those of you who are banging anti-Trump drum probably shouldn't be reveling in what you perceive as our country's imminent doom. After all, he's gonna be your president too (I'm assuming you're all Americans) and the policies he and the GOP-led Congress implement will effect all Americans, not just the ones who voted for him. I'm not saying you should incessantly post Trump smilies all over this forum and become a card-carrying member of the alt-right, but it doesn't seem ideal to hope/predict that the captain of our ship will steer us right into an iceberg.


Uh, all I did was post an article.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

People mad at trump might not be used to winning. This is what winning feels like folks.

Are you tired of it yet? :trump


----------



## Flair Flop

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Goku said:


> People mad at trump might not be used to winning. This is what winning feels like folks.
> 
> Are you tired of it yet? :trump


I'll never get tired of BM shitposting :trump3



Headliner said:


> Uh, all I did was post an article.


Headliner is the least insane person to post in this PALACE TO BASED GOD-EMPEROR :trump who does not like :trump so make a bit more effort replying seriously to him please!

:trump2


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Headliner said:


> Uh, all I did was post an article.


You also liked Tater's comment about our impending "global economic meltdown."

:draper2


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Tax breaks for the wealthy that create jobs in exchange for keeping jobs in the US and expanding jobs is something worth doing. This whole idea of stealing from the rich to give to the poor will not work. Go ahead and try and see what happens, it will not be pretty. Perhaps when the monthly income of the average US citizen drops to 15 bucks a month, the companies that the gimmiedatnow political types chased off will return to use the US citizens as a cheap source of labor. Welcome to Globalism, fucking over your own country in order to make the biggest profit.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Goku said:


> People mad at trump might not be used to winning. This is what winning feels like folks.
> 
> Are you tired of it yet? :trump


Time to share one of my favorite ever Trump tweets:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/785854588654092290
Back then it was the disloyal Republicans who didn't know how to win. People said the lack of unity meant Trump could never win, and if he did win he'd never be able to govern. He won. He showed them how to win, just like he said he would. Now they all come to him on bended knee asking for the table scraps of victory. Again, the common wisdom of the political pundits was wrong (Scott Adams was 100% right on those points, but he made a hugely successful comic strip so obviously he has no credibility and also strawman argument). 

Don't worry liberals, he's going to show you how to win, too. Winning isn't going to just be for people who supported Trump, it's going to be for all Americans. :trump The question is whether or not you'll join the celebration or stand in the corner looking down at your feet mumbling about the popular vote and how Venezuela wasn't true socialism because xyz.


Beatles123 said:


> BM being angry makes me happy because he actually thinks we hate what trump is doing. i hope he hates every day of living in our new world. :trump Time for him to know my pain the last ten or so years.


I hope Trump makes America great again for BM too. :trump


----------



## Headliner

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The Absolute said:


> You also liked Tater's comment about our impending "global economic meltdown."
> 
> :draper2


I liked deepelemblues's post too. Most, (not all) the time I will "like" a post that quoted me to show acknowledgement of the post. I do it in the live Raw & Smackdown discussion threads all the time.

I'm not coming in to shit on Trump the way you may think. If I was, the conversation would be completely different right now. The article gained my interest, and I wanted to see what others think because if it's legit, it doesn't look good for a lot of people.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Trump seriously getting heat from the media over accepting a congratulatory call from the President of Taiwan. :done Bear in mind we currently have a 2 billion dollar arms deal with Taiwan, which I imagine China cares far more about than a fucking phone call.

These are not serious people.


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Headliner said:


> I liked deepelemblues's post too. Most, (not all) the time I will "like" a post that quoted me to show acknowledgement of the post. I do it in the live Raw & Smackdown discussion threads all the time.
> 
> I'm not coming in to shit on Trump the way you may think. If I was, the conversation would be completely different right now. The article gained my interest, and I wanted to see what others think because if it's legit, it doesn't look good for a lot of people.


So that's why I've never received a like from you.










Kidding aside, I offer my apologies, Liner. Didn't mean to come at you like that. I just assumed you were on the _"Here's hoping Trump has a disastrous presidency and the country gets rekt"_ bandwagon.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> Trump seriously getting heat from the media over accepting a congratulatory call from the President of Taiwan. :done Bear in mind we currently have a 2 billion dollar arms deal with Taiwan, which I imagine China cares far more about than a fucking phone call.
> 
> * These are not serious people.*


is this your catchphrase? It could catch on :trump


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Headliner said:


> I liked deepelemblues's post too. Most, (not all) the time I will "like" a post that quoted me to show acknowledgement of the post. I do it in the live Raw & Smackdown discussion threads all the time.
> 
> I'm not coming in to shit on Trump the way you may think. If I was, the conversation would be completely different right now. The article gained my interest, and I wanted to see what others think because if it's legit, it doesn't look good for a lot of people.


As far as what the article says, they said the same thing about the Dubya tax cuts and that didn't raise the individual tax burden on middle and low income earners. They've been doing it to every Republican president or presidential nominee since Reagan, OMG HIS TAX CUTS ARE AHCKSTUALLY GONNA RAISE TAXES ON THE POOR AND MIDDLE CLASS yet they never do.

It's also always "BUT THEY BENEFIT THE RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIICH MORE WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH."

Well no shit if you pay $10,000 a year in taxes and they get cut 10% you're going to save less money than the guy who pays $10 million in a year in taxes and gets his cut 10% also. Yes, $1,000 is definitely a lot less than $1 million. $10 million is also kind of a lot more than $10,000.

These people are just SO full of salt because they hate the idea that taxes on the people and organizations who pay 70% of the taxes in the country are going to get cut AT ALL. They hate those rich people and corporations and think they should be punitively taxed FOR GREAT SOCIAL JUSTICE.


----------



## ecclesiastes10

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

a lot of those pundits on tv are millionaires/well off people in their own rights, this is in reponse to post above me...not that earning millions a year makes you rich...gotta take in account the lifestyle of these communist


----------



## ecclesiastes10

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> yeah he paid Carrier to only keep less than half of the jobs and they will move more jobs overseas than they will keep here. Oh what an incentive. He claimed he would heavily tax or traffit any company that moves jobs overseas and he is already breaking that promise with carrier just because they are keeping less than half of the jobs here. Carrier just exposed how to beat Trump.
> 
> Also you need regulations, there is a reason why we have things like OSHA, and other regulations like with the FDA.


 first would you rather 2000 jobs go to mexico and 2000 families be out of work, which is 2000 families filing for unemployment which is 2000 families struggling to put food on table, pay bill which will keep on coming, 2000 families dealing with the emotional baggage of losing a job that was paying them money that took care of kids schools/ shopping for clothes, etc...I don't understand people like you who seems to not understand that 800 or 1000 jobs that stays in Indiana is better than 2000 jobs that leave to mexico.
http://www.indystar.com/story/news/...d-carrier-live-updates-indianapolis/94689946/
http://anythingla.com/a-promise-kept-800-carrier-jobs-saved/
http://money.cnn.com/2016/12/02/new...nt-mexico/index.html?section=money_topstories
second of all he broke no promises...he is not president yet!!! all those promises where under the assumption he was president when he actually has power...not that he doesn't now, that's why carrier didn't go on with their plan completely. its just he cant tax a company when he isn't president... :nerd:


----------



## ecclesiastes10

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The Absolute said:


> Businesses need to stop outsourcing to other countries and keep/create jobs here in the states. Can't do that if they're being taxed and regulated to death. They should be provided with incentives to stay. Carrier agreeing to keep 1,000 jobs in Indianapolis is a step in the right direction imo. Hoping more companies will follow suit. If the Trump administration can boost the economy and help as many Americans as possible (not just the 1%), then I don't really care how rich they are.
> 
> .


gonna be difficult when you can pay people in mexico like 2 dollars a hour
http://www.worldsalaries.org/mexico.shtml
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mexico-economy-analysis-idUSKBN0ED20H20140602
and even less in other countries...to be honest compared to other countries u.s wages of 23 an hour while great for our citizens and families, don't incentives businesses to stay here, and now with ppl wanting a 15 min. federal wage, I can see even more businesses going overseas if they can, replacing workers with robots where applicable, illegal immagrants, etc...


----------



## ecclesiastes10

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

so I scrolled back a couple of pages n I didn't see that know it all(asdf0501)... im worried for him, im scared that his reliance on seeming smart and explaining things in ways that purposefully make you seem dumb backfired to such a degree, that he went and did something dangerous to himself, if any of my fellow poster who know him can check on him or confirm that he is ok, ill greatly appreciate that.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*










Dewey Defeats Truman, :lol



> Back then it was the disloyal Republicans who didn't know how to win. People said the lack of unity meant Trump could never win, and if he did win he'd never be able to govern. He won. He showed them how to win, just like he said he would. Now they all come to him on bended knee asking for the table scraps of victory.


Truly ironic many people in the party wanted him to drop out especially after the Hollywood Access scandal (I still don't know how he was able to survive the tape leak) and he ended up giving the GOP what they wanted!

- Vic


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Im just sitting here laughing.


WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO :lol


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> Trump seriously getting heat from the media over accepting a congratulatory call from the President of Taiwan. :done Bear in mind we currently have a 2 billion dollar arms deal with Taiwan, which I imagine China cares far more about than a fucking phone call.
> 
> These are not serious people.


This doesn't even need to be expressed since it's so obvious to people who know how things work, but let's put this out there for people who think that they've suddenly now become the "objective" ones:


> (K.R.) In my previous post I warned of a coming shift in coverage from conservative media outlets. Things they criticized Obama for, Trump will get a pass on. But of course the same holds true for the liberal media. Soon, issues they ignored under Obama will become front page scandals for Trump. The Boston Herald's Howie Carr does a great job summarizing the changes we're about to see in the liberal media:
> • The cost of presidential vacations is about to become scandalous again.
> • All the old knocks that are used only during GOP presidencies are about to be dusted off again. Quagmire. Jobless recovery. McJobs. Candlelight vigils. Code Pink.
> • Every Trump reform will become a “War,” as in “War on Children,” “War on the Elderly,” “War on the Environment.”
> • Endless segments with “constitutional law” professors on CNN: “Does this rise to the level of an impeachable offense?” (Answer: yes.)
> • A terrorist attack — Trump’s fault because of Islamophobia.
> • A hurricane — Trump’s fault because he nixed the Paris climate change whatever.
> • A mass shooting — why won’t Trump support “commonsense” repeal of the Second Amendment?
> 
> For those of you too young to remember the media's freakout during George W. Bush's second term, you're about to see a replay of it...
> ...on steroids.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



ecclesiastes10 said:


> so I scrolled back a couple of pages n I didn't see that know it all(asdf0501)... im worried for him, im scared that his reliance on seeming smart and explaining things in ways that purposefully make you seem dumb backfired to such a degree, that he went and did something dangerous to himself, if any of my fellow poster who know him can check on him or confirm that he is ok, ill greatly appreciate that.


He disappeared around the time Trump starting winning one of the Rust belt states and hasn't returned. I don't know what he thinks we'll do to him because quite frankly speaking we're a very friendly bunch :shrug


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Headliner said:


> Is this tax plan the truth? Or just the media being "out to get him"?
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/23/trump-tax-plan-cuts-wealthy-low-income-inequality


http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/30/pf/taxes/trump-tax-cuts-steve-mnuchin/index.html

Trump has claimed that every tax cut on the rich will be offset by tax cuts on the poor to make sure that it doesn't increase inequality - this is what "no absolute tax cut" means. 

The Guardian is simply ignoring the tax deductions planned for the working and middle class for the purpose of their article in order to make it seem like the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer when no such thing can happen in a scenario where there's universal tax cuts. 

I'm also reading the Lily paper that they're quoting ehheavily, and it seems like she's picking and choosing the things she wants to talk about. Basically picking certain groups over others, ignoring potential nuance within the eventual incoming tax policy, making assumptions based on whatever she feels like is going to be hit worse. Read the subtext, it clearly states that under the most conservative analysis based on "reasonable" assumptions of what Trump might do (not based on what Trump will actually do), that taxes might get raised for certain groups in the middle and working class ---- but since this is based on assumptions iin the first place, either all of it could happen, some of it, or none of it. Trump's tax policy isn't complete and Lily is filling in the blanks herself to make it worse. 

Basically, similar stuff that lawyers and policy-makers typically do when they want to fudge numbers. 

I will of course take back my words if Trump's tax policy isn't nuanced to prevent what Miss Lily is predicting, but at this point I would take the Guardian article as yet another fantasy where things are portrayed as fact, when in fact they're based on assumptions made by someone else. 

Guardian was the one that was ok with their writers comparing Trump to literally Hitler, so I would imagine that this is simply yet another way to make his incoming presidency look worse before he's even president or even has a completely nuanced tax plan. 

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ump-rhetoric-adolf-hitler-anti-trump-campaign


----------



## amhlilhaus

Vic Capri said:


> Dewey Defeats Truman,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Back then it was the disloyal Republicans who didn't know how to win. People said the lack of unity meant Trump could never win, and if he did win he'd never be able to govern. He won. He showed them how to win, just like he said he would. Now they all come to him on bended knee asking for the table scraps of victory.
> 
> 
> 
> Truly ironic many people in the party wanted him to drop out especially after the Hollywood Access scandal (I still don't know how he was able to survive the tape leak) and he ended up giving the GOP what they wanted!
> 
> - Vic
Click to expand...

Trump survived access hollywood for a couple of reasons.

1. Grab them by the pussy. People know, yet never admit that a lot of men, and women talk about their sex lives. Seriously, the liberal media acted like trump walks up to random super models and does this. He doesnt. But When you meet someone, break boundaries and are ready for the next step, how do YOU check. Seriously. Dating a while (im old fashioned) and youve exchanged hugs and kisses before, but tonights its different. Tonight, you see ' the look'. You kids here dont know what im talking about, the adults do. No one at that point, liberals included, ask 'can we have intercourse now?' Akming permission. What do you do? You GROPE THEM. You feel her breasts or vagina, sometimes, like my wife, she grabs my mighty python. Ive grabbed the pussy before. Its what happens. Trump says this, the media erupts in a volcano of hypocrisy and....

People yawned. They are so sick of liberal pc shit and policies, they STOPPED CARING.

Then, and this was to mee just as important, he apologized then WENT BACK TO WHAT HE WAS DOING. Seriously, if he didnt drop out immediately, a mea culpa tour for weeks wouldve suited them just fine. Instead, trump confounded them again by not behaving like they expected them too.

Thats how he survived. Trumps an endangered species: an unapologetic alpha male. Suck it media



Carte Blanche said:


> CamillePunk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump seriously getting heat from the media over accepting a congratulatory call from the President of Taiwan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bear in mind we currently have a 2 billion dollar arms deal with Taiwan, which I imagine China cares far more about than a fucking phone call.
> 
> These are not serious people.
> 
> 
> 
> This doesn't even need to be expressed since it's so obvious to people who know how things work, but let's put this out there for people who think that they've suddenly now become the "objective" ones:
> 
> 
> 
> (K.R.) In my previous post I warned of a coming shift in coverage from conservative media outlets. Things they criticized Obama for, Trump will get a pass on. But of course the same holds true for the liberal media. Soon, issues they ignored under Obama will become front page scandals for Trump. The Boston Herald's Howie Carr does a great job summarizing the changes we're about to see in the liberal media:
> ? The cost of presidential vacations is about to become scandalous again.
> ? All the old knocks that are used only during GOP presidencies are about to be dusted off again. Quagmire. Jobless recovery. McJobs. Candlelight vigils. Code Pink.
> ? Every Trump reform will become a ?War,? as in ?War on Children,? ?War on the Elderly,? ?War on the Environment.?
> ? Endless segments with ?constitutional law? professors on CNN: ?Does this rise to the level of an impeachable offense?? (Answer: yes.)
> ? A terrorist attack ? Trump?s fault because of Islamophobia.
> ? A hurricane ? Trump?s fault because he nixed the Paris climate change whatever.
> ? A mass shooting ? why won?t Trump support ?commonsense? repeal of the Second Amendment?
> For those of you too young to remember the media's freakout during George W. Bush's second term, you're about to see a replay of it...
> ...on steroids.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Ive already called it, weeks ago.

Trump will have the most scandalous administration in history.

And it wont matter, AS LONG AS he personally doesnt do anything. Trump wins 2nd term if he builds the wall, shuts down illegal immigration and his tax cuts creates an economic boom. No ones going to kick him out if the economys doing great. Obama survived for a 2nd term during a very modest uptick. A boom makes the next election a bigger win for trump.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



amhlilhaus said:


> Ive already called it, weeks ago.
> 
> Trump will have the most scandalous administration in history.
> 
> And it wont matter, AS LONG AS he personally doesnt do anything. Trump wins 2nd term if he builds the wall, shuts down illegal immigration and his tax cuts creates an economic boom. No ones going to kick him out if the economys doing great. Obama survived for a 2nd term during a very modest uptick. A boom makes the next election a bigger win for trump.


That and during Trump's presidency alternative media will continue to grow even with the media's blatant attempt combined with Facebook, Google and MSN all trying to suppress alternative media exposure. The days of people listening to the mainstream media are gone.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The Absolute said:


> Those of you who are banging anti-Trump drum probably shouldn't be reveling in what you perceive as our country's imminent doom. After all, he's gonna be your president too (I'm assuming you're all Americans) and the policies he and the GOP-led Congress implement will effect all Americans, not just the ones who voted for him. I'm not saying you should incessantly post Trump smilies all over this forum and become a card-carrying member of the alt-right, but it doesn't seem ideal to hope/predict that the captain of our ship will steer us right into an iceberg.


Banging the anti-Trump drum? I *wanted* Trump to win. People don't seem to understand just how fucked we are right now. The iceberg is inevitable at this point. There is no avoiding it. Capitalism, as it's currently constituted, cannot be fixed. Electing Hillary would have only delayed the inevitable. Where Democrats prop up a dying economic system, Republicans speed up it's death. The sooner we get through the economic meltdown, the sooner we can start building a different system. Those with all the wealth and power aren't going to give it up willingly and it's going to take a meltdown of epic proportions to break their hold over our government. It's better to take the quick death with Republicans over the slow death with Democrats.

I'm not reveling in our country's imminent doom. I want to save the USA. For that to happen, it's the Establishment that has to be destroyed. Only then can we have a representative government again. None of this will ever be fixed as long as the people who fucked things up so badly to begin with remain in charge.


----------



## Rugrat

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Something I don't get regarding the wall: As far as I knew, most of the illegals were going over legally on temporary visas and they only became illegal when said visas expired, so to a certain extent would this not make the wall pointless.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Poor guy at Newsweek having to admit that they didn't even read their commemorative Hillary magazine :lmao 





 @Rugrat - Why does currency have multiple counter-measures to prevent counterfeiting? Why do passwords have a multi-step authentication system? 

You need to cover all the bases and not just one. You kick the illegals out and make it harder for others to come in as much as it is possible.


----------



## amhlilhaus

Tater said:


> The Absolute said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those of you who are banging anti-Trump drum probably shouldn't be reveling in what you perceive as our country's imminent doom. After all, he's gonna be your president too (I'm assuming you're all Americans) and the policies he and the GOP-led Congress implement will effect all Americans, not just the ones who voted for him. I'm not saying you should incessantly post Trump smilies all over this forum and become a card-carrying member of the alt-right, but it doesn't seem ideal to hope/predict that the captain of our ship will steer us right into an iceberg.
> 
> 
> 
> Banging the anti-Trump drum? I *wanted* Trump to win. People don't seem to understand just how fucked we are right now. The iceberg is inevitable at this point. There is no avoiding it. Capitalism, as it's currently constituted, cannot be fixed. Electing Hillary would have only delayed the inevitable. Where Democrats prop up a dying economic system, Republicans speed up it's death. The sooner we get through the economic meltdown, the sooner we can start building a different system. Those with all the wealth and power aren't going to give it up willingly and it's going to take a meltdown of epic proportions to break their hold over our government. It's better to take the quick death with Republicans over the slow death with Democrats.
> 
> I'm not reveling in our country's imminent doom. I want to save the USA. For that to happen, it's the Establishment that has to be destroyed. Only then can we have a representative government again. None of this will ever be fixed as long as the people who fucked things up so badly to begin with remain in charge.
Click to expand...

What we have isnt capitalism. Capitalism COULD have saved us. But capitalism is scores of companies fighting over markets, and to win have to constantly innovate to win. Whats happened is that large companies have morphed into monsters who crush entrepeneurs. Next, theyre going to mechanize EVERYTHING, and the only people working will be the people to fix the machines and the few jobs machines cant do.

I fail to see how society or the economy survives with no one having jobs. Ive heard guaranteed income, but thats not gonna be enough to live as well as those who had decent jobs. That also sounds so fucked. I make 40k a year, my job disappears due to automation so then im 'guaranteed' 20k a year, along with the worthless welfare fucks.

Bullshit. Its coming, im told by a techie friend who i respect that it will happen so fast our heads will swim.

I hope hes wrong, but im very afraid hes right


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



amhlilhaus said:


> What we have isnt capitalism. Capitalism COULD have saved us. But capitalism is scores of companies fighting over markets, and to win have to constantly innovate to win. Whats happened is that large companies have morphed into monsters who crush entrepeneurs. Next, theyre going to mechanize EVERYTHING, and the only people working will be the people to fix the machines and the few jobs machines cant do.
> 
> I fail to see how society or the economy survives with no one having jobs. Ive heard guaranteed income, but thats not gonna be enough to live as well as those who had decent jobs. That also sounds so fucked. I make 40k a year, my job disappears due to automation so then im 'guaranteed' 20k a year, along with the worthless welfare fucks.
> 
> Bullshit. Its coming, im told by a techie friend who i respect that it will happen so fast our heads will swim.
> 
> I hope hes wrong, but im very afraid hes right


I'm not sure what a proposed guaranteed income model would be for the US, but we've had similar propositions here based on I believe a Norwegian model, but it's not just "here's money so noone needs to work." The model proposed here would be that everybody irrespective of job gets that same guaranteed income (fairly low from all proposed versions I've seen) allowing some people who want to, to reduce their working hours increasing the number of part time jobs available. The idea being that if you only need to work 30 hours a week instead of 40 (normal full time here) to receive the same income then people could share a lot more roles and essentially everyone only needs a part time job in order to live comfortably. The other "benefit" from the basic income would be welfare reform where a significant reduce in public spending can occur as all the bureaucracy related to welfare would vanish as there would already be a basic income for every citizen (ie, there would be a lot less people on welfare - mostly just the disabled.) I'm not convinced it's the way forward either, just thought I'd share what I know from how the same subject has been discussed here.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



ecclesiastes10 said:


> first would you rather 2000 jobs go to mexico and 2000 families be out of work, which is 2000 families filing for unemployment which is 2000 families struggling to put food on table, pay bill which will keep on coming, 2000 families dealing with the emotional baggage of losing a job that was paying them money that took care of kids schools/ shopping for clothes, etc...I don't understand people like you who seems to not understand that 800 jobs that stays in Indiana is better than 2000 jobs that leave to mexico.
> http://anythingla.com/a-promise-kept-800-carrier-jobs-saved/
> http://money.cnn.com/2016/12/02/new...nt-mexico/index.html?section=money_topstories
> second of all he broke no promises...he is not president yet!!! all those promises where under the assumption he was president when he actually has power...not that he doesn't now, that's why carrier didn't go on with their plan completely. its just he cant tax a company when he isn't president... :nerd:


I would rather all those jobs stay in the US something Trump said he was going to do but no they only keep less than half they claimed were moving to Mexico and Trump rewards them. Trump lied about taxing/tariffing anyone that moves jobs out of the US. Its a joke anyone would defend Trump for this.

Trump is going back on his promises already That is what people like you don't get

Trump said he was going to save all the jobs from going and yet a company moving jobs out of the country Trump is giving money to instead of giving them a huge tariff like he claimed he would just because they are not moving all the jobs there. They played Trump like a fiddle. They are already exposing Trump how he is full of shit and how to beat him. 

He should be doing what he claimed he would do anytime anyone moves jobs out of the US

Now all companies have to do is lie and claim oh we are going to move 10,000 jobs to Mexico and really only plan to move 5,000 then Trump will pay them to move 5,000 jobs to mexico and claim he save 5,000 jobs instead of doing what he said and taxing anyone that moves any jobs out of the country.


----------



## amhlilhaus

RavishingRickRules said:


> amhlilhaus said:
> 
> 
> 
> What we have isnt capitalism. Capitalism COULD have saved us. But capitalism is scores of companies fighting over markets, and to win have to constantly innovate to win. Whats happened is that large companies have morphed into monsters who crush entrepeneurs. Next, theyre going to mechanize EVERYTHING, and the only people working will be the people to fix the machines and the few jobs machines cant do.
> 
> I fail to see how society or the economy survives with no one having jobs. Ive heard guaranteed income, but thats not gonna be enough to live as well as those who had decent jobs. That also sounds so fucked. I make 40k a year, my job disappears due to automation so then im 'guaranteed' 20k a year, along with the worthless welfare fucks.
> 
> Bullshit. Its coming, im told by a techie friend who i respect that it will happen so fast our heads will swim.
> 
> I hope hes wrong, but im very afraid hes right
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what a proposed guaranteed income model would be for the US, but we've had similar propositions here based on I believe a Norwegian model, but it's not just "here's money so noone needs to work." The model proposed here would be that everybody irrespective of job gets that same guaranteed income (fairly low from all proposed versions I've seen) allowing some people who want to, to reduce their working hours increasing the number of part time jobs available. The idea being that if you only need to work 30 hours a week instead of 40 (normal full time here) to receive the same income then people could share a lot more roles and essentially everyone only needs a part time job in order to live comfortably. The other "benefit" from the basic income would be welfare reform where a significant reduce in public spending can occur as all the bureaucracy related to welfare would vanish as there would already be a basic income for every citizen (ie, there would be a lot less people on welfare - mostly just the disabled.) I'm not convinced it's the way forward either, just thought I'd share what I know from how the same subject has been discussed here.
Click to expand...

You dont follow me:

ALL jobs that can be mechanized or automated will be gone. Mcdonalds is testing self ordering kiosks for instance. If everything is automated, and the only things needing service is the machines. Theres NO JOBS. 

Its not going to be hey, you only got to work 20 hrs along with your guaranteed income to live the life you want. You wont be able to find 20 hours to work. Theyll have machines manufacturing things, driverless trucks, forklifts, deliveries by drones. The picture he painted is humans will only stay home and eat and sleep and watch tv, there wont be anything else.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



amhlilhaus said:


> You dont follow me:
> 
> ALL jobs that can be mechanized or automated will be gone. Mcdonalds is testing self ordering kiosks for instance. If everything is automated, and the only things needing service is the machines. Theres NO JOBS.
> 
> Its not going to be hey, you only got to work 20 hrs along with your guaranteed income to live the life you want. You wont be able to find 20 hours to work. Theyll have machines manufacturing things, driverless trucks, forklifts, deliveries by drones. The picture he painted is humans will only stay home and eat and sleep and watch tv, there wont be anything else.


We already have self-serve points in McDonalds actually, it's not reduced any of the workers at all though it just helps them deal with the crowds in big cities like London. Maybe it's different over there than here (I'm in the UK) but I'm pretty much 100% certain that a fully automated infrastructure isn't going to happen in my lifetime in the UK. I'd say your friend is being a little sensationalist to be honest, that scenario seems about as likely as aliens landing and taking us all off as a new tasty food source.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Trump and the Taiwan Call, by Scott Adams 

Adams ties the Taiwan call situation into his "New CEO move" article.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



amhlilhaus said:


> What we have isnt capitalism. Capitalism COULD have saved us. But capitalism is scores of companies fighting over markets, and to win have to constantly innovate to win.


We're getting into my territory here and I can safely say that there is really no clear mechanism within capitalism that specifically leads to a logical conclusion for prosperity for *all *(period). 

Capitalism is merely a means to an end and the end is profit and not equality or egalitarianism ... or even prosperity for all. 

Every single mechanism within capitalism ultimately leads to prosperity for the entrepreneur and the capitalist, with workers deriving the trickle effects of working towards the capitalist's profit motive. 

What I think is that capitalism just like communism has simply become politicized to make the poor class feel like they can get something out of either system. Now it's true that capitalist countries do better than communist countries (as a result of capitalism's design), but it doesn't mean that it's supposed to be prosperity for all - and it certainly does not mean equality at all. There is no way capitalism can lead to a society where there isn't inequality. It's built into the system. What capitalism can do and does is create an overall bigger pie where the poorest in a capitalist system is still wealthier than the poorest in a society that does not embrace free-market capitalism and that's something we do see in countries like America, China, Japan, South Korea and now slowly India is joining that group. 

Capitalism and equality are at odds with one another. Capitalism isn't supposed to save anyone. It simply exists to provide goods and services to people. 

The only things that really stands between people and wealth are factors that capitalism can't control. The one thing I will say though is that capitalism is the only system that has the least amount of barriers for financial and material success. If that's what you want in life - to be rich - then embracing the entrepreneurial system is the only way to get there. 

In the future when markets will become more tech based, as long as there is a human element necessary, there will still be employment. Ever single time people claimed that technology will kill jobs, it's created jobs in other sectors.

If you want to get rich, find a product or service that people want and provide it to them. Plain and simple.


----------



## amhlilhaus

Carte Blanche said:


> amhlilhaus said:
> 
> 
> 
> What we have isnt capitalism. Capitalism COULD have saved us. But capitalism is scores of companies fighting over markets, and to win have to constantly innovate to win.
> 
> 
> 
> We're getting into my territory here and I can safely say that there is really no clear mechanism within capitalism that specifically leads to a logical conclusion for prosperity for *all *(period).
> 
> Capitalism is merely a means to an end and the end is profit and not equality or egalitarianism ... or even prosperity for all.
> 
> Every single mechanism within capitalism ultimately leads to prosperity for the entrepreneur and the capitalist, with workers deriving the trickle effects of working towards the capitalist's profit motive.
> 
> What I think is that capitalism just like communism has simply become politicized to make the poor class feel like they can get something out of either system. Now it's true that capitalist countries do better than communist countries (as a result of capitalism's design), but it doesn't mean that it's supposed to be prosperity for all - and it certainly does not mean equality at all. There is no way capitalism can lead to a society where there isn't inequality. It's built into the system. What capitalism can do and does is create an overall bigger pie where the poorest in a capitalist system is still wealthier than the poorest in a society that does not embrace free-market capitalism and that's something we do see in countries like America, China, Japan, South Korea and now slowly India is joining that group.
> 
> Capitalism and equality are at odds with one another. Capitalism isn't supposed to save anyone. It simply exists to provide goods and services to people.
> 
> The only things that really stands between people and wealth are factors that capitalism can't control. The one thing I will say though is that capitalism is the only system that has the least amount of barriers for financial and material success. If that's what you want in life - to be rich - then embracing the entrepreneurial system is the only way to get there.
> 
> In the future when markets will become more tech based, as long as there is a human element necessary, there will still be employment. Ever single time people claimed that technology will kill jobs, it's created jobs in other sectors.
> 
> If you want to get rich, find a product or service that people want and provide it to them. Plain and simple.
Click to expand...

Capitalism and the american constitution were 2 potent forces. It led to more wealth creation than anything else. The constitution never guaranteed success, just the freedom to pursue it. Add capitalism, if you built a better product and service, then you could get rich.

That america doesnt exist anymore, and it cant be brought back. Even with that system, millions got 'left behind'. 

Life isnt fair. Ancient rome in the time of augustus had 25% of the city on food assisstance. Poverty is a human condition, and its really up to the individual to drag themselves out of it. 

I believe in a free country you can still make it. The us is still free enough to do it, and trump seems to want to make it more free

We will see


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



amhlilhaus said:


> Capitalism and the american constitution were 2 potent forces. It led to more wealth creation than anything else. The constitution never guaranteed success, just the freedom to pursue it. Add capitalism, if you built a better product and service, then you could get rich.
> 
> That america doesnt exist anymore, and it cant be brought back.


TBH, people blame the government regulations and capitalists for this, but I personally blame the american worker that is now trained to accept no less than a minimum wage for their labor. 

I laid it out earlier in great length in one of my earlier posts in this thread but it got glossed over because no one likes to blame the workers. The poor wage slave vs evil capitalist narrative is too deeply entrenched in people's minds to consider the american worker that refuses to take less than 10 bucks (and now 15 bucks) for flipping burgers as a huge part of the problem of reduction of pure capitalism and entrepreneurship in America. American minimum wage remains the single largest barrier to new entrants into the market and therefore the death of the small business entrepreneur - and that combined with cheap production in China, the young American entrepreneur has barely no chance at all in competitive industries. 

Short of extreme specialization or inventing a completely new product, young Americans have the worst climate for entrepreneurial success in America and one of the primary reasons for that is that during the startup period they simply *cannot *employ people.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> yeah he paid Carrier to only keep less than half of the jobs and they will move more jobs overseas than they will keep here. Oh what an incentive. He claimed he would heavily tax or traffit any company that moves jobs overseas and he is already breaking that promise with carrier just because they are keeping less than half of the jobs here. Carrier just exposed how to beat Trump.


Firstly let me get this straight, Obama and the Democrats in the 8 years they have been in office have done absolutely nothing to try and stop jobs being shipped overseas. Obama himself even mocked the idea of Trump being able to negotiate deals to keep more jobs in the United States instead of going to other parts of the world.






And you want to sit there and openly criticize Trump for making a deal to keep more jobs in the US than Obama has done in the entire time of his presidency? :sodone.

For you as an open Obama and Democrat supporter to criticize Trump when your own party and president have done NOTHING about keeping jobs in the US or trying to re-negotiate NAFTA and have openly supported TPP is simply laughable.

Secondly, you should be happy about what has been done! Up to 1,000 jobs are being kept in Indiana instead of going to Mexico through Carrier. Keeping jobs in the US and by proxy being against NAFTA and TPP are one of the main proponents of Bernie Sanders campaign message. Trump may have not gone about the means that you would like to make it happen but he has already started to live up to what he said he would do about these issues. At the very least if you weren't a partisan Democrat hack (which you clearly are because I've seen other liberals give Trump credit where it is due) you would admit this is a good start.

Thirdly, this deal was done before even Trump has taken office which is even more impressive. Certainly from a political standpoint in terms of maneuvers but also setting the tone for what could potentially come. Whether or not he continues down this road is another question but for now you have to give credit to Trump and to VP Pence for setting this up as an opening deal in terms of keeping more jobs in the US. Again let me repeat something to make it clear, Trump has done more about this issue before even taking office than Obama has done in 8 years. That tells you Trump at least on the surface cares more about this issue than Obama does.

Which leads me to a point you are going to hate: Both Obama and Hillary have proven over the last 8 years that the Democrats once and for all are the party of the establishment, of the big banks, multinationals and of Wall Street. Based on Rhetoric (that's the key word before you start throwing out arguments that contradict that), Trump's Republican party now has more in common with the working man than the Democrats do and this latest deal shows this. What have the Democrats been doing since the election? Have they admitted they were wrong to fill in an establishment centrist corporatist hack as their candidate? Have they decided to embrace the more progressive wing of the party? Have they gotten behind the proposals made by the likes of Bernie Sanders? Have they abandoned identity politics? No. They have blamed every single person and reason other than the one that is true. They blamed racism even though a) the Obama voters in the Democratic firewall voted Trump and b) that a higher percentage of minorities voted for Trump than anticipated. They blamed Sexism when a large majority of her female voters only voted for her because she is a fucking woman. They blamed 3rd party voters when 9% of Democrats switched their vote to Trump. I could go on.

They have decided that they need MORE money from the likes of George Soros rather than abandoning the lobbyists, they've fucking thrown the suggestion of having TIM KAINE as their 2020 nominee :lmao. Even Hillary has toyed with the idea of running again. They've doubled down on identity politics instead of addressing issues that effect the white working class who overwhelmingly voted for both Obama AND Trump.

I know what your standard arguments are...."But the Republicans! The Republicans!" save it. The establishment wing of the Democratic party, the Centrists are the ones that have the majority of the party, not the progressives. The Democrats as it stands right now are the party of the rich, until they wake up and start embracing their more progressive leaning side they will not gain traction any time soon.

Also you brought up how Trump said he'd add 35% tariffs to companies shipping goods overseas and attributed it to a broken promise when Trump hasn't even taken office. You do realize right now that Obama is still in control of economic policy and Trump could not implement that policy even if he wanted to? Even if Trump decided to abandon that policy and make more deals like the Carrier one which is very possible that I will give you: What do you think Hillary would be doing if she were president right now? Would she impose 35% tariffs to companies shipping goods overseas? Would she broker deals similar to what Trump and Pence achieved? Would she at any point make any effort to try and stop jobs going to other parts of the world? We both know what the answer would be, it would be business as usual.

This is why I hate party loyalists, they refuse to give credit where it is due even if that said proposal gives them a result that should fall in line with their principles. They show they put party loyalty ahead of principles. That is what you essentially have done and have done time after time. Had Hillary's corruption not been exposed I'm pretty positive you would have voted for her too but were left with no choice as the evidence piled on (especially after what happened to Bernie).

I'm not even a Trump supporter and am horrified for example at the prospect of Guiliani and especially John Bolton becoming Secretary of State but I'll give credit where I see it. Secular Talk will give credit when he sees it. People like you and the mainstream media will not. Partisan hack attitudes are part of what is wrong with politics in general.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> I would rather all those jobs stay in the US something Trump said he was going to do but no they only keep less than half they claimed were moving to Mexico and Trump rewards them. Trump lied about taxing/tariffing anyone that moves jobs out of the US. Its a joke anyone would defend Trump for this.
> 
> Trump is going back on his promises already That is what people like you don't get
> 
> Trump said he was going to save all the jobs from going and yet a company moving jobs out of the country Trump is giving money to instead of giving them a huge tariff like he claimed he would just because they are not moving all the jobs there. They played Trump like a fiddle. They are already exposing Trump how he is full of shit and how to beat him.
> 
> He should be doing what he claimed he would do anytime anyone moves jobs out of the US
> 
> Now all companies have to do is lie and claim oh we are going to move 10,000 jobs to Mexico and really only plan to move 5,000 then Trump will pay them to move 5,000 jobs to mexico and claim he save 5,000 jobs instead of doing what he said and taxing anyone that moves any jobs out of the country.


and yet still more jobs than anyone you support would ever save, and that assumes you're right. (You aren't. :troll)
meanwhile: Bloomberg News is reporting that Mark Fields, the CEO of Ford Motor Co., is open to brokering a deal with President-elect Donald Trump to keep jobs in the United States.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> and yet still more jobs than anyone you support would ever save, and that assumes you're right. (You aren't. :troll)
> meanwhile: Bloomberg News is reporting that Mark Fields, the CEO of Ford Motor Co., is open to brokering a deal with President-elect Donald Trump to keep jobs in the United States.


WRONG

Trump lied to you and you are just accepting it, its funny how you can even admit Trump played you for a fool. He is giving carrier a tax break for moving jobs to Mexico when he claimed if any country did that he would but a huge tariff on them. He lied. You just prove how you have zero credibility you can't say how Trump lied.

Ford will do the same thing carrier did with Trump. They want to move 5,000 jobs out of the country, then tell Trump oh we plan on moving out 8,0000 jobs with is BS then Trump will claim oh he save 3,000 jobs and instead of giving Ford a traffic like he claimed he would if they moved jobs out of the US will give them a tax break

Carrier told everyone how they can fool Trump and his minions. Its just sad some people are too stupid to see what he is doing.

why aren't you complaining about Trump not saving all the jobs like he claims he would, and if any company moves jobs out of the US he would tariff them?

You should be all over Trump for not keeping his word


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> WRONG
> 
> Trump lied to you and you are just accepting it, its funny how you can even admit Trump played you for a fool. He is giving carrier a tax break for moving jobs to Mexico when he claimed if any country did that he would but a huge tariff on them. He lied. You just prove how you have zero credibility you can't say how Trump lied.
> 
> Ford will do the same thing carrier did with Trump. They want to move 5,000 jobs out of the country, then tell Trump oh we plan on moving out 8,0000 jobs with is BS then Trump will claim oh he save 3,000 jobs and instead of giving Ford a traffic like he claimed he would if they moved jobs out of the US will give them a tax break
> 
> Carrier told everyone how they can fool Trump and his minions. Its just sad some people are too stupid to see what he is doing.
> 
> why aren't you complaining about Trump not saving all the jobs like he claims he would, and if any company moves jobs out of the US he would tariff them?
> 
> You should be all over Trump for not keeping his word


You dare call ME wrong. :lol Its you!


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



L-DOPA said:


> Firstly let me get this straight, Obama and the Democrats in the 8 years they have been in office have done absolutely nothing to try and stop jobs being shipped overseas. Obama himself even mocked the idea of Trump being able to negotiate deals to keep more jobs in the United States instead of going to other parts of the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you want to sit there and openly criticize Trump for making a deal to keep more jobs in the US than Obama has done in the entire time of his presidency? :sodone.
> 
> For you as an open Obama and Democrat supporter to criticize Trump when your own party and president have done NOTHING about keeping jobs in the US or trying to re-negotiate NAFTA and have openly supported TPP is simply laughable.
> 
> Secondly, you should be happy about what has been done! Up to 1,000 jobs are being kept in Indiana instead of going to Mexico through Carrier. Keeping jobs in the US and by proxy being against NAFTA and TPP are one of the main proponents of Bernie Sanders campaign message. Trump may have not gone about the means that you would like to make it happen but he has already started to live up to what he said he would do about these issues. At the very least if you weren't a partisan Democrat hack (which you clearly are because I've seen other liberals give Trump credit where it is due) you would admit this is a good start.
> 
> Thirdly, this deal was done before even Trump has taken office which is even more impressive. Certainly from a political standpoint in terms of maneuvers but also setting the tone for what could potentially come. Whether or not he continues down this road is another question but for now you have to give credit to Trump and to VP Pence for setting this up as an opening deal in terms of keeping more jobs in the US. Again let me repeat something to make it clear, Trump has done more about this issue before even taking office than Obama has done in 8 years. That tells you Trump at least on the surface cares more about this issue than Obama does.
> 
> Which leads me to a point you are going to hate: Both Obama and Hillary have proven over the last 8 years that the Democrats once and for all are the party of the establishment, of the big banks, multinationals and of Wall Street. Based on Rhetoric (that's the key word before you start throwing out arguments that contradict that), Trump's Republican party now has more in common with the working man than the Democrats do and this latest deal shows this. What have the Democrats been doing since the election? Have they admitted they were wrong to fill in an establishment centrist corporatist hack as their candidate? Have they decided to embrace the more progressive wing of the party? Have they gotten behind the proposals made by the likes of Bernie Sanders? Have they abandoned identity politics? No. They have blamed every single person and reason other than the one that is true. They blamed racism even though a) the Obama voters in the Democratic firewall voted Trump and b) that a higher percentage of minorities voted for Trump than anticipated. They blamed Sexism when a large majority of her female voters only voted for her because she is a fucking woman. They blamed 3rd party voters when 9% of Democrats switched their vote to Trump. I could go on.
> 
> They have decided that they need MORE money from the likes of George Soros rather than abandoning the lobbyists, they've fucking thrown the suggestion of having TIM KAINE as their 2020 nominee :lmao. Even Hillary has toyed with the idea of running again. They've doubled down on identity politics instead of addressing issues that effect the white working class who overwhelmingly voted for both Obama AND Trump.
> 
> I know what your standard arguments are...."But the Republicans! The Republicans!" save it. The establishment wing of the Democratic party, the Centrists are the ones that have the majority of the party, not the progressives. The Democrats as it stands right now are the party of the rich, until they wake up and start embracing their more progressive leaning side they will not gain traction any time soon.
> 
> Also you brought up how Trump said he'd add 35% tariffs to companies shipping goods overseas and attributed it to a broken promise when Trump hasn't even taken office. You do realize right now that Obama is still in control of economic policy and Trump could not implement that policy even if he wanted to? Even if Trump decided to abandon that policy and make more deals like the Carrier one which is very possible that I will give you: What do you think Hillary would be doing if she were president right now? Would she impose 35% tariffs to companies shipping goods overseas? Would she broker deals similar to what Trump and Pence achieved? Would she at any point make any effort to try and stop jobs going to other parts of the world? We both know what the answer would be, it would be business as usual.
> 
> This is why I hate party loyalists, they refuse to give credit where it is due even if that said proposal gives them a result that should fall in line with their principles. They show they put party loyalty ahead of principles. That is what you essentially have done and have done time after time. Had Hillary's corruption not been exposed I'm pretty positive you would have voted for her too but were left with no choice as the evidence piled on (especially after what happened to Bernie).
> 
> I'm not even a Trump supporter and am horrified for example at the prospect of Guiliani and especially John Bolton becoming Secretary of State but I'll give credit where I see it. Secular Talk will give credit when he sees it. People like you and the mainstream media will not. Partisan hack attitudes are part of what is wrong with politics in general.


I expect this sort of thing from other people in this thread but I'm a bit surprised to see it from you. I know you watch ST, so I know you know some of the details of this deal. Yes, keeping jobs on American soil is a good thing but as Kyle pointed out, the devil is in the details. This was not a worker friendly deal. This was a business friendly deal. It sets a bad precedent too. It tells other companies that all they have to do to get subsidies from the government is threaten to move jobs out of the country. Carrier got a 7 million dollar subsidy, aka corporate welfare, for threatening to offshore jobs. Rather than threatening them with a tariff on the goods they would ship back into the country like he said he was going to do, Trump basically rewarded them with a sweetheart deal. Now the Indiana taxpayer has to pick up the tab on that 7 mil they were rewarded. 

Everything you said about the Democrats is 100% true but the Republicans didn't all of a sudden become the party of the working man just because Democrats became corporate sellouts. Republicans are the original corporate sellouts. And still are. This deal wasn't done to help the working man. This was the same sort of standard Republican business friendly deal that they've always done. 

Where Trump deserves loads of credit is in the brilliance of this PR move. He successfully sold a corporate giveaway as a good deal for the working class. That's all it was though. A PR move. I freely admit that it looks good on the surface but once you start digging into the details, it starts looking worse and worse. We shouldn't be rewarding corporations for fucking over the working class just so they can line their pockets just a little bit more.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> You dare call ME wrong. :lol Its you!


Fear not. You are both right according to the movies playing in each of your heads. :trump2

What is important is that Trump has ascended to base reality (perhaps by fulfilling German idealism, see @Goku for more information about how Trump is a Kantian) and has achieved access to objective truth, which is why all of our movies inevitably conform to what he says is going to happen, as improbable as it previously seemed based on our own subjective realities. Trump always knows what is about to happen. Trump always wins. Trump eats the sun and drinks the sky and they both go with him when he dies. 

There is no need to wait until inauguration day. He has already assumed control over our entire world. Resistance is futile. :trump


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> You dare call ME wrong. :lol Its you!


You are one of the most misformed person I have ever seen post in these threads.

90% of your posts are just memes or comments that are totally wrong.




CamillePunk said:


> Fear not. You are both right according to the movies playing in each of your heads. :trump2
> 
> What is important is that Trump has ascended to base reality (perhaps by fulfilling German idealism, see @Goku for more information about how Trump is a Kantian) and has achieved access to objective truth, which is why all of our movies inevitably conform to what he says is going to happen, as improbable as it previously seemed based on our own subjective realities. Trump always knows what is about to happen. Trump always wins. Trump eats the sun and drinks the sky and they both go with him when he dies.
> 
> There is no need to wait until inauguration day. He has already assumed control over our entire world. Resistance is futile. :trump


Beatles is not right.

Trump said any company sending jobs to Mexico or overseas would get a huge tax or tariff set on them. Carrier is sending some jobs to Mexico and is not going to put a tariff or tax on them.
Trump is already going back on what he said he was going to do and he is not even president yet. 

Like I said all companies have to do is claim they are going to send double the jobs they want to over seas or to mexico then go oh ok Trump I will keep half of those jobs here even though zero real jobs are saved and Trump won tax them?

No, if any company moves jobs out of the US Trump claimed he would tax them and now he is not. Going by what Trump said he should be taxing them on the jobs Carrier is sending to Mexico.

but it just shows Trump is not true to his word like I told you he wouldnt be.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Trump NEVER said he'd give business's handouts, noe does it mean He's "Going back on his word" because he isn't immediately declaring war on them.

"MUH EVIL CORPORATE HANDOUTS" meme lulz

He's loosening regulations to incentivize them to stay here. Not every company will be getting handouts and not every company will even stay here. Trump set a precedent by stating that companies are now able to at least communicate WHICH IS SOMETHING OBAMA COULD NEVER DO. Even the Young Turks admitted this.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> You are one of the most misformed person I have ever seen post in these threads.
> 
> 90% of your posts are just memes or comments that are totally wrong.







:trump


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> We shouldn't be rewarding corporations for fucking over the working class just so they can line their pockets just a little bit more.


Stop comparing a tax break to a bailout or "corporate welfare". 

They're not the same things. 

A tax break is where a company keeps its own money therefore it's responsible for making the money to keep it whereas a bailout is a government handout. They're completely different and what they allude to are completely different things. A tax break ensures that a company keeps up the efficiency and profit motive at the forefront while a bailout does not change the corporate culture of complacency. If you get money without making money, you work less hard because you've already gotten that money. If you need to keep the money you've earned then you work harder or continue to work as hard in order to keep making that money. The attitude that both these things foster are completely different.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> :trump


And you keep proving my point. stop spamming.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> And you keep proving my point. stop spamming.


This has to be a joke, you're the biggest spammer here in this thread. Nobody can make one post without you posting 3 in response.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> This has to be a joke, you're the biggest spammer here in this thread. Nobody can make one post without you posting 3 in response.


I don't post bullshit like Beatles does, I always back up what I say with facts and evidence. All Beatles does is post bullshit like that video or just stupid comments that add nothing to the discussion. You should learn what the word spam means.

these are typical Beatles posts



Beatles123 said:


> Im just sitting here laughing.
> 
> 
> WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO :lol






Beatles123 said:


> :trump





Beatles123 said:


> Im sorry, man. Being in this, the best timeline, has made me too giddy, I'll lower my energy. :trump



these are my typical posts



birthday_massacre said:


> I would rather all those jobs stay in the US something Trump said he was going to do but no they only keep less than half they claimed were moving to Mexico and Trump rewards them. Trump lied about taxing/tariffing anyone that moves jobs out of the US. Its a joke anyone would defend Trump for this.
> 
> Trump is going back on his promises already That is what people like you don't get
> 
> Trump said he was going to save all the jobs from going and yet a company moving jobs out of the country Trump is giving money to instead of giving them a huge tariff like he claimed he would just because they are not moving all the jobs there. They played Trump like a fiddle. They are already exposing Trump how he is full of shit and how to beat him.
> 
> He should be doing what he claimed he would do anytime anyone moves jobs out of the US
> 
> Now all companies have to do is lie and claim oh we are going to move 10,000 jobs to Mexico and really only plan to move 5,000 then Trump will pay them to move 5,000 jobs to mexico and claim he save 5,000 jobs instead of doing what he said and taxing anyone that moves any jobs out of the country.





birthday_massacre said:


> yeah he paid Carrier to only keep less than half of the jobs and they will move more jobs overseas than they will keep here. Oh what an incentive. He claimed he would heavily tax or traffit any company that moves jobs overseas and he is already breaking that promise with carrier just because they are keeping less than half of the jobs here. Carrier just exposed how to beat Trump.
> 
> Also you need regulations, there is a reason why we have things like OSHA, and other regulations like with the FDA.





birthday_massacre said:


> here is another from WSJ
> 
> http://www.wsj.com/articles/taxes-u...ess-and-the-richest-pay-a-lot-less-1480700891
> 
> Taxes Under Trump: Almost Everyone Pays Less and the Richest Pay a Lot Less
> Nearly half the benefits of the plan, and a higher proportion of savings, would go to the top 1%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rich will make out the best either wahy you look at it.
> 
> Forbes also says
> 
> Trump's Treasury Pick Describes A Very Different Tax Plan Than His Boss Campaigned On
> 
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway...lan-than-his-boss-campaigned-on/#7cc7dd6a2cdc
> 
> So maybe Trump wants one thing but the Treasury picks wants something else and now Trump can say well this guy is an expect so he is doing what is best or something like that.
> 
> in the end the rich will bennift and the middle and lower classes will suffer



90% of Beatles posts are BS posts, the only time I post BS posts is when I have to reply to beatels BS.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

You don't even know WHAT WHAT I POST MEANS! :lol


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Stay on topic, please. :trump3


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

We have a damn good president and I was the first to make a thread about it. :trump


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> We have a damn good president and I was the first to make a thread about it. :trump


If he even becomes president. The EC could still do its job and swap their votes to Hillary. Plus Trump is in violation of the constitution with all his businesses. And we all know it's BS that it will go into a blind trust

Just look at his stance with the Dakota pipeline. He is for the pipeline because he is invested in it. 

Even if Trump gets to be president, he still could be impeached pretty quickly.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> We have a damn good president and I was the first to make a thread about it. :trump


Don't count your chickens yet, Beatles.

I'm still incredibly skeptical on how everything will pan out. Only time will tell on this matter.


----------



## amhlilhaus

birthday_massacre said:


> Beatles123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a damn good president and I was the first to make a thread about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If he even becomes president. The EC could still do its job and swap their votes to Hillary. Plus Trump is in violation of the constitution with all his businesses. And we all know it's BS that it will go into a blind trust
> 
> Just look at his stance with the Dakota pipeline. He is for the pipeline because he is invested in it.
> 
> Even if Trump gets to be president, he still could be impeached pretty quickly.
Click to expand...

The electors jobs are to vote for who their party voted for.

If he doesnt, hell have to fool thousands of reporters so good luck with that

Impeachment? They better do it fast. Trumps still gaining steam AFTER the election, and if he is doing what he says he will and they impeach him for bullshit like 'conduct unbecoming a president' it will be curtains for the government.

Sit back, relax. Trumps going to win in a total blowout next time. All because hes going to get results


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@AryaDark @CamillePunk @Goku @MillionDollarProns @Miss Sally
@Carte Blanche and @L-DOPA are right about the Carrier deal.

The reason Donald Trump needed Mike Pence for this deal was because as 50th Governor of Indiana, Pence had the connections necessary to make it possible for the state of Indiana to provide United Technologies with the $7 million tax _break._ The financial incentives are technically performed at the state level of Indiana, hardly dissimilar from myriad financial incentives and tax breaks for a host of businesses and industries throughout the U.S.'s fifty states (as one quick example out of thousands, Louisiana's lavish incentives for Hollywood film productions). These tax breaks, totaling $7 million, will be active for the next ten years, which means that Indiana is doing without $700,000 in tax revenue each year. In return, United Technologies is, while letting go of another 600 jobs, keeping a minimum of $16,000,000 in the state of Indiana, and keeping a little over 1,000 jobs on payroll for 10 years, which means that Indiana will be extracting, at bare minimum, $2.2 million in income taxes from the jobs kept in Indiana thanks to this deal. The state of Indiana is receiving an approximately 300% return on the deal while more jobs are kept in Indiana than would have been the case had Trump and Pence failed to act. Besides the $16 million to be invested into the state by United Technologies' Carrier, and the $2.2 million-per-year-minimum in taxes reaped from the jobs that, as a whole, average $30 an hour for these workers, there is also the considerable economic flow of money and resources that will now take place in Indiana thanks to the deal made this week. 

Beyond everything else, there was a logical reason for Trump to point to Pence the other day, suggesting that without him, none of this would have happened, and for Pence to point to Trump, arguing that without _him_, none of this would be possible. They are both right. Trump has a major share of the presidential bully pulpit, without being president yet, and Pence knew the political and business terrain of Indiana to put in the necessary work in tandem with Trump to make the deal a reality. 

The more one looks at this, the more impressive it becomes, honestly.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



amhlilhaus said:


> The electors jobs are to vote for who their party voted for.
> 
> If he doesnt, hell have to fool thousands of reporters so good luck with that
> 
> Impeachment? They better do it fast. Trumps still gaining steam AFTER the election, and if he is doing what he says he will and they impeach him for bullshit like 'conduct unbecoming a president' it will be curtains for the government.
> 
> Sit back, relax. Trumps going to win in a total blowout next time. All because hes going to get results


Their job is also to prevent someone who is unfit to be president be sworn in. Its in the constitution. And Trump is unfit 

Trump can easily be impeached if they find him still really running his businesses while he is president. That is against the constitution as well. 

it all depends who the DNC runs next time. If they run someone like corey booker or god forbid Kaine, Trump will win. But if someone like Warren runs, Trump will get destroyed. But knowing the DNC they willl run Booker or Kaine because they never learn their lessons.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

This thread has been a downward spiral into insanity akin to Silent Hill 4: The Room's spiral staircase.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Trump 1, Stein 0.

\http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2016/12/03/green-party-drops-statewide-pennsylvania-recount/


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> Trump 1, Stein 0.
> 
> \http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2016/12/03/green-party-drops-statewide-pennsylvania-recount/


what were you afraid of a recount because you know Trump may have lost a recount?

Losing on a technicality is a loss for democracy

Trump won by less than 1% that merits a recount. You know damn well if it was switched and Hillary barely won the state the GOP would want a recount. 

No one should be afraid of a recount to make sure the right person one.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> It sets a bad precedent too. It tells other companies that all they have to do to get subsidies from the government is threaten to move jobs out of the country. Carrier got a 7 million dollar subsidy, aka corporate welfare, for threatening to offshore jobs. Rather than threatening them with a tariff on the goods they would ship back into the country like he said he was going to do, Trump basically rewarded them with a sweetheart deal.


This times a thousand, by rewarding bad behaviour he is just encouraging it.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/805278955150471168Trump has skin thinner than the LU writers lol


----------



## MillionDollarProns

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Plus Trump is in violation of the constitution with all his businesses.


I'm not sure exactly why you think that? I don't have the entire constitution memorized yet, but I'm pretty sure there's not anything in there against owning businesses. After all, several of our first presidents owned businesses in the form of Plantations.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



MillionDollarProns said:


> I'm not sure exactly why you think that? I don't have the entire constitution memorized yet, but I'm pretty sure there's not anything in there against owning businesses. After all, several of our first presidents owned businesses in the form of Plantations.


I was interested in this actually and looked it up. There's actually nothing in the constitution or in fact even any laws or anything that say the President must put his assets into a blind trust. From the research I did it would appear that it's more tradition/convention to attempt to avoid conflict of interests more than anything else. Furthermore, from what I've read on blind trusts it's almost impossible to put your business interests into them without first liquidating your assets. I'm not a Trump supporter by any means (though the info DesolationRow shared about the benefits for Indiana shows he's at least doing some things right so good on him) but I think it'd be a bit ridiculous for the man to have to liquid his quite substantial assets simply because he's been elected for a term in office. That smacks too much of a punishment for gaining status which I find a bit distasteful as a concept personally.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



MillionDollarProns said:


> I'm not sure exactly why you think that? I don't have the entire constitution memorized yet, but I'm pretty sure there's not anything in there against owning businesses. After all, several of our first presidents owned businesses in the form of Plantations.


Because it does. Just google it, and you will see I am right


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RavishingRickRules said:


> I was interested in this actually and looked it up. There's actually nothing in the constitution or in fact even any laws or anything that say the President must put his assets into a blind trust. From the research I did it would appear that it's more tradition/convention to attempt to avoid conflict of interests more than anything else. Furthermore, from what I've read on blind trusts it's almost impossible to put your business interests into them without first liquidating your assets. I'm not a Trump supporter by any means (though the info DesolationRow shared about the benefits for Indiana shows he's at least doing some things right so good on him) but I think it'd be a bit ridiculous for the man to have to liquid his quite substantial assets simply because he's been elected for a term in office. That smacks too much of a punishment for gaining status which I find a bit distasteful as a concept personally.


You googled it and missed these


Donald Trump’s Business Dealings Test a Constitutional Limit
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/us/politics/donald-trump-conflict-of-interest.html?_r=0


Trump’s troubling tweet: He would almost certainly be violating the Constitution if he continues to own his businesses

http://www.salon.com/2016/12/03/tru...f-he-continues-to-own-his-businesses_partner/


Trump poised to violate Constitution his first day in office, George W. Bush’s ethics lawyer says
https://thinkprogress.org/trump-poi...hs-ethics-lawyer-says-73e14789a935#.5j2k4kwzc

seriously. its so easy to find a ton of articles on this


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Because it does. Just google it, and you will see I am right


No he won't, I did and you're wrong.

edit: just saw your response. I've seen many articles that contradict those ones you're quoting so I dunno, it doesn't seem very cut and dry to me. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable about the US legal system and constitution could weigh in and clear it up?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jennife...decessors-did-with-their-assets/#2e9cad79156a

https://www.quora.com/What-happens-...would-the-conflict-of-interests-be-reconciled

http://fortune.com/2016/11/15/donald-trump-conflicts-interest-ethics/

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/et...rol-of-his-unprecedented-portfolio-2016-11-10


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> what were you afraid of a recount because you know Trump may have lost a recount?
> 
> Losing on a technicality is a loss for democracy
> 
> Trump won by less than 1% that merits a recount. You know damn well if it was switched and Hillary barely won the state the GOP would want a recount.
> 
> No one should be afraid of a recount to make sure the right person one.


EXCUSE ME?!!! :lol


*IS THAT WHAT YOU THINK MY POST MEANT??* :lmao

MAN, either you're paranoid or i am WAY inside your head.

Do you really think I was afraid of some lunatic druid grandma? Do you believe i thought for a second she would somehow, just by chance, miraculously ride in on the back of I am groot and unseat Trump?

Dave, even for YOU that's nuts.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RavishingRickRules said:


> No he won't, I did and you're wrong.


I just showed you three different articles backing it up LOL

I swear to god, people ignore facts on this board its fucking ridiculous

if you are an elected official like president, you cannot have a hands-on role in your businesses because it's unconstitutional. It has to go into a blind trust or let your family run it. 

You really need to get your facts straight




RavishingRickRules said:


> No he won't, I did and you're wrong.
> 
> edit: just saw your response. I've seen many articles that contradict those ones you're quoting so I dunno, it doesn't seem very cut and dry to me. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable about the US legal system and constitution could weigh in and clear it up?
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/jennife...decessors-did-with-their-assets/#2e9cad79156a
> 
> https://www.quora.com/What-happens-...would-the-conflict-of-interests-be-reconciled
> 
> http://fortune.com/2016/11/15/donald-trump-conflicts-interest-ethics/
> 
> http://www.marketwatch.com/story/et...rol-of-his-unprecedented-portfolio-2016-11-10



You mean like a George W. Bush’s ethics lawyer like in the 4th link that I posted?

Trump does not have to sell off his assets, he just can run his companies while he is president. He will have to be hands off and he won't be able to talk to them about his businesses and they wont be able to talk to him about the business. 

if they do its pretty much insider trading.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> You mean like a George W. Bush’s ethics lawyer like in the 4th link that I posted?


Oh you mean like the former White House ethics lawyers in one of the links I posted that flat out say it's not illegal or against the constitution?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Oh you mean like the former White House ethics lawyers in one of the links I posted that flat out say it's not illegal or against the constitution?




Your articles are saying he does not have to sell off all his assets which he does not have to. that is not what we are talking about. 

If Trump runs his businesses and is president its unconstitutional. He cannot run his businesses while he is president, his kids have to run them for him or they go into a blind trust to run if he did not have family to run it.

You can deny it all you want but those are the facts


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Your articles are saying he does not have to sell off all his assets which he does not have to. that is not what we are talking about.
> 
> If Trump runs his businesses and is president its unconstitutional. He cannot run his businesses while he is president, his kids have to run them for him or they go into a blind trust to run if he did not have family to run it.
> 
> You can deny it all you want but those are the facts


Ahhh i see, so you didn't even read the articles then? They're not saying that at all, you might need to work on your reading retention there. Here's a direct quote from one of those articles you apparently "read."

"Donald Trump could refuse to put his businesses and investments in a blind trust, a strategy every other presidential candidate has used to deflect questions about potential conflicts of interest.

That’s because the president and vice president are not considered employees, so the criminal conflict of interest statutesand the federal standards of ethical conduct do not apply to them. Trump cannot be forced to give up direct control or to sell investments that may present a conflict of interest with official duties, whether those conflicts are actual or just suggest the possibility of Trump acting in his own self-interest rather than the country’s.

The requirement to divest conflicting assets and to manage conflicts on an ongoing basis is only applicable to appointed executive branch officials such as cabinet members."

Is that short enough for you to actually take the information in or are you going to post more bullshit about the articles I posted that you didn't even read?


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

My understanding of the articles people quoted was:

1. It is not illegal for Trump to have the possibility of a conflict, as it is for a congressman, however;
2. It is illegal for Trump to actually have any actual conflicts actually occur, which considering the power of the president, and the extent of his business holdings seems impossible to not.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Ahhh i see, so you didn't even read the articles then? They're not saying that at all, you might need to work on your reading retention there. Here's a direct quote from one of those articles you apparently "read."
> 
> "Donald Trump could refuse to put his businesses and investments in a blind trust, a strategy every other presidential candidate has used to deflect questions about potential conflicts of interest.
> 
> That’s because the president and vice president are not considered employees, so the criminal conflict of interest statutesand the federal standards of ethical conduct do not apply to them. Trump cannot be forced to give up direct control or to sell investments that may present a conflict of interest with official duties, whether those conflicts are actual or just suggest the possibility of Trump acting in his own self-interest rather than the country’s.
> 
> The requirement to divest conflicting assets and to manage conflicts on an ongoing basis is only applicable to appointed executive branch officials such as cabinet members."
> 
> Is that short enough for you to actually take the information in or are you going to post more bullshit about the articles I posted that you didn't even read?


You are the one posting bullshit

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...an-t-have-a-conflict-of-interest-as-president

Trump Says ‘Can’t Have a Conflict of Interest’ as President


Trump’s statement “is only partially true,” said Scott Amey, general counsel for the Project on Government Oversight, a nonpartisan watchdog group in Washington. “There are lots of conflict of interest laws that do apply to the president.” He cited the emoluments clause of the U.S. Constitution, which bans any government official from accepting gifts or payments from foreign governments, as well as laws that prohibit soliciting or accepting bribes.


We’re already seeing this blurred line between these operations and we’re only two weeks in,” Amey said. “We have a three-ring circus and they all overlap and Trump is in the middle of it all.”

“A president of course can have a conflict of interest,” said Painter, who was President George W. Bush’s chief ethics lawyer. Just because particular rules don’t apply, that doesn’t remove the conflict, he said.

“Unless he takes appropriate action, Mr. Trump’s many international financial interests pose a great risk of violating the Constitution” once he takes office, Cardin said in the news release.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> You are the one posting bullshit
> 
> http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...an-t-have-a-conflict-of-interest-as-president
> 
> Trump Says ‘Can’t Have a Conflict of Interest’ as President
> 
> 
> Trump’s statement “is only partially true,” said Scott Amey, general counsel for the Project on Government Oversight, a nonpartisan watchdog group in Washington. “There are lots of conflict of interest laws that do apply to the president.” He cited the emoluments clause of the U.S. Constitution, which bans any government official from accepting gifts or payments from foreign governments, as well as laws that prohibit soliciting or accepting bribes.
> 
> 
> We’re already seeing this blurred line between these operations and we’re only two weeks in,” Amey said. “We have a three-ring circus and they all overlap and Trump is in the middle of it all.”
> 
> “A president of course can have a conflict of interest,” said Painter, who was President George W. Bush’s chief ethics lawyer. Just because particular rules don’t apply, that doesn’t remove the conflict, he said.
> 
> “Unless he takes appropriate action, Mr. Trump’s many international financial interests pose a great risk of violating the Constitution” once he takes office, Cardin said in the news release.


Nice deflection, I didn't post any bullshit. You acted like you'd read the articles I posted, the direct quote I responded with shows you were full of shit. But whatever man, I don't even know why I bothered replying to you in the first place. I used to think you were a pretty sane guy but you've fallen way off the deep end recently, maybe consider taking a step back and look at how out of control you're getting with the aggressive bullshit. As far as I can see there are articles saying it's perfectly fine and articles saying it's not, just because you posted one side of it, does not make your side any more valid than the opposing one which directly contradicts it. The difference between you and me? I'm an intellectual who researches and refines his opinions, you're a crazed fanatic. Seek help.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Nice deflection, I didn't post any bullshit. You acted like you'd read the articles I posted, the direct quote I responded with shows you were full of shit. But whatever man, I don't even know why I bothered replying to you in the first place. I used to think you were a pretty sane guy but you've fallen way off the deep end recently, maybe consider taking a step back and look at how out of control you're getting with the aggressive bullshit. As far as I can see there are articles saying it's perfectly fine and articles saying it's not, just because you posted one side of it, does not make your side any more valid than the opposing one which directly contradicts it. The difference between you and me? I'm an intellectual who researches and refines his opinions, you're a crazed fanatic. Seek help.


I totally disproved what you said. But believe what you want. There is a reason why Trump is having his kids run his business in a blind Trust while he is president.

But believe what you want.

Its impossible for Trump to run the country and run his businesses at the same time without having a conflict. The second his makes a decision that would benefit one of his businesses, he would be in violation of the constitution.

That is why his kids will run his business in a blind trust to prevent that.


----------



## MillionDollarProns

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Regarding the constitution Emoluments Clause:




ARTICLE I said:


> No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no *Person* holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the *Consent of the Congress*, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.


There are a couple points to be raised:

First, consent of congress. Congress can approve or disapprove Trump getting emoluments (which from now on I will refer to as PHAT MONEYS) from foreign entities. With congress being republican by a small margin, he might get the green flag.

Second, the use of the word Person. In terms of the constitution and corporate personhood, If it's Donald Trump himself who gets PHAT MONEYS from China, that's one thing, if its his business it's another. 

Third, if the Bank of China is considered a foreign state. I looked into this and it is a state-ran (obviously), but whether it is treated as a foreign state in terms of US constiutional law I am unclear.

What we have to remember with constitutional law is that it's rarely cut and dry. There's a lot of intentional "gray area" to work with. There's usually not a strictly right or wrong in these cases. However, I don't see this being a real problem with Trump.


Worst case scenario, Trump could do what Carter did with his peanuts and put 'em in a trust.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



MillionDollarProns said:


> Regarding the constitution Emoluments Clause:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are a couple points to be raised:
> 
> First, consent of congress. Congress can approve or disapprove Trump getting emoluments (which from now on I will refer to as PHAT MONEYS) from foreign entities. With congress being republican by a small margin, he might get the green flag.
> 
> Second, the use of the word Person. In terms of the constitution and corporate personhood, If it's Donald Trump himself who gets PHAT MONEYS from China, that's one thing, if its his business it's another.
> 
> Third, if the Bank of China is considered a foreign state. I looked into this and it is a state-ran (obviously), but whether it is treated as a foreign state in terms of US constiutional law I am unclear.
> 
> What we have to remember with constitutional law is that it's rarely cut and dry. There's a lot of intentional "gray area" to work with. There's usually not a strictly right or wrong in these cases. However, I don't see this being a real problem with Trump.
> 
> 
> *Worst case scenario, Trump could do what Carter did with his peanuts and put 'em in a trust*.


That is what he is doing to do. HIs kids will run his business in a blind Trust. Just so he will not have to deal with the conflict. 

Trump knows too if he tries to keep running his businesses himself the second there is a conflict, if the GOP want him out they could just impeach him. Trump wont chance that.


----------



## amhlilhaus

birthday_massacre said:


> amhlilhaus said:
> 
> 
> 
> The electors jobs are to vote for who their party voted for.
> 
> If he doesnt, hell have to fool thousands of reporters so good luck with that
> 
> Impeachment? They better do it fast. Trumps still gaining steam AFTER the election, and if he is doing what he says he will and they impeach him for bullshit like 'conduct unbecoming a president' it will be curtains for the government.
> 
> Sit back, relax. Trumps going to win in a total blowout next time. All because hes going to get results
> 
> 
> 
> Their job is also to prevent someone who is unfit to be president be sworn in. Its in the constitution. And Trump is unfit
> 
> Trump can easily be impeached if they find him still really running his businesses while he is president. That is against the constitution as well.
> 
> it all depends who the DNC runs next time. If they run someone like corey booker or god forbid Kaine, Trump will win. But if someone like Warren runs, Trump will get destroyed. But knowing the DNC they willl run Booker or Kaine because they never learn their lessons.
Click to expand...

Elizabeth 'hiawatha' warren? You got a signed copy of pow wow chow? 

Keep thinking that. If trump follows through on his mandates, kicks the economy in the ass to get it going, builds the wall, ie DOES what he says hes going to do..... the democrats have NO CHANCE

Elizabeth warren, lolololol


----------



## amhlilhaus

I think you guys are frantically barking up the wrong tree on his businesses.

I think trumps put his mind into leaving a bigger legacy than a business one. If he staves off the coming miseries of mechanization, stems illegal immigration then he will be a great president. 

If that is what he wants, then he wont risk it in such an obvious fashion.

As for being thin skinned. You remember george bush? He was attacked, mocked and made a fool of for 8 years and didnt respond. He enabled the press to become the bullies theyve turned into. It makes them go from fawning coverage of 'maverick' john mccain to old senile chump with him running for president.

Trump knows hes never getting a fair shake or even a reach around as the press tries to fuck him. 

Bitch all you want for his 'dangerous' attacks on the press. You dont get it. Trump isnt playing by their rules. If it means calling them what they are, disingenuous liberals with huge bias, so be it. If it means not giving press conferences where he has to fend off accusation after accusation, so be it. If it means going straight to the people instead of having it filtered by the REAL sexists, bigots, racists and misogynists, well he will do that too


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*










@CamillePunk @DesolationRow @Miss Sally


*BUT GUYZ, HE'S GOING BACK ON HIS WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRD!!!!!*


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> @CamillePunk @DesolationRow @Miss Sally
> 
> 
> *BUT GUYZ, HE'S GOING BACK ON HIS WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRD!!!!!*


I'm not one to try and regulate businesses but it is bullshit to be an American company, fire your American employees and then move your factory to a place where it's near slave labor and then sell that product back to America. This is why I'm not a huge fan of the Globalist agenda, only the super rich benefit from it, everyone else gets fucked. I agree with the idea of lowering taxes on stuff made in America and sold in America and then taxing the fuck out of America companies who pull this slight of hand of moving factories out to then sell back to America for greater profit.

It's sad that Japan has a very dubious business past has been bringing jobs to America and that you'll actually see Japanese made trucks etc being more American than what the American car companies make. :laugh:


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Cipher said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/805278955150471168Trump has skin thinner than the LU writers lol


Donald, my man, you've gotta leave 'em be. SNL is written by satirists; it's their fucking job to ridicule of the people in power. It's gonna be a long four years if you keep letting them get under your skin like this. For those who haven't seen it, here's the cold open sketch from last night's SNL that Trump is complaining about:


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Cipher said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/805278955150471168Trump has skin thinner than the LU writers lol


LOL at Trump getting trigged, guess he needs a safe space.

Did you see the women that tore him a new one on twitter?

http://news.groopspeak.com/a-woman-...st-on-twitter-and-america-is-cheering-her-on/

She totally owned him lol


----------



## FITZ

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Nothing Trump does is going to eliminate the potential conflicts. Even if he didn't turn over control to his children and actually sold his shares the conflicts still exist. He most have given a lot of shares of his companies to his family already. Nothing anyone does can take their interest away. The conflict still exists even if he sold all of his shares. 

The conflicts might exist but I just can't imagine Trump went through all of this so he could get richer. That would just be total insanity.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FITZ said:


> Nothing Trump does is going to eliminate the potential conflicts. Even if he didn't turn over control to his children and actually sold his shares the conflicts still exist. He most have given a lot of shares of his companies to his family already. Nothing anyone does can take their interest away. The conflict still exists even if he sold all of his shares.
> 
> The conflicts might exist but I just can't imagine Trump went through all of this so he could get richer. That would just be total insanity.


that is exactly why Trump ran, he wanted to make money off it. He did not expect to actually win. You can tell by his face especially with Obama, he is like oh shit, I'm in over my head.

Trump's dream scenario was winning the popular vote and losing the EC, so he could claim he got more votes than Hillary and was screwed out being president. Then make money off it.


----------



## amhlilhaus

birthday_massacre said:


> FITZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing Trump does is going to eliminate the potential conflicts. Even if he didn't turn over control to his children and actually sold his shares the conflicts still exist. He most have given a lot of shares of his companies to his family already. Nothing anyone does can take their interest away. The conflict still exists even if he sold all of his shares.
> 
> The conflicts might exist but I just can't imagine Trump went through all of this so he could get richer. That would just be total insanity.
> 
> 
> 
> that is exactly why Trump ran, he wanted to make money off it. He did not expect to actually win. You can tell by his face especially with Obama, he is like oh shit, I'm in over my head.
> 
> Trump's dream scenario was winning the popular vote and losing the EC, so he could claim he got more votes than Hillary and was screwed out being president. Then make money off it.
Click to expand...

So explain why he is assembling a competent caninet who support his stated campaign promises

He didnt expect to win is another thing liberals have convinced themselves of thats not true

Just like 'theres no chance he wins'


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*






Tucker dresses down a NYT Public Editor. Interesting convo. I do see both sides of this but it doesn't mean that I think the media bias is justified.


----------



## FITZ

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



amhlilhaus said:


> So explain why he is assembling a competent caninet who support his stated campaign promises
> 
> He didnt expect to win is another thing liberals have convinced themselves of thats not true
> 
> Just like 'theres no chance he wins'


In fairness what else would he do?


----------



## AlternateDemise

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



amhlilhaus said:


> So explain why he is assembling a competent caninet who support his stated campaign promises
> 
> He didnt expect to win is another thing liberals have convinced themselves of thats not true
> 
> Just like 'theres no chance he wins'


"competent" :ha


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RavishingRickRules said:


> I was interested in this actually and looked it up. There's actually nothing in the constitution or in fact even any laws or anything that say the President must put his assets into a blind trust. From the research I did it would appear that it's more tradition/convention to attempt to avoid conflict of interests more than anything else. Furthermore, from what I've read on blind trusts it's almost impossible to put your business interests into them without first liquidating your assets. I'm not a Trump supporter by any means (though the info DesolationRow shared about the benefits for Indiana shows he's at least doing some things right so good on him) but I think it'd be a bit ridiculous for the man to have to liquid his quite substantial assets simply because he's been elected for a term in office. That smacks too much of a punishment for gaining status which I find a bit distasteful as a concept personally.


Back then, the Founding Fathers drew up the Constitution to be strictly part-time representatives of government and part-time citizens. They were not seeing their leaders as being full-time government officials. It didn't matter if our leadership had business interests, etc. because they were not supposed to live 24-7 taking care of government business. 

The one issue I have with the Carrier job save is that you have to improve the business atmosphere in this country and give companies a chance to flourish. In some cases, threats won't work as someone will call Trump's bluff or the company will find it much more financially beneficial to take their business outside American borders regardless of the consequences. For example...Caterpillar was a topic of discussion during the campaign but their leadership at this time is still intent on closing their plant outside Chicago and head for Mexico. Being too protectionist could backfire. 

For now...I'm just watching what happens and hoping that Trump becomes the next Reagan and not the next Hitler.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



amhlilhaus said:


> So explain why he is assembling a competent caninet who support his stated campaign promises
> 
> He didnt expect to win is another thing liberals have convinced themselves of thats not true
> 
> Just like 'theres no chance he wins'


Trump hired a bunch of people who claimed he was against. I love how Trump fans are just ignoring this fact. Trump lied to all of you and you just lie to yourself that he didnt.

Trump is filling the swamp with Bush era lobbyist and worst, he is not draining anything.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



BruiserKC said:


> For now...I'm just watching what happens and hoping that Trump becomes the next Reagan and not the next Hitler.


America remains the largest consumer market for industrial and consumer goods in the world by a WIDE margin at 26.7% with China a fair distance below at 7%. No large conglomerate/corporation in America or abroad has an alternative option when it comes to shirking the American consumer. No one. It's not even remotely a possibility that raising tariffs would lead to companies looking for consumers elsewhere because they simply do not exist. 

The last few governments and the media have inculcated alarmism around protectionism and pushed their pro-globalization agenda to American job detriment. What they needed to do was reduce federal interference in the labour market with their wage controls in order to help small businesses, which they obviously didn't do. They claimed that American companies needed to move their manufacturing abroad in order to remain competitive which was just a flat out lie ... What they needed to do was to make sure that american companies remained competitive locally without having to move their production abroad because everyone wants to sell to Americans and it's not the other way around.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



BruiserKC said:


> For now...I'm just watching what happens and hoping that Trump becomes the next Reagan and not the next Hitler.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



BruiserKC said:


> The one issue I have with the Carrier job save is that you have to improve the business atmosphere in this country and give companies a chance to flourish. In some cases, threats won't work as someone will call Trump's bluff or the company will find it much more financially beneficial to take their business outside American borders regardless of the consequences. For example...Caterpillar was a topic of discussion during the campaign but their leadership at this time is still intent on closing their plant outside Chicago and head for Mexico. Being too protectionist could backfire.
> 
> For now...I'm just watching what happens and hoping that Trump becomes the next Reagan and not the next Hitler.


Your one issue with the Carrier job save is that you've chosen to ignore Trump's policies specifically aimed at making America more attractive to businesses (lowered corporate tax rate, less regulations)? Seems to me if you don't approach the issue with an intentionally narrow lens which obscures these relevant facts (which I can only imagine is done because finding a way to criticize Trump is paramount to the entire exercise), that issue evaporates. But then, how would you manage to throw in a bizarre Hitler reference out of nowhere to keep things in the typically hysterical leftist anti-Trump frame if you had any intention of being objective? :lol

#TheseAreNotSeriousPeople


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Those tweets from that woman schooling Trump were great. 

Imagine, being president elect and not having the self control to ignore a parody comedy show. He really does need Twitter taken off him.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> Your one issue with the Carrier job save is that you've chosen to ignore Trump's policies specifically aimed at making America more attractive to businesses (lowered corporate tax rate, less regulations)? Seems to me if you don't approach the issue with an intentionally narrow lens which obscures these relevant facts (which I can only imagine is done because finding a way to criticize Trump is paramount to the entire exercise), that issue evaporates. But then, how would you manage to throw in a bizarre Hitler reference out of nowhere to keep things in the typically hysterical leftist anti-Trump frame if you had any intention of being objective? :lol
> 
> #TheseAreNotSeriousPeople


He threatened to punish Carrier for leaving first...he made it fairly clear that he was more than willing to punish them by slapping a huge tariff on their products plus cancelling any of their contracts with the government. Sounds slightly similar to HRC's exit tax for companies leaving to take their operations overseas. I have no issue with his wanting to make our economy more business friendly but his making threats won't always work. 

Meanwhile, I find it mildly amusing that ANY criticism of your fearless leader is met with scorn and ridicule. Many Trump supporters had no apologies when it came to bashing Obama for eight years and every little thing he does. However, if someone has any questions on something Trump does (such as his constantly using his Twitter account to say that anyone who questions him is un-American and other things like people who burn the flag should go to jail and lose their citizenship). I will give him a chance, but I refuse to bow and kiss his ring. There are some very serious concerns I have and I will not just pretend they are going to go away. When he does something good, I will give him credit. If he screws up, I'm going to hammer him. I would hope all his followers do the same.


----------



## amhlilhaus

FITZ said:


> amhlilhaus said:
> 
> 
> 
> So explain why he is assembling a competent caninet who support his stated campaign promises
> 
> He didnt expect to win is another thing liberals have convinced themselves of thats not true
> 
> Just like 'theres no chance he wins'
> 
> 
> 
> In fairness what else would he do?
Click to expand...

But liberals claimed he didnt want the job, so why try, to you know, do it well



AlternateDemise said:


> amhlilhaus said:
> 
> 
> 
> So explain why he is assembling a competent caninet who support his stated campaign promises
> 
> He didnt expect to win is another thing liberals have convinced themselves of thats not true
> 
> Just like 'theres no chance he wins'
> 
> 
> 
> "competent"
Click to expand...

A billionaire isnt competent?
Head of the rnc?
Governor of a state?
Decorated military general?

Id like to see your idea of competent




birthday_massacre said:


> amhlilhaus said:
> 
> 
> 
> So explain why he is assembling a competent caninet who support his stated campaign promises
> 
> He didnt expect to win is another thing liberals have convinced themselves of thats not true
> 
> Just like 'theres no chance he wins'
> 
> 
> 
> Trump hired a bunch of people who claimed he was against. I love how Trump fans are just ignoring this fact. Trump lied to all of you and you just lie to yourself that he didnt.
> 
> Trump is filling the swamp with Bush era lobbyist and worst, he is not draining anything.
Click to expand...

You need to type in all caps to get your point across. Maybe a different font size and color.

Nikki haleys bush era? His sec of defense pick? His education sec pick? 

If he drained the swamp and nominated a bunch of nobodies youd be screaming about them having no experience 

I bet youd be fine with the old establishment fossils clinton wouldve nominated


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I'd rather have a twitter twat where you know he's personally using his twitter account rather than a PC SJW that has a stronger vetting process for 140 characters expressed by his office than his refugee intake program.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



amhlilhaus said:


> But liberals claimed he didnt want the job, so why try, to you know, do it well
> 
> 
> 
> A billionaire isnt competent?
> Head of the rnc?
> Governor of a state?
> Decorated military general?
> 
> Id like to see your idea of competent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to type in all caps to get your point across. Maybe a different font size and color.
> 
> Nikki haleys bush era? His sec of defense pick? His education sec pick?
> 
> If he drained the swamp and nominated a bunch of nobodies youd be screaming about them having no experience
> 
> I bet youd be fine with the old establishment fossils clinton wouldve nominated


According to the official "manifesto" (cheeky swipe at people who think Trump is LITERALLY Hitler), draining the swamp is specific in its targeting of removal of lobbyists and imposing term limits on congressmen. 



> If we let the Clinton Cartel run this government, history will record that 2017 was the year America lost its independence.
> 
> We will not let that happen.
> 
> It is time to drain the swamp in Washington, D.C.
> 
> That is why I am proposing a package of ethics reforms to make our government honest once again.
> 
> First: I am going to institute a 5-year ban on all executive branch officials lobbying the government after they leave government service.
> 
> Second: I am going to ask Congress to institute its own 5-year ban on lobbying by former members of Congress and their staffs.
> 
> Third: I am going to expand the definition of lobbyist so we close all the loopholes that former government officials use by labeling themselves consultants and advisors when we all know they are lobbyists.
> 
> Fourth: I am going to issue a lifetime ban against senior executive branch officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government.
> 
> Fifth: I am going to ask Congress to pass a campaign finance reform that prevents registered foreign lobbyists from raising money in American elections.


Someone else with more updated knowledge should be able to determine how he has gone back on *his* take on "draining the swamp" now based on what I seem to be gathering a lot of people taking it to mean what they want it to mean as opposed to looking at what it actually means.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



BruiserKC said:


> For now...I'm just watching what happens and hoping that Trump becomes the next Reagan and not the next Hitler.


fpalm


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Someone else with more updated knowledge should be able to determine how he has gone back on *his* take on "draining the swamp" now based on what I seem to be gathering a lot of people taking it to mean what they want it to mean as opposed to looking at what it actually means.


I'd say that's a very fair point. It's stupid to measure the truthfulness of someone's statements or actions against an imagined idea of how it should go down rather than comparing to the proposed actions. I can't say I disagree with any of those proposed actions either, should he deliver on that then that's definitely a positive move. Whilst there are some things Trump's doing that I'm not sure are a good look (his Twitter use being one of them) from the information DesolationRow shared about the Indiana deal he's obviously doing some positive things. I still can't get my head around the fanatical hatred/worship he receives from either of the more extreme camps of opinions if I'm honest, for lack of a better word it seems a little unintelligent to me to base your opinions on blind hatred OR loyalty. I do wonder how much better each side of the argument would get along with each other if they both took a step back, realised they're sounding batshit crazy and just evaluated Trump on his actions, both positive and negative? I'm still not personally convinced he's some big saviour character at all, but he's still doing some things right so he deserves credit for that.


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> I always back up what I say with facts and evidence.


:duck


Still spouting BS on a daily basis i see. It was established a long time ago that you do not know what the word fact means


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RavishingRickRules said:


> I'd say that's a very fair point. It's stupid to measure the truthfulness of someone's statements or actions against an imagined idea of how it should go down rather than comparing to the proposed actions.


Interesting point, however it's pretty remarkable how to a lot of people in this thread, things like context and interpretations of things said and done have suddenly become so important when discussing Trump, yet not touched with a ten-foot pole when talking about likes of Obama and HRC. They're simply incompetent liars or simply evil.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Interesting point, however it's pretty remarkable how to a lot of people in this thread, things like context and interpretations of things said and done have suddenly become so important when discussing Trump, yet not touched with a ten-foot pole when talking about likes of Obama and HRC. They're simply incompetent liars or simply evil.


I thought I had that covered with my comments about fanatics on both sides? I'm not American and have very little love for Hillary (who should be locked up) or Trump (seems in over his head and a bit of a dick tbh.) I don't know as much about Obama because it was much less a spectacle than the latest election and I wasn't really as interested in US politics then. Frankly, I think those who blindly follow either side without allowing themselves to see the negatives is a bit of a fool.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RavishingRickRules said:


> I'd say that's a very fair point. It's stupid to measure the truthfulness of someone's statements or actions against an imagined idea of how it should go down rather than comparing to the proposed actions. I can't say I disagree with any of those proposed actions either, should he deliver on that then that's definitely a positive move. Whilst there are some things Trump's doing that I'm not sure are a good look (his Twitter use being one of them) from the information DesolationRow shared about the Indiana deal he's obviously doing some positive things. I still can't get my head around the fanatical hatred/worship he receives from either of the more extreme camps of opinions if I'm honest, for lack of a better word it seems a little unintelligent to me to base your opinions on blind hatred OR loyalty. I do wonder how much better each side of the argument would get along with each other if they both took a step back, realised they're sounding batshit crazy and just evaluated Trump on his actions, both positive and negative? I'm still not personally convinced he's some big saviour character at all, but he's still doing some things right so he deserves credit for that.





yeahbaby! said:


> Interesting point, however it's pretty remarkable how to a lot of people in this thread, things like context and interpretations of things said and done have suddenly become so important when discussing Trump, yet not touched with a ten-foot pole when talking about likes of Obama and HRC. They're simply incompetent liars or simply evil.


People always do this dance depending on if their person is in power or not. Those who said it was patriotic to criticize Obama will now say it's unpatriotic to criticize Trump. The people who cheered when Obama took military action and the forfeiture of our civil rights will now suddenly become anti-war and pro civil liberties. We always see this and positions are about to change again.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



BruiserKC said:


> People always do this dance depending on if their person is in power or not. Those who said it was patriotic to criticize Obama will now say it's unpatriotic to criticize Trump. The people who cheered when Obama took military action and the forfeiture of our civil rights will now suddenly become anti-war and pro civil liberties. We always see this and positions are about to change again.


Is it just me who finds the crazies in the general populace (of any country) who blindly follow like sheep far more worrying than the people they blindly follow?


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Is it just me who finds the crazies in the general populace (of any country) who blindly follow like sheep far more worrying than the people they blindly follow?


I rarely go to sites like Breitbart, Newsmax and WorldNetDaily (which are not mainstream media sites by any stretch and politically I normally follow views that are further to the right of many of them) because they are insane and intolerant. I am a threat to many of them because I won't agree with everything that Trump goes with.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



BruiserKC said:


> He threatened to punish Carrier for leaving first...he made it fairly clear that he was more than willing to punish them by slapping a huge tariff on their products plus cancelling any of their contracts with the government. Sounds slightly similar to HRC's exit tax for companies leaving to take their operations overseas. I have no issue with his wanting to make our economy more business friendly but his making threats won't always work.


Fair point but I still find your not mentioning the various policies he wants to enact to make businesses more attracted to the US and thus not find themselves in such a predicament in the first place to be completely disingenuous. 

It's also important to understand Trump's negotiating style, which I'm sure these businesses and foreign leaders do (the media and most #NeverTrumpers never seem to have grasped it). Come in with a tough position and then negotiate down from there. He's done this with many of his policies (you can call them flip-flops if that fits your movie better, I'll allow it), and I wouldn't be surprised if that's his approach with the tariffs as well. The idea is not to slap tariffs on these companies, the idea is to get them to stay here. How to best accomplish that task, I won't pretend to know, but I trust Trump's decades of masterful business experience to give it a good shot. 



> Meanwhile, I find it mildly amusing that ANY criticism of your fearless leader is met with scorn and ridicule.


It's time to stop posting when you're resorting to pulling strawmen out of your ass.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



BruiserKC said:


> I rarely go to sites like Breitbart, Newsmax and WorldNetDaily (which are not mainstream media sites by any stretch and politically I normally follow views that are further to the right of many of them) because they are insane and intolerant. I am a threat to many of them because I won't agree with everything that Trump goes with.


I'm more of a centrist, though I lean slightly left on social issues and slightly right on financial ones tbh. When it comes to "news" I tend to look at what's being reported across the spectrum then do some research and make my mind up after that. I tend to dislike extremists on both sides though as a rule, though here in the UK there are far more right-wing ones than left wing ones, especially causing trouble (our far-right nazi scene is unorganised but very destructive and costs us millions in policing every year with their marches.) It's interesting actually that in the US the rejection of a left-leaning system helped bring about the rise of Trump as here in the UK the fastest growing political party with numbers of registered members swelling to the largest in Europe is now lead by a very definite left-wing socialist who's being vilified by the MSM and represents the break from the establishment (which is strongly right-wing/neo-con here.) Similar situations but on the opposite side of the spectrum. Similarly you guys are suffering from SJW's attempting to censor as much as they can get their hands on whilst we have our right-wing government passing censorship laws and targeting our freedom with intrusive surveillance and control.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> Fair point but I still find your not mentioning the various policies he wants to enact to make businesses more attracted to the US and thus not find themselves in such a predicament in the first place to be completely disingenuous.
> 
> It's also important to understand Trump's negotiating style, which I'm sure these businesses and foreign leaders do (the media and most #NeverTrumpers never seem to have grasped it). Come in with a tough position and then negotiate down from there. He's done this with many of his policies (you can call them flip-flops if that fits your movie better, I'll allow it), and I wouldn't be surprised if that's his approach with the tariffs as well. The idea is not to slap tariffs on these companies, the idea is to get them to stay here. How to best accomplish that task, I won't pretend to know, but I trust Trump's decades of masterful business experience to give it a good shot.
> 
> It's time to stop posting when you're resorting to pulling strawmen out of your ass.


Then don't resort to the liberal smear tactics I had to stomach from the Obama apologists for the last eight years. Not everyone is going to agree with everything he does but the hypocrisy of many Trump backers shines through. I have no objection to seeing what he does but will not be a cheerleader for him. I understand that they are only doing what they dealt with for eight years of the Obama nightmare but save the attacks for those who truly want him to fail.

As for his positions...many people voted for him because they are tired of the broken promises of many of our leaders. They want to know that if Trump says he's kicking out 11 million illegals, that he will do it. If he is going to block Muslims from dangerous hotspots from coming in until there is a way to properly get them vetted, they want that done also. To back off those promises may be needed to achieve a more realistic outcome, but there will be many of his supporters who will have a serious problem with that. I know how this works...Reagan said that half a loaf is better than none. Can that message be made clear to his followers? If not, then he's going to have a problem on his hands.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> America remains the largest consumer market for industrial and consumer goods in the world by a WIDE margin at 26.7% with China a fair distance below at 7%. No large conglomerate/corporation in America or abroad has an alternative option when it comes to shirking the American consumer. No one. It's not even remotely a possibility that raising tariffs would lead to companies looking for consumers elsewhere because they simply do not exist.
> 
> The last few governments and the media have inculcated alarmism around protectionism and pushed their pro-globalization agenda to American job detriment. What they needed to do was reduce federal interference in the labour market with their wage controls in order to help small businesses, which they obviously didn't do. They claimed that American companies needed to move their manufacturing abroad in order to remain competitive which was just a flat out lie ... What they needed to do was to make sure that american companies remained competitive locally without having to move their production abroad because everyone wants to sell to Americans and it's not the other way around.


Globalism does nothing but fuck over everyone but the rich. This is why Globalists are so keen to call anyone who dislikes it, racists etc. It only benefits a few people. I think Stossel did a report on how American businesses mostly sell to America but the American Government fucks them over more than it does others. It's strange as to why that is, you'd think the Government would want to keep jobs here and keep the money flowing, nobody is going to be buying products if they're not working.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



BruiserKC said:


> Then don't resort to the liberal smear tactics I had to stomach from the Obama apologists for the last eight years. Not everyone is going to agree with everything he does but the hypocrisy of many Trump backers shines through. I have no objection to seeing what he does but will not be a cheerleader for him. I understand that they are only doing what they dealt with for eight years of the Obama nightmare but save the attacks for those who truly want him to fail.


Dude, you literally implied he could be the next Hitler. :lol


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@BruiserKC

Man, you know I like you, but you're really really going off the deep end. Nobody's attacking you because you're criticizing trump by himself, they have issue with your reasons for doing so. You're right in that there are concerns about him, and are more than free to express those. However, as @CamillePunk stated, you are fear mongering with them in much the same way our common liberal does. We are living in an age where globalism and liberalism are being defeated. We should be celebrating. 

People need to understand that Trump is doing things his way. Those trying to cry about his methods are simply becoming aware that it is THEIR way of thinking that is becoming outdated. If he fails to do what I want him to do, I'll express concern. I will NOT however base my support for him on one or two issues alone. I don't care what methods he uses or whether they are unconventional. I voted for him to battle against the established order. To make the arrogant people that think they run this world take a step back and realize that I, too, have a voice. I could care less about him saying something that "makes people's feelings get hurt." The people that are outraged about trump right now in large part deserve what is coming to them. This includes people on the Internet and government figures alike, and yes, even China.

It's Trump's world now, gentlemen. YOU are merely living in it.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> Dude, you literally implied he could be the next Hitler. :lol


Even the most leftist of the leftists have kinda backed off with that comparison, it's just not at all feasible. I'm surprised he didn't say he was "literally shaking".


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



> *Donald Trump’s White House Counsel Is Proud “Architect” of America’s Corrupt Big Money Politics*
> 
> Don McGahn, soon to be Donald Trump’s White House counsel, bears as much responsibility as any single person for turning America’s campaign finance system into something akin to a gigantic, clogged septic tank.
> 
> From 2008 to 2013, McGahn was one of the six members of the Federal Election Commission, the government agency in charge of civil enforcement of campaign finance laws. While there, he led a GOP campaign that essentially ground enforcement of election laws to a halt.
> 
> “I’ve always thought of McGahn’s appointment as an FEC commissioner as analogous to appointing an anarchist to be chief of police,” said Paul S. Ryan, vice president at Common Cause. “He’s largely responsible for destroying the FEC as a functioning law enforcement agency, and seemingly takes great pride in this fact. McGahn has demonstrated a much stronger interest in expanding the money-in-politics swamp than draining it.”
> 
> Ellen Weintraub, a current FEC commissioner, overlapped with McGahn’s entire tenure. McGahn and his two fellow GOP appointees, she recalled, possessed a “very strong ideological opposition to campaign finance laws in general.”
> 
> This ideology — that essentially all limits on campaign contributions and spending are unconstitutional violations of the First Amendment — was developed by a loose affiliation of conservative lawyers including McGahn, beginning in the late 1990s. It started bearing fruit a decade later with a series of court decisions, including the Citizens United ruling in 2010. McGahn’s page on his law firm’s website describes him as one of the “architects of the campaign finance revolution.”
> 
> McGahn’s perspective manifested itself consistently at the FEC. Previously, when the agency received outside complaints alleging violations of the law, its general counsel’s office was responsible for conducting a preliminary examination of the issues and then making a recommendation to the commission members about the legal issues involved and whether to proceed with a full investigation.
> 
> McGahn was so extreme that he attempted to block the general counsel’s staff from reading news reports, using Google or looking at a campaign’s web site without prior authorization from a majority of the FEC commissioners. Had the measure passed, because the FEC has six members at full capacity and no more than three can be from one political party, Republicans would effectively have controlled what FEC lawyers were allowed to read.
> 
> McGahn also attempted to prevent the FEC’s staff from doing something it had done as a matter of course in the past: respond to requests for internal records from the Justice Department, which is responsible for criminal prosecution of campaign finance crimes, without formal approval from the commissioners. “He just did not want us to have a more cooperative relationship with the Justice Department,” Weintraub said.
> 
> McGahn’s losing battle nevertheless led the agency’s general counsel at the time to resign in frustration.
> 
> Now, as Trump’s White House lawyer, McGahn will provide crucial advice on the nomination of judges, including to the Supreme Court. While Trump has criticized Citizens United, and called the Super PACs that sprang up in its wake “horrible” and a “total phony deal,” McGahn is a vociferous defender of the ruling.
> 
> Trump praised McGahn as possessing “a deep understanding of constitutional law.”
> 
> A White House’s lawyer essentially serves as the president’s conscience, and is in charge of the ethics rules. “I was hoping that the sea of conflicts of interest that surround Donald Trump and many of his appointees would convince Trump that he needs to pursue sweeping ethics reforms, especially for incoming administration officials,” said Craig Holman of Public Citizen. “The selection of McGahn to be the chief ethics cop strongly suggests the new administration is likely to be scandal-ridden and eventually perceived by the public as business as usual.”
> 
> Ryan considers McGahn to be “a very skilled lawyer who knows campaign finance and ethics laws like the back of his hand” and hence will give Trump accurate advice. Therefore, says Ryan, “when President-elect Trump engages in any questionable ethics practices, we’ll know he’s doing so with full knowledge of ethics standards. President-elect Trump has no excuses.”
> 
> McGahn began his career at Squire Patton Boggs, a famed D.C. law firm and lobby shop. The late Tommy Boggs, one of its cheerfully mercenary name partners, said that the firm’s moral code was “We pick our clients by taking the first one who comes in the door.”
> 
> In 1999, McGahn became chief counsel of the National Republican Congressional Committee, which coordinates campaigns for GOP members of the House of Representatives. While there he also represented House majority leader Tom DeLay of Texas in investigations into some of DeLay’s incredibly labyrinthian fundraising schemes.
> 
> One of these schemes led to DeLay being convicted of money laundering and sentenced to prison. (The conviction was later overturned.) But McGahn helped DeLay escape any consequences for another, in which the U.S. Family Network, a dark money nonprofit close to DeLay, received $1 million that DeLay’s former chief of staff told others came from Russian oil and gas executives. According to the president of U.S. Family Network, DeLay’s chief of staff said this money was specifically intended to buy his support for a 1998 International Monetary Fund bailout of the Russian economy. DeLay voted for the bill but later claimed the U.S. Family Network donation had nothing to do with it.
> 
> There’s no question that Americans loathe the way big money controls the U.S. political system. Many Trump supporters presumably believed they were voting to halt it in its tracks. Instead, all evidence suggests that Don McGahn will now be stomping on the accelerator.
> 
> SOURCE


This is going to be the most corrupt presidency of all time. :lmao


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> This is going to be the most corrupt presidency of all time. :lmao


I think Hillary's cabinet would be much, much worse. :laugh:


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> Dude, you literally implied he could be the next Hitler. :lol





Miss Sally said:


> Even the most leftist of the leftists have kinda backed off with that comparison, it's just not at all feasible. I'm surprised he didn't say he was "literally shaking".


Trump is tweeting those who burn the flag should go to to jail and lose their citizenship. He wants SNL cancelled (although the show has sucked balls) because he doesn't like the parody being done of him. There is such a thing called the 1st Amendment that protects all this. He truly has a problem with people who criticize him and fights back. Fighting back is fine, but he's going to be doing a lot of this for the next four years and he's not going to silence all his critics that way. As I said, I want him to succeed but will not apologize for the concerns that I see. 



Beatles123 said:


> @BruiserKC
> 
> Man, you know I like you, but you're really really going off the deep end. Nobody's attacking you because you're criticizing trump by himself, they have issue with your reasons for doing so. You're right in that there are concerns about him, and are more than free to express those. However, as @CamillePunk stated, you are fear mongering with them in much the same way our common liberal does. We are living in an age where globalism and liberalism are being defeated. We should be celebrating.
> 
> People need to understand that Trump is doing things his way. Those trying to cry about his methods are simply becoming aware that it is THEIR way of thinking that is becoming outdated. If he fails to do what I want him to do, I'll express concern. I will NOT however base my support for him on one or two issues alone. I don't care what methods he uses or whether they are unconventional. I voted for him to battle against the established order. To make the arrogant people that think they run this world take a step back and realize that I, too, have a voice. I could care less about him saying something that "makes people's feelings get hurt." The people that are outraged about trump right now in large part deserve what is coming to them. This includes people on the Internet and government figures alike, and yes, even China.
> 
> It's Trump's world now, gentlemen. YOU are merely living in it.


I get it...your man won. You, sir...are the epitome of what I'm talking about. For eight years, Obama had his sycophants and those who followed him to the ends of the earth. He could do no wrong. Now it's Trump's turn and the followers who for eight years shit on what Obama did (rightfully so in most cases) now forget all that and say, "How dare you question our leader! You need to get on board the Trump train and if not you hate America!"  Dissent is now unpatriotic again in your eyes. 

I have breaking news for you, Walter Cronkite. Where I see him do well, I will commend him. Where he does not, I'm screaming it from the mountaintops. Trying to mock me as crazy or otherwise will not shut me up. In fact...it will only make me cry out louder. Thomas Jefferson said that dissent is the highest form of patriotism and I will defend that all day long. 

Yes, this is Trump's world now...but it's of the Pottery Barn mantra Colin Powell used in regards to Iraq...You break it, you own it.


----------



## ShiningStar

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Kellyanne Conway and Pence either just need to change his twitter password when he isn't looking or build him a safe space and get him a new sippy cup.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



BruiserKC said:


> Trump is tweeting those who burn the flag should go to to jail and lose their citizenship. He wants SNL cancelled (although the show has sucked balls) because he doesn't like the parody being done of him. There is such a thing called the 1st Amendment that protects all this. He truly has a problem with people who criticize him and fights back. Fighting back is fine, but he's going to be doing a lot of this for the next four years and he's not going to silence all his critics that way. As I said, I want him to succeed but will not apologize for the concerns that I see.


Hillary was the one who helped propose that flag burning thing, I don't agree with it but it is funny to see Hilldawg supporters get upset about what Trump said about the flag burning. I honestly cannot tell if he is serious or just trolling sometimes just for laughs, he does seem to love to shit on the MSM. He does need to lay off getting upset, he's the President, he's going to be a target, Obama would have been shit on so much more if it wasn't "racist" to say anything about him. It's just the way it is, even genuinely good celebs get shit on. Just the price of power or fame.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



BruiserKC said:


> Trump is tweeting those who burn the flag should go to to jail and lose their citizenship. He wants SNL cancelled (although the show has sucked balls) because he doesn't like the parody being done of him. There is such a thing called the 1st Amendment that protects all this. He truly has a problem with people who criticize him and fights back. Fighting back is fine, but he's going to be doing a lot of this for the next four years and he's not going to silence all his critics that way. As I said, I want him to succeed but will not apologize for the concerns that I see.
> 
> 
> 
> I get it...your man won. You, sir...are the epitome of what I'm talking about. For eight years, Obama had his sycophants and those who followed him to the ends of the earth. He could do no wrong. Now it's Trump's turn and the followers who for eight years shit on what Obama did (rightfully so in most cases) now forget all that and say, "How dare you question our leader! You need to get on board the Trump train and if not you hate America!" Dissent is now unpatriotic again in your eyes.
> 
> I have breaking news for you, Walter Cronkite. Where I see him do well, I will commend him. Where he does not, I'm screaming it from the mountaintops. Trying to mock me as crazy or otherwise will not shut me up. In fact...it will only make me cry out louder. Thomas Jefferson said that dissent is the highest form of patriotism and I will defend that all day long.
> 
> Yes, this is Trump's world now...but it's of the Pottery Barn mantra Colin Powell used in regards to Iraq...You break it, you own it.


you clearly missed a big chunk of my post.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> I think Hillary's cabinet would be much, much worse. :laugh:


I don't think Hillary can top offering a role to someone associated with Amway. :draper2


----------



## amhlilhaus

Tater said:


> *Donald Trump?s White House Counsel Is Proud ?Architect? of America?s Corrupt Big Money Politics*
> 
> Don McGahn, soon to be Donald Trump?s White House counsel, bears as much responsibility as any single person for turning America?s campaign finance system into something akin to a gigantic, clogged septic tank.
> 
> From 2008 to 2013, McGahn was one of the six members of the Federal Election Commission, the government agency in charge of civil enforcement of campaign finance laws. While there, he led a GOP campaign that essentially ground enforcement of election laws to a halt.
> 
> ?I?ve always thought of McGahn?s appointment as an FEC commissioner as analogous to appointing an anarchist to be chief of police,? said Paul S. Ryan, vice president at Common Cause. ?He?s largely responsible for destroying the FEC as a functioning law enforcement agency, and seemingly takes great pride in this fact. McGahn has demonstrated a much stronger interest in expanding the money-in-politics swamp than draining it.?
> 
> Ellen Weintraub, a current FEC commissioner, overlapped with McGahn?s entire tenure. McGahn and his two fellow GOP appointees, she recalled, possessed a ?very strong ideological opposition to campaign finance laws in general.?
> 
> This ideology ? that essentially all limits on campaign contributions and spending are unconstitutional violations of the First Amendment ? was developed by a loose affiliation of conservative lawyers including McGahn, beginning in the late 1990s. It started bearing fruit a decade later with a series of court decisions, including the Citizens United ruling in 2010. McGahn?s page on his law firm?s website describes him as one of the ?architects of the campaign finance revolution.?
> 
> McGahn?s perspective manifested itself consistently at the FEC. Previously, when the agency received outside complaints alleging violations of the law, its general counsel?s office was responsible for conducting a preliminary examination of the issues and then making a recommendation to the commission members about the legal issues involved and whether to proceed with a full investigation.
> 
> McGahn was so extreme that he attempted to block the general counsel?s staff from reading news reports, using Google or looking at a campaign?s web site without prior authorization from a majority of the FEC commissioners. Had the measure passed, because the FEC has six members at full capacity and no more than three can be from one political party, Republicans would effectively have controlled what FEC lawyers were allowed to read.
> 
> McGahn also attempted to prevent the FEC?s staff from doing something it had done as a matter of course in the past: respond to requests for internal records from the Justice Department, which is responsible for criminal prosecution of campaign finance crimes, without formal approval from the commissioners. ?He just did not want us to have a more cooperative relationship with the Justice Department,? Weintraub said.
> 
> McGahn?s losing battle nevertheless led the agency?s general counsel at the time to resign in frustration.
> 
> Now, as Trump?s White House lawyer, McGahn will provide crucial advice on the nomination of judges, including to the Supreme Court. While Trump has criticized Citizens United, and called the Super PACs that sprang up in its wake ?horrible? and a ?total phony deal,? McGahn is a vociferous defender of the ruling.
> 
> Trump praised McGahn as possessing ?a deep understanding of constitutional law.?
> 
> A White House?s lawyer essentially serves as the president?s conscience, and is in charge of the ethics rules. ?I was hoping that the sea of conflicts of interest that surround Donald Trump and many of his appointees would convince Trump that he needs to pursue sweeping ethics reforms, especially for incoming administration officials,? said Craig Holman of Public Citizen. ?The selection of McGahn to be the chief ethics cop strongly suggests the new administration is likely to be scandal-ridden and eventually perceived by the public as business as usual.?
> 
> Ryan considers McGahn to be ?a very skilled lawyer who knows campaign finance and ethics laws like the back of his hand? and hence will give Trump accurate advice. Therefore, says Ryan, ?when President-elect Trump engages in any questionable ethics practices, we?ll know he?s doing so with full knowledge of ethics standards. President-elect Trump has no excuses.?
> 
> McGahn began his career at Squire Patton Boggs, a famed D.C. law firm and lobby shop. The late Tommy Boggs, one of its cheerfully mercenary name partners, said that the firm?s moral code was ?We pick our clients by taking the first one who comes in the door.?
> 
> In 1999, McGahn became chief counsel of the National Republican Congressional Committee, which coordinates campaigns for GOP members of the House of Representatives. While there he also represented House majority leader Tom DeLay of Texas in investigations into some of DeLay?s incredibly labyrinthian fundraising schemes.
> 
> One of these schemes led to DeLay being convicted of money laundering and sentenced to prison. (The conviction was later overturned.) But McGahn helped DeLay escape any consequences for another, in which the U.S. Family Network, a dark money nonprofit close to DeLay, received $1 million that DeLay?s former chief of staff told others came from Russian oil and gas executives. According to the president of U.S. Family Network, DeLay?s chief of staff said this money was specifically intended to buy his support for a 1998 International Monetary Fund bailout of the Russian economy. DeLay voted for the bill but later claimed the U.S. Family Network donation had nothing to do with it.
> 
> There?s no question that Americans loathe the way big money controls the U.S. political system. Many Trump supporters presumably believed they were voting to halt it in its tracks. Instead, all evidence suggests that Don McGahn will now be stomping on the accelerator.
> 
> SOURCE
> 
> 
> 
> This is going to be the most corrupt presidency of all time.
Click to expand...

Interesting.

Then i checked the source. Below this story is a long half baked defense of keith ellison, defending his anti semitism.

No mention of his ties to terrorists.

Ergo, the site has solid? reporting


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> Hillary was the one who helped propose that flag burning thing, I don't agree with it but it is funny to see Hilldawg supporters get upset about what Trump said about the flag burning. I honestly cannot tell if he is serious or just trolling sometimes just for laughs, he does seem to love to shit on the MSM. He does need to lay off getting upset, he's the President, he's going to be a target, Obama would have been shit on so much more if it wasn't "racist" to say anything about him. It's just the way it is, even genuinely good celebs get shit on. Just the price of power or fame.


If the day came that they made burning the flag illegal I will be standing in front of the fence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue with a Zippo lighter and at least three flags. And yes I know Hillary proposed it that is another reason why I despise her. 

All I ask for is consistency. If Obama was tweeting his concerns would you be more likely to applaud or condemn him? I am an ornery SOB but I am an ornery SOB on both sides of the aisle. I will watch and see but any criticism will be justified and not knee jerk. We probably agree more on issues than it seems really. Just don't expect me to go one hundred percent with him as it won't happen.



Beatles123 said:


> you clearly missed a big chunk of my post.


No I read the whole thing but the idea that I am crazy because I criticize the man you elected tells me you will disregard anything I say that questions Trump as just talking out of my ass is bullshit. I use critical thinking and never turn it off. You want to fawn go ahead but I will speak out when needed. I saw it clearly you just didn't like the response


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Trump tweeting about a skit making fun of his twitter use was hilarious.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



amhlilhaus said:


> Interesting.
> 
> Then i checked the source. Below this story is a long half baked defense of keith ellison, defending his anti semitism.
> 
> No mention of his ties to terrorists.
> 
> Ergo, the site has solid? reporting


Beat me to it :lol 
@BruiserKC - Yes, flag burning is a constitutional right. But interestingly as many people have brought it up recently it passed on a 5-4 vote in the supreme court so I would look at why there's strong disagreement instead of claiming that it's literally Nazi-ism to want to prevent flag burning.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> I think Hillary's cabinet would be much, much worse. :laugh:


The names might have been different but they were both picking from the same pool of bankers and hedge fund managers. There really wouldn't have been much difference between the two.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



> At the FEC, Democrats and groups advocating for tougher campaign-finance restrictions accused Mr. McGahn of​steering the agency into an era of gridlock. Mr. McGahn led a bloc of three Republicans who stymied efforts by advocacy groups aiming to reduce the influence of money in politics. Mr. McGahn argued it was a free-speech issue.
> 
> “You don’t pick the guy who broke the FEC if you want to drain the swamp in Washington,” said Adam Smith, referring to one of Mr. Trump’s campaign promises. Mr. Smith is a spokesman for Every Voice, which advocates reducing the influence of money in politics.
> 
> Other critics, including some former commissioners who served with him at the Federal Election Commission, have accused Mr. McGahn of weakening the agency’s ability to enforce election law.
> 
> ......
> 
> Some of Mr. McGahn’s acquaintances viewed him as an odd fit for Mr. Trump, who on the campaign trail often inveighed against special interests whose influence in politics Mr. McGahn has spent his career assisting.


http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-selectsdonald-mcgahnas-white-house-counsel-1480103558 

BUILD THE SWAMP!


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



BruiserKC said:


> Trump is tweeting those who burn the flag should go to to jail and lose their citizenship. He wants SNL cancelled (although the show has sucked balls) because he doesn't like the parody being done of him. There is such a thing called the 1st Amendment that protects all this. He truly has a problem with people who criticize him and fights back. Fighting back is fine, but he's going to be doing a lot of this for the next four years and he's not going to silence all his critics that way. As I said, I want him to succeed but will not apologize for the concerns that I see.


:lmao How the fuck is this comparable to HITLER? 

First of all, the flag burning stuff is typical right-wing base-appeasing bullshit rhetoric that will never turn into anything. Most conservatives I know are wildly up their own ass about that piece of colorful cloth. 

As for SNL...he did not demand or propose the show be cancelled as some government policy. To mention that in a serious conversation, ESPECIALLY when trying to defend comparing him to HITLER, is a new level of asinine for you. :lol You're just jumping to hysterical conclusions based on something as benign as a tweet criticizing a show that regularly criticizes him.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> I think Hillary's cabinet would be much, much worse. :laugh:


They would be the same but just Hillary would have been picking for the lobbyist from the " left" (which is more center right for true progressives). Hillary has always been a republican lite. . The difference is we knew Hillary would d that, Trump claimed he was against those type of people but its who he is filling his cabinet with. The reason why people said they voted for Trump is because they were against the very people Trump is hiring.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

The guy who thinks the pyramids were built as grain silos is going to be in charge of housing and urban development. You can't make this shit up. It's like a Monty Python skit. :lmao


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@DesolationRow @CamillePunk @Miss Sally

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/05/politics/kfile-stephen-moore-taiwan-call/


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I have to say I am cool with the Taiwan thing, it was one of the few issues that I really cared about and so far Trump has "flipped" on the issues that I was worried about and lined up more to my views 

I will admit that I am in the minority and I am a hardcore Pro-ROC Blue China supporter and I feel the US's betrayal of Blue China is its biggest mistake in the last 100 years


----------



## The RainMaker

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Just came to say. BUILD THAT FUCKING WALL.


----------



## MillionDollarProns

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

We're going to have an administration that actually stands up for Taiwan   



> "We gotta stand by Taiwan, we see what's happening in China the way they're sabre rattling out there in the East, it's about time we do what Reagan did, we stand up to these bullies, we say we're not gonna let you do this, and we're gonna stand with our allies," Moore said.


:cgmoan


----------



## ShiningStar

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The K3vin Ow3ns Show said:


> Just came to say. BUILD THAT FUCKING WALL.


Trump just gave a huge taxbreak to Carrier a company that is shipping several hundred jobs to and building a factory in Mexico. The Wall being built is as likely to happen as a Scarlett Johansson,Jennifer Lawrence,James Ellworth 3 way.


----------



## The RainMaker

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



ShiningStar said:


> Trump just gave a huge taxbreak to Carrier a company that is shipping several hundred jobs to and building a factory in Mexico. The Wall being built is as likely to happen as a Scarlett Johansson,Jennifer Lawrence,James Ellworth 3 way.


He can't save every fucking job. He isn't Jesus.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



ShiningStar said:


> Trump just gave a huge taxbreak to Carrier a company that is shipping several hundred jobs to and building a factory in Mexico.


Wow. So much deliberate narrative spinning in this that I'm dizzy now.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

On the wall topic, do people think there's a chance he'll actually deliver on the wall and getting Mexico to pay for it? (If the plan changed from that I'm not aware so please fill me in)

P.S. birthday_massacre, don't bother to respond to me I have you on ignore.


----------



## AlternateDemise

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

So, does anyone here have anything to say regarding Trump's environmental views? Because no matter what he does going forward, his views on climate change are a major red flag.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RavishingRickRules said:


> On the wall topic, do people think there's a chance he'll actually deliver on the wall and getting Mexico to pay for it? (If the plan changed from that I'm not aware so please fill me in)


Someone else pointed out better that there are better ways of getting someone to pay for something and that is via raising tariffs so it's an indirect method. 

Pretty sure it would be impossible for Trump to build the wall during his term anyways especially given his specs. That said, the kind of employment it would create is something we should concentrate on too  

It took 5 years to build the hoover dam and that was a much smaller undertaking. 

Personally, I don't think it's happening and I don't care it's happening. I didn't care for it when he announced it. However, I'm pretty sure he'll have a riot on his hands if he backtracks on it. What I expect to happen is that they'll develop a committee to plan the wall. Delay its findings till such point Americans forget about it and that's it. That's really what I expected to happen to it right from the start.



AlternateDemise said:


> So, does anyone here have anything to say regarding Trump's environmental views? Because no matter what he does going forward, his views on climate change are a major red flag.


Yeah. He's a climate change "denier" but at the same time you have to remember that global warming is a global problem and it doesn't impact America any more or less than everyone else. At the moment America's focus and federal spending is disproportionate to the rest of the world and it needs to be put back in other areas. Trump did say that he wants to put another man on the moon and the kind of technological innovation that could generate for America has a whole will have tremendous future benefits. He wants NASA to return to its original mission of exploring the heavens as Earth Sciences was never its mandate. NASA's hijacking by global warming alarmism needs a check because that was never what NASA was about and as Americans we need to recognize that. 

Even NASA is not as worried about his stance on Climate Change as some of the climate change "alarmists" are because they believe that a return to more traditional space program spending is more beneficial towards their goals and innovation. Climate science funding has stunted real technological development at NASA and other Science-based industries for years becoming an industry all its own which isn't as productive and it's about time federal funding is diverted back to real innovation instead of pseudo-science.

Oh yah .. and the one thing these global warming people aren't telling you is that he wants to build a base on the moon :banderas 

This would really put us into the real space age :banderas


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Someone else pointed out better that there are better ways of getting someone to pay for something and that is via raising tariffs so it's an indirect method.
> 
> Pretty sure it would be impossible for Trump to build the wall during his term anyways especially given his specs. That said, the kind of employment it would create is something we should concentrate on too
> 
> It took 5 years to build the hoover dam and that was a much smaller undertaking.
> 
> Personally, I don't think it's happening and I don't care it's happening. I didn't care for it when he announced it. However, I'm pretty sure he'll have a riot on his hands if he backtracks on it. What I expect to happen is that they'll develop a committee to plan the wall. Delay its findings till such point Americans forget about it and that's it. That's really what I expected to happen to it right from the start.


Sounds very plausible to me, especially the notion of wrapping it up in bureaucracy and red tape; sounds like a politician move. I must admit I found the notion a bit far fetched when he first said it. Do you think he'd be able to deliver a half-way measure of sorts to avoid the riots? (I'm thinking along the lines of variances in the wall where areas of high-risk get a big imposing wall and the lower risk and more remote areas get fencing & barbed wire etc.) Though I'm not sold on the idea in general, once a politician is elected I always try and look at things realistically, so if I was an American judging the performance of the President I think I'd likely be more inclined to accept a wall/fence hybrid than no wall at all I guess.


----------



## AlternateDemise

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Carl I'm having a pretty difficult time understanding your logic here, so I'm gonna break down your post...



Carte Blanche said:


> Yeah. He's a climate change "denier" but at the same time you have to remember that global warming is a global problem and it doesn't impact America any more or less than everyone else.


But America does impact the climate more than anyone else especially if Trump goes the route he's choosing to go. I don't see how that's a valid point.



Carte Blanche said:


> At the moment America's focus and federal spending is disproportionate to the rest of the world and it needs to be put back in other areas. Trump did say that he wants to put another man on the moon and the kind of technological innovation that could generate for America has a whole will have tremendous future benefits. He wants NASA to return to its original mission of exploring the heavens as Earth Sciences was never its mandate. NASA's hijacking by global warming alarmism needs a check because that was never what NASA was about and as Americans we need to recognize that.


We need to recognize that exploring space is more important than treating the planet we live on well and making sure we capable of living on it as long as possible? How exactly does this benefit us again?



Carte Blanche said:


> Even NASA is not as worried about his stance on Climate Change as some of the climate change "alarmists" are because they believe that a return to more traditional space program spending is more beneficial towards their goals and innovation.


Of course they're going to think this. You think they're going to give two shits about the very thing that is stopping their production? 



Carte Blanche said:


> Climate science funding has stunted real technological development at NASA and other Science-based industries for years becoming an industry all its own which isn't as productive and it's about time federal funding is diverted back to real innovation instead of pseudo-science.


Again, how is being productive more important than protecting the planet we live on?


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> :lmao How the fuck is this comparable to HITLER?
> 
> First of all, the flag burning stuff is typical right-wing base-appeasing bullshit rhetoric that will never turn into anything. Most conservatives I know are wildly up their own ass about that piece of colorful cloth.
> 
> As for SNL...he did not demand or propose the show be cancelled as some government policy. To mention that in a serious conversation, ESPECIALLY when trying to defend comparing him to HITLER, is a new level of asinine for you. :lol You're just jumping to hysterical conclusions based on something as benign as a tweet criticizing a show that regularly criticizes him.


First of all, I said I hope he doesn't become the next Hitler...HUGE difference between that and actually calling him Hitler. Remember...I'm not some liberal snowflake that needs a safe space and his blanket. 

You have the President saying we need to cancel a TV show that is making parody of him. This is actually nothing new...LBJ and Nixon did this back in the '60s as they pushed for the cancellation of the Smothers Brothers. They used their weight...especially Nixon, to get a popular show cancelled. With Trump throwing a fit and tweeting like crazy that SNL is not funny and that they are ruthless towards him, it wouldn't be that far of a stretch to take that power when he does take the oath to actually put pressure on NBC to shut the show down...considering the fact he has had inroads with that network for many years it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility.

The truth is Donald Trump hates criticism. He hates being criticized, be it fairly or not. He's going to get a lot of criticism over the next four years, some of it justified and some of it is not. If he is going to throw a fit about a TV show, what happens when a foreign leader says something he doesn't agree with? I have no objection to his responding to what people say, but he needs to do it in a way that makes him look like a leader.

Meanwhile...are people like you going to take every little bit of criticism of Trump as life and death? Am I unpatriotic for questioning his policies? There are people out there who are insane...they truly believe anyone who dares to question him should be shut down. Mildly ironic considering these folks blasted Obama non-stop for 8 years and said they had the right to do it.


----------



## amhlilhaus

AlternateDemise said:


> Carl I'm having a pretty difficult time understanding your logic here, so I'm gonna break down your post...
> 
> 
> 
> Carte Blanche said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. He's a climate change "denier" but at the same time you have to remember that global warming is a global problem and it doesn't impact America any more or less than everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> But America does impact the climate more than anyone else especially if Trump goes the route he's choosing to go. I don't see how that's a valid point.
> 
> 
> 
> Carte Blanche said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the moment America's focus and federal spending is disproportionate to the rest of the world and it needs to be put back in other areas. Trump did say that he wants to put another man on the moon and the kind of technological innovation that could generate for America has a whole will have tremendous future benefits. He wants NASA to return to its original mission of exploring the heavens as Earth Sciences was never its mandate. NASA's hijacking by global warming alarmism needs a check because that was never what NASA was about and as Americans we need to recognize that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We need to recognize that exploring space is more important than treating the planet we live on well and making sure we capable of living on it as long as possible? How exactly does this benefit us again?
> 
> 
> 
> Carte Blanche said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even NASA is not as worried about his stance on Climate Change as some of the climate change "alarmists" are because they believe that a return to more traditional space program spending is more beneficial towards their goals and innovation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course they're going to think this. You think they're going to give two shits about the very thing that is stopping their production?
> 
> 
> 
> Carte Blanche said:
> 
> 
> 
> Climate science funding has stunted real technological development at NASA and other Science-based industries for years becoming an industry all its own which isn't as productive and it's about time federal funding is diverted back to real innovation instead of pseudo-science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, how is being productive more important than protecting the planet we live on?
Click to expand...

India and china pollute more


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



AlternateDemise said:


> Carl I'm having a pretty difficult time understanding your logic here, so I'm gonna break down your post...


There wasn't anything illogical in my post. What you experienced is what I believe to be cognitive dissonance. I could get into a lot of details, but generally I've noticed that people are closed to any criticism of climate "science" and the claims of climate scientists. 



> But America does impact the climate more than anyone else especially if Trump goes the route he's choosing to go. I don't see how that's a valid point.


That's not true at all ... and considering that you posted this without confirming makes me vary of continuing this debate even more.

FYO, China, EU and India combine for 3 times as much carbon emissions into the atmosphere and the USA. And there are 10 countries that have a higher per capita carbon footprint than the USA. Most of those countries do absolutely nothing to prevent it nor give a shit about it. 



> We need to recognize that exploring space is more important than treating the planet we live on well and making sure we capable of living on it as long as possible? How exactly does this benefit us again?


I already mentioned it in my post. You didn't read it. 



> Of course they're going to think this. You think they're going to give two shits about the very thing that is stopping their production?


Good - as they should. 



> Again, how is being productive more important than protecting the planet we live on?


Maybe this might be news for you, but global climate change isn't killing the planet and neither are we. In fact, the world isn't dying at all.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I almost feel sorry for you poor Trumpist sods. Trump IS the swamp. How many more appointments of establishment figureheads and backflips will it take before you realise that.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Hilarious how a year of conservative media changed someone who claim to care about the environment into a climate change denier.


----------



## amhlilhaus

Climate change is happening.

Last week scientists determined that the artic sea ice was the same as a hundred years ago.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Its going to be hard to make any large climate change without Russia, China or India signing on

Anytime a global environmental policy is proposed Russia ignores it because "its Western corruption", India ignores it because its "anti-developing countries" with most developing nations following suit and China just doesn't care (you can still dump toxic chemical run off legally in rivers there) 

Outside of the US, Canada and western Europe most places just don't give a fuck about environmental regulations at best and at worst see it as a tool to hold them back

In South America not clear cutting and only cutting down most trees is "progressive"


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



BruiserKC said:


> First of all, I said I hope he doesn't become the next Hitler...HUGE difference between that and actually calling him Hitler. Remember...I'm not some liberal snowflake that needs a safe space and his blanket.


Well I for one am just hoping that you don't become the next Hitler. 

Don't expect me to justify making that statement, it's not like I actually called you Hitler, so it's fine. 



> You have the President saying we need to cancel a TV show that is making parody of him.


Pants on fire. He never said "we" need to do anything. "Time to retire the show" is like me saying "Big Bang Theory is 5 years past it's expiration date and no longer funny. Time to retire the show." I'm not advocating the government intervene with CBS's programming decisions. I'm just expressing my opinion that the show is no longer good. 

If you want to say Trump can't express an opinion about a TV show because he was running for/is going to be president otherwise hysterical conclusion-jumpers are going to light themselves on fire screaming censorship, then that seems quite absurd to me. People like that (and you are being one of those people right now) are not worth taking seriously because they are not serious people. 



> The truth is Donald Trump hates criticism. He hates being criticized, be it fairly or not. He's going to get a lot of criticism over the next four years, some of it justified and some of it is not. If he is going to throw a fit about a TV show, what happens when a foreign leader says something he doesn't agree with? I have no objection to his responding to what people say, but he needs to do it in a way that makes him look like a leader.


Calling making a tweet "throwing a fit" is hyperbole. Firing back at a TV show seems far more acceptable and realistic than firing back at a foreign leader who said mean things so the logic there doesn't really follow. So far he's met with and spoken to several foreign leaders and there have been no issues. Until there is one I don't consider this line of discussion worthwhile. 



> Meanwhile...are people like you going to take every little bit of criticism of Trump as life and death? Am I unpatriotic for questioning his policies? There are people out there who are insane...they truly believe anyone who dares to question him should be shut down. Mildly ironic considering these folks blasted Obama non-stop for 8 years and said they had the right to do it.


Every other post in this thread is a Trump criticism and I rarely respond to posts in here as I've tuned out most of the posters. I still read your posts because when it comes to non-Trump issues you're usually level-headed and insightful. I don't know what it is about Trump that makes you so hysterical. Perhaps you just have set-in-stone ways of how a president is supposed to act. I've never had a president I've respected (between the sexual predator/warmonger, the next-level warmonger, and the other warmonger/next-level voyeur), so it's not an issue for me.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



BruiserKC said:


> If the day came that they made burning the flag illegal I will be standing in front of the fence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue with a Zippo lighter and at least three flags. And yes I know Hillary proposed it that is another reason why I despise her.
> 
> All I ask for is consistency. If Obama was tweeting his concerns would you be more likely to applaud or condemn him? I am an ornery SOB but I am an ornery SOB on both sides of the aisle. I will watch and see but any criticism will be justified and not knee jerk. We probably agree more on issues than it seems really. Just don't expect me to go one hundred percent with him as it won't happen.
> 
> 
> 
> No I read the whole thing but the idea that I am crazy because I criticize the man you elected tells me you will disregard anything I say that questions Trump as just talking out of my ass is bullshit. I use critical thinking and never turn it off. You want to fawn go ahead but I will speak out when needed. I saw it clearly you just didn't like the response


again, your response seems to indicate you missed a lot of what i said.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RavishingRickRules said:


> On the wall topic, do people think there's a chance he'll actually deliver on the wall and getting Mexico to pay for it? (If the plan changed from that I'm not aware so please fill me in)
> 
> P.S. birthday_massacre, don't bother to respond to me I have you on ignore.


I think what he'll do is rebuild the wall along sensitive parts of the border and along border cities, it really needs it as cartel violence is escalating and has been spilling over into the US for a while now. It's been ignored by the MSM because 1) It hurts the lovey dovey narrative that everything is fine and 2) Don't want to lose those future voters or cheap labor. If people actually knew about the violence, the drug running, sex slaves and how the cartels are attacking US citizens and making plays for territory in the US, people would demand the National Guard be deployed there. 

I don't think a full wall is needed, just a wall along the easiest spots to get in, more monitoring open areas as now you can funnel drug runners and imposing taxes and fines on employers who use illegal workers. If there is no jobs for them here, most won't cross over.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> I think what he'll do is rebuild the wall along sensitive parts of the border and along border cities, it really needs it as cartel violence is escalating and has been spilling over into the US for a while now. It's been ignored by the MSM because 1) It hurts the lovey dovey narrative that everything is fine and 2) Don't want to lose those future voters or cheap labor. If people actually knew about the violence, the drug running, sex slaves and how the cartels are attacking US citizens and making plays for territory in the US, people would demand the National Guard be deployed there.
> 
> I don't think a full wall is needed, just a wall along the easiest spots to get in, more monitoring open areas as now you can funnel drug runners and imposing taxes and fines on employers who use illegal workers. If there is no jobs for them here, most won't cross over.


Wow they don't fine employers already for illegal workers? That's crazy. Here if someone is found to be working illegally the employer faces pretty harsh fines and the workers get deported ASAP. I don't know how it is there but here you can't claim benefits, can't work legally, can't get healthcare or pretty much anything that'd alert the authorities to the fact that you're an illegal or it's "see ya later." (contrary to propaganda) Most illegals here who get work tend to work and live in pretty shocking conditions and are brought over for the purpose but when they're actually found out there's no pussy footing around, the employers get held accountable and the workers get shipped off. 

Regarding the cartels I'm actually very clued up on them for a European, I have very close personal friends in Mexico so I know just how ruthless they can be. I actually said in a later post than the one you quoted that if I was American I'd consider it a fair way to deliver on the promise to have actual walls in the high risk areas and more of a fence/barbed wire situation in the low risk areas which I'm sure would cut the costs and timescale by a significant margin, I just wasn't sure whether that was a common sentiment or if it was "wall or nothing."


----------



## Neuron

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> Calling making a tweet "throwing a fit" is hyperbole. Firing back at a TV show seems far more acceptable and realistic than firing back at a foreign leader who said mean things so the logic there doesn't really follow. So far he's met with and spoken to several foreign leaders and there have been no issues. Until there is one I don't consider this line of discussion worthwhile.


I'm _literally shaking_ with awe that posting a message or two in 140 characters or less on the internet can be classified as "throwing a fit" by anyone. Also lol at SNL's ratings being absolute shite compared to their glory days.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Texas elector says he will not cast his vote for Donald Trump

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/05/politics/christopher-suprun-texas-elector-donald-trump/index.html


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@DesolationRow @Carte Blanche @Pratchett @AryaDark @Sincere @L-DOPA @Fringe @Miss Sally @virus21 @Goku @Beatles123 @MillionDollarProns @Lumpy McRighteous

Joe Biden announces intention to be next Democratic presidential nomine to lose to Donald Trump in an electoral college landslide in 2020:

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/308895-biden-raises-possibility-of-2020-presidential-bid

Quick! Someone find some head-to-head data 4 years out that shows Biden way up. :mj 

Speaking of, whatever happened to asdf? :mj Did he ever check back in after Trump won?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> @DesolationRow @Carte Blanche @Pratchett @AryaDark @Sincere @L-DOPA @Fringe @Miss Sally @virus21 @Goku @Beatles123 @MillionDollarProns @Lumpy McRighteous
> 
> Joe Biden announces intention to be next Democratic presidential nomine to lose to Donald Trump in an electoral college landslide in 2020:
> 
> http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/308895-biden-raises-possibility-of-2020-presidential-bid
> 
> Quick! Someone find some head-to-head data 4 years out that shows Biden way up. :mj
> 
> Speaking of, whatever happened to asdf? :mj Did he ever check back in after Trump won?


If the DNC runs Biden you are right, Trump will destroy him.

If they wont run Warren in 2020 then the DNC has no hope.

Biden and Booker will both get crushed by Trump.


----------



## MillionDollarProns

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Biden to be the Lesnar to Trumpberg


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

*Surely the Dems aren't dumb enough to run Biden... and by "run" I mean fix it so he gets the nomination.*


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> @DesolationRow @Carte Blanche @Pratchett @AryaDark @Sincere @L-DOPA @Fringe @Miss Sally @virus21 @Goku @Beatles123 @MillionDollarProns @Lumpy McRighteous
> 
> Joe Biden announces intention to be next Democratic presidential nomine to lose to Donald Trump in an electoral college landslide in 2020:
> 
> http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/308895-biden-raises-possibility-of-2020-presidential-bid
> 
> Quick! Someone find some head-to-head data 4 years out that shows Biden way up. :mj
> 
> Speaking of, whatever happened to asdf? :mj Did he ever check back in after Trump won?


I was looking for him too, he was here bashing everyone's opposing data and opinion with his "facts" but vanished after that landslide victory. He should turn in his degree for a refund from his school. > jk!

Lol @ EC fuckery. Good grief hardcore Republicans and Democrats are annoying, so much annoymosity and unwillingness to work with each other or whom was elected. They just care about themselves, they must have that issue celebrity talking heads have and won't do anything that doesn't benefit them.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> I was looking for him too, he was here bashing everyone's opposing data and opinion with his "facts" but vanished after that landslide victory. He should turn in his degree for a refund from his school. > jk!


He fell victim to the system of indoctrination that teaches people in his profession that expert opinion and general consensus amongst experts matters more than the iconoclast that is merely labeled a "contrarian". He's not the only one ... we have 3 generations of ideological conformists that simply cannot break away from the comfort of being told what to think and not how to think.



Miss Sally said:


> Lol @ EC fuckery. Good grief hardcore Republicans and Democrats are annoying, so much annoymosity and unwillingness to work with each other or whom was elected. They just care about themselves, they must have that issue celebrity talking heads have and won't do anything that doesn't benefit them.


I wouldn't be concerned. Before the elections it was something like 6 or 7 faithless electors on the democratic side that had already come out against Hillary. If there's too much switching, they'll end up having to confirm the unconfirmed states (because Trump actually won 306 - 232 meaning that there would have to be 37 faithless electors). 

I do find it amusing though that the same people who were calling for the abolishment of the EC just a few hours ago are now suddenly in favor of it because now they're bating furiously at the thought of a mutiny in the EC. :lol


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> If the DNC runs Biden you are right, Trump will destroy him.
> 
> If they wont run Warren in 2020 then the DNC has no hope.
> 
> Biden and Booker will both get crushed by Trump.


I'd definitely back Warren over Biden but I don't know that Biden would be smashed in a conceivable election, though I suspect he'll feel much older 4 years from now than he does today and I'll certainly be surprised if he actually runs.

Also I think it's a mistake to assume Trump will be the Republican Nominee, my understanding is it is open for someone to challenge him and force a Primary even though he is the Pres, and if he ends up in a fight with the mainstream of the GOP for the next 4 years I can totally see that happening.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Warren beating Trump. :lol 

Trump getting primary'd. :lol 

You guys still don't get it. :trump


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Pocahontas won't beat Trump, she's still going on about white supremacy and the white voters etc. That's the same shit that didn't help the Democrats in the first place, if they keep going on like this with no facts and smear tactics they'll lose again. Also still might lose voters if they get deported!  

If the Democrats want to win they better start making actual changes and stop with the buzzwords and nonsense that didn't work out before. People aren't falling for the trickery of repeating lies so much that people will think it's true, like they once did.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> Pocahontas won't beat Trump, she's still going on about white supremacy and the white voters etc. That's the same shit that didn't help the Democrats in the first place, if they keep going on like this with no facts and smear tactics they'll lose again. Also still might lose voters if they get deported!
> 
> If the Democrats want to win they better start making actual changes and stop with the buzzwords and nonsense that didn't work out before. People aren't falling for the trickery of repeating lies so much that people will think it's true, like they once did.


All good points but that's not why she would stand no chance. She's demonstrated no persuasion skills whatsoever and doesn't have the name value or political connections of a Clinton to shore up her weaknesses. Meanwhile Trump is a Master Persuader and 4 years from now we'll already have had 4 years of president Trump and none of the left's hysterical fear-mongering would have come true. What are they gonna do then? Go after him on policies? :lol Jesus, like anyone cares about that. It would be a slaughter, and I doubt she could win the nomination even if it weren't rigged. 

The idea Trump could be primary'd is more ridiculous though. Besides the fact an incumbent president has never been primary'd, Trump delivered the GOP its biggest win in over 30 years. Several of his most vocal critics in the party have already come groveling to Trump Tower. It's his party now. They'll have to kill him if they want it back.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@DesolationRow @Carte Blanche @Pratchett @AryaDark @Sincere @L-DOPA @Fringe @Miss Sally @virus21 @Goku @Beatles123 @MillionDollarProns @Lumpy McRighteous

An article on USA Today about how Trump is walking in FDR's footsteps (another rich New Yorker born into real estate wealth :mj Our reality is probably scripted, folks), and how the "technocratic progressive mind" is finding itself streets behind The Donald:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...jobs-trump-rust-belt-glenn-reynolds/94958408/

In before Trump persuades Congress to impose term limits on themselves only to get term limits for presidents repealed. :banderas


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> The idea Trump could be primary'd is more ridiculous though. Besides the fact an incumbent president has never been primary'd, Trump delivered the GOP its biggest win in over 30 years. Several of his most vocal critics in the party have already come groveling to Trump Tower. It's his party now. They'll have to kill him if they want it back.


I'll give you it's looking unlikely at this point, but it's definitely a possibility, incumbent presidents have faced primary challenges before, hell Reagan challenged and nearly beat the incumbent President Ford in 1976 for a prominent example.

People are grovelling towards him right now, but give it 6 months to a year after he's in power and lets take a look at how things are looking then. 

Basically the better he gets on with the GOP House the less likely it is to happen, but yeah, totally within the realm of possibility. Also don't forget fewer people voted for him than voted for McCain or Romney, he did well because of a terrible opposing candidate, history being on his side in terms of dems v republicans switching power every 8 years and playing the electoral college game very well.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I have not yet read that article, @CamillePunk but thank you for the mentions. 

Since it is not yet January 20th, 2017, I cannot ascertain what Donald Trump's presidency will entail as it progresses along, but I have been meaning to bring the point up that for all of the gnashing of teeth here in this thread and elsewhere over Trump's statements about draining the swamp and yet packing many insiders may recall Franklin D. Roosevelt's answer to the question of appointing Joseph Kennedy to the head of the SEC, that being, why appoint such a well-known and obvious crook to such a position? "Takes one to catch one," FDR reportedly said. 

The parallels between Trump and FDR seem fairly obvious. 

Of course, I'm not going to suggest that Trump is keeping such a thought in mind as he approaches the White House, or that his administration will be markedly different from past ones, including Obama's which has been anything but the exemplar of transparency that the 44th president declared it would be on his way to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. I bring it up merely to entertain the possibility and keep an open mind.

As for the role of White House Counsel, it's a job made for a shark, for a goon who knows where certain bodies are buried. 

Another position created under FDR. :lol


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@DesolationRow @Carte Blanche @Pratchett @AryaDark @Sincere @L-DOPA @Fringe @Miss Sally @virus21 @Goku @Beatles123 @MillionDollarProns @Lumpy McRighteous @CamillePunk @BruiserKC

How are you, Gentleman?

I've summoned you all here because unlike the rest of the poor schmucks in this topic, most of you seem to actually understand and appreciate my sense of humor. Further, you know what a joy it is to see the lefties and neocons in the media lose their collective shit. So, I've arranged a special treat guaranteed to bring you all a chuckle or two! I didn't make it myself, but if you would, allow me to be the vessel through which the creator's genius flows. :trump

May I proudly present....

*NATE SILVER: THE COMPLETE SAGA (NEW UPDATED DIRECTOR'S CUT EDITION)*

Enjoy, lads. :trump3 (click to enlarge)


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

^ Lol you didn't make it yourself you say? What a shock since you haven't made anything yourself in this thread apart from a few pathetic 'poor me' posts when you get exposed as the coat-tail rider you are.

I feel sorry for you, I really do. When Trump sells you out you'll be like those tragic wounded soldiers coming back from war with PTSD, finally realising all their patriotic grandstanding meant nothing.


----------



## amhlilhaus

CamillePunk said:


> Warren beating Trump.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump getting primary'd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You guys still don't get it.



They dont. Trumps reelection is simple, and all on him.

If he builds a fence, tries like hell to revive the economy and lowers taxes, hes back in in 2020 no matter WHO the dems win. 

Say he gets 4% growth, inching towards 5, and hes cut taxes while doing it. What could dems run on?

Tax cuts dont work, or we can do it better? 

The public isnt so easily fooled. The best thing for democrats is to veer back towards the middle and groom new leaders for 2020 or 24. 

Then i see who they reelected as leaders and thats not happening


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> Well I for one am just hoping that you don't become the next Hitler.
> 
> Don't expect me to justify making that statement, it's not like I actually called you Hitler, so it's fine.
> 
> Pants on fire. He never said "we" need to do anything. "Time to retire the show" is like me saying "Big Bang Theory is 5 years past it's expiration date and no longer funny. Time to retire the show." I'm not advocating the government intervene with CBS's programming decisions. I'm just expressing my opinion that the show is no longer good.
> 
> If you want to say Trump can't express an opinion about a TV show because he was running for/is going to be president otherwise hysterical conclusion-jumpers are going to light themselves on fire screaming censorship, then that seems quite absurd to me. People like that (and you are being one of those people right now) are not worth taking seriously because they are not serious people.
> 
> Calling making a tweet "throwing a fit" is hyperbole. Firing back at a TV show seems far more acceptable and realistic than firing back at a foreign leader who said mean things so the logic there doesn't really follow. So far he's met with and spoken to several foreign leaders and there have been no issues. Until there is one I don't consider this line of discussion worthwhile.
> 
> Every other post in this thread is a Trump criticism and I rarely respond to posts in here as I've tuned out most of the posters. I still read your posts because when it comes to non-Trump issues you're usually level-headed and insightful. I don't know what it is about Trump that makes you so hysterical. Perhaps you just have set-in-stone ways of how a president is supposed to act. I've never had a president I've respected (between the sexual predator/warmonger, the next-level warmonger, and the other warmonger/next-level voyeur), so it's not an issue for me.


I am still insightful and thoughtful because the question is still how will he deal with the day to day criticism of the office. I expect my leadership to seem like they have a level head. He can have a response I never said he couldn't. However he can do it in a way that shows strength and not going off the handle. Perception is reality after all. 

Where I am going with this is don't be so wrapped up in what people say that the slightest bit of criticism is met with scorn. For eight years we saw this with the Obama sycophants. I want things to turn around and actually want him to succeed. Just keep an open eye and mind to criticism of our next President. I don't blow smoke up anyones ass.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> ^ Lol you didn't make it yourself you say? What a shock since you haven't made anything yourself in this thread apart from a few pathetic 'poor me' posts when you get exposed as the coat-tail rider you are.
> 
> I feel sorry for you, I really do. When Trump sells you out you'll be like those tragic wounded soldiers coming back from war with PTSD, finally realising all their patriotic grandstanding meant nothing.


Me, exposed? Woah there, Tie your kangaroo down, sport! :trump2

Weren't you the one calling us "Sods" earlier? Well, I may be a sod, but you've got the salt. 0


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> Speaking of, whatever happened to asdf? :mj Did he ever check back in after Trump won?


Basically as i said, my interest was merely from a statistical point. So now that the elction is over i don't have reason to keep posting in this thread. It's pretty interesting to know why things went wrong in predictions but that's divergent from the actual interest here so i don't see why to talk about that

Being totally honest i would love to participate in political discussion, but majority of the exchanges here are at best childish and most people are dishonest at discussion. Is a thing of looking at the last 10 pages

I keep reading, as this post shows, because is fun but hardly more than that




Miss Sally said:


> I was looking for him too, he was here bashing everyone's opposing data and opinion with his "facts" but vanished after that landslide victory. He should turn in his degree for a refund from his school. > jk!


I always said that the data could be wrong. I don't have many issues with that, there is a reason why no IC reach 100%. Data could be wrong because it could be omitting certain facts, what some people here did was distort data which is different

Also, i would hardly call a 70 EV difference a landslide



Carte Blanche said:


> He fell victim to the system of indoctrination that teaches people in his profession that expert opinion and general consensus amongst experts matters more than the iconoclast that is merely labeled a "contrarian". He's not the only one ... we have 3 generations of ideological conformists that simply cannot break away from the comfort of being told what to think and not how to think.


:lmao


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



asdf0501 said:


> Also, i would hardly call a 70 EV difference a landslide
> 
> :lmao


And yet when you were predicting a Hillary win with 300 electoral votes, at that time for you it was a landslide. 

At least be consistent.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



asdf0501 said:


> Basically as i said, my interest was merely from a statistical point. So now that the elction is over i don't have reason to keep posting in this thread. It's pretty interesting to know why things went wrong in predictions but that's divergent from the actual interest here so i don't see why to talk about that
> 
> Being totally honest i would love to participate in political discussion, but majority of the exchanges here are at best childish and most people are dishonest at discussion. Is a thing of looking at the last 10 pages
> 
> I keep reading, as this post shows, because is fun but hardly more than that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I always said that the data could be wrong. I don't have many issues with that, there is a reason why no IC reach 100%. Data could be wrong because it could be omitting certain facts, what some people here did was distort data which is different
> 
> Also, i would hardly call a 70 EV difference a landslide
> 
> 
> 
> :lmao


What about winning the house, senate, and presidency, dooming the democrat establishment for the foreseeable future? or perhaps the fact that due to his win other countries are starting to rise up and battle their globalist EU slavemasters? :trump


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> And yet when you were predicting a Hillary win with 300 electoral votes, at that time for you it was a landslide.
> 
> At least be consistent.


Becuase my prediction had a difference of 100 EV, champ


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



asdf0501 said:


> Becuase my prediction had a difference of 100 EV, champ


So arbitrary. I didn't think statisticians would be this subjective :heston


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



asdf0501 said:


> Becuase my prediction had a difference of 100 EV, champ


>30 votes.

WEW.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> So arbitrary. I didn't think statisticians would be this subjective :heston


there is a consensus in the fact that no candidate is going to win in current setting for a margin of 200 EV, geographic distribution and polarization don't alow results like that anymore, even Obama getting Indiana in 2008 only reached like a diference of 170 or something like that. Look at Clinton win in 92 for example, the one who setted the new electoral college distribution.

Under that scenary a 100 EV is a good standard for a landslide. Which is normally what a a candidate would get if he win the big majority of the swing states.

But whatever, you could give your next snark comment.



Beatles123 said:


> What about winning the house, senate, and presidency, dooming the democrat establishment for the foreseeable future? or perhaps the fact that due to his win other countries are starting to rise up and battle their globalist EU slavemasters? :trump


The house never was in risk, even if the candidate was Santorum or Graham, for starters.

There are certain facts people forget when discussing this issue anyways, Trump got less votes than Romney. The problem is Hillary underperformed Obama in Key states, and senate races are heavily correlated with presidential turnout.

I also think this follow a natural route, the result of a Trump presidency is Democrats likely going even further left which it was already a tendency and a possible explanation of Hillary underperforming. So i don't see how in reality the democrat stablishment is "doomed", that depend a lot in the dinamic and results created by the Trump administration and the narrative that mute from the other side, a further left democratic caucus could for example, easily, co-opt the populist Trump rhetoric if he underperfom (like Carter for example) and retake the rust belt.

The last question is bollocks, sorry, Trump is a symptom of an already global turn to the right. France and the UK are primary examples of this. Also "Globalist" is such a shitty term, 30 years ago a "Globalist" was a Reagan conservative for christ sake


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

good to see this thread still draws :trump

also agreed with @CamillePunk that Trump has somehow shattered reality. It's just taking an awfully long time for devotees of the old ways to come to terms.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

While the self-proclaimed elites talk about numbers and that they are "meaningless", here's something very real and interesting I picked up from one of the articles I've read about the Carrier deal:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...l-jobs-manufacturing-kirsten-powers/94999516/



> On CNN Sunday, _Washington Examiner _reporter Salena Zito discussed the time she spent with Carrier employees to get their feedback on the Trump deal. While none of the employees she spoke to voted for the Manhattan billionaire, “What was remarkable to them is they thought someone finally sees them and hears them and puts value on their work,” said Zito. “And they felt dignity in that, and dignity in their work. That was really important to them. ... They respected what [Trump] did and they respected that they were a symbol of the working class. They are making a decent living, giving them the ability to send their kids to college, to own a home. ... [They felt] that someone saw them for the first time. “
> Robin Maynard, a Carrier employee for 24 years, told CNN in another interview, “I feel like [Trump is] looking out for the blue collar workers. ... I feel like he’s looking out for us little guys down here and wants to protect the jobs and keep them here in America.”


A country is built by its people, not its government. If a President despite all his flaws can find ways to energize workers and make them feel pride in their work and existence .. basically forge a personal connection with them, even if it's merely a perception, he's done a good job. 

Obama did manage to do that too. I think a lot of success came out of his Presidency mixed in with the bad. But as far as Hillary and other current democrat elites are concerned, they have no clue who the majority of Americans are anymore. The Republicans didn't either, but I think that Trump will despite his unpopularity keep finding ways to connect with middle class Americans and at this point that's something people shouldn't overlook 4 years from now because it's going to be the difference maker.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> I think Hillary's cabinet would be much, much worse. :laugh:


Like I keep saying, Trump, who ran an anti-establishment campaign and won because the USA is fed up with the Establishment, is going to be the most Establishment president of all time. Now he is literally hiring the same people from Hillary's camp to work for him.








> *Hillary Clinton’s “Corrupt Establishment” Is Now Advising Donald Trump*
> 
> “The establishment,” Donald Trump famously said during his closing argument for the presidency, “has trillions of dollars at stake in this election.”
> 
> He described “a global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations and political entities.”
> 
> He asked the country to be “brave enough to vote out this corrupt establishment.”
> 
> Now, less than four weeks after riding that line to victory, he formally invited the establishment into his administration.
> 
> On Friday, Trump announced the creation of a “Strategic and Policy Forum” that will serve to advise him on domestic economic matters. The list of advisers is a who’s-who of corporate elites.
> 
> He’s not the only one making a major turnaround; many of them had previously and enthusiastically supported his Democratic opponent.
> 
> The chairman of the forum is Stephen Schwarzman, the CEO of the Blackstone Group, a private equity and investment banking giant. Blackstone blasted out the release highlighting the creation of the forum this morning on its own website, saying that it is “composed of some of America’s most highly respected and successful business leaders,” who “will be called upon to meet with the President frequently to share their specific experience and knowledge as the President implements his plan to bring back jobs and Make America Great Again.”
> 
> Although Schwarzman is a Republican, his company — like so much of Wall Street — spent much of the campaign getting close to Hillary Clinton. Blackstone’s Chief Operating Officer Hamilton “Tony” James hosted a fundraiser for Clinton in December 2015 that featured, among others, Democratic-aligned billionaire Warren Buffet. More than a dozen executives at the firm gave tens of thousands of dollars to Clinton’s campaign. The firm held an invitation-only, swanky reception at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia.
> 
> Another member of the new advisory group is Larry Fink. Fink is the chairman and CEO of BlackRock, the world’s largest asset management firm. Fink spent years ingratiating himself with top Democrats and was once short-listed as a replacement for the Obama administration’s Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. He even hired former Hillary Clinton aide Cheryl Mills to serve on the firm’s board of directors of his firm — and was poised to take over and staff Clinton’s Treasury Department.
> 
> Evidently, Fink has now jumped ship and joined the Making America Great Again team, and Trump, in turn, has no problem tapping him for advice.
> 
> Here is the full list:
> 
> 
> 
> *Stephen A. Schwarzman* (forum chairman), chairman, CEO, and co-founder of Blackstone;
> *Paul Atkins*, CEO, Patomak Global Partners, LLC, former commissioner of the Securities and Exchange Commission;
> *Mary Barra*, chairwoman and CEO, General Motors;
> *Toby Cosgrove*, CEO, Cleveland Clinic;
> *Jamie Dimon*, chairman and CEO, JPMorgan Chase & Co;
> *Larry Fink*, chairman and CEO, BlackRock;
> *Bob Iger*, chairman and CEO, The Walt Disney Company;
> *Rich Lesser*, president and CEO, Boston Consulting Group;
> *Doug McMillon*, president and CEO, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.;
> *Jim McNerney*, former chairman, president, and CEO, Boeing;
> *Adebayo “Bayo” Ogunlesi*, chairman and managing partner, Global Infrastructure Partners;
> *Ginni Rometty*, chairwoman, president, and CEO, IBM;
> *Kevin Warsh*, Shepard Family distinguished visiting fellow in economics, Hoover Institute, former member of the board of governors of the Federal Reserve System;
> *Mark Weinberger*, global chairman and CEO, EY;
> *Jack Welch*, former chairman and CEO, General Electric;
> *Daniel Yergin*, Pulitzer Prize winner, vice chairman of IHS Markit;
> 
> Disney CEO Bob Iger co-hosted a Hollywood area fundraiser for Hillary Clinton in the summer of 2016.
> 
> General Motors CEO Mary Barra was thought of so dearly by the Clinton campaign that she was considered as a possible vice presidential pick — according to hacked emails released by Wikileaks.
> 
> Boeing CEO Jim McNerny has given thousands of dollars to top Democrats and lauded Clinton’s leadership at the State Department — which helped Boeing win contracts — while simultaneously funding the Clinton Foundation and helping sponsor paid speeches by former President Bill Clinton.
> 
> These are precisely the people Trump warned about when he darkly declared that “those who control the levers of power in Washington, … they partner with these people that don’t have your good in mind.” Now they’re all working together.
> 
> SOURCE


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> Like I keep saying, Trump, who ran an anti-establishment campaign and won because the USA is fed up with the Establishment, is going to be the most Establishment president of all time. Now he is literally hiring the same people from Hillary's camp to work for him.













RAWWR that's BS! And what's worse is that the Democrats don't think they need to change either. Gosh, us Americans are going to be spit fucked by our two shitty political parties!


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> RAWWR that's BS! And what's worse is that the Democrats don't think they need to change either. Gosh, us Americans are going to be spit fucked by our two shitty political parties!


that is why the people need to make their party change especially on the democrat side. The real progressives need to stand up to the establishment. The BS the establishment is doing to Ellison is sickening. The DNC never learn because they are thinking of Biden LOL or Kaine. UGH

We need more than two parties in the US that actually have a real shot at winning so they are all even. But the GOP and DNC don't want that.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> And what's worse is that the Democrats don't think they need to change either.


I was legit :lmao when I saw they kept Schumer and Pelosi as their Congressional leaders. Should be hilarious to see which establishment puppet they install as head of the DNC. :lol

The more things change, the more they stay the same.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> Like I keep saying, Trump, who ran an anti-establishment campaign and won because the USA is fed up with the Establishment, is going to be the most Establishment president of all time. Now he is literally hiring the same people from Hillary's camp to work for him.


Well I guess that's his draining he swamp completely backtracked on. I wonder whether this will affect his support much or if some of his fanatics will keep banging on the drum that he's an anti-establishment type who's bringing a change. At this point it seems very unlikely that's the case, but how many of his die hard supporters will even let themselves admit that?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Getting support from capitalists who are trailblazers of the economy is not a bad idea for either government no matter who they support. If you guys have better options other than creating a strong team of known tycoons who've formed the backbone of the american economy, then please let us know instead of going with the logical fallacy that Trump being supported by capitalists that seem like they'd support either candidate makes it an "establishment" presidency. I just posted what he meant by establishment ... where he was talking about corruption within lobbyists and government itself. 

Since when did America's top CEO's of some of America's biggest companies automatically become corrupt establishment? Oh right ... since people started listening to anti-capitalist rantings and conspiracy theories. 

Where has he said that he'll just remove all capitalists from having anything to do with the government? It's just insane to think that capitalists, tycoons and government shouldn't be working together for any government, be it the democrats or the republicans. What Trump does with the support he gets from these guys is what matters, not the fact that he's asked them for advice. Since when are corporate CEO's automatically assumed to be establishment or corrupt simply because they're CEO's? Since when did capitalism become evil in and of itself? Like are you guys serious right now? 

Let's wait and see the policies that actually start coming out and their impact on the economy, jobs and american lives before we start assuming that these people are corrupt simply because they're rich and successful. Jeez. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ne-should-be-canceled/?utm_term=.6e30328bd9e7

For the people who were complaining about America's governmental spending. Apparently, Trump wants to re-examine the $4 billion plane Obama ordered under his presidency. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/806134244384899072


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

When is that crash caused by the reckless monetary and fiscal policies of George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Europe over the last 15 years that :trump will be blamed for gonna happen again?



RavishingRickRules said:


> Well I guess that's his draining he swamp completely backtracked on. I wonder whether this will affect his support much or if some of his fanatics will keep banging on the drum that he's an anti-establishment type who's bringing a change. At this point it seems very unlikely that's the case, but how many of his die hard supporters will even let themselves admit that?


Perhaps when he actually enacts policies that are pro-establishment. Since, you know, *he hasn't done anything yet* except make UTC and its subsidiary Carrier BEND THE KNEE TO THE BASED GOD-EMPEROR.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Aaaand here come the attacks. You are aware that I'm not a "liberal leftist DNC supporting SJW," right? Calm the fuck down already, I'm just saying it looks pretty sketch to slam Shillary for the people who're supporting her, then hire the very same people to work with yourself. It's amazing that you all like to throw around "triggered" so much when you're extremely sensitive to triggering yourselves the second somebody questions Trump's motives. Read my latest posts in this thread, I've happily given Trump credit where I thought it was due, and I'm far from a blind hater at all. Stop assuming everyone is an enemy because they have an opinion and wonder why you feel the need to spring into attack mode the instant somebody says something that might not see Trump in a totally favourable light. He's not some infallible deity, he's a man who like every man in the world will have some positives and some negatives to his agendas. I swear sometimes it's like walking between a hornet's nest and a snake pit trying to take part in discussions here.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> I was legit :lmao when I saw they kept Schumer and Pelosi as their Congressional leaders. Should be hilarious to see which establishment puppet they install as head of the DNC. :lol
> 
> The more things change, the more they stay the same.


I think Schumer was the one who was trying to steal Trump's thunder off draining the swamp and no war etc, he was saying that's What Democrats have stood for. I am not sure what world he comes from but in this world, the Democrats are not anti-corruption or anti-war. Did he not realize there was a DNC leak? Did he not realize they put Hillary as their go to for President? Does he not realize Soros and his cronies are corrupt to the core? It's like our politicians live in lala land!


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Aaaand here come the attacks. You are aware that I'm not a "liberal leftist DNC supporting SJW," right? Calm the fuck down already, I'm just saying it looks pretty sketch to slam Shillary for the people who're supporting her, then hire the very same people to work with yourself. It's amazing that you all like to throw around "triggered" so much when you're extremely sensitive to triggering yourselves the second somebody questions Trump's motives. Read my latest posts in this thread, I've happily given Trump credit where I thought it was due, and I'm far from a blind hater at all. Stop assuming everyone is an enemy because they have an opinion and wonder why you feel the need to spring into attack mode the instant somebody says something that might not see Trump in a totally favourable light. He's not some infallible deity, he's a man who like every man in the world will have some positives and some negatives to his agendas. I swear sometimes it's like walking between a hornet's nest and a snake pit trying to take part in discussions here.


Who attacked you ... ? Is rejecting a series of opinions that are based on a very exaggerated and heavily implied capitalist connection to corruption or being "establishment" an attack?


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> I think Schumer was the one who was trying to steal Trump's thunder off draining the swamp and no war etc, he was saying that's What Democrats have stood for. I am not sure what world he comes from but in this world, the Democrats are not anti-corruption or anti-war. Did he not realize there was a DNC leak? Did he not realize they put Hillary as their go to for President? Does he not realize Soros and his cronies are corrupt to the core? It's like our politicians live in lala land!


This is what it looked like when the DNC cronies were asked about the email leaks.




























Dodge, deflect, blame Russia.


----------



## MillionDollarProns

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> May I proudly present....
> 
> *NATE SILVER: THE COMPLETE SAGA (NEW UPDATED DIRECTOR'S CUT EDITION)*
> 
> Enjoy, lads. :trump3 (click to enlarge)



I gotta be honest, the best part of this election life right now is before and after democrat reaction videos and pictures. It's like witnessing a nuclear reactor melt down over the course of 12 hours. I especially love the post-election finger pointing. "It's all Sanders/Facebook/Pepe memes fault!" I even saw someone blame poor Taylor Swift for not telling people to vote Hillary :lmao


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> Like I keep saying, Trump, who ran an anti-establishment campaign and won because the USA is fed up with the Establishment, is going to be the most Establishment president of all time. Now he is literally hiring the same people from Hillary's camp to work for him.


Yeah that is complete bullshit. Reading through the list of advisers and seeing the number of huge global corporations as well as former FEDERAL RESERVE board governor (fuckin' A....), I was hoping at least Trump might be serious about his anti-establishment rhetoric to a certain degree but revelations like this show the opposite.

By the way, on the Carrier deal: There have been several different reports into how the deal transpires and what it means, there are a number of conflicting numbers in terms of how it all works out but the 7 million one seems consistent. It does feel like a crony capitalist sort of deal by the way of tax breaks for Carrier and it does set a worrying precedent. You are right to say the devil is the in the details but I do stand by the majority of what I said, particularly in relation to Democrats and their supporters.

Unlike you, I am not against low taxes but I'd rather see the tax code shredded, the loopholes and deductions closed/destroyed and have it simplified and applied to small/medium sized businesses as well as corporations instead of having these corporate deals. I've seen worse cases of corporate welfare though, particularly in the UK where there are literal subsidies towards corporations whilst our GIGANTIC tax code allows them to get away with paying 0 tax...as well as the non-domicile rule which makes things even worse (you should read up on it, interesting stuff).

We must not forget that it is still better for these jobs to be kept in the US rather than shipped overseas. I am also not convinced that tariffs at 35% are the way to go with tackling this problem as I see way too many unintended consequences of that happening, but that can be a discussion for another time. The main problem as Trump hammered endlessly with his rhetoric is these trade deals in NAFTA and TPP. Free Trade is largely an extremely positive thing but not when they are legislated to benefit big business at the expense of smaller businesses and employees.

I have a very interesting post I want to make in a bit in regards to an email I got sent about a case in the NHS. I'm making it here because healthcare is an important subject for the US in years to come and I reckon you guys need to read this as a warning shock for the direction I can see the US going in the future with it's healthcare system.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



amhlilhaus said:


> They dont. Trumps reelection is simple, and all on him.
> 
> If he builds a fence, tries like hell to revive the economy and lowers taxes, hes back in in 2020 no matter WHO the dems win.
> 
> Say he gets 4% growth, inching towards 5, and hes cut taxes while doing it. What could dems run on?
> 
> Tax cuts dont work, or we can do it better?
> 
> The public isnt so easily fooled. The best thing for democrats is to veer back towards the middle and groom new leaders for 2020 or 24.
> 
> Then i see who they reelected as leaders and that's not happening


Trump is fooling all of you guys LOL

He is the most esbalishment president ever already and you guys are just making excuses. 

Liz Warren would destroy Trump, just like Sanders would have. That is the only way the DNC will beat Trump with someone like Sanders, Warren, or even Ellison. But if they run out hte typical democrate they will get killed. Hillary is center right and that is why she lost.




Tater said:


> Like I keep saying, Trump, who ran an anti-establishment campaign and won because the USA is fed up with the Establishment, is going to be the most Establishment president of all time. Now he is literally hiring the same people from Hillary's camp to work for him.


WE should start calling him Crooked Donald.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I'm sorry @birthday_massacre but Elizabeth Warren already showed herself to be a career political hack when she opted to back Hillary instead of Bernie in order to try and get the VP spot. She was then utterly ignored and shown to be a complete fool when Hillary picked Tim Kaine instead of her :lmao.

I do agree that Bernie could have definitely beaten Trump in the election cycle or at least had a better chance than Hillary and that is coming from someone who thinks Bernie would have been disastrous. But to claim Warren is a legitimate progressive when she went against the progressive in order to try and gain more political power is laughable. She is just as much of a hack as the majority of the Democrats (the progressive wing is the minority, much like the libertarian wing of the GOP is the minority), she is just a lot smarter in picking her shots.

If I were an American and I was a progressive, I would NEVER vote for an opportunist like her who has shown that her so called principles mean nothing.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



L-DOPA said:


> I'm sorry @birthday_massacre but Elizabeth Warren already showed herself to be a career political hack when she opted to back Hillary instead of Bernie in order to try and get the VP spot. She was then utterly ignored and shown to be a complete fool when Hillary picked Tim Kaine instead of her :lmao.
> 
> I do agree that Bernie could have definitely beaten Trump in the election cycle or at least had a better chance than Hillary and that is coming from someone who thinks Bernie would have been disastrous. But to claim Warren is a legitimate progressive when she went against the progressive in order to try and gain more political power is laughable. She is just as much of a hack as the majority of the Democrats (the progressive wing is the minority, much like the libertarian wing of the GOP is the minority), she is just a lot smarter in picking her shots.
> 
> If I were an American and I was a progressive, I would NEVER vote for an opportunist like her who has shown that her so called principles mean nothing.


Liz Warren got the CEO of Wells Fargo to step down. She was stupid to back Hillary instead or Bernie that did totally piss me off. 

Liz Warren is way more progressive than most of the DNC, her only fault was backing Hillary instead of Bernie. 

The progressives of the country would still back Warren over Trump and so wouldn't the rest of the left and I bet even some on the right in 2020 once they see how full of shit Trump is would vote for her as well.

I still like Ellison more but his problem is he is Muslim and we all know how that would go over in the general. You know the right would focus on that. I still want Ellison to head up the DNC though that is a no brainer. But the DNC elite already are doing their best smear job on him which is going to be their downfall once again


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Nate Silver needs to go back to baseball. At least there you know Joey Votto is going to hit .300 while the Reds are awful.

Silver wasn't even the only guy wrong though.

@birthday_massacre Warren backed Clinton because Clinton was the candidate the DNC foolishly and arrogantly put forward. Then they didn't even campaign in states that were clearly battlegrounds by all the data. But Clinton lost because millienials and that FBI guy. lol

But yeah Warren begrudgingly backed someone she can't stand because DNC.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@Beatles123

Nate Silver looks like Rachel Maddow with worse hair and less testosterone. Fucker desperately needs to fall back like his hairline, or better yet, grovel to Teflon Don Juan on how to salvage his flabby and sick hairdo.

:trump


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

trump has establishment guys, ohhhh nooooooooooo :lol never ever did he say draining the swamp wouldn't entail that. He already is calling for a lobbyist ban and congress term limits. thats enough of a start. anything about who he hires is speculation until hr gets sworn in.

The wall is still being built by the way. in fact you could see the paperwork for it in his advisers hand days ago if you paused and zoomed in.

*MEANWHILE IN THE UNCUCKED TIMELINE:*


https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/806214078465245185

OH, LOOK. ITS JUST OUR PRESIDENT SAVING MORE US JOBS. :trump3

IN B4 LE HANDOUT MEME.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

If the Carrier deal is crony capitalism then the definition of the term needs updated. Carrier sure didn't approach the government of Indiana and say 'Hey how about giving us this sweetheart deal that will give us a leg up on the competition.'

It's more like Barack Obama's various subsidies for renewable energy but instead of wasting billions of dollars on companies now bankrupt and out of existence and killing jobs it saved jobs at a much lower "cost" (since tax breaks don't cost the government shit it isn't their money it's ours).


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



deepelemblues said:


> If the Carrier deal is crony capitalism then the definition of the term needs updated. Carrier sure didn't approach the government of Indiana and say 'Hey how about giving us this sweetheart deal that will give us a leg up on the competition.'
> 
> It's more like Barack Obama's various subsidies for renewable energy but instead of wasting billions of dollars on companies now bankrupt and out of existence and killing jobs it saved jobs at a much lower "cost" (since tax breaks don't cost the government shit it isn't their money it's ours).


 @L-DOPA @Miss Sally @DesolationRow @CamillePunk @Fringe @Goku

> Ford Deal
> 1,000 jobs kept in the US
> Carrier Deal
> 1,000 jobs kept in the US
> SoftBank
> 50 Billion fucking dollars and 50,000 fucking jobs in the USA

He's not even president yet, and he's proving that a white privilaged rich meanieface man can do more in one month than a Democrat can do in 8 years. :trump


----------



## AlternateDemise

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> There wasn't anything illogical in my post. What you experienced is what I believe to be cognitive dissonance. I could get into a lot of details, but generally I've noticed that people are closed to any criticism of climate "science" and the claims of climate scientists.


That's not cognitive dissonance. I'm asking you to explain to me how ignoring our environment for the sake of money is a good thing.



Carte Blanche said:


> That's not true at all ... and considering that you posted this without confirming makes me vary of continuing this debate even more.
> 
> FYO, China, EU and India combine for 3 times as much carbon emissions into the atmosphere and the USA. And there are 10 countries that have a higher per capita carbon footprint than the USA. Most of those countries do absolutely nothing to prevent it nor give a shit about it.


You're missing my point, but I'll give you a pass on that because I did a terrible job of typing it up, and quite frankly I don't blame you for that particular response. What I meant to say was that with the way things are going right now at the rate that climate change is happening, no one can drastically effect it more than we can. Our influence as well as our involvement on the matter can drastically change its results just like that. 

Either way, my mistake.



Carte Blanche said:


> I already mentioned it in my post. You didn't read it.


No, you didn't. Saying "production will start back up" doesn't answer my question. So, I'll ask again, how does ignoring our environment for the sake of exploring space beneficial to us?



Carte Blanche said:


> Good - as they should.


No, they shouldn't. If what you are doing is having a negative impact on the planet you are living on, then you shouldn't be doing it. 



Carte Blanche said:


> Maybe this might be news for you, but global climate change isn't killing the planet and neither are we. In fact, the world isn't dying at all.


How can you criticize me for not providing any sources to back up my earlier claim, and then you go on to make this claim without anything to back it up? If you honestly believe that climate change, something that has been proven on numerous occasions now to be in fact a real thing and a legitimate problem in our world, isn't real and isn't impacting our earth, then it's pretty clear I'm wasting my time on you.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



AlternateDemise said:


> If you honestly believe that climate change, something that has been proven on numerous occasions now to be in fact a real thing and a legitimate problem in our world, isn't real and isn't impacting our earth, then it's pretty clear I'm wasting my time on you.


*TAKE IT AWAY, LION TED!~*:trump





 @Goku Quick, toss him a Senzu bean. :trump3


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



AlternateDemise said:


> That's not cognitive dissonance. I'm asking you to explain to me how ignoring our environment for the sake of money is a good thing.


Why is driving your car a good thing? Why is taking any form of transporation to work a good thing? Why is killing animals to feed yourself a good thing? Why is doing anything a good thing ... because as you know, matter can only be converted, it cannot be created therefore for everything we do in life, there is a negative consequence. How do you determine what is worth more and why have you decided that "saving the environment" is more important than making money? Maybe none of it is good or bad or better or worse and just is without having any sort of moral obligation or virtue attached to it. 

I reject the moralistic notion that making money is mutually exclusive from saving the environment. One doesn't have to come at the expense of the other, and even if it does, why should saving the environment be more important than making money. 

Aren't the lives of the immediate impoverished not mean anything. Why should the lives of the future generations have more value than the lives of the current generation. 

Again, don't forget that you're the one that's established the parameters of this conversation so I'm merely arguing within these constraints. You seem to think that making money is bad for the environment, or that you can't make money and save the environmet at the same time or at least that's what you're implying. 


> no one can drastically effect it more than we can. Our influence as well as our involvement on the matter can drastically change its results just like that.


The facts do not support that assertion, but whatever. You seem adamant to blame the US even when facts prove otherwise. 



> No, you didn't. Saying "production will start back up" doesn't answer my question. So, I'll ask again, how does ignoring our environment for the sake of exploring space beneficial to us?


Because exploration of space requires investment and research into one of the biggest problems facing this planet and that's energy. You stunt NASA, you stunt innovation in various fields and one of those is clean energy. I thought I had mentioned that. The fact of the matter is that none of the money that has been invested in other industries has yielded any net change in climate change either. What do we or anyone have anything to show for the billions that have been sunk into global warming research and solutions? 



> No, they shouldn't. If what you are doing is having a negative impact on the planet you are living on, then you shouldn't be doing it.


Since when is space research and exploration bad for the environment?



> How can you criticize me for not providing any sources to back up my earlier claim, and then you go on to make this claim without anything to back it up? If you honestly believe that climate change, something that has been proven on numerous occasions now to be in fact a real thing and a legitimate problem in our world, isn't real and isn't impacting our earth, then it's pretty clear I'm wasting my time on you.


Because it would be a waste of time as it's clear that you're not ready to look into the claims of climate science skeptics. I hope you at least know that climate change "deniers" simply state that climate change is happening but then present alternative solutions as to why it's happening other than the american government's stance that it's caused by humans. When you're ready to actually hear the other side, then hit me up. I'll share my sources then. There's no point if you believe the conformist view point and aren't a skeptic.

Don't claim that you know more just because you've read all the same articles that I had up until 2 months ago before I invested actual time and effort into looking at the other side. It's the same kind of scrutiny I put my religious beliefs through, the same kind of scrutiny I put my pro-democrat beliefs though, the same for feminism and host of other things. I too was on your side of this argument just a few weeks ago and then I questioned what I thought I knew to be a "fact" .. just like at one point I knew that god was real.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@DesolationRow @CamillePunk @MissSally; @Carte Blanche @Beatles123 @Tater @AryaDark @Pratchett @CJ; @TheDazzler @RavishingRickRules (it is likely the UK users I have tagged will disagree with me but I like these guys so I'll let them come at me if they do  ). 

I may have left out some important people, I apologize in advance .


This is an extremely important post in my opinion and it is a warning to those in the US who think having a universal single payer healthcare system is the way to go. This morning after I hit the gym, I went through my emails on my phone and found this very interesting and also heart breaking email. Not only was it extremely sad I will admit it made me angry and it made my feelings on the subject of healthcare even stronger than what it was previously. I have linked the source to the petition in which the email linked me to to show you where this coming from. I will put in a quotation the full email and the contents of what it says.


https://www.change.org/p/give-sasha..._D/fwBkG9WizrUu7HJLaVLZzHDvsQO/SMd86BA0YxDKU=



> When my friend Sasha was hit with the news that her Leukaemia was back we were devastated. But we were comforted by the hope doctor’s gave us that a stem cell transplant would give her a fighting chance.
> 
> That hope has now been taken away. The Government have decided that to save money the NHS will no longer fund stem cell transplants for people, like Sasha, who have had the procedure once before.
> 
> Sasha only has a 20% survival rate without a second transplant. That’s why, I have started this petition calling on the Department of Health and NHS England to reverse their decision and fund second stem cell transplants for people like Sasha.
> 
> If the NHS choose not to pay for the transplant, Sasha’s only chance is to fund it herself - which to do privately costs between £100,000 and £250,000. The pressure of trying to find such an enormous amount of money, whilst dealing with cancer again is unbearable.
> 
> Sasha is only 33, she has 2 little kids and deserves a chance to watch them grow up.
> 
> NHS England say they have made this decision to save money, but only 11 people require the treatment each year and to cover all these people only costs the NHS £200,000 a year.
> 
> For the NHS this is a “little cut”, but stem cell treatments are vital for people battling Leukaemia. This decision is a death warrant and will destroy hundreds of people’s lives.
> 
> Sasha needs the transplant now, and I know other people need this procedure too. So, please sign and call on the Government & NHS England to rethink their decision not to fund second stem cell transplats. Sasha deserves more time. Please help her get it.
> 
> From Amy Collins


Now why is an email detailing about a situation about British healthcare so important to link in this thread? I'll tell you why. This is the result of what happens when you allow the government to have a monopoly on healthcare, it's resources and it's funding. The supporters of a state ran healthcare trump card argument lol) has always been that national healthcare can provide life saving treatment free at the point of service. Not withstanding the fact that they ignore that other systems which have a large private sector whether they be a mixed system or a fully private healthcare system do not just leave people to die on the streets and do provide care when it is urgent which is part of the scaremongering that people have fallen for, this is an example of where the state can essentially dictate life and death. When the government can take away funding which is needed for someone to have life saving treatment and leave only but the option of paying *HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF POUNDS* for said treatment because the private sector has been so suppressed by the way of competition, of service and of treatment then that it is when you essentially become a slave to the state. I know that sounds dramatic, but look at this case and tell me that you can't see what I am talking about?

I remember when @RavishingRickRules in another thread said to me that the NHS doesn't have a monopoly and that there were plenty of private healthcare options available in the UK that were affordable. I love you buddy, we disagree on many things but you are a good user. I think you are very wrong on this subject. In order to have a monopoly in an economic sector, you do not need 100% control of that said sector. What is the essence of a monopoly, is when an economic entity has so much share of the market that it is literally impossible for any other said entity to realistically compete and take a good chunk of that share for themselves. Generally speaking, economists agree it is around at least 70% or higher. The NHS has far more than that.

Take the WWE for example, there is no wrestling company on earth that can realistically compete with them in the way WCW did in the 90's. Especially in the United States. But there is a difference between a private monopoly such as what the WWE have calved out for themselves and the NHS. The WWE as complacent as they have become at one point got as big as they did by creating a product that the majority of people deemed to be the best, as well as being the best in terms of business practices. Was Vince ruthless? Absolutely but the share that he has now is mostly earned either through providing a better product or through smarter business deals. Not only that but because it is private, the wrestlers are not completely shackled. Whilst it is still hard to find legitimate work outside the WWE though it has gotten better recently thanks to the resurgence of both US and British independent wrestling as well as opportunities in Japan as NJPW continues to grow. Wrestlers can make a decent to good living away from the WWE. There is still some choice.

The NHS however is a state forced monopoly delivered through coercion and by force which is justified by serving for the common good. The government for decades has suppressed private competition by consolidating the healthcare market under the NHS and the state. The little privatization that has been done under both Labour and increasingly under the Conservatives has transferred sections of the NHS to big corporations who in turn have their own little piece of the NHS pot...they have a mini monopoly of their own. It has done nothing to foster competition or provide an alternative to the NHS. The profit motive in which market capitalism provides is non-existent with state run healthcare being outsourced to massive corporations who operate their sections under the NHS umbrella. It is essentially a transfer from state to corporate power. It does not encourage a free market private healthcare system. It essentially does the same thing that Obamacare has managed to do but from the opposite direction; from the position where there aren't any legitimate private healthcare insurers who can realistically compete with the state juggernaut.

The workers....more specifically the nurses and doctors if they have a problem with their working conditions and pay cannot realistically move from the NHS to another alternative in the same sector. The junior doctors strike of this year to me is one of the biggest examples and arguments against the state driven monopoly on healthcare. The junior doctors who felt like they were being given a raw deal in their contracts by Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt could do nothing but call strikes in order to protest the contracts in which the government had written. The consequences were thousands of operations that patients had waited months for due to large waiting lists being cancelled and over a million appointments being cancelled. Large sections of hospitals were closed off with only A&E still running and it has been months now and still there is a standstill due to the government and the NHS junior doctors not being able to reach an agreement. How much simpler would it be for those doctors who are unhappy, who have spent years training in the profession they have passion for if they were given some alternatives in which to go to beyond the state cartel over healthcare? The employees of the NHS and the public in large ended up being massively effected in a negative way and yet people continuously due to this almost religious like attitude towards the NHS end up pointing to the symptoms rather than the cause.

The common argument to my points by people in my country which have included on this forum has always been that it is Conservative governments fault and you should be blaming them because they are "trying to ruin the NHS". Without answering this which would end up in a way that is very British centered rather than aiming this at the Americans in this thread, the question you should all be asking yourself is this: *Why would you even trust the government to run such an important thing as healthcare?* Going back to the original quote I have in this post, the common argument of a state run healthcare being able to provide life saving care free at the point of service is undermined by the fact that the government essentially has the control to cut those life saving treatments when you allow the state to have a total monopoly over healthcare. When the government has the healthcare sector in it's back pocket, it can literally determine life and death as it has been shown here.

Ask yourself another question, under this sort of system could you trust the Republicans? I don't think so. Could you even trust the Democrats who are more liberal leaning than the GOP? I don't think so. When you have what I have shown, and then you have other facts such as 1 in 4 employees being bureaucrats, or 10 hours a week being spent on bureaucracy for front line staff or the rationing of healthcare as  @DesolationRow has rightly pointed out to me many times:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...-worsen-in-attempt-to-close-22bn-funding-gap/

Or the fact that the NHS is currently as it stands setting record deficits of around £2.45 billion pounds as the government continues to try and cope with the increasing costs as well as the problem of both a growing population due to immigration as well as an aging population. When you have patients waiting 6 months, 8 months, 10 months...sometimes over a year or up to 18 months waiting on lifetime changing operations such as hip or knee replacements which may not be life threatening but the lack of treatment leaves people in chronic pain everyday. It becomes apparent to me that having the state run something so important as healthcare is just about the worst idea possible and you are very lucky you do not have these problems (more on the US system in a bit).

The worst part of this is how unaffordable private healthcare is here. Ravishing mentioned he got private healthcare for his back and how good of a service it was and I'm glad he managed to get that sorted out . The problem is, if you want to have private insurance and use private healthcare on a regular basis it is literally impossible unless you are super rich. Most people who use private healthcare do it as a one off payment when funnily enough the waiting time has been so long and it's become such a problem that they simply can't wait. It isn't cheap my friends. As you have seen, it costs hundreds of thousands currently for the life changing stem cell transplant in the private sector in the UK. That of course is the most expensive end but we aren't talking hundreds even small thousands of pounds for an operation outside the NHS. The fact is working class and lower working class families cannot afford any form of private healthcare or insurance in the UK due to the insane cost through lack of and suppression of competition. Meaning that for a large portion of the population the state is the only option and for an even larger portion of the population you can only afford to use private healthcare a few times when you really need it and can't afford to wait on the NHS's bureaucratic ass. This is what it is like living under a state healthcare system.

The US system has a vast amount of problems, it is far from perfect and it certainly isn't what I would point to as a good example of a private health insurance system. It is and has become a very corporatist system that benefits big business. It needs a lot of change and reform. But Obamacare as shown by the gigantic hike in premiums as well as it's regulatory burden which has squeezed out small and medium sized insurers who can't afford to pay the provisions of the mandate handing an even bigger chunk of the market to bigger insurance firms isn't the answer. Universal state driven healthcare isn't the answer. I warn all of you as someone who lives under it, has experienced it and knows what it is like and the massive problems it causes: don't allow your government to monopolize healthcare under it's thumb, it won't happen under Trump but it doesn't mean it can't happen. It is not a Utopian dream, far far from it.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> *TAKE IT AWAY, LION TED!~*:trump
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @Goku Quick, toss him a Senzu bean. :trump3


You know its Lyin Ted not Lion Ted right? 


Also straight up question, do you believe climate change is real or a hoax?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



MrMister said:


> Nate Silver needs to go back to baseball. At least there you know Joey Votto is going to hit .300 while the Reds are awful.
> 
> Silver wasn't even the only guy wrong though.
> 
> 
> @birthday_massacre Warren backed Clinton because Clinton was the candidate the DNC foolishly and arrogantly put forward. Then they didn't even campaign in states that were clearly battlegrounds by all the data. But Clinton lost because millienials and that FBI guy. lol
> 
> But yeah Warren begrudgingly backed someone she can't stand because DNC.


She still could have came out and backed Sanders but I agree she was pretty much forced too. the only people that think Hillary lost was because of that FBI guy are just making excuses. By that time most people have already made up thing minds. I cringe when I hear the DNC claim that is the reason. Bernie Sanders was on CNN ( I think it was) and laughed by the news casters get trying to claim tha was the reason why she lost.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> You know its Lyin Ted not Lion Ted right?
> 
> 
> Also straight up question, do you believe climate change is real or a hoax?


Actually I was wrong: it's *SOARIN' TED!*:trump






As for the other part, the better question is do I give a shit? :troll


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> *TAKE IT AWAY, LION TED!~*:trump
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @Goku Quick, toss him a Senzu bean. :trump3


I believe that Climate Change is real and happening but the defense provided by the Sierra Club was pathetic here. Cruz just kept hammering and hammering him and he provided no credible answers.

I hate the Climate Change fundamentalists who act like we can't or shouldn't debate the legitimacy of the claim. The idea that you are a "climate change denier" as an argument is the same type of argument that Authoritarian Leftist SJW's use when you argue their points by saying it is irrelevant because you are white and/or male.

I don't think a subject should be shut down as a non-debate topic simply because the majority consensus believes it to be one way. That is the opposite of a free market of ideas and arguments. As stupid as creationists are for example, I don't think they should be shut down with non-arguments just because we know their arguments are wrong. They are allowed to make their arguments and be scrutinized just like anybody else.


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

*Lyin' Ted is all good and well but it has nothing on The Murder Lizard when it comes to describing Ted Cruz.





*


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



L-DOPA said:


> Unlike you, I am not against low taxes but I'd rather see the tax code shredded, the loopholes and deductions closed/destroyed and have it simplified and applied to small/medium sized businesses as well as corporations instead of having these corporate deals. I've seen worse cases of corporate welfare though, particularly in the UK where there are literal subsidies towards corporations whilst our GIGANTIC tax code allows them to get away with paying 0 tax...as well as the non-domicile rule which makes things even worse (you should read up on it, interesting stuff).


There are corporations raking in billions in profit here in the USA too that pay no taxes. The claim that American corporations pay some of the highest taxes in the world is a myth. Once you factor in all the loopholes and subsidies and tax shelters and other shenanigans, many of the them are paying some of the lowest rates in the world and some of them don't pay any at all.

I'm not against low taxes either, at least not in principle. What I _am_ against is the entire rigged capitalistic system that concentrates massive amounts of wealth in the hands of the few at the very top while billions of people suffer in poverty. If we had a more fair way of earning wealth to begin with, I'd be perfectly fine with a low tax rate that is flat across the board, because everyone would be making enough money to be able to afford to pay those taxes.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



AryaDark said:


> *Lyin' Ted is all good and well but it has nothing on The Murder Lizard when it comes to describing Ted Cruz.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *


He'll be a useful ally as SCOTUS


----------



## AlternateDemise

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> *TAKE IT AWAY, LION TED!~*:trump
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @Goku Quick, toss him a Senzu bean. :trump3


No, god damn it don't use the Sierra Club against me. Hate when people do that shit :trips7


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> There are corporations raking in billions in profit here in the USA too that pay no taxes. The claim that American corporations pay some of the highest taxes in the world is a myth. Once you factor in all the loopholes and subsidies and tax shelters and other shenanigans, many of the them are paying some of the lowest rates in the world and some of them don't pay any at all.
> 
> I'm not against low taxes either, at least not in principle. What I _am_ against is the entire rigged capitalistic system that concentrates massive amounts of wealth in the hands of the few at the very top while billions of people suffer in poverty. If we had a more fair way of earning wealth to begin with, I'd be perfectly fine with a low tax rate that is flat across the board, because everyone would be making enough money to be able to afford to pay those taxes.


"I don't pay much taxes but we need to move our factories out of the US because not enough profit!"


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



L-DOPA said:


> @DesolationRow @CamillePunk @MissSally; @Carte Blanche @Beatles123 @Tater @AryaDark @Pratchett @CJ; @TheDazzler @RavishingRickRules (it is likely the UK users I have tagged will disagree with me but I like these guys so I'll let them come at me if they do  ).
> 
> 
> The US system has a vast amount of problems, it is far from perfect and it certainly isn't what I would point to as a good example of a private health insurance system. It is and has become a very corporatist system that benefits big business. It needs a lot of change and reform. But Obamacare as shown by the gigantic hike in premiums as well as it's regulatory burden which has squeezed out small and medium sized insurers who can't afford to pay the provisions of the mandate handing an even bigger chunk of the market to bigger insurance firms isn't the answer. *Universal state driven healthcare isn't the answer. I warn all of you as someone who lives under it, has experienced it and knows what it is like and the massive problems it causes: don't allow your government to monopolize healthcare under it's thumb, it won't happen under Trump but it doesn't mean it can't happen. It is not a Utopian dream, far far from it*.


Might I warn you not to get everyone to throw out the Government Healthcare idea simply because the UK has apparently botched it. 

I can assure you as someone who lives under Medicare in Australia and has for the last 6 or 7 years had affordable Insurance for non-medicare-able things, that it can be a very good system in a lot of cases for regular people. For the most part we have a great system over here, we don't pay a cent (you all know what I mean) and it hasn't sent our economy down the toilet yet.

Apart for having epilepsy and the stuff that entails, I'm a fairly healthy guy and I can assure you I've never had a huge problem with our Medicare over here.

Of course I'm sure there are horror stories just like the NHS has, but to say the idea of Universal Govt run Healthcare doesn't work based on your own countries experience just isn't true, I'm sorry but it isn't. 

It can work and in a lot of cases it saves people going without of entering a world of debt they never get out of.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

How naive are cuckster supporters to think a 50 billion dollars deal and 50k jobs are due to the president elect? I wager the negotiations involves not standing in the way of Sprint merging with T-mobile. i.e less regulations and more oligarchy and in exchange the useful idiot get to brag about it for free PR.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*






An in-depth review of The Young Jerks!

- Vic


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> As for the other part, the better question is do I give a shit? :troll


don't answer, it's a trap :hutz


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> How naive are cuckster supporters to think a 50 billion dollars deal and 50k jobs are due to the president elect? I wager the negotiations involves not standing in the way of Sprint merging with T-mobile. i.e less regulations and more oligarchy and in exchange the useful idiot get to brag about it for free PR.


CEO said it wouldn't have happened if Hillary were president-elect :trump3

You speak of naivete yet you opt for the explanation that makes you feel better


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



deepelemblues said:


> CEO said it wouldn't have happened if Hillary were president-elect :trump3
> 
> You speak of naivete yet you opt for the explanation that makes you feel better


Citation please?

All I can find was Trump's word on the issue. And we know how reliable that is... Remember how he said one thing and the President of Mexico said another during the campaign? And seems like the Carrier deal jobs numbers that saved less than half the jobs threatened was inflated by including R&D jobs that weren't being moved. 

Also, the fund is heavily backed by the Saudi sovereign-wealth fund. Remember that dumb 9/11 bill that got passed bi-partisan a few months ago? Wonder will there be complications there too.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> How naive are cuckster supporters to think a 50 billion dollars deal and 50k jobs are due to the president elect? I wager the negotiations involves not standing in the way of Sprint merging with T-mobile. i.e less regulations and more oligarchy and in exchange the useful idiot get to brag about it for free PR.


Nothing good is ever due to Trump, is it Elmer?


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I still think Trump is working the marks and is going to be more liberal than anticipated. On the other hand

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/503316125405700096

Well, that is pretty Republican lol


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> Nothing good is ever due to Trump, is it Elmer?


http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-...ledges-to-invest-50-billion-in-u-s-1481053732

:draper2


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Might I warn you not to get everyone to throw out the Government Healthcare idea simply because the UK has apparently botched it.
> 
> I can assure you as someone who lives under Medicare in Australia and has for the last 6 or 7 years had affordable Insurance for non-medicare-able things, that it can be a very good system in a lot of cases for regular people. For the most part we have a great system over here, we don't pay a cent (you all know what I mean) and it hasn't sent our economy down the toilet yet.
> 
> Apart for having epilepsy and the stuff that entails, I'm a fairly healthy guy and I can assure you I've never had a huge problem with our Medicare over here.
> 
> Of course I'm sure there are horror stories just like the NHS has, but to say the idea of Universal Govt run Healthcare doesn't work based on your own countries experience just isn't true, I'm sorry but it isn't.
> 
> It can work and in a lot of cases it saves people going without of entering a world of debt they never get out of.


NHS isn't working because the right wing gov gutted it of the funds it needs to work properly, right wingers response is to say "look it isn't working we clearly should get rid of it".

Classic rightwingers, get into government, cut government funding to programs to provide tax cuts to the rich who don't use the government programs, complain that programs aren't working after problems arise from the money you cut from them, cut more funding from programs "because they aren't working" rinse and repeat until you've devastated and destroyed the society, culture and economy of the wider nation, but lined the pockets of the uber rich.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> Nothing good is ever due to Trump, is it Elmer?


You're expecting objectivity from the wrong people Beatles. And funny how most anti-trump trolls in this thread are not even americans :lmao


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> "I don't pay much taxes but we need to move our factories out of the US because not enough profit!"


Yeah, pretty much. That's the way the system is set up. Maximize profit at all costs.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*












Michael Savage said:


> Liberalism is a mental disorder.


- Vic


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/806282987440635904
:sodone


----------



## amhlilhaus

Trump could discover the cure to cancer.

Media 'did trump violate scientific laws'

'Trumps cancer cure all about the money'

'Trump and the god complex'

Its gonna be delicious. The media is going to make trump an epic failure. Attacks left and right. Meanwhile, trump creates jobs, cuts taxes, reforms healthcare and builds the fence. Press touts polls that trumps unpopular, will lose in 4 years. Then he gets reelected and they really melt down


----------



## amhlilhaus

Vic Capri said:


> Michael Savage said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberalism is a mental disorder.
> 
> 
> 
> - Vic
Click to expand...

But, theyre the new generation of hippies! Peace, love, social justice, all the good stuff


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*










Couldn't resist whinging on their own cover :ha ​


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/806303337058603008
Just gonna leave this here.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Oh fuck! There's fighter jets flying over my home! I hope WWIII hasn't broken out!

*checks calendar*

Never mind. It's just Pearl Harbor Day.


----------



## FITZ

If you're Wifi Network isn't something funny or offensive you are boring. Mine is named "Heroin Den" 

Probably shouldn't be racist though.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

http://money.cnn.com/2016/12/07/technology/translux-manufacturing-trump/

:kermit


----------



## Neuron

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/806303337058603008
> Just gonna leave this here.


What's the blurred out word say? Nighter, nipper, nicer? Why would anyone want to genocide nice people? I'm so confused here.


























































It's probably a false flag.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Neuron said:


> What's the blurred out word say? Nighter, nipper, nicer? Why would anyone want to genocide nice people? I'm so confused here.


Nobody likes a nagger.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> Nobody likes a nagger.


MOONMAN, MOONMAN, CAN'T YOU SEE? :troll


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


>


Oh captain, my captain.......





























































`

.......the saltiness of that caption tho. :mj4


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The Absolute said:


> .......the saltiness of that caption tho. :mj4


IKR ... :heston 

It's like for these fuckers this is the first time the States have voted differently ... I guess it's easy to pretend that this country doesn't have partisan views when you're the ones winning.


----------



## amhlilhaus

Carte Blanche said:


> The Absolute said:
> 
> 
> 
> .......the saltiness of that caption tho.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IKR ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's like for these fuckers this is the first time the States have voted differently ... I guess it's easy to pretend that this country doesn't have partisan views when you're the ones winning.
Click to expand...

They act like theyve lost their minds


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

If America is divided then surely Obama is far more responsible than Trump, who merely capitalized on chaos. :mj 

Scott Adams takes a look at who Trump might pick for Secretary of State through the filter of persuasion:

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/154123428471/trump-and-the-secretary-of-state-brand-decision


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> If America is divided then surely Obama is far more responsible than Trump, who merely capitalized on chaos.


This, whether intentional or not, is a 100% accurate statement. Trump is not the disease. He is a _symptom_ of the disease known as the United States government. He didn't create the chaos but he certainly capitalized on it.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Before Trump America was singing songs and totally in sync on everything. Welcome to Trump's America guys, before now everything was so good. Oh dear!


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

https://mobile.twitter.com/ReutersUS/status/806606457668071426

The Corporate Ministry is back!

I guess if you can't win a vote, buy your way in. The McMahon's were some of Trump's top donors LOL


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Cipher said:


> https://mobile.twitter.com/ReutersUS/status/806606457668071426
> 
> The Corporate Ministry is back!
> 
> I guess if you can't win a vote, buy your way in. The McMahon's were some of Trump's top donors LOL


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

The actual fuck?


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/806620424796860418


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> The actual fuck?
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/806620424796860418


This is taking non-PC culture to the extreme saying this on this day. :lmao
Is he going to praise Al Qaeda for their brilliance on 9/11 as well?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> The actual fuck?
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/806620424796860418


Sarcasm directed at the idiot world leaders that praised the mass murdering Castro. World leaders have lost all perspective and grip on reality and I'm not excluding Newt from this.


----------



## RenegadexParagon

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> This is taking non-PC culture to the extreme saying this on this day. :lmao
> Is he going to praise Al Qaeda for their brilliance on 9/11 as well?


no he's going to tell America the truth and reveal that 9/11 was an inside job done by Jesuit priests and the Jews. And Obama or whatever. I'm not sure how Obama fits in yet but he definitely did something fishy that day.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*










President Trump made the greatest political comeback since Harry Truman. He absolutely deserves the MAN of the year honor!



> Is he going to praise Al Qaeda for their brilliance on 9/11 as well?


Obama would apologize to them too for 9/11 if he could.

- Vic


----------



## Neuron

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Sarcasm directed at the idiot world leaders that praised the mass murdering Castro.


It took a minute for me to register what he was actually saying with that tweet. I usually pick on Trump's mockery pretty quick, like with that theater safe space thing. I didn't expect to see it from Gingrich tho.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Neuron said:


> It took a minute for me to register what he was actually saying with that tweet. I usually pick on Trump's mockery pretty quick, like with that theater safe space thing. I didn't expect to see it from Gingrich tho.


TBH as much fun as this is I'm hoping that sense returns to communication soon because some people simply cannot pull it off and just end up looking like copycats and fools.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I'm falling in love with Tucker because of the way he's calling these conspiracy theorists on TV regularly and absolutely humiliating them.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> Before Trump America was singing songs and totally in sync on everything. Welcome to Trump's America guys, before now everything was so good. Oh dear!


Is this mindset that is so unfair to Trump anything like say, how the western world as whole was pretty much Utopia before evil muslims and ahem, 'refugees', started marching over the hill, taking our jerbs and demanding Sharia Law everywhere?

Nah... Couldn't be.

Oh Dear!


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RenegadexParagon said:


> no he's going to tell America the truth and reveal that 9/11 was an inside job done by Jesuit priests and the Jews. And Obama or whatever. I'm not sure how Obama fits in yet but he definitely did something fishy that day.


I think he would tie it to China too. Trump's team seems to be all out to provoke China before he's even in office.

All this time everyone was arguing whether Hillary or Trump would start WW3 with Russia and the military hawks in the GOP has been plotting to start it with China. :lmao


----------



## Neuron

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Is this mindset that is so unfair to Trump anything like say, how the western world as whole was pretty much Utopia before evil muslims and ahem, 'refugees', started marching over the hill, taking our jerbs and demanding Sharia Law everywhere?
> 
> Nah... Couldn't be.
> 
> Oh Dear!


Who's saying that the past was perfect?


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Didn't want to start a thread for this, so I'm just putting it here. Thought this was hilarious.






:ha


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Is this mindset that is so unfair to Trump anything like say, how the western world as whole was pretty much Utopia before evil muslims and ahem, 'refugees', started marching over the hill, taking our jerbs and demanding Sharia Law everywhere?
> 
> Nah... Couldn't be.
> 
> Oh Dear!


Jobs? What jobs? Most are unqualified for most work! I think the increase in Islamic terrorism, rapes, cultural clashes, the rise of closing down jihadists Mosques, the jumps in prevented jihadist attacks, crime rates going up, the constant flow of economic migrants, the fact 70%+ of these "refugees" are male speaks for itself. 

Do they get undeserved blame at times? Yup, sometimes it's completely sensationalized.

Do they get covered for constantly by the MSM and the lack of women and children are hidden? Yup! 

The phony hate crimes in America has gone up but everything is pretty much the same.. cannot say the same for Europe since the mass migration.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Is this mindset that is so unfair to Trump anything like say, how the western world as whole was pretty much Utopia before evil muslims and ahem, 'refugees', started marching over the hill, taking our jerbs and demanding Sharia Law everywhere?
> 
> Nah... Couldn't be.
> 
> Oh Dear!


Complaining about mass-raping, welfare-gorging home invaders in whose population a fair number of would-be mass murderers clearly exist does not mean that the home was perfectly built, or even that it had a durable foundation before the mass-raping, welfare-gorging home invaders in whose population a fair number of would-be mass murderers clearly exist arrived. It just means that the people living in the home have a difficult time coping with mass-raping, welfare-gorging home invaders in whose population a fair number of would-be mass murderers clearly exist, which is perfectly understandable. 

You have continually gone back to this preposterous strawman and it's embarrassing to read it for the fiftieth time. 

"WELL... THE TOWNSPEOPLE OF AMITY HAD PROBLEMS BEFORE THE GREAT WHITE SHARK SHOWED UP. WHY ARE THEY BLAMING THE SHARK FOR EVERYTHING BAD IN THEIR LIVES?" 

"WELL... THE TROJANS EXPERIENCED HARDSHIPS AND WAR LONG BEFORE THE GREEKS CAME TO DESTROY THEIR CITY. THINGS WEREN'T PERFECT BEFORE PARIS TOOK HELEN HOME!" 

Enough already. To the kiddies table with you.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



DesolationRow said:


> "WELL... THE TROJANS EXPERIENCED HARDSHIPS AND WAR LONG BEFORE THE GREEKS CAME TO DESTROY THEIR CITY. THINGS WEREN'T PERFECT BEFORE PARIS TOOK HELEN HOME!"


That Iliad reference. :banderas

Homer (GOAT Homer, not WOAT Simpson) would be proud.

Now you just need to sneak a Aeneid reference in another post.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@DesolationRow with the savage take-down. :lol

Tucker Carlson as well. :done Loving his new show.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Damn Funkmaster DROW :garrett2

I marked for the Illiad and Jaws references.




Tucker Carlson said:


> you have the hand gestures down but the argument leaves something to be desired.


 :lol


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

:buried 

:heston

:heston 

:heston 

I must have read DRow's post at least 10 times and it gets better with each read :trump2


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



DesolationRow said:


> Enough already. To the kiddies table with you.


these are not serious people


----------



## Punkhead

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

So Trump picked Linda McMahon to head Small Business Administration. A little over a month after she donated 6 million dollars to Trump's campaign. Yeah.

Anyway, I don't think this is good for WWE's product, just like the that time when she ran for senate.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



> *The CEO of United Technologies just let slip an unintended consequence of the Trump-Carrier jobs deal*
> 
> Greg Hayes, the CEO of United Technologies, the parent company of the heating and air-conditioner manufacturer Carrier, just let slip a consequence of a deal struck to keep jobs in Indiana.
> 
> And American workers won't like it.
> 
> Carrier said last month that it would keep more than 1,000 jobs across two locations in Indiana, following pressure from President-elect Donald Trump. The decision was touted as a win for the incoming president, who had pledged keep the jobs from moving to Mexico.
> 
> In a wide-ranging interview with CNBC's "Mad Money with Jim Cramer" that aired Monday, Hayes set out the comparative advantages of moving to jobs to Mexico, the motivation behind his decision to keep those jobs in Indiana, and the ultimate outcome of the deal: *There will be fewer manufacturing jobs in Indiana.*
> 
> ...
> 
> The result of keeping the plant in Indiana open is a $16 million investment to drive down the cost of production, so as to reduce the cost gap with operating in Mexico.
> 
> What does that mean? Automation. What does that mean? Fewer jobs, Hayes acknowledged.
> 
> From the transcript (emphasis added):
> 
> GREG HAYES: Right. Well, and again, if you think about what we talked about last week, we're going to make a $16 million investment in that factory in Indianapolis to automate to drive the cost down so that we can continue to be competitive. Now is it as cheap as moving to Mexico with lower cost of labor? No. But we will make that plant competitive just because we'll make the capital investments there.
> 
> JIM CRAMER: Right.
> 
> GREG HAYES:* But what that ultimately means is there will be fewer jobs.*
> 
> The general theme here is something we've been writing about a lot at Business Insider. Yes, low-skilled jobs are being lost to other countries, but they're also being lost to technology.
> 
> SOURCE







So, not only did Carrier get a sweetheart corporate welfare deal to keep their factories in Indiana, they are going to invest the extra money into automating their factories. They're not going to send the jobs to Mexico. They're just going to replace the workers with automated technology instead. This amounts to taxpayers paying for the privilege of having their jobs eliminated.

:sip


----------



## Freelancer

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Punkhead said:


> So Trump picked Linda McMahon to head Small Business Administration. A little over a month after she donated 6 million dollars to Trump's campaign. Yeah.
> 
> Anyway, I don't think this is good for WWE's product, just like the that time when she ran for senate.


I'm with you on that. Didn't they go PG right around the same time she announced her senate run? I'm sure the senate run had nothing to do with them going PG though...........


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I'm so used to @DesolationRow having this sort of kind, intellectual educator type vibe in his posts that that brutal takedown took me completely off guard :lmao.

Didn't expect something so savage.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*










[emoji38]


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Andy Puzder, Trump’s Pick for Labor Secretary, is a Fast Food CEO Who Has Criticized Obamacare and the Minimum Wage

http://reason.com/blog/2016/12/08/andy-puzder-trumps-pick-for-labor-secret


----------



## Neuron

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



> "I like our ads," he said to Entrepreneur. "I like beautiful women eating burgers in bikinis. I think it's very American."


He's not wrong. Hating Obamacare and the minimum wage nonsense is also a plus.


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

http://variety.com/2016/tv/news/don...ity-apprentice-executive-producer-1201937420/



> Donald Trump will remain an exec producer on NBC’s “Celebrity Apprentice,” which is returning Jan. 2 after a two-year hiatus with new host Arnold Schwarzenegger.
> 
> MGM confirmed to Variety that Trump has retained his EP credit on the series. The president-elect’s status on the 15th season of the reality series that made him a household name has been a question since Trump launched his presidential campaign in June 2015. In the credit sequence, Trump’s name will air after that of “Apprentice” creator Mark Burnett and before Schwarzenegger, who is also an exec producer of the new incarnation along with Page Feldman and Eric Van Wagenen.


The SJWs and lefties are gonna boycott this show now. Hope the deplorables watch it and keep the ratings strong.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Interesting conversation. The faithless elector has gotten convinced by the anti-Trump rhetoric. Doesn't seem to have any actual leg to stand on. But oh well. It's his right to be an idiot

I actually disagree with some of what Tucker said in this (labeling him not casting a vote for a republican as undemocratic is wrong) ... However, he was absolutely spot on when he implied that essentially this person is trying to spin what is essentially usurping power and being a fascist himself and assuming that he's voting against a fascist. A concept that seems to be lost upon the fascists that want to either get rid of the EC or ask 538 people to have too much power. There's a reason why there's legislation in certain states to prevent faithless electors from doing exactly what this guy is doing. :shrug


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



DesolationRow said:


> Complaining about mass-raping, welfare-gorging home invaders in whose population a fair number of would-be mass murderers clearly exist does not mean that the home was perfectly built, or even that it had a durable foundation before the mass-raping, welfare-gorging home invaders in whose population a fair number of would-be mass murderers clearly exist arrived. It just means that the people living in the home have a difficult time coping with mass-raping, welfare-gorging home invaders in whose population a fair number of would-be mass murderers clearly exist, which is perfectly understandable.
> 
> You have continually gone back to this preposterous strawman and it's embarrassing to read it for the fiftieth time.
> 
> "WELL... THE TOWNSPEOPLE OF AMITY HAD PROBLEMS BEFORE THE GREAT WHITE SHARK SHOWED UP. WHY ARE THEY BLAMING THE SHARK FOR EVERYTHING BAD IN THEIR LIVES?"
> 
> "WELL... THE TROJANS EXPERIENCED HARDSHIPS AND WAR LONG BEFORE THE GREEKS CAME TO DESTROY THEIR CITY. THINGS WEREN'T PERFECT BEFORE PARIS TOOK HELEN HOME!"
> 
> Enough already. To the kiddies table with you.


My My My! What an entertaining departure from your usual witty, Oscar Wilde-esque retort cum- American history lesson! Have a few brandys last night and thought 'fuck this crap' last night did we? 

Your mask of civility well and truly slipped, I'm almost proud to have pushed the famous Desolation's buttons. "Mass-raping, welfare-gorging home invaders" eh? Mighty white of you sir.

I noted as well you didn't happen to use your giant intellect to pick up Miss Sally who used the same supposed 'strawman' as I did. I can't imagine why.

You might've pulled the wool over the eyes of Team Trump who'll eat up your wordy goodness, but I see you. I see you.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> My My My! What an entertaining departure from your usual witty, Oscar Wilde-esque retort cum- American history lesson! Have a few brandys last night and thought 'fuck this crap' last night did we?
> 
> Your mask of civility well and truly slipped, I'm almost proud to have pushed the famous Desolation's buttons. "Mass-raping, welfare-gorging home invaders" eh? Mighty white of you sir.
> 
> You might've pulled the wool over the eyes of Team Trump who'll eat up your wordy goodness, but I see you. I see you.


^Example of today's college educated youth that supports Hillary (and this guy isn't even a typical american liberal). 

If you want to know why the democrats are in the state they're in, look no further than the sad rantings of social "scientists" that pretend they're educated when all they're learning is this: 

http://www.mindingthecampus.org/201...dead-are-mostly-a-hunt-for-racism-and-sexism/



> HUMANITIES, PRETTY MUCH DEAD, ARE MOSTLY A HUNT FOR RACISM AND SEXISM
> 
> A number of prominent liberal intellectuals, such as Leon Wieseltier, acknowledge that the humanities are in trouble. There “really is a cultural crisis,” he said at a recent Aspen Ideas Festival. This is an improvement over the mass denial of a few years ago, when the standard retort to conservatives went something like this: “You just don’t like the direction the humanities have taken” or worse: “You old-fashioned types are angry that the humanities are no longer a Eurocentric dead-white-male thing—get over it.”
> 
> But when the politically-correct president of an Ivy League university recounts how far the humanities have fallen at her school, as Harvard’s Drew Gilpin Faust did at the same festival, it’s hard to dismiss the thesis. The numbers Faust cited for Harvard are astounding. Currently, she said, about 14 percent of Harvard undergraduates major in a humanities field. That’s higher than the national rate, but it’s down from the 25 percent rate at Harvard when Faust started her tenure as president nine years ago. Most of the withdrawal, she noted, was due to students heading toward the hard sciences (not the social sciences). When it comes to enrollment in humanities courses in general at Harvard, the trend there is downward as well, a drop of ten percent over the same period of time.
> 
> Related: Are the Battered Humanities Worth Saving?
> 
> We can add to the testimony of liberal leaders at the administrative level a story in the Chronicle of Higher Education about literature professors who think that literary studies have become so cynical and paranoid that they are turning people away.
> 
> When English turned into a practice of reading literature for signs of racism, sexism, and ideology, it lost touch with why youths pick up books in the first place, said University of Virginia Professor Rita Felski. And Duke professor Toril Moi told the Chronicle reporter, “If you challenge the idea of suspicion as the only mode of reading, you are then immediately accused of being conservative in relation to those politics.
> 
> And added to that story is the pile-up of reports demonstrating declining majors and enrollments, along with a dreadful job market for recent PhDs (see here, which shows that, in 2014, nearly half of all humanities doctoral recipients —45.7 percent—had no employment commitments: We can’t dismiss the thesis of decay any more. We may disagree about the causes of the slide, but everyone agrees that we need to rebuild and reinvigorate the fields.
> 
> Related: More Bad Numbers for the Humanities
> 
> The San Diego Union-Tribune recently carried a sad story on one attempt to revive the humanities, at the University of California, San Diego. The program foregrounds social themes, not works of beauty and genius. The photo that introduces the story shows a panel speaking to a room of 30 or 40 people. The caption states the topic: “Challenging Conversations: Race and State Violence. “The question it raises is: Do the organizers really believe that an event such as this one will draw more first-year students into English, Art History, Classics, and French?
> 
> The problem isn’t just that discussions of race, violence, and politics have become so predictable and joyless. It is that nothing in identity-focused discourse steers youths toward the humanities instead of toward the social sciences and fine arts. If there is a campus symposium on how race played out in the last election, there is no reason to think that a humanistic approach to it will follow. It sounds more like Political Science or Sociology than English or History. So does the other event on the “News” page, “Community, Arts, and Resistance.”
> 
> The standard response to this disciplinary distinction is to insert humanities materials into the act. Yes, the professors say, we talk about race and class and other topics traditionally at the center of the social sciences, but in our case, we examine the representations of them in novels and movies and culture in general. This is not a step away from reality, they contend, because literature, art, music, and media do what is called cultural work. They shape norms, impart values, construct stereotypes, and reinforce ideologies. Analyzing humanities works, then, is essential to the understanding of society.
> 
> Maybe—but the claim is beside the point. In this case, that is, regarding the material state of the humanities today, what counts is whether such approaches that foreground social issues in works of art and literature are going to encourage more undergraduates to choose humanities majors and courses. Unlikely.
> 
> First of all, if a 20-year-old has a particular passion for racial, sexual, or other identity themes, chances are that he isn’t inclined to filter it through Shakespeare or Wagner or Woolf. A few of them will, but not because of their identity interests. History is a stronger possibility, we admit, but when our youth looks at the requirements for the History major, he will find much of it lies outside his interest. If you’re fascinated with race in America, you don’t want to spend much time on the ancient and medieval worlds. Much better to choose one of the “Studies” departments.
> 
> Second, if students do come into college loving Victorian novels or foreign films or Elizabethan drama or Beethoven, it probably isn’t due to the identity content of those materials. They love Dickens because a high school English teacher dramatized Miss Betsey so well, or because the students identified with David Copperfield (which is a whole different kind of identity-formation than the one academics have in mind when they discuss identity). It’s not that undergraduates already interested in the humanities discount identity issues. They accept them as part of the work, certainly. But those issues are not the source of inspiration. The first draw isn’t race, gender, sexuality, nationality, etc., in American film. It is Intolerance, City Lights, Ambersons, Vertigo . . . Students want works of art first, social themes within them second.
> 
> And so when the UCSD project breaks the humanities up four areas—Equity, diversity, and inclusion; global arts and humanities; public arts and humanities; and digital arts and humanities—one has little hope. Why is equity at the top, especially when we consider how much great art emerged out of unequal societies? Why invoke the bland divisions of global, public, and digital?
> 
> Here are the sentences that follow the four-part breakdown on the Institute’s web page: Through these wide-ranging and cross-cutting themes, we view the arts and humanities as a vibrant collection of different fields—including the humanistic social sciences and STEM fields—that interrogate the humanistic enterprise from complimentary [sic] and sometimes disorienting perspectives. The IAH thus values difference, cultivates exchange and prioritizes transformative ways of thinking and working together.
> 
> The language here is deadeningly abstract — “cross-cutting . . . interrogate . . . prioritize”—the very opposite of a humanistic turn of mind. The statement goes on to claim that the Institute offers “exciting programs,” but where in this conception is the excitement of the haunting search for Anna on the island in L’Avventura and the uncanny sequence of images in the last five minutes of L’Eclisse? Does this ethnic/politics focus for the humanities make space for the grand spectacle of Act II of Aida? Does it allow for Nietzsche’s fiery words about nihilism in The Will to Power? Does it respect the dark sublimity of the last paragraph of The Dead?
> 
> These are the things that lure students to the humanities and keep them there, not this adversarial social framework that turns the humanities into sociology for people who like art.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

By the way is anyone following the South Park saga based on the election / member berries / PC culture / trolling etc etc that's up to 9 episodes now?

They're not hitting all the points all the time but for all the different meanings and comparisons they're cramming in over a 9 episode mini-series it's a pretty damn good effort.

Even if you're not a fan I'd recommend a look for the 'Member Berries' alone.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/807016847706947584
:lol


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> My My My! What an entertaining departure from your usual witty, Oscar Wilde-esque retort cum- American history lesson! Have a few brandys last night and thought 'fuck this crap' last night did we?
> 
> Your mask of civility well and truly slipped, I'm almost proud to have pushed the famous Desolation's buttons. "Mass-raping, welfare-gorging home invaders" eh? Mighty white of you sir.
> 
> I noted as well you didn't happen to use your giant intellect to pick up Miss Sally who used the same supposed 'strawman' as I did. I can't imagine why.
> 
> You might've pulled the wool over the eyes of Team Trump who'll eat up your wordy goodness, but I see you. I see you.


:lmao

Yes, please, infer that I am a racist. That's a hot, fresh tactic. 

Of course I would never claim to be able to look into someone's head and heart and infer the same but it is my "mask of civility" which has "slipped," because obviously I've been a Klansman all along hiding under the veneer of respectability. 

You have not pushed any buttons whatsoever. Your posts have degenerated into an endless repetition of pablum and addressing this was overdue. 

The reason for describing the offending party in such stark terms is to make the visceral fury of particular entities opposing them, including political parties rising up today, more understandable. 

Do you believe that the citizens of the Byzantine Empire viewed the looting, raping, invading Crusaders during the Sack of Constantinople in 1204 as anything but looting, raping, invading Crusaders? The whole point of the widespread anger with regard to the present migrant situation is that governments are failing to protect citizens from people who can most charitably be described as guests. World history is a perpetual stage upon which disparate groups view one another as "the other"; it is all well and good to personally transcend this as best we can, but it is an unavoidable element of various populations conflicting with one another, even as we who have been marinated from birth as good Western liberals to defy these historic patterns. 

The death tolls of Iraq, of George W. Bush's mad war bent on regime change, of the neoconservative impulse toward what they glorify as "creative destruction," of Barack Obama's drone wars and the myriad conflagrations the U.S. has, in one way or another, entered and exacerbated through needless meddling are horrifying. Images of Yazidi Yemeni children starving to death thanks to Saudi Arabia's actions which have in large part been made possible due to U.S. over-involvement, of Syrian children charred beyond recognition in the street by U.S. bombing, are searing. As have reports of ISIS child sex slave-trading from Yemen and Libya, among other locations. It was I who noted that for these and other horrible deeds "we deserve to be destroyed" (Americans) [it was a post in the old thread in August, not going to look for it now]. Were I a zealous young Muslim man whose extended family had been devastated, from the region, and culturally inculcated into certain beliefs about the trashiness of Western values, I'd probably see to it that those of the West received pain and suffering. 

Problem is, a nineteen-year-old German girl (as was one of the latest numerous rape-and-murder victims) has little if any say in what her government is or is not doing, just as those attacked by the OSU terrorist were innocent. Western governments misbehaving in the Middle East does not negate the reality that their citizens must, as is the natural order of things, come first, and that responsible governance means protecting your own. We live in a world of constant contradictions and uncomfortable realities. I can understand why a new ISIS recruit may, with his own perspective, want to slaughter Frenchmen or Germans or Americans but for the sake of security they must be stopped and crushed.

In any event, I hope this post clarifies the point without making it any less sharp.  Let us not go away from one another angry. Let us, "Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, outcry and slander, along with every form of malice." Or something. :lol


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> My My My! What an entertaining departure from your usual witty, Oscar Wilde-esque retort cum- American history lesson! Have a few brandys last night and thought 'fuck this crap' last night did we?
> 
> Your mask of civility well and truly slipped, I'm almost proud to have pushed the famous Desolation's buttons. "Mass-raping, welfare-gorging home invaders" eh? Mighty white of you sir.
> 
> I noted as well you didn't happen to use your giant intellect to pick up Miss Sally who used the same supposed 'strawman' as I did. I can't imagine why.
> 
> You might've pulled the wool over the eyes of Team Trump who'll eat up your wordy goodness, but I see you. I see you.



I'm not sure why you've mentioned me, my post was a silly response in agreement with taters and punk's statements. Both are quite true. It was never intended to be anything other than that.

This whole notion of Trump's America is rather silly, it's no different than it was before. Everything is about the same but the sensational outcry is at an all time high. It could be said more things are out in the open but that doesn't mean that it's different. It's pretty much the same and much to the disappointment of our beloved MSM and "leftists" nothing radical has happened. 

The outcry, the fake hate crimes and the projection that it would be Trump supporters rioting when it's not and certain Democrats vowing to fight Trump has been entertaining. The fear mongering media and college students have made their own nightmares a reality by acting out what they said others would do.

Trump capatlized on anger but so did Bush and his brother Obama. So nothing new has transpired, both of these morons have kept the perpetual game of spin the bottle going. In 8 years we'll possibly see the Democrats winning convincingly because nothing changes, it's just a cycle. 

Trump's America is going to be like Obama's America, nothing much might change. Obama didn't take away all the guns, his Obama care is laughly bad, but the world didn't end. He's a terrible president in a long line of terrible presidents and America has gone on. The hyperbole is simply silly.

You'd think maybe the Democrats would be done thanks to their neoconservative stances, Hillary, the racist emails, being backed by 1% types like Soros and Zuckerberg who are enemies of free speech and by the Democrats war on minorities with their failed policies and population culling using Planned Parenthood... but nothing will change because it rarely does, it just goes in a relay race that never ends of two parties passing the baton to each other.

The difference between our statements is that I'm implying nothing much will change, America will always be divided. While you're saying nothing implied about the "refugees" is true or is sensationalist but the difference has already been seen. The sentiments of dramatic turbulence of Trump is boasted by the MSM. While the "refugee" problem is made to be seen as not a problem by the very same media. Our comments aren't comparable to each other.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Rudy won't be Trump's Secretary of State, or have any position in Trump's administration in the near future. 

http://nypost.com/2016/12/09/rudy-giuliani-wont-be-trumps-secretary-of-state/


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

:trump decided Rudy was a roody poo


----------



## Cliffy

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

*CAN'T BARRAGE THE FARAGE
CAN'T STUMP THE TRUMP
CAN'T MOSSAD THE ASSAD
NO REFUTIN' THE PUTIN*


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I'm a bit late responding to these but here we go.



yeahbaby! said:


> Might I warn you not to get everyone to throw out the Government Healthcare idea simply because the UK has apparently botched it.
> 
> I can assure you as someone who lives under Medicare in Australia and has for the last 6 or 7 years had affordable Insurance for non-medicare-able things, that it can be a very good system in a lot of cases for regular people. For the most part we have a great system over here, we don't pay a cent (you all know what I mean) and it hasn't sent our economy down the toilet yet.
> 
> Apart for having epilepsy and the stuff that entails, I'm a fairly healthy guy and I can assure you I've never had a huge problem with our Medicare over here.
> 
> Of course I'm sure there are horror stories just like the NHS has, but to say the idea of Universal Govt run Healthcare doesn't work based on your own countries experience just isn't true, I'm sorry but it isn't.
> 
> It can work and in a lot of cases it saves people going without of entering a world of debt they never get out of.


From what I understand and you can correct me if I am wrong but Australia has a large private healthcare sector as well as a public option run by the government. That is different from having a state run monopoly over healthcare. Whilst by principle I am against the public option due to the fact it gives the government the opportunity and mandate to consolidate more and more share of the market in healthcare it is still better than a complete and total top down socialized form of healthcare.

Of course I have my preferences when it comes to healthcare and how I think it should best be done, but the main concern I have right now when it comes to healthcare particularly in the UK is the issue of monopoly. Both Milton Friedman and Adam Smith for example recognized the dangers of monopoly in economic sectors outside of those which you cannot have private enterprises competing (Police, Military, Courts). Friedman went as far as saying it is the greatest economic evil possible and looking at the NHS and all it's problems I believe he has been proven 100% correct.

I am not even against a mixed healthcare system like France or Holland for example and have praised the Swiss system which is universal but in the form of private health insurance instead of socialized medicine. This probably puts me at odds with someone like @CamillePunk for example but I'm willing to work towards any realistic alternative which puts the consumer back in control of their healthcare. I want my country to look to other examples from different parts of the world which work better than our own system, not have such an insular outlook.





Alkomesh2 said:


> NHS isn't working because the right wing gov gutted it of the funds it needs to work properly, right wingers response is to say "look it isn't working we clearly should get rid of it".
> 
> Classic rightwingers, get into government, cut government funding to programs to provide tax cuts to the rich who don't use the government programs, complain that programs aren't working after problems arise from the money you cut from them, cut more funding from programs "because they aren't working" rinse and repeat until you've devastated and destroyed the society, culture and economy of the wider nation, but lined the pockets of the uber rich.


NHS spending has actually *increased* since the Conservatives took office. Over the last ten years from 2005/2006 to 2015/2016 NHS expenditure has increased from almost £76 Billion to £117 Billion. That is an increase of 65% and it is expected to rise to £120 Billion by 2020. In real terms the budget is expected to increased from £117 Billion this year to £120 Billion in the 2019/2020 calender year. These figures have been mapped out by the NHS themselves, it isn't hard to find.

Whilst it is true that certain sections of the NHS such as mental health have been cut in funding (around 2% in the case I have stated) it would be inaccurate to say that the Tories have been cutting funds to the NHS, the official figures contradict that and show that funding has increased year on year. Even if you were to argue about individual sections being cut, you have to remember that in order for there to be some fiscal responsibility (which is an area the Tories have failed on miserably) there needs to be some balance in funds. So inevitably some areas will be cut depending on what the said government in charge feels are the most important areas of funding should go towards. Mental health clearly is not one of the areas for the Tories in this case. Unless you are someone like Jeremy Corbyn or the SNP who simply do not care about budgeting and want to increase NHS spending across the board then you are going to see cuts somewhere otherwise you will have a huge explosion of debt that will be hard to manage. It is tough enough as it is now.

Another point which undermines your claims is the fact that the deficit in the NHS has been rising. It has gone up to £2.45 Billion as of this year. You cannot have it both ways, you cannot say that funds have been cut from the NHS and also claim that the deficit is going up. The only way the deficit's can increase is through increased spending, that is why Keynesian's for example call for *deficit spending* to recover from recession for example. You can't have one without the other. So the numbers don't add up. The best argument I've heard in response to this is "well the Tories are doing this on purpose to bring in privatization" which 1) contradicts the argument you have made about spending cuts and 2) is about as credible as the Democrats claiming that the WikiLeaks revelations came out through the Russians hacking. It is based on no evidence and is purely conspiratorial. What is a problem is the *real* slow increase of privatization of the NHS and I already explained why that is: because of the transfer of one monopoly power to another.

The problem with this argument also is that it assumes the problems I have explained have only just come about since the Conservatives got into power. When in fact many of them have been long term problems such as the long waiting times, the ever increasing burden of government bureaucracy and the difficulty of both allocating and getting adequate resources. These are problems that have been around for at least the last two decades since I have been born and it has continued to get worse with each successive government. Let's take for example a well known problem with the NHS which is a lack of beds for patients. The UK had 2.7 hospital beds per 1,000 people in 2014, compared to 8.2 in Germany, 6.2 in France, 3.0 in Spain, 2.8 in New Zealand and 2.7 in Denmark. Our resources when it comes to this crucial area is shocking compared to France and Germany who... you guessed it, have a *mixed healthcare system rather than a complete governmental monopoly.* Denmark also have state ran healthcare like us but the difference between us and Denmark is that they have a population of *5.7 million. We have over 10 times that.* That is more than a bit of a problem both statistically and in real terms. It shows how relying on governments to deliver a complete top down monopolistic approach to healthcare simply produces a worse result than those that have provisions of private healthcare in their system overall. That is just one example and we have got to start paying attention to how other countries provide healthcare. Not just state "private insurance based systems are bad because LOL AMERICA". There are more healthcare systems than the UK and the US.

I mean think about it, why do you think the last three election cycles the main conversation surrounding our healthcare has been "saving our NHS"? Because both politicians and the public in large have realized for at least the last decade that the NHS is in serious trouble and has a boatload of problems. The last time I checked it was Labour in power ten years ago and not the Tories.

I would also like to point out that not only do I think the question should be about monopoly rather than nationalization vs privatization that unfortunately we are in a situation where people have this fixed view in the UK on privatization being the outsourcing of sections of the NHS to big multinational corporations. I am against that just as much as anyone else but when I tell people that I'd rather have a private insurance based system they automatically think this what I mean which it is not. There are many other ways this can be achieved. One way for example although this would be rather radical would be to take the Adam Smith approach when it comes to monopolies. Instead of allowing them to control whole economic sectors (in this case Healthcare), the government can step in and break them up and considering the fact that the NHS is a monopoly built on state coercion I think this would be wholly justified. So instead of simply selling off and outsourcing parts of the NHS to corporations who run under the NHS name but have a stake in the entity you break up the NHS and sell them off to small and medium size businesses in which allows a competitive market style based system to come to fruition. And if public opinion wants the NHS to stay around in some capacity (which would be yes), that if it has to can stay around as a public option/medicare option but then at least we'd have a chance to improve upon the problems in which our healthcare system has had over the last two decades. This is just one option, it might not be the best approach but I reckon the best and most realistic choices we have are either to go to a mixed system like the ones in France/Holland or go to a universal healthcare system like the Swiss where the government sets the ground work but takes a more hands off approach and let's competition flourish. Either of those choices in my opinion are better than what we currently have now.

Finally, without even realizing it you actually provided an argument which validated my main points in all of this. If you allow the state to have a complete monopoly over healthcare you essentially allow governments the chance to abuse it and not put the people's best interests at heart. It fully rests on the fact that we should trust that governments will do the right thing and use their full control over people's health essentially for good. If we were to take what you argued at face value and it were to all be true then it would be the best evidence and case for ending the governmental monopoly on healthcare because instead of being stuck in a system as you said that is being gutted by the state at the detriment of the population, actually you would have the freedom to choose alternatives to provide you with a better service and better healthcare. You would not be stuck being forced to accept the state providing you with healthcare that is inadequate and below standards, you would be able to boycott it and get a better deal elsewhere. Same can be said also for the NHS employees and particularly the NHS junior doctors like I explained in my first post on the subject. 

Just like every other sector which has the benefits of having the freedom to choose .


----------



## Oxidamus

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



DesolationRow said:


> welfare-gorging


Please explain mighty DROW. :mj


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Aido Get Laido said:


> Please explain mighty DROW. :mj


But one of the hundreds of stories one can find mighty *OXI*. 

http://www.businessinsider.com/r-nu...efits-in-germany-surges-by-169-percent-2016-9

It's not especially pleasant to discuss, understandably, but the numbers in Germany, Austria, France, Sweden and even the U.S. are staggering.

Italian taxpayers have been billed €700 million (and many estimates say that this was intentionally lowballed by the government) for migrant-related housing and assistance costs. 

Do I blame the migrants for taking these handouts? Nope. 

Anyway, an exemplary post on the U.K.'s NHS, @L-DOPA. Even while knowing a good deal about the NHS, I nevertheless still learned some new things! Thank you for gifting this thread with the excellent discussion.


----------



## Oxidamus

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



DesolationRow said:


> But one of the hundreds of stories one can find mighty *OXI*.
> 
> http://www.businessinsider.com/r-nu...efits-in-germany-surges-by-169-percent-2016-9
> 
> It's not especially pleasant to discuss, understandably, but the numbers in Germany, Austria, France, Sweden and even the U.S. are staggering.
> 
> Italian taxpayers have been billed €700 million (and many estimates say that this was intentionally lowballed by the government) for migrant-related housing and assistance costs.
> 
> Do I blame the migrants for taking these handouts? Nope.


Being part of a welfare rights group here in Australia, the land of multiculturalism, has opened me up to the two sides of welfare rights.
Pro-refugee activists who say we can accept people, we are a large and wealthy country.
Anti-refugee activists who say we need to create opportunity and help our existing countrymen before any other.

I find it hard to pick, but I think I lean towards the latter more these days, only because of how our government treat refugees and immigrants.
We can't trust any government to intervene and help the "right" side without vested interests to bring peace to these wartorn areas. We (as in all countries that accept refugees) can't accept people from those areas into our countries without significant financial strain. And we can't morally justify denying them entry.

Just another thing where the only choices have pretty big losses attached.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Rudy now understand how all those contractors that worked with Trump felt all those years ago. :lmao

So now the alleged favourite for the SoS is the CEO of exxonmobil. You can't make this shit up. :lmao


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> So now the alleged favourite for the SoS is the CEO of exxonmobil. You can't make this shit up. :lmao


Don't forget about Gary Cohn, current president and COO of Goldman Sachs, for National Economic Council director.

:saul


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> Don't forget about Gary Cohn, current president and COO of Goldman Sachs, for National Economic Council director.
> 
> :saul


Goldman Sachs is only bad if their people support someone not named Trump. Trump is the only one that can control them, because he worked the banks over in the early 90's by threatening to not pay his debts. :troll


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



DesolationRow said:


> :lmao
> 
> Yes, please, infer that I am a racist. That's a hot, fresh tactic.
> 
> Of course I would never claim to be able to look into someone's head and heart and infer the same but it is my "mask of civility" which has "slipped," because obviously I've been a Klansman all along hiding under the veneer of respectability.
> 
> You have not pushed any buttons whatsoever. Your posts have degenerated into an endless repetition of pablum and addressing this was overdue.
> 
> The reason for describing the offending party in such stark terms is to make the visceral fury of particular entities opposing them, including political parties rising up today, more understandable.
> 
> Do you believe that the citizens of the Byzantine Empire viewed the looting, raping, invading Crusaders during the Sack of Constantinople in 1204 as anything but looting, raping, invading Crusaders? The whole point of the widespread anger with regard to the present migrant situation is that governments are failing to protect citizens from people who can most charitably be described as guests. World history is a perpetual stage upon which disparate groups view one another as "the other"; it is all well and good to personally transcend this as best we can, but it is an unavoidable element of various populations conflicting with one another, even as we who have been marinated from birth as good Western liberals to defy these historic patterns.
> 
> The death tolls of Iraq, of George W. Bush's mad war bent on regime change, of the neoconservative impulse toward what they glorify as "creative destruction," of Barack Obama's drone wars and the myriad conflagrations the U.S. has, in one way or another, entered and exacerbated through needless meddling are horrifying. Images of Yazidi Yemeni children starving to death thanks to Saudi Arabia's actions which have in large part been made possible due to U.S. over-involvement, of Syrian children charred beyond recognition in the street by U.S. bombing, are searing. As have reports of ISIS child sex slave-trading from Yemen and Libya, among other locations. It was I who noted that for these and other horrible deeds "we deserve to be destroyed" (Americans) [it was a post in the old thread in August, not going to look for it now]. Were I a zealous young Muslim man whose extended family had been devastated, from the region, and culturally inculcated into certain beliefs about the trashiness of Western values, I'd probably see to it that those of the West received pain and suffering.
> 
> Problem is, a nineteen-year-old German girl (as was one of the latest numerous rape-and-murder victims) has little if any say in what her government is or is not doing, just as those attacked by the OSU terrorist were innocent. Western governments misbehaving in the Middle East does not negate the reality that their citizens must, as is the natural order of things, come first, and that responsible governance means protecting your own. We live in a world of constant contradictions and uncomfortable realities. I can understand why a new ISIS recruit may, with his own perspective, want to slaughter Frenchmen or Germans or Americans but for the sake of security they must be stopped and crushed.
> 
> In any event, I hope this post clarifies the point without making it any less sharp.  Let us not go away from one another angry. Let us, "Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, outcry and slander, along with every form of malice." Or something. :lol


Never inferred you were a racist in anyway shape or form. If you referring to me saying 'mighty white of you' then that's actually a term implying you're being fair minded, which I meant in an obviously sarcastic way. 

Honestly though, I really cannot take any more of your boring history lessons so whatever point you were making there I ignored. I realise I'm in the minority on here in not being dazzled by you so please don't stop on my account.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> Rudy now understand how all those contractors that worked with Trump felt all those years ago. :lmao
> 
> So now the alleged favourite for the SoS is the CEO of exxonmobil. You can't make this shit up. :lmao


The real threat isn't fake news, it's fake opinions like this.

The CEO of ExxonMobil has extensive experience negotiating with foreign governments all over the globe. 20+ years of it. 

But I'm sure you knew that before you decided to sneer and laugh because the idea of a man who's conducted huge and complex negotiations with multiple foreign governments for the last two decades being Secretary of State is so self-evidently stupid.

It's that attitude that got :trump elected and will get him re-elected so :trump wishes you'll keep it up anyway :trump3



yeahbaby! said:


> Honestly though, I really cannot take any more of your boring history lessons so whatever point you were making there I ignored. I realise I'm in the minority on here in not being dazzled by you so please don't stop on my account.


Boring! Why, DesolationRow's history lessons, despite their simplistic nature and troubling lack of accuracy when it comes to anything that happened after 1945, are quite entertaining. I could spend hours dissecting all the nonsense in this paragraph alone:



> The death tolls of Iraq, of George W. Bush's mad war bent on regime change, of the neoconservative impulse toward what they glorify as "creative destruction," of Barack Obama's drone wars and the myriad conflagrations the U.S. has, in one way or another, entered and exacerbated through needless meddling are horrifying. Images of Yazidi Yemeni children starving to death thanks to Saudi Arabia's actions which have in large part been made possible due to U.S. over-involvement, of Syrian children charred beyond recognition in the street by U.S. bombing, are searing. As have reports of ISIS child sex slave-trading from Yemen and Libya, among other locations. It was I who noted that for these and other horrible deeds "we deserve to be destroyed" (Americans) [it was a post in the old thread in August, not going to look for it now]. Were I a zealous young Muslim man whose extended family had been devastated, from the region, and culturally inculcated into certain beliefs about the trashiness of Western values, I'd probably see to it that those of the West received pain and suffering.


They would be some very intellectually stimulating and entertaining hours too.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



deepelemblues said:


> Boring! Why, DesolationRow's history lessons, despite their simplistic nature and troubling lack of accuracy when it comes to anything that happened after 1945, are quite entertaining. I could spend hours dissecting all the nonsense in this paragraph alone:
> 
> 
> 
> They would be some very intellectually stimulating and entertaining hours too.


Ooooh now you're in trouble, if he has too many blueberry shnapps later tonight you're going to get quite the shelacking.


LOL at fake opinions. How elitist.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Honestly though, I really cannot take any more of your boring history lessons so whatever point you were making there I ignored. I realise I'm in the minority on here in not being dazzled by you so please don't stop on my account.


No, no, you are most certainly right. Communication must ensue before anyone experiences the purported byproduct of being dazzled by anything or anyone and it is best to recognize to whom communication is a waste of one's precious time. 

From this point forward the mistake will not be repeated.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



deepelemblues said:


> The real threat isn't fake news, it's fake opinions like this.
> 
> The CEO of ExxonMobil has extensive experience negotiating with foreign governments all over the globe. 20+ years of it.
> 
> But I'm sure you knew that before you decided to sneer and laugh because the idea of a man who's conducted huge and complex negotiations with multiple foreign governments for the last two decades being Secretary of State is so self-evidently stupid.
> 
> It's that attitude that got :trump elected and will get him re-elected so :trump wishes you'll keep it up anyway :trump3
> 
> 
> 
> Boring! Why, DesolationRow's history lessons, despite their simplistic nature and troubling lack of accuracy when it comes to anything that happened after 1945, are quite entertaining. I could spend hours dissecting all the nonsense in this paragraph alone:
> 
> 
> 
> They would be some very intellectually stimulating and entertaining hours too.


:lmao Experience is now a good thing because it isn't someone from the other side?

I hope you aren't one of the people that bitched about the Clinton's ties with foreign governments when Hillary was Secretary of State. Extensive negotiations like the deal with Russia that could not proceed because of sanctions against Russia? I wonder what will happen now. :hmm

People aren't laughing at his expertise bro. People are laughing at the voters who thought they were voting to 'drain the swamp' and this transition team is not giving a fuck about the huge potential for self-dealing in their nominees.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@CamillePunk, @Miss Sally; @DesolationRow; 

Of course the "progressives" (can we call them that? I mean, we can't use words like "liberals" and "leftists" anymore since "we don't know how to use those words" as the only ones that know what the left and liberals are are the leftists and liberals themselves :kobelol) will never celebrate a strong, empowered and successful woman like Kellyanne. 

But they have their Lena Dunham, Katy Perry, Laci Green types though. Those are "real" women icons. 

Anyways, this clip has some great sound bytes. 






:banderas


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/807648220079919104
:chlol


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I was REALLY hoping for Rudy. He's been to England eight times, Japan six times, France five times. China three times—once with Bill Clinton, by the way. You can't say he doesn't know the world.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



MrMister said:


> I was REALLY hoping for Rudy. He's been to England eight times, Japan six times, France five times. China three times—once with Bill Clinton, by the way. You can't say he doesn't know the world.


:LIGHTS


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/807648220079919104
> :chlol


>Trump funds his own campaign so he doesn't owe favors to anyone
>lets him pick whoever he considers most qualified
>mfw everyone flips out because he picks incredible buisiness men for multiple positions

He's picking the best from the private sector, did you really think draining the swamp meant picking from the PUBLIC sector?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> >Trump funds his own campaign so he doesn't owe favors to anyone
> >lets him pick whoever he considers most qualified
> >mfw everyone flips out because he picks incredible buisiness men for multiple positions
> 
> He's picking the best from the private sector, did you really think draining the swamp meant picking from the PUBLIC sector?


Trump did not fund his own campaign where do you come up with this BS. you need to get more informed. Linda McMahon for example gave Trump $6 MILLION for his campaign. 

Please get a clue and learn how to use google FFS

If you think what Trump is doing is draining the swap with his picks you are even more clueless than I though.


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I can not wait until Jan 20th when Trump is officially sworn in and all the liberals can finally STFU


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



wwe9391 said:


> I can not wait until Jan 20th when Trump is officially sworn in and all the liberals can finally STFU


Yeah, because thats whats going to happen


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



wwe9391 said:


> I can not wait until Jan 20th when Trump is officially sworn in and all the liberals can finally STFU


The real liberals (progressives) are just going to keep fighting harder.

I also love the hypocrisy of people like you. The conservatives couldn't STFU about Obama for 8 years but i guess that was ok right


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> >Trump funds his own campaign so he doesn't owe favors to anyone





> *Donald Trump Picks Fast-Food Exec Andrew Puzder for Labor Secretary
> 
> Together with his wife, Puzder contributed $150,000 in late May to Trump’s campaign and Republican Party partners, fundraising records show.*
> 
> SOURCE


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



wwe9391 said:


> I can not wait until Jan 20th when Trump is officially sworn in and all the liberals can finally STFU


Oh you think people will shut up once Trump takes office? If anything, it'll probably get worse. Don't underestimate America's ability to complain, *ESPECIALLY* about its president.


----------



## TB Tapp

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Alright, I have a question for Americabros. I ask here because it doesn't deserve it's own thread.

When you were in elementary school, did you have recite the pledge of allegiance?

Now, here's my trick. A lot of guys asking this question on other forums are Euros like Swedes or Dutchman...it's phrased in a way to imply "Really? You guys actually do that? Uh...okay then." [Shakes head] Now, I'm not American but I approve it as a show of patriotism and cohesion.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


>


And? You actually think hes a bad choice?


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump did not fund his own campaign where do you come up with this BS. you need to get more informed. Linda McMahon for example gave Trump $6 MILLION for his campaign.
> 
> Please get a clue and learn how to use google FFS
> 
> If you think what Trump is doing is draining the swap with his picks you are even more clueless than I though.


Oh look its this again. 
:nerd:


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> Og look its this again.
> :nerd:


Oh, come on. I disagree with BM on the way he presents his arguments pretty much all of the time, but your point was that "Trump financed his own campaign." That has been proven false, hell Linda McMahon gave him $6 million. You can't just plug your fingers in your ears over this.

Granted, I am more surprised that other people were expecting anything different.

The point isn't whether or not he is a good choice, one of his main talking points was that he couldn't be bought. Seeing as he's appointing people who gave him money, that doesn't appear to be true, no?


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



TB Tapp said:


> Alright, I have a question for Americabros. I ask here because it doesn't deserve it's own thread.
> 
> When you were in elementary school, did you have recite the pledge of allegiance?
> 
> Now, here's my trick. A lot of guys asking this question on other forums are Euros like Swedes or Dutchman...it's phrased in a way to imply "Really? You guys actually do that? Uh...okay then." [Shakes head] Now, I'm not American but I approve it as a show of patriotism and cohesion.


Yes, I most certainly did. Under God and all.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Cipher said:


> Oh, come on. I disagree with BM on the way he presents his arguments pretty much all of the time, but your point was that "Trump financed his own campaign." That has been proven false, hell Linda McMahon gave him $6 million. You can't just plug your fingers in your ears over this.
> 
> Granted, I am more surprised that other people were expecting anything different.
> v
> The point isn't whether or not he is a good choice, one of his main talking points was that he couldn't be bought. Seeing as he's appointing people who gave him money, that doesn't appear to be true, no?


Im so sure its true, just like Trump being a pedophile. Most likely its a nugget of fact spun to be bigger than it is. 

Meanwhile theres no WAY he was appointed because he was best for the job. right?

MEANWHILE, I like this hire.

Rex is an absolutely outstanding individual. He has negotiated oil deals in many countries worldwide whether they be democratic, dictatorships, communist, or whatever, he is the epitome of a negotiator...none better. He personally knows just about every leader in every country in the world. Simply outstanding choice.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> Im so sure its true, just like Trump being a pedophile. Most likely its a nugget of fact spun to be bigger than it is.
> 
> Meanwhile theres no WAY he was appointed because he was best for the job. right?


"Linda McMahon, co-founder of the professional wrestling franchise WWE and a former Republican Senate candidate from Connecticut, infused a super PAC supporting Donald Trump with $6 million in August and September, new campaign finance filings show.

The donations from McMahon made up nearly one-third of the nearly $18 million that Rebuilding America Now pulled in during the last quarter. She made five separate contributions, giving a final $1 million on Sept. 22.

McMahon's support for the super PAC marks the second occasion in which she has stepped up with major financial support for Trump. Between 2007 and 2009, she and her husband Vince gave $5 million to Trump's charitable foundation."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...476605082504&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.9b508053bf0a

I'd be more inclined to believe he was the right man for the job on that merit if Trump hadn't made this comment in the past:

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/503316125405700096


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Cipher said:


> "Linda McMahon, co-founder of the professional wrestling franchise WWE and a former Republican Senate candidate from Connecticut, infused a super PAC supporting Donald Trump with $6 million in August and September, new campaign finance filings show.
> 
> The donations from McMahon made up nearly one-third of the nearly $18 million that Rebuilding America Now pulled in during the last quarter. She made five separate contributions, giving a final $1 million on Sept. 22.
> 
> McMahon's support for the super PAC marks the second occasion in which she has stepped up with major financial support for Trump. Between 2007 and 2009, she and her husband Vince gave $5 million to Trump's charitable foundation."
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...476605082504&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.9b508053bf0a
> 
> I'd be more inclined to believe he was the right man for the job on that merit if Trump hadn't made this comment in the past:
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/503316125405700096


Thats a mighty big spin you put on that tweet.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> Thats a mighty big spin you put on that tweet.


I guess. I will be willing to admit I am wrong if I am taking that tweet out of context. I don't have a problem admitting I am wrong if I am shown to be lol


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Cipher said:


> I guess. I will be willing to admit I am wrong if I am taking that tweet out of context. I don't have a problem admitting I am wrong if I am shown to be lol


"the rest of the world"--non usa--"So true, except friends!"--friends of the USA.

This is what I want. Nationalism, NOT globalism.


----------



## southrnbygrace

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



TB Tapp said:


> Alright, I have a question for Americabros. I ask here because it doesn't deserve it's own thread.
> 
> When you were in elementary school, did you have recite the pledge of allegiance?
> 
> Now, here's my trick. A lot of guys asking this question on other forums are Euros like Swedes or Dutchman...it's phrased in a way to imply "Really? You guys actually do that? Uh...okay then." [Shakes head] Now, I'm not American but I approve it as a show of patriotism and cohesion.


I did. every morning first thing after the announcements were read over the intercom. But this was in the late 60s when Americans were proud to be Americans. Sadly it's no longer like that here.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> Im so sure its true, just like Trump being a pedophile. Most likely its a nugget of fact spun to be bigger than it is.
> 
> Meanwhile theres no WAY he was appointed because he was best for the job. right?
> 
> MEANWHILE, I like this hire.
> 
> Rex is an absolutely outstanding individual. He has negotiated oil deals in many countries worldwide whether they be democratic, dictatorships, communist, or whatever, he is the epitome of a negotiator...none better. He personally knows just about every leader in every country in the world. Simply outstanding choice.


Again you are clueless, Trump had a ton of donors, he was not self-funded. How is it just a nugget when Trump did take donations from many and is not self-funded? Just Linda alone was $6 million that is far from a nugget. And no she was not the best for the job. You have to be kidding me. No one Trump is picking is best for the job. He is picking the people his donors told him to pick and the people that gave him money.




TB Tapp said:


> Alright, I have a question for Americabros. I ask here because it doesn't deserve it's own thread.
> 
> When you were in elementary school, did you have recite the pledge of allegiance?
> 
> Now, here's my trick. A lot of guys asking this question on other forums are Euros like Swedes or Dutchman...it's phrased in a way to imply "Really? You guys actually do that? Uh...okay then." [Shakes head] Now, I'm not American but I approve it as a show of patriotism and cohesion.


No we did not HAVE to recite the pledge of allegiance, it was optional. Most times only half the class would even stand for it to recite it.


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

https://apnews.com/b7fa625aeb7e4ab4...n=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP



> Donald Trump was greeted with cheers on his arrival at the annual Army-Navy game on Saturday, basking in one of the nation's most storied football rivalries as he prepares to enter the White House.
> 
> The future commander in chief, protected by panes of bulletproof glass, waved to the crowd and pumped his fist as he arrived during the first quarter of the 117th game between the military academies at West Point and Annapolis. The game, on a sunny but chilly day, was being held on relatively neutral ground, at M&T Bank Stadium in Baltimore.


Trump getting a great reception from our service men and women? :bjpenn



> Trump, in an interview with CBS Sports announcers Verne Lundquist and Gary Danielson, said he was "totally neutral" on the outcome of the game and quipped that he might make Lundquist, who was retiring from the play-by-play booth, his ambassador to Sweden.


Trump thinking about giving Verne da GOAT an ambassadorship? :banderas


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> >Trump funds his own campaign so he doesn't owe favors to anyone
> >lets him pick whoever he considers most qualified
> >mfw everyone flips out because he picks incredible buisiness men for multiple positions
> 
> He's picking the best from the private sector, did you really think draining the swamp meant picking from the PUBLIC sector?


Jesus Christ this is way beyond sad dude. I know others have said this but your 'Trump funds himself' statement has been categorically proven untrue and you have simply refused to acknowledge this and keep on deflecting.

Honestly just be straight in your own thread FFS, no one expected Trump to fund himself completely, of course he took donations like everyone else.

I'm trying not to target you dude but the way your blind faith won't let you take even the slightest step back looks way worse than if you just said 'Okay so he took some donations but etc etc'.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Cipher said:


> Oh, come on. I disagree with BM on the way he presents his arguments pretty much all of the time, but your point was that "Trump financed his own campaign." That has been proven false, hell Linda McMahon gave him $6 million. You can't just plug your fingers in your ears over this.
> 
> Granted, I am more surprised that other people were expecting anything different.
> 
> The point isn't whether or not he is a good choice, one of his main talking points was that he couldn't be bought. Seeing as he's appointing people who gave him money, that doesn't appear to be true, no?





> *Woody Johnson Takes On Role as Fund-Raiser for Donald Trump*
> 
> Not so long ago, Donald J. Trump singled out Woody Johnson, the owner of the New York Jets, as he criticized Jeb Bush for taking “special interest” donor money in the Republican presidential campaign.
> 
> That was before the New Hampshire primary on Feb. 9. Now, Mr. Johnson is one of the six finance vice chairmen at the Republican National Committee, seeking to help Mr. Trump raise roughly $1 billion over the next six months.
> 
> SOURCE





> *Jets owner Woody Johnson is all about raising money for Trump*
> 
> Jets owner and prolific GOP fund-raising machine Woody Johnson has jumped aboard the Trump Train and pledged to make it rain for the presumptive Republican nominee.
> 
> Johnson’s support is key beyond the bottom line, because he represents the GOP establishment that has struggled to embrace Donald Trump‘s campaign, Bloomberg News reported.
> 
> Johnson had supported Jeb Bush, who was a favorite punching bag of Trump’s during the primary campaign.
> 
> Trump steamrolled over the former Florida governor by casting him as a “low energy” contender who couldn’t get the job done in the White House.
> 
> The Jets owner is now among a small but growing circle of rich, traditional Republicans who have backed Trump – including Las Vegas hotel mogul Sheldon Adelson, investor and Christian activist Foster Friess and healthcare investor Fred Eshelman, Bloomberg News reported.
> 
> SOURCE





> *Jets' Woody Johnson a contender to be Donald Trump's U.K. ambassador, report says*
> 
> Jets owner Woody Johnson is under consideration to be the United States' ambassador to the United Kingdom under president-elect Donald Trump, according to the New York Post, which reported Johnson is "a leading contender."
> 
> Johnson has long been a prominent Republican fundraiser. After initially supporting Jeb Bush's campaign during the primary, Johnson shifted his support to Trump when he secured the nomination.
> 
> Johnson served as vice chairman of Trump's victory committee. Johnson also hosted high-dollar fundraisers for Trump's campaign. Plus, Johnson is on Trump's inaugural committee.
> 
> Incoming presidents typically reward big-money supporters/donors with ambassador posts like this.
> 
> SOURCE


Remember back in the primaries when Trump was ripping Jeb! to pieces for being bought by special interests? Yeah, he just wanted those special interests for himself. He specifically called out Woody Johnson for backing Jeb!, then later Woody started fundraising for him and now is being considered as ambassador to the UK. You can't make this shit up. :lmao


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Lol are the Trumpmaniacs really standing by "Trump funded his own campaign and doesn't owe anybody anything" even after all the campaign finance figures (he funded around $60 Mil of a $300 Mil campaign off the top of my head, and that's not counting superpacs supporting him I'm fairly sure which would blow the ratio out considerably) have come out and he's appointed more major donors to cabinet positions than any president in history?


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



TB Tapp said:


> Alright, I have a question for Americabros. I ask here because it doesn't deserve it's own thread.
> 
> When you were in elementary school, did you have recite the pledge of allegiance?
> 
> Now, here's my trick. A lot of guys asking this question on other forums are Euros like Swedes or Dutchman...it's phrased in a way to imply "Really? You guys actually do that? Uh...okay then." [Shakes head] Now, I'm not American but I approve it as a show of patriotism and cohesion.


We aren't required too, but I always did it anyways to avoid issue. One kid in my class was a Jehovah's Witness, so of course he didn't.

I did quit the "under God" part when I was around 7/8 because I had quit being a Lutheran around that time. Too many nightmares about going to Hell, not wanting to be so afraid of sinning, and just generally learning more about science. I don't have an issue with religious folk and try not to come across as if I am talking down to them, it just ain't for me.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@AryaDark



> *Rand Paul: Will Donald Trump betray voters by hiring John Bolton?*
> November 15, 2016
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.)
> 
> Rumors are that Donald Trump might pick John Bolton for Secretary of State. Heaven forbid.
> 
> One of the things I occasionally liked about the President-elect was his opposition to the Iraq war and regime change. He not only grasped the mistake of that war early, but also seemed to fully understand how it disrupted the balance of power in the Middle East and even emboldened Iran.
> 
> We liberated Iraq, but today their best friend is Iran, their second greatest ally is Russia, and their third strongest alliance is with Syria. Trump really seems to get the lesson. Hillary Clinton never did.
> 
> Most importantly right now, John Bolton never learned and never will.
> 
> Bolton is a longtime member of the failed Washington elite that Trump vowed to oppose, hell-bent on repeating virtually every foreign policy mistake the U.S. has made in the last 15 years — particularly those Trump promised to avoid as president.
> 
> John Bolton more often stood with Hillary Clinton and against what Donald Trump has advised.
> 
> None of this is secret. It’s all out there. Perhaps the incoming administration should take a closer look.
> 
> Bolton was one of the loudest advocates of overthrowing Saddam Hussein and still stupefyingly insists it was the right call 13 years later. “I still think the decision to overthrow Saddam was correct,” Bolton said just last year.
> 
> Trump, rightly, believes that decision was a colossal mistake that destabilized the region. “Iraq used to be no terrorists,” Trump said in 2015. “Now it’s the Harvard of terrorism.”
> 
> “If you look at Iraq from years ago, I’m not saying he was a nice guy, he was a horrible guy,” Trump said of Saddam Hussein, “but it was a lot better than it is right now.”
> 
> Trump has said U.S. intervention in Iraq in 2003 “helped to throw the region into chaos and gave ISIS the space it needs to grow and prosper.” In contrast, Bolton has said explicitly that he wants to repeat Iraq-style regime change in Syrian and Iran.
> 
> You can’t learn from mistakes if you don’t see mistakes.
> 
> Trump has blamed George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for helping to create ISIS — but should add John Bolton to that list, who essentially agreed with all three on our regime change debacles.
> 
> In 2011, Bolton bashed Obama “for his refusal to directly target Gaddafi” and declared, “there is a strategic interest in toppling Gaddafi… But Obama missed it.” In fact, Obama actually took Bolton’s advice and bombed the Libyan dictator into the next world. Secretary of State Clinton bragged, “We came, we saw, he died.”
> 
> When Trump was asked last year if Libya and the region would be more stable today with Gaddafi in power, he replied “100 percent.” Mr. Trump is 100 percent right.
> 
> No man is more out of touch with the situation in the Middle East or more dangerous to our national security than Bolton.
> 
> All nuance is lost on the man. The fact that Russia has had a base in Syria for 50 years doesn’t deter Bolton from calling for all out, no holds barred war in Syria. Bolton criticized the current administration for offering only a tepid war. For Bolton, only a hot-blooded war to create democracy across the globe is demanded.
> 
> Woodrow Wilson would be proud, but the parents of our soldiers should be mortified. War should be the last resort, never the first. War should be understood to be a hell no one wishes for. Dwight Eisenhower understood this when he wrote, “I hate war like only a soldier can, the stupidity, the banality, the futility.”
> 
> Bolton would not understand this because, like many of his generation, he used every privilege to avoid serving himself. Bolton said, with the threat of the Vietnam draft over his head, that “he had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy.” But he’s seems to be okay with your son or daughter dying wherever his neoconservative impulse leads us: “Even before the Iraq War, John Bolton was a leading brain behind the neoconservatives’ war-and-conquest agenda,” notes The American Conservative’s Jon Utley.
> 
> At a time when Americans thirst for change and new thinking, Bolton is an old hand at failed foreign policy.
> 
> The man is a menace.
> 
> Our Constitution and our founding fathers were explicit war was not to be fought without the permission of Congress. No matter which party occupies the White House, I will not shrink from my constitutional duty to oppose any advocate for war.
> 
> The true statesmen realizes, with reluctance, that war is sometimes necessary but as a country, we should resist any would-be leader who wants to bomb now and think later.
> 
> President-elect Donald Trump campaigned on changing our disastrous foreign policy. To appoint John Bolton would be a major first step toward breaking that promise.
> 
> SOURCE


And now...

_Noted Iraq War Hawk John Bolton Is Trump’s Pick for Deputy Secretary of State_

Rand is right. This is an absolute betrayal and John Bolton is a menace. Seeing as how the SOS pick has zero experience, you *know* Bolton is going to be the one running things. Remember when certain individuals in this thread were saying we need to keep Hillary out of office because she's a neocon who wants to start WWIII? Well, Trump just put the biggest fucking neocon of them all as Deputy SOS. This mother fucker wants to go to war with Iran. Let's hope there are enough sensible people like Rand Paul and Tulsi Gabbard standing in the way of another disaster because if Bolton has his way, the past 15 years of foreign policy blunders will be child's play compared to the disasters he wants to unleash on the world.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Lol are the Trumpmaniacs really standing by "Trump funded his own campaign and doesn't owe anybody anything" even after all the campaign fiance figures (he funded around $60 Mil of a $300 Mil campaign off the top of my head, and that's not counting superpacs supporting him I'm fairly sure which would blow the ratio out considerably) have come out and he's appointed more major donors to cabinet positions than any president in history?


I don't even understand why he is clinging to self-funding point at all. Trump can be commended for winning the election by spending a lot less than every recent candidate. Maybe his celebrity helped in not needing to blast ads to remind voters who he is, or him saying ridiculous stuff on the trail forced the media to cover him so there is no need for much negative ads, whatever the case he found a way to reduce campaign spending this cycle. The consequences of such a tactic is up for debate imo though.

The self-funding bluster is just opening himself to ridicule.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Trump, you are failing my good graces

If you were going to pick from the "establishment" could you at least pick the numerous political veterans who have been doing this most of their lives and not the businessmen wanting to play politician and failed republicans

people are so afraid of the "political elite" that they anyone on the outs with their party must be because the "establishment was afraid of their ideas" but 9 times out of 10 the reason that your pet congressmen is not supported by their party is because they fucking suck behind closed doors 

I mean I am cool with the generals in intelligence and military matters but outside of that...

You know, I didn't really have a problem with the "establishment", I'm doing pretty well


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

:trump strongly associates and maybe even equates being successful and competent with making assloads of money. 

:trump also places a very high value on personal loyalty to :trump

The first reason explains half the cabinet the second reason explains the other half.

He created the strong impression that he would run the government as much like a business as he could and his cabinet picks bear that out so far.

I don't give a fuck that they're from Wall Street, the anti-Wall Street strain of populism holds no appeal to me. At least they all appear to be ruthless fucks who keep their eyes on the main chance. Which is better than the dipshits running the departments of the federal government the last 16 years.


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

*Goddamnit, Trump :maisie2

*


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



deepelemblues said:


> *At least they all appear to be ruthless fucks who keep their eyes on the main chance*.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Ultimately, while we may be able to see particular warning signs flashing at this time, what is going to be most paramount is how Donald Trump goes about prioritizing his cabinet members in terms of how much influence they have, respectively, within his orbit. 

Secretary of State has always been the de facto "big kahuna" cabinet position but several unorthodox presidencies have operated differently from the norm. During what was perhaps the single most radical shift in U.S. foreign policy throughout the entirety of the Cold War, the policymaking routed from the Executive Office and throughout the White House was dominantly prepared and cooked up by Richard Nixon's National Security Advisor, Henry Kissinger--who left the role forever enhanced--while William P. Rogers simply oversaw the quotidian, day-to-day operations of the State Department as Secretary of State until the end of Nixon's first term, but for one example. 

Presidents who leave a lasting imprint tend to be ones who have a bold vision and tenaciously follow it, through the muck and mire, as Nixon did, even as his presidency faced an existential crisis. Most presidents generally allow events to dictate what happens, or find themselves boxed in by either a powerful single faction or multiple feuding ones (or all of the above). Trump would appear to have an inner circle which includes Steve Bannon, Michael Flynn, probably James Mattis by whom Trump has seemed enthusiastically impressed and certainly future Attorney General Jeff Sessions (Attorney General being perhaps the single most important position in terms of filling it with an ideologically alike, friendly person for understandable reasons), and of course Kellyanne Conway, Rudy Giuliani and Newt Gingrich from outside. Beyond that it is difficult to say whose voices will ring the loudest in his ears. For now, to be continued...


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

John Bolton for Deputy Secretary of State....fuckin' A.

Honestly reading that post from @Tater, Bolton not only is the ultimate war hawk but also one of the biggest pieces of shit in Washington right now. Trump picking a damn Corporate CEO for Secretary of State and now Bolton for Deputy is the recipe for a nightmare in terms of foreign policy. The one big area that affects countries like mine.

I said I'd be willing to give Trump a chance but that if he picked Bolton or Guiliani anywhere near the Secretary of State position that support would be revoked.

Well it happened, so for now until I see things any differently in terms of political action on foreign policy, I will probably be Trump's most vocal critic in this thread on this issue. My my the Trump supporters are going to hate me from now on if Trump doesn't prove me wrong but I have MASSIVELY bad feeling about this :lol.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Some picks I've liked, some I am wait and see on, some I hate! Bolton being one of them. I like the generals in positions where military and intelligence are involved, far too often we get bureaucrats who know nothing running things the military should be. 

I'm going to wait and see what happens but some of these picks are 100% garbage. 

If it's bad then I'll be sure to point it out, maybe Bush and his Brother Obama will get a new Daddy!


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



deepelemblues said:


> :trump strongly associates and maybe even equates being successful and competent with making assloads of money.
> 
> :trump also places a very high value on personal loyalty to :trump
> 
> The first reason explains half the cabinet the second reason explains the other half.
> 
> He created the strong impression that he would run the government as much like a business as he could and his cabinet picks bear that out so far.
> 
> I don't give a fuck that they're from Wall Street, the anti-Wall Street strain of populism holds no appeal to me. At least they all appear to be ruthless fucks who keep their eyes on the main chance. Which is better than the dipshits running the departments of the federal government the last 16 years.


In other words he will bankrupt the US just like he did his companies.

The more picks Trump puts into place the more you can see what a disaster he is and is going to cause.


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/ne...d-trump-blocking-chinese-investment-us-955037



> China's richest man has asked Chirs Dodd, chairman of the Motion Picture Associate of America, to deliver a message to President-elect Trump.
> 
> Wang Jianlin, the billionaire chairman of Chinese real estate and entertainment conglomerate Dalian Wanda Group, says he told the MPAA chief on Friday that any move by Trump to curb Chinese investment in the U.S. could jeopardize the jobs of Wanda's 20,000 American employees.
> 
> "I met the president of the MPAA yesterday and he said he would like to meet Mr. Trump and asked me what I wanted to tell him," Wang said during a forum in Beijing on Saturday. "I told him that I've invested over $10 billion in the U.S., employing over 20,000 people. If something goes wrong, these 20,000-plus people might be out of jobs."


:kobelol

This is cute. Wang's all of the sudden showing concern for his US employees. Behind the curtain, he's probably scared that Trump and the GOP are gonna take a closer look and investigate the several acquisitions his conglomerate (which is probably backed by the communist Chinese government) has made in the US entertainment industry.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

One thing I am glad is that this election has highlighted why so many nations just go "fuck it, who is the highest ranking general?" when it comes time to pick a leader

so much less drama

I mean the if the fucking Oil guy cares he could be one of the best choices but we have zero evidence that he will


----------



## FITZ

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



stevefox1200 said:


> One thing I am glad is that this election has highlighted why so many nations just go "fuck it, who is the highest ranking general?" when it comes time to pick a leader
> 
> so much less drama
> 
> I mean the if the fucking Oil guy cares he could be one of the best choices but we have zero evidence that he will


To get as far as he has I don't see him as the type of person who takes a job and doesn't care how he does at it.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

So Trump was on Chris Wallace this morning and said this






I'm sure the briefings are similar, but there is no way they are the same every day. Let's be honest here. If Hillary or Obama said this they'd be raked over the coals and rightfully so. Imagine they're asked the same question and they say Biden/Kaine will take them and if something pops up let me know. I'm sure at times it's boring and repetitive, but it's your job as president.

Just for CYA's sake he should listen to the daily briefings. Imagine a large attack does happen and it's found out he never took the briefings. Also, let's say the intelligence community is getting something wrong or pushing an agenda. If you aren't listening how are you supposed to notice that?


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



L-DOPA said:


> Trump picking a damn Corporate CEO for Secretary of State and now Bolton for Deputy is the recipe for a nightmare in terms of foreign policy. The one big area that affects countries like mine.


Well aside from being against sanctions we don't know much about Tillerson's foreign policy views, and most importantly he's been hired to do a job which is to carry out Trump's foreign policy vision. I suspect if he doesn't do that job how Trump wants it done he won't last long. As for Bolton being Deputy Secretary of State, I guess I could assume the worst as Tater and others have and say he's going to be "running the place" despite not getting the top job, but that's too giant an assumption for me to justify. I'll continue to wait and see what Trump's administration actually does rather than sit and over-analyze every cabinet position and hallucinate that I have the ability to see the future and how all of these jobs will be performed under Trump's rule. 



> I said I'd be willing to give Trump a chance but that if he picked Bolton or Guiliani anywhere near the Secretary of State position that support would be revoked.
> 
> Well it happened, so for now until I see things any differently in terms of political action on foreign policy, I will probably be Trump's most vocal critic in this thread on this issue. My my the Trump supporters are going to hate me from now on if Trump doesn't prove me wrong but I have MASSIVELY bad feeling about this :lol.


Well saying you'll give him a chance and then revoking that chance because of a Deputy Secretary of State (go ahead and name me a few without checking Wikipedia) appointment seems silly to me. :lol 

Rudy didn't get the job. Bolton didn't get the job. People are making huge assumptions in order to be able to criticize this appointment, like they do with every decision Trump makes. The media and the left are still upset with everything Trump is doing, and the worst elements of the GOP elite are still trying to oust him with this Russia nonsense, so I'm still proceeding with a satisfied mind.  When they start changing their tune I'll be worried.


2 Ton 21 said:


> So Trump was on Chris Wallace this morning and said this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure the briefings are similar, but there is no way they are the same every day. Let's be honest here. If Hillary or Obama said this they'd be raked over the coals and rightfully so. Imagine they're asked the same question and they say Biden/Kaine will take them and if something pops up let me know. I'm sure at times it's boring and repetitive, but it's your job as president.
> 
> Just for CYA's sake he should listen to the daily briefings. Imagine a large attack does happen and its found out he never took the briefings. Also, let's say the intelligence community is getting something wrong or pushing an agenda. If you aren't listening how are you supposed to notice that?


He's extremely busy right now. Being able to deduce what's important and what's not and managing your time accordingly seems like the type of skill Trump would have mastered in his life. Non-issue, IMO.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@CamillePunk I'm not willing to look over appointments Trump makes which contradicts some of his message, a big red flag being foreign policy. I will see what happens in regards to action but we got to be honest with ourselves here and not make excuses for the guy when he makes bad decisions.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



L-DOPA said:


> @CamillePunk I'm not willing to look over appointments Trump makes which contradicts some of his message, a big red flag being foreign policy. I will see what happens in regards to action but we got to be honest with ourselves here and not make excuses for the guy when he makes bad decisions.


You don't know he's made any bad decisions yet. You don't know his reasons or his strategy (or Steve Bannon's, for that matter), or how he intends the positions to be performed. You're being quite arrogant. We got a president elected who ran on peace with Russia (at a time when the GOP and only relevant Dem candidate were actively campaigning to SHOOT DOWN RUSSIAN PLANES), being against regime change, and putting our nation first in all international agreements, and you want me to believe your hallucination that you can see the future and know which of his decisions are bad or good at this point and join you in criticizing the man who is being routinely criticized daily by all the worst elements of our country who are vehemently AGAINST everything I just mentioned, again, based on your hallucination. I decline. 

I'll criticize him when he's president and acts against my interests in a significant way. I'm not joining the premature doomsday choir led by people who don't want our country to have nice things, such as peace and prosperity.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> You don't know he's made any bad decisions yet. You don't know his reasons or his strategy (or Steve Bannon's, for that matter), or how he intends the positions to be performed. You're being quite arrogant. We got a president elected who ran on peace with Russia (at a time when the GOP and only relevant Dem candidate were actively campaigning to SHOOT DOWN RUSSIAN PLANES), being against regime change, and putting our nation first in all international agreements, and you want me to believe your hallucination that you can see the future and know which of his decisions are bad or good at this point and join you in criticizing the man who is being routinely criticized daily by all the worst elements of our country who are vehemently AGAINST everything I just mentioned, again, based on your hallucination. I decline.
> 
> I'll criticize him when he's president and acts against my interests in a significant way. I'm not joining the premature doomsday choir led by people who don't want our country to have nice things, such as peace and prosperity.


So you mean to tell me that Trump who as you rightly pointed out ran on a platform of being against regime change and wanting peace with Russia hiring literally one of the BIGGEST HAWKS IN WASHINGTON in a foreign secretary position is not in any way shape or form a problem? You do not think that there isn't just chance of a conflict of interest here? At the very least if Trump was to be playing politics in order to keep some sides happy you would have thought he would have chosen someone who isn't literally bat shit crazy who can't even admit that the Iraq war was a mistake....which was one of the top messages of Trump's entire election campaign.

If you don't think that's a potential problem, if you are so blindly on the Trump train that you can't see it then go right ahead. I just said I'd see if the actions with Trump as president mirror my concerns or not but until that plays out and until he proves me wrong then I can only judge the man by the appointments he makes. Some have been good, but as a British citizen foreign policy is the most important for my own self interest and his appointments have been terrible. Maybe the CEO either is just a puppet for Trump or actually has good ideas and isn't a shoot first ask questions kind of guy. We don't know, but Bolton on top of that makes me uneasy.

This isn't coming from a place of arrogance, this isn't coming from a place of not wanting nice things for the US, you know me better than that. This is coming from experience. This is coming from I don't know....the last time someone got elected based off of ending nation building and ending the Iraq war who turned right around and got involved in several countries including toppling another leader in Gadaffi and attempting to do the same thing with Assad. Who kept troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan and essentially did everything he said he wouldn't.

So forgive me for being skeptical and forgive me for not blindly trusting that Trump knows what he is doing or is going to do the right thing. I'm distrustful of politicians and government, generally speaking that's how libertarian leaning people are which is something I'd thought you would understand.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> As for Bolton being Deputy Secretary of State, I guess I could assume the worst as Tater and others have and say he's going to be "running the place" despite not getting the top job, but that's too giant an assumption for me to justify. I'll continue to wait and see what Trump's administration actually does rather than sit and over-analyze every cabinet position and hallucinate that I have the ability to see the future and how all of these jobs will be performed under Trump's rule.


You don't hire a butcher if your plan is being a vegan and you don't hire THE BIGGEST FUCKING WAR HAWK OF THEM ALL if your plan is to have a less hawkish foreign policy. Take your head out of your ass and use the intelligence that I know you have. You spent months screaming about your opposition to Hillary because she wants to start WWIII, and you did that with good reason, but don't then turn a blind eye when Trump puts John fucking Bolton in his administration. That's about as fucking retarded as saying there are arsonists standing in your yard with lit molotov cocktails and you want to wait and see if they actually throw them.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@L-DOPA 

Dispense with the strawmen, please. Of course I'm apprehensive about the appointments but context and expectations are important. The context is that Hillary and many GOP candidates ran on war with Russia and continuing the endless, monstrous cycle of regime change foreign policy. The expectation was that Hillary would be president. We're currently living in some bizarre alternate future that only Trump foresaw and conjured into everybody's reality where those people didn't win, and instead the guy who ran on peace and putting America first - positions which have been sadly criticized and distorted by our nation's media and politicians, which is a statement about our country which continues to inform my perspective on this whole process - won. For me, that buys capital and the benefit of the doubt. 

* I should also note that as Trump is a Master Persuader he could have put those skills to use pushing a different message. The fact he chose a message I largely agree with buys even more capital with me. 

I could, of course, go on about how much I don't like the people who have been appointed and express my concerns about the whole process and what it means. Then I look around and see the left-wing corporate media trying to illustrate the worst possible picture of every cabinet appointee. Every single one of them is either a racist, sexist, misogynist, theocrat, swamp creature, or some combination thereof. Every appointment is a disaster for the worst people in the world. That gives me pause. Do I satisfy my own base inclination to express my doubts and worries and join the deeply negative, purely subjective, micro-analytic choir that wanted the World War 3 candidate to win (and are actively trying to oust Trump, first with the recount hilarity and now another chapter in the greater Russian conspiracy theory), or do I hold my tongue and continue to see how this deeply unpredictable story unfolds, and grant some benefit of the doubt to the man who got us where we are? I choose the latter. I've always been a "stand against the mob" kind of guy, especially a mob orchestrated by the most vile people in the world. 

As for questioning my libertarian credentials. :lol Please. Compared to me you're a filthy statist. I trust Trump's skill as an executive (due to the vast empirical evidence) which includes knowing who to hire to get a job done, and I grant him the benefit of the doubt until he takes office and takes concrete action warranting the revocation of that benefit, but you can't fathom the depths of my pessimism and skepticism regarding the political process under unexceptional circumstances. Trump doesn't have to do much to satisfy me, as I continue to ask "compared to what?". When I no longer see a meaningful distinction in that comparison, I'll likely retreat back into political apathy, learn German, and try to move to Switzerland.



Tater said:


> You don't hire a butcher if your plan is being a vegan and you don't hire THE BIGGEST FUCKING WAR HAWK OF THEM ALL if your plan is to have a less hawkish foreign policy. Take your head out of your ass and use the intelligence that I know you have. You spent months screaming about your opposition to Hillary because she wants to start WWIII, and you did that with good reason, but don't then turn a blind eye when Trump puts John fucking Bolton in his administration. That's about as fucking retarded as saying there are arsonists standing in your yard with lit molotov cocktails and you want to wait and see if they actually throw them.


Your pretentious concern trolling is the most predictable, transparently manipulative, and intellectually vapid style of non-argument that exists. :lol It's impossible to take you seriously, and so I don't.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@CamillePunk I don't disagree that the media and politicians have done everything they can to smear and undermine Trump, I think the majority of people in this thread understand and get that. They were the machine behind the establishment candidate after all and their woman lost. So I get it that with every appointment they are going to say and claim outrageous things. The constant association with racism, bigotry, misogyny etc. lost meaning a long time ago and I've tuned out of all of that. 

So the innate bias was always going to be there, regardless of who gets appointed and where. That doesn't mean I think Trump should get a free pass when it comes to the decisions and choices he makes. The benefit of the doubt argument doesn't fly with me when it's been shown time and time again politicians have been willing to show their true colours and turn away from the big policies that they campaigned on. That doesn't mean that I'm claiming that Trump has been lying, that remains to be seen in action; and of course I understand this is a unique situation because Trump has not been a career politician but we should still question and hold his feet to the fire. I don't believe in giving benefit of doubts in politics to people who have yet to prove their stances in action, I think they should be called out on it.

That doesn't mean I side with the establishment media or the people who were never going to support Trump no matter what. I was right there with you calling them out on their bullshit and hypocrisy when it came to the election. I just as much as you feared for a Hillary presidency but I will call it how I see it. I already said Trump supporters weren't going to like it and here we are.

Also we should stop with the petty jabs at libertarian credentials :lol. That was a slight of hand move by me initially and I apologize, I got out of hand.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



L-DOPA said:


> [MENTION=199948]That doesn't mean I think Trump should get a free pass when it comes to the decisions and choices he makes.


Which decisions have Trump gotten a free pass on? :lol Is it a free pass if little ol' anarchist me doesn't take to the internet to rage over x appointment to y position? If he truly did receive a free pass for his cabinet appointments I'd be immensely concerned. :lol The hyperbole and doom-and-gloom though, so prematurely, I can do without. 



> The benefit of the doubt argument doesn't fly with me when it's been shown time and time again politicians have been willing to show their true colours and turn away from the big policies that they campaigned on.


Should he then carry out his all-inclusive Muslim immigration ban? Should he bring back torture? Should he open the libel laws up as well? Or is it only the proposals (opening offers in a negotiation, subject to A-B testing, designed to be negotiated down, as Trump would describe them I imagine) you like that he should not turn away from? There are quite a few things Trump has said where I desperately hope that's not how he really feels, and will not be acted upon during his presidency. Executing Snowden and forcing tech companies to cooperate with the government, for example. 



> That doesn't mean that I'm claiming that Trump has been lying, that remains to be seen in action; and of course I understand this is a unique situation because Trump has not been a career politician but we should still question and hold his feet to the fire. I don't believe in giving benefit of doubts in politics to people who have yet to prove their stances in action, I think they should be called out on it.


Again I have no idea what world you're living in where Trump's feet are not constantly being held to the fire and called on out every little thing, real or imaginary. Explain to me why I need to join in on the effort? 



> Also we should stop with the petty jabs at libertarian credentials :lol. That was a slight of hand move by me initially and I apologize, I got out of hand.


I engaged in no such thing but I agree it is advisable for you not to go down that route and I accept your wise apology. (Y)


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> Should he then carry out his all-inclusive Muslim immigration ban? Should he bring back torture? Should he open the libel laws up as well? Or is it only the proposals (opening offers in a negotiation, subject to A-B testing, designed to be negotiated down, as Trump would describe them I imagine) you like that he should not turn away from? There are quite a few things Trump has said where I desperately hope that's not how he really feels, and will not be acted upon during his presidency. Executing Snowden and forcing tech companies to cooperate with the government, for example.


All good points and of course the ones you mentioned I concur with you on. I just wanted to point out that politicians including Trump have the capacity to back track on these promises including ones we both agree would be inherently good ones. I just don't understand why you wouldn't question the decisions Trump makes barring the obvious fact that the media and detractors will be against him no matter what. But it's fine, I know you won't change your mind on this.



CamillePunk said:


> Again I have no idea what world you're living in where Trump's feet are not constantly being held to the fire and called on out every little thing, real or imaginary. Explain to me why I need to join in on the effort?


And I said in the exact same post that the media and his detractors have constantly denounced any moves from Trump has made since winning the Presidential election. You know I don't believe the first part so that's a bit of a dishonest argument from you CP. I mean't specifically about you and you know this. I fully understand that biased people are criticizing every decision Trump is making.



CamillePunk said:


> I engaged in no such thing but I agree it is advisable for you not to go down that route and I accept your wise apology. (Y)


You called me a Filthy statist. I've been in the libertarian circles long enough to know that that is an insult. But it's fine, I've been called a lot worse :lol so I'll let it slide.

We're just gonna have to agree to disagree because we are going round in circles here.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



2 Ton 21 said:


> So Trump was on Chris Wallace this morning and said this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure the briefings are similar, but there is no way they are the same every day. Let's be honest here. If Hillary or Obama said this they'd be raked over the coals and rightfully so. Imagine they're asked the same question and they say Biden/Kaine will take them and if something pops up let me know. I'm sure at times it's boring and repetitive, but it's your job as president.
> 
> Just for CYA's sake he should listen to the daily briefings. Imagine a large attack does happen and it's found out he never took the briefings. Also, let's say the intelligence community is getting something wrong or pushing an agenda. If you aren't listening how are you supposed to notice that?


Not only that, but what does this attitude signal to the rank and file? Why remain vigilant when the guy at the top is so flippant about it? The people below might choose to delay relaying information that are harmful to their self-interests since they won't be obliged to report on things daily to the president.

All he is doing is creating an 'out' if shit happens and blame it on the VP or his generals for not relaying crucial information to him.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Reading the back-and-forth between @CamillePunk and @L-DOPA was enjoyable. 

All we can do here now is footle about speculating over which courses Donald Trump's administration will take based on his bevy of appointments. 

_What_ matters infinitely more than _who_. The appointment of John Bolton as Deputy Secretary of State is bothersome, but it does not mean that Trump's foreign policy outlook will be dramatically dissimilar from what he championed throughout the campaign. Would Trump hesitate to fire Bolton should he see it as necessary due to some retained bad habits on the part of Bolton? Probably not; Trump loves to fire people. 

Deputy Secretary of State is a largely fluid position. Often the person appointed to that position performs a considerably greater amount of legwork than the Secretary of State. Engendering a sense of fear among certain rival regimes with Bolton's appointment may indeed be part of the strategy, should Trump and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson seek to play the contrasting "good cop" partners.

It has been said that the diplomat goes abroad lying for his country. Friedrich Nietzsche defined diplomacy by casting the art in terminology befitting acting or role-playing but with what he called "the histrionic instinct" suppressed. In spite of Nietzsche's insight, diplomats and executives have often performed melodramatically in order to convince others of their wrongheadedness. As Tillerson was becoming one of the most powerful forces within Exxon two decades ago he was assigned to negotiating with the government of Yemen to build a natural gas export plant. The negotiations became a tiring, never-ending source of aggravation due to the Yemeni government officials demanding that the Yemeni government hold total veto power over almost all critical business decisions. Tillerson finally flew into a rage, grabbing a book which was reportedly at least four or five inches thick, and throwing it across the room before storming out of the negotiations. Every last Yemeni negotiator was shocked, and myriad oil company representatives whose companies had partnered with Exxon were almost as stunned by Tillerson's actions. The Yemenis succeeded in acquiring a significant number of their demands, but Tillerson's stance was said to have been indispensable in ensuring that the Yemeni government did not have the natural gas export plant almost _de facto_ nationalized. 

Trump has probably been attracted to these somewhat idiosyncratic attributes. 

Having said all of this, the always distinct possibility that Trump is a bust as a president remains entirely viable going forward, too. All of the pieces of information must stand apart and, with the passage of time, be folded together, but all in good time.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

http://www.ibtimes.com/who-bobby-va...-possible-japan-ambassador-former-red-2457904

Trump wants to make a former MLB manager an ambassador to Japan? You have to be kidding me. How can anyone not see Trump as a joke?


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> http://www.ibtimes.com/who-bobby-va...-possible-japan-ambassador-former-red-2457904
> 
> Trump wants to make a former MLB manager an ambassador to Japan? You have to be kidding me. How can anyone not see Trump as a joke?


To be fair to this one Valentine is well liked in Japan and its hardly a hard post as both nations like each other well enough 

Also celebrity candidates are not uncommon in the region and "professional politicians" are more of a western thing


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> Your pretentious concern trolling is the most predictable, transparently manipulative, and intellectually vapid style of non-argument that exists. :lol It's impossible to take you seriously, and so I don't.


_-A concern troll is a person who participates in a debate posing as an actual or potential ally who simply has some concerns they need answered before they will ally themselves with a cause. In reality they are a critic._

Learn definitions.

I happen to care about not plunging the world into another massive fucking war and I have been consistently critical of *all* war hawks in positions of power, all the way from Hillary Clinton to John Bolton. You portray yourself as someone who is anti-war when it comes to Hillary Clinton but when the jackass who literally wrote an op-ed in the NYT about why we should go to war with Iran (To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran) gets tabbed for Deputy SOS by Daddy Trump, there's nary an objection. How about showing a little fucking consistency, will ya? Unlike you, I am not a partisan hack and will ally myself with anyone from Rand Paul to Tulsi Gabbard and anyone in between if it means stopping the war mongering American Empire.



> *Rand Paul threatens to block Bolton nomination*
> 
> Sen. Rand Paul is threatening to block President-elect Donald Trump’s likely pick of John Bolton as the No. 2 in the State Department.
> 
> The Kentucky Republican, who serves on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, could stop the hawkish former ambassador to the United Nations from getting out of committee if there is unanimous Democratic resistance. The committee is narrowly divided among 10 Republicans and nine Democrats, and Paul said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week” that he’s an “automatic no on Bolton.”
> 
> “John Bolton doesn’t get it. He still believes in regime change. He’s still a big cheerleader for the Iraq War,” Paul said. “John Bolton is so far out of it and has such a naive understanding of the world.”
> 
> Paul’s vows to vote against Bolton could create the most significant confirmation fight thus far. Bolton would need a bare majority of the Senate to get confirmed, but if he were to stall in committee or face more Republican resistance, his nomination might be in serious jeopardy next year.
> 
> The libertarian-leaning lawmaker said he is “going to reserve judgment” on Rex Tillerson, the CEO of Exxon Mobil, who POLITICO reported on Saturday is the favorite to be secretary of state. Paul said he’d ask the same questions about Tillerson’s worldview that he has been asking of all secretary of state nominees: Whether they have learned the mistakes from the Iraq War and share the foreign policy philosophy of Trump.
> 
> But he’s already gotten his answer on Bolton.
> 
> “He should get nowhere close to the State Department if anybody with a sane worldview is in charge,” Paul said.
> 
> SOURCE


I disagree with Rand Paul on most things but I'll be the first person standing next to him when it comes to not starting any more fucking wars. If you were the principled anti-war libertarian that you claim to be, you wouldn't be whimpering like a little puppy dog at the first authoritarian strongman who comes your way.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



stevefox1200 said:


> To be fair to this one Valentine is well liked in Japan and its hardly a hard post as both nations like each other well enough
> 
> Also celebrity candidates are not uncommon in the region and "professional politicians" are more of a western thing


You cant seriously be defending this pick by Trump


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I like Trump's reaction to the security briefing thing, it's hilarious, and the entertainment is I'm still left wondering whether it's stupidity or arrogance to actually say out loud he's not going to take it seriously. This fuckin guy.


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

*Stand strong Rand.... stand strong!*


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> You cant seriously be defending this pick by Trump


I don't think its the best pick

but 

I also don't think its his worst

Personally I would call myself a warhawk but at the same time I feel that wars need to be fought properly and the US has not really fought a war properly since Korea even if I have supported numerous ones

Still think that if government could just look at the Vietnam war's failings with no bullshit "regret and fear glasses" on they have the key to beating any insurgence 

Fuck, there are a shit ton of ARVN generals who live in the US, ask them before they die out


----------



## FITZ

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> http://www.ibtimes.com/who-bobby-va...-possible-japan-ambassador-former-red-2457904
> 
> Trump wants to make a former MLB manager an ambassador to Japan? You have to be kidding me. How can anyone not see Trump as a joke?


I don't think he's qualified for this but Valentine has a lot more connections to Japan than this article lets on. He was a manager in Japan for 5 years and was really well liked. ESPN even made a documentary about him. Wikipedia also says he helped with marketing a lot by doing American promotional tactics to get more fans to come to the game. 




birthday_massacre said:


> You cant seriously be defending this pick by Trump


I've seen Trump criticized now for bringing in Washington Insiders, Wall Street Outsiders, and now someone that's a complete outsider. At this point I don't know what wouldn't lead to outrage.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



L-DOPA said:


> You called me a Filthy statist.


That was in comparison to myself, and clearly in jest. :lol If it's any consolation, Trump is a much, much filthier statist than you are! :lol

I hope Rand does block the nomination of Bolton, and any other neocons Trump may attempt to nominate.
@DesolationRow 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/808003564291244033
:banderas


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



















People in this thread in a nutshell. The amount of overreacting is hilarious.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> People in this thread in a nutshell. The amount of overreacting is hilarious.


stop whimpering before an authoritarian strongman reaper god

get hysterical you partisan hack


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Well I'm firmly in the camp of wait and see at the moment. I don't care about cabinet picks as I care about what those cabinet picks end up doing. 

It almost seems like a deliberate strategy to pair off individuals with opposite views in order to see if there can be compromise within each position in terms of policy making... A trend I've been picking up from day 1 of Trump's picks. 

Seriously what better way is there of ensuring that there is less myopia and group think within government than putting people together that don't agree with each other or with the general consensus that has been formed through bullying ideas through on the back of a media that's less about objective reporting and more about being the propaganda arm off the Democratic government... 

Seems smart to me. Pretty sure other people are stuck on only the half of the picture that feeds their preexisting fears and doubts. 

Personally it's way too early to go down that route myself. Waaaaay too early. The kinds of sources that have been posted in here are shoddy and incomplete. There's a lot more information out there about these individuals and selecting only what seems to feed the fears is only creating an atmosphere of paranoia. Same shit all over again.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> It almost seems like a deliberate strategy to pair off individuals with opposite views in order to see if there can be compromise within each position in terms of policy making... A trend I've been picking up from day 1 of Trump's picks.
> 
> Seriously what better way is there of ensuring that there is less myopia and group think within government than putting people together that don't agree with each other or with the general consensus that has been formed through bullying ideas through on the back of a media that's less about objective reporting and more about being the propaganda arm off the Democratic government...
> 
> Seems smart to me. Pretty sure other people are stuck on only the half of the picture that feeds their preexisting fears and doubts.


This is exactly correct, and it's something @DesolationRow and myself have discussed ever since the Priebus/Bannon appointments which set the tone for Trump's administration. Also from everything Roger Stone has said about Trump he likes to listen to a wide variety of voices with different views, but at the end of the day it's Trump who decides. He said this before Trump even became president, and it's proving to be true in his cabinet picks

It's not going to be as simple as Trump hiring a bunch of people who agree with him or share the same ideology as one another. Trump has 40+ years of executive experience and created a multi-billion dollar empire. It's not blind optimism or authoritarian-enabling to suggest the man might know what he's doing better than we laymen and it's not a part of some sinister plot to betray everyone who ever believed in him.


Meanwhile...


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/807610748813742080
:lol Basically.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> People in this thread in a nutshell. The amount of overreacting is hilarious.


As fitz said, nothing he does will make anyone happy. He gets an insider, people bitch, he gets an outside, people bitch. He has to give the GOP some of the people they want, I don't like it anymore than anyone else but that's how our Political system works. 

At this point Trump's cabinet could consist of Einstein, Gaius Marius, Thomas Sowell, Ben Franklin, Plato, Socrates, Niccolo Machiavelli, Newton, George Washington Carver, Sun Tzu, Tacitus, Martin Luther, Martin Luther King jr, Michelangelo and Hypatia and that whole list would get crapped on. 

On the other hand it would take MSM like CNN a week before they figured out who any of them were, by then they would have trashed them all as white supremacists, islamaphobes and misogynists.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> As fitz said, nothing he does will make anyone happy. He gets an insider, people bitch, he gets an outside, people bitch. He has to give the GOP some of the people they want, I don't like it anymore than anyone else but that's how our Political system works.


I don't know if that's what he's doing though. 

I did some reading on my own yesterday and it seems like revisionist history seems to be over-inflating Bolton's role in the Iraq War. He was not the architect, not the planner, not the instigator and none of that crap. He was not the warhawk in that decision to go to war. 

https://2001-2009.state.gov/t/us/index.htm 

Go through these (2003-2004) and tell me if this guy seems like the master orchestrator behind the Iraq War as the media is claiming now :lmao

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/John_Bolton_War_+_Peace.htm



> Q: Some critics shoot arrows at you for supposedly being too hawkish. This is the charge leveled at anyone who dares suggest that a superpower should use force to achieve an objective, no matter how dire the circumstance.
> 
> A:[bold] It is central to successful US foreign policy that we achieve the overwhelming preponderance of our key objectives diplomatically, without the use of force[/bold]. But as the Romans said, "si vis pacem, para bellum": If you want peace, prepare for war. George Washington used the maxim in his first State of the Union address, and in our day, Ronald Reagan characterized his policy as "peace through strength." The point is clear. Unfortunately, too many mistake resolve for belligerence. President Obama, for example, acts as if American strength is provocative. This is exactly backwards. It is not our strength that is provocative, but our weakness, which simply emboldens our adversaries to take advantage of what they see as decline and retreat.


Does this sound like a war hawk to you? Or a guy who's all about diplomacy first and then going in for an all out war with a meaningful conclusive end instead of the half assery the US government gets involved in which achieves nothing. 

Like who even comes up with this bullshit... And it dismays me that even people who have shown a certain relative high level of research than even myself were completely duped on Bolton... Like WTF really?

In the second link I posted Bolton admits to being a libertarian BTW.

Lastly if I'm a pacifist which I am but I also want the Pakistani military to legally butcher every single terrorist in the country as a matter of self defence because I've literally seen the bits and pieces of my fellow countrymen, women and children after terrorist bombings .. Does that make me a warhawk?


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> I don't know if that's what he's doing though.
> 
> I did some reading on my own yesterday and it seems like revisionist history seems to be over-inflating Bolton's role in the Iraq War. He was not the architect, not the planner, not the instigator and none of that crap. He was not the warhawk in that decision to go to war.
> 
> https://2001-2009.state.gov/t/us/index.htm
> 
> Go through these (2003-2004) and tell me if this guy seems like the master orchestrator behind the Iraq War as the media is claiming now :lmao
> 
> http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/John_Bolton_War_+_Peace.htm
> 
> 
> 
> Does this sound like a war hawk to you? Or a guy who's all about diplomacy first and then going in for an all out war with a meaningful conclusive end instead of the half assery the US government gets involved in which achieves nothing.
> 
> Like who even comes up with this bullshit... And it dismays me that even people who have shown a certain relative high level of research than even myself were completely duped on Bolton... Like WTF really?
> 
> In the second link I posted Bolton admits to being a libertarian BTW.
> 
> Lastly if I'm a pacifist which I am but I also want the Pakistani military to legally butcher every single terrorist in the country as a matter of self defence because I've literally seen the bits and pieces of my fellow countrymen, women and children after terrorist bombings .. Does that make me a warhawk?


There's also this article from Breitbart which supports some of the points you raise, and may indicate some inner circle support from Steve Bannon for John Bolton. Pure speculation on my part. 

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/11/22/truth-john-bolton-iraq-war-wmd-diplomacy/

Reading that second link you posted does re-affirm a lot of my concerns about Bolton though. He does sound like a warhawk to me, and someone who is clinging to some false notions about the Iraq War in particular (although it's nice to see he's against taking sides in Syria). Not the kind of guy I'd want driving my country's foreign policy overall. 

When it comes to foreign policy, I'm hoping Trump is the control freak people have portrayed him as. :lol


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> People in this thread in a nutshell. The amount of overreacting is hilarious.


To be fair, Vader wouldn't be a bad choice to run NASA.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> *Reading that second link you posted does re-affirm a lot of my concerns about Bolton though. He does sound like a warhawk to me, *and someone who is clinging to some false notions about the Iraq War in particular (although it's nice to see he's against taking sides in Syria). Not the kind of guy I'd want driving my country's foreign policy overall.
> 
> When it comes to foreign policy, I'm hoping Trump is the control freak people have portrayed him as. :lol


Could you point out which parts specifically because it's interesting that we walked away with the same article with two different interpretations? 

I'm not looking to argue, just wanted to see things from your perspective and see if I've missed anything.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> People in this thread in a nutshell. The amount of overreacting is hilarious.


I AM SICK OF THIS BULLSHIT!!

Moff Tarkin is the man who build the death star and based it of a Geonosian design yet Vader gets all this fucking credit for it just because he was the more marketable one over some old man

Vader doesn't know an exhaust port from a tubro-laser and spinning is not a good trick

Respect your REAL pioneers


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



stevefox1200 said:


> I AM SICK OF THIS BULLSHIT!!
> 
> Moff Tarkin is the man who build the death star and based it of a Geonosian design yet Vader gets all this fucking credit for it just because he was the more marketable one over some old man
> 
> Respect your REAL pioneers


Are you implying that the real genius behind Vader who is voiced by a black man are a couple of white men?

Or are you implying that celebrating Vader is white erasure and as a white nationalist that makes you mad?


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Could you point out which parts specifically because it's interesting that we walked away with the same article with two different interpretations?
> 
> I'm not looking to argue, just wanted to see things from your perspective and see if I've missed anything.


The way he talks about Iraq and Vietnam in particular suggest to me that he supported both wars, just not the way they were each carried out. He's even quoted in that Breitbart article suggesting he would have been expected to side with Cheney over Iraq by people he worked with and I assume knew of his foreign policy views. He may not have been the architect, but he does seem to still believe the Iraq invasion was justified. 

He speaks of Vietnam war protesters and antiwar voices in Congress with disdain and says he only decided not to join the war because by then it was clear we couldn't win. Honestly he seems like a pretty scummy guy to me, and again, not a voice I'd want anywhere near my country's foreign policy. We don't need to be invading other countries and shedding American blood in offensive wars. While I'm sympathetic to the idea that if you're going into a war you should go with a full measures approach rather than a messy half measure that will lead to an elongated struggle, I'd still prefer no war at all unless in defense of our country - a notion that Bolton seems to strongly disagree with.


Roger Stone, who has been meeting with Trump at Trump Tower and is a long time friend and political adviser for the president-elect, says Mitt Romney was being "tortured" all along by Trump:


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

^Interesting. I was expecting something like that to be Trump's reason though it's infowars so I pretty much always take what they say cautiously and with a healthy dose of skepticism. 

Also, didn't quite get that from Bolton myself, but I'll defer this one to you since as an American you clearly have a different bar for what you consider warhawk-ism compared to me but you're probably more accurate than I am so I'll defer to your opinion in this case.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@DesolationRow @Pratchett @AryaDark @Sincere @L-DOPA @Fringe @Miss Sally @virus21 @Goku @Beatles123 @MillionDollarProns @Lumpy McRighteous

Paul Joseph Watson on the CIA Russian hacking story:








Carte Blanche said:


> ^Interesting. I was expecting something like that to be Trump's reason though it's infowars so I pretty much always take what they say cautiously and with a healthy dose of skepticism.
> 
> Also, didn't quite get that from Bolton myself, but I'll defer this one to you since as an American you clearly have a different bar for what you consider warhawk-ism compared to me but you're probably more accurate than I am so I'll defer to your opinion in this case.


I wish I could say it was an innate American trait to be skeptical of warmongering rhetoric. :mj Definitely not the case though.


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

*The first 12 seconds of that video just make me smile... I can't help it. Well done Watson...*


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I saw that video about an hour ago. PJW is just an absolute master when it comes to brutal takedown's and exposing bullshit :lol.


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

*"Presstitutes" may be my favorite new word in at least 10 years.*


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Democrats have taken up the Republican mantle of blaming Russia for everything despite being no real evidence of such. Why are people in such a hurry to start a second cold war or all out war with Russia?


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> Democrats have taken up the Republican mantle of blaming Russia for everything despite being no real evidence of such. Why are people in such a hurry to start a second cold war or all out war with Russia?


Republicans long for the days of Reagan when Russia was our adversary to be defeated. They really seem to get off on the Cold War. Democrats don't give a shit about Russia, they're just grasping at straws because they can't accept their defeat. They thought they'd win the election in a landslide. Instead they lost everything - indeed, they lost big league/bigly. First it was the riots and petitions, then the recount, and now it's Russian hacking. Have sympathy for them as they try and cope with it all.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Phew I'm so glad Trump's picks aren't actually that bad because 

a) it could've been worse 

b) The poor guy will get criticized no matter who he picks!

c) Whatever Breitbart says!


Thanks guys I was worried for a second.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

God dammit. I can't stand this clown, and I was hoping I wouldn't have to see him ever again. My main beef with him is how hard he pushed the Trans Texas Corridor. Seriously, fuck Rick Perry.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-...ecretary/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab7e&linkId=32299782

Rick freakin' Perry as energy secretary LOL. Oh goodness. The guy who wanted to abolish the energy department but notoriously forgot what it was on stage.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/blogs/lo...ee-government-departments-mean-212919120.html

I want to be able to praise Trump and give him a chance, as I'm really glad he's pushing for more friendly relations with Russia, but god dammit. Not Rick Perry, man. Who's next, Bobby Jindal?


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

come on guys, let's all be reasonable here at the very least and agree that all of trump's picks have been super-fantastic.

we can do that much, can't we? :trump


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Goku said:


> come on guys, let's all be reasonable here at the very least and agree that all of trump's picks have been super-fantastic.
> 
> we can do that much, can't we? :trump


people criticizing :trump 's cabinet picks after 8 years of hillary clinton and john kerry as secretary of state :heston

eric holder and loretta lynch as attorney general :heston

tim geithner (IMF, CFR, Federal Reserve) and jack lew (citigroup) as treasury secretary :heston

kathleen sebelius and sylvia burwell at HHS :heston

lisa jackson then gina mccarthy at EPA :heston


----------



## Cliffy

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

yeezy in the trump cabinet :mark:


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

http://variety.com/2016/biz/news/kanye-west-donald-trump-video-watch-1201940668/



> Kanye West met with President-elect Donald Trump in New York City’s Trump Tower on Tuesday morning. The meeting was one of West’s first public appearance since he was hospitalized for more than a week in November.
> 
> “We’ve been friends for a long time,” Trump told press in a video posted by CNN, and added that they discussed “life.” In the video, West and Trump stand together while the press ask them questions which they, for the most part, do not answer.
> 
> West stood in silence as reporters asked if he plans to perform at Trump’s inauguration, and if he is still considering his 2020 presidential bid, which he famously announced at the VMAs in 2015.
> 
> When a reporter questioned his silence, West responded, “I just want to take a picture right now.”
> 
> At the end of the video, Trump and West shook hands and parted ways. “You take care of yourself, I’ll see you soon,” Trump said.




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/808687904478425088
Yeezy playing mind games with Trump en route to his 2020 campaign.

:mj4 :mj4 :mj4


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The Absolute said:


> http://variety.com/2016/biz/news/kanye-west-donald-trump-video-watch-1201940668/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/808687904478425088
> Yeezy playing mind games with Trump en route to his 2020 campaign.
> 
> :mj4 :mj4 :mj4


Yeezy couldn't play mind games with someone in a vegetable state. Shaq I believe said many black rappers had idolized Trump due to his power and larger than life persona.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Minorities like rich people and aspire to be like them. 

It's mainly self hating whites that blame their poverty on the rich and have trained other minorities to start hating the rich as well.


----------



## Oxidamus

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Minorities like rich people and aspire to be like them.
> 
> It's mainly self hating whites that blame their poverty on the rich and have trained other minorities to start hating the rich as well.


All different kinds of hate can manifest from being in poverty, for an abundance of reasons. Hating refugees and immigrants for getting work when you can't, is a huge reason here. Hating rich people is more of an America thing but we still have quite a lot of it, and for good reason when huge orgs don't pay enough tax, or any tax at all.

We've talked enough about this and I'm sure you don't want to keep going but I will always take exception to the implication that people who are poor are only poor because of their own volition.

edit: Everyone needs to remember that asylum seekers and refugees are grateful enough to be in our countries. People whose families have lived in these countries, regardless of skin colour, for generations, are the ones who feel (rightfully) entitled to a hand-up when they need it.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Aido Get Laido said:


> I will always take exception to the implication that people who are poor are only poor because of their own volition.


Where have I said that? 

I simply said that self-hating whites (which is a sub-group within a group of whites) are training minorities to hate rich people. How does that translate into people are poor only because of their own volition.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Aido Get Laido said:


> edit: Everyone needs to remember that asylum seekers and refugees are grateful enough to be in our countries.


I'm sure the people of Germany and Sweden, particularly the women, could do without their "gratitude".


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Aido Get Laido said:


> edit: Everyone needs to remember that asylum seekers and refugees are grateful enough to be in our countries. People whose families have lived in these countries, regardless of skin colour, for generations, are the ones who feel (rightfully) entitled to a hand-up when they need it.


I wonder what you'd tell the parents of the 19 year old girl that was raped and killed by migrants in Germany. That's just one case. There's hundreds now. Literally hundreds. 

Existence of local crime doesn't justify bringing in more criminals. Anyone that thinks that needs to get their head examined.


----------



## Oxidamus

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Where have I said that?
> 
> I simply said that self-hating whites (which is a sub-group within a group of whites) are training minorities to hate rich people. How does that translate into people are poor only because of their own volition.





Carte Blanche said:


> *It's mainly self hating whites that blame their poverty on the rich*


It reads as if you are calling people (closeted) self-hating for being in poverty as if it's their own fault, and insinuating that it's folly to pin any blame whatsoever on the rich for their positions. If that wasn't what you meant then I apologise.



CamillePunk said:


> I'm sure the people of Germany and Sweden, particularly the women, could do without their "gratitude".





Carte Blanche said:


> I wonder what you'd tell the parents of the 19 year old girl that was raped and killed by migrants in Germany.
> 
> Existence of local crime doesn't justify bringing in more criminals. Anyone that thinks that needs to get their head examined.


You know I don't agree with their shit Rep. I was talking about the US (where you live) and Aus (where I live) specifically, which is why I specifically said 'our' countries.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



> and for good reason when huge orgs don't pay enough tax, or any tax at all.


since the rich and mega corporations pay about 70% of the total taxes in the country and US tax receipts keep setting new records, just what would an appropriate amount be? 80%? 90%? all of it? you've basically got 5% of the population paying 3/4 of the income taxes. huge corporations pay somewhat less of the total amount of corporate taxes but not very much less.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Aido Get Laido said:


> It reads as if you are calling people (closeted) self-hating for being in poverty as if it's their own fault, and insinuating that it's folly to pin any blame whatsoever on the rich for their positions. If that wasn't what you meant then I apologise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know I don't agree with their shit Rep. I was talking about the US (where you live) and Aus (where I live) specifically, which is why I specifically said 'our' countries.


Well one of the reasons why our countries don't have this problem is because of the opposition to the liberal ideologues that would remove all vetting. Trust me when I say this. Fewer refugees is a good thing. 

While aus and USA can sit pretty at this point that we don't have a major problem we can't be less vigilant either and become complacent because things could go bad if just one stupid policy in government goes through. Especially in Australia.


----------



## Oxidamus

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



deepelemblues said:


> since the rich and mega corporations pay about 70% of the total taxes in the country and US tax receipts keep setting new records, just what would an appropriate amount be? 80%? 90%? all of it? you've basically got 5% of the population paying 3/4 of the income taxes. huge corporations pay somewhat less of the total amount of corporate taxes but not very much less.


From my understanding the taxation issue is an Australian thing. The US just has horrific spending. Maybe Trump will fix that. For Aus though, I believe we have a relatively low tax threshold that doesn't increase on par with the profit or net worth of a company. At the same time I think there are legal loopholes (or it's intentional) in which a company can declare a lower profit and pay less to no tax. Idk the ins and outs particularly well and don't really care to bother with economics, it's too complicated.



Carte Blanche said:


> Well one of the reasons why our countries don't have this problem is because of the opposition to the liberal ideologues that would remove all vetting. Trust me when I say this. Fewer refugees is a good thing.
> 
> While aus and USA can sit pretty at this point that we don't have a major problem we can't be less vigilant either and become complacent because things could go bad if just one stupid policy in government goes through. Especially in Australia.


I agree with you. Australia needs a more capable government before we take in a substantial amount of refugees. Even if you ignore religion and assume everyone will assimilate into our culture no problems, we don't have the economy to do so without letting down our own people. So before even worrying about whether Mohammed can assimilate into our country we have to worry about how our government doesn't have peoples' best interests in mind.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

There's literally no reason to take in refugees. It's far cheaper for everyone and more beneficial to them to re-settle them in other countries in the Middle East where they can assimilate. It's not about helping anyone and liberals need to stop using the issue to virtue signal.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> There's literally no reason to take in refugees. It's far cheaper for everyone and more beneficial to them to re-settle them in other countries in the Middle East where they can assimilate. It's not about helping anyone and liberals need to stop using the issue to virtue signal.


The one thing that miffs me about the US taking in refugees is how the US tends to ignore their own citizens in need, the US should be taking care of their homeless first especially the homeless vets. Giving all that money to foreign refugees first is something I always hated. It's like take care of US citizens first. Then if we had no homeless then take in refugees.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

It's especially infuriating when you see the Government spending money on refugees while our public schools are so underfunded.


----------



## Stipe Tapped

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> There's literally no reason to take in refugees. It's far cheaper for everyone and more beneficial to them to re-settle them in other countries in the Middle East where they can assimilate. It's not about helping anyone and liberals need to stop using the issue to virtue signal.


Maybe so they can have the chance to achieve things like this they might not get to in ME countries?



> A Syrian refugee who only started learning English in 2014 after fleeing the embattled city of Homs, has graduated as dux of one of Australia's largest secondary Catholic schools.
> 
> In 2013, Saad Al-Kassab and his family managed to escape the bloody civil war in Syria which has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives.
> 
> Just three years later, he has been celebrated as dux of Catholic Regional College Sydenham, in Melbourne's north-west, after earning an Australian Tertiary Admission Rank (ATAR) of 96.65.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-12/syrian-refugee-tops-year-12-class-with-96.65-atar/8112424

Secondly, you could argue the value that refugees like this bring is they may be likely to work harder and provide more value to the community because of the hardships they've suffered.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



deepelemblues said:


> since the rich and mega corporations pay about 70% of the total taxes in the country and US tax receipts keep setting new records, just what would an appropriate amount be? 80%? 90%? all of it? you've basically got 5% of the population paying 3/4 of the income taxes. huge corporations pay somewhat less of the total amount of corporate taxes but not very much less.


What people don't understand about corporate tax is that that tax is still paid by the people.. A corporation may be deemed an entity but it isn't an entity with needs so while they're taxing the owners and workers separately a corporate tax is essentially double taxation. Once for the income of the corporation and once for the dividends paid to the owners. 

It's just ridiculous that you can't even get through to anticapitalists anymore because they don't even understand the simplest concepts of taxation.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Secondly, you could argue the value that refugees like this bring is they may be likely to work harder and provide more value to the community because of the hardships they've suffered.


Nothing of net value is added when they're already taking government money in the first place and even if 1 of them runs over 9 others with a car and tries to kill them putting them in hospitals possibly indebted and scarred for life. Not like the media ever bothers to follow up on the lives of the victims because they'd rather try to make everyone ashamed for not wanting refugees living amongst them. 

Fuck refugees. We're better off without their "input".


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Maybe so they can have the chance to achieve things like this they might not get to in ME countries?


And I should be taxed for people from another country to have this opportunity because...? I should live with the risk of these people radicalizing and doing harm to my countrymen (which would trigger all kinds of terrible government responses) because...? There's not a good reason. 



> Secondly, you could argue the value that refugees like this bring is they may be likely to work harder and provide more value to the community because of the hardships they've suffered.


Nonsense. There's no reason to think they "work harder", and I don't want whatever value traumatized people from backwards cultures have to offer. Our culture is superior which is why our country is awesome (relatively speaking) and their countries are shit, which is the reason they're trying to come here and we're not trying to go there.

All of this is not to discount the US role in destabilizing the Middle East through regime change, invasion, and bombing. I want all of that to stop as well. I never consented for my government to do any of those things though and so I don't see any reason I should bear the consequences.


----------



## Oxidamus

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Maybe so they can have the chance to achieve things like this they might not get to in ME countries?


Why do they get that? I want to go to Japan. Or even Canada or the US. But even if I was working a "normal" job for someone my age (casual, or part time for 20~ hours a week) it would take me ages to save up to even visit.

I find it odd that if someone wants to leave Australia we need to have qualifications, money, etc, otherwise we're not going to be accepted. But if someone is escaping a wartorn country we accept them. Yes I know it's "morally right" (in one way, but the opposite in another) and I know they go through some real fucked up shit to get here, and them more when they are here. But it's still kinda dumb that people can come here with nothing but for us to do the same it takes years of prep, saving, and then years in that country for citizenship.



> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-12/syrian-refugee-tops-year-12-class-with-96.65-atar/8112424
> 
> Secondly, you could argue the value that refugees like this bring is they may be likely to work harder and provide more value to the community because of the hardships they've suffered.


More value to the community... in a society where community value is decreasing year by year as people do less and less things as a community, and more and more as individuals. Basically a non-argument here. Plus you can argue just about anyone who has never been given a chance would "work hard" for some money. Tonnes of poor people who have been out of work for years, even decades, would do it. It's not something exclusive to refugees.

Plus the only reason so many ethnic people get hired in our country is because so many can be picked up by agencies that offer them less money for work due to how the 457 VISAs work. It's rife with abuse - companies underpay immigrants instead of giving jobs to actual citizens.


----------



## Neuron

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Muh Russia.






Nice to see the elite democratic establishment are just dropping all the glamour and showing their true hawkish neo-con colors now.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Aido Get Laido said:


> Why do they get that? I want to go to Japan. Or even Canada or the US. But even if I was working a "normal" job for someone my age (casual, or part time for 20~ hours a week) it would take me ages to save up to even visit.
> 
> I find it odd that if someone wants to leave Australia we need to have qualifications, money, etc, otherwise we're not going to be accepted. But if someone is escaping a wartorn country we accept them. Yes I know it's "morally right" (in one way, but the opposite in another) and I know they go through some real fucked up shit to get here, and them more when they are here. But it's still kinda dumb that people can come here with nothing but for us to do the same it takes years of prep, saving, and then years in that country for citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> More value to the community... in a society where community value is decreasing year by year as people do less and less things as a community, and more and more as individuals. Basically a non-argument here. Plus you can argue just about anyone who has never been given a chance would "work hard" for some money. Tonnes of poor people who have been out of work for years, even decades, would do it. It's not something exclusive to refugees.
> 
> Plus the only reason so many ethnic people get hired in our country is because so many can be picked up by agencies that offer them less money for work due to how the 457 VISAs work. It's rife with abuse - companies underpay immigrants instead of giving jobs to actual citizens.



First of all I suppose they 'get that' because their country has been fucking blown to smithereens. In Australia we've never had anything remotely close to the Syrian crisis have we? Not even close. So please forgive me if I choose not to judge people harshly who have apparently had experiences I could only dream of and jumped at the chance to escape a warzone. 

Your comparison of wanting to go overseas doesn't really apply because Australia is not a warzone, and is by comparison a paradise when compared to the ME isn't it? Aren't we practically the luckiest people on the planet? I mean, would you rather have wherever you live actually intact with a working society that gives you the chance to waste time on internet wrestling forum, or would you have all that blown to bits so you can be 'given' a chance at a better life in a better country?


Yes I take your counter point about 'More value to the community' - if you'll read what I said I spoke in 'may's and 'could's, i didn't speak in definites. My point still stands. I think it stands to reason that people who have not had many opportunities would be more likely to try harder than those that have had more opportunities to choose from. I know it's not specific to refugees and I didn't imply that.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> And I should be taxed for people from another country to have this opportunity because...? I should live with the risk of these people radicalizing and doing harm to my countrymen (which would trigger all kinds of terrible government responses) because...? There's not a good reason.
> 
> Nonsense. There's no reason to think they "work harder", and I don't want whatever value traumatized people from backwards cultures have to offer. Our culture is superior which is why our country is awesome (relatively speaking) and their countries are shit, which is the reason they're trying to come here and we're not trying to go there.
> 
> All of this is not to discount the US role in destabilizing the Middle East through regime change, invasion, and bombing. I want all of that to stop as well. I never consented for my government to do any of those things though and so I don't see any reason I should bear the consequences.


Surely you have to give this kid credit for getting top of the class after only learning english three years? I think it's quite apparent in order to achieve that he has worked harder than the average Joe, no? Don't be so negative mate, this story shows they're not all bad, that's all.


And seriously, you really contradicted your ' Our culture is superior' point when you admitted two seconds later your culture played a part in making their country shit.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> And seriously, you really contradicted your ' Our culture is superior' point when you admitted two seconds later your culture played a part in making their country shit.


They've had hundreds of years to sort their shit out, their countries are shit because of their regressive political ideology known as Islam. The fact our government has, for decades now, committed heinous acts in the Middle East doesn't negate the fact our cultural traditions of limited government, individualism, free speech and freedom of religion have given us a far more advanced society than theirs in every conceivable way. You're basically saying because I acknowledge imperfections with our country (there's a great deal of them, hence my fervent support for Donald Trump) that I can't argue our country is better than some other country. Nonsense. There's still nowhere else I'd rather have been born, save perhaps Switzerland. No Middle Eastern country would make the top 20, though, and that'd be the case even if there was never any western intervention in the region. I'd never want to be anywhere near an Islamic society, as a free-thinking morally courageous outspoken egalitarian atheist I'd get myself killed on my first day.


----------



## Oxidamus

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> First of all I suppose they 'get that' because their country has been fucking blown to smithereens. In Australia we've never had anything remotely close to the Syrian crisis have we? Not even close. So please forgive me if I choose not to judge people harshly who have apparently had experiences I could only dream of and jumped at the chance to escape a warzone.
> 
> Your comparison of wanting to go overseas doesn't really apply because Australia is not a warzone, and is by comparison a paradise when compared to the ME isn't it? Aren't we practically the luckiest people on the planet? I mean, would you rather have wherever you live actually intact with a working society that gives you the chance to waste time on internet wrestling forum, or would you have all that blown to bits so you can be 'given' a chance at a better life in a better country?
> 
> 
> Yes I take your counter point about 'More value to the community' - if you'll read what I said I spoke in 'may's and 'could's, i didn't speak in definites. My point still stands. I think it stands to reason that people who have not had many opportunities would be more likely to try harder than those that have had more opportunities to choose from. I know it's not specific to refugees and I didn't imply that.


Our country doesn't owe it to them though. If this was the US then you might have a foot up because of all the shit they directly caused in the middle east with their stupid wars but Australia's impact is minimal. Furthermore, we especially don't owe it to them over our own countrymen. I am all for refugees coming here - we have the space and we (potentially) have the wealth - but I am not for them getting the extra foot up over people who are getting fucked over despite being born here.

Call it an argument from privilege if you want but I absolutely despise living this way and I hate the fact people get saved and then given more and more. They SHOULD be (and for the most part ARE) grateful enough that they have been "saved" and can live in peace without being scared to sleep. That doesn't mean they need the same or more money someone who has been in the country does. And it certainly doesn't mean the government or any other government funded organisations should be helping these people as a priority. The priority should be the people who have lived their adult life underneath everyone else because of situations they do not have direct control of.

Maybe I wouldn't _prefer_ it but I am absolutely willing to give it a go living in a poorer country with no internet access if it has a sense of community and I have a sense of purpose. Not a country under threat of, or in, a war though obviously.


Why do we need to worry about whether the refugees will "work hard (enough)" to get a wage, or government subsidisation, or anything? It's a false argument because we know for a fact there are people who live here who would do it themselves but for whatever reason (usually abuse of immigration or predatory tactics around immigrants) aren't given the chances.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Aido Get Laido said:


> Our country doesn't owe it to them though. If this was the US then you might have a foot up because of all the shit they directly caused in the middle east with their stupid wars but Australia's impact is minimal. Furthermore, we especially don't owe it to them over our own countrymen. I am all for refugees coming here - we have the space and we (potentially) have the wealth - but I am not for them getting the extra foot up over people who are getting fucked over despite being born here.
> 
> Call it an argument from privilege if you want but I absolutely despise living this way and I hate the fact people get saved and then given more and more. They SHOULD be (and for the most part ARE) grateful enough that they have been "saved" and can live in peace without being scared to sleep. That doesn't mean they need the same or more money someone who has been in the country does. And it certainly doesn't mean the government or any other government funded organisations should be helping these people as a priority. The priority should be the people who have lived their adult life underneath everyone else because of situations they do not have direct control of.
> 
> Maybe I wouldn't _prefer_ it but I am absolutely willing to give it a go living in a poorer country with no internet access if it has a sense of community and I have a sense of purpose. Not a country under threat of, or in, a war though obviously.
> 
> 
> Why do we need to worry about whether the refugees will "work hard (enough)" to get a wage, or government subsidisation, or anything? I*t's a false argument because we know for a fact there are people who live here who would do it themselves but for whatever reason (usually abuse of immigration or predatory tactics around immigrants) aren't given the chances*.


Didn't say we owe them anything, didn't say they should be given privelidge over born and bread Australians (not that they do anyway), didn't say they should get priority, so don't project those things that are questionable at best that I never argued in the first place.

Haven't you helped people in the past even though you didn't owe them anything?

Also, why shouldn't they get the same benefits as regular Aussie joes if they're eligible? That's what the system is there for, treat them the same. If they become dole bludgers, treat them the same as Aussie dole bludgers, no?


Please let me know how you go living in a poorer war-torn country, I can't wait. But why don't you have a sense of purpose here? Not meaning to get personal though feel free not to answer.


Finally, can you please explain the bolded part? I'm not following what these immigration abuse and predatory tactics are?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> They've had hundreds of years to sort their shit out, their countries are shit because of their regressive political ideology known as Islam. The fact our government has, for decades now, committed heinous acts in the Middle East doesn't negate the fact our cultural traditions of limited government, individualism, free speech and freedom of religion have given us a far more advanced society than theirs in every conceivable way. You're basically saying because I acknowledge imperfections with our country (there's a great deal of them, hence my fervent support for Donald Trump) that I can't argue our country is better than some other country. Nonsense. There's still nowhere else I'd rather have been born, save perhaps Switzerland. No Middle Eastern country would make the top 20, though, and that'd be the case even if there was never any western intervention in the region. I'd never want to be anywhere near an Islamic society, as a free-thinking morally courageous outspoken egalitarian atheist I'd get myself killed on my first day.


Apparently for these social science college kids Muslim countries just popped up in the 2000's when they started hearing about them ...

For them the history of the Iran/Iraq conflict, the condemnation of Israel throughout the 40's till today, the massacre of hindus and sikhs (muslims were also massacred) in what was supposed to be a peaceful nation split, the reign of terror of West Pakistani muslims over East Pakistan (where west pakistanis along with muslim terrorists: Jamaat-e-Islami) wiped out a couple of million bangladeshis in the 60's (pakistani death squads including extreme muslim zealonts), Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait, the violent revolution in Iran, Saudi ethnic cleansing of Shia's, never happened because none of their proftitutes have the intellectual fortitude to tell them that Muslims have been ravaging each other and their neighbors for hundreds of years and it's not just something that magically started in the 2000's.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> as a free-thinking morally courageous outspoken egalitarian atheist I'd get myself killed on my first day.


I commend you for your courage, perhaps a medal is in order?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> I commend you for your courage, perhaps a medal is in order?


Just another example of a person who's empathetic to his cause and not actually empathetic. 

Especially considering that Muslims butcher atheists and secularists in their countries daily. 

Even other liberal Muslims like my family are disgusted by people like you and you don't even realize it because you ignore even their concerns and diminish the worth and value of lives taken in Muslim countries by Muslim terrorists in order to appease your narcissism.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@DesolationRow @Carte Blanche @Pratchett @AryaDark @Sincere @L-DOPA @Fringe @Miss Sally @virus21 @Goku @Beatles123 @MillionDollarProns @Lumpy McRighteous @Neuron

Paul Joseph Watson demolishes Hillary Clinton, who recently took up the mantle of the indisputable Government/MSM conspiracy to threaten free press in America known as "Fake News":






One constant about the left (and here I'm talking about the Democratic party and its media partners) I've come to recognize over the last few years: Everything they say about other people is what they themselves are, everything they say other people do is what they themselves do. They're the propagandists, they're the ones who engage constantly in race politics, they're the ones pushing regressive ideas like segregation and censorship, and they're the ones in the pockets of actually dangerous and brutal foreign regimes. I'd say they aren't serious people, but they are serious about destroying our country and enslaving those of us who still believe in individualism and the greatness of those ideas - inherited from Western European culture and improved upon - which made the country great once upon a time. Donald Trump may not have been my ideal choice for the man to try and swing the pendulum back and combat these devilish globalists, but after seeing just what lengths they've gone to in order to stop him, it's clear to me that he was always the best choice in terms of effectiveness and realistically being able to get the job done (it remains to be seen if he will and what that looks like). As much as I admire and ideologically align with the Paul family, I don't think either of them had the persuasion ability, the energy, or quite frankly the toughness to combat these forces, and especially not to the degree of Donald Trump. 

First they distorted Trump's words to make it look like he was calling all Mexicans rapists, then they tried to connect him to nobodies with white supremacists views (who only had any relevance due to the coverage the leftist media chose to give them), then they sent paid protesters to his events, then they organized riots against him, then they came out with horribly inaccurate polls and election forecasts designed to demoralize Trump voters - which backfired tremendously. Then, after Trump won, they organized petitions and incited violent riots, then they pushed a recount despite saying during the entire election how important it was to respect the result (back when they'd convinced themselves they were going to win), and now they are re-purposing old and inconclusive reports about Russian hacking as if they were new and conclusive and credibly sourced (they are none of these things) to actually convince the American public that a foreign "superpower" has installed its own president-elect by manipulating the unintelligent American voter, and on January 20th - unless something catastrophic occurs - the Russians will effectively assume control of the federal government. Assassinations and civil wars have occurred over less, and we may just see both, at the rate these efforts to stop Trump have continuously escalated.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> @DesolationRow @Carte Blanche @Pratchett @AryaDark @Sincere @L-DOPA @Fringe @Miss Sally @virus21 @Goku @Beatles123 @MillionDollarProns @Lumpy McRighteous @Neuron
> 
> Paul Joseph Watson demolishes Hillary Clinton, who recently took up the mantle of the indisputable Government/MSM conspiracy to threaten free press in America known as "Fake News":


No denying Hillary and those other clowns are indeed bald-faced liars, but are we actually meant to swallow Infowars being on the level apart from 'a few mistakes' here and there like he says? Hillary has no credibility left and rightly so, however that doesn't mean 'fake news' isn't a thing, and lo and behold, Infowars is right up there.

Infowars is trash, that's absolutely undeniable, and if this guy PJW wants to keep credibility on the matter he would do his thing independently and distance himself as far away from Infowars as possible. You can't throw stones from the same channel run by that certified maniac Alex Jones.


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> @DesolationRow @Carte Blanche @Pratchett @AryaDark @Sincere @L-DOPA @Fringe @Miss Sally @virus21 @Goku @Beatles123 @MillionDollarProns @Lumpy McRighteous @Neuron
> 
> Paul Joseph Watson demolishes Hillary Clinton, who recently took up the mantle of the indisputable Government/MSM conspiracy to threaten free press in America known as "Fake News":
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One constant about the left (and here I'm talking about the Democratic party and its media partners) I've come to recognize over the last few years: Everything they say about other people is what they themselves are, everything they say other people do is what they themselves do. They're the propagandists, they're the ones who engage constantly in race politics, they're the ones pushing regressive ideas like segregation and censorship, and they're the ones in the pockets of actually dangerous and brutal foreign regimes. I'd say they aren't serious people, but they are serious about destroying our country and enslaving those of us who still believe in individualism and the greatness of those ideas - inherited from Western European culture and improved upon - which made the country great once upon a time. Donald Trump may not have been my ideal choice for the man to try and swing the pendulum back and combat these devilish globalists, but after seeing just what lengths they've gone to in order to stop him, it's clear to me that he was always the best choice in terms of effectiveness and realistically being able to get the job done (it remains to be seen if he will and what that looks like). As much as I admire and ideologically align with the Paul family, I don't think either of them had the persuasion ability, the energy, or quite frankly the toughness to combat these forces, and especially not to the degree of Donald Trump.
> 
> First they distorted Trump's words to make it look like he was calling all Mexicans rapists, then they tried to connect him to nobodies with white supremacists views (who only had any relevance due to the coverage the leftist media chose to give them), then they sent paid protesters to his events, then they organized riots against him, then they came out with horribly inaccurate polls and election forecasts designed to demoralize Trump voters - which backfired tremendously. Then, after Trump won, they organized petitions and incited violent riots, then they pushed a recount despite saying during the entire election how important it was to respect the result (back when they'd convinced themselves they were going to win), and now they are re-purposing old and inconclusive reports about Russian hacking as if they were new and conclusive and credibly sourced (they are none of these things) to actually convince the American public that a foreign "superpower" has installed its own president-elect by manipulating the unintelligent American voter, and on January 20th - unless something catastrophic occurs - the Russians will effectively assume control of the federal government. Assassinations and civil wars have occurred over less, and we may just see both, at the rate these efforts to stop Trump have continuously escalated.


I watched this earlier today, and then again after my son got home so he could see a perspective that is different from what he gets at his school. I have come to love watching PJW acting as a living bullshit filter and sharing it with the rest of us.

- btw - My son is usually not interested in political stuff, but he asked me to look up specific topics so we could watch those videos, of which we probably saw another four or five. A great time of father/son bonding. I can overlook him falling asleep during the one about Sweden...


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@DesolationRow; @AryaDark; @MrMister;


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/808544452264546304
:sodone


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> @DesolationRow @Carte Blanche @Pratchett @AryaDark @Sincere @L-DOPA @Fringe @Miss Sally @virus21 @Goku @Beatles123 @MillionDollarProns @Lumpy McRighteous @Neuron
> 
> Paul Joseph Watson demolishes Hillary Clinton, who recently took up the mantle of the indisputable Government/MSM conspiracy to threaten free press in America known as "Fake News":


As soon as I found out about this "fake news" stuff, I figured it was bullshit. Whenever the mainstream media peddles some narrative, I immediately assume it's crap until proven legit. Luckily we no longer have to depend on those "serious people" for our news. Thanks to the internet and the free flow of information, we can count on people like PJW and Stefan Molyneux to expose the clowns.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> Assassinations and civil wars have occurred over less, and we may just see both, at the rate these efforts to stop Trump have continuously escalated.


Oh ye of little faith, didn't you hear?










He is virtually un-stumpable and come January 20th, he effectively will be. :trump


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> @DesolationRow @Carte Blanche @Pratchett @AryaDark @Sincere @L-DOPA @Fringe @Miss Sally @virus21 @Goku @Beatles123 @MillionDollarProns @Lumpy McRighteous @Neuron
> 
> Paul Joseph Watson demolishes Hillary Clinton, who recently took up the mantle of the indisputable Government/MSM conspiracy to threaten free press in America known as "Fake News":
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One constant about the left (and here I'm talking about the Democratic party and its media partners) I've come to recognize over the last few years: Everything they say about other people is what they themselves are, everything they say other people do is what they themselves do. They're the propagandists, they're the ones who engage constantly in race politics, they're the ones pushing regressive ideas like segregation and censorship, and they're the ones in the pockets of actually dangerous and brutal foreign regimes. I'd say they aren't serious people, but they are serious about destroying our country and enslaving those of us who still believe in individualism and the greatness of those ideas - inherited from Western European culture and improved upon - which made the country great once upon a time. Donald Trump may not have been my ideal choice for the man to try and swing the pendulum back and combat these devilish globalists, but after seeing just what lengths they've gone to in order to stop him, it's clear to me that he was always the best choice in terms of effectiveness and realistically being able to get the job done (it remains to be seen if he will and what that looks like). As much as I admire and ideologically align with the Paul family, I don't think either of them had the persuasion ability, the energy, or quite frankly the toughness to combat these forces, and especially not to the degree of Donald Trump.
> 
> First they distorted Trump's words to make it look like he was calling all Mexicans rapists, then they tried to connect him to nobodies with white supremacists views (who only had any relevance due to the coverage the leftist media chose to give them), then they sent paid protesters to his events, then they organized riots against him, then they came out with horribly inaccurate polls and election forecasts designed to demoralize Trump voters - which backfired tremendously. Then, after Trump won, they organized petitions and incited violent riots, then they pushed a recount despite saying during the entire election how important it was to respect the result (back when they'd convinced themselves they were going to win), and now they are re-purposing old and inconclusive reports about Russian hacking as if they were new and conclusive and credibly sourced (they are none of these things) to actually convince the American public that a foreign "superpower" has installed its own president-elect by manipulating the unintelligent American voter, and on January 20th - unless something catastrophic occurs - the Russians will effectively assume control of the federal government. Assassinations and civil wars have occurred over less, and we may just see both, at the rate these efforts to stop Trump have continuously escalated.



So ironic how that clown Paul Joseph Watson talking about fake news when he is a part of the biggest fake news Info wars.

oh the irony.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I guess I can respect Trump making an absolute bitch out of everyone who opposed him.

And yes, Watson would be way better off if he completely distanced himself from InfoWars. I don't always agree with him, but I think it's undeniable that he can compose a good argument. 

It'd be pointless if I just listened to people I always agreed with tbh. Never having your thought process challenged and just buying into outlets you always agree with will never progress your way of thinking tbh.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Watching Paul Ryan speaking to a Wisconsin crowd at Trump's victory rally and receiving all kinds of boos and derogatory chants while he just keeps going on as if he barely registers any of it. :lol I have to say the depiction of Paul Ryan back during the '12 election as a lifeless sociopath was well-earned. He is a snake, through and through. Trump won Wisconsin with no help from that despicable turncoat. 

Meanwhile Trump says we're definitely building the wall. :mj


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I want him to build it. 

Not for any other reason other than I want to see him do what he himself said he'd get done. 

Personally speaking, the wall doesn't bother me nor would I care if there one wasn't built (and it wasn't part of a campaign promise). Just give me the how, who, and when. We already know the why and where. I read that a Mexican billionaire was actually interested in helping the wall get built, but I only read the headline and some of the first paragraph in passing before moving on.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

NFL great Jim Brown, who admits he voted for Clinton, says he "fell in love" with Donald Trump after meeting with him at Trump Tower today:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/13/polit...ack-community-brooke-baldwin-cnntv/index.html



> (CNN)NFL legend Jim Brown stopped by Trump Tower Tuesday for a meeting pegged as a discussion about issues facing the African-American community, saying he "fell in love" with President-elect Donald Trump.
> 
> Though Brown voted for Hillary Clinton in November, he told CNN's Brooke Baldwin later Tuesday he came away from the meeting with a heart-warming sense of positivity.
> "I fell in love with him because he really talks about helping African-American, black people and that's why I'm here," said Brown, a man many consider to be one of the NFL's greatest running backs.
> 
> For decades, Brown has been an activist, particularly for minorities and the inner-cities, and his Amer-I-Can program is designed to "empower individuals to take charge of their lives and achieve their full potential," the group says.
> 
> Speaking to Baldwin, Brown cited Trump's resilience as proof of his worthiness of the nation's highest office. "When he goes through what he went through to become the president, he got my admiration," noted Brown. "No one gave him a chance."
> 
> A 1971 inductee into the Pro Football Hall of Fame and eight-time NFL rushing leader, Brown is well known for his work in the African-American community. However, as the subject turned to race on Tuesday, he revealed some lesser-known details to Baldwin and her viewers.
> 
> "The three greatest people in my life were white, OK. My high school coach, my high school superintendent and my mentor in Manhasset, Long Island," he said.
> So, in vocally supporting Trump, Brown sees no conflict of ideology. He maintains that his work focus on the human race above all.
> 
> "When I come out of the box, I don't come out of the box as racial," he said. "I look for good people and people that will be like-minded and help me try to do good for other human beings."


Guess he didn't get the memo that Trump is a racist and that we live in a white supremacist country.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Oda Nobunaga said:


> I want him to build it.
> 
> Not for any other reason other than I want to see him do what he himself said he'd get done.
> 
> Personally speaking, the wall doesn't bother me nor would I care if there one wasn't built (and it wasn't part of a campaign promise). Just give me the how, who, and when. We already know the why and where. I read that a Mexican billionaire was actually interested in helping the wall get built, but I only read the headline and some of the first paragraph in passing before moving on.


Wasn't it a cement guy? I loosely read an article that many Mexican companies were interested in getting in on the project but it might just be speculation.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Cipher said:


> I guess I can respect Trump making an absolute bitch out of everyone who opposed him.
> 
> And yes, Watson would be way better off if he completely distanced himself from InfoWars. I don't always agree with him, but I think it's undeniable that he can compose a good argument.
> 
> It'd be pointless if I just listened to people I always agreed with tbh. Never having your thought process challenged and just buying into outlets you always agree with will never progress your way of thinking tbh.


If you understand and appreciate what he says based in ur ability to reason and logic what does it matter whose platform he uses?


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/808769227847036941
Looks like Kanye doesn't want to run against Trump anymore now that he's had a sit-down conversation with him. :mj 

Some of you may see the idea of President Kanye West as a huge impossible joke. If so, you should really ask yourself how you managed to learn nothing from the past year. Scott Adams, for example, has identified Kanye West as a Master Persuader, just like Trump (though not quite at this level - Adams identified Trump as the best he'd ever seen since very early in Trump's run), and suggested he could be a serious contender for the presidency, should he run.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/808692969666592769
Trump has truly made politics great. :lol I can't look away.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*





 @L-DOPA @AryaDark


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

The past year in American politics was so fantastic, I finally saw the value in twitter of all things.

Donald Trump making twitter great may be culminating right now as Keith Olbermann has evidently completely lost it, ranting and raving about the Russians staging a coup within the U.S. and continually tweeting about how "we are at war" with the Russians at this point in time. 

This is the same character who sought to mimic Edward R. Murrow a decade ago following the release of George Clooney's _Good Night and Good Luck_ about Murrow's stand against Joe McCarthy's Senatorial investigation of communists operating within the U.S. government with the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee. 

Now he is ranting about traitors and Russian puppets and screeching that Electoral College voters must be briefed as soon as possible. 

A rich visage indeed, underscoring the point @CamillePunk was making earlier here.


----------



## MillionDollarProns

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

A month later and the Trump-induced melt downs are still going on :mark:

I can't wait until the electoral college thing gets finalized :mark:


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

:maisielol :maisielol 



 :maisielol :maisielol

:aryalol :aryalol :aryalol​


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-media-still-dont-get-trump-1481674546

The hysteria and contradictions around the criticism of Trump's picks is absolutely hilarious and WSJ (one of the few remaining objective sources of the MSM) lays them out quite spectacularly. 



> Republican pols and their supporters are accustomed to biased media coverage from a Washington press corps dominated by liberals, but there’s reason to believe that Donald Trump could have it worse than his GOP predecessors.
> 
> 
> We are told that Mr. Trump’s cabinet picks pose threats to the country ranging from merely grave to existential. Businessman Andy Puzder is unacceptable as labor secretary because he believes minimum-wage hikes hurt job growth. Never mind that McDonald’s is currently replacing human cashiers with automated kiosks to counteract the unions’ nationwide push for a $15 per hour minimum.
> 
> 
> Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, the president-elect’s choice to head the Environmental Protection Agency, is branded a climate-change “denier” for writing that scientists “continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind.” Liberals often resort to name-calling to shut down serious policy debates. Only a racist would criticize affirmative action, and only a homophobe would oppose same-sex marriage, right? But now we’ve reached a point where questioning the impact of something is no different from denying that it exists.
> 
> 
> Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, the nominee for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, is knocked for having no expertise in housing policy or running a government agency, which is apparently more difficult than brain surgery. While Elaine Chao, a George W. Bush administration veteran who’s been tapped to run the Transportation Department, is accused of being an “insider”—i.e., having too much experience in government. Rex Tillerson, the chief executive of Exxon Mobil, is unfit for secretary of state because his company does business with Russia. The same people who questioned the president-elect’s knowledge of foreign affairs during the campaign now tell us that he’s surrounding himself with too much military brass. Well, make up your mind.
> 
> 
> Clearly, Mr. Trump can’t win, and the best way forward for him may be to not even try. The media establishment’s problems with the incoming president go deeper than ideology. The press still isn’t over the fact that a nonpolitician won the White House. The Trump victory knocked veteran journalists off their stride. Most of the political know-it-alls who type and talk for a living misread the candidates and the public mood, and we’re still coming to grips with that. Hillary Clinton promised to put the coal industry out of business and lost. Why should it shock or outrage anyone that Mr. Trump is appointing cabinet members who support the use of fossil fuels?
> 
> 
> The current hubbub over Mr. Trump’s financial conflicts of interest resembles the debate over his tax returns during the campaign. The media was obsessed with getting Mr. Trump to make his returns public, but voters didn’t care. Reporters are right to demand transparency when it comes to Mr. Trump’s business dealings, and if he wants to maintain the trust of voters and not waste time warding off congressional investigations for the next four years, he’ll be open about conflicts of interest and work to avoid them.
> 
> 
> 
> But calls for Mr. Trump to sell off his hotel and real estate businesses to avoid conflicts set a bad precedent and discourage capable people who are not professional politicians from seeking elected office. Mr. Trump won in part due to the country’s distrust and disappointment in traditional politicians, yet the media continue to hammer him for not behaving like one.
> 
> 
> 
> There’s no shortage of legitimate criticism of the president-elect. The tariff threats are as problematic as interference with Carrier’s business model or the new administration’s talk of another Obama-style Keynesian stimulus package. Evidence that Russia determined the outcome of the election exists only in the imagination of Democrats, but foreign cyberattacks are a real and growing threat, and Mr. Trump ought to take them more seriously than he has in recent interviews. His foolish comments about women, minorities and immigrants didn’t prevent him from getting elected, but that doesn’t make them any less inappropriate.
> 
> 
> At some point, Beltway journalists may become interested in closing the gap between their own concerns and priorities and those of their audience, but the current focus on recounts and fake news suggests that they aren’t there yet. Mr. Trump makes it clearer every day, if not with every tweet, that he has zero interest in becoming the kind of workaday politician whom journalists would prefer to cover. So long as this standoff continues, denizens of the Fourth Estate will be catering mostly to each other and the political elites.
> 
> 
> 
> “Most of Washington punditry,” the late Christopher Hitchens once said, is “private letters, written to other pundits, appearing in public space.” That’s never been as true as it has since Donald Trump was elected. Voters deserve better.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> NFL great Jim Brown, who admits he voted for Clinton, says he "fell in love" with Donald Trump after meeting with him at Trump Tower today:
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/13/polit...ack-community-brooke-baldwin-cnntv/index.html
> 
> Guess he didn't get the memo that Trump is a racist and that we live in a white supremacist country.


We are the Trump, you will be assimilated


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



AryaDark said:


> :maisielol :maisielol
> 
> 
> 
> :maisielol :maisielol
> 
> :aryalol :aryalol :aryalol​


Yeah, I got a good chuckle out of this one. Trump's name means messiah? Trump is like John the Baptist? Trump is God's messenger?

:denirolol

Giant bucket of crazy, indeed.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> If you understand and appreciate what he says based in ur ability to reason and logic what does it matter whose platform he uses?


There's no doubt that Alex Jones is incredibly charismatic, but he's a bit of a joke among even the person casually into politics. He'd honestly make a great wrestling manager lol, but all his talk of demons and goblins has given InfoWars a tainted reputation. 

I am speaking more generally as just opposed to myself here. I suppose he needed a platform to launch himself, but he's more than big enough now to branch out on his own. People will always be turned off by the InfoWars brand at this point, and if he wants to reach a larger audience, I think he should distance himself from them.


Other post: Seriously, fuck Rick Perry.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Cipher said:


> There's no doubt that Alex Jones is incredibly charismatic, but he's a bit of a joke among even the person casually into politics. He'd honestly make a great wrestling manager lol, but all his talk of demons and goblins has given InfoWars a tainted reputation.
> 
> I am speaking more generally as just opposed to myself here. I suppose he needed a platform to launch himself, but he's more than big enough now to branch out on his own. People will always be turned off by the InfoWars brand at this point, and if he wants to reach a larger audience, I think he should distance himself from them.


PJW has his own brand actually and has been very renowned for at least 3 to 4 years as I've known about him since at least 2014. 

With alternative media, association doesn't really matter even half as much as it does for the MSM, because if you look at his personal youtube and compare it to InfoWars official youtube, he's actually doing _very_ well on his own. On his own channel he has almost 700k subscribers which is 1/3 of the entire InfoWars channel and more than the Canadian Rebel Media which is a much bigger group that PJW is on his own. 

On Twitter he has 400k followers while Alex Jones has 500k followers and their InfoWars twitter is barely drawing at less than 200k followers. Alternative media especially on the right is all about individualism as opposed to group think and we tend to judge them based on that criteria as well.

Seems to me that at this point InfoWars seems to be relying more on him than the other way round. 

Suffice to say, I knew about PJW before he was on InfoWars and imo his association with InfoWars is something he doesn't need at this point and is definitely not hurting his brand. In fact, I feel like he's giving a little more legitimacy to InfoWars.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> PJW has his own brand actually and has been very renowned for at least 3 to 4 years as I've known about him since at least 2014.
> 
> With alternative media, association doesn't really matter even half as much as it does for the MSM, because if you look at his personal youtube and compare it to InfoWars official youtube, he's actually doing _very_ well on his own. On his own channel he has almost 700k subscribers which is 1/3 of the entire InfoWars channel and more than the Canadian Rebel Media which is a much bigger group that PJW is on his own.
> 
> On Twitter he has 400k followers while Alex Jones has 500k followers and their InfoWars twitter is barely drawing at less than 200k followers. Alternative media especially on the right is all about individualism as opposed to group think and we tend to judge them based on that criteria as well.
> 
> Seems to me that at this point InfoWars seems to be relying more on him than the other way round.
> 
> Suffice to say, I knew about PJW before he was on InfoWars and imo his association with InfoWars is something he doesn't need at this point and is definitely not hurting his brand. In fact, I feel like he's giving a little more legitimacy to InfoWars.


I don't care about platform as much as I care about who is telling me the information. I like John Stossel a lot, he's on Fox but he was on ABC for a long time until they told him that he couldn't cover what he normally does so he moved when Fox offered him a job. He's Libertarian and he attacks everything, from PC culture to fraud and government waste. 

Info Wars is a bit meh but hardly the worst out there.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



> Democrats have taken up the Republican mantle of blaming Russia for everything despite being no real evidence of such. Why are people in such a hurry to start a second cold war or all out war with Russia?


This obsession with Russia by the same American intelligence that said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.










- Vic


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Thin-skinned Donald Trump has now put Elon Musk and Uber CEO Travis Kalanick, both of whom have previously criticized the PEOTUS, on his advisory team:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...advising-donald-trump/?utm_term=.989c579f08a5


----------



## NotGuilty

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Mr Trump almost doing more in the time before he takes office than his predecessors entire run :banderas


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

ELON MUSK IS THE MAN!!!! :mark:

OH LOOK, IS THAT IBM I SPY? :trump

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/...-jobs-before-trumps-meeting-with-tech-giants/


----------



## MillionDollarProns

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Computer jobs, factory jobs, my god we're going to have jobs coming out of our ears. We're going to have more jobs than the Yoshi Tatsu exhibit at Brooklyn Brawlercon


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@DesolationRow @Carte Blanche @Pratchett @AryaDark @Sincere @L-DOPA @Miss Sally @MillionDollarProns 

http://reason.com/blog/2016/12/14/rand-paul-trump-bolton-tillerson

Reason's Nick Gillespie interviews Senator Rand Paul about whether or not Trump has absorbed any libertarian foreign policy lessons.


----------



## blackholeson

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> ELON MUSK IS THE MAN!!!! :mark:
> 
> OH LOOK, IS THAT IBM I SPY? :trump
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/...-jobs-before-trumps-meeting-with-tech-giants/


Bah gawd Trump is so incredible he master-persuades companies to create jobs before he even meets them!













Good to see you're back Beatles123. BTW do you care to comment on that whole messy 'Trump is self funded - he doesn't owe anyone' palarver a few days back?


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> Watching Paul Ryan speaking to a Wisconsin crowd at Trump's victory rally and receiving all kinds of boos and derogatory chants while he just keeps going on as if he barely registers any of it. :lol *I have to say the depiction of Paul Ryan back during the '12 election as a lifeless sociopath was well-earned. He is a snake, through and through. *Trump won Wisconsin with no help from that despicable turncoat.
> 
> Meanwhile Trump says we're definitely building the wall. :mj


Lifeless sociopath nails it alright. I'm not sure he has the character to be any kind of snake though. He doesn't appear to have anything behind his dead eyes. I almost expect him and his ilk to start short circuiting with steam coming out of his ears.

Paul Ryan... Cannot compute


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Probably been mentioned but I just found out the Wisconsin recount gave TRUMP MORE VOTES.

:lmao :lmao :lmao


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I think some of you need to take the jobs prospect after :trump got elected with a pinch of salt. Those jobs opening were there prior to his election win and will be there after if it suits their plans.

It is just the new PR spin by corporations to suit the current political climate. Just like how the past few years corporations taut their diversity and gender-equality compensation to pacify the previous administration. Now they are spinning their 'job growth' numbers in the next few yeas because it is what will curry favours from the next administration.

But I am glad Trump is meeting with the many of the new economy's leaders to better understand how to include those economically displaced into the new economy.


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



MrMister said:


> Probably been mentioned but I just found out the Wisconsin recount gave TRUMP MORE VOTES.
> 
> :lmao :lmao :lmao


:mj

Strange how people were making a lot of noise about the recount in this state, but now they're silent.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The Absolute said:


> :mj
> 
> Strange how people were making a lot of noise about the recount in this state, but now they're silent.


They just want Hillary to be president, or for Trump not to be president. It's not about anything else, and their next big play to depose him won't be about whatever it claims to be about either. You've got Keith Olbermann completely unhinged saying we're at war with Russia, and ours will effectively be a puppet regime for Vladimir Putin should Trump take office. There's no evidence for any of it. They're trying to incite violence whether it be assassination, civil or possibly even international war, all because their candidate lost.


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> They just want Hillary to be president, or for Trump not to be president. It's not about anything else, and their next big play to depose him won't be about whatever it claims to be about either. You've got Keith Olbermann completely unhinged saying we're at war with Russia, and ours will effectively be a puppet regime for Vladimir Putin should Trump take office. There's no evidence for any of it. They're trying to incite violence whether it be assassination, civil or possibly even international war, all because their candidate lost.


Gotta love the MSM. They've gotten so much worse since this election. You think that they would have learned their lesson after hitting Trump with everything but the kitchen sink during the campaign. But now their fear-mongering is reaching harrowing levels. It seems like each week, they're drumming up some new controversy to de-legitimize his victory or paint him as a monster that wants to send us all to hell (aka Russia) in a hand-basket. Meanwhile, things like the Podesta emails and the situation in Sweden are either a) barely covered, or b) completely swept under the rug.

These are not serious people. (That's a great catchphrase, btw.)


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

The Democrats do themselves no favors by coming off as blood thirsty loons looking for a war with Russia. I don't think the Republicans got this crazy when Obama was elected.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

http://www.betootaadvocate.com/world-news/trump-i-learned-everything-i-need-to-know-about-islam-from-the-iron-sheik/



> Trump Appoints The Iron Sheik As Key Foreign Policy Advisor
> Muslims cannot be trusted. The moment you turn your back on them, they'll suplex you.
> 
> ......
> 
> Speaking today from Los Angeles, Trump said he learned “everything he needs to know about foreigners from his time in the World Wrestling Entertainment”.
> 
> “The Iron Sheik terrorised the WWE for over a decade,” said Trump. “That was one of the first documented cases of Islamic terrorism on American soil and the Reagan Administration did nothing about it. When he became the WWF World Heavyweight Champion in 1983, it was an attack on our way of life.”
> 
> ......
> 
> “Eddie Guerrero was a criminal. He’d lie, cheat or steal whenever I’d turn my back on him. From trying to steal my wallet to powerbombing me when I wasn’t ready. Even when it wasn’t even in the script.” he said. “Don’t get me started on Rey Mysterio. He was the worst out of all of them. It became clear to me that Mexico wasn’t sending their best people to America.”


IRL the only appointment I literally loled at was appointing an Australian to head bringing jobs back to Americans. 

Appointing someone who wants to destroy the EPA to the EPA, someone who opposes public education to the Education Portfolio, and someone who opposes labour rights to Labour portfolio were just sad. But I guess if you turn your country into a third world nation you'll be more competitive for manufacturing jobs? 

You know.. Until robots take all those anyway.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

In The Hall Of The Mountain King: The Story Of Donald Trump






- Vic


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@AryaDark @The Absolute @Beatles123 @CamillePunk @Carte Blanche @Miss Sally @Goku @Pratchett @L-DOPA @Tater @Sincere @birthday_massacre

A story well worth reading on how the arrogance of Hillary Clinton and her staffers helped to lead to her electoral defeat in the state of Michigan and in the 2016 election: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michigan-hillary-clinton-trump-232547



> How Clinton lost Michigan — and blew the election
> 
> Across battlegrounds, Democrats blame HQ’s stubborn commitment to a one-size-fits-all strategy.
> 
> By Edward-Isaac Dovere
> | 12/14/16 05:08 AM EST
> 
> Everybody could see Hillary Clinton was cooked in Iowa. So when, a week-and-a-half out, the Service Employees International Union started hearing anxiety out of Michigan, union officials decided to reroute their volunteers, giving a desperate team on the ground around Detroit some hope.
> 
> They started prepping meals and organizing hotel rooms.
> 
> SEIU — which had wanted to go to Michigan from the beginning, but been ordered not to — dialed Clinton’s top campaign aides to tell them about the new plan. According to several people familiar with the call, Brooklyn was furious.
> 
> Turn that bus around, the Clinton team ordered SEIU. Those volunteers needed to stay in Iowa to fool Donald Trump into competing there, not drive to Michigan, where the Democrat’s models projected a 5-point win through the morning of Election Day.
> 
> Michigan organizers were shocked. It was the latest case of Brooklyn ignoring on-the-ground intel and pleas for help in a race that they felt slipping away at the end.
> 
> “They believed they were more experienced, which they were. They believed they were smarter, which they weren’t,” said Donnie Fowler, who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee during the final months of the campaign. “They believed they had better information, which they didn’t.”
> 
> Flip Michigan and leave the rest of the map, and Trump is still president-elect. But to people who worked in that state and others, how Clinton won the popular vote by 2.8 million votes and lost by 100,000 in states that could have made her president has everything to do with what happened in Michigan. Trump won the state despite getting 30,000 fewer votes than George W. Bush did when he lost it in 2004.
> 
> Politico spoke to a dozen officials working on or with Clinton’s Michigan campaign, and more than a dozen scattered among other battleground states, her Brooklyn headquarters and in Washington who describe an ongoing fight about campaign tactics, an inability to get top leadership to change course.
> 
> Then again, according to senior people in Brooklyn, Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook never heard any of those complaints directly from anyone on his state teams before Election Day.
> 
> In results that narrow, Clinton’s loss could be attributed to any number of factors — FBI Director Jim Comey’s letter shifting late deciders, the lack of a compelling economic message, the apparent Russian hacking. But heartbroken and frustrated in-state battleground operatives worry that a lesson being missed is a simple one: Get the basics of campaigning right.
> 
> Clinton never even stopped by a United Auto Workers union hall in Michigan, though a person involved with the campaign noted bitterly that the UAW flaked on GOTV commitments in the final days, and that AFSCME never even made any, despite months of appeals.
> 
> The anecdotes are different but the narrative is the same across battlegrounds, where Democratic operatives lament a one-size-fits-all approach drawn entirely from pre-selected data — operatives spit out “the model, the model,” as they complain about it — guiding Mook’s decisions on field, television, everything else. That’s the same data operation, of course, that predicted Clinton would win the Iowa caucuses by 6 percentage points (she scraped by with two-tenths of a point), and that predicted she’d beat Bernie Sanders in Michigan (he won by 1.5 points).
> 
> “I’ve never seen a campaign like this,” said Virgie Rollins, a Democratic National Committee member and longtime political hand in Michigan who described months of failed attempts to get attention to the collapse she was watching unfold in slow-motion among women and African-American millennials.
> 
> Rollins, the chair emeritus of the Michigan Democratic Women’s Caucus, said requests into Brooklyn for surrogates to come talk to her group were never answered. When they held their events anyway, she said, they also got no response to requests for a little money to help cover costs.
> 
> Rollins doesn’t need a recount to understand why Clinton lost the state.
> 
> “When you don’t reach out to community folk and reach out to precinct campaigns and district organizations that know where the votes are, then you’re going to have problems,” she said.
> 
> *The enthusiasm gap*
> 
> From the day Clinton released her launch video, the campaign knew she’d struggle with enthusiasm. Yet they didn’t do many of the things voters are used to seeing to give a sense of momentum, insisting that votes didn’t come from campaign literature, door knocking, commitment to vote cards or the standard program of sending absentee ballot applications to likely voters rather than just appealing to the people once they’d already ordered the ballots.
> 
> “It was very surgical and corporate. They had their model, this is how they’re going to do it. Their thing was, ‘We don’t have to leave [literature] at the doors, everyone knows who Hillary Clinton is,’” said one person involved in the Michigan campaign. “But in terms of activists, it seems different, it’s maybe they don’t care about us.”
> 
> Michigan operatives relay stories like one about an older woman in Flint who showed up at a Clinton campaign office, asking for a lawn sign and offering to canvass, being told these were not “scientifically” significant ways of increasing the vote, and leaving, never to return. A crew of building trade workers showed up at another office looking to canvass, but, confused after being told there was no literature to hand out like in most campaigns, also left and never looked back.
> 
> “There’s this illusion that the Clinton campaign had a ground game. The deal is that the Clinton campaign could have had a ground game,” said a former Obama operative in Michigan. “They had people in the states who were willing to do stuff. But they didn’t provide people anything to do until GOTV.”
> 
> The only metric that people involved in the operations say they ever heard headquarters interested in was how many volunteer shifts had been signed up — though the volunteers were never given the now-standard handheld devices to input the responses they got in the field, and Brooklyn mandated that they not worry about data entry. Operatives watched packets of real-time voter information piled up in bins at the coordinated campaign headquarters. The sheets were updated only when they got ripped, or soaked with coffee. Existing packets with notes from the volunteers, including highlighting how much Trump inclination there was among some of the white male union members the Clinton campaign was sure would be with her, were tossed in the garbage.
> 
> The Brooklyn command believed that television and limited direct mail and digital efforts were the only way to win over voters, people familiar with the thinking at headquarters said. Guided by polls that showed the Midwestern states safer, the campaign spent, according to one internal estimate, about 3 percent as much in Michigan and Wisconsin as it spent in Florida, Ohio and North Carolina. Most voters in Michigan didn’t see a television ad until the final week.
> 
> Most importantly, multiple operatives said, the Clinton campaign dismissed what’s known as in-person “persuasion” — no one was knocking on doors trying to drum up support for the Democratic nominee, which also meant no one was hearing directly from voters aside from voters they’d already assumed were likely Clinton voters, no one tracking how feelings about the race and the candidates were evolving. This left no information to check the polling models against — which might have, for example, showed the campaign that some of the white male union members they had expected to be likely Clinton voters actually veering toward Trump — and no early warning system that the race was turning against them in ways that their daily tracking polls weren’t picking up.
> 
> People involved in the Michigan campaign still can’t understand why Brooklyn stayed so sure of the numbers in a state that it also had projected Clinton would win in the primary.
> 
> “Especially given what happened in the primary,” said Michigan Democratic Party chairman Brandon Dillon. “We knew that there was going to have to be more attention.”
> 
> With Clinton’s team ignoring or rejecting requests, Democratic operatives in Michigan and other battleground states might have turned to the DNC. But they couldn’t; they weren’t allowed to ask for help.
> 
> State officials were banned from speaking directly to anyone at the DNC in Washington. (“Welcome to DNC HQ,” read a blue and white sign behind the reception desk in Brooklyn that appeared after the ouster of Debbie Wasserman Schultz just before the July convention).
> 
> A presidential campaign taking over the party committee post-convention is standard, but what happened in 2016 was more intense than veterans remember. People at the DNC and in battleground states speak of angry, bitter calls that came in from Brooklyn whenever they caught wind of contact between them, adamant that only the campaign’s top brass could approve spending or tactical decisions.
> 
> “Don’t touch them. Stay away,” one person on the other end of the call remembered Clinton campaign states director Marlon Marshall saying after hearing about a rogue conversation between a battleground operative and an official at the DNC. “You can’t be calling those people and making them think something is coming when nothing is.
> 
> Mook himself made a number of those calls.
> 
> To Brooklyn, this was the only way to shut down what they perceived early as an effort to undermine the campaign’s planning, DNC officials playing good cop as they made promises they couldn’t keep to friends in the states, took credit for moves Clinton’s staff already were making, or looked to dig up trouble to use against them later
> 
> *Shunning help from the outside*
> 
> Brooklyn’s theory from the start was that 2016 was going to be a purely base turnout election. Efforts were focused on voter registration and then, in the final weeks, turning out voters identified as Clinton’s, without confirmation that they were.
> 
> Marshall, at Mook’s direction, had designed a plan that until the final weeks was built around holding Pennsylvania and winning just one more state — electoral math that would have denied Trump the presidency on the reasonable assumption Michigan and Wisconsin were Clinton’s.
> 
> There was a logic guided by data, they say.
> 
> “We have built an operation and we run an operation as if this is going to be a close race,” Marshall said in an interview with Politico in early October. “We have not seen an organization in many states on the Trump side that reflects that.”
> 
> In Michigan, Brooklyn tracked 211 staff compared with 58 for Barack Obama in 2012. A source there said the field plan called for an additional 70 staffers, but deferred to the local team instead on using the $1.4 million allotment for a limited paid canvass.
> 
> But enough tremors were reaching Brooklyn by late October that veterans of previous campaigns were brought on to help oversee a stabilization — despite tension that dated back to many at the firm never wanting Mook to be campaign manager in the first place.
> 
> A battle against Mook’s direction took hold, with multiple people plotting ricochets, complaining to people like Chief Administrative Officer Charlie Baker and longtime Clinton confidante Minyon Moore in the hopes of getting the campaign manager overruled.
> 
> Michigan was the only presidential battleground that didn’t have an active Senate race, and that cost the state money from Brooklyn. Waving off complaints during a visit to Michigan a few weeks out, Marshall explained to the room that Clinton was going to clobber Trump in the final debate and they were talking about moving money into Senate seats. And by the time they arrived in Las Vegas for that third debate, Clinton’s top aides were boasting about how they were about to expand the lead and pull marginal Senate candidates over the line to give her a governing majority.
> 
> In Michigan, they raised more than $700,000 to cover costs, mostly from in-state donors. Though the campaign said every check was signed off on in Brooklyn, Fowler said the DNC approved a $50,000 rogue transfer — let the Clinton campaign complain to him after Election Day, he told them.
> 
> “You’re in a state, your job is to win the battleground state, not to have complete fealty to the national campaign headquarters, especially if the national campaign headquarters is not listening,” Fowler explained.
> 
> Among the other workarounds claimed was one from interim DNC chair Donna Brazile, who was persuading the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee to hold the $5 million transferred to them from the Clinton campaign and to wait to spend it buying airtime for minority voter turnout in the final week they otherwise wouldn’t have been able to fund.
> 
> But there also were millions approved for transfer from Clinton’s campaign for use by the DNC — which, under a plan devised by Brazile to drum up urban turnout out of fear that Trump would win the popular vote while losing the electoral vote, got dumped into Chicago and New Orleans, far from anywhere that would have made a difference in the election.
> 
> Nor did Brooklyn ask for help from some people who’d been expecting the call. Sanders threw himself into campaign appearances for Clinton throughout the fall, but familiar sources say the campaign never asked the Vermont senator’s campaign aides for help thinking through Michigan, Wisconsin or anywhere else where he had run strong. It was already November when the campaign finally reached out to the White House to get President Barack Obama into Michigan, a state that he’d worked hard and won by large margins in 2008 and 2012. On the Monday before Election Day, Obama added a stop in Ann Arbor, but that final weekend, the president had played golf on Saturday and made one stop in Orlando on Sunday, not having been asked to do anything else. Michigan senior adviser Steve Neuman had been asking for months to get Obama and the first lady on the ground there. People who asked for Vice President Joe Biden to come in were told that top Clinton aides weren’t clearing those trips.
> 
> “We worked collaboratively with Brooklyn throughout and made a robust investment in Michigan, and we were obviously disappointed that we came up short. Everybody was,” Neuman said.
> 
> ‘Not the right plan’
> 
> Top aides in Brooklyn write off complaints from battleground state operatives as Monday morning quarterbacking by people who wouldn’t have had much of a case if Clinton had won. They continue to blame the loss on FBI Director James Comey, saying he shifted late deciders, not any tactical failures.
> 
> “Now of course, in hindsight, there are any number of steps that we could have taken that may have made the difference in a state as closely decided as Michigan, but the consistent theme across all the battleground states was that we saw our numbers drop in the final week after Jim Comey sent his shocking letter to Congress,” said former Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon.
> 
> When top aides to the Trump campaign mapped out the best-case scenarios for election night, they always fell short of 270, and Michigan was always the state that they couldn’t see a way through.
> 
> Trump’s last stop of the election was a massive rally in Michigan that went on past midnight, his campaign homing in on Trump’s chances there largely from nervousness it sensed coming out of Brooklyn.
> 
> Walking out at the end, Trump turned to his running mate, Mike Pence, almost confused: “This doesn’t feel like second place,” he said, according to a person familiar with the conversation.
> 
> Democrats felt it too. Rep. Debbie Dingell, who complained throughout the campaign about the lack of urgency and support, has told people since the election that Hillary and Bill Clinton both said in their final appearances in the state that they felt something was off.
> 
> On the morning of Election Day, internal Clinton campaign numbers had her winning Michigan by 5 points. By 1 p.m., an aide on the ground called headquarters; the voter turnout tracking system they’d built themselves in defiance of orders — Brooklyn had told operatives in the state they didn’t care about those numbers, and specifically told them not to use any resources to get them — showed urban precincts down 25 percent. Maybe they should get worried, the Michigan operatives said.
> 
> Nope, they were told. She was going to win by 5. All Brooklyn’s data said so.
> 
> In at least one of the war rooms in New York, they’d already started celebratory drinking by the afternoon, according to a person there. Elsewhere, calls quietly went out that day to tell key people to get ready to be asked about joining transition teams.
> 
> But an hour-and-a-half after polls closed, Clinton aides began making rushed calls, redrawing paths to 270 through the single electoral vote in Maine and Nebraska. Still assuming wins in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, Michigan suddenly looked like the state that was going to decide the presidency.
> 
> They scrambled a call with campaign attorney Marc Elias, prepping for a recount in a vote that oddly looked like it would be a narrower win than they had ever prepared for. An hour later, after they hung up, they realized it was over. They could tell by the numbers they were seeing — not the numbers being spewed from their own internal analytics team, but the numbers sitting at the bottom of the TV tuned to CNN. With the recount frozen, Clinton lost Michigan by 10,704 votes.
> 
> “I think it’s true, they executed well. I think it’s true that the plan was accomplished,” said a former labor leader in the state. “But the plan was not the right plan.”


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@AryaDark @Beatles123 @CamillePunk @Carte Blanche @DesolationRow @Miss Sally @Goku @Pratchett

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...utin-directed-hack-laughable-nonsense-n696416



> The Kremlin on Thursday disputed an exclusive NBC News report that U.S. intelligence has documented Vladimir Putin's personal involvement in a Russian intelligence operation to interfere in the U.S. presidential election.
> 
> Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told the AP the report was "laughable nonsense."
> 
> Maria Zakharova, a spokeswoman for the Russian Foreign Ministry, accused "Western media" of being a "shill" and a "mouthpiece of various power groups."
> 
> "It's not the general public who's being manipulated," Zakharova said. "The general public nowadays can distinguish the truth. It's the mass media that is manipulating themselves."












*EDIT: CHECK OUT THIS VIDEO HOLLYWOOD MADE APPEALING TO THE REPUBLICANS IN THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE!!!*






:lmao :lmao :lmao


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

LOL at that video @The Absolute...

Not voting for Trump means the Electors will "go down in history as American heroes". :mj4 :sodone :ha



Because Hollywood nonces making videos like that have been shown to do so much good already... :lmao :lmao :lmao

They don't get it. They really don't get it. :banderas


----------



## Neuron

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Decadent, out of touch Hollywood shills trying to emotionally manipulate electors. Nothing says "unite for America" like potentially triggering a civil war.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The Absolute said:


> *EDIT: CHECK OUT THIS VIDEO HOLLYWOOD MADE APPEALING TO THE REPUBLICANS IN THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE!!!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :lmao :lmao :lmao


Oh for fuck sakes, get over it Hollywood. You lost, all you media liberals did and shit like this is why. Whats the matter, butt hurt that you won't be invited to the White House or be part of fundraisers to shill yourselves? America is done with you and would you like to know why? Because the people see you for what you are: Rich modern aristocrats that live is a 24/7 fantasy world that don't give one shit about the common citizen unless you can mug for a camera at their expense.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

If there is one thing I hate about this election is that people now feel that fucking Russia under Putin, a man who bends the law to have unlimited terms and has a state sponsored news source who puts out programs saying 9/11 was an inside job and that western European citizens want to be under Russian control but are being suppressed by Nazi's, is a place of truth and liberty


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

For those holding out hope for some kind of electoral coup: 

http://www.businessinsider.com/ap-the-electoral-voters-speak-and-theyre-not-out-for-a-revolt-2016-12

Despite the media's push, none of the 306 Trump-obligated electors besides the one we already knew about intends to vote for anyone but Trump. Back to the drawing board for the left.


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The Absolute said:


> :lmao :lmao :lmao


In the video these people say that they're not telling the electoral college to vote for Hillary. So I have to ask, who funded the making of this video? Martin Sheen? I doubt it. Who would they rather have them vote for? Jill Stein? :leo These goons did not turn up for free.
How much lower can the Hollywood elite sink? 

I thought the election loss would stop Hillary's bloodlust but it's only gotten stronger. Any rational human being, from any background, should know the Russia stuff is a fairy tale. The oh-so trustworthy CIA, who have never told any lies or got anything wrong, has evidence of Russian hacking/influence. Show the American people the evidence! 

You might expect to see this, for lack of better word, rebellion from somewhere like Venezuela or some African nation. Not the fucking USA!

A common phrase in the States is "you could grow up to be President". But Donald Trump isn't qualified. Riiiight.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

It's important to remember that they're upset that "Russia" uncovered the DNC and Hillary's corrupt activities. They're upset that the American people made their decision based on knowledge the corrupt elites didn't want them to have. I have no ounce of sympathy for their position. It's really quite vile.

Another facet of the argument is that the RNC was also supposedly hacked (no evidence this occurred as far as I have seen), but nothing was leaked. Let's suppose for a second that the RNC WAS hacked. What do you think would've been uncovered? Collusion with Fox News? Everyone already views Fox News as a Republican mouthpiece. That the RNC tried to rig the primary process AGAINST Donald Trump? We already knew that, and it would only help Trump for that information to become public. Trump's relationship with the RNC was continuously hot-and-cold toward the end of the election. The American people didn't view him as entwined with the RNC as Hillary was with the DNC. It's very unlikely that anything uncovered from the RNC would have harmed Trump. I acknowledge this is speculation on my part, but in my movie everything I've just said is most likely correct.


----------



## MillionDollarProns

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

That feeling when WWE makes better video vignettes for low card matches than Hollywood does when the future of America is on the line apparently


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

'Memba the Cold War? I sure as hell don't want another.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/809527629254492160
:what?

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...government_and_his_supporters_won_t_care.html


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/809527629254492160
> :what?
> 
> http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...government_and_his_supporters_won_t_care.html


Just keep it up Liberal Media. All you do is show why Trump won and why people gave up on you.


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



virus21 said:


> Just keep it up Liberal Media. All you do is show why Trump won and why people gave up on you.


What choice do they really have, though? If they stop and try to come up with a new tactic, then that could more or less signal to anyone not completely convinced of their bullshittiness that they have in fact been making asses of themselves this whole time. Why risk that? Might as well double down for a while and hope like hell some of the shit you continue to throw at the wall manages to stick somewhere so you can claim that you were right the whole time and why didn't anyone listen to you...

So what if we end up going to war with Russia, that is probably what they wanted Trump to do all along...


Something I find funny about the whole "Russian hacking" thing, is I wonder if Russia might not have been able to hack into our government systems in the first place had Hillary not gone and emailed Classified material willy-nilly on her own private server. That might be how they got access in the first place...

OMG... what if the Russian hacks of the DNC were made possible by Hillary's carelessness? What if it wasn't carelessness at all? Maybe Hillary is the one in bed with Putin!


Of course, I hope that Putin has better judgment than that... 


Plans within plots within schemes. When will it ever end? :mj4


----------



## Warlock

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Man the butthurt is real. I wonder if anyone pushing for the electoral voters to vote differently has considered what would happen if they were actually successful. The backlash would be so incredible it could make the trump protests look tame in comparison. Short of that and at the very least, noone would ever trust the election system ever again.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



virus21 said:


> Just keep it up Liberal Media. All you do is show why Trump won and why people gave up on you.


Trump lost by almost 3 million votes. The EC is anti-democracy. Most than half the country voted against Trump but he still won because of the stupid EC. Lets remember that.

And if the EC ever went against Trump, the same people who are defending the EC now, that a person with 3 million less votes won, cant turn around and then say the EC is BS.

Not to mention one of the reasons for the EC was to prevent someone like Trump from being president.


this article also shows you what a joke Trumps cabinet picks are.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...rop-off-trump-cabinet-picks-article-1.2911859

KING: There’s a huge education level drop-off with the Trump cabinet picks 


On Tuesday night, Ta-Nehisi Coates made a guest appearance with Trevor Noah on “The Daily Show” to discuss “My President Was Black” — his brilliant reflection on the Obama presidency. On Wednesday, The Daily Show posted a memed quote from Coates that has been liked over 230,000 times.

It says this:

If I have to jump six feet to get the same thing that you have to jump two feet for — that’s how racism works.

To be President, Obama had to be scholarly, intelligent, President of the Harvard Law Review, the product of some of our greatest educational institutions, capable of talking to two different worlds.

KING: Here’s why I will never call Donald Trump ‘Mr. President’
Donald Trump had to be rich and white. That’s the difference.

Back in 1999, Trump considered running for president and said that he would choose Oprah to be his running mate. The headline on Oct. 8, 1999 read, "I want to be the Prez."
89 PHOTOS
VIEW GALLERY
New York Daily News covers of Donald Trump through the years
And immediately, it got me curious to find out what the education level of the incoming Trump administration is compared to the Obama administration. What I found is stark and deeply revealing. In fact, the most educated man in the Trump administration is the lone black man — Dr. Ben Carson. If anything, that alone confirms some of what Coates was saying — that a black man has to jump six feet to reach the same thing white folk have to jump two feet for.

It starts from the top down. As Coates noted, Obama earned his B.A. from Columbia University and his law degree from Harvard — where he was the president of the Harvard Law Review.

Donald Trump will be the first President of the United States in 25 years to not have a graduate degree of any kind. Bill Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar and had a law degree from Yale University. Even George W. Bush had a Harvard MBA. Trump has B.S. in economics from University of Pennsylvania, but no advanced education.

KING: Allen West asked back to Trump Tower after anti-Muslim meme
SECRETARY OF EDUCATION

Obama’s current Secretary of Education is (l.) John King Jr. The incoming Secretary of Education is Betsy DeVos (r.).
Obama’s current Secretary of Education is (l.) John King Jr. The incoming Secretary of Education is Betsy DeVos (r.). (SUSAN WALSH/AP)
Obama’s current Secretary of Education, John King Jr., has a B.A. from Harvard, a master’s degree and doctorate from Columbia, and a law degree from Yale on top of it all. He is one of the most educated people to ever hold the position of Secretary of Education. That makes sense right?

The incoming Secretary of Education is Betsy DeVos. She has a bachelor’s degree from Calvin College. That’s it. She’s also white and a billionaire. The standards are clearly different. Not a single black man in America would ever be under the impression that he could be Secretary of Education with a B.A. from Calvin College.

SECRETARY OF ENERGY

Trump picks Rep. Ryan Zinke to head Interior Department: report
After Chu (l.) served the Department of Energy for four years, he was succeeded by Ernest Moniz (c.). Trump just appointed Rick Perr (r.).
After Chu (l.) served the Department of Energy for four years, he was succeeded by Ernest Moniz (c.). Trump just appointed Rick Perr (r.). (EVAN VUCCI/ASSOCIATED PRESS)
Perhaps no contrast is more stark than the difference between who President Obama has appointed as Secretary of Energy versus who Trump has appointed. Obama’s first Secretary of Energy was Steven Chu — a Nobel Prize winning physicist who is currently the Professor of Physics and Professor of Molecular & Cellular Physiology at Stanford University. He has a B.A. in Math, a B.S. in Physics, and a Ph.D. in Physics from Berkeley.

After Chu served the Department of Energy for four years, he was succeeded by Ernest Moniz — who earned his Ph.D. in theoretical physics from Stanford University. Moniz went on to join the faculty at MIT and eventually became the head of the physics department and co-chair of the MIT Research Council. These men are brilliant.

Trump just appointed Rick Perry — who failed his college chemistry course and had a transcript riddled with C’s & D’s. The former governor of Texas struggled his way into earning a bachelor’s degree in Animal Science from Texas A&M. He doesn’t have any graduate degrees. He is famous for saying that if he became president, he would disband the Department of Energy, but he couldn’t even remember the name of the department.

These dropoffs in education level between the Obama Administration and the incoming Trump administration aren’t rare.

Trump picks ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson as secretary of state
SECRETARY OF STATE

Not Released (NR)
Secretary of State John Kerry (l.) and Rex Tillerson (r.), who Trump nominated for the same role. (ZACH GIBSON/GETTY IMAGES)
Secretary of State John Kerry has a law degree from Boston College. Rex Tillerson, who Trump nominated for the same role, didn’t go to grad school at all.

SECRETARY OF TREASURY

The current Secretary of the Treasury is Jack Lew (l.). Trump nominated Steven Mnuchin (r.) for the same position.
The current Secretary of the Treasury is Jack Lew (l.). Trump nominated Steven Mnuchin (r.) for the same position. (ERALDO PERES/AP)
The current Secretary of the Treasury is Jack Lew. Lew has a B.A. from Harvard and a law degree from Georgetown. Trump nominated Steven Mnuchin. He doesn’t have a graduate degree of any kind.

Education matters. It is often on college campuses where people are challenged with new ideas, new cultures, and opposing viewpoints that don't quite match their own.

While Trump, and these men, may indeed argue that they don't need advanced graduate degrees, because they are so rich and successful, I'd prefer both. Not only that, but many of these nominees, and indeed Trump himself, don't even have a day of experience working inside of the government. These systems are complicated and robust. To see the education levels drop off so much, is not just disappointing, it could be dangerous.


----------



## blackholeson

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump lost by almost 3 million votes. The EC is anti-democracy. Most than half the country voted against Trump but he still won because of the stupid EC. Lets remember that.
> 
> And if the EC every went against Trump, the same people who are defending the EC now that a person with 3 million less votes won, cant turn around and then say the EC is BS.
> 
> Not to mention one of the reasons of the EC was to prevent someone like Trump from being president.
> 
> 
> this article also shows you what a joke Trumps cabinet picks are.
> 
> http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...rop-off-trump-cabinet-picks-article-1.2911859
> 
> KING: There’s a huge education level drop-off with the Trump cabinet picks
> 
> 
> On Tuesday night, Ta-Nehisi Coates made a guest appearance with Trevor Noah on “The Daily Show” to discuss “My President Was Black” — his brilliant reflection on the Obama presidency. On Wednesday, The Daily Show posted a memed quote from Coates that has been liked over 230,000 times.
> 
> It says this:
> 
> If I have to jump six feet to get the same thing that you have to jump two feet for — that’s how racism works.
> 
> To be President, Obama had to be scholarly, intelligent, President of the Harvard Law Review, the product of some of our greatest educational institutions, capable of talking to two different worlds.
> 
> KING: Here’s why I will never call Donald Trump ‘Mr. President’
> Donald Trump had to be rich and white. That’s the difference.
> 
> Back in 1999, Trump considered running for president and said that he would choose Oprah to be his running mate. The headline on Oct. 8, 1999 read, "I want to be the Prez."
> 89 PHOTOS
> VIEW GALLERY
> New York Daily News covers of Donald Trump through the years
> And immediately, it got me curious to find out what the education level of the incoming Trump administration is compared to the Obama administration. What I found is stark and deeply revealing. In fact, the most educated man in the Trump administration is the lone black man — Dr. Ben Carson. If anything, that alone confirms some of what Coates was saying — that a black man has to jump six feet to reach the same thing white folk have to jump two feet for.
> 
> It starts from the top down. As Coates noted, Obama earned his B.A. from Columbia University and his law degree from Harvard — where he was the president of the Harvard Law Review.
> 
> Donald Trump will be the first President of the United States in 25 years to not have a graduate degree of any kind. Bill Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar and had a law degree from Yale University. Even George W. Bush had a Harvard MBA. Trump has B.S. in economics from University of Pennsylvania, but no advanced education.
> 
> KING: Allen West asked back to Trump Tower after anti-Muslim meme
> SECRETARY OF EDUCATION
> 
> Obama’s current Secretary of Education is (l.) John King Jr. The incoming Secretary of Education is Betsy DeVos (r.).
> Obama’s current Secretary of Education is (l.) John King Jr. The incoming Secretary of Education is Betsy DeVos (r.). (SUSAN WALSH/AP)
> Obama’s current Secretary of Education, John King Jr., has a B.A. from Harvard, a master’s degree and doctorate from Columbia, and a law degree from Yale on top of it all. He is one of the most educated people to ever hold the position of Secretary of Education. That makes sense right?
> 
> The incoming Secretary of Education is Betsy DeVos. She has a bachelor’s degree from Calvin College. That’s it. She’s also white and a billionaire. The standards are clearly different. Not a single black man in America would ever be under the impression that he could be Secretary of Education with a B.A. from Calvin College.
> 
> SECRETARY OF ENERGY
> 
> Trump picks Rep. Ryan Zinke to head Interior Department: report
> After Chu (l.) served the Department of Energy for four years, he was succeeded by Ernest Moniz (c.). Trump just appointed Rick Perr (r.).
> After Chu (l.) served the Department of Energy for four years, he was succeeded by Ernest Moniz (c.). Trump just appointed Rick Perr (r.). (EVAN VUCCI/ASSOCIATED PRESS)
> Perhaps no contrast is more stark than the difference between who President Obama has appointed as Secretary of Energy versus who Trump has appointed. Obama’s first Secretary of Energy was Steven Chu — a Nobel Prize winning physicist who is currently the Professor of Physics and Professor of Molecular & Cellular Physiology at Stanford University. He has a B.A. in Math, a B.S. in Physics, and a Ph.D. in Physics from Berkeley.
> 
> After Chu served the Department of Energy for four years, he was succeeded by Ernest Moniz — who earned his Ph.D. in theoretical physics from Stanford University. Moniz went on to join the faculty at MIT and eventually became the head of the physics department and co-chair of the MIT Research Council. These men are brilliant.
> 
> Trump just appointed Rick Perry — who failed his college chemistry course and had a transcript riddled with C’s & D’s. The former governor of Texas struggled his way into earning a bachelor’s degree in Animal Science from Texas A&M. He doesn’t have any graduate degrees. He is famous for saying that if he became president, he would disband the Department of Energy, but he couldn’t even remember the name of the department.
> 
> These dropoffs in education level between the Obama Administration and the incoming Trump administration aren’t rare.
> 
> Trump picks ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson as secretary of state
> SECRETARY OF STATE
> 
> Not Released (NR)
> Secretary of State John Kerry (l.) and Rex Tillerson (r.), who Trump nominated for the same role. (ZACH GIBSON/GETTY IMAGES)
> Secretary of State John Kerry has a law degree from Boston College. Rex Tillerson, who Trump nominated for the same role, didn’t go to grad school at all.
> 
> SECRETARY OF TREASURY
> 
> The current Secretary of the Treasury is Jack Lew (l.). Trump nominated Steven Mnuchin (r.) for the same position.
> The current Secretary of the Treasury is Jack Lew (l.). Trump nominated Steven Mnuchin (r.) for the same position. (ERALDO PERES/AP)
> The current Secretary of the Treasury is Jack Lew. Lew has a B.A. from Harvard and a law degree from Georgetown. Trump nominated Steven Mnuchin. He doesn’t have a graduate degree of any kind.
> 
> Education matters. It is often on college campuses where people are challenged with new ideas, new cultures, and opposing viewpoints that don't quite match their own.
> 
> While Trump, and these men, may indeed argue that they don't need advanced graduate degrees, because they are so rich and successful, I'd prefer both. Not only that, but many of these nominees, and indeed Trump himself, don't even have a day of experience working inside of the government. These systems are complicated and robust. To see the education levels drop off so much, is not just disappointing, it could be dangerous.


*Thank you! Well said. So glad you posted this. Hopefully people actually read your post.*


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@DesolationRow @Carte Blanche @Pratchett @AryaDark @Sincere @L-DOPA @Fringe @Miss Sally @virus21 @Goku @Beatles123 @MillionDollarProns @Lumpy McRighteous @Neuron

Sean Hannity interviews Julian Assange regarding the "Russian" hacking story:







__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/809345910769586176

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/809376746416041984
Chuck Todd melting down because everyone knows he's full of shit and a complete shill. :banderas


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Ok, context time because you people seem to lack it 

1.I don't like Trumps cabinet but everyone in it is very successful and very intelligent

2. The "Ivy league elitism you aren't worth a damn unless you have a law degree" has lead to some very intelligent people running things that they had zero interest in and lead to things like McNamara (an extremely intelligent man and someone I have great respect for) trying to "win a war mathematically" while ignoring his generals and advisors due to their "lack of education" and giving up when "the numbers never added up"

The man was a master of his craft but didn't want to fight a war and tried to win it the "intellectual" way he ran everything else and to avoid getting his hands dirty 

3. Putting people who don't like a department in charge of it is not that unusual or rare, its is often done as a way to put a check on over expansion and spending. Often a person who has a passion for the department they are running get carried away and start chasing "dream projects" that go nowhere which makes it hard to see what is actually being done in the department. After a few of those you get a "hater" to balance the books and see where you stand and what you can reasonably finish.

4. "Obama’s current Secretary of Education, John King Jr., has a B.A. from Harvard, a master’s degree and doctorate from Columbia, and a law degree from Yale on top of it all. He is one of the most educated people to ever hold the position of Secretary of Education. That makes sense right?" is the stupidest fucking things I have heard today. That's like saying being a number one shopper means you are qualified to run the store. A better choice would be a teacher who would know what it is like to work under the current Education standards and knows what to change about it not someone who was taught under it and knows nothing else. Not to mention a private college would not even be under the control the department of education so why would a fucking graduate know more than anyone else?

5. Trumps cabinet is actually very similar to JFK's or Regan's, its full of people outside of the "system" including business moguls and trusted allies, this will either lead to fresh ideas or people having no idea what they are doing 

6. The problem we are running into is that everyone is running into is no one respected the other side so they disrespect and be-little them and their ideas until the dagger goes in and then sits around going "well how did that happen? durr durr" 

Know your adversary, know yourself, respect your adversary, respect yourself

Until you "know" racists, industrialists, activists, religious extremists ect. they will kick your ass over and over and no one seems to want to know out of fear of filling their heads with "dirty thoughts" or something


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@birthday_massacre : Trump loves the uneducated, remember? :troll But yeah, him nominating folks that aren't the sharpest tools in the shed only garners a "meh" from me, since gubmint is already filled to the gills with those types and adding more has basically become a tradition at this rate. And I agree on the EC needing a significant overhaul, but I'm quite satisfied with how it played out since Trump has been thoroughly entertaining and the DNC needed to have a reality check of immeasurable magnitude.

I'm disappointed in you for bringing Shaun King and Ta-Nehisi Coates in here though, since King is a BLM fuckwit and Coates is the left's shiny, new token plaything that has a penchant for being pussy-whipped.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> @birthday_massacre : Trump loves the uneducated, remember? :troll But yeah, him nominating folks that aren't the sharpest tools in the shed only garners a "meh" from me, since gubmint is already filled to the gills with those types and adding more has basically become a tradition at this rate. And I agree on the EC needing a significant overhaul, but I'm quite satisfied with how it played out since Trump has been thoroughly entertaining and the DNC needed to have a reality check of immeasurable magnitude.
> 
> I'm disappointed in you for bringing Shaun King and Ta-Nehisi Coates in here though, since King is a BLM fuckwit and Coates is the left's shiny, new token plaything that has a penchant for being pussy-whipped.


yeah lets bash Shaun King but be ok with people posting articles from the writer of Dilbert and Watson who is from Info Wars.

And sorry but the people that Trump hired have zero experience in the fields of the jobs they were chosen for. It's going to be a disaster. 

this is the perfect song for Trump


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Oh shit, thanks for the reminder. 

Another great article from Dilbert creator and Persuasion expert Scott Adams, who wrote about Trump's historic campaign through the filter of persuasion and correctly predicted a year ago that Trump would win the election in landslide fashion, which he indisputably did, thus establishing peerless credibility for himself, Scott Adams, as a writer about persuasion: 

The Campaign Hallucinations Are Lifting by Scott Adams

Fascinating and convincing arguments about why the Trump protests quickly dissipated even though Trump was supposedly to be LITERALLY HITLER, and you would think that nothing could be as important as protesting such a man's ascent to power.

@DesolationRow @Carte Blanche @Pratchett @AryaDark @Sincere @L-DOPA @Fringe @Miss Sally @virus21 @Goku @Beatles123 @MillionDollarProns @Lumpy McRighteous @Neuron


----------



## samizayn

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Apparently there's meant to be DRAMA at the press conference tomorrow :mark:


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



stevefox1200 said:


> Ok, context time because you people seem to lack it
> 
> 1.I don't like Trumps cabinet but everyone in it is very successful and very intelligent
> 
> 2. The "Ivy league elitism you aren't worth a damn unless you have a law degree" has lead to some very intelligent people running things that they had zero interest in and lead to things like McNamara (an extremely intelligent man and someone I have great respect for) trying to "win a war mathematically" while ignoring his generals and advisors due to their "lack of education" and giving up when "the numbers never added up"
> 
> The man was a master of his craft but didn't want to fight a war and tried to win it the "intellectual" way he ran everything else and to avoid getting his hands dirty
> 
> 3. Putting people who don't like a department in charge of it is not that unusual or rare, its is often done as a way to put a check on over expansion and spending. Often a person who has a passion for the department they are running get carried away and start chasing "dream projects" that go nowhere which makes it hard to see what is actually being done in the department. After a few of those you get a "hater" to balance the books and see where you stand and what you can reasonably finish.
> 
> 4. "Obama’s current Secretary of Education, John King Jr., has a B.A. from Harvard, a master’s degree and doctorate from Columbia, and a law degree from Yale on top of it all. He is one of the most educated people to ever hold the position of Secretary of Education. That makes sense right?" is the stupidest fucking things I have heard today. That's like saying being a number one shopper means you are qualified to run the store. A better choice would be a teacher who would know what it is like to work under the current Education standards and knows what to change about it not someone who was taught under it and knows nothing else. Not to mention a private college would not even be under the control the department of education so why would a fucking graduate know more than anyone else?
> 
> 5. Trumps cabinet is actually very similar to JFK's or Regan's, its full of people outside of the "system" including business moguls and trusted allies, this will either lead to fresh ideas or people having no idea what they are doing
> 
> 6. The problem we are running into is that everyone is running into is no one respected the other side so they disrespect and be-little them and their ideas until the dagger goes in and then sits around going "well how did that happen? durr durr"
> 
> Know your adversary, know yourself, respect your adversary, respect yourself
> 
> Until you "know" racists, industrialists, activists, religious extremists ect. they will kick your ass over and over and no one seems to want to know out of fear of filling their heads with "dirty thoughts" or something


1. No they are not LOL Hell Ben Carson thinks the pyramids were made to store grain FFS. And Trump and his staff don't even think climate change is real when 99% of scienst agree it is and the facts show it is.

2. Its fine to not have a degree if you are an expert in a certain area but Trumps picks are neither. Its worse the are not experts in the field they are going to be heading up.

3. Putting people in charge of a depart they dont like it how you kill it off which is what Trump wants to do. Its also how you ruin the country which again is what Trump wants to do but his supporters are too stupid to see that. All Trump cares about is usng the country to make money. 

4. yeah its stupid to put experts in a field for a job they are going for.. You are living proof why Trump likes stupid people. yeah when you need sugery how about letting a gardner do your sugery instead or if you need your car fixed lets let someone who has never worked on a car before fix it. You cant be serious with your logic.

5. You wont get fresh ideas, they dont know what they are doing, you are going to get a huge failure. You think people that dont know what they are doing should be put in charge of things? That is what you call stupid not your idea of stupid and letting people that know what they are doing run things.

6. If Trump made good picks, people would give him credit but his picks have been shit and none of them are even fit to run the programs they are heading up. Trump just keeps proving how stupid his supporters are who just think everything he does is good no matter how terrible his choices are.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Who here remembers the story from earlier this year when a black protester at a Trump rally was "sucker-punched" by a Trump supporter? Well, this update to that story should gladden the hearts of everyone regardless of your political views or allegiances:

Trump supporter, protester he punched at rally hug in court

http://nbc4i.com/2016/12/14/trump-supporter-protester-he-punched-at-rally-hug-in-court/



> Both McGraw and Jones appeared in front of a judge. McGraw told the judge his actions were not racially motivated.
> 
> McGraw apologized and said that he and Jones were both caught up in a “political mess.”
> 
> Jones accepted his apology and the two then hugged in the courtroom and agreed to work together to heal the country.
> 
> “It just felt good being able to shake his hand…and face him,” Jones said.
> 
> The judge ordered one year of unsupervised probation for McGraw. He said he was pleased that both men found a way to peacefully resolve the issue.


Donald Trump's America. :mj2


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

The day I listen to Shaun King is the day Shaun stops pretending to be a black man and returns the money he fleeced from people and apologizes for his over the top antics and rhetoric. It's hard to take anything he says seriously because he's so dishonest and full of shit. Comparing him to the Dilbert creator is silly because the Dilbert creator is just a comedian, King is a conman with mostly idiotic ideas and beliefs.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> 1. No they are not LOL Hell Ben Carson thinks the pyramids were made to store grain FFS. And Trump and his staff don't even think climate change is real when 99% of scienst agree it is and the facts show it is.
> 
> 2. Its fine to not have a degree if you are an expert in a certain area but Trumps picks are neither. Its worse the are not experts in the field they are going to be heading up.
> 
> 3. Putting people in charge of a depart they dont like it how you kill it off which is what Trump wants to do. Its also how you ruin the country which again is what Trump wants to do but his supporters are too stupid to see that. All Trump cares about is usng the country to make money.
> 
> 4. yeah its stupid to put experts in a field for a job they are going for.. You are living proof why Trump likes stupid people. yeah when you need sugery how about letting a gardner do your sugery instead or if you need your car fixed lets let someone who has never worked on a car before fix it. You cant be serious with your logic.
> 
> 5. You wont get fresh ideas, they dont know what they are doing, you are going to get a huge failure. You think people that dont know what they are doing should be put in charge of things? That is what you call stupid not your idea of stupid and letting people that know what they are doing run things.
> 
> 6. If Trump made good picks, people would give him credit but his picks have been shit and none of them are even fit to run the programs they are heading up. Trump just keeps proving how stupid his supporters are who just think everything he does is good no matter how terrible his choices are.


1. Ben is the only one who the Trump's opposition respects, he is a world renown neurosurgeon and by the "education rule" would have been the most qualified person who ran in this election 

2. Most of Trumps picks are advocates for the fields the are being put in charge of. Are they amateurs? yes but they are hardly uninformed even if they have views you disagree with 

3. No one wakes up in the morning thinking "I am going to be evil and make bad choices today". Trump feels these people well help the US (unless you believe he is a Russian sleeper agent)

4. Being educated and knowing how to be an educator are two different things. The editorial is saying that someone who has shown they can learn is a good choice with no proof that they are capable of teaching which is what the secretary of education is about. In your example a race car driver should be able to fix my car as well as a mechanic because they are both in the automotive field. Following orders and giving orders are two different things and the one thing I will give Trump is his cabinet can give orders.

5. Ronald Regan and JFK are beloved by the left and the right separately. Both choose people who, on paper, had little experience in their field or disliked their departments to "audit" them. On paper Nixon (who I feel had a far better presidency than Kennedy and LBJ but that is neither here nor there) and Carter had FAR better cabinets yet both are disliked for being so predictable and by the book that they had trouble responding under unique circumstances 

6. I didn't vote for Trump and don't like his cabinet for the most part but I know exactly why he picked who he picked, you don't and refuse to learn and you will never be able to win till you do


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> Who here remembers the story from earlier this year when a black protester at a Trump rally was "sucker-punched" by a Trump supporter? Well, this update to that story should gladden the hearts of everyone regardless of your political views or allegiances:
> 
> Trump supporter, protester he punched at rally hug in court
> 
> http://nbc4i.com/2016/12/14/trump-supporter-protester-he-punched-at-rally-hug-in-court/
> 
> Donald Trump's America. :mj2


Make America Hug Again.

:hogan

(Bayley to be nominated for Secretary of Hugging.)


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



stevefox1200 said:


> 1. Ben is the only one who the Trump's opposition respects, he is a world renown neurosurgeon and by the "education rule" would have been the most qualified person who ran in this election
> 
> 2. Most of Trumps picks are advocates for the fields the are being put in charge of. Are they amateurs? yes but they are hardly uninformed even if they have views you disagree with
> 
> 3. No one wakes up in the morning thinking "I am going to be evil and make bad choices today". Trump feels these people well help the US (unless you believe he is a Russian sleeper agent)
> 
> 4. Being educated and knowing how to be an educator are two different things. The editorial is saying that someone who has shown they can learn is a good choice with no proof that they are capable of teaching which is what the secretary of education is about. In your example a race car driver should be able to fix my car as well as a mechanic because they are both in the automotive field. Following orders and giving orders are two different things and the one thing I will give Trump is his cabinet can give orders.
> 
> 5. Ronald Regan and JFK are beloved by the left and the right separately. Both choose people who, on paper, had little experience in their field or disliked their departments to "audit" them. On paper Nixon (who I feel had a far better presidency than Kennedy and LBJ but that is neither here nor there) and Carter had FAR better cabinets yet both are disliked for being so predictable and by the book that they had trouble responding under unique circumstances
> 
> 6. I didn't vote for Trump and don't like his cabinet for the most part but I know exactly why he picked who he picked, you don't and refuse to learn and you will never be able to win till you do


1. Ben Carson even admitted he did not want to be in Trumps cabinet because he was not qualified and has no experience.

2, No they are not, you just proved you dont know what you are talking about. Please educate yourself. Trump is hiring bankers, big oil and people against the positions they are being put into place for.

3. Just because they dont think their ideas are evil does not mean they are not evil. Hilter thought he was doing the right thing. Trumps picks are going to undermine the sections they are being placed into.

4. And trumps picks are neither well educated nor do they have a clue of the jobs they will be doing. Double Whammy. 

5. Trumps picks are way worse than anything JFK or Regan picked, its not even close. Its going to be a diaster, if you cant see that, i dont know what that says about you.

6. I know how to win, and I said it from day one. Sanders would have destroyed Trump. Hell Sanders was swaying a room full of Trump supporters to his side just recently. Trump picked who he picked to make Trump money, not to better the country. If you dont know that or agree with that, then you truly are clueless. Trump conned all his supporters and he is doing nothing he said he was going to do. He is hiring cronie capitalist the peopel he was supposed to against. All his idiot voters fell for his lies. And they still are. Its pretty sad.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

i understand being a hillary shill to some extent; there's some favour to be gained there, but being a young turks shill is weird.

:aries2


----------



## MillionDollarProns

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Watching The Young Turks in 2016? Who would do this


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



> Who here remembers the story from earlier this year when a black protester at a Trump rally was "sucker-punched" by a Trump supporter? Well, this update to that story should gladden the hearts of everyone regardless of your political views or allegiances:
> 
> Trump supporter, protester he punched at rally hug in court


Fantastic news. We need to back to being the UNITED States of America!





> http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...government_and_his_supporters_won_t_care.html


REMINDER: The Electoral College is only good for The Democrats when they win.













> *CHECK OUT THIS VIDEO HOLLYWOOD MADE APPEALING TO THE REPUBLICANS IN THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE!!!
> *


Martin Sheen trying to take the moral high ground when his son is one of the biggest fucks up known to man is pure comedy! :lol

- Vic


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Vic Capri said:


> Fantastic news. We need to back to being the UNITED States of America!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> REMINDER: The Electoral College is only good for The Democrats when they win.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martin Sheen trying to take the moral high ground when his son is one of the biggest fucks up known to man is pure comedy! :lol
> 
> - Vic



I sincerely wish to know that if we got rid of the EC, and Republicans began winning more and more popular votes, would Democrats ask for the EC back? If the EC is unfair yet they still lose elections will they just say, "Okay, fair is fair."?

I'm still confused as to how this election had anything to do about white people and sexism when less white people voted for Trump than the previous Republican and it was nonwhites and women that helped him win? Are there people just stupid or just insist on lying outright?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

The best analogy I have seen for this is chess on a facebook page I follow

There are rules of playing chess. One person plays to win by checkmating the king (which is how you win), the other person plays to take as many pieces of his opponent as he can (which is not how you win). Both players knew the rules before they started playing the game. 

Who would be considered a complete and utter retard after they lost the game and then whined about the rules? This is how you should view the American election right now. Both parties knew the rules of victory before the game. The wankers whinging about the rules now are coming across as complete and utter retards because they wouldn't even dare pull this shit after losing at chess.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> I sincerely wish to know that if we got rid of the EC, and Republicans began winning more and more popular votes, would Democrats ask for the EC back? If the EC is unfair yet they still lose elections will they just say, "Okay, fair is fair."?
> 
> I'm still confused as to how this election had anything to do about white people and sexism when less white people voted for Trump than the previous Republican and it was nonwhites and women that helped him win? Are there people just stupid or just insist on lying outright?


If the republicans lost two elections in 16 years by the EC but won the popular vote you know damn well they would be fighting to change the EC. 

who ever gets the most votes should win, that is how democracy works. No one could say someone who got more votes winning was not fair, does not matter who it is. 

Also it was not nonwhites that help Trump win. Not sure where you are getting that from. Only 8% of blacks vote for Trump, 58% of whites voted for Trump. That is why people think that. He did get a good chunk of the latino vote though. 

Its one of the reasons why Trump won but not the main reason. Trump pretending he was anti-establishment is the main reason he won, but like I said, he was lying to his supporters and is proving me right. Trump is going to go down as one of the most establishment presidents of all time


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> The best analogy I have seen for this is chess on a facebook page I follow
> 
> There are rules of playing chess. One person plays to win by checkmating the king (which is how you win), the other person plays to take as many pieces of his opponent as he can (which is not how you win). Both players knew the rules before they started playing the game.
> 
> Who would be considered a complete and utter retard after they lost the game and then whined about the rules? This is how you should view the American election right now. Both parties knew the rules of victory before the game. The wankers whinging about the rules now are coming across as complete and utter retards because they wouldn't even dare pull this shit after losing at chess.


That is a dumb analogy since we are talking about democracy, whoever gets the most votes should win. The EC is broken since it shows you can get less votes and still be president. And lets not forget what happened Trump thought Romney lost EC but at the time was winning the popular vote. 



















Like I have said before a system is broken when a winning strategy can be just win 11 states and get just 22% of the popular vote and you can still win the election. The time to charge the rules is before the next election that is what people are saying.

And yes Trump won because of the EC rules but the fact is more people voted for Hillary and more than half the country did not vote for Trump.

The EC would be like in baseball having the rules be. it does not matter who got more runs, that team won win the game but the team that got more hits. And yes strategy would change if those were the rules but it does not mean those rules would not be stupid or unfair.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Don't give a shit about rules because both parties knew the rules going in. Even if both parties whinge about the rules, doesn't mean anything because it was a level playing field for both and they both knew going into it that that's what it is. 

The more you whinge about the EC after the fact, the worse you look. I don't care if Trump whined about it before because he still played to win and won within the same rules that Hillary also needed to play. Stop being such a lapdog because even Obama came out and criticized Hillary for her shit as fuck campaign. 






Go and campaign to have the EC changed in the future if you want. That's your right. But in the meantime you and people like you have no voice in this current election because your party lost under the same rules that were applied equally to both parties. 

Also, America is not a democracy. It was never supposed to be. If you want to live in a "true" social democratic democracy you have the option to move to Canada or any other country, or try to change the system here. But since America isn't a democracy, even if 90% of the people decided that America should be a democracy is still cannot be changed from the constitutional republic that it is and you'll probably die before the constitution is ammended to the point of pleasing your socialist ways.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*










Mark Dice is a great American!





Carte Blanche said:


> The best analogy I have seen for this is chess on a facebook page I follow
> 
> There are rules of playing chess. One person plays to win by checkmating the king (which is how you win), the other person plays to take as many pieces of his opponent as he can (which is not how you win). Both players knew the rules before they started playing the game.
> 
> Who would be considered a complete and utter retard after they lost the game and then whined about the rules? This is how you should view the American election right now. Both parties knew the rules of victory before the game. The wankers whinging about the rules now are coming across as complete and utter retards because they wouldn't even dare pull this shit after losing at chess.


I can't like this post enough!

- Vic


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Don't give a shit about rules because both parties knew the rules going in. Even if both parties whinge about the rules, doesn't mean anything because it was a level playing field for both and they both knew going into it that that's what it is.
> 
> The more you whinge about the EC after the fact, the worse you look. I don't care if Trump whined about it before because he still played to win and won within the same rules that Hillary also needed to play. Stop being such a lapdog because even Obama came out and criticized Hillary for her shit as fuck campaign.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go and campaign to have the EC changed in the future if you want. That's your right. But in the meantime you and people like you have no voice in this current election because your party lost under the same rules that were applied equally to both parties.
> 
> Also, America is not a democracy. It was never supposed to be. If you want to live in a "true" social democratic democracy you have the option to move to Canada or any other country, or try to change the system here. But since America isn't a democracy, even if 90% of the people decided that America should be a democracy is still cannot be changed from the constitutional republic that it is and you'll probably die before the constitution is ammended to the point of pleasing your socialist ways.


Of course you don't care that Trump whined it just shows how you can't be taken seriously. You only care about the people doing it now. You are a huge hypocrite.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Of course you don't care that Trump whined it just shows how you can't be taken seriously. You only care about the people doing it now. You are a huge hypocrite.


I don't care about Trump whining because he played the game under the rules. You can hate the fucking rules, but still accept them and play to win. I can't even fathom how you can't even begin to grasp this concept:lmao 

I care about people whining about the rules after they lost. 

I would've shat on Trump if he continued to whine about the rules if he had done so after losing. 

I just love how when you and your liberal ilk run out of arguments, the ONLY thing you can resort to is mind-reading and making stupid assumptions about how someone else. 

I'm criticizing you for your current behaviour. You're criticizing me based on some phantom behaviour that you're assuming :lmao


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> 1. No they are not LOL Hell Ben Carson thinks the pyramids were made to store grain FFS. And Trump and his staff don't even think climate change is real *when 99% of scienst agree *it is and the facts show it is.


Okay, first off if you're going to cite fake numbers, at least get that number right, it isn't 99% its 97%. The fact of the matter is even that number of 97% isn't real, there's no actual citation there's no actual proof behind that number of those who agree. Scientists are far more divided on climate change than you'd be led to believe and is not in any way shape or form _that_ universal of acceptance. Secondly , there have been research that has been falsified and other research that would indicate climate hasn't changed in the past 20-25 years . This isn't a black and white issue like you want to believe 


http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexeps...e-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#45129ee27187

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Stinger Fan said:


> Okay, first off if you're going to cite fake numbers, at least get that number right, it isn't 99% its 97%. The fact of the matter is even that number of 97% isn't real, there's no actual citation there's no actual proof behind that number of those who agree. Scientists are far more divided on climate change than you'd be led to believe and is not in any way shape or form _that_ universal of acceptance. Secondly , there have been research that has been falsified and other research that would indicate climate hasn't changed in the past 20-25 years . This isn't a black and white issue like you want to believe
> 
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexeps...e-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#45129ee27187
> 
> http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136


OH gee I was off by 2% FFS. Climate change is real, anyone that does not think its real is uneducated. It is a black and white issue. Scientist are not divided on the issue. 

In OCT the earth had a record 16 months in a row with record high temperatures Oh yeah climate change is not real .

That 99% number comes from an article in 2012 that showed from 1991-2012 13950 peer reviewed articles for climate change only 24 of those rejected climate change


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Vic Capri said:


> Mark Dice is a great American!


:lol He forgot sexism.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> OH gee I was off by 2% FFS. Climate change is real, anyone that does not think its real is uneducated. It is a black and white issue. Scientist are not divided on the issue.
> 
> In OCT the earth had a record 16 months in a row with record high temperatures Oh yeah climate change is not real .
> 
> That 99% number comes from an article in 2012 that showed from 1991-2012 13950 peer reviewed articles for climate change only 24 of those rejected climate change


The problem with your argument is that climate change has *always* existed, long before the Industrial Revolution. If you ask a scientist "is Climate change real?" they have to say yes because it's always existed. That's where the information being presented is extremely misleading. The questions being asked ranges from if humans have any impact, not even if humans have significant impact but any sort of impact. Also, there have been polls done that show only 75% believe in it so how can things be so widely different if it is meant to be so universal? The number of whether or not scientists would agree on significant human impact(which would be over 50%) is a different question entirely and thats where those numbers of 97 or 99 or whatever change, hell there's not even an agreement on what criteria to use and which one would be more correct. 

One of the most important aspect of science is skepticism , to label anyone a "denier" who shows any sort of skepticism about the impact that humans have made , is in fact being unscientific .


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The Absolute said:


> [emoji38] He forgot sexism.


Can you blame him? The list is so huge I'd be surprised if anyone can memorize all of it.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Stinger Fan said:


> The problem with your argument is that climate change has *always* existed, long before the Industrial Revolution. If you ask a scientist "is Climate change real?" they have to say yes because it's always existed. That's where the information being presented is extremely misleading. The questions being asked ranges from if humans have any impact, not even if humans have significant impact but any sort of impact. Also, there have been polls done that show only 75% believe in it so how can things be so widely different if it is meant to be so universal? The number of whether or not scientists would agree on significant human impact(which would be over 50%) is a different question entirely and thats where those numbers of 97 or 99 or whatever change, hell there's not even an agreement on what criteria to use and which one would be more correct.
> 
> One of the most important aspect of science is skepticism , to label anyone a "denier" who shows any sort of skepticism about the impact that humans have made , is in fact being unscientific .


What part of record highs for 16 straight months do you not understand? And humans have a huge impact on climate change, again if you don't think that you are just uneducated. You can ignore all the facts you want. we know that greenhouse emissions are a huge factor and those are because of humans and the fossil fuels they are burning like coal.

Humans are making climate change much worse, the facts all show that.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Stinger Fan said:


> The problem with your argument is that climate change has *always* existed, long before the Industrial Revolution. If you ask a scientist "is Climate change real?" they have to say yes because it's always existed. That's where the information being presented is extremely misleading. The questions being asked ranges from if humans have any impact, not even if humans have significant impact but any sort of impact. Also, there have been polls done that show only 75% believe in it so how can things be so widely different if it is meant to be so universal? The number of whether or not scientists would agree on significant human impact(which would be over 50%) is a different question entirely and thats where those numbers of 97 or 99 or whatever change, hell there's not even an agreement on what criteria to use and which one would be more correct.
> 
> One of the most important aspect of science is skepticism , to label anyone a "denier" who shows any sort of skepticism about the impact that humans have made , is in fact being unscientific .


Climate change is wording because people ere skeptic about global warming and the other names, people is trying to portray different names becuase there is a lot of money spend in smearing the issue.

This "climate change" always has happened is ridiculous, when someone talks about climate change is obviously speaking of anthropological climate change, the name has been brought to a way of being less radical and as to help people being more open to it


The "skepticism" issue is true, but people who is against climate change is label as a denier because there is NO serious scientific research who refutes anthropological climate change, none. And is easy to see this, everything you have to see/do is find the top 5 climate journals and then find one article who has serious metodology and research against it, and if you can find it, those results are probably not replicated because there isn't an investigation line opened by any denial paper.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



asdf0501 said:


> Climate change is wording because people ere skeptic about global warming and the other names, people is trying to portray different names becuase there is a lot of money spend in smear the issue.
> 
> This "climate change" always has happened is ridiculous, when someone talks about climate change is obviously speaking of anthropological climate change, the name has been brought to a way of being less radical as to help people being more open to it
> 
> 
> The "skepticism" issue is true, but people who is against climate change is label as a denier because there is NO serious scientific research who refutes anthropological climate change, none. And is easy to see this, everything you have to see/do is find the top 5 climate journals and then find one article who has serious metodology and research against it, and if you can find it, those results are probably not replicated because there isn't an investigation line opened by any denial paper.


Exactly, the same people deny climate change are the ones who don't know the difference between weather and climate.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@DesolationRow @Carte Blanche @Pratchett @AryaDark @Sincere @L-DOPA @Fringe @Miss Sally @virus21 @Goku @Beatles123 @MillionDollarProns @Lumpy McRighteous @Neuron

Kellyanne Conway, Donald Trump's campaign manager and the first woman to ever run a successful presidential campaign, responds to FAKE FEMINISTS attacking her over her decision to stay at home with her kids rather than immediately pursue a role in Trump's administration: 






The pro-Trump side has the best women. It's really not close. :banderas


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

"Others who've attacked me have cats as their twitter pictures" 

:sodone :sodone :sodone


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

KellyAnn doesn't get enough credit, ESPECIALLY from the feminists who like to put Hillary on a pedestal for being the first woman to be a major party nominee. Conway is not only the first woman to successfully run a presidential campaign, but she did so despite all of the controversies, obstacles, and bullshit rhetoric hurled at them from the Clintons, the media, the SJWs, Hollywood, and the establishment.

"Childless interns born in the 1990s."










Fucking roasted.


----------



## blackholeson

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> OH gee I was off by 2% FFS. Climate change is real, anyone that does not think its real is uneducated. It is a black and white issue. Scientist are not divided on the issue.
> 
> In OCT the earth had a record 16 months in a row with record high temperatures Oh yeah climate change is not real .
> 
> That 99% number comes from an article in 2012 that showed from 1991-2012 13950 peer reviewed articles for climate change only 24 of those rejected climate change


*Don't waste your time. I have explained to people that climate change is real. Those who think otherwise are just a waste of your time. People will believe what they want to believe. As if cars, trains, and the whole industrial complex that is the world has no affect on our Planet. People are clueless. Great posts.*


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Yeah Conway is awesome. Buries millenials, cat people, and twitter all in one sentence.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

My favorite part of that video is Stewart's reaction like he just bit into a pepper and he thought he was prepared for the spice but in truth he was far from ready.


----------



## NotGuilty

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

That's horrifying, NotGuilty.

Keith Olbermann's ongoing meltdown has been a great source of entertainment for me, personally. Here's some of his best tweets from the last couple of days:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/809831567723995137Assange is a rapist and Wikileaks is a Russian puppet. :done


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/809789130683154433Kellyanne is a secret Russian? I think that's what this tweet is implying? :lol 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/809414965874593792:sodone

Я надеюсь, что он не выставляет меня в качестве секретного русского Далее.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> The pro-Trump side has the best women. It's really not close. :banderas


Not entirely. Scottie Nell Hughes is an abrasive uggo and Katrina Pierson is a dumb THOT that stars on a ratchet shitfest masquerading as a reality TV show about lawyers. However, there *is* one shining beacon of hope within the female Trump supporter camp that is savvy like Conway *and* a babe: 






I'm apolitical, but I have to say it: McEnany = Conservative waifu.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Kellyanne Conway besmirching cat ladies, millennials and twitter with one remark. :banderas :lol

:trump nominating Mick Mulvaney to be the new Budget Director is an excellent sign for people who care about the waste, fraud and abuse that permeates the U.S. federal budget. Mulvaney is a considerably principled budget hawk. Hope he maintains that principle with his probable new role.


@CamillePunk: Я знаю правду, товарищ Камилла.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> That's horrifying, NotGuilty.
> 
> Keith Olbermann's ongoing meltdown has been a great source of entertainment for me, personally. Here's some of his best tweets from the last couple of days:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/809831567723995137Assange is a rapist and Wikileaks is a Russian puppet. :done
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/809789130683154433Kellyanne is a secret Russian? I think that's what this tweet is implying? :lol
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/809414965874593792:sodone
> 
> Я надеюсь, что он не выставляет меня в качестве секретного русского Далее.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I think it was Dice who said something like Olbermann is now streaming from his mom's basement using outdated equipment ... and it really did seem like it. He's coming across as a 2-bit hack with a camera ... not even a legit youtuber. I've seen people on Twitch with better streaming than Olbermann ... Would say it would be a fall from grace, but for that he'd have to have a achieved some height to fall from. 

Dice also just made a video about how MTV News has less views overall than he gets in 2 days. 

I'm not a fan of Dice or most anyone that started off their careers getting famous for talking about illuminati/NWO conspiracy theories. However, over the last few months, interestingly have seen a lot of conservatives that were once all over the place with regards to their conspiracy theory like thinking seem to have galvanized around reason .. It's an interesting paradigm shift that I didn't think possible. Brexit and now Trump's election basically brought all conservatives together and they started listening to each other and forming better opinions than they had just 2-3 years ago. 

The left on the other hand including the POTUS is now convinced that Putin installed Trump as the American president :kobelol


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



virus21 said:


>


That's courteous, albeit naive, of you to assume that butthurt hack Olbermann even had a brain to begin with.

:trump


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> I don't care about Trump whining because he played the game under the rules. You can hate the fucking rules, but still accept them and play to win. I can't even fathom how you can't even begin to grasp this concept:lmao
> 
> I care about people whining about the rules after they lost.
> 
> I would've shat on Trump if he continued to whine about the rules if he had done so after losing



Trumps whining did come after an election that his side lost though?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Trumps whining did come after an election that his side lost though?


But before he himself won. Even his own whining is irrelevant to his win as I've already pointed out that you can hate the rules but you can still play within them to win. 

Doesn't make someone a hypocrite it just makes them a smart tactician. 

Something liberals have no clue about anymore because for them tactics = ad hominem.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> But before he himself won. Even his own whining is irrelevant to his win as I've already pointed out that you can hate the rules but you can still play within them to win.
> 
> Doesn't make someone a hypocrite it just makes them a smart tactician.
> 
> Something liberals have no clue about anymore because for them tactics = ad hominem.


His whining came on the night of the 2012 election, when results were coming in and it was looking like Romney was going to lose on the EC.

Technically "before his win" yes, but they weren't comments made in reference to the 2016 election, they were comments made in reference to the 2012 election.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Alkomesh2 said:


> His whining came on the night of the 2012 election, when results were coming in and it was looking like Romney was going to lose on the EC.
> 
> Technically "before his win" yes, but they weren't comments made in reference to the 2016 election, they were comments made in reference to the 2012 election.


Read what I wrote at least 10 times so you can understand what I wrote.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> What part of record highs for 16 straight months do you not understand? And humans have a huge impact on climate change, again if you don't think that you are just uneducated. You can ignore all the facts you want. we know that greenhouse emissions are a huge factor and those are because of humans and the fossil fuels they are burning like coal.
> 
> Humans are making climate change much worse, the facts all show that.


If you refuse to read what I said, then I can't help you.



blackholeson said:


> *Don't waste your time. I have explained to people that climate change is real. Those who think otherwise are just a waste of your time. People will believe what they want to believe. As if cars, trains, and the whole industrial complex that is the world has no affect on our Planet. People are clueless. Great posts.*


Did you actually read what I wrote? Or did you just assume based on what someone else said?



asdf0501 said:


> Climate change is wording because people ere skeptic about global warming and the other names, people is trying to portray different names becuase there is a lot of money spend in smearing the issue.
> 
> This "climate change" always has happened is ridiculous, when someone talks about climate change is obviously speaking of anthropological climate change, the name has been brought to a way of being less radical and as to help people being more open to it
> 
> 
> The "skepticism" issue is true, but people who is against climate change is label as a denier because there is NO serious scientific research who refutes anthropological climate change, none. And is easy to see this, everything you have to see/do is find the top 5 climate journals and then find one article who has serious metodology and research against it, and if you can find it, those results are probably not replicated because there isn't an investigation line opened by any denial paper.


Climate change has always happened and you're doing exactly the same thing you're against. Anyway, as I said before the 97% claim as true as people want to believe it to be. That's all I said


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Read what I wrote at least 10 times so you can understand what I wrote.


Ok I'll put this very simply.

When the system went against him he attacked it.

When the system went in his favour he praised it.

He is a hypocrite. 

That is what a hypocrite is.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Ok I'll put this very simply.
> 
> When the system went against him he attacked it.
> 
> When the system went in his favour he praised it.
> 
> He is a hypocrite.
> 
> That is what a hypocrite is.


And I'll put it to you really simply. 

You can criticize the rules, hate them and still work within them to win. That does not make you a hypocrite.

Or maybe he changed his mind. Does chaning your mind about something make you a hypocrite? 

Is that why you liberals refuse to change your minds about anything no matter how wrong you are? Because you think that changing one's mind is hypocrisy?


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> And I'll put it to you really simply.
> 
> You can criticize the rules, hate them and still work within them to win. That does not make you a hypocrite.


He didn't just "use it' he described it as "genius" and praised it. If he was continuing to condemn it after the election you'd have a point. 



> Or maybe he changed his mind. Does chaning your mind about something make you a hypocrite?


When you oppose a rule when it works against you and then support it when it works in your favour, yes, that is in fact the textbook definition of hypocrisy. His hypocrisy might not bother you particularly, but it's still hypocrisy. 



> Is that why you liberals refuse to change your minds about anything no matter how wrong you are? Because you think that changing one's mind is hypocrisy?


Somewhat ironic coming from a follower of a political grouping that still believes the world is 5000 years old don't you think? Isn't American conservatism based entirely around not changing your mind about anything regardless of the evidence?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Alkomesh2 said:


> He didn't just "use it' he described it as "genius" and praised it. If he was continuing to condemn it after the election you'd have a point.


That's what anyone would do after they use those rules to win. And why should he continue to lambast something. Does he owe you or anyone else an explanation. I don't think so. 



> When you oppose a rule when it works against you and then support it when it works in your favour, yes, that is in fact the textbook definition of hypocrisy. His hypocrisy might not bother you particularly, but it's still hypocrisy.


Or you change your mind and don't feel it necessary to tell the entire world that you had an epiphany. Yet another great job at mind-reading though. But that's all you people have because you were never taught how to make rational arguments. 



> Somewhat ironic coming from a follower of a political grouping that still believes the world is 5000 years old don't you think? Isn't American conservatism based entirely around not changing your mind about anything regardless of the evidence?


The amount of stupid in this statement isn't worth addressing and you yourself should know this if you were even remotely deserving of the so-called college education you received. What a waste if this is what they taught you. No wonder you had a hard time getting a job. 

I don't know what the point of being a college educated person is when you make statements like these. For a while I thought you'd turned the corner and may actually be turning into a useful contributor to a reasonable dialogue. But clearly not.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> The amount of stupid in this statement isn't worth addressing and you yourself should know this if you were even remotely deserving of the so-called college education you received. What a waste if this is what they taught you.
> 
> I don't know what the point of being a college educated person is when you make statements like these. For a while I thought you'd turned the corner and may actually be turning into a useful contributor to a reasonable dialogue. But clearly not.


You're not responding because you know it's true.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Alkomesh2 said:


> You're not responding because you know it's true.


Nah. I just don't want to keep spanking you because I did that once and it apparently didn't work.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Nah. I just don't want to keep spanking you because I did that once and it apparently didn't work.


Ok Carte lol


btw here is a source for the thing so ridiculous you wouldn't comment on http://littlegreenfootballs.com/art...8_of_Republicans_Are_Young_Earth_Creationists


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Nah. I just don't want to keep spanking you because I did that once and it apparently didn't work.


Stop fooling yourself Alkomesh is exposing you big time.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Olbermann sounds like a lot of the anti-trump posters in here. What's next after the Russians? Space Aliens? 

I'm still not seeing anyone on the Democrat side come up with anything that comes as even half true when it comes to the Russians. My guess is that if the EC was abolished and the Democrats still lost elections they'd demand the EC back.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Ok Carte lol
> 
> 
> btw here is a source the thing so ridiculous you wouldn't comment on http://littlegreenfootballs.com/art...8_of_Republicans_Are_Young_Earth_Creationists


Yup. Totally wasted college education. You should've donated all that money to someone with a higher IQ. 

From the study and how they got their "data": 



















I hope you have enough education to understand that this is a completely debatable and almost dismissable "study" based on the innaneness and simplicity of the questions as well as the fact that they contacted only 20 people per state via telephone with a series of 3 questions (which as the next article points out), with slightly changing the question content garner completely different and irreplacable results? 



> *Just How Many Young-Earth Creationists Are There in the U.S.?*
> 
> 
> A friend e-mailed the other day wondering just how many people in the United States are young-earth creationists.
> The answer begins with a question the Gallup poll has been asking since the early ’80s:Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings: human beings have evolved over millions of years from other forms of life and God guided this process, human beings have evolved over millions of years from other forms of life, but God had no part in this process, or God created human beings in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Around 44% have consistently endorsed that last option, a consistent 37% take the middle option *(which could cover beliefs in intelligent design, various forms of old-earth creationisms, or theistic evolution), *and about 12% back a nontheistic evolutionary account. This breakdown has been remarkably consistent over the decades.
> 
> But do 44% of Americans really think human beings (and indeed, the universe) have only been around for ten thousand years? Modest changes in the question’s wording produce different results, which isn’t so surprising: as asked, the question tangles up attitudes toward evolution, theology, and chronology.
> 
> Consider a few different poll results:
> 
> *In 2009, Pew stripped away the religious issues and explicit reference to the age of the earth by asking people if they agreed that “Humans and other living things have evolved over time due to natural processes” or alternatively “existed in their present form since the beginning of time.” Six in ten opted for evolution.
> 
> * In 2005, when the Harris Poll asked people “Do you think human beings developed from earlier species or not,” 38% agreed that humans did develop from early species, but in the same survey, 49% agreed with evolution when asked: “Do you believe all plants and animals have evolved from other species or not?” So explicitly mentioning _human_ evolution led to 11% of people switching from pro-evolution to anti-evolution.
> 
> *In a 2009 survey, Harris asked a Gallup-like question, in which only 29% agreed that “Human beings evolved from earlier species,” but in a separate question from the same poll, 53% said that they “believe Charles Darwin’s theory which states that plants, animals and human beings have evolved over time.” *Placing the issue in a scientific context, with no overt religious context, yields higher support for evolution.
> 
> The National Science Board’s biennial report on _Science and Engineering Indicators_ includes a survey on science literacy which, since the early 1980s, has asked if people agree that “Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals.” About 46% of the American public consistently agree with that option, about the same number who back the middle option in Gallup’s surveys.
> 
> *Clearly, people respond to these subtle shifts in how the question is framed, taking a harder stance toward human evolution than to the idea that animals and plants evolve, and stepping away from evolution if it is pitched in opposition to religion.* Pollster George Bishop surveyed the diversity of survey responses in 2006 and concluded: *“All of this goes to show how easily what Americans appear to believe about human origins can be readily manipulated by how the question is asked.”*
> 
> In 2009, Bishop ran a survey that clarifies how many people really think the earth is only 10,000 years old. In survey results published by _Reports of NCSE_,* Bishop found that 18% agreed that “the earth is less than 10,000 years old.” But he also found that 39% agreed “God created the universe, the earth, the sun, moon, stars, plants, animals, and the first two people within the past 10,000 years.” Again, question wording and context clearly both matter a lot.*
> 
> For more evidence that the number of true young-earthers is fairly small, consider another question from the survey run by the National Science Board since the early ’80s.* In that survey, about 80% consistently agree “The continents on which we live have been moving their locations for millions of years and will continue to move in the future.” Ten percent say they don’t know, leaving only about 10% rejecting continental drift over millions of years. Though young-earth creationists often latch onto continental drift as a sudden process during Noah’s flood (as a way to explain how animals could get from the Ark to separate continents), they certainly don’t think the continents moved over millions of years. This question puts a cap of about 10% on the number of committed young-earth creationists, lower even than what Bishop found. More people in the NSB science literacy survey didn’t know that the father’s genes determine the sex of a baby, thought all radioactivity came from human activities, or disagreed that the earth goes around the sun.*
> 
> In short, then, the hard core of young-earth creationists represents at most one in ten Americans—maybe about 31 million people—with another quarter favoring creationism but not necessarily committed to a young earth. One or two in ten seem firmly committed to evolution, and another third leans heavily toward evolution. About a third of the public in the middle are open to evolution, but feel strongly that a god or gods must have been involved somehow, and wind up in different camps depending how a given poll is worded.


Please give up your degree and give it to someone more deserving. 

And stop quoting me because you're just not up to par when it comes to knowledge and I'm getting sick of having to prove it over and over and over again.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Yup. Totally wasted college education. You should've donated all that money to someone with a higher IQ.
> 
> From the study and how they got their "data":
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you have enough education to understand that this is a completely debatable and almost dismissable "study" based on the innaneness and simplicity of the questions as well as the fact that they contacted only 20 people per state via telephone with a series of 3 questions (which as the next article points out), with slightly changing the question content garner completely different and irreplacable results?
> 
> Please give up your degree and give it to someone more deserving.
> 
> And stop quoting me because you're just not up to par when it comes to knowledge and I'm getting sick of having to prove it over and over and over again.


Yup no right wing religious people in the republican party aye Carte. 

Another left wing myth perpetrated by the MSM no doubt.

Keep telling yourself these lies mate.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Yup no right wing religious people in the republican party aye Carte.
> 
> Another left wing myth perpetrated by the MSM no doubt.
> 
> Keep telling yourself these lies mate.


Where did I say there's none? There's a huge difference in numbers and I just pointed out the stupidity of the bullshit "study" you posted with more studies that haven't replicated the first study's result. 

I know you don't know how to science - not many so-called college educated kids do these days - but if you have a vast discrepency in results in such highly subjective studies prone to such a huge array of methodological and sampling errors, then it's safe to dismiss most of these findings until the results start showing some sort of conformity. We have numbers ranging from 10% to 46% over multiple studies based on the questions asked, how the questions were asked and whom the questions were asked. 

I'm not telling myself any lies at all. The only one believing lies and propaganda is you. All I did was point that out. 

See, I didn't want to do this with you because you're just not up to par in discussions. Not worth my time.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Isn't American conservatism based entirely around not changing your mind about anything regardless of the evidence?


it's also based on racism and sexism. :mj

and hitler


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> See, I didn't want to do this with you because you're just not up to par in discussions. Not worth my time.


I love that you say this after having embarrassingly lost an argument haha


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@Alkomesh2 You'd have better luck explaining quantum theory to a tree stump than you would explaining anything scientific to a party full of creationists.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Alkomesh2 said:


> I love that you say this after having embarrassingly lost an argument haha


Is there a point to your embarrassing fixation with people believing in young earth creationism?



Alkomesh2 said:


> Somewhat ironic coming from a follower of a political grouping that still believes the world is 5000 years old don't you think? Isn't American conservatism based entirely around not changing your mind about anything regardless of the evidence?


Oh. I see. We're in ignorant dick-waving territory. That's the point.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



> *Cheney emerges as surprise Trump surrogate*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The president-elect trashed his foreign policy during the campaign, but they've found common cause in Rex Tillerson.
> 
> During the campaign, Donald Trump trashed the hawkish foreign policy of the second Bush White House. But now, he and his team are relying on the man most closely identified with that regime — Dick Cheney — to help ensure that Rex Tillerson is confirmed next year as Trump's secretary of state.
> 
> As Republicans have voiced reservations about Tillerson’s relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Cheney — himself a former oil executive, a longtime Tillerson friend, and perhaps the country’s most famous foreign policy hawk — is serving as a bridge between the Trump team and skeptical Republican senators.
> 
> It’s a scenario no one could have possibly foreseen: that one of the key architects of the Iraq War, which Trump slammed on the campaign trail, is now being enlisted as an emissary for a man Trump wants to help steer his ship of state.
> 
> SOURCE


"It’s a scenario no one could have possibly foreseen"

:HA

I feel sorry for anyone genuinely shocked by this. Of course Darth Cheney and his minions are still pulling the strings. Trump's transition into Establishment puppet is now complete. As if there was ever any doubt. :lol


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Isn't American conservatism based entirely around not changing your mind about anything regardless of the evidence?


Funny, I'd say this also applies to the American "Left" as they don't think they need to change anything, listen to safe space retards and jump headfirst into programs that don't help anyone. Also Russia, RUSSIA! It's the Russians! The denial of truth, boasting of lies and apathy for their own voters sums up your statement. Though for the most part it's just one side to the same coin.

Although.. what you said can apply to certain posters here when confronted with the truth about a certain Religion seem to deny that Religion has anything wrong with it. Despite what facts and people who grew up in the culture and Religion say. :quite


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

#unpresidented

:LOL


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I love how all the liberals are having a meltdown on social media over the misspelling. People do realize Trump doesn't actually Tweet right? He has social media interns that do it on his behalf.


January 20th










*#Unpresidented*

- Vic


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Vic Capri said:


> I love how all the liberals are having a meltdown on social media over the misspelling. People do realize Trump doesn't actually Tweet right? He has social media interns that do it on his behalf.
> 
> 
> January 20th
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *#Unpresidented*
> 
> - Vic


I love how you talk about Libs having meltdowns on social media when Trump has twitter meltdowns every other day. Oh the irony And no that is Trump tweeting, its not his interns doing it, don't be silly. He does not have interns at 3 or 4am tweeting for him. He is doing the tweeting himself. People need to stop making excuses for Trump, it just makes you look bad. Trumps tweets in the exact same speech pattern he uses when he speaks.


----------



## blackholeson

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Vic Capri said:


> I love how all the liberals are having a meltdown on social media over the misspelling. People do realize Trump doesn't actually Tweet right? He has social media interns that do it on his behalf.
> 
> 
> January 20th
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *#Unpresidented*
> 
> - Vic


*You're so wrong. Trump actually tweets. That's the problem. We all know how ignorant of a person he is because he tweets it all for the world to see. *


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

http://variety.com/2016/film/news/michael-sheen-quits-acting-activist-1201944793/



> Without specifying for how long, Michael Sheen announced on Saturday that he will break from acting in order to become a full-time political activist.
> 
> “In the same way as the Nazis had to be stopped in Germany in the Thirties, this thing that is on the rise has to be stopped,” Sheen told the U.K. paper The Times, which announced the actor’s departure from Hollywood.
> 
> He cited Donald Trump’s election as well as the Brexit vote as reasons for his decision to move from Los Angeles to Wales.












Also, comparing Trump & Brexit to Nazi Germany?

:LOL

This is why people don't take Hollywood seriously.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The Absolute said:


> http://variety.com/2016/film/news/michael-sheen-quits-acting-activist-1201944793/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, comparing Trump & Brexit to Nazi Germany?
> 
> :LOL
> 
> This is why people don't take Hollywood seriously.


Celebs don't get. The status quo isn't working, that why people want fucking change. But these idiots would rather bow down to globalists and oligarchs.

Also, stop invoking Godwins Law. You sound like a bunch of pretentious assholes


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/810288321880555520
He prefers drones that weren't captured. :lol


----------



## Ghost Lantern

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

The saddest, stupidest, most frustrating thing about politics is how the left will now actively root for America to fail for the next four years. Obviously the same could be said about parts of the right over the last eight years. The media will barrage us with anti Trump crap everyday. Speaking only for myself I was totally hopeful and supportive that Obama would be an awesome President. Although I did not vote for him I wanted him to succeed. It is a shame that some people cannot get past their political boundaries to hope for a prosperous nation.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



> You're so wrong. Trump actually tweets.














> I just shout it out to one of the young ladies who are tremendous,” Trump told Anderson Cooper at a CNN town hall event. “I’ll just shout it out, and they’ll do it.





The Washington Post said:


> On his plane, Trump flips through cable channels, reads news articles in hard copy, and makes offhanded comments. He's throwing out his signature bombastic, sometimes offensive tweets. Hicks takes dictation and sends the words to aides somewhere in the Trump empire, who send them out to the world.





Dan Scavino said:


> When he wants to get something out, he'll dictate it out to the girls


You were saying? This isn't shocking news. A LOT of famous people don't actually use their social media accounts.

- Vic


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

TBH, I'd rather have a Precident that has aides that make spelling mistakes or even make an ass of himself on Twitter at 2 am than a President who believes that we've been taken over by the Russians.

Obama proving by endorsing the hacking conspiracy theory that he was one of the weakest Precidents in the hisotry of American politics.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> TBH, I'd rather have a Precident that has aides that make spelling mistakes or even make an ass of himself on Twitter at 2 am than a President who believes that we've been taken over by the Russians.
> 
> Obama proving by endorsing the hacking conspiracy theory that he was one of the weakest Precidents in the hisotry of American politics.


Well after being punked by Putin and people shitting on him, is it surprising? The guy has no respect from anyone. He still even thinks he earned his Peace Prize. He's delusional.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

The only man in history to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing fuck all.

- Vic


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> "It’s a scenario no one could have possibly foreseen"
> 
> :HA
> 
> I feel sorry for anyone genuinely shocked by this. Of course Darth Cheney and his minions are still pulling the strings. Trump's transition into Establishment puppet is now complete. As if there was ever any doubt. :lol


I'd much rather this be the case then Comrade Pussygrabber turning us into the Federated States of Russia.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Vic Capri said:


> You were saying? This isn't shocking news. A LOT of famous people don't actually use their social media accounts.
> 
> - Vic


I bet you believed Trump too when he claimed he was not John Miller when he was being his own fake PR guy and would call into shows.

Also even if you want to play this little game oh its not really Trump typing out the actual tweet, its still him tweeting since he is telling them what to tweet. You are acting like the intern is writing something Trump never said or want them to tweet.

Either way its still Trump tweeting since its his own thoughts. Its not the thoughts of some random intern like other celebs have. It's actually Trump speaking, who actually types it into twitter is irrelevant.

Also even if its now his aides filtering his tweets before they go out that is only with in the last month since before Nov 9th it was Trump tweeting since there were reports his aides too his Twitter away from him. If he was not actually doing the tweets why would they need to take it away from him?


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-donald-trump-aides-took-away-candidates-twitter-access/

With just days to go until Election Day, @realDonaldTrump has gotten a little bit quieter.

Republican nominee Donald Trump’s aides have finally taken control of his Twitter account away from the candidate, according to a report in the New York Times.

Twitter is where Trump has often gone to vent his frustrations throughout the 2016 campaign -- at other candidates, at the media, or at whatever situation is on his mind. Most candidates’ social media accounts are controlled by aides, * but Trump has been known to tweet himself *-- and has occasionally driven the news cycle with even a single post on the social media site.


----------



## blackholeson

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Vic Capri said:


> You were saying? This isn't shocking news. A LOT of famous people don't actually use their social media accounts.
> 
> - Vic


*Really? Typing on a keyboard isn't tweeting. Telling the world what you think on twitter is tweeting. By the way, the man tweets. He doesn't pay people to stand around a PC 24/7 at all hours of the day just so he can tell them what to say. Lol. The man tweets at almost all hours of the day some as early as 4:00 in the morning. Trump has said that he only gets 4 hours of sleep at night and this was during his campaign, but he meant that as what he has always done. Pretending as if Trump has never physically tweeted his own words using his tiny hands is simply naive on your behalf. Does he have people who may tweet for him? I guess, but they aren't just posting anything they want to say, he is actually telling them what to say. Meaning, he is expressing himself on twitter. Those words you see in text on twitter come from his bizarre brain. *


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I just gave you three difference reports of his PR team. Do you have proof showing him actually Tweeting with his phone? :lol You're a clown. I am done with you.







Even The Young Turks admits how bad Hillary sucked, haha!

- Vic


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Vic Capri said:


> I just gave you three difference reports of his PR team. Do you have proof showing him actually Tweeting with his phone? :lol You're a clown. I am done with you.
> 
> - Vic


And Trump and his people back in the day said Trump was not John Miller or John Barron. I also gave you a source that showed Trump does send his own tweets.

You can't honestly think those tweets are not Trumps own thoughts.

You are just playing a silly semantic game. Even if Trump is not typing out the tweet himself, he is telling them exactly what to tweet then they do it. Its the same thing. The tweets are still Trumps own thoughts and words. Just because his staff claims he is not actually typing them out himself does not mean they are not his tweets.

I also love how you did not post the full articles of your info because if you did you would have also seen

*Dictating is still tweeting in a sense, but it really isn't the same. This means he's not scrolling through his timeline, checking his mentions, having the full Twitter experience. He's broadcasting.*

Dictating is the same thing as tweeting, the only difference is Trump is not reading his feed so claim his interns.


Do you actually believe Trump was not John Miller or John Barron?


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Ultimate War Hawk Dick Cheney pulling Trump's strings gets one single mention in this thread while Trump tweeting habits dominate the discussion. Hmmmm.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Well the Trump typo was real (idk why anyone's talking about it, it's a typo, move on) while "Cheney pulling Trump's strings" is a completely baseless claim. The article posted says Trump's team plans to use Cheney's influence with certain GOP senators to help get Trump's pick for Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, confirmed. Nowhere in there is there anything to suggest Cheney has any influence over Trump or his administration in any way.

But sure, Cheney is now the de facto president and John Bolton, as deputy SOS will be dictating our country's foreign policy. Don't allow me to interrupt your feature presentation with facts.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

not sure what the huge deal about a typo is on twitter, people typo on twitter all the time.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> Well the Trump typo was real (idk why anyone's talking about it, it's a typo, move on) while "Cheney pulling Trump's strings" is a completely baseless claim. The article posted says Trump's team plans to use Cheney's influence with certain GOP senators to help get Trump's pick for Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, confirmed. Nowhere in there is there anything to suggest Cheney has any influence over Trump or his administration in any way.
> 
> But sure, Cheney is now the de facto president and John Bolton, as deputy SOS will be dictating our country's foreign policy. Don't allow me to interrupt your feature presentation with facts.


You're right it's completely baseless, I really should wait for the reports from Scott Adams and InfoWars before I believe anything. It was probably just Trump doing some more expert Master Persuading anyway.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Cheney being involved in any manner is concerning tbh. No matter how small.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Greenlawler said:


> The saddest, stupidest, most frustrating thing about politics is how the left will now actively root for America to fail for the next four years. Obviously the same could be said about parts of the right over the last eight years. The media will barrage us with anti Trump crap everyday. Speaking only for myself I was totally hopeful and supportive that Obama would be an awesome President. Although I did not vote for him I wanted him to succeed. It is a shame that some people cannot get past their political boundaries to hope for a prosperous nation.


I remember when Rush Limbaugh openly admitted he wanted Obama to fail. Those segments of both sides are now going to switch places again. Suddenly, certain Dems that were pro-war and anti-civil liberties will now become anti-war and pro-civil liberties again simply because their person is no longer in charge. However, we have been going down this path probably since Bill Clinton was in office...certain groups wanted to screw him over from the start. Then, the Dubya days where some people thought he wasn't the legitimate President. Those that wanted Obama to fail...now we have bombthrowers that are openly calling for electoral voters to not vote for the President that most are legally obligated to vote for. 

Steve Deace, a conservative talk show host, made a really good point when he was on PBS Newshour the night after the election. He said that back in the '90s, the hyperbole about Bill Clinton was so over-the-top (and he admits he was one of those leading the charge) that when we finally had a crisis in regards to his lying under oath to a Federal Grand Jury that people just ignored it as more hysteria. He said we could see the same thing here, that the media will be so anti-Trump that when something happens that really should make us stand up and scream in protest that many people will just chalk it up to the media going out of its way to do a hatchet job.

It's inevitable...all Presidents have a crisis regarding their administration that becomes a Constitutional issue...we will see it at some point in Trump's Presidency. However, will the media's howls in outrage now lead to it just being ignored as the boy who cried wolf?


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Oh gosh I just watched the Martin sheen video. It's hilarious, first Hollywood "Left" is against the EC. Now they want to use the EC to push their agenda. It's hilarious! Do these people have no shame or at least a brain?

"I stand with you" Yea.. if you don't vote for the guy we hate!


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Vic Capri said:


> I just gave you three difference reports of his PR team. Do you have proof showing him actually Tweeting with his phone? :lol You're a clown. I am done with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even The Young Turks admits how bad Hillary sucked, haha!
> 
> - Vic


You know that the MSM and Democrats have lost all sense of reality when they're the ones pushing conspiracy theories and the Young Turks of all people start making some sense.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> Oh gosh I just watched the Martin sheen video. It's hilarious, first Hollywood "Left" is against the EC. Now they want to use the EC to push their agenda. It's hilarious! Do these people have no shame or at least a brain?
> 
> "I stand with you" Yea.. if you don't vote for the guy we hate!


I think Sheen likes Hilary because he basically played the male version of her in The Dead Zone



Carte Blanche said:


> You know that the MSM and Democrats have lost all sense of reality when they're the ones pushing conspiracy theories and the Young Turks of all people start making some sense.


The YT probably realizes that they will lose any credibility if they keep defending the Democrats and MSM. Seriously, you might as well get the meme of that Ancient Aliens guy and replace the word Aliens with Russians. And now I read that the leftists are trying to blame Russia for Brexit and the Migrant rapes.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



virus21 said:


> The YT probably realizes that they will lose any credibility if they keep defending the Democrats and MSM. Seriously, you might as well get the meme of that Ancient Aliens guy and replace the word Aliens with Russians. And now I read that the leftists are trying to blame Russia for Brexit and the Migrant rapes.


They don't really have any credibility. Even in that video that made some sense, I found it interesting that they left the racism and sexism conspiracy theories out of their list -- because that's the one they themselves pushed and continue to push. They want to pretend now that they're above all the others, but they were right there pushing all the same conspiracies just a few weeks ago. 

I think they're getting scared of the left turning on them (which I've noticed recently) as they were not able to adequately address the issue of their own name to a fellow leftist. It'll be interesting to see where they go from there.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

The world has truely gone upside down when Russian power is quoted by Western media on the right and Chinese media is quoted by Western media on the left to push their stupid agendas.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



> Oh gosh I just watched the Martin sheen video. It's hilarious, first Hollywood "Left" is against the EC. Now they want to use the EC to push their agenda. It's hilarious! Do these people have no shame or at least a brain?
> 
> "I stand with you" Yea.. if you don't vote for the guy we hate!


Sheen trying to act Houlier Than Thou when his son is one of the biggest fucks on the planet is pure comedy! :lol

- Vic


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> The world has truely gone upside down when Russian power is quoted by Western media on the right and Chinese media is quoted by Western media on the left to push their stupid agendas.


A Republican president pissing off China to get into bed with Russia 

Jesus Christ


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

For those who thought Hollywood couldn't sink any lower after the Martin Sheen video: in a Facebook post yesterday, Michael Moore showed us what true desperation looks like.

https://www.facebook.com/mmflint/posts/10154020664436857

Edit: I especially like these golden nuggets.



> I think you know something is wrong with [Trump]. He just doesn't seem "right." One crazy comment or action after another. He may not be well. Don't you have a responsibility to protect us from someone who might be mentally unstable?
> 
> Please find the courage to seize this historic moment where you put country over party. Set an example to our young people that conscience supersedes politics, and that morality -- yes, answering the quite legitimate question, "what would Jesus do?" -- is still the most important consideration. You are bound to God and not to Vladimir Putin. Your loyalty is to your fellow Americans, the vast majority of whom didn't vote for Donald J. Trump.
> 
> Trump, as I'm sure deep down in your heart you know, is never going to last the four years.


:maury :maury :maury


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Moore has also gone on record offering bribes to electors. 

I wonder if that's a federal offense. Certainly sounds like it should be


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

"Never going to last the four years" is the new "never going to run/never going to break 30%/no path to 1237/no path to 270".

I really hope that in the next few years people circle back and remember who the hysterical clowns were, claiming our Republic would be lost and we'd be little more than a puppet of Russia, and stop taking them seriously.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

What if the electors don't give Trump the minimum 270? What the hell happens then? 

LMFAO IT GOES TO THE HOUSE OF THE REPRESENTATIVES WHICH THE GOP CONTROLS (as i understand it)

They will just install Trump as the president. Fucking grandstanding moronic actors.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Well, they're going to move on to impeachment and whining about Trump's business holdings and various lawsuits next.

Feel like there's a game of bingo in there somewhere.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The Absolute said:


> For those who thought Hollywood couldn't sink any lower after the Martin Sheen video: in a Facebook post yesterday, Michael Moore showed us what true desperation looks like.
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/mmflint/posts/10154020664436857
> 
> Edit: I especially like these golden nuggets.
> 
> 
> 
> :maury :maury :maury


Moore is full of shit even by Hollywood standards.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



virus21 said:


> Moore is full of shit even by Hollywood standards.


He's essentially a youtube truther who managed to make a lot of money with his conspiracy theories before there was youtube. 

If he was even just a decade or two younger than he is, he'd probably be an irrelevant schmuck right now fighting other truthers for views :draper2


----------



## CenaBoy4Life

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

trump winning is the best thing to ever happen for Moore. Now the fat pig gets attention again just like the Bush era.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

http://reason.com/blog/2016/12/19/its-electoral-college-day



> *At the moment, only one elector has officially gone rogue — David Bright of Maine — and he has reportedly cast his vote for Bernie Sanders, denying a vote that would have gone to Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump.*


:heston :heston :heston :heston

BTW. I'm aware that his vote will be tossed :lol


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Election Day. Failed.

"Peaceful" protests a.k.a. riots. Failed.

Fake news narrative. Failed.

Recount. Failed.

Russian conspiracy. Failed.


*#TrumpWins*

- Vic


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## RDEvans

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

As much as I dislike Trump, I hope he doesn't get impeached or something else happens in the next 4 years because we'll be stuck with Mike "Shock The Gay Away" Pence as president.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



> Shock The Gay Away


It was a lie about Gov. Pence started by CAFE. Ironically, Snopes debunked it.

- Vic


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



MrMister said:


> What if the electors don't give Trump the minimum 270? What the hell happens then?
> 
> LMFAO IT GOES TO THE HOUSE OF THE REPRESENTATIVES WHICH THE GOP CONTROLS (as i understand it)
> 
> They will just install Trump as the president. Fucking grandstanding moronic actors.


Well so far apparently there's been 5 faithless electors and they've all been Hillary's. Really looking forward to seeing what new and interesting ways the Democrats find to lose in humiliating fashion. 



Vic Capri said:


> Election Day. Failed.
> 
> "Peaceful" protests a.k.a. riots. Failed.
> 
> Fake news narrative. Failed.
> 
> Recount. Failed.
> 
> Russian conspiracy. Failed.
> 
> 
> *#TrumpWins*
> 
> - Vic


And now the "electoral coup" that never manifested. :banderas Still loving this election cycle. The epilogue is killing it.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Vic Capri said:


> Election Day. Failed.
> 
> "Peaceful" protests a.k.a. riots. Failed.
> 
> Fake news narrative. Failed.
> 
> Recount. Failed.
> 
> Russian conspiracy. Failed.
> 
> 
> *#TrumpWins*
> 
> - Vic


Thing is though, if Trump doesn't deliver the wall or bring the jobs back or drain the swamp or just generally make USA great again, will you have the testicular fortitude to call him on it?


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Vic Capri said:


> Election Day. Failed.
> 
> "Peaceful" protests a.k.a. riots. Failed.
> 
> Fake news narrative. Failed.
> 
> Recount. Failed.
> 
> Russian conspiracy. Failed.


And the electoral college made Trump's victory official.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*










More electorals tried to defect from Hillary than Trump. What a glorious day! :lol



> Thing is though, if Trump doesn't deliver the wall or bring the jobs back or drain the swamp or just generally make USA great again, will you have the testicular fortitude to call him on it?


Yes, I will own it. He'll be just like Obama if he doesn't come through.

- Vic


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Thing is though, if Trump doesn't deliver the wall or bring the jobs back or drain the swamp or just generally make USA great again, will you have the testicular fortitude to call him on it?


I'd call him out on not pushing for term limits (which also includes supporting Rand Paul's repeated pushes for term limits on Congress) and the limitations on lobbying he outlined in his plan to "drain the swamp in Washington". Don't care about the wall and don't pretend to know enough about international economics and trade to have a position on the outsourcing. If he lowers taxes and lessens regulations on businesses in the US I'll be satisfied. If he fails, I'll criticize him. 

If he fails to crack down on illegal immigration, and if he fails to end the Syrian refugee program, I'll criticize him. 

Should he entangle the US in some interventionist campaign abroad (aside from the already stated policy of bombing ISIS), I'll criticize him. If he continues to kill as many or more citizens as Obama and takes no steps to ensure less citizens are killed, I'll criticize him. If he supports Saudi Arabia's vicious campaign against Yemen in any way, I'll criticize him. If he aids the Saudi regime in pretty much any way, I'll probably criticize him just for that. Fuck Saudi Arabia (big Hillary donor, btw). Seriously.

I'll also criticize him if he antagonizes Russia without cause as liberals have been doing for months now. This is due to my committed desire not to see humanity destroy itself with nuclear weapons. Also, I'm a Russian agent.

Of course, at no point will you find me suggesting Hillary would've been a better choice, considering she had no plans to do any of the positive things I mentioned above, and explicitly wanted to do all of the negative things I stated above and then some.

EDIT: Forgot to mention that I'll also criticize him if he continues to treat Edward Snowden and other whistleblowers as traitors, which seems to be his mindset on that issue. Basically it's a certainty I'll be a Trump critic on likely more than one issue, as I already am. I'll be more vocal about it once he's actually the president and is actually doing things, obviously.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

OK Washington 

I get you don't like Trump or Hillary but you cant tell me that enough motherfuckers wrote in Colin Powell and Faith Spotted Eagle a native american activist who not even be relevant if not for that pipeline shit that hit the headlines way after the race started 

This isn't a fucking game


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*










:trump

MY NIPPLES...


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Looking over this thread....
@Tater you've gone mad :lol


----------



## MillionDollarProns

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I decided to go see how the young turks is reacting to the Hilarly Clinton squash match being cemented, but they're busy talking about Quinten Tarantino attending BLM rallies.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



> I'd call him out on not pushing for term limits (which also includes supporting Rand Paul's repeated pushes for term limits on Congress) and the limitations on lobbying he outlined in his plan to "drain the swamp in Washington". Don't care about the wall and don't pretend to know enough about international economics and trade to have a position on the outsourcing. If he lowers taxes and lessens regulations on businesses in the US I'll be satisfied. If he fails, I'll criticize him.
> 
> If he fails to crack down on illegal immigration, and if he fails to end the Syrian refugee program, I'll criticize him.
> 
> Should he entangle the US in some interventionist campaign abroad (aside from the already stated policy of bombing ISIS), I'll criticize him. If he continues to kill as many or more citizens as Obama and takes no steps to ensure less citizens are killed, I'll criticize him. If he supports Saudi Arabia's vicious campaign against Yemen in any way, I'll criticize him. If he aids the Saudi regime in pretty much any way, I'll probably criticize him just for that. Fuck Saudi Arabia (big Hillary donor, btw). Seriously.
> 
> I'll also criticize him if he antagonizes Russia without cause as liberals have been doing for months now. This is due to my committed desire not to see humanity destroy itself with nuclear weapons. Also, I'm a Russian agent.
> 
> Of course, at no point will you find me suggesting Hillary would've been a better choice, considering she had no plans to do any of the positive things I mentioned above, and explicitly wanted to do all of the negative things I stated above and then some.
> 
> EDIT: Forgot to mention that I'll also criticize him if he continues to treat Edward Snowden and other whistleblowers as traitors, which seems to be his mindset on that issue. Basically it's a certainty I'll be a Trump critic on likely more than one issue, as I already am. I'll be more vocal about it once he's actually the president and is actually doing things, obviously.


And here's the kicker: He has a Republican controlled Congress to work with so he'll have an easier time getting the things he wants done because it will make him look bad if he doesn't.

- Vic


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Oh my god more electors didn't vote Clinton than Trump. That is some awesome right there.

I am not crazy about Trump being president, but I am sure as shit very satisfied Clinton will not be.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



MrMister said:


> Oh my god more electors didn't vote Clinton than Trump. That is some awesome right there.
> 
> I am not crazy about Trump being president, but I am sure as shit very satisfied Clinton will not be.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*










- Vic


----------



## sesshomaru

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Vic Capri said:


> And here's the kicker: He has a Republican controlled Congress to work with so he'll have an easier time getting the things he wants done because it will make him look bad if he doesn't.
> 
> - Vic


DO realize there's limits to what the Federal Goverment can do. States have a lot of power in the US, and for a lot of things, the most the F.Goverment can do is throw control back to States. Something I'm sure Trump didn't think about as he made extravagant campaign promises.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*






I think this is relevant considering the post-election cycle.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



MrMister said:


> Oh my god more electors didn't vote Clinton than Trump. That is some awesome right there.
> 
> I am not crazy about Trump being president, but I am sure as shit very satisfied Clinton will not be.


Well when the party of the other candidate has gone completely insane, this should come as no surprise


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


>


that is a new low for you. Using the assassination for a Trump meme. Why am I not surprised. A mans life was taken and you are using it for a Trump meme shooting and killing Hillary?


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Denzel Washington on the mainstream media said:


> If you don’t read the newspaper, you’re uninformed. If you do read it, you’re misinformed. What is the long term effect of too much information?
> 
> One of the effects is the need to be first, not even to be true anymore. So what a responsibility you all have. To tell the truth, not to just be first, but to tell the truth.
> 
> In our society, now it’s just first. Who cares? Get it out there. We don’t care who it hurts. We don’t care who we destroy. We don’t care if it’s true. Just say it, sell it. Anything you practice, you’ll get good at including bullshit






> DO realize there's limits to what the Federal Goverment can do. States have a lot of power in the US, and for a lot of things, the most the F.Goverment can do is throw control back to States. Something I'm sure Trump didn't think about as he made extravagant campaign promises.


Ironically, Trump agrees various issues should be left up for each state to decide.

- Vic


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Anyone tired of all this WINNING yet

Because 

BAH GAWD HE DID IT AGAIN

:trump BROKE HER IN HALF - THREE TIMES! THAT IS A HUMAN BEING! 

A human being?!

Well at least I think so, King!


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



deepelemblues said:


> Anyone tired of all this WINNING yet
> 
> Because
> 
> BAH GAWD HE DID IT AGAIN
> 
> :trump BROKE HER IN HALF - THREE TIMES! THAT IS A HUMAN BEING!
> 
> A human being?!
> 
> Well at least I think so, King!


yeah Trump is such a winner he got almost 3 million votes less than Hillary and he won by having one of the lowest EC victories in history. Only 12 people since 1789 had less of a victory.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

The popular vote doesn't really matter in regards to the presidential election. It's like saying a team had more 1st downs and more yards but still didn't score more points than the opposition. The way you win presidential elections is via the electoral college. It's been this way since the beginning. It doesn't matter if you run up the score in California. You have to win battleground states. Apparently Clinton didn't even try in Wisconsin. That's egregious arrogance. It also shows just how incompetent she is and everyone should be glad she's not president.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> yeah Trump is such a winner he got almost 3 million votes less than Hillary and he won by having one of the lowest EC victories in history. Only 12 people since 1789 had less of a victory.


So much salt :heyman6

Never in the history of politics has so much salt been mined to no purpose :heston

A month and a half later and still the whining

At this rate :trump won't even have an opposition they'll be too busy crying about how the rules of the game should have been different to have the time to try to stop his policies

The WINNING shall continue until the BMs of the world finally hit rock bottom and accept their historic failure


----------



## Reggie Dunlop

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



MrMister said:


> The popular vote doesn't really matter in regards to the presidential election. It's like saying a team had more 1st downs and more yards but still didn't score more points than the opposition. The way you win presidential elections is via the electoral college. It's been this way since the beginning. *It doesn't matter if you run up the score in California*. You have to win battleground states. Apparently Clinton didn't even try in Wisconsin. That's egregious arrogance. It also shows just how incompetent she is and everyone should be glad she's not president.


Bingo. And that's exactly why it is the way it is, so that every _state_ is fairly rerepresented. Outside of California, Trump won the popular vote by about 1.7 million. As difficult as it may be for some to comprehend, they knew what they were doing when they set up the electoral college system.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*










- Vic


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



MrMister said:


> The popular vote doesn't really matter in regards to the presidential election. It's like saying a team had more 1st downs and more yards but still didn't score more points than the opposition. The way you win presidential elections is via the electoral college. It's been this way since the beginning. It doesn't matter if you run up the score in California. You have to win battleground states. Apparently Clinton didn't even try in Wisconsin. That's egregious arrogance. It also shows just how incompetent she is and everyone should be glad she's not president.


Your analogy is backward. The EC is like saying who scored more in the most number of quarters or who scored the most TDs and FGS but only counting them as one than who has the most points in the game. Nice try with your faulty logic. So if a team scored 5 FGS and another team scored 3 TDS using your logic with the EC the team that scored 5 FGS should win since they scored more times than the person who got the most points.

And people love to claim oh CA and NY would matter if they went with the popular vote, oh but its that only a few key battleground states matter now like FL, MI and PA?

It should not matter where you live in the country, it should be one person one vote and everyones vote should count the same. The EC just ensures the minority wins over the majority.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Your analogy is backwards. The EC is like saying who scored more in the most number of quarters than who has the most points in the game. Nice try with your faulty logic.


the guy complaining that hillary should have won under different rules than the publicly stated and known and agreed upon rules of the contest she lost is talking about faulty logic :heston

you don't get to change the rules after the contest and you don't get to claim victory under different rules than those in effect. you win or lose according to the rules of the game at the time it was played. 

enjoy the popular vote trophy. 

wait, that trophy doesn't exist. you don't get shit. you have to make up a fake trophy to award yourself to help you emotionally handle your historic failure :heston

:trump will be enjoying the oval office trophy. the real one that actually exists.


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

The 45th President of the United Sates will be sworn in one month from today.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



deepelemblues said:


> the guy complaining that hillary should have won under different rules than the publicly stated and known and agreed upon rules of the contest she lost is talking about faulty logic :heston
> 
> you don't get to change the rules after the contest and you don't get to claim victory under different rules than those in effect. you win or lose according to the rules of the game at the time it was played.
> 
> enjoy the popular vote trophy.
> 
> wait, that trophy doesn't exist. you don't get shit. you have to make up a fake trophy to award yourself to help you emotionally handle your historic failure :heston
> 
> :trump will be enjoying the oval office trophy. the real one that actually exists.


Stop making a strawman, no one is saying you change the rules after the fact. Now is the time to change the EC. Trump won under the EC rules. 

Also people like you keep claiming Trump won huge when he did not when you look at the facts. Under the EC rules Trump barely won. So stop acting like it was a blow out, it was one of the most narrow wins in history.


Also what do Trump supporters think of this http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/trump-symbolically-anthony-scaramucci-232848

he was playing you all along like I have always been saying


*Trump adviser: Don't take Trump literally, 'take him symbolically'*

ake Donald Trump seriously but not literally — or better yet, take him symbolically, a member of the president-elect’s transition executive committee advised Tuesday.

“No, no, no, no, don’t take him literally, take him symbolically,” Anthony Scaramucci told MSNBC. “See, it’s different.”

Scaramucci suggested that Trump has pushed back his news conference from Dec. 15 because “he’s a very precise, very detail-oriented guy” who wants to have “all of the answers to all of the types of questions that’s he’s gonna get thrown.”

Trump tweeted Dec. 12 that he would have a news conference “in the near future to discuss the business, Cabinet picks and all other topics of interest.” He originally wrote in a series of Nov. 30 tweets that he would have “a major news conference” with his adult children “to discuss the fact that I will be leaving my great business in total in order to fully focus on running the country in order to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”

“Hold on. If he’s a detail-oriented guy, then how does this statement that we’ve been hearing for months — don’t take him literally, take him seriously — make sense?” anchor Stephanie Ruhle asked. “Because that’s sort of the opposite.”

Scaramucci countered that the president-elect should be taken seriously and symbolically.

Spicer: More administration job offers likely coming this week
Spicer: More administration job offers likely coming this week
By LOUIS NELSON
“You should definitely take him seriously because he’s a man of his word, but I do think that some of the things that happens with the media is when he’s sending out tweets or he’s speaking in a certain way that sets the hair on fire of the nation’s media — particularly the left-leaning media — I think his supporters see that more as symbolism and a rejection of sort of that egg and tomato throwing that he’s experienced from June of 2015 when he announced his campaign.”

Scaramucci said “some people out there that do get a little crazy with the president-elect,” to which Ruhle responded that Trump puts information out there but doesn’t answer questions about it. Trump’s last news conference was July 27.

Trump is “the most scrutinized person in the world,” Scaramucci argued. “And so [as] a result of which, when that press conference comes, my guess is he’s gonna have nine and 10 derivative-like questions, and he just wants to be ready for it. And that’s why he delayed it, which I think is a sign of his great temperament and very good judgment.”





LOL He played all of you like a fiddle and you still think he gives a shit about you. Trump told you what you wated to hear and he is not doing hardly anything he said he would.

But keep being ignorant.


----------



## Mifune Jackson

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

This isn't directed at anyone here, but just the irony of Hillary supporters now wanting to alter the system after they lorded their system over Bernie supporters in the primary is pretty funny to me. We all knew the rules for both the Dem primaries and general election heading in. 

I didn't vote for Trump personally, but I can't help but be more critical of the Democrats than anyone else right now. The lack of post election self-examination is really crazy.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Mifune Jackson said:


> This isn't directed at anyone here, but just the irony of Hillary supporters now wanting to alter the system after they lorded their system over Bernie supporters in the primary is pretty funny to me. We all knew the rules for both the Dem primaries and general election heading in.
> 
> I didn't vote for Trump personally, but I can't help but be more critical of the Democrats than anyone else right now. The lack of post election self-examination is really crazy.


Not a Hillary support and I have been saying this since the Gore v Bush election. 

Bernie got fucked in the primary too because of the super delegates skewing the numbers so it seemed like Hillary was winning states or closer than she really was not to mention all the voter suppression.

And I will bring this up yet again. No Trump supporter can give any one shit for bitching about the EC when Trump bitched about it when Romney was winning the popular vote over Obama before Obama overtook him in the popular vote as well.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*










My facebook feed is starting to reflect my likes and dislikes. :banderas


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Looks like Glenn Beck is slowly crossing over to the other side.






Thoughts? :heyman6


----------



## blackholeson

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The Absolute said:


> Looks like Glenn Beck is slowly crossing over to the other side.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thoughts? :heyman6


*Signs of the end and I am not kidding. A war is brewing.*


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> that is a new low for you. Using the assassination for a Trump meme. Why am I not surprised. A mans life was taken and you are using it for a Trump meme shooting and killing Hillary?


Is that what it is?

huh. Honestly didn't know.

Someone should tell people not to do this then:


----------



## Oxidamus

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> Is that what it is?
> 
> huh. Honestly didn't know.
> 
> Someone should tell people not to do this then:


Yea I saw a whole bunch of them posted on a meme page on FB. The images were so high quality I thought that they were stills from a new movie that people have made a meme or something.

Luckily I have the forethought to actually learn what a meme is before I use it. :side:


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Aido Get Laido said:


> Yea I saw a whole bunch of them posted on a meme page on FB. The images were so high quality I thought that they were stills from a new movie that people have made a meme or something.
> 
> Luckily I have the forethought to actually learn what a meme is before I use it. :side:


i mean, i can still laugh at it, but thats just me. (though i don't laugh at the real death.) wouldnt've made it tho myself.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Getting triggered by an assassination meme of someone whose death you don't actually give a shit about and wouldn't even spend 2 seconds actually mourning is what I consider silly because it's obvious what you're doing. You're not fooling anyone. It's another virtue signalling ploy where there's no real empathy behind it. Like you really give a shit about the death of some Russian Ambassador you didn't even know existed before he was snuffed. 

Carry on with the memes. Call me heartless but whatever. I reserve my empathy for those who I feel deserve it and not just any Tom, Dick or Harry who dies.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/311296-gingrich-trump-doesnt-want-to-drain-the-swamp-anymore

What did he mean by this? :meowth


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> Is that what it is?
> 
> huh. Honestly didn't know.
> 
> Someone should tell people not to do this then:


bullshit you did not know. But what ever dude it just shows how low you will go, and anyone defending you for using it is just as bad as you. If you really did not know then you are even more uninformed than I thought. 



Carte Blanche said:


> Getting triggered by an assassination meme of someone whose death you don't actually give a shit about and wouldn't even spend 2 seconds actually mourning is what I consider silly because it's obvious what you're doing. You're not fooling anyone. It's another virtue signalling ploy where there's no real empathy behind it. Like you really give a shit about the death of some Russian Ambassador you didn't even know existed before he was snuffed.
> 
> Carry on with the memes. Call me heartless but whatever. I reserve my empathy for those who I feel deserve it and not just any Tom, Dick or Harry who dies.


Yeah because its always cool to make fun of someone that got assassinated. Yet you were bitching about when people you don't know die at the hands of Muslims. Talk about getting triggered LOL

As for your im not fooling anyone BS, I have been telling Beatles to stop posting shit memes for over a year now, and he did it once again. I have been very consistent with calling him out on those.

But what do I expect from some Trump supporters on this forum. Especially you two.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The Absolute said:


> Looks like Glenn Beck is slowly crossing over to the other side.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thoughts? :heyman6


Saw this the other night and thought it was hilarious.

Wow. Glenn Beck. Not the screaming hysteribot I always thought he was? Gotta give him credit for his charity work and *gasp* his view of kids illegals being actual human beings worthy of compassion.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Cipher said:


> http://thehill.com/homenews/news/311296-gingrich-trump-doesnt-want-to-drain-the-swamp-anymore
> 
> What did he mean by this? :meowth


That was just campaign talk, baby :trump :trump2


Don't go hard on Newt, he's still trying to work out which days are symbolic and which are literal.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I always assumed Beck was doing a bit.

lol Beatles says he doesn't know...then posts another fucking stupid as fuck image

It's believable someone wouldn't realize what that was. It becomes less believable when they post another variation of it after "realizing" what it is.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*










Who did this? :lol

- Vic


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Saw this on Reddit's front page.

Hey Reddit, we need your help. We are small time youtubers who have recently discovered someone with 300x as many subscribers has made a near shot by shot rip off of one of our videos. The video has nearly 3x as many views as ours. Here is a side by side comparison. We don't know what to do.

Original






Rip off






Not only did she rip it off, she made it longer, shittier, unfunny, and political.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

^ Boobies though :trump


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Eviction Notice is brilliant.

lol @ the copycat


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I went there and gave her a piece of my mind. She's so bad she had to make sure she showed off her boobs because she has nothing else going on. Wonder what else she ripped off?


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Reminds me of all the horrible female song covers on YT that have a bunch of likes simply cause "BOOBS XD".


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

*Democrats being crybabies shouldn't surprise anyone at all since they get their feelings hurt at the drop of a fucking hat. Let 'em cry. And those that aren't busy crying might actually accomplish something in two years but at the rate it's going I highly doubt that. They'll drown in their own tears by then. *


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



AryaDark said:


> *Democrats being crybabies shouldn't surprise anyone at all since they get their feelings hurt at the drop of a fucking hat. Let 'em cry. And those that aren't busy crying might actually accomplish something in two years but at the rate it's going I highly doubt that. They'll drown in their own tears by then. *


You got ones that are crying, ones that are lyin and the others don't think they need to change, because it's everyone else! If they keep this up, they'll keep losing over and over again.


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> You got ones that are crying, ones that are lyin and the others don't think they need to change, because it's everyone else! If they keep this up, they'll keep losing over and over again.



*that sounds like the start of a really good country song :maisie


How many times did Hillary visit California in this run up to the election. How many times did she visit New York?

You wanna know how many times she visited Wisconsin? ZERO. You wanna know how many times Trump visited Wisconsin? FOUR. The pure fucking arrogance on the part of the Clinton team is hilarious. *


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



AryaDark said:


> *that sounds like the start of a really good country song :maisie
> 
> 
> How many times did Hillary visit California in this run up to the election. How many times did she visit New York?
> 
> You wanna know how many times she visited Wisconsin? ZERO. You wanna know how many times Trump visited Wisconsin? FOUR. The pure fucking arrogance on the part of the Clinton team is hilarious. *


Well arrogance isn't surprising when she was planning a massive fireworks show months before the election took place. The Democrats have always neglected the working class to wrangle up massive votes from people they promise free stuff to. It's simply not sustainable solution. I wonder how much worse the loss would have been if the Republicans had put out an equally charismatic candidate as Trump without all the BS attached to them?

Also it does sound like a country song!


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

The fireworks show that was planned.

I'm laughing like that Chris Evans gif that I'm too lazy to look for.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

*BY GOD HE JUST KEEPS DOING IT!*

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...art-comwp-adminpost-phppost5781537actionedit/

(InB4 "B-BUT BREITBART!1!!11!!!")


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@AryaDark @CamillePunk @Carte Blanche @The Dazzler @Fringe @Miss Sally @2 Ton 21


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/811330287229632513


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



AryaDark said:


> *Democrats being crybabies shouldn't surprise anyone at all since they get their feelings hurt at the drop of a fucking hat. Let 'em cry. And those that aren't busy crying might actually accomplish something in two years but at the rate it's going I highly doubt that. They'll drown in their own tears by then. *


Dems pretending that losing the presidency is the only thing they've actually lost when they've been losing everything else consistently for 8-9 years now is what I find the most hilarious. They think that they still control the country when they have majorities in nothing and have been consistently losing ground on the State, county and municipal level pretty much everywhere outside of their urban strongholds.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



MrMister said:


> I always assumed Beck was doing a bit.
> 
> lol Beatles says he doesn't know...then posts another fucking stupid as fuck image
> 
> It's believable someone wouldn't realize what that was. It becomes less believable when they post another variation of it after "realizing" what it is.


Not at all. I saw the first image, then the second image on FB AFTER posting it. THEN i saw BMs post, to which i used that image to show Its becoming a meme. Never realized it was the shooter from the other day.

Oops?


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> *BY GOD HE JUST KEEPS DOING IT!*
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...art-comwp-adminpost-phppost5781537actionedit/
> 
> (InB4 "B-BUT BREITBART!1!!11!!!")


A preliminary meeting with a big business talking head with no decisions made and nothing concrete coming from it means Jack Shit.

Breitbart or no it's a non-story.




> “We’re just beginning, it’s a dance,” he said. “It’s a little bit of a dance. But we’re going to get the costs down and *we’re going to get it done beautifully*.”


More Master Persuading!!


----------



## The Dazzler

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> Not at all. I saw the first image, then the second image on FB AFTER posting it. THEN i saw BMs post, to which i used that image to show Its becoming a meme. Never realized it was the shooter from the other day.
> 
> Oops?


I say post all the memes you want. If people don't like them it's their problem. I have a dark sense of humour so I found it funny.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Remember a while back when that black church in Mississippi was burned with "TRUMP" spray-painted on it? Well, as suspected, it was another hoax by wannabe victims. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/811680005898039297
Here's the original story: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ck-church-burned-in-the-name-of-trump/506246/

And the update: http://www.theblaze.com/news/2016/1...ch-arson-that-was-blamed-on-trump-supporters/


----------



## MillionDollarProns

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> Not at all. I saw the first image, then the second image on FB AFTER posting it. THEN i saw BMs post, to which i used that image to show Its becoming a meme. Never realized it was the shooter from the other day.
> 
> Oops?


This was how I find out you and I are the only ones who know Lazy Town, I lowkey thought that image was the LazyTown thing too


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> Remember a while back when that black church in Mississippi was burned with "TRUMP" spray-painted on it? Well, as suspected, it was another hoax by wannabe victims.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/811680005898039297
> Here's the original story: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ck-church-burned-in-the-name-of-trump/506246/
> 
> And the update: http://www.theblaze.com/news/2016/1...ch-arson-that-was-blamed-on-trump-supporters/


Not shocking at all.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



virus21 said:


> Not shocking at all.


There was a guy writing anti-jew stuff at a college and marking down swastikas and he was mid eastern lol


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> Not at all. I saw the first image, then the second image on FB AFTER posting it. THEN i saw BMs post, to which i used that image to show Its becoming a meme. Never realized it was the shooter from the other day.
> 
> Oops?


Until and unless mods come out with an official rule against this meme in particular, it's fine to post.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Until and unless mods come out with an official rule against this meme in particular, it's fine to post.


Funny how you are so against Muslims and Islams especially how you always bitch about them killing people yet you are ok with a meme of a Muslim killing someone with a Trump face over him ok

This is why you are such a fraud.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Funny how you are so against Muslims and Islams especially how you always bitch about them killing people yet you are ok with a meme of a Muslim killing someone with a Trump face over him ok
> 
> This is why you are such a fraud.


Being ok with a meme is not the same as being ok with the assassination. 

But keep reaching :lmao 










Does posting this make me pro-Taliban?


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Robbie Rotten being used poorly in a poor meme. What a shame. Sportacus down for the count, too. :mj2

There are no issues with that meme being posted, BTW.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Oda Nobunaga said:


> Robbie Rotten being used poorly in a poor meme. What a shame. Sportacus down for the count, too. :mj2
> 
> There are no issues with that meme being posted, BTW.


Nothing ban worthy, I am not saying that, I am saying its in poor taste which it is.




Carte Blanche said:


> Being ok with a meme is not the same as being ok with the assassination.
> 
> But keep reaching :lmao
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does posting this make me pro-Taliban?


Its just showing how full of crap you are.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Its just showing how full of crap you are.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Switzer gonna Switzer

If I had grown up a Sooners fan, I'm pretty sure I'd love this man.

People taking Barry Switzer seriously...

Surely most people knew he was being Barry Switzer right?


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



> Excuse me. Excuse me.
> 
> Read the whole thing.
> 
> The dishonest media
> 
> Only Rosie O'Donnell.
> 
> Little Marco.
> 
> Low Energy.
> 
> Tough Guy Jeb.
> 
> Nobody cares.
> 
> What a loser.
> 
> Really stupid people.
> 
> Bad hombre.
> 
> Crooked Hillary.
> 
> Nasty woman.
> 
> You'd be in jail.


Politics is a dirty business. Is anybody really surprised President Trump won? He took no prisoners! :lol

- Vic


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

*:lmao Barry Switzer :lmao*


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Indeed, this election cycle had so many great moments. :mj2 











When he points at someone right after ruining the left's day. :done






And of course, the classic, the moment that convinced Scott Adams that Donald Trump was a master persuader and would become president, which was already mentioned above:






He fucking thanks the crowd for applauding at his joke. :done Even Megyn Kelly is mirin'.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Surprising that Kelly gave into the whole Sexist narrative considering I've seen her bring feminists on her shows before and lambast them for trying to spin doctor narratives ... 

I guess she couldn't handle it when he got personal with her - which surprised me because not once did I think that this blonde former miss pageant winner that has no problems using her sexiness to move ahead would play the female victim card.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I can't even hate Megyn Kelly. She's way too smart and hot. It might be my bias for her, but I don't think she took it personally at all. She's knows the game.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> Indeed, this election cycle had so many great moments. :mj2
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When he points at someone right after ruining the left's day. :done
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And of course, the classic, the moment that convinced Scott Adams that Donald Trump was a master persuader and would become president, which was already mentioned above:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He fucking thanks the crowd for applauding at his joke. :done Even Megyn Kelly is mirin'.



OMG that Wolf Blitzer one is hilarious I hadn't seen that before "Her ratings would be lower than yours". I lolled. I would've loved to see him go on some interrogation about why his name is Wolf and who he think he is etc. 

I'm reminded of the final big fight at the end of Rocky, where Apollo Creed and his entourage are saying about Rocky something to the effect of 'This kid doesn't realise it's all a show'. Trump is clearly treating it like a show and I think the journos don't know what to do about it.



Edit: Quite honestly though for every Wolf Blitzer style funny there is a bad taste Rosie O'Donnell moment as well. I mean come on to make a joke of that on stage, it sets a bed example and is non-presidential. Don't you expect a bit more?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



MrMister said:


> I can't even hate Megyn Kelly. She's way too smart and hot. It might be my bias for her, but I don't think she took it personally at all. She's knows the game.


I used to be a fan, but I'm cautious at the moment because it seems like she's turning a bit of a corner towards SJW-ism especially considering she was the only one on fox continuing the Trump is sexist narrative. I wouldn't mind her being consistent if she wants to continue, but like you said, she's smart - so I expected better from her.

I'm also hearing rumors that she's on her way out from Fox (which would be stupid), so it's entirely possible that she could end up on liberal networks and just lose her mind. It's not uncommon. I have no issues with people changing their minds and political leanings, but there has to be valid justification for doing so. I don't think she ever explained her jumping on the Trump is sexist bandwagon.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Edit: Quite honestly though for every Wolf Blitzer style funny there is a bad taste Rosie O'Donnell moment as well. I mean come on to make a joke of that on stage, it sets a bed example and is non-presidential. Don't you expect a bit more?


Thankfully Trump doesn't have your sensibilities or he never would have made it out of the primary. 

He knew they would be set to attack him over his public two-sided spats with women (not his feuds with men, because nobody cares about men, fundamentally), while only focusing on what he's said and not what's been said to/about him, so he masterfully crafted a highly visual and relatable response that would take all of the energy out of the question and win people over. That's how Master Persuaders operate. 

All this stuff about bad examples and being presidential, the pageantry of power politics, is completely irrelevant and uninteresting to me. Just lower my damn taxes and stop importing authoritarians. He could walk around all day in a hoodie and sweatpants blowing raspberry at everyone he passes for all I care if he accomplishes those things.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> Thankfully Trump doesn't have your sensibilities or he never would have made it out of the primary.
> 
> He knew they would be set to attack him over his public two-sided spats with women (not his feuds with men, because nobody cares about men, fundamentally), while only focusing on what he's said and not what's been said to/about him, so he masterfully crafted a highly visual and relatable response that would take all of the energy out of the question and win people over. That's how Master Persuaders operate.
> 
> All this stuff about bad examples and being presidential, the pageantry of power politics, is completely irrelevant and uninteresting to me. Just lower my damn taxes and stop importing authoritarians. He could walk around all day in a hoodie and sweatpants blowing raspberry at everyone he passes for all I care if he accomplishes those things.


Yes I know it's quite obvious you don't give a shit about that stuff, but you do realise he stands for more than just yourself right? To quote R.P McMurphy: "You see these people? They're real. These are the real ones!"

He made a joke about Rosie O'Donnell being a fat pig and the whole crowd laughed like they would at 'man gets hit in crotch'. My argument is simply he should have the maturity to not stoop to that juvenile level and maybe set a better example for his followers. 

Or would you argue society is past that now, there is just no point making an effort in that regard?


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Yes I know it's quite obvious you don't give a shit about that stuff, but you do realise he stands for more than just yourself right? To quote R.P McMurphy: "You see these people? They're real. These are the real ones!"


I don't know what you're talking about. He doesn't stand for me. He's a guy taking over the mafia and I'm hopeful he'll lessen the negative role the mafia plays in my life, which includes saving western civilization from the left. It's possible he won't do it, but he was the most realistic possibility. That's the entire extent of the relationship between my life and Donald Trump. Aside from the entertainment, of course. 

If people are worried that the president's demeanor is going to affect their children, then perhaps they shouldn't teach their kids to idolize the heads of the mafia.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



MillionDollarProns said:


> This was how I find out you and I are the only ones who know Lazy Town, I lowkey thought that image was the LazyTown thing too


LOOK AT THIS NET, THAT I JUST FOUND!


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

best :trump thug life video






:trump3


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> I don't know what you're talking about. He doesn't stand for me. He's a guy taking over the mafia and I'm hopeful he'll lessen the negative role the mafia plays in my life, which includes saving western civilization from the left. It's possible he won't do it, but he was the most realistic possibility. That's the entire extent of the relationship between my life and Donald Trump. Aside from the entertainment, of course.
> 
> If people are worried that the president's demeanor is going to affect their children, then perhaps they shouldn't teach their kids to idolize the heads of the mafia.


Oh please quit the drama. 

You've created such a cosy position for yourself and I don't think anyone falls for it. You make post after post praising Trump and his methods, but whenever you encounter a challenge you just say you're not actually a supporter. Atleast have the guts to admit you practically worship the ground he walks on.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Oh please quit the drama.
> 
> You've created such a cosy position for yourself and I don't think anyone falls for it. You make post after post praising Trump and his methods, but whenever you encounter a challenge you just say you're not actually a supporter. Atleast have the guts to admit you practically worship the ground he walks on.


What drama?  What challenge?  

I definitely am a Trump supporter. I supported his run for president and am glad he won. He's our best chance at saving western civilization. I hope he does what needs to be done. I'm not sure how you came to think I was suggesting anything different. 

I also immensely respect his success in the private sector (albeit aided somewhat by the use of eminent domain laws which obviously I oppose), his moral courage to put himself in the firing lines for the sake of something bigger than himself, his ability to become immensely successful in several different fields, his skills as a Master Persuader, and his ability to be entertaining as hell in general. What I disavow is any idea that as a government official he represents me in any way. I don't even want a government. But if there is one, I'll do what I can to see it is run by the potentially least destructive person possible. Believe it or not, in this election, of the people who had a chance to win, that was Donald Trump.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> What drama?  What challenge?
> 
> I definitely am a Trump supporter. I supported his run for president and am glad he won. He's our best chance at saving western civilization. I hope he does what needs to be done. I'm not sure how you came to think I was suggesting anything different.
> 
> I also immensely respect his success in the private sector (albeit aided somewhat by the use of eminent domain laws which obviously I oppose), his moral courage to put himself in the firing lines for the sake of something bigger than himself, his ability to become immensely successful in several different fields, his skills as a Master Persuader, and his ability to be entertaining as hell in general. What I disavow is any idea that as a government official he represents me in any way. I don't even want a government. But if there is one, I'll do what I can to see it is run by the potentially least destructive person possible. Believe it or not, in this election, of the people who had a chance to win, that was Donald Trump.


I don't exactly agree with your take, but I understand and respect your position. He sure is entertaining, usually in a car crash sort of way, but none the less you can't really look away :Trump


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/811977223326625792
Hey CP, how's that voting for Trump over Hilary means less likely to have WW3 or nuclear war again? :ha

But on a serious note, what do you think Trump is distracting the media from with that tweet again? His sons' charity fiasco, him appointing controversial Peter Navarro to his National Trade council or his inability to resolve his conflict of interests as president and owner of his businesses? Or just news that Clinton beat him by more than 2.8 million in the popular vote?

Because it seems like whatever he did wasn't enough so he is tweeting again a few hours later.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/812061677160202240


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/811977223326625792
> Hey CP, how's that voting for Trump over Hilary means less likely to have WW3 or nuclear war again? :ha


Seems to be going well so far. We're no longer talking about shooting down Russian planes in Syria. Why do you ask?


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Why even have nukes if you arent prepared to use them? I trust trump more than I did Hill and that hasnt changed.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> Seems to be going well so far. We're no longer talking about shooting down Russian planes in Syria. Why do you ask?


Yeah and we are talking about increasing nuclear capability. And only one other superpower seem to be talking about that. I find it ironic that you are happy with less talk about shooting down Russian planes but not concerned about both Russia and Trump talking about increasing nuclear weapon capability within the past 24hours.


----------



## Cliffy

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

praise trump for not wanting to start a war with putin tha god :mark:


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Oh I missed the tweet. Yeah I replied to that on Twitter.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/812007657431146496
Not a fan of the rhetoric about strengthening and expanding nuclear capability but it's consistent with what he said during the campaign. The second part of the tweet, where he says "until the world comes to its senses" is also consistent with what he said during one of the debates where he said he'd like countries to get rid of nuclear weapons all together. This tweet could be interpreted a few different ways, and in no way is it anything new. Let's wait and see what actions he actually takes re: nuclear weapons.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Which is why I asked what he wanted to distract the media from by tweeting that. Because over the past year now, every time Trump tweets something controversial, it is either shoot from the hip reaction to criticism on him or to distract from something bad during a news cycle. And as far as I can tell, there was nothing on the news about his hands being small the past few days.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

So America should get more Nukes, so the rest of the world gets rid of their Nukes? Only America can be trusted with Nukes? Is that the idea?


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> So America should get more Nukes, so the rest of the world gets rid of their Nukes? Only America can be trusted with Nukes? Is that the idea?


Are you scared? :troll


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

The US and Russia increased their nuclear capabilities for 45 years without getting into a nuclear war.

So what is the point of crying about WW3 in response to :trump 's tweet again? Other than trying to be snarky but coming off as ignorant.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Proof that Trump is a communist.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



deepelemblues said:


> The US and Russia increased their nuclear capabilities for 45 years without getting into a nuclear war.
> 
> So what is the point of crying about WW3 in response to :trump 's tweet again? Other than trying to be snarky but coming off as ignorant.


Are you saying the Cold War with the threat of a nuclear war was all about nothing? Because last I checked the past 45 yeas include that time period.

Of course my WW3 comment was snarky because CP claimed voting for Hilary will have a higher chance of leading the world to WW3. And of course you guys ignored the 2nd question of the post.

What is Trump trying to distract the media from?

Because he tweeted again. This time about A-list celebrities and his inaguration: lol


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

*http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/...-stockpiling-food-guns-and-emergency-supplies




Trumpocalypse? Suddenly Liberals Are The Ones Stockpiling Food, Guns And Emergency Supplies





Click to expand...

*


> Now that the shoe is on the other foot, many liberals all over America have suddenly become extremely interested in prepping. Fearing that a Trump presidency could rapidly evolve into a “Trumpocalypse”, a significant number of leftists are now stockpiling food, guns and emergency supplies. In fact, even though many had expected a sharp drop in gun sales following Trump’s victory, what actually happened is that fear of what is coming under Trump pushed background checks for gun sales to an all-time record high on Black Friday. The election of Donald Trump has awakened the left to a degree that we haven’t seen in decades, and some on the left are embracing hardcore survivalism without any apologies.
> What is ironic about all of this is that on the other end of the political spectrum interest in prepping is probably the lowest that it has ever been in the history of the modern prepper movement. A couple of weeks ago, I wrote an article about how it was like “a nuclear bomb went off in the prepping community“, and nothing has changed since that time.
> In fact, since I originally wrote that article we have gotten some hard numbers that show how dramatically optimism about the future has surged among those on the right.
> Just before the election, CNBC’s All-America Economic Survey found that only 15 percent of all Republicans believed that the economy would improve over the next year, but after the election that number skyrocketed all the way up to 74 percent.
> But among Democrats it is a different story altogether. That same CNBC survey found that optimism about the economy on the left fell by more than half after the election. At this point, it is sitting at just 16 percent.
> It would be hard to overstate how negatively many on the left feel about Trump. We have seen many of them take to the streets to angrily protest his election, and according to the BBC others have decided to stockpile food and guns “in preparation for social and economic collapse”…In America, stockpiling weapons and food, in preparation for social and economic collapse, has tended to be the preserve of right-wing libertarians and foes of “big government”. But the Liberal Prepper Facebook group – up to now a small band – reports a big increase in enquiries.
> *“A lot of people are worried that not only will [a Trump presidency] fail but that it will fail spectacularly to the point that we are going to end up on in one or more critical situations that we are just not prepared for,”* says Jeff, 36, one of the group’s members.
> 
> ​So could we see “social and economic collapse” under Trump?
> Despite the wild optimism that we are seeing on the right at the moment, without a doubt this is a possibility.
> It is funny how a single election can change our perspective on things so dramatically. During the Obama years, it seemed like the left was constantly talking about disarming everyone, but now Trump has sparked a renewed interest in gun ownership among many liberals. Prominent progressive author Ana Marie Cox is just one example…
> Witness Ana Marie Cox, a popular progressive writer with gigs at MTV and the New York Times. “So who else has been researching basic disaster prep stuff?” she polled her Twitter audience on Wednesday. “Bc—congrats, right wingers—I do not trust the government to help anymore!” Her next tweet extended the holiday merriment to our nation’s Second Amendment enthusiasts: *“Getting my rifle out of storage this week.”*​And did you know that leftists even have their own gun organization?
> It is known as “the Liberal Gun Club”, and since Trump’s victory it has experienced a huge surge in membership…
> Lara Smith, national spokesperson for the Liberal Gun Club, says *her organization has seen a “huge” rise in enquiries since November’s election and a 10% increase in paid members*.
> US gun sales hit record levels in October amid fears a Hillary Clinton election victory would lead to draconian gun control measures.
> The election of Donald Trump, who was backed by the National Rifle Association early on, was thought to bring an end to panic buying. Shares in gun manufacturers even dropped by as much as 18% following his victory.
> *Instead, FBI background checks for gun transactions soared to a new record for a single day – 185,713 – during the Black Friday sales on 25 November*, according to gun control news site The Trace.
> 
> ​Many on the right have responded to Donald Trump’s election victory by deciding that the battle is over and that it is time to go to sleep. But many on the left have been suddenly awakened and are now preparing for extremely challenging times ahead.
> I hate to say this, but in this case those on the left that are busily preparing are showing much more wisdom than many on the right that have chosen to abandon prepping altogether at this point.
> Of course most of those on the left don’t really understand the storm that is approaching. All they know is that Trump is “really bad” and therefore they need to try to get through the next four years the best that they can. Here is more from the BBC…
> “We are not looking for end of the world Mad Max-type scenarios, we are not looking at a zombie apocalypse,” says the author of a left wing survivalist blog, who also reports a surge in interest since Trump’s victory.
> *He says it is “fairly easy to predict” an economic collapse under Trump* but adds: “No matter what, the country is still going to be here in four years, there’s going to be another election.”
> 
> ​I would have to agree that a major economic downturn is quite likely in the very near future. We have been on the greatest debt binge in history during the Obama years, and it is inevitable that this bubble will burst.
> Donald Trump basically has two choices. He could try to prolong this debt bubble for as long as possible, but that would make the ultimate outcome even worse. Or he could try to deal with the crisis right away, but that would mean an extraordinary amount of pain for all of us.
> No matter who won the election, we were going to have to deal with the consequences of decades of incredibly foolish decisions sooner or later.
> Let us certainly hope for the best, but without a doubt those that are preparing for challenging times ahead are showing incredible wisdom, and this includes both liberals and conservatives.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> *http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/...-stockpiling-food-guns-and-emergency-supplies*


*

These dorks wouldn't know what to do with the guns. No Apple or Facebook and they'd go mad and commit suicide.*


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> These dorks wouldn't know what to do with the guns. No Apple or Facebook and they'd go mad and commit suicide.


No kidding. These dumb, sheltered fuckers are more than likely to shoot themselves than anyone else.


----------



## $id

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

So I just read about the two turkish soldiers being burned by the isis...he said "mom help me" which really shook me...I really hope trump really does something more than what we have seen about ISIS. Those words really shook me, I can only imagine what the mother must go through...maybe never sleep peacefully again in her life.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



$id said:


> So I just read about the two turkish soldiers being burned by the isis...he said "mom help me" which really shook me...I really hope trump really does something more than what we have seen about ISIS. Those words really shook me, I can only imagine what the mother must go through...maybe never sleep peacefully again in her life.


I honestly think that non-action is at the moment the best course of action because America picking "good islamists" and pitting them against "bad Islamists" and contining to fund the so-called "good islamists" is one of the primary sources of the problem as those fighters are either too incompetent or just way too happy to switch sides on a whim. On top of that the American military is significantly depleted and demotivated to be as effective as local militias so an all out war will likely go very poorly for the Americans. 

Pakistan's situation did not improve till America left the country alone (I know they didn't leave it entirely alone, but they significantly reduced their operations over the last few years which has allowed Pakistan to face the situation directly and clean house as best as they can by themselves). 

American action in the ME is making things worse and non-action may be the better solution.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/23/donald-trump-nuclear-weapons-arms-race

I am hoping this is just a liberal media outlet trying to make Trump look bad and not the truth. If it is the truth, it is just proving more and more than Trump is being used by Russia to further their own agenda. Much like how Bush's administration used WMD as an excuse to invade Iraq, Russia can now use Trump as an excuse to stockpile nuclear weapons.


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/812115501791006720
:heyman6

Celebrities actually WANT to go to the inauguration? This ought to be good. Can't wait to see who shows up.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The Absolute said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/812115501791006720
> :heyman6
> 
> Celebrities actually WANT to go to the inauguration? This ought to be good. Can't wait to see who shows up.


I really fucking hope that there is a "leak" and we get to find out who these low-lifes are because I'm betting that at least half of these A-listers are the ones that were involved inthe various hate campaigns. 

On a similar note: 

http://www.mrcblog.com/2016/12/rogu...conspiring-with-clinton-leader-facing-prison/



> *Rogue Electors Who Were Trying To Stop Trump WERE Conspiring With Clinton – Leader Facing Prison*
> 
> 
> Before the Electoral College met to pass their votes for president  this past Monday, rogue Colorado elector Michael Baca tried to start a movement encouraging his fellow electors to refuse to vote for Donald Trump and therefore steal the presidency from him.
> Though Baca repeatedly claimed his movement had nothing to do with Hillary Clinton, it has now been revealed that he was actually in contact with her campaign the entire time.
> Daily Mail reported that Baca’s movement ultimately failed miserably, as Trump won the electoral college handily and more electors ended up turning on Clinton than him. Now, Baca is facing prosecution in Colorado for casting his vote for Ohio Republican Governor John Kasich rather than Clinton. Colorado state law dictates that electors must vote for the candidate who won their state.
> “The strategy was simple, if virtually impossible to execute: persuade Democratic and Republican electors wary of Trump to unite behind a mainstream Republican alternative such as Ohio Gov. John Kasich or 2012 GOP nominee Mitt Romney,” Politico said of Baca’s plan. “If they could persuade 37 of the 306 Republicans on the Electoral College to ditch Trump, the election would have been thrown to the GOP-controlled House of Representatives in January.”
> Baca secretly exchanged numerous texts and emails with the Clinton campaign during his efforts. In one email exchange, he apologized to Clinton advisor Jake Sullivan for being overly urgent in another message.
> “Not at all! We all share a sense of urgency,” Sullivan wrote Baca. “Look forward to being in touch.”
> Baca also frequently texted with Clinton communications director Jennifer Palmieri, who wanted to be kept up to date about his efforts.
> “I know I will have done everything I could to stop Trump but I am just a guy at the end of the day,” Baca wrote. “Thank you so very much and I’ll trust whatever happens was the right decision.”
> Palmieri then vented about the type of campaign Trump ran, adding, “I hear you. Are you doing a press conference today?”
> When Baca replied in the affirmative, Palmieri asked, “What are you planning to say?”


http://lawnewz.com/opinion/hillary-had-one-chance-to-oust-trump-this-week-and-she-really-blew-it/



> *Hillary Had One Chance to Oust Trump This Week, and She Really Blew It*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The decision couldn’t have been an easy one for Hillary, or for her inner circle. The imagined coup of the electoral college set a new stage for Clinton. It was her choice whether to cast herself as a savior, who would deliver us from President Trump at any expense, or as a stalwart keeper of the realm, whose unwavering wisdom would dictate a guarding of our democratic system above all else. Ultimately, Hillary Clinton did neither; she acted not as savior or sage – but as politician. She waited it out, looking for the perfect moment to make her entry; when it arrived, it wasn’t quite perfect enough, and Hillary missed her chance.*
> *Today, Politico published an exclusive that pieced together the Clinton campaign’s ambivalent strategy in working with the Hamilton Electors:*
> *“Call logs, emails and text messages reveal a Clinton campaign walking a tightrope — never fully endorsing the effort, but intentionally declining to stamp it out.”*​ *The Politico story detailed the doomed timeline. Clinton’s people were silent about all things Electoral College for the month following the election. Then, on December 12, “the dam appeared to break,” when reports surfaced indicating Russia had influenced our election. John Podesta issued an urgent statement supporting the demand by Democratic electors to receive an immediate intelligence briefing. Podesta continued to tread lightly, though. His statement centered around the need for information, and was not a #NeverTrump battle cry.*



http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattve...with-electors-seeking-to-block-trump-n2262669


> *Politico: Clinton Team Was In Contact With Electors Seeking To Block Trump*
> 
> 
> 
> While former Clinton spokesperson Brian Fallon called this a shoddy coup attempt, it appears as if the Hillary team was in contact with the Electoral College effort to block Donald Trump, though they fell short of endorsing this Hail Mary attempt to stop Trump from succeeding President Barack Obama. It had no chance of succeeding and it failed on Monday, as Trump nabbed 304 of his projected 306 electoral votes to Clinton’s 227. Two Republican electors jumped ship, but five defected from Clinton offering another stinging reminder that the former secretary just couldn’t hold her base of support together, even something as ironclad as Democratic electors. There was radio silence on the subject among the Clinton camp, but _Politico_ has obtained emails that show top aides Jake Sullivan and Jennifer Palmieri in contact with those who called themselves Hamilton Electors.
> As we’ve written here before, the goal of this group was to persuade enough Republican electors to defect and vote for someone more palatable, like Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who very publicly discouraged electors from doing this. This group filed 527 papers in order to raise legal funds since 29 states have election laws that bind the Electoral College vote to the statewide winner. Two Colorado electors brought a lawsuit and two judges, one of whom was a federal judge nominated by Bill Clinton, who called the legal challenge a political stunt, shot it down. That pretty much killed the effort. Christine Pelosi, daughter of Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), lobbied hard to get a briefing on Russia’s activities during the election, writing a letter to outgoing Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. That wasn’t going to happen either, but Politico noted that it did bring her into contact with the Hamilton Electors group, though she insists that she wasn’t ordered to do anything by the Clinton camp—and that she stayed in a “separate lane,” never endorsing their effort. At the same time, both lanes had the same goals in mind, which was to either block Trump or discredit the legitimacy of his win. Keep in mind that no one serious has questioned Trump’s upset win over Clinton. _Politico_ added that the Team Clinton's radio silence seemed to have broken when the allegations about Russian interference were made:
> …a batch of correspondence obtained by POLITICO shows members of Clinton’s inner circle — including senior aides Jake Sullivan and Jennifer Palmieri — were in touch for weeks with one of the effort’s organizers as they mounted their ill-fated strategy. And despite repeated requests for guidance, Clinton’s team did not wave them off. Call logs, emails and text messages reveal a Clinton campaign walking a tightrope — never fully endorsing the effort, but intentionally declining to stamp it out. The approach was comparable, one former campaign official said, to the campaign’s passive-but-not-dismissive response to long-shot recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.
> […]
> The first conversation appears to have occurred on Nov. 29, when Sullivan and other aides joined a conference call that included Colorado elector Micheal Baca, a member of a group working to persuade Republicans in the Electoral College to abandon Trump. Baca relayed the group’s long-shot strategy: to persuade Democratic and Republican electors to unite behind an alternative candidate to Trump.
> In an email after the call, Baca apologized to Sullivan for his urgent tone.
> “Not at all! We all share a sense of urgency,” Sullivan replied. “Look forward to being in touch.”
> […]
> For more than a month after Election Day, Clinton aides were publicly silent about their view of the budding anti-Trump efforts and whether they would order their electors to remain steadfast in support of Clinton.
> But the dam appeared to break on Dec. 12. Following reports that Russia intervened in the presidential election in support of Donald Trump, Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta issued an urgent statement supporting a call by Democratic members of the Electoral College to receive an intelligence briefing before their vote.
> “Electors have a solemn responsibility under the Constitution and we support their efforts to have their questions addressed,” Podesta said in the statement.​ This plan was never going to work. The GOP was united behind Trump (90 percent of Republicans voted for him). It was the same in the Electoral College. Second, the Associated Press was able to survey 330 of the 538 electors and found that there was certainly enough of them to make Trump’s win official—and that virtually none of them had any appetite to thrust the nation into a constitutional crisis. Let’s say neither Trump nor Clinton got the necessary 270 to win. The decision then rests with the House of Representatives. You think they’re not going to vote for Trump? If you do, you’re on bath salts. Love him or hate him—Trump won the nomination. To negate that would only bolster the most conservative forces in the party, cast doubt on the entire nominating process, and create more divisions within the party. It’s a headache not worth having. Even the most ardent anti-Trump Republicans would probably see this as gross overreach since, going by the Kasich protocol, we’re going to put someone in the White House who wasn’t on the official ballot and who won less than 100 delegates in the primaries. It’s nonsense. Trump won. Period. For the House to pick someone else would certainly imperil their re-election bids in two years, and if there’s one thing that scares these folks on the Hill—it’s failing to be re-elected.
> Yet, there are some, like Elura Nanos, who feel that Clinton missed an opportunity to block Trump through the Hamilton Electors (via LawNewz):
> The plan really could have been perfect. Baca, a former Marine, and Bernie Sanders supporter, became an elector bound (but unwilling) to vote for Hillary Clinton. With Baca as non-Clinton-supporting emissary to the Republican electors, the two groups might have come together to vote their individual consciences on December 19th; even if the vote resulted in no candidate receiving the necessary 270 electoral votes, the House of Representatives might choose a mainstream Republican candidate. Baca’s plan needed some powerhouse backing – the kind of backing only Hillary Clinton could really provide. Pantsuit Nation may be ready to march on Washington, but it’s not going to do anything that Hillary opposes. She told us to accept the results of the election, and we were listening. Redirecting passions toward changing the election results would have required a nicely-packaged plea from Clinton, spelling out why faithless electing is really the right thing to do. In retrospect, December 12th may have been the date on which Hillary Clinton missed her last shot at the 2017 White House. She had one perfect opportunity to use the momentum of the Hamilton Electors without appearing a simple sore loser. The allegations of Russian involvement with the election were stunning. A credible argument could have been made that no elector should be forced to cast a vote based on potentially fraudulent election results. Framed that way, the argument would focused on the integrity of the election process, and not about the undesirable conflict between a popular versus electoral winner. Such an argument would be consistent with Clinton’s brand, and would still have allowed her to unite Trump-haters. But neither Clinton, nor Podesta, nor anyone else in the Clinton camp ever made that argument. The window closed, and December 19th happened. On that day, Michael Baca and seven other Democratic electors voted against Clinton. But only two Republican electors defected.​ First, the Russians didn’t cost Hillary Clinton the election, and a majority of voters don’t believe that hacking tilted the election towards Trump. That shortfall rests with one woman: Hillary Rodham Clinton. If she weren’t such a moron with her email arrangement, like not setting it up in the first place because the State Department would have never signed off on it, then the FBI and Director James Comey wouldn’t have been such a focal point this cycle. There would have been no criminal investigation, and maybe her numbers on character (trust, honesty, etc.) wouldn’t have sunk faster than the Titanic. The ethical questions surrounding the Clinton Foundation were not leaked by Russia, those were discovered through the work of The Associated Press, The New York Times, and others. Wikileaks has said that their sources regarding the release of Clinton-related documents are not Russian, though founder Julian Assange said that he couldn’t rule out Russia from the information that was picked up by the hacker Guccifer 2.0. Clinton lost a winnable election. And yes, her diving headlong into this effort would still make her look like a sore loser. If she couldn’t convince enough voters to get her a majority in the Electoral College outright on November 8, it’s time to call it a night.


Man, short of a military coup the Democrats tried pretty much everything shady they could've thought of. Here's hoping that the next 4 years bring back some sense to this completely soul-less and illegitimate party.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

And democrats continue to push other democrats away: 

From Brietbart: 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...-still-losing-voters-even-after-election-day/



> But Hillary’s support has eroded faster. Pew found that 96 percent of Hillary’s supporters say they’d still vote for her today. However, compared to the mere one percent Trump lost, Hillary has lost four percent of her supporters.
> The writer of the _Post_ piece, Salena Zito, noted that some Democrat Trump voters are sick and tired over how they are being portrayed in the media.
> Zito talked to a middle-aged married couple from Virginia who are Democrat Trump supporters, and they said they have about had it.
> *“On Nov. 8 I went from a responsible, hard-working, upstanding citizen to an uninformed bigot who gleefully supports Russian interference in our elections and the destruction of our republic. At least that’s what I have read in the newspaper or seen on television,” Robert from Virginia told Zito.*
> In another conversation, a Democrat named Elizabeth expressed similar frustrations.
> *“It astounds me that the press still doesn’t get it, that my party (Democrats) are blaming everyone but themselves for a poor message, poor messenger and the responsibility she bears for placing her email security in jeopardy… it’s not Comey’s fault. It’s hers,” the woman said of Hillary.*


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> I really fucking hope that there is a "leak" and we get to find out who these low-lifes are because I'm betting that at least half of these A-listers are the ones that were involved inthe various hate campaigns.
> 
> On a similar note:
> 
> http://www.mrcblog.com/2016/12/rogu...conspiring-with-clinton-leader-facing-prison/
> 
> *
> 
> http://lawnewz.com/opinion/hillary-had-one-chance-to-oust-trump-this-week-and-she-really-blew-it/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattve...with-electors-seeking-to-block-trump-n2262669
> 
> 
> Man, short of a military coup the Democrats tried pretty much everything shady they could've thought of. Here's hoping that the next 4 years bring back some sense to this completely soul-less and illegitimate party.
> *


*
Now whos interfering with the electoral process, uhh Democrats?*


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



virus21 said:


> Now whos interfering with the electoral process, uhh Democrats?


Considering they rigged the primaries against Bernie, I was only waiting for this news to come out. It was totally expected that after all the interference they've run (including that with Stein), there was no way they wouldn't attempt it with the Electors.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I'm a former Democrat that got pushed away (voted Obama twice). I can't even come close to aligning with this current incarnation.



> It astounds me that the press still doesn’t get it, that my party (Democrats) are blaming everyone but themselves for a poor message, poor messenger and the responsibility she bears for placing her email security in jeopardy… it’s not Comey’s fault. It’s hers


can't agree with this more. but im not astounded.


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

*I am of the opinion that we need more leaks like this on all politicians. We need more whistleblowers. This is the type of information that the public SHOULD be subject to but aren't. Expose the fucking lot of them.*


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



> So America should get more Nukes, so the rest of the world gets rid of their Nukes? Only America can be trusted with Nukes? Is that the idea?


It's always been that way.

- Vic


----------



## amhlilhaus

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



AryaDark said:


> *I am of the opinion that we need more leaks like this on all politicians. We need more whistleblowers. This is the type of information that the public SHOULD be subject to but aren't. Expose the fucking lot of them.*


I agree, even if its conservatives.

Im a radical. I believe big government is a greater danger to humanity than big business.

Kooky isnt it


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



MrMister said:


> I'm a former Democrat that got pushed away (voted Obama twice). I can't even come close to aligning with this current incarnation.


_Twice?!_ Did you not read any of my posts in 2012?! 

:done

:garrett


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> _Twice?!_ Did you not read any of my posts in 2012?!
> 
> :done
> 
> :garrett


:lol

I wasn't crazy about the second time. The ACA made me want to puke.

Romney made me puke more though.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



AryaDark said:


> *I am of the opinion that we need more leaks like this on all politicians. We need more whistleblowers. This is the type of information that the public SHOULD be subject to but aren't. Expose the fucking lot of them.*


I still think we should tar and feather corrupt Politicians!


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Not connected directly to Trump, but bares mention



> NICE, France — Sébastien Faustini's decision skip the firework display at the beach not only potentially saved his life — it steered his politics toward the far right.
> 
> The soft-spoken 18-year-old stayed home with his cousin and watched the Bastille Day display on TV, instead of heading to the Nice promenade as they'd planned on July 14.
> 
> A truck was driven into the crowd that night, killing 86 people.
> 
> Image: Sebastien Faustini
> Sebastien Faustini at the National Front's headquarters in Nice, France. Lauren Brigitte Chadwick
> "We could have been there," said Faustini, who is now forced to pass by the scene of attack daily on his way to university. "Everyday that hits me."
> 
> Three weeks ago, he joined France's far-right National Front.
> 
> "Certain media organizations stigmatize members of the National Front calling them fascists, insults that have nothing to do with the party's program," Faustini told NBC News.
> 
> Faustini is far from alone. Many millennials are embracing the National Front — which boasts a founder who had been fined repeatedly for racism and anti-Semitism. They say recent terrorist attacks across Europe and high unemployment levels validate their personal views and the party's anti-immigration stance.
> 
> "THE FAILURE OF THE RIGHT TO DO SOMETHING AND THE FAILURE OF THE LEFT TO CHANGE ANYTHING MAKES MARINE LE PEN THE PERSON WHO REPRESENTS CHANGE"
> According to a report released by polling organization Odoxa on Dec. 16, the National Front is the political party with the most support among French people aged 18-34. Roughly one-in-five back it.
> 
> The party is currently led by Marine Le Pen, who is one of the country's most popular politicians. She is currently second in the polls to become president in next spring's elections.
> 
> Le Pen's platform includes exiting the European Union, stopping free movement at the French border, sending asylum seekers back to their native countries, and introducing tariffs as part of protectionist economic policies to put "France first."
> 
> Critics say her platform is fueled by fear and xenophobia, sentiments already on the rise after a series of terrorist attacks.
> 
> 
> But young supporters say they feel vindicated by what they call the "wave" — Brexit, the election of Donald Trump and the Italian vote against constitutional reforms — sweeping across the West.
> 
> National Front activists call themselves "patriots" who care about French identity.
> 
> Bryan Masson, an 18-year-old student who runs the youth division of the National Front in Nice, recalled trembling with excitement as he watched Trump's triumph.
> 
> "For us it was a victory too," Masson said over coffee in the center of the vacation destination.
> 
> Image: Marine Le Pen
> Marine Le Pen visits a Christmas market in Paris on Dec. 8. Francois Mori / AP
> He said it was an "extremely positive" sign for Le Pen, because she is also a candidate for the people who is working against the establishment in Paris.
> 
> But Le Pen is hardly a new face in French politics.
> 
> Her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, founded the National Front more than 40 years ago. Since taking over as party president in 2011, his daughter has set out to separate the party from his anti-Semitic comments.
> 
> She insists he no longer speaks for the party — even though he remains the National Front's honorary president.
> 
> Marine Le Pen is wooing frustrated supporters of the traditional conservative and socialist parties. The party's campaign logo is a blue rose: a symbol that joins the traditional rose of the left wing with the color blue of the right wing.
> 
> Her efforts to "detoxify" the party appear to be working with young people, who didn't experience her dad's legacy.
> 
> Young party activists say that they believe many of their friends will vote for Le Pen in next year's presidential election, even though they say it's taboo for sympathizers to admit it.
> 
> In Nice, Le Pen's rhetoric on immigration resonates most.
> 
> Image: Cyril Martinez and friends at the National Front office in Nice
> Cyril Martinez (left) does a Trump impression at the National Front's office in Nice, France, on Dec. 15. Lauren Brigitte Chadwick
> Masson and his friends joked around in the city's empty National Front offices after class earlier this month, erupting into laughter as activist Cyril Martinez imitated Trump saying he would build a wall to keep Mexicans out.
> 
> They all live close to Italy — which has been one of the front lines as Europe grapples with an influx from migrants from the Middle East, Africa and beyond — and want France to impose stricter controls at its borders.
> 
> Michael Payet, another one of the Masson's friends, is voting for Marine Le Pen because his father is a police officer at the border who sees the flow of migrants daily.
> 
> "Most are not even Syrian," Payet said.
> 
> "We live 20 minutes from the door to France," Masson added. "It creates a real security problem."
> 
> They agree that the government should care about the French people before the migrants.
> 
> Image: Michael Payet and Bryan Masson
> Michael Payet and Bryan Masson at a cafe in Nice, France. Lauren Brigitte Chadwick
> Many young National Front activists interviewed by NBC News spoke at length about radical Islam and concerns about religion in France.
> 
> They want immigrants to assimilate to French culture, speak the language and even "eat French," eliminating halal as a meal option.
> 
> Many of them said they had only recently become interested in politics.
> 
> 
> Manon Bouquin, a 24-year-old history student at the renowned Paris-Sorbonne University, joined the National Front two years ago.
> 
> Bouquin, who said she doesn't follow any religion, is concerned that mosques are being built in her hometown, in the capital's suburbs.
> 
> In terms of immigration, she would welcome Christians from the Middle East.
> 
> Bouquin said she was happy that Trump won in the United States; although she disagrees with his statements about women, his international policies are in line with her beliefs.
> 
> The day after the U.S. election, she tweeted a picture of herself wearing a "Make America Great Again" hat.
> 
> View image on Twitter
> View image on Twitter
> Follow
> Manon Bouquin @Manon_Bouquin
> Congrats from France!#MakeAmericaGreatAgain
> 1:48 AM - 9 Nov 2016
> 4 4 Retweets 9 9 likes
> Gaëtan Dussausaye quit studying for his master's degree at the Sorbonne aged 20 when Marine Le Pen named him director of the National Front's youth division.
> 
> Two year later, he says that a broader message of change is driving many young people to back Le Pen.
> 
> "The failure of the right to do something and the failure of the left to change anything makes Marine Le Pen the person who represents change," he said.
> 
> Image: Gaetan Dussausaye
> Gaetan Dussausaye. Lauren Brigitte Chadwick
> The National Front typically does better among "uneducated young people," according to Jean-Yves Camus, a political analyst who has studied the far right for decades. "They tend to think in terms of black and white: globalization is bad and if we go back to the old borders and old currency everything will change overnight."
> 
> The party remains unpopular at universities.
> 
> In November, the Paris Institute for Political Studies, also known as SciencesPo Paris, canceled the planned speech of National Front Vice-President Florian Philippot. The cancellation came after students protested what they called a "racist" party.
> 
> Philippot compared the protests to Season 8 of "The Walking Dead" — which includes scenes of chaos and brutality — calling the students "fascists" who did not believe in "democracy."
> 
> David Masson-Weyl, a 24-year-old masters student, founded a National Front student group last year at SciencesPo Paris.
> 
> Image: David Masson-Weyl
> David Masson-Weyl Lauren Brigitte Chadwick
> He needed 120 votes to receive support from the students to gain official status.
> 
> "We really doubted that it would happen." When it did, he said, it was due to students' desire "to have all ideas represented," rather than students' support for the ideology itself.
> 
> "Most students are open to debate," he added.
> 
> But questions remain about what the party stands for.
> 
> Philippot, a 35-year-old gay man, serves as the main inspiration for young activists in Paris who say the National Front is neither right nor left. However, the party's rising star — 26-year-old Marion Maréchal-Le Pen, who happens to be Marine Le Pen's niece — is a social conservative.
> 
> Image: Marion Marechal-Le Pen on Nov. 25, 2016
> Marion Marechal-Le Pen MAURIZIO DEGL'INNOCENTI / EPA
> Philippot and Maréchal-Le Pen recently spent several weeks arguing publicly over the reimbursement of abortion fees.
> 
> "There are certainly tensions between the two groups," Bryan Masson said. "Young National Front activists in Paris say they're not left or right. In reality, they're left," he explained. "Here in the South, we're a part of the right."
> 
> Overall, political parties are highly unpopular in France. According to the Odoxa poll, most young people do not talk about politics because it seems distant from real life, even though they still intend to vote in the upcoming election.
> 
> Odoxa also found that 67 percent of respondents aged 18 - 34 expressed a negative view of the National Front — compared to 69 percent feeling similarly about the Socialists and 65 percent about the Republicans.
> 
> Some of those who are not supporting Marine Le Pen say they are considering voting against her rather than voting for someone in whom they actually believe.
> 
> 
> Ph.D. students Walid Chaiehloudj and Said Benkhalyl in Nice, France are of North African descent and both consider the National Front's policies to be "xenophobic."
> 
> They doubt that Marine Le Pen's plan to leave the European Union will work.
> 
> "Without the European Union, France isn't very important," Chaiehloudj said, adding that France would not remain a "major power."
> 
> Related: Paris Attacks Inspire Huge Influx in Police Recruits
> 
> They agree that recent terror attacks have helped the National Front and driven French politics to the right.
> 
> On security, National Front politicians "don't even need to open their mouths," Benkhalyl said. Muslims are the "scapegoats of this time period."
> 
> But despite the change message, Jean-Marie Le Pen still casts a long shadow over the party.
> 
> Image: Jean-Marie Le Pen
> Jean-Marie Le Pen, founder of France's far-right National Front, has been convicted repeatedly of racism and anti-Semitism. He also referred to Nazi gas chambers as a "detail" of World War II history. PHILIPPE LOPEZ / AFP - Getty Images
> At a Dec. 11 gathering of the nationalist group Terre et Peuple — or Land and People — a Jean-Marie Le Pen surrogate delivered a message that evoked the Nazi-collaborating Vichy government slogan: work, family, homeland.
> 
> NBC News attended the event but was accompanied by a security guard and prohibited from interviewing any of the roughly 400 people who attended there.
> 
> One man had a Confederate flag stitched onto his jacket. Another carried a copy of Adolf Hitler's autobiography "Mein Kampf."
> 
> Terre et Peuple's magazine has included articles on ethnic war, the "horror" of globalization, and "combative" Islam.
> 
> The crowd cheered as Le Pen's message was read aloud endorsing their patriotism and trumpeting a message of French identity.
> 
> Those factors are driving many French millennials towards the party, despite its history.
> 
> Image: Manon Bouquin
> Manon Bouquin Lauren Brigitte Chadwick
> Bouquin, the 24-year-old history student, wears a medal around her neck that represents Napoléon Bonaparte, a symbol of French power and history for her.
> 
> "In public school, we learned about slavery and the Vichy government [which collaborated with the Nazis during World War II]. We only learn about the somber moments of French history … Kids with immigrant parents will hear that and not want to be French," Bouquin said. "We have to teach people to be patriotic."
> 
> Nicolas Aslah, a 23-year-old student from Saint-Omer, a northern village in the Pas-de-Calais region, says his ancestors fought in World War II to defend France, not Europe.
> 
> "Europe is not something utopian," he said. "It's a betrayal."
> 
> Lauren Chadwick is a Scoville Fellow based in Washington, D.C. She reported from Paris, Nanterre and Nice, France.


http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/france-s-national-front-finds-support-among-millennials-n697681


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*






*Jeb Bush*: My mother is the strongest woman I know.

*Donald Trump*: She should be running.

:lol

- Vic


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



> Le Pen's platform includes exiting the European Union, stopping free movement at the French border, sending asylum seekers back to their native countries, and introducing tariffs as part of protectionist economic policies to put "France first."


Exiting the EU, closing the border (trigger warning for my more stubborn libertarian friends), and sending back refugees is exactly what France needs. Hope she wins, for the sake of Europe. 

Of course wanting to halt immigration when you have serious immigration problems, and wanting to put France first over the globalist agenda has to be smeared as being FAR RIGHT politics. :lol Look, guys! We're calling them EXTREMISTS! Isn't this so convincing despite the complete lack of an actual argument?!

^ Those Rand Paul slams. :mj2 Why did you go on the attack, Rand?


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

The National Front and similar parties don't have much value in what they want to do aside from basic and obvious security decisions that anyone with a brain should support, but what they do do that is worthwhile is clear the ground for less fascist-footsie playing parties to take power and implement sensible policies in the future.


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Vic Capri said:


> *Jeb Bush*: My mother is the strongest woman I know.
> 
> *Donald Trump*: She should be running.
> 
> :lol
> 
> - Vic


"Because you'd be in jail."

:sodone

Still the best pipebomb from this election.


----------



## -XERO-

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/812775230875766789


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> Exiting the EU, closing the border (trigger warning for my more stubborn libertarian friends), and sending back refugees is exactly what France needs. Hope she wins, for the sake of Europe.
> 
> Of course wanting to halt immigration when you have serious immigration problems, and wanting to put France first over the globalist agenda has to be smeared as being FAR RIGHT politics. :lol Look, guys! We're calling them EXTREMISTS! Isn't this so convincing despite the complete lack of an actual argument?!
> 
> ^ Those Rand Paul slams. :mj2 Why did you go on the attack, Rand?


I love about 90% of Libertarian policies except open borders. In this day and age it's just stupid.


----------



## Hencheman_21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I find it funny that Putin is telling the Dems to get over the election (the one they won the popular vote in) while he is still not over the USSR losing the Cold War.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Hencheman_21 said:


> I find it funny that Putin is telling the Dems to get over the election (the one they won the popular vote in) while he is still not over the USSR losing the Cold War.


Well if the popular vote meant anything, maybe there would be a point but since it does not, it's moot. I find it funny that it's the Democrats starting up Cold War nonsense by blaming the Russians for everything. Maybe Putin wants them to get over it so we can actually have you know, peace?


----------



## Hencheman_21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> Well if the popular vote meant anything, maybe there would be a point but since it does not, it's moot. I find it funny that it's the Democrats starting up Cold War nonsense by blaming the Russians for everything. Maybe Putin wants them to get over it so we can actually have you know, peace?


Yea kind of silly thinking the people should of the UNITED states should elect their president in a democracy. What a crazy thought. Heck even a electoral college that did not have states vote all or nothing would be nice but to much to ask for I guess. 

Yep Putin does want peace. Piece of Afghanistan. Piece of Ukraine. Piece of Serbia... And shame on Dems for forcing Putin to talk about increasing their Nuclear arsenal.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Hencheman_21 said:


> Yea kind of silly thinking the people should of the UNITED states should elect their president in a democracy. What a crazy thought. Heck even a electoral college that did not have states vote all or nothing would be nice but to much to ask for I guess.
> 
> Yep Putin does want peace. Piece of Afghanistan. Piece of Ukraine. Piece of Serbia... And shame on Dems for forcing Putin to talk about increasing their Nuclear arsenal.


For the 20th time, if the popular vote determined who the president would be, then both campaigns would have campaigned differently, and you don't know who would've won the popular vote in that case (my money would be on the Master Persuader). The fact that the electoral college decides who becomes presidents sets the campaign strategy. Candidates then only tend to campaign in states they think might actually be in play, i.e not safe states like California or New York, which also happen to be two of the most populous states in the country. Talking about the popular vote after an election decided by the electoral college is meaningless and uninformed.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



> Yea kind of silly thinking the people should of the UNITED states should elect their president in a democracy. What a crazy thought. Heck even a electoral college that did not have states vote all or nothing would be nice but to much to ask for I guess.


*BREAKING NEWS*: The popular vote is still irrelevant.

- Vic


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> For the 20th time, if the popular vote determined who the president would be, then both campaigns would have campaigned differently, and you don't know who would've won the popular vote in that case (my money would be on the Master Persuader). The fact that the electoral college decides who becomes presidents sets the campaign strategy. Candidates then only tend to campaign in states they think might actually be in play, i.e not safe states like California or New York, which also happen to be two of the most populous states in the country. Talking about the popular vote after an election decided by the electoral college is meaningless and uninformed.


hillary won the popular vote.























































































































:troll


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

*Hillary, by winning the popular vote, can take that and add two dollars to it and buy a cup of coffee. Congratulations Hillary!! *


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Hencheman_21 said:


> Yea kind of silly thinking the people should of the UNITED states should elect their president in a democracy. What a crazy thought. Heck even a electoral college that did not have states vote all or nothing would be nice but to much to ask for I guess.
> 
> Yep Putin does want peace. Piece of Afghanistan. Piece of Ukraine. Piece of Serbia... And shame on Dems for forcing Putin to talk about increasing their Nuclear arsenal.


It's been explained several times, this wasn't a rule change at the end, both parties knew what they had to do to win. It wasn't somehow unfair to Hillary, if anything Hillary had all the positive media narrative from CNN and many newspapers. The EC has benefited the Democrats too, let's say it went by popular vote, how do you know Hillary would have even won? How do we know if the Government went through all of California's votes that they'd all be legit? See, it's all just speculation. Besides this a Republic.

If you know how to play a game, you don't cry about losing when you know what you're doing. So if a football team wins by scoring nothing but field goals while the other team fails to score any points, should the game be changed? If I enter a taste test competition and my food is prettier but not as tasty, should the rules be changed? It's completely silly.

The whole Russian thing is dumb, the fact the Democrats are blaming Russia for everything while denying Islamic terror is pretty laughable.

Honest question, if Trump won the popular vote and hillary won by the EC, would you still be bitching?


----------



## scarface12

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Trump would have won the popular vote if California was excluded. California, or a least parts of it, are a tumor on the US and should be expelled.


----------



## Hencheman_21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> For the 20th time, if the popular vote determined who the president would be, then both campaigns would have campaigned differently, and you don't know who would've won the popular vote in that case (my money would be on the Master Persuader). The fact that the electoral college decides who becomes presidents sets the campaign strategy. Candidates then only tend to campaign in states they think might actually be in play, i.e not safe states like California or New York, which also happen to be two of the most populous states in the country. Talking about the popular vote after an election decided by the electoral college is meaningless and uninformed.


And you think that campaigning different would really have mattered? People pretty much were set on their votes and extra ads here or less ads there were not going to change that. Actually just throwing your hands up and saying the main election does not matter due to the electoral college is being uniformed. The electoral college does not set states to have the electoral votes to go to the winner of the general election in a winner takes all matter. They can split the votes to be in line with the general election. Sadly some states do not do that which in effect destroys the reason for the electoral college which is to keep larger states from having more influence in the election than smaller ones. 



Miss Sally said:


> It's been explained several times, this wasn't a rule change at the end, both parties knew what they had to do to win. It wasn't somehow unfair to Hillary, if anything Hillary had all the positive media narrative from CNN and many newspapers. The EC has benefited the Democrats too, let's say it went by popular vote, how do you know Hillary would have even won? How do we know if the Government went through all of California's votes that they'd all be legit? See, it's all just speculation. Besides this a Republic.
> 
> If you know how to play a game, you don't cry about losing when you know what you're doing. So if a football team wins by scoring nothing but field goals while the other team fails to score any points, should the game be changed? If I enter a taste test competition and my food is prettier but not as tasty, should the rules be changed? It's completely silly.
> 
> The whole Russian thing is dumb, the fact the Democrats are blaming Russia for everything while denying Islamic terror is pretty laughable.
> 
> Honest question, if Trump won the popular vote and hillary won by the EC, would you still be bitching?


This goes beyond Hillary. This is the 2nd time in the last 5 elections that states that have their electoral votes up in a winner takes all situation that has ruined the will of the people. The US President election in one of those rare situations where you can finish in 2nd and STILL win. I am sure the GOP is happy but the day might come where things are switched and then they will be the ones saying the system needs to be fixed. 

And if you know the scoring system is wrong you keep trying to change it so that it is correct. You do not just put your hands in your pocket and kick the ground going "oh shucks, it is what it is". This is America which is supposed to be a democracy. You know, a government for the people BY the people. You can stand there and accept it as it is but real Americans will try and shine light on the problem and get it fixed. 

Oh so since they ignore the problem of terrorist they should ignore the problem of foreign countries including Russia hacking and influencing things in our country. Mkay then. 

I am not bitching, simply pointing out a fact. Are you saying you are the only one who can make a point without bitching? As far as your scenario I would be saying "told you so since 2000". When the electoral college messed up back there I said some states are ruining the system. I also said that while it hurt the Dems then it could one day hurt the GOP and thus both sides should work to fix this issue. Now I would not be saying as much about it now as all I would have to say is I agree with Trump who would be making a stink about it. You know, Trump, the guy who said BEFORE the election it was rigged yet since he won has decided it is fine and a true symbol of the will of the people >


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

The majority isn't the best way to go about passing laws and shit. 

- Muslims have a majority in Muslim countries and look at their wonderful laws:

- Homosexuality is criminalized
- Slavery still hasn't been abolished and most countries
- In one muslim country women cannot drive
- In the same muslim country women cannot leave the country with the express written permission of their husbands/fathers and even brothers
- In regional muslim controlled areas, tribal leaders and kangaroo courts pass judgements on honor killings
- In almost all muslim countries women can be jailed for being raped
- In almost all muslim countries with a muslim majority it takes the government years (if not decades) to address the terrorists in their countries because huge majorities of hardline and conservative muslims literally block any moves against terrorists. 
- In some muslim majority countries female genital mutilation is still legal

Now let's look at other purely democratic decisions:

- State sanctioned firing squads were a thing and the majority loved it
- Majority powers allowed the Jim Crow laws to be enacted in many States across the country
- Britishers will soon have every single thing in their internet history known to dozens of government organizations
- Calgary decided that there should be no flouride in their water and that led to an increase in dental problems in children
- Australia passed a carbon tax which they eventually rescinded because they realized that A) it did nothing and B) It hurt the economy which still hasn't recovered
- The democratic process allowed for European countries and their open borders to refugees which has led to an unprecedented increase in criminal activity
- The majority government voted in by the people in Canada will soon pass a law where it would be criminal to refer to individuals without their preferred pronouns
- In most Christian / Jew majority countries Male genital mutilation is still legal
- Just look at the mess of Anti-Drug laws in any democratic countries (especially in the States)

These are just some examples off the top of my head and I didn't even have to dig too deep. 

When you think about it populism is exactly what the popular vote signifies and the Electoral College worked perfectly this year to keep the populist demagogue (I love that the media tried to spin Trump as a demagogue while shielding the real demagogue) from winning. It has now gone down for me personally as one of the greatest systems of checks and balances ever created in the history of democracy as far as I'm concerned. 

Sure, it isn't perfect, but it's consistently kept America from moving further and further into one direction (be it right or left) and by default curtailed the political power of a partisan group from enacting the ideas of the majority ... Just because a group has majority does not mean that their ideas are better. 

If you're a proponent of majority dictates the rules for all, then if the minority disagrees and especially in cases where the majority can pass laws that are horrible for overall society by and large you need the electoral college system that exists in the states. 

If you don't like it. Then fuck off and go live in a muslim country where laws are passed democratically where they enact laws based on majority beliefs.


----------



## Hencheman_21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Ah the old "If you do not like it get out" argument. The truest sign of someone who has NO idea what democracy and the US is all about. A sign of someone who enjoys being walked over and thanks the other person for the opportunity. 

The electoral college was put in to keep larger states from having more say than smaller states. As we saw this year and 2000 the electoral college. as it is being done, is giving more power to the larger states. 

But yea, let us not let the path of the country be determined by the people. Best to let the rich and powerful few control things. Forget all the sacrifices of the men and women over the decades including giving their lives so we could have a government of the people for the people. Let's go back to a select society running things. The rest of us can stop worrying about such matters and used that saved time and energy to worship our leaders and simply do as they say.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Hencheman_21 said:


> But yea, let us not let the path of the country be determined by the people. Best to let the rich and powerful few control things. Forget all the sacrifices of the men and women over the decades including giving their lives so we could have a government of the people for the people. Let's go back to a select society running things. The rest of us can stop worrying about such matters and used that saved time and energy to worship our leaders and simply do as they say.


And none of this would've changed with Hillary being president either.

A drastic change to the way potential candidates are elected is in order, because Hillary being president wouldn't change a damn thing you just said.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Hencheman_21 said:


> Ah the old "If you do not like it get out" argument. The truest sign of someone who has NO idea what democracy and the US is all about. A sign of someone who enjoys being walked over and thanks the other person for the opportunity.
> 
> The electoral college was put in to keep larger states from having more say than smaller states. As we saw this year and 2000 the electoral college. as it is being done, is giving more power to the larger states.
> 
> But yea, let us not let the path of the country be determined by the people. Best to let the rich and powerful few control things. Forget all the sacrifices of the men and women over the decades including giving their lives so we could have a government of the people for the people. Let's go back to a select society running things. The rest of us can stop worrying about such matters and used that saved time and energy to worship our leaders and simply do as they say.


As expected. Way to ignore all the examples of majority rules going wrong that I posted before you got to the part which you could actually argue. :lmao

Majority rules leads countries to pulling further and further away from minority concerns and we've already seen this in European countries where the blowback took multiple decades to even start. Majority governments come into power and once they gain power there's nothing left to prevent them from enacting bullshit that the people don't want because simply voting in a majority government isn't enough. This could be true for the kind of minority government that Trump could lead as well, however, the important thing to note here is the main jist of my argument which is that majority = democracy (yes), but majority also equals regress and not progress and has historically proven to lead countries to passing some really bullshit laws. Especially in countries where the majority wants to willingly subjugate minorities. 

But yeah, feel free to ignore the most integral part of my argument and the entire context of my argument fpalm Wouldn't expect anything less from you as I've seen similar behaviour in the past.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Hencheman_21 said:


> And you think that campaigning different would really have mattered? People pretty much were set on their votes and extra ads here or less ads there were not going to change that. Actually just throwing your hands up and saying the main election does not matter due to the electoral college is being uniformed. The electoral college does not set states to have the electoral votes to go to the winner of the general election in a winner takes all matter. They can split the votes to be in line with the general election. Sadly some states do not do that which in effect destroys the reason for the electoral college which is to keep larger states from having more influence in the election than smaller ones.
> 
> 
> 
> This goes beyond Hillary. This is the 2nd time in the last 5 elections that states that have their electoral votes up in a winner takes all situation that has ruined the will of the people. The US President election in one of those rare situations where you can finish in 2nd and STILL win. I am sure the GOP is happy but the day might come where things are switched and then they will be the ones saying the system needs to be fixed.
> 
> And if you know the scoring system is wrong you keep trying to change it so that it is correct. You do not just put your hands in your pocket and kick the ground going "oh shucks, it is what it is". This is America which is supposed to be a democracy. You know, a government for the people BY the people. You can stand there and accept it as it is but real Americans will try and shine light on the problem and get it fixed.
> 
> Oh so since they ignore the problem of terrorist they should ignore the problem of foreign countries including Russia hacking and influencing things in our country. Mkay then.
> 
> I am not bitching, simply pointing out a fact. Are you saying you are the only one who can make a point without bitching? As far as your scenario I would be saying "told you so since 2000". When the electoral college messed up back there I said some states are ruining the system. I also said that while it hurt the Dems then it could one day hurt the GOP and thus both sides should work to fix this issue. Now I would not be saying as much about it now as all I would have to say is I agree with Trump who would be making a stink about it. You know, Trump, the guy who said BEFORE the election it was rigged yet since he won has decided it is fine and a true symbol of the will of the people >


Again, would you be bringing this up had Hillary won by EC and Trump won by popular vote? Let's say it went by popular vote and Trump still won, would you think it was working as intended? Let's say California was hardcore Republican and every election Republicans won because California is densely populated, would you be fine with this? What if the nation started doing everything by popular vote, let's say gay marriage was overturned because of popular vote, would you accept it? What if things kept getting passed by 50.5% of the population every time, would popular vote still be awesome?

It's the will of the people after all. 

Everyone loves to shout about the will of the people until Brexit happens, then it's only certain people should vote. Let's be honest, people only like the idea of a popular vote because they think that the vote is going to be on their side forever.

Why is it a general consensus that the majority of people are stupid yet you want there to be a voting process in which that majority decides everything? The EC safeguards us from large populations of morons following party lines voting in whoever promises them free stuff.


----------



## Hencheman_21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Oda Nobunaga said:


> And none of this would've changed with Hillary being president either.
> 
> A drastic change to the way potential candidates are elected is in order, because Hillary being president wouldn't change a damn thing you just said.


Where did I say it would be different if Hillary was in charge. But the scenario I am talking about is instead of an election we just have something like a monarchy. Granted whoever won the election things suck but I prefer to at least let the people have a voice in the selection even if it is a pick between two crappy choices. 
@Carte Blanche so your answer is throw out the baby with the bath water huh. Since some democracies fail we should give up on them.



Miss Sally said:


> Again, would you be bringing this up had Hillary won by EC and Trump won by popular vote? Let's say it went by popular vote and Trump still won, would you think it was working as intended? Let's say California was hardcore Republican and every election Republicans won because California is densely populated, would you be fine with this? What if the nation started doing everything by popular vote, let's say gay marriage was overturned because of popular vote, would you accept it? What if things kept getting passed by 50.5% of the population every time, would popular vote still be awesome?
> 
> It's the will of the people after all.
> 
> Everyone loves to shout about the will of the people until Brexit happens, then it's only certain people should vote. Let's be honest, people only like the idea of a popular vote because they think that the vote is going to be on their side forever.
> 
> Why is it a general consensus that the majority of people are stupid yet you want there to be a voting process in which that majority decides everything? The EC safeguards us from large populations of morons following party lines voting in whoever promises them free stuff.


Again, as I said I would point out that I mentioned this issue back in 2000. In other words, yes I would point it out but mostly I would be just saying I agreed with Trump who would be the most vocal about the problem had he won the general election but lost due to electoral college. 

If the electoral college did not have winner take all states it would not matter if one large state voted all Dem or all GOP because even if one side got 90% in the general election that is all they would get in the electoral college, not 100%. That is the issue I have with the electoral college. Winner take all states goes against the reason we have the electoral college. 

As far as your other examples, that is why we elect officials. They pass most of the laws. They represent the people. Yes sometimes they might go against the will of the people and if the people feel it is too much they will not be re-elected. A good official will balance the will of the people with what is for the best of the people. Heck sometimes the will of the people gets trumped by the Constitution. As far as things passing with only 50.5%, if you follow politics even a small amount which is really all I do you would know that often you need a majority, be it 2/3 or 3/4 which are common, for things to pass. 

Actually the electoral college was put in to keep people voting for someone from their state and thus bigger states electing their people. When states, especially larger ones are winner takes all that goes against the reason. The electoral voters should be split based on the general election with things rounded up for the winner. If all states did it that way it would not guarantee the same results in both cases but it would happen more often than it can with winner take all states.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Merry Christmas, pro-trumpers. :trump

and others too, i guess. :carlo


----------



## Hencheman_21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Hey it is a Merry Christmas for us anti-Trumpers. I get to sit back the next 2-4 years and see things go to crap and just laugh because I am not responsible. The only thing that is not going to be merry is watching gas prices start going back up. I was enjoying paying less than $2 for a gallon. I expect it to be over $3 this summer.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Donald Trump won the state of Michigan by 10,704 votes. 

Hillary Clinton received 129,000+ fewer votes out of the urban center of Detroit, a mecca of Democratic politics, than Barack Obama did in 2012.

Hillary won Philadelphia in an 82%-18% landslide but that was not enough to match what Obama produced in 2012, with an 85% win for the decisive city, the base of which is the black vote which votes overwhelmingly Democratic, in a swing state that had not swung toward a Republican ticket in nearly three decades. Trump's appeal with working class whites was also arguably most pronounced in western and central Pennsylvania (well, and Ohio, which was pretty obviously going to swing toward Trump). 

Trump very well may have defeated Obama but it would doubtless have been a far closer contest. Historically blacks vote in near-lockstep for black Democratic candidates, and Obama is the national apotheosis of this, as well as scoring higher than Hillary did with Latinos and the young in general. That said many good stories came out discussing the depressed black turnout in myriad critical Democratic cities, such as Milwaukee, that pointed out that at least a fair number of blacks had grown disenchanted with the U.S. political system entire after eight lackluster-at-best years from Obama in the White House. Milwaukee's District 15 featured the steepest drop-off, an 84% black area that is growing increasingly dilapidated. All while one blue collar county in western Wisconsin which had gone with Obama in 2008 and 2012 flipped for Trump. 

Hillary/Trump was the perfect storm for the latter candidate.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Only Obama would be delusional to think he could've won a 3rd term given his failed policies that resulted in skyrocketing health care premiums thanks to Obamacare.

- Vic


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Obama going on the war path to do as much damage as possible for the incoming president is a little sad and displays his megalomanical state of mind. I liked him a few years ago, but lately he's been on one of the worst power trips I've seen from any American president personally.


Yeah, his pushing for the US ambassador to abstain from the resolution condemning Israel's settlements (a fuck you move to our staunchest ally in the ME), and now he is looking at releasing at least 18 more prisoners from Guantanamo Bay as he is pushing to empty that thing out before he leaves (as you have many of the released in the past now returning to the war against radical Islam). He has also made clear he will not be the ex-President who allows his successor to do his thing without interference, and wants to have a hand in rebuilding a party that he helped to destroy (look at all the legislative and gubernatorial seats the Dems have lost in the 8 years he has been POTUS). 

Carter is now looking at everything and saying, "At least I won't be considered the worst President ever now."


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



DesolationRow said:


> Donald Trump won the state of Michigan by 10,704 votes.
> 
> Hillary Clinton received 129,000+ fewer votes out of the urban center of Detroit, a mecca of Democratic politics, than Barack Obama did in 2012.
> 
> Hillary won Philadelphia in an 82%-18% landslide but that was not enough to match what Obama produced in 2012, with an 85% win for the decisive city, the base of which is the black vote which votes overwhelmingly Democratic, in a swing state that had not swung toward a Republican ticket in nearly three decades. Trump's appeal with working class whites was also arguably most pronounced in western and central Pennsylvania (well, and Ohio, which was pretty obviously going to swing toward Trump).
> 
> Trump very well may have defeated Obama but it would doubtless have been a far closer contest. Historically blacks vote in near-lockstep for black Democratic candidates, and Obama is the national apotheosis of this, as well as scoring higher than Hillary did with Latinos and the young in general. That said many good stories came out discussing the depressed black turnout in myriad critical Democratic cities, such as Milwaukee, that pointed out that at least a fair number of blacks had grown disenchanted with the U.S. political system entire after eight lackluster-at-best years from Obama in the White House. Milwaukee's District 15 featured the steepest drop-off, an 84% black area that is growing increasingly dilapidated. All while one blue collar county in western Wisconsin which had gone with Obama in 2008 and 2012 flipped for Trump.
> 
> Hillary/Trump was the perfect storm for the latter candidate.


I normally don't disagree with you, but on this I'm disagreeing with you. I don't think it would have been closer. We have several black advocacy groups at the moment that are lukewarm at best with Obama. Even BLM isn't as pro-Obama as they blame at least partially his administration for not helping improve the situation of police brutality against blacks. I personally disagree with BLM entirely, but at the same time have to acknowledge that a lot of blacks don't and BLM was mostly neutral when it came to picking their choice of president and therefore had an impact on lower black turnout. There was no enthusiasm in the BLM endoresement of democrats and I find it unlikely that they would have had any enthusiasm for a third Obama term. Had there been another black candidate fielded by the democrats and _maybe_ he would've galvanized the black vote but not Obama. 

At the same time, we can't ignore the fact that Obama lost as much as Clinton did because he was on the campaign trail himself reminding voters (which weren't turning out for him either we have to remember) that his policies were the policies of the next democratic president. They really did get so caught up in their own ego that their policies were perfect that they didn't even stop consider for a moment that the rust belt was sick and tired of those policies and seeing their lives get worse and therefore voted against those policies. Whether blacks would have continued to vote Obama is highly debateable because I've seen many groups openly come out and condemn Obama for not doing enough to improve their lives as minorities and that would have kept the turn out low for him as well. It's really his ego at this point that's got him convinced that he simply cannot lose. And that's fine. He can believe it all he wants. But while campaigning FOR Hillary he already did lose because everyone knows that Hillary and Obama have pretty much the same policies and attitudes and it's next to impossible to tell who was really in power during those two terms. 

It all came down the democrats policy direction in the end and we can talk about depressed black voters (which Obama could not convince to vote for Hillary) all we want, but in the end my conclusion is that it was just time for the democrats to go and no candidate from that party could have won because voters aren't dumb and they voted against the policies, not the politicians.

---
@BruiserKC - Agreed on all counts. And here's another one Obama just passed. 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidbl...parting-shots-at-eagles-and-oil/#58cc465d3e26

Oh Look. Here's another anti-environment regulation this piece of shit passed on his way out. 



> The Obama Administration’s Fish and Wildlife Service quietly finalized a new regulation on Dec. 14 governing the permitting and operation of high-speed wind turbines. The regulation allows wind companies to operate high-speed turbines for up to 30 years, and kill up to 4,200 bald eagles without fear of federal fines or other penalties.
> In a statement issued in conjunction with the new regulation, Fish and Wildlife Director Dan Ashe was quoted as saying, “No animal says America like the Bald Eagle.” No doubt grizzly bears, grey wolves, whooping cranes and other animal species everywhere heaved a sigh of relief that they don’t “say America” like the bald eagle does.
> A Fox News story about the rule’s release went on to say the following:
> _Deaths of the more rare golden eagles would be allowed without penalty so long as companies minimize losses by taking steps such as retrofitting power poles to reduce the risk of electrocution._
> _“The new rule will conserve eagles while also spurring development of a pollution-free energy source intended to ease global warming, a cornerstone of President Barack Obama’s energy plan,” said Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe._
> Recommended by Forbes
> 
> So, this is the new definition of “conserving” eagles at the Fish and Wildlife Service, all justified under the guidance that all new regulatory efforts must consider climate change impacts issued by the Obama Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). Even the industry’s supporters estimate wind turbines kill hundreds of thousands of birds every year. This dirty little secret consequence of the expanding wind industry is something society is just supposed to ignore so we can all feel better about “doing something” about global warming.
> Meanwhile, the CEQ guidance is applied – or misapplied – in an entirely different manner on the country’s oil and natural gas industry.


Yes. It is well known that I'm not pro-global warming anymore, but at the same time, the reason why I post this is because of the clear hypocrisy of the democrats and liberals in general who claim to be all about the environment and yet here we are.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*










Add Israel to the list of foreign relations Trump has improved since winning the election. Awesome.

- Vic


----------



## Mifune Jackson

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Despite Obama's flaws, where he differs with both Hillary and Trump is that he's maintained a relatively positive favorable rating. Hillary always had low ratings throughout the entire campaign, which is why it's baffling to me that she was the nominee. I think Obama would have beaten Trump if he were allowed to run for a third term, but not by the margin he beat Romney. Would've been close. Trump had the advantage of running against someone people already didn't like.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/obama-favorable-rating
https://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating
https://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/donald-trump-favorable-rating
https://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/bernie-sanders-favorable-rating

No, favorable ratings aren't guarantees, but neither Trump nor Hillary were well-liked candidates and I think likability plays the most important role in a presidential election.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Vic Capri said:


> Only Obama would be delusional to think he could've won a 3rd term given his failed policies that resulted in skyrocketing health care premiums thanks to Obamacare.
> 
> - Vic


The electorate doesn't care about that though, they elect the person not the policy. Obama is a much more likeable character, more eloquent and much more inspirational than Hilldog. He would've beaten Trump but who cares now anyway it's pure speculation.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> I normally don't disagree with you, but on this I'm disagreeing with you. I don't think it would have been closer. We have several black advocacy groups at the moment that are lukewarm at best with Obama. Even BLM isn't as pro-Obama as they blame at least partially his administration for not helping improve the situation of police brutality against blacks. I personally disagree with BLM entirely, but at the same time have to acknowledge that a lot of blacks don't and BLM was mostly neutral when it came to picking their choice of president and therefore had an impact on lower black turnout. There was no enthusiasm in the BLM endoresement of democrats and I find it unlikely that they would have had any enthusiasm for a third Obama term. Had there been another black candidate fielded by the democrats and _maybe_ he would've galvanized the black vote but not Obama.
> 
> At the same time, we can't ignore the fact that Obama lost as much as Clinton did because he was on the campaign trail himself reminding voters (which weren't turning out for him either we have to remember) that his policies were the policies of the next democratic president. They really did get so caught up in their own ego that their policies were perfect that they didn't even stop consider for a moment that the rust belt was sick and tired of those policies and seeing their lives get worse and therefore voted against those policies. Whether blacks would have continued to vote Obama is highly debateable because I've seen many groups openly come out and condemn Obama for not doing enough to improve their lives as minorities and that would have kept the turn out low for him as well. It's really his ego at this point that's got him convinced that he simply cannot lose. And that's fine. He can believe it all he wants. But while campaigning FOR Hillary he already did lose because everyone knows that Hillary and Obama have pretty much the same policies and attitudes and it's next to impossible to tell who was really in power during those two terms.
> 
> It all came down the democrats policy direction in the end and we can talk about depressed black voters (which Obama could not convince to vote for Hillary) all we want, but in the end my conclusion is that it was just time for the democrats to go and no candidate from that party could have won because voters aren't dumb and they voted against the policies, not the politicians.


Great post. I do not necessarily disagree with any of the points you raise here, because they all have at least some measure of validity. 

The one problem we are all having in grappling with this is that it is impossible to "retrofit" the campaign with Obama standing in for Hillary. He's a smoother, smarter campaigner, less likely to shoot himself in the foot as she did with the "deplorables" speech. Having that said, policies of his played an integral role in helping to sink her, too. Ultimately my estimation on these matters is that candidates still matter the most, and Hillary's distinct difficulty in making anyone actively like her was a major contributor to giving Trump the playing field that best-suited his strategy of plucking one north-Midwestern blue state after another. To a major degree this was a "culturalized" election, with white women representing the most impactful shift in voting for Trump over Hillary, and the combination of economic factors that Trump hammered throughout his campaign decrying one rotten U.S. trade deal after another wedded to the anti-SJW muddying and sullying of their fathers, sons, husbands, brothers, et. al., all played indispensable factors in this development. And on that score those social concerns transcended who the candidates were. On the other hand, Hillary's unpopularity and the way whites and white women saw her as corrupt were unavoidable realities of what occurred on Election Night.

So, ultimately, it is difficult to say, but it is an interesting hypothetical, and more than one way exists to look at it. Thanks again for raising these salient points!


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



BruiserKC said:


> Yeah, his pushing for the US ambassador to abstain from the resolution condemning Israel's settlements (a fuck you move to our staunchest ally in the ME), and now he is looking at releasing at least 18 more prisoners from Guantanamo Bay as he is pushing to empty that thing out before he leaves (as you have many of the released in the past now returning to the war against radical Islam). He has also made clear he will not be the ex-President who allows his successor to do his thing without interference, and wants to have a hand in rebuilding a party that he helped to destroy (look at all the legislative and gubernatorial seats the Dems have lost in the 8 years he has been POTUS).
> 
> Carter is now looking at everything and saying, *"At least I won't be considered the worst President ever now."*


*rolls eyes. Oh puh-leese. Worst Prez ever? Come on man. You're going to tell me he was worse than that buffoon GWB?


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



BruiserKC said:


> Carter is now looking at everything and saying, "At least I won't be considered the worst President ever now."


Carter was fluff, there's no denying that, but I can't believe people think he's the WOAT when that distinction belongs to Harding.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> *rolls eyes. Oh puh-leese. Worst Prez ever? Come on man. You're going to tell me he was worse than that buffoon GWB?


Well it doesn't surprise me you'd think that, seeing as how you're probably only old enough to rem--OH WAIT, you haven't experienced ANY directly, you just catch glimpses of their effects on Aussie land! :nerd:


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



BruiserKC said:


> Yeah, his pushing for the US ambassador to abstain from the resolution condemning Israel's settlements (a fuck you move to our staunchest ally in the ME).


We've had decades now of American Presidents saying that if Israel doesn't stop settlement building (which is building on land they took in the 67 war but didn't annex) then America will stop supporting them in the Security Council. They just a week prior to the vote passed a law allowing a whole bunch of settlements to be built on land the Israeli courts had already found to belong to Palestinians. 

America has been looking like Israel's bitch for decades now, with America saying "stop the settlements" and Israel just not. 

This was not a fuck you move to Israel, the last 3 decades of settlement building has been a fuck you to America and this bill they passed a week before the vote was the biggest.

The Israeli right do not want peace they just want to keep building settlements until they can claim a majority population on the land they took in 67.

I honestly cannot understand how or why anyone would criticize the move in the UN unless:

A. You think America being Israel's bitch is a good thing and Israel should just ignore everything ever said by Americans. Don't forget they were told exactly what would happen and they just ignored it because they thought it was a bluff, because they think of America as their bitch.

B. You support the settlement building. Which unless you're a religious jew who believes the land was granted by god I just can't comprehend. They're building new settlements on the land they're going to have to give back to get peace? On what planet is that a good idea?

Btw if you want to test my point about Israel considering America it's bitch look at what they've said about Russia who voted FOR the resolution as opposed to what they're saying about America who merely abstained. 

Obama has given them more aid and military support than any American President in history, he is not anti Israel to any degree, if they'd stopped building settlements, as they should have done decades ago there is no way this resolution would have been passed. And considering all it does it is criticize the settlements it probably wouldn't have existed anyway.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Carter was fluff, there's no denying that, but I can't believe people think he's the WOAT when that distinction belongs to Harding.


Harding's fuckups were at such bureaucratic level that most people don't even know it happened

I have heard economists claim he was one of the best presidents due to his "hands off" approach to business and how he "respected peoples rights"

The guy who does nothing is better remembered than the guy who tired to do things and failed

a lesson for the kiddies


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



stevefox1200 said:


> Harding's fuckups were at such bureaucratic level that most people don't even know it happened
> 
> I have heard economists claim he was one of the best presidents due to his "hands off" approach to business and how he "respected peoples rights"
> 
> *The guy who does nothing is better remembered than the guy who tired to do things and failed*
> 
> a lesson for the kiddies


That would be applicable with Harding, but any success his choices brought about were utterly outweighed by the severity of the fuckery brought about by his cabinet (which, surprise, had some members that were his hometown friends who had no political experience whatsoever). Him having side chicks was just the cherry on top.

Plus, his record with people's rights was a mixed bag: he basically half-assed support for an anti-lynching bill, but he did do good by releasing political prisoners and effectively having the public cry out against steelworkers to transition from 12 hour-long daily shifts to 8 hour-long daily shifts like the rest of the country did.

While his term was cut short due to his death, the damage had been done via posthumous revelations of his scandals and they ensured that he would understandably go down as the WOAT president.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> Well it doesn't surprise me you'd think that, seeing as how you're probably only old enough to rem--OH WAIT, you haven't experienced ANY directly, you just catch glimpses of their effects on Aussie land! :nerd:


What you're going to defend GWB to me are you? Please go ahead.


Who the fuck says 'Aussie land' anyway? :bryanlol


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*










The UN is a piece of shit organization that's been taken over by special interests (especially the muslim bloc of countries and their sympathizers) that have consistently ignored the gross human rights violations and war crimes of countless countries to constantly single out Israel. 

Anyone defending this resolution against Israel is ignorant or an informed hypocrite because if you're going to accept a UN (which is a lame duck globalist superstructure which only exists to steal the tax dollars of countries that support this superstructure) resolution against Israel and have never questioned why no such move has EVER been made by the fucking retards at the UN against countries like KSA (which has consistently been complicit in funding terror around the world and crimes against shias in their country), Palestine itself (which has consistently attacked Jews and glorifies terrorists), Pakistan (which has consistently put up road-blocks against fighting the Taliban and funneled millions of dollars to Kashmiri militants), Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Russia, America etc then you sir are part of a group of people that have been completely hoodwinked by this corrupt organization. 

And this is coming from someone that isn't an Israel sympathizer. I don't care about Israel in particular, but I do care about the fact that the UN has ignored dozens of countries and has consistently gone after Israel in trying to pass resolutions against them. This UN project is a fucking failure and it needs to be ended.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> The UN is a piece of shit organization that's been taken over by special interests (especially the muslim bloc of countries and their sympathizers) that have consistently ignored the gross human rights violations and war crimes of countless countries to constantly single out Israel.
> 
> Anyone defending this resolution against Israel is ignorant or an informed hypocrite because if you're going to accept a UN (which is a lame duck globalist superstructure which only exists to steal the tax dollars of countries that support this superstructure) resolution against Israel and have never questioned why no such move has EVER been made by the fucking retards at the UN against countries like KSA (which has consistently been complicit in funding terror around the world and crimes against shias in their country), Palestine itself (which has consistently attacked Jews and glorifies terrorists), Pakistan (which has consistently put up road-blocks against fighting the Taliban and funneled millions of dollars to Kashmiri militants), Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Russia, America etc then you sir are part of a group of people that have been completely hoodwinked by this corrupt organization.
> 
> And this is coming from someone that isn't an Israel sympathizer. I don't care about Israel in particular, but I do care about the fact that the UN has ignored dozens of countries and has consistently gone after Israel in trying to pass resolutions against them. This UN project is a fucking failure and it needs to be ended.


There is actually a reason that NK, Iran, Serbia and the like never get hit

Russia and China are both permanent members of the security council and have massive veto power to shoot down anything targeted at their interests and their state controlled media can keep the things from getting out

Many people can tell you everything about what the US is doing, who they are supporting and bombing but how many people can tell you about Chinese troops actively protecting oil fields in Africa for the dictator of the hour and how many people in western Europe can even name the factions of Yugoslavian wars let alone Russia's involvement

The UN has tried to hit Serbia over 13 times for genocide and Russia, being one of the big five who is required to pass anything, has blocked it every time 

China does the same for North Korea

The US has actually been hit more than once, Iraq and Grenada to name a few, but the US also donates around 90% the money required for the UN's upkeep

Nations outside North America and Western Europe mainly see the UN as a formal way to protect their interests from the west and if they ever passed anything that actually effected the east than they would simply disregard it (Russia has been trying to create an "alternate" UN for years but the only ones interested are crack pot dictators that offer nothing and Russia would have to protect) and eastern Europe has far more faith in NATO missiles than UN diplomacy to keep them safe (which is why NATO needs to stay) 

The US on the other hand has to be at least "pretend" to be impartial so everyone not in western Europe will bother showing up and that means letting their lesser allies get spanked constantly


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> Well it doesn't surprise me you'd think that, seeing as how you're probably only old enough to rem--OH WAIT, you haven't experienced ANY directly, you just catch glimpses of their effects on Aussie land! :nerd:


I don't think Obama was by any means perfect, but of all people you defend, it's Dubya?
:tripsscust

Can we please stop the crap about Hillary losing ONLY because she was a woman? I'm sure that some didn't vote for her based on that reasoning, but I'm sure a hell of a lot also didn't vote for her because she was a garbage candidate. Not to mention, she ran an (openly) corrupt campaign that was seeping with no real change and was just the status quo.

I wish they had chosen someone better, or I'd have gladly voted for them tbh


----------



## ShiningStar

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



SovereignVA said:


> Seriously.
> 
> The U.S. WAS ready for a female president. Nobody will ever be ready for Hillary Clinton.



Hilary was a shitty candidate,an entitled person and had a ton of personal baggage. That said I don't think for a certain part of the population they are ready for a female candidate. Her unapologetic ambition and thristiness to be President would not be considered bad qualities if she were a dude,it's frankly something we just assume of guys in politics.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Alkomesh2 said:


> We've had decades now of American Presidents saying that if Israel doesn't stop settlement building (which is building on land they took in the 67 war but didn't annex) then America will stop supporting them in the Security Council. They just a week prior to the vote passed a law allowing a whole bunch of settlements to be built on land the Israeli courts had already found to belong to Palestinians.
> 
> America has been looking like Israel's bitch for decades now, with America saying "stop the settlements" and Israel just not.
> 
> This was not a fuck you move to Israel, the last 3 decades of settlement building has been a fuck you to America and this bill they passed a week before the vote was the biggest.
> 
> The Israeli right do not want peace they just want to keep building settlements until they can claim a majority population on the land they took in 67.
> 
> I honestly cannot understand how or why anyone would criticize the move in the UN unless:
> 
> A. You think America being Israel's bitch is a good thing and Israel should just ignore everything ever said by Americans. Don't forget they were told exactly what would happen and they just ignored it because they thought it was a bluff, because they think of America as their bitch.
> 
> B. You support the settlement building. Which unless you're a religious jew who believes the land was granted by god I just can't comprehend. They're building new settlements on the land they're going to have to give back to get peace? On what planet is that a good idea?
> 
> Btw if you want to test my point about Israel considering America it's bitch look at what they've said about Russia who voted FOR the resolution as opposed to what they're saying about America who merely abstained.
> 
> Obama has given them more aid and military support than any American President in history, he is not anti Israel to any degree, if they'd stopped building settlements, as they should have done decades ago there is no way this resolution would have been passed. And considering all it does it is criticize the settlements it probably wouldn't have existed anyway.


https://tayaraherzl.wordpress.com/2...poll-shows-that-palestinians-dont-want-peace/

Israel is not innocent in their role in the Middle East, that I do accept. However, what amazes me is how much the world turns a blind eye, willingly or otherwise, in regards to the fact the Palestinian leadership does not want peace. In 2000, Arafat was granted pretty much all of the Palestinian state he had been pushing for, with east Jerusalem as the capital. He rejected it, and shortly after came the Al-Aqsa Intifada. 

In 2008, Abbas admitted to rejecting an offer for a Palestinian State...one that he got most of what he wanted but decided to push for more knowing that Olmert was in serious trouble politically and hoped that the next leader of Israel would give him more. Time and again the world has been solely focused on Israel's alleged lack of compromise, but they ignore the Palestinian people and their leadership's unwillingness to even so much as recognize the state of Israel's right to exist. How can you expect someone to even negotiate in good faith when the other side has an unwillingness to do so? 

It's a no-brainer then why we're reaching the point that some Israelis are now no longer willing to even accept a Palestinian state especially considering there's no guarantee the Palestinians won't push for the complete obliteration of Israel.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



ShiningStar said:


> Hilary was a shitty candidate,an entitled person and had a ton of personal baggage. That said I don't think for a certain part of the population they are ready for a female candidate. Her unapologetic ambition and thristiness to be President would not be considered bad qualities if she were a dude,it's frankly something we just assume of guys in politics.


fpalm

It wasn't her ambition, it wasn't her nature, it wasn't the fact she's a woman. It was the fact she was completely corrupt and unlikable in all regards. It was the fact there was so many trails of deceit and shady dealings that nobody could ignore it. The fact is she got a lot of women behind her until a lot of stuff started coming out. It wasn't that "Oh she's a woman if she was a dude this would totes be okay." Not in the least.

Bernie was the far better candidate and still the Democrats backed Hillary, they knew people weren't excited for her outside of certain Democrats and women. Yet they chose to ignore it. Hillary lost because she's just awful.

In your regards of certain pockets of the population "Not ready" for something that could be applied to all people, some aren't ready for a Republican president, some aren't ready for a "socialist" like Bernie, some aren't ready for Trump. You're never going to get everyone 100% behind someone and more often than not if someone loses it's because of a lack of a certain quality or a flaw. 

This "because she's a woman" shit needs to die.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Muslims don't want peace with Israel. Plain and simple. Even today in mosques all over the Muslim world they are still abusing the Jews and asking Muslims to fight for the poor muzzies of Palestine. For muzzies peace with Israel basically means expulsion of Jews. Not coexistence. 

Oh and anyone that thinks that Israel kills civilians on purpose needs to learn a thing or two about Palestinians that deliberately use women and children as shields and schools and hospitals as storage for their bombs and guns. 

The entire Muslim world won't rest till Israel is destroyed. They're not lookong for peace or a peaceful resolution of any kind whatsoever.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*










:lmao.


----------



## NotGuilty

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

who cares about the Middle East. America first :trump2


----------



## That Is All

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Just came across this which is just downright sickening. I nearly made a thread about this but I am not sure if it would have been deleted?

This is a warning to all those who plan on attending the inauguration and I just want to let everyone know that there is going to be a staged attack coming if no one does anything to stop these fools and if you do attend please be safe. 

Lets get to it.



I am damn sure this is all staged by the DNC, the BLM and anyone else who is filled with their own ignorance and hate which in turn is funded by one of most evil men in this world George Soros who wants america destroyed but I am pretty sure this will be ignored like everything else.











I posted these before but it seemingly just got dismissed like everything else deemed to be important. I am no one special, I don't consider myself any of the political terminology like a democrat, republican, liberal or anything else. I am simply a messenger who expresses an opinion on the what I feel to be a threat to people I care about and to just anyone that wants to listen and not be lied to by the media or those in the entertainment industry whether it's tv, music, sports, etc who do nothing to help the ongoing problems but rather encourage them.

_From the front page of the site._



> DisruptJ20: Call for a bold mobilization against the inauguration of Donald Trump on January 20, 2017
> 
> On Friday, January 20, 2017, Donald Trump will be inaugurated as President of the United States.
> 
> We call on all people of good conscience to join in disrupting the ceremonies. If Trump is to be inaugurated at all, let it happen behind closed doors, showing the true face of the security state Trump will preside over. It must be made clear to the whole world that the vast majority of people in the United States do not support his presidency or consent to his rule.
> 
> Trump stands for *tyranny, greed, and misogyny*. He is the champion of neo-nazis and white Nationalists, of the police who kill the Black, Brown and poor on a daily basis, of racist border agents and sadistic prison guards, of the FBI and NSA who tap your phone and read your email.
> 
> He is the harbinger of even more climate catastrophe, deportation, discrimination, and endless war. He continues to deny the existence of climate change, in spite of all the evidence, putting the future of the whole human race at stake.The KKK, Vladimir Putin, Golden Dawn, and the Islamic State all cheered his victory. If we let his inauguration go unchallenged, we are opening the door to the future they envision.
> 
> Trump’s success confirms the bankruptcy of representative democracy. Rather than using the democratic process as an alibi for inaction, we must show that no election could legitimize his agenda. Neither the Democrats nor any other political party or politician will save us—they just offer a weaker version of the same thing. If there is going to be a positive change in this society, we have to make it ourselves, together, through direct action.
> 
> From day one, the Trump presidency will be a disaster. #DisruptJ20 will be the
> start of the resistance. We must take to the streets and protest, blockade, disrupt, intervene, sit in, walk out, rise up, and make more noise and good trouble than the establishment can bear. The parade must be stopped. We must delegitimize Trump and all he represents. It’s time to defend ourselves, our loved ones, and the world that sustains us as if our lives depend on it—because they do.
> In Washington, DC
> 
> DC will not be hospitable to the Trump administration. Every corporation must openly declare whether they side with him or with the people who will suffer at his hands. Thousands will converge and demonstrate resistance to the Trump regime. Save the date. #DisruptJ20


Just look how mentally ill these people are.

This the type of racist propaganda that is destroying this country. It's appalling that they use particular words that only describe themselves.

_By clicking on the info._



> A call for a bold mobilization against the inauguration of Donald Trump on January 20, 2017
> 
> On Friday, January 20, 2017, Donald Trump will be inaugurated as President of the United States in Washington, DC. We call on all people of conscience to shut down the ceremonies. We must take to the streets and shut down, protest, blockade, disrupt, intervene, sit in, walk out, rise up, and make more noise and good trouble than the establishment can bear. The parade must be stopped. We must delegitimize Trump and all he represents. It’s time to defend ourselves, our loved ones, and the world that sustains us as if our lives depend on it—because they do.





> Goals:
> 
> *Coordinate a series of decentralized actions using a range of tactics to physically and symbolically shut down the Inauguration, related events, and the urban area surrounding it.*
> 
> Increase grassroots resistance and set the stage for ongoing opposition to Trump’s agenda.
> 
> Build skills, capacity, and relationships for community-based organizations and activists in DC and throughout the region.


Notice what I put in bold. People like this should be confined to a mental institution where they can spew their twisted logic.

There is to much to add so if you are interested to see how disturbing these people are, just read what is on the site. http://www.disruptj20.org/

I wanted to make mention of this on here since I don't have either a facebook or twitter just in case the mainstream media tries to spin this into something else in what's called lying by omission. It's the same shit they did for the recent mall chaos.


----------



## NotGuilty

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I like to call those type of people the Clinton Foundation's muscle. 


Anyways it's easy to stop the attempts to disrupt the ceremony, simply build a wall around the area and let there be peace and celebration :trump2


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



> Just came across this which is just downright sickening. I nearly made a thread about this but I am not sure if it would have been deleted?
> 
> This is a warning to all those who plan on attending the inauguration and I just want to let everyone know that there is going to be a staged attack coming if no one does anything to stop these fools and if you do attend please be safe.
> 
> Lets get to it.





@MMFlint said:


> Disrupt the Inauguration. The Majority have spoken - by nearly 2.7 million votes &counting! Silence is not an option


Fun fact: Michael Moore supports terrorism.



> The electorate doesn't care about that though, they elect the person not the policy. Obama is a much more likeable character, more eloquent and much more inspirational than Hilldog. He would've beaten Trump but who cares now anyway it's pure speculation.


Can't sweet talk your way out of everything.

- Vic


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



> A federal appeals court has revived a pair of lawsuits seeking to force the federal government to sue former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in a quest to try to recover more emails from the private server she used while secretary of state.
> 
> A three-judge panel of the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously Tuesday that a lower court judge erred when he threw out the cases as moot after the State Department received tens of thousands of emails from Clinton and more from the FBI following the criminal investigation it conducted.
> 
> 
> Watchdog groups Judicial Watch and Cause of Action filed separate suits in 2015, asking that Secretary of State John Kerry and the head of the National Archives, Archivist David Ferriero, be required to refer the Clinton email issue to the Justice Department to consider filing a civil suit to get missing federal records back.
> 
> D.C. Circuit Judge Stephen Williams said State's requests to Clinton and the FBI for copies of Clinton's emails were not necessarily enough to fulfill State's obligation to pursue any missing messages.
> 
> "Even though those efforts bore some fruit, the Department has not explained why shaking the tree harder — e.g., by following the statutory mandate to seek action by the Attorney General — might not bear more still. It is therefore abundantly clear that, in terms of assuring government recovery of emails, appellants have not 'been given everything [they] asked for,'" Williams wrote in the court's opinion, joined by Judges Brett Kavanaugh and Robert Wilkins. "Absent a showing that the requested enforcement action could not shake loose a few more emails, the case is not moot."
> 
> Clinton turned over about 54,000 pages of messages at State's request in December 2014. She also instructed her aides to erase a similar quantity of emails her lawyers determined were entirely personal. In August 2015, her attorneys gave thumb drives containing copies of the work-related messages to the Justice Department.
> 
> Clinton attorney David Kendall did not immediately respond to a request for comment Tuesday. Clinton and her attorneys previously have said she has no more messages to turn over, whether suits are filed or not.
> 
> 11_Donald_Trump_66_gty_1160.jpg
> FINANCE
> Trump's new economic math
> By BEN WHITE
> A spokesman for the Justice Department, which is representing State and the National Archives in the litigation, also declined to comment on the ruling.
> 
> The outcome of the appeals court case may have been influenced by the timing of the arguments, which took place in early November, just after FBI Director James Comey revealed in a letter to Congress that his agency had come across more Clinton emails. They were found on a laptop belonging to Anthony Weiner, the estranged husband of longtime Clinton aide Huma Abedin.
> 
> Comey's disclosure of the discovery roiled the final days of the presidential election, even though he announced two days before the vote that the new evidence had not changed the FBI's conclusions that no prosecution of Clinton was warranted. Many Clinton aides and allies blame Comey's messages to Congress about the developments for tilting the election to the victor, GOP nominee Donald Trump.
> 
> The discovery of the new emails on Weiner's laptop was in the news as the case was argued and may have dramatized the possibility for the judges that additional Clinton emails exist in places that were not searched by Clinton, her aides, or, at least initially, by the FBI.
> 
> Williams does not mention the belatedly discovered emails in the opinion issued Tuesday but seems convinced that turning up more of the messages is a live possibility. He also said the record did not show what State had done to recover emails Clinton exchanged on a separate BlackBerry-based account during the early weeks of her tenure.
> 
> "While the case might well ... be moot if a referral were pointless (e.g., because no imaginable enforcement action by the Attorney General could lead to recovery of the missing emails), the record here provides no factual support for finding mootness on that basis," Williams wrote.
> 
> The appeals court ruling stops short of ordering the district court to force State to make the Federal Records Act referral to the Justice Department, leaving the possibility the cases could be dismissed on other grounds before such a directive is issued. The D.C. Circuit judges also indicated they were not taking a position on whether the attorney general would be required to sue if presented with a referral on the issue.
> 
> Williams was appointed by President Ronald Reagan, Kavanaugh by President George W. Bush and Wilkins by President Barack Obama. The judge who issued the initial decision tossing out the cases, James Boasberg, is also an Obama appointee.


http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/appeals-court-revives-suits-over-hillary-clinton-emails-232990


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I don't get what you guys are all worked up about.

The amount of :trump protesters is gonna be swamped about a crowd 15-20x bigger of :trump supporters.

There'll probably be more police and other security than there will be :trump protesters.

These losers are mostly Occupy Wall Street retreads (which a pretty good portion of BLM leadership is as well), they got maybe 10,000 people nationwide to camp out in their shit and uncapped needle river communes set up in public parks five years ago, who cares.

:trump3


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/814564127230271489
I like Obama, but hh at this apt jab.


----------



## Reggie Dunlop

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/814564127230271489
> I like Obama, but hh at this apt jab.


Anything else this asshole is gonna do to make Trump's job as miserable as possible when he's finally sworn in? Which can't come soon enough? I don't think I've ever seen anything quite like this in my lifetime. Fucking idiot. K didn't think it was possible, but this guy is even more petty and spiteful than Vinny Mac. 

Aside from the fact that no one has yet offered up a shred of evidence that the Russians did anything to interfere with the election, what exactly is it that they're accused of doing? Hacking and releasing a few embarrassing emails? Two fuckhead journalists did pretty much the same thing in 1972 and were considered heroes because it took down a sitting _Republican_ president. What they're now claiming the Russians did sounds to me like what should have been the job of our own media and/or law enforcement. The former were all too busy scraping up sound bytes to mock Trump with, and the latter just had their heads up their asses as usual. If this wasn't so fucking sad it would be hilarious.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Pretty funny and ironic that so many Alt Righters apparently now have their heads stuck up Russia's ass, oh how times change. Their cold war grandfathers would be spinning in their grave.

'Oh Putin, Put-it-in me yes!' (I'll let myself out)


----------



## Cliffy

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Trumps evisceration of barry's legacy is going to be glorious:lenny


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

As a former copywriter for an ad agency, I can spot when something comes from the desk of a publicist and is shared widely ... The similarity in language and structure means that all of the calls for protest came from the same agency/publicist and they're professionally written. 

Definitely a major organization behind the latest propaganda and it sounds exactly like professional written propaganda. 

Probably the democrats, or Soros again.


----------



## ShiningStar

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> In your regards of certain pockets of the population "Not ready" for something that could be applied to all people, some aren't ready for a Republican president, some aren't ready for a "socialist" like Bernie, some aren't ready for Trump. You're never going to get everyone 100% behind someone and more often than not if someone loses it's because of a lack of a certain quality or a flaw.


I don't even think it cuts ideological as I thought some of the stuff about Palin in 08 was beyond the pale.

Just look at how some guys reacted because they made women the lead in a movie about talking ghosts. No one felt "childhood was being raped" or targetted the personal life of the leads of people who starred in any number of the hundreds of other remakes in the last 10-15 years. 80% of politicians wouldn't be dudes if their weren't built in psychological advantages for them over females.


----------



## Reggie Dunlop

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Pretty funny and ironic that so many Alt Righters apparently now have their heads stuck up Russia's ass, oh how times change. Their cold war grandfathers would be spinning in their grave.
> 
> 'Oh Putin, Put-it-in me yes!' (I'll let myself out)


All of a sudden anybody who isn't a liberal SJW is an alt-righter, eh? Yeah. Enough of these lame-ass broad stroke categorizations please. As soon as you decided to pop shit like this into an argument, I decide to stop reading it. And for the record, while I do have a whole lot more respect for Putin than I do for Obama (which isn't saying much), I'm not up Russia's ass -- I just haven't seen a lick of evidence even suggesting they're involved with what they're being accused of. There's a long, long stretch between that and being up Russia's ass. 

Oh yeah, and I grew up during the Cold War. My grandfathers would have been WW II and Korea.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



ShiningStar said:


> I don't even think it cuts ideological as I thought some of the stuff about Palin in 08 was beyond the pale.
> 
> Just look at how some guys reacted because they made women the lead in a movie about talking ghosts. No one felt "childhood was being raped" or targetted the personal life of the leads of people who starred in any number of the hundreds of other remakes in the last 10-15 years. 80% of politicians wouldn't be dudes if their weren't built in psychological advantages for them over females.


Are you kidding me?

Do you know how many death threats George Lucas got and still is sent a day for his Star wars edits?


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



ShiningStar said:


> I don't even think it cuts ideological as I thought some of the stuff about Palin in 08 was beyond the pale.
> 
> Just look at how some guys reacted because they made women the lead in a movie about talking ghosts. No one felt "childhood was being raped" or targetted the personal life of the leads of people who starred in any number of the hundreds of other remakes in the last 10-15 years. 80% of politicians wouldn't be dudes if their weren't built in psychological advantages for them over females.


Exactly. No one is suggesting that every single Trump voter held Hillary's gender against her, but to act like it wasn't a factor at all for some is being ignorant. If you look for it, you can find plenty of footage of Trumpeters explicitly saying things to the effect of they don't think a woman is up to the job. Would that be their only reason for their non-preference? Of course not, but it can be a factor and I think that's undeniable.

The thing is, it doesn't need to be a malicious thing either, it can be subtle. It doesn't need to be some OTT stereotype of thinking all women should be at home in the kitchen making dinner. It can be growing up with a strong sense of 'traditional' gender roles that's hard to overcome.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



stevefox1200 said:


> Are you kidding me?
> 
> Do you know how many death threats George Lucas got and still is sent a day for his Star wars edits?


Surely that's more for the prequels and he deserves everything he gets regardless of gender.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The Cleaner said:


> All of a sudden anybody who isn't a liberal SJW is an alt-righter, eh? Yeah. Enough of these lame-ass broad stroke categorizations please. As soon as you decided to pop shit like this into an argument, I decide to stop reading it. And for the record, while I do have a whole lot more respect for Putin than I do for Obama (which isn't saying much), I'm not up Russia's ass -- I just haven't seen a lick of evidence even suggesting they're involved with what they're being accused of. There's a long, long stretch between that and being up Russia's ass.
> 
> Oh yeah, and I grew up during the Cold War. My grandfathers would have been WW II and Korea.


Wasn't referring specifically to you champ, more a general trend I've observed of an idolisation of Putin/Trump and Mother Russia from the movement itself.

But if you're into generalisations, anyone who isn't a Trumpeter is labelled an SJW leftist liberal as well, so it works both ways.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Pretty funny and ironic that so many Alt Righters apparently now have their heads stuck up Russia's ass, oh how times change. Their cold war grandfathers would be spinning in their grave.
> 
> 'Oh Putin, Put-it-in me yes!' (I'll let myself out)


I don't think it's a matter of them lusting after Putin's throbbing manhood. :lol Rather, I think they have sympy (and understandably so) for the Ruskies because they're being mercilessly eviscerated for hacking the DNC and rigging the election despite the lack of concrete evidence for either claim.


----------



## Reggie Dunlop

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



stevefox1200 said:


> Are you kidding me?
> 
> Do you know how many death threats George Lucas got and still is sent a day for his Star wars edits?


And he deserves every bit of a slow, horrible, painful death just for all that happy cgi horseshit he stuffed into the first scene in Moscow Eisley in Episode IV alone.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I thought the CGI additions in the original trilogy and the prequels were great. When I first saw Star Wars as a 7 year old, I thought it sucked.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> I don't think it's a matter of them lusting after Putin's throbbing manhood. :lol Rather, I think they have sympy (and understandably so) for the Ruskies because they're being mercilessly eviscerated for hacking the DNC and rigging the election despite the lack of concrete evidence for either claim.


I feel like it is the democrats overreaching with the information. I believe the intelligence agencies do have evidence of some state-supported hacking and traced it back to Russia. The current administration have long state their suspicions even when Hilary was leading by a wide margin during the campaign.

But the democrats spin after the election results make the incident look like sour grapes instead of a real national security issue. And since everything is politicised in America these days, you have to support the party line or get heckled so we have people blindly supporting Putin. Same for support for George Soros from democrats. :shrug


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...st-upset-drain-swamp-says-unfair-real-swamps/

I really hope that he was just doing stand-up or is just some sort of extreme nerd and that the press is taking it the wrong way



> Calling recent political discourse in the U.S. “lacking in civility,” a Washington bureaucrat is insisting that we stop using the phrase “drain the swamp” to describe change in Washington because, apparently, it is an insult to real swamps everywhere.
> Adam Rosenblatt, a science and technology policy fellow at the American Association for the Advancement of Science based at the Department of Energy in Washington, D.C., recently noted in a Washington Post op-ed that using the term “drain the swamp” is a “terrible analogy.”
> 
> Rosenblatt, an ecologist by training, has decided to take the term literally, instead of metaphorically as it is intended, and is now warning about the dangers of draining real — not just political — swamps. It is, he says, very bad for the ecosystem.
> 
> In his December 29 piece, the Washington bureaucrat was dismissive of Donald Trump’s use of the metaphor as a slogan to promulgate his desire to eliminate waste and abuse in Washington, and even erroneously said that Newt Gingrich has “disavowed” the phrase. Gingrich recently admitted he was mistaken when he said the incoming Trump administration did not want to use the phrase anymore.
> 
> But Rosenblatt went on to insist that using the political catchphrase might make people dismissive of the importance of real-life swamps and might tend to make people less mindful of how important swamps are to our ecosystem.
> 
> “My extensive experience working in and studying swamps allows me to see just how terrible the analogy is,” Rosenblatt insisted. “Given the sea of misinformation we currently find ourselves swimming in, I feel this is as good a time as any to clarify what swamps actually are and why they should be regarded as wonderful and valuable parts of nature rather than objects of derision and hatred.”
> 
> Rosenblatt went on to describe the good things real wetlands do for the ecology and detailed the damage done by past efforts to actually drain real swamps.
> 
> “It is clear, then, that swamps do not deserve their reputation as useless ecosystems, nor do they deserve to be co-opted as a lazy, inept political metaphor,” Rosenblatt complained.
> 
> “The next time you hear a politician or pundit talk about ‘draining the swamp,’ remember that swamps can be sources of resource abundance and protection from natural disasters, which are exactly some of the functions a responsible government should promote,” the ecologist and Washington bureaucrat sonorously warned.
> 
> Follow Warner Todd Huston on Twitter @warnerthuston or email the author at [email protected].


If not then :sodone


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Shocking. An ecologist wanting to promote the value of wetlands like swamps to the the environment.


----------



## RenegadexParagon

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Pretty funny and ironic that so many Alt Righters apparently now have their heads stuck up Russia's ass, oh how times change. Their cold war grandfathers would be spinning in their grave.
> 
> 'Oh Putin, Put-it-in me yes!' (I'll let myself out)


I don't really find it that surprising (or that funny when you think about it), tbh. It's easy to understand why some American rightists like Putin and modern Russia now. Socially conservative, nationalistic ("patriotic"), and Putin himself is often considered a "strongman" kind of leader by his fanboys. That is the kind of stuff that nationalists of all stripes are attracted to and admire.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> *I feel like it is the democrats overreaching with the information.* I believe the intelligence agencies do have evidence of some state-supported hacking and traced it back to Russia. The current administration have long state their suspicions even when Hilary was leading by a wide margin during the campaign.
> 
> *But the democrats spin after the election results make the incident look like sour grapes instead of a real national security issue.* And since everything is politicised in America these days, you have to support the party line or get heckled so we have people blindly supporting Putin. Same for support for George Soros from democrats. :shrug


The bolded parts are exactly what's going on. If Hillary had won, it's obvious that they wouldn't have put Russia on blast and we would've faced the possibility of needlessly fucking with them.

Thus, Trump winning had an unforeseen benefit of exposing that even Obama is affected by the sheer toxicity of partisanship in today's America. While he's a cool guy and a decent president when all things are considered, he really should fuck off for a long while due to effectively shitting on Trump's doorstep by putting Russia on blast like this when there's still no concrete evidence of them meddling in the election and hacking the DNC.

On an unrelated note, despite being a great first lady, Michelle should fuck off too after that childish horseshit she spouted about being hopeless in light of Trump winning.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...st-upset-drain-swamp-says-unfair-real-swamps/
> 
> I really hope that he was just doing stand-up or is just some sort of extreme nerd and that the press is taking it the wrong way
> 
> 
> 
> If not then :sodone


Then call it Draining the Sewer then


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



virus21 said:


> Then call it Draining the Sewer then


That would be insensitive to rats.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> That would be insensitive to rats.


Yeah the TMNT are young and spry, so they'll be fine, but Splinter's getting up there in years and deserves to be cared for after he trained the Turtles.

Master Splinter's Life Matters. :trump3


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> The bolded parts are exactly what's going on. If Hillary had won, it's obvious that they wouldn't have put Russia on blast and we would've faced the possibility of needlessly fucking with them.
> 
> Thus, Trump winning had an unforeseen benefit of exposing that even Obama is affected by the sheer toxicity of partisanship in today's America. While he's a cool guy and a decent president when all things are considered, he really should fuck off for a long while due to effectively shitting on Trump's doorstep by putting Russia on blast like this when there's still no concrete evidence of them meddling in the election and hacking the DNC.
> 
> On an unrelated note, despite being a great first lady, Michelle should fuck off too after that childish horseshit she spouted about being hopeless in light of Trump winning.


If Hillary had won, they would have waited until Hillary's inauguration to put Russia on blast. I feel that they are doing it now because they fear Trump isn't going to take the threat seriously enough.

I don't think Trump's win really expose Obama being affected by the the partisanship. He was irritated enough the past few years by both the left and the right. Remember that 9/11 bill? Obama can't fuck off because Trump's team need major help during the transition. Both Obama and Trump are not following the norms of lame duck president and president-elect, because Trump has very little clue in how things are done in public office.

It seems weird that the transition seem to be going smoothly only to have Trump bitch about it a few days back on twitter. Almost like Trump is using the play the victim card to deflect from his inability to resolve conflict of interests issues.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> If Hillary had won, they would have waited until Hillary's inauguration to put Russia on blast. I feel that they are doing it now because they fear Trump isn't going to take the threat seriously enough.
> 
> I don't think Trump's win really expose Obama being affected by the the partisanship. He was irritated enough the past few years by both the left and the right. Remember that 9/11 bill? Obama can't fuck off because Trump's team need major help during the transition. Both Obama and Trump are not following the norms of lame duck president and president-elect, because Trump has very little clue in how things are done in public office.
> 
> It seems weird that the transition seem to be going smoothly only to have Trump bitch about it a few days back on twitter. Almost like Trump is using the play the victim card to deflect from his inability to resolve conflict of interests issues.


I sincerely doubt that they would've made so much as a peep about the Ruskies if Hilldog won. And I could've seriously bought into the prospect of them wanting Trump to take the threat of cybersecurity seriously had Obama also not put Israel on blast in the same week, which led to Trump to go into damage control and reassure Netanyahu.

Mind you, I actually liked that Obama took Israel to task over the settlement issue, since I would really love it if we told tehm to grow the hell up and not hold their hands / wipe their asses at what feels like every waking turn. However, it's a needless roadblock for Trump nonetheless and thus makes me disappointed that Obama was so conveniently trigger happy to fire off like that. Especially since being a loose cannon is hypocritically what he and the left constantly criticize Trump for being.

I still like Obama and I'm willing to put aside him taking these two collective shits on Trump's doorstep. He just better make up for it by ensuring that things go smoothly during the transition and helps Trump out with some semblance of sincerity instead of backhandedness during his term in the event Trump asks for his advice.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> The bolded parts are exactly what's going on. If Hillary had won, it's obvious that they wouldn't have put Russia on blast and we would've faced the possibility of needlessly fucking with them.
> 
> Thus, Trump winning had an unforeseen benefit of exposing that even Obama is affected by the sheer toxicity of partisanship in today's America. While he's a cool guy and a decent president when all things are considered, he really should fuck off for a long while due to effectively shitting on Trump's doorstep by putting Russia on blast like this when there's still no concrete evidence of them meddling in the election and hacking the DNC.
> 
> On an unrelated note, despite being a great first lady, Michelle should fuck off too after that childish horseshit she spouted about being hopeless in light of Trump winning.


Michelle has always come off as childish and phony. I liked Obama, I voted for him but i never did like Michelle. Though Obama is keeping up his record of being even more divisive and ensuring not only race relations are worse but also political ones as well. He's playing with fire, if he keeps meddling and screwing with Trump needlessly then the political divide will become so great that I don't think the US will be able to have another presidential election without violence.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> I sincerely doubt that they would've made so much as a peep about the Ruskies if Hilldog won. And I could've seriously bought into the prospect of them wanting Trump to take the threat of cybersecurity seriously had Obama also not put Israel on blast in the same week, which led to Trump to go into damage control and reassure Netanyahu.
> 
> Mind you, I actually liked that Obama took Israel to task over the settlement issue, since I would really love it if we told tehm to grow the hell up and not hold their hands / wipe their asses at what feels like every waking turn. However, it's a needless roadblock for Trump nonetheless and thus makes me disappointed that Obama was so conveniently trigger happy to fire off like that. Especially since being a loose cannon is hypocritically what he and the left constantly criticize Trump for being.
> 
> I still like Obama and I'm willing to put aside him taking these two collective shits on Trump's doorstep. He just better make up for it by ensuring that things go smoothly during the transition and helps Trump out with some semblance of sincerity instead of backhandedness during his term in the event Trump asks for his advice.


Putin tried to undermined Hillary, I doubt she will not retaliate.  Obama putting Netanyahu on blast is a long time coming. They just don't like each other. Trump also put the current administration in a bind with him taking the call from Taiwan's president. Like I said, both Trump and Obama are not giving the other the space typically seen in a transition. Foreign relations is the one place where the president has the most autonomy in shaping policies. And both are doing shit that most ex-president would avoid, such as openly criticising the sitting president shaping his legacy in the final month and bitching about the president-elect's key appointments publicly.

I don't doubt Obama's sincerity in helping with a smooth transition. He has always been vocal about his appreciation of GWB's help in 08. I feel the real issue is Trump inability to take criticisms and have to push back in public for any perceived slight.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> Michelle has always come off as childish and phony. I liked Obama, I voted for him but i never did like Michelle. Though Obama is keeping up his record of being even more divisive and ensuring not only race relations are worse but also political ones as well. He's playing with fire, if he keeps meddling and screwing with Trump needlessly than the political divide will become so great that I don't think the US will be able to have another presidential election without violence.


While she pissed me off with her bullshit comment about hope, I still appreciate her efforts in helping kids eat better and encouraging them to get active, because there are some kids that could use that kind of pep in their step (which I can attest to due to being a former fat kid).

But yeah, hopefully Obama doesn't shit the bed anymore and just holds it in until he heads to his new place in DC, what with a brand new toilet to try and whatnot. Especially since I really wanna see Trump and Putin bro down already.

:trump3


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> Putin tried to undermined Hillary, I doubt she will not retaliate.  Obama putting Netanyahu on blast is a long time coming. They just don't like each other. Trump also put the current administration in a bind with him taking the call from Taiwan's president. Like I said, both Trump and Obama are not giving the other the space typically seen in a transition. Foreign relations is the one place where the president has the most autonomy in shaping policies. And both are doing shit that most ex-president would avoid, such as openly criticising the sitting president shaping his legacy in the final month and bitching about the president-elect's key appointments publicly.
> 
> I don't doubt Obama's sincerity in helping with a smooth transition. He has always been vocal about his appreciation of GWB's help in 08. I feel the real issue is Trump inability to take criticisms and have to push back in public for any perceived slight.


Considering how much of a hawk she is, Putin could fart in her direction and she'd respond by declaring a no-fly zone over Russia and maybe even kidnap Pussy Riot under the premise that they wear balaclavas and her dementia-having ass would've mistaken them for terrorists.

:trump3

And like I said, I liked that Obeezy finally pissed on Israel's parade. He just happened to do it so conveniently that he pissed on Trump by extension, which tainted his show of machismo. And the Taiwan call was Trump showing Obama's administration what testicular fortitude is. Plus, it's not like he outright scrapped the One China policy.

Trump being paper-thin in regard to criticisms is definitely gonna make this transition interesting. If he can backpedal on criticizing Obama on twitter and then immediately follow that up by saying that a recent call they had went very well, both of which happened in this week, there might be some hope. But all we can do is see how it pans out.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> That would be insensitive to rats.


Cleaning the dump?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



virus21 said:


> Cleaning the dump?


Insensitive to maggots :shrugs


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Obama, the Democrats, and the #NeverTrump neocons, all having faced a crushing defeat in November, have done all they can to provoke Russia and make a mess of things for Trump, but Vladimir Putin has seen through it and taken the high road, looking ahead to peaceful relations with the US with the incoming Trump administration. 

Really happy I voted Trump. These power-addicted, warmongering sociopaths would rather burn it all down than give control to someone else.


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

As someone that is critical of Russia, especially their willingness to use force and disrespect for certain liberties, this constant cold war red scare cry against the Russians this past month has pissed me off. Especially as someone more versed in computer security than many people. 

They have shown no proof of this Russian "hack". If anything, their pamphlet that was more PSA than proof was very clear they were more worried about PHISHING, which cannot be stopped by anything other than not hiring morons that click on links like morons and give away their information. Even despite that, hack or phish, it wasn't hacking the gov't. It was a cyber attack against a private organisation. 

You lost the fucking election. Suck it up. Straighten your collar. And don't put a lying, cheating, corrupt piece of shit up as your nominee next time. You have a decent chance of taking back the presidency at some point. But if you keep mewling and throwing tantrums like little kids... well, just get used to sitting there in your diapers with snot everywhere. Because with this attitude you won't win another election for a long, long time... even if the Republicans put up Chris Fucking Christie.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> Obama, the Democrats, and the #NeverTrump neocons, all having faced a crushing defeat in November, have done all they can to provoke Russia and make a mess of things for Trump, but Vladimir Putin has seen through it and taken the high road, looking ahead to peaceful relations with the US with the incoming Trump administration.
> 
> Really happy I voted Trump. These power-addicted, warmongering sociopaths would rather burn it all down than give control to someone else.




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/814919370711461890

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/814958820980039681
:trump3


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Putin dismissing Obama's actions and pretty much just making it known that he doesn't care what Obama thinks is funny. It is silly that at the end of Obama's reign he chooses to try and fuck up relations for the US, my guess is so they can blame Trump for it all while Captain Peace Prize and friends get no blame. Obama is really a laughing stock right now, it's pretty sad. Sorry Democrats and Neocons, no war for you!


----------



## Banez

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I was expecting Trump to use his catchphrase "Putin is a great person, Russians are great people". I literally hear it everytime he says something about it, it's always X is great person and Y are great people" :lol


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Banez said:


> I was expecting Trump to use his catchphrase "Putin is a great person, Russians are great people". I literally hear it everytime he says something about it, it's always X is great person and Y are great people" :lol


How dare you forget his "We have the greatest ____, don't we folks?" line. :trump3


----------



## Banez

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> How dare you forget his "We have the greatest ____, don't we folks?" line. :trump3


Who says i forgot, he just doesn't use THAT line when he talks about OTHER countries :lol


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Banez said:


> Who says i forgot, he just doesn't use THAT line when he talks about OTHER countries :lol


Just wanted to make sure you didn't skimp out on such a classic line. :trump


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

The Russians freezing the Americans out of the Kazakhstan-held Syrian war peace talks until Donald Trump becomes president is one of the chilliest and most embarrassing spectacles in U.S. foreign policy in the post-Cold War time period. 

The British are scolding the Obama administration, too, over John Kerry's Israeli settlements speech. 

This is the lamest lame duck in many moons.


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



DesolationRow said:


> The Russians freezing the Americans out of the Kazakhstan-held Syrian war peace talks until Donald Trump becomes president is one of the chilliest and most embarrassing spectacles in U.S. foreign policy in the post-Cold War time period.
> 
> The British are scolding the Obama administration, too, over John Kerry's Israeli settlements speech.
> 
> This is the lamest lame duck in many moons.


And after all the ranting that Trump's election made him and the US a laughing stock... and it is the reaction to that election and some embarrassing stumbles in the foreign policy chess game that has made us the rubes. 

Is this what North Koreans feel like? I mean, we aren't THAT bad. But still, this must be what it feels like.


----------



## Cliffy

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*










god :mark:


----------



## ShiningStar

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I disagree with Obama's action and in no way want War with Russia however Trump and some Republicans speaking so highly of Putin is bonkers. This is a man who has the blood of innocent on his hands in literally every neighboring country and is a Rogue Dictator who does not afford many civil liberties to those in his own country.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



DesolationRow said:


> The Russians freezing the Americans out of the Kazakhstan-held Syrian war peace talks until Donald Trump becomes president is one of the chilliest and most embarrassing spectacles in U.S. foreign policy in the post-Cold War time period.
> 
> The British are scolding the Obama administration, too, over John Kerry's Israeli settlements speech.
> 
> This is the lamest lame duck in many moons.


Obama has been shown to be a loser for a while. The man is a celebrity president put in office by Hollywood money. It should be no surprise how incompetent the man has been shown


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



ShiningStar said:


> I disagree with Obama's action and in no way want War with Russia however Trump and some Republicans speaking so highly of Putin is bonkers. This is a man who has the blood of innocent on his hands in literally every neighboring country and is a Rogue Dictator who does not afford many civil liberties to those in his own country.


All of our president's hands are pretty much stained in as much blood as Putin to be honest... we say "we are bombing your country to help you" but that doesn't make the fact the collateral damage has been ungodly any less saddening or really disgusting. 

Civil liberty wise however, yeah... we have yet to reach FDR and Lincoln levels of shredding the constitution YET and be equal to Russia there. I say yet because the Patriot Act and the new Ministry of Truth bill that was just signed are clearly designed to emulate Russia more than the principles the US was founded on.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

The Obama executive order saga continues as he recently announced the forfeiture of another 1.7 million acres of the country to the Federal Government ... 












> (K.R.) President Obama has signed an executive order designating another 1,650,000 acres in Nevada and Utah as National Monuments. The National Monument designation prevents any future development on that land. This adds to the 550,000,000 acres that President Obama has already made off limits for American citizens, the most of any president in U.S. history.
> 
> It's yet another massive swath of federally owned land that not only will no longer be usable by Americans, but which many argue should have been turned over to the states long ago.
> 
> The federal government was originally supposed to hold western lands "in trust" until they were handed over to the states. The treaty with Mexico that gave Nevada and other lands to the United States contained a pledge that the territory "shall be formed into free, sovereign, and independent states." Likewise, promises were repeatedly made to the new states that they would have "an equal footing with the original States." The western territories believed that "equal footing" meant they'd be given sovereign control over most of the lands within their territory, as the eastern states had.
> 
> But in the early 1900s, federal policy began to shift away from handing over the lands, and toward retention and preservation of the land under federal ownership. Alarmed state legislatures claimed the move was "calculated to make our coal, our mineral and our water power resources chattels for government exploitation through a system of leasing... we hereby earnestly urge a policy that will afford an opportunity to settle our lands and make use of our resources on terms of equality with the older states, to the benefit and upbuilding of the State and to the strength of the nation." But to no avail.
> 
> Ultimately, with the 1976 enactment of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the federal policy officially changed to one of retention and preservation. It declared that "it is the policy of the United States that the public lands be retained in Federal ownership, unless. . . it is determined that disposal of a particular parcel will serve the national interest."
> 
> The western states reacted to FLPMA's passage with both anger and action. In what came to be called the "Sagebrush Rebellion" of the 1970s and 80s, the western states combined efforts to force the federal government to divest itself of the public lands. State and local legislation, court challenges, federal administrative changes and federal legislation, were all rejected by the federal courts in two Nevada decisions that essentially stifled the rebellion, pointing to a 1911 Supreme Court ruling that the Feds had jurisdiction. Further legal efforts to claim state sovereignty over the lands will likely meet a similar fate.


This idea that the federal government is literally a pack of land-grabbing thieves isn't so far-fetched after all ... And I'm actually starting to see things Dinesh D'Souza's way who at first I thought was just an extremely disgruntled individual with an agenda. What he's saying about the Democrats is actually starting to make some sense ...


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

This is an important read for @L-DOPA and everyone else who cares about actual policy substance. Those at the very top are gaming the system and creating massive bubbles. When those bubbles pop, everyone except for those at the very top are royally fucked. The people in charge are sacrificing long term sustainability for short term profit. Does everyone remember how the market took an immediate downturn when Trump was elected? It's because they were uncertain about Trump because of his populist campaign rhetoric. Now that the campaign is over and Trump is morphing into the most establishment politician of all time, it has become a free-for-all.

Everyone on the right who is overjoyed because the corporatist Dems have been defeated need to understand something. Just because the Obama/Clinton regime who was out to fuck you over has been defeated doesn't mean the people you just elected aren't out to fuck you over even more. There is a global capitalism collapse incoming and electing Trump only sped up the process. 

"Corporations are borrowing tons of money from investors in the bond market, which they are distributing to their shareholders rather than using to improve productivity or increase employment."

Y'all need to look at this and try to comprehend what is going on. The right wing plan of slashing taxes and deregulating everything is not going to bring you the prosperity that you think it will. These massive corporations are using all that extra money to game the system to line their own pockets. They don't give a fuck about you and they don't give a fuck about how everyone is going to suffer when capitalism collapses because they will have already lined their pockets at your expense.

"Stock buybacks– which were illegal before the Reagan administration — are a deceptive form of financial circlejerk that distort prices, create bubbles and lead to crisis."

Call me crazy but I would like to have an economic system that doesn't have cyclical crashes built into the system. Here is how it works in a nutshell: heads, they win, tails, you lose. The people in charge of our economy rape and pillage the economy to stock their coffers and when their reckless policies crash the system, they rape and pillage taxpayer money to continue propping up the rigged system.

"Since Donald Trump has been elected, the buyback frenzy has gained momentum mainly because he’s promised a one-time “repatriation holiday” for tax dodging US corporations who will be allowed to bring upwards of $1 trillion back to the US at a meager 10% corporate tax rate."

When you or I dodge taxes, we go to jail. When corporations making billions in profit do it, they are rewarded. If that's not gaming the system, I don't know what is.

"Market analysts do not expect the money to go into production, hiring or infrastructure development, but into more buybacks that will send stocks higher into the stratosphere."

Again, this notion that deregulating everything and slashing taxes on corporations will somehow help out the working man is just flat out retarded. They use all that extra money to continue gaming the system at *your* expense.

"So according to G-Sax, 75% of all the dough returning from overseas is going go into buybacks that will pump up the equities bubble (that Trump criticized before he was elected) into the biggest colossus of all time. Is that the change that Trump backers were hoping for?"

The dam was ready to break 8 years ago when Dubya was on his way out. Obama was elected on leftist hope and change and what we got was right wing corporatism. I know Americans are ridiculously brainwashed into believing center-right corporatist Obama is left wing but all he did once elected was to put his finger in the dam by continuing to prop up a dying system. Quite frankly, I don't even blame you for wanting to elect Trump after that fuckery but you need to understand that it's right wing corporatist policies that got us into this mess. Trump is openly telegraphing that his policies are going to double down on fucking over the working class to enrich the .01%.

"On a more practical level, the Fed is raising rates because of the banks. That’s right, it’s another handout to the big Wall Street behemoths."

And this is what it all comes down to. The Fed is basically a lackey for Wall Street. Our economic policy is a runaway freight train enriching the few at the expense of the many. There is an epic collapse coming. Nothing can stop that now. Buckle up and kiss your ass goodbye because shit is about to get real bad.



> December 29, 2016
> *The Reason the Fed is Raising Rates, and Why It Won’t Work *
> 
> by Mike Whitney
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is the Fed creating incentives for US corporations to destroy themselves? Why is the Fed pushing insurance companies and retirement funds into bankruptcy? Why is the Fed raising interest rates when inflation is still well below its 2 percent target?
> 
> Things are not always what they seem. In theory, the Fed’s low interest rates are supposed to have a positive impact on the economy by spurring a credit expansion. But it hasn’t worked out that way. Bank lending has remained stubbornly subdued throughout the post-crisis period. But what hasn’t remained subdued is corporate borrowing (via the bond market) which has exceeded all previous records increasing the probability of massive corporate defaults sometime in the next two years. Here’s a good summary of what’s going on from an article in Fortune titled “Corporate America is Drowning in Debt”:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “A good portion of Corporate America may have a serious debt problem. According to a report released Friday from S&P Global Ratings, the bottom 99% of corporations, when it comes to the amount of cash they have, are increasingly showing worrying levels of debt.
> 
> Studying S&P’s universe of more than 2,000 nonfinancial corporations, S&P’s researchers found that corporate issuers of debt had on hand a record $1.84 trillion in cash. But that statistic doesn’t tell us very much about the health of individual companies, because it appears cash is more concentrated at the top than ever. The top 1% of corporate cash holders…have slightly more than half of the total cash pile of Corporate America….
> 
> If you remove the top 25 cash holders, you’ll find that for most of Corporate America, cash on hand is declining even as these companies rack up more and more debt at historic rates. The bottom 99% of corporate borrowers have just $900 billion in cash on hand to back up $6 trillion in debt. “This resulted in a cash-to-debt ratio of 12%—the lowest recorded over the past decade, including the years preceding the Great Recession,” the report reads.” …
> 
> One obvious reason for Corporate America’s debt binge is low interest rates. With investors willing to lend companies money for so little in return, it makes sense that firms would turn to debt to finance things like share repurchases rather than, for instance, bringing cash earned from overseas, which would then be taxed at a high rate.
> 
> ….”Given the record levels of speculative-grade debt issuance in recent years,” the report reads, “we believe corporate default rates could increase over the next few years.” (“Corporate America Is Drowning in Debt“, Fortune)
> 
> 
> 
> Repeat: The vast majority of US corporations are worse off now than they were in “the years preceding the Great Recession.” And the reason they’re worse off now is because of low interest rates. The Fed’s low rates create lethal incentives for CEO’s to pile on the debt which puts their companies at greater risk of default. Corporations are borrowing tons of money from investors in the bond market, which they are distributing to their shareholders rather than using to improve productivity or increase employment. They are also recycling two-thirds of earnings into stock buybacks which is going to dramatically impact their future competitiveness. Here’s a blurb from an article in USA Today that sums it all up:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “Capital spending fell 6.2% at an annual rate in the first quarter following a 2.1% drop late last year, its worst such stretch since 2009 and a big reason the economy nearly stalled in that period, Commerce Department data shows.
> 
> Business outlays were sluggish throughout 2015, rising 2.8% compared to an average 4.5% clip during the seven-year-old recovery. …Business spending typically makes up 12.5% of economic activity but has an outsized impact on the economy and stock market. Purchases of equipment and software, and the construction and renovation of buildings, create thousands of jobs for manufacturers. And such investment makes up nearly 30% of the sales of Standard & Poor’s 500 companies, says David Bianco, Deutsche Bank’s chief U.S. equity strategist….
> 
> Instead, public companies are plowing their large cash reserves into stock buybacks and dividends despite low borrowing costs.” (“Business investment is in a slump and its hurting the economy”, USA Today)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stock buybacks– which were illegal before the Reagan administration — are a deceptive form of financial circlejerk that distort prices, create bubbles and lead to crisis. The reason the Fed ignores these issues because it sees profitmaking as a higher priority than ensuring the safety of the system. Go figure?
> 
> Since Donald Trump has been elected, the buyback frenzy has gained momentum mainly because he’s promised a one-time “repatriation holiday” for tax dodging US corporations who will be allowed to bring upwards of $1 trillion back to the US at a meager 10% corporate tax rate. Market analysts do not expect the money to go into production, hiring or infrastructure development, but into more buybacks that will send stocks higher into the stratosphere. Here’s the story from the WSJ:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “Corporate stock repurchases are on the upswing once again, wrong-footing skeptics who predicted 2016 would mark the beginning of the end of a postcrisis spending spree. Through Dec. 16, companies this month have stepped up their buybacks by nearly two-thirds over the same period last year, according to Goldman Sachs Group Inc….
> 
> The outlook for buybacks, like so much else in financial markets, has been upended by the Nov. 8 election of Donald Trump as president. After repurchases hit a record in 2015, they had slowed this year. Many analysts predict they will decline next year, reflecting soft corporate-earnings growth and stretched stock valuations. But the election surprise has raised the prospect that tax cuts will put large sums in corporate coffers, which in turn will be deployed largely in repurchases. That money potentially could include the profits that U.S. companies stand to bring back from overseas under a widely expected repatriation-tax holiday.
> 
> Goldman Sachs forecast that S&P 500 companies will repatriate $200 billion of their $1 trillion in cash held overseas in 2017 and that $150 billion of those funds will be spent on share repurchases. That could provide further support for major U.S. stock indexes that have hit fresh highs this month.”
> 
> (“Surging Buybacks Say Stock Boom Isn’t Over“, Wall Street Journal)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So according to G-Sax, 75% of all the dough returning from overseas is going go into buybacks that will pump up the equities bubble (that Trump criticized before he was elected) into the biggest colossus of all time. Is that the change that Trump backers were hoping for?
> 
> Here’s more from the same article:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “Repurchases have been a major contributor to the nearly eight-year stock rally. From the start of 2009 to the end of September 2016, companies in the S&P 500 spent more than $3.24 trillion repurchasing shares, according to S&P Dow Jones Indices.
> 
> Both companies and investors often applaud share repurchases because the practice drives up earnings per share and often boosts stock prices.” (WSJ)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ultimately, the buck stops with the Fed, that’s where the real blame lies. The Fed created the incentives for this destructive behavior and they are the primary regulator of the entire financial system. They could stop this nonsense with just one appearance before Congress, but they choose not to. They’d rather keep the real economy in a permanent coma and blow up the financial system than lift a finger to stop Wall Street’s reckless and relentless looting spree.
> 
> We know that the low rates have been disastrous for pension funds, insurance companies and Mom and Pop’s retirement savings which have shriveled to nothing since the recession ended in 2009. We also know that–during that same period– “97% of all GDP-income gains went to the wealthiest 1% households” which has widened inequality to levels not seen since the Gilded Age. The question is: Why would the Fed change its policy now that all the money is flowing exactly where the Fed wants it to flow, upwards?
> 
> Is the Fed really worried about inflation, is that it?
> 
> Not at all. All the talk about inflation is pure bunkum and the Fed knows it. According to the Wall Street Journal:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “The central bank’s preferred gauge of inflation, the personal-consumption expenditures price index, was up 1.4% in November from a year earlier, data showed Thursday. Another measure, the consumer-price index, was up 1.7% from a year earlier in November….
> 
> Fed Chairwoman Janet Yellen said this month that there are signs wage inflation is picking up. Yet the nonfarm jobs report this month showed average hourly earnings for private-sector workers declined 0.1% in November….
> 
> One other factor that may contain the risk of inflation is the U.S. dollar, which rose to a 14-year high against a basket of its main rivals earlier this week. A higher dollar reduces the cost of imported goods that may keep a lid on inflation, potentially delaying the Fed’s goal to push up inflation to its 2% target.” (“The Markets Say Inflation Is Coming. The Data Show It Isn’t True“, Wall Street Journal)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get the picture? Even using the Fed’s own methodology (“preferred gauge”) inflation is still below the 2% target. It’s just not a problem nor will it be as long as the Fed keeps the economy in this Central Bank-induced Depression. Because during a depression, the demand for credit stays weak, and when the demand for credit stays weak, the price of money remains low. It’s just supply and demand.
> 
> So the question we should be asking ourselves is this: Is the economy still in the crapper or has activity really started to pick up like Fed Chairman Janet Yellen keeps saying? Here’s how the Wall Street Journal answers that question:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “Stock prices may have soared since the November election, but the U.S. economy is ending 2016 on an anemic note. Measures of economic vitality including income growth, consumer spending and inflation weakened last month following a short-lived spurt.
> 
> Household spending rose just 0.2% in November from the month before, a slowdown in growth from the previous two months, while incomes flatlined, the Commerce Department said Thursday. Inflation readings, which had perked up, didn’t budge last month, and demand for factory-made goods remained soft. For now, that leaves the U.S. economy in the middling trajectory that has marked the seven-year expansion.
> 
> “Underlying support for the consumer sector remains fragile at best,” said Lindsey Piegza, economist at Stifel Nicolaus & Co. “The reality the consumer is facing at this point is still modest wage gains and a continued loss of momentum in income growth.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Forecasting firm Macroeconomic Advisers estimates the economy is growing at a 1.7% rate in the final three months of 2016. Federal Reserve policy makers expect the economy to grow 1.9% this year and 2.1% next year, a forecast the central bank has barely changed since the election of Donald Trump.
> 
> About two-thirds of total U.S. output goes toward domestic consumer spending. Solid household outlays during the summer helped propel economic growth to a 3.5% annual pace in the third quarter, the best quarterly increase in two years, according to revised data released Thursday. But income growth has softened: Wage and salary income rose 3.5% in November from a year earlier, the slowest year-over-year gain since December 2013.
> 
> Without stronger support from consumers and more investment by businesses, third-quarter growth momentum could wane.” (“U.S. Economy Approaches Year’s End on Lackluster Note“, Wall Street Journal)
> 
> Yellen points to employment, consumer spending and “firming” inflation as signs that the recovery is strengthening, but as the article points out, it’s all baloney. There’s no recovery. Sure, there’s been a slight uptick in optimism because of Trump’s promise to spend a lot of money to fire up GDP, but most of those promises will never materialize, which means that growth will remain in the 2% doldrums for the foreseeable future.
> 
> But if the Fed is not raising rates to curb rising inflation or to prevent the economy from overheating, then what the heck is it doing?
> 
> Ahh, that’s where it gets interesting.
> 
> The Fed is raising rates because there is now widespread agreement that keeping rates low for a long period of time does serious damage to the financial infrastructure. That’s one reason, but it doesn’t fully explain what’s really going on. On a more practical level, the Fed is raising rates because of the banks. That’s right, it’s another handout to the big Wall Street behemoths. This is from the Wall Street Journal:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “Big U.S. banks have rallied in recent months amid rising interest rates but, if the Fed carries out its plans, there is room for them to keep rallying….
> 
> For American banks, a pie-in-the-sky scenario has just moved closer to reality. While struggling with ultralow interest rates, major banks have also been publishing regular updates on how well they would do if interest rates suddenly surged upward….Bank of America also says a 1-percentage-point rise in short-term rates would add $3.29 billion….a back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests an incremental $2.9 billion of extra pretax income in 2017, or 11.5% of the bank’s expected 2016 pretax profit…
> 
> With shares up 45% since the end of September, Bank of America is no longer cheap. But it isn’t expensive either… Especially if the Fed moves forward with more rate increases, there is room to go higher.” (“Banks’ Interest-Rate Dreams Coming True“, Wall Street Journal)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So higher rates and a steeper yield-curve mean heftier profits and higher stock prices, which is why the financials have been the hottest sector for the last six weeks.
> 
> Bottom line: The Fed’s rate hike has nothing to do with employment, growth, productivity, the state of the economy or inflation. It’s all about the banks.
> 
> And that’s why the plan is doomed from the get-go, because raising rates during a Depression doesn’t help to end the slump. It just makes matters worse.
> 
> SOURCE
Click to expand...


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Very interesting article @Tater. It mentions quite a bit of the long term economic problems I have been talking about on this forum with FED policy since Obama took office....in particular artificially keeping the interest rates low along with the bubble's that are being created in the bonds and equities market's that are being propped up by FED policy whether that be through borrowing or further spending and investment into those markets. What will be most interesting is the type of impact the raised interest rates will have in the both short and long term economic health of the US. Anyone who has been following the markets at least a year in advance knows that an economic crash is coming and that it is only really a matter of when.

As the article explicitly says, this is all being caused by the policies laid out by the Federal Reserve, whose centralized power and monopoly over fiscal and monetary policy as well as over currency in the US itself has created a dangerous precedent ever since the bank was first established in 1913.

I would put forward a more detailed response but it is already very late here and I need to get some sleep :lol.

I would really like to read @DesolationRow's thoughts on this as he is more knowledgeable than anybody on the issue of the Federal Reserve and Central Banking as a whole .


----------



## The Bliss Blower

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I cant wait for the deportation programs for the muslims !


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I remember someone on this forum recommend someone sell all their stocks and buy weapons and supplies and get ready to hide out because an economic crash/war 

5 years ago

hope he isn't still down their


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



stevefox1200 said:


> I remember someone on this forum recommend someone sell all their stocks and buy weapons and supplies and get ready to hide out because an economic crash/war
> 
> 5 years ago
> 
> hope he isn't still down their


There are still people waiting for the Y2K to happen.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Considering that capitalism has existed since the dawn of man, I'm pretty sure it's not ending anytime soon :lmao 

Even when corporations die as long as objects and people exist, capitalism will exist. At most currency exchanges could die and we'll go back to a grassroots barter system -- which is still capitalism btw. 

I don't even know what these anti-capitalists are talking about half the time because it's clear that they don't even know what capitalism actually even is ... They've created their own strawman of capitalism and just simply keep talking about its end. 

As long as there's necessity and scarcity and people need to eat, there's going to be capitalism. You'll just be exchanging what you own with someone else for what they own. It's never going to end as long as humans survive. Get over it.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



L-DOPA said:


> Very interesting article @Tater. It mentions quite a bit of the long term economic problems I have been talking about on this forum with FED policy since Obama took office....in particular artificially keeping the interest rates low along with the bubble's that are being created in the bonds and equities market's that are being propped up by FED policy whether that be through borrowing or further spending and investment into those markets. What will be most interesting is the type of impact the raised interest rates will have in the both short and long term economic health of the US. Anyone who has been following the markets at least a year in advance knows that an economic crash is coming and that it is only really a matter of when.
> 
> As the article explicitly says, this is all being caused by the policies laid out by the Federal Reserve, whose centralized power and monopoly over fiscal and monetary policy as well as over currency in the US itself has created a dangerous precedent ever since the bank was first established in 1913.
> 
> I would put forward a more detailed response but it is already very late here and I need to get some sleep :lol.
> 
> I would really like to read @DesolationRow's thoughts on this as he is more knowledgeable than anybody on the issue of the Federal Reserve and Central Banking as a whole .


I'll be looking forward to that response. And to our other conversation, as well.

Being opposed to regulation as you are, would you admit that maybe the Fed needs to be regulated more so shit like this doesn't happen?

And would you also admit that if wealth wasn't concentrated so much, we wouldn't regularly have these devastating crashes? 

When all the wealth is concentrated and those at the top play dangerous games with money, it's the common man that ends up getting fucked over when the crashes happen. In a less capitalistic, more socialist society, where wealth is more evenly distributed, if a crash happens, it is more compartmentalized and doesn't end up fucking over the entire population. And just to be clear, when I talk about socialism, I am not talking about state capitalism, which is a common misconception amongst brainwashed Westerners. What I'm *not* talking about is the State owning everything and everyone working for the State. What I *am* talking about is pure socialism, where businesses are owned and operated by the public. When you have an economic system with _decentralized_ power and certain aspects of it fail, it doesn't bring down the entire system with it, unlike what we have now. If you break up the big banks and all the mega financial institutions and heavily regulate the Fed, we wouldn't see the kind of devastating crashes that are currently built into the system. Just like any good architect will tell you, everything starts with a strong foundation. It doesn't matter how nice the house is if it is built on a pile of sand.


----------



## RenegadexParagon

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Considering that capitalism has existed since the dawn of man, I'm pretty sure it's not ending anytime soon :lmao
> 
> Even when corporations die as long as objects and people exist, capitalism will exist. At most currency exchanges could die and we'll go back to a grassroots barter system -- which is still capitalism btw.


that is some intense ideology. :lmao


look, if you want to define capitalism as simply being any form of voluntary exchange or whatever-the-fuck liberals have decided capitalism is now, go for it. I personally find this recent definition of capitalism to be so broad to the point of it being ludicrous as well as being totally ahistorical, but that's just me. I'm not entirely interested in constant arguments over semantics however, as tends to happen whenever socialists and liberals engage in some kind of argument/debate with one another, so whatever, do what you want, I don't care tbh. 



> I don't even know what these anti-capitalists are talking about half the time


yeah, that is painfully obvious. 

When socialists/anti-capitalists mention _capitalism_ they're referring to a system/structure in society that involves private ownership over the mean of production, wage labor, absentee landlordism, etc. _This has not always existed and is not a natural state of things_ and I think even you'd be hard pressed to prove otherwise considering previous systems such as _feudalism_ lacked some of the characteristics that exist under capitalism (such as wage labor and competitive markets). Maybe, like, read books written by socialists/anti-capitalists or something so you can actually understand what we mean. Idk, crazy thought.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

That is beyond ludicrous and I will address this post tomorrow. Probably waste of time because the brainwashing is at Scientology levels but I might break through. It's worth a shot.


----------



## RenegadexParagon

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> That is beyond ludicrous and I will address this post tomorrow. Probably waste of time because the brainwashing is at Scientology levels but I might break through. It's worth a shot.


lol okay


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Fascinating story and discussion, @Tater and @L-DOPA. As always I'm touched by someone invoking me as some expert. :lol 

The hour is a little bit late since I did not get any sleep last night so rather than discuss capitalism or even the Federal Reserve or any other overarching matters introduced here I will instead limit this post to the topic of stock buybacks because that is an intriguing and seldom-discussed topic unto itself.

Stock buybacks are a sort of high finance scam which are generally floated in order to behoove a company's earnings per share, boosting the price of the stock itself. Have discussed companies using their vestige assets for stock buybacks in the past but it is important to consider how much of a role they potentially play in the ballooning of bubbles. Stock buybacks as a rule are not necessarily harmful as a theoretical matter: when they are performed with any sense of judiciousness, stock buybacks enable the purchasing of shares at a time when the company's management comprehends that the stock is undervalued. Sounds good, yes, but it is actively carried out in nearly all cases with the explanation that the shareholder value will wax. Companies insist that what is a positive event for the generic shareholder, such as a stock buyback, is equally good medicine for the company. This is almost never the case. Stock buybacks unfortunately carry with them long-term problems for the company at large while admittedly benefitting a generally exclusive cluster of connected shareholders. Repurchasing shares invariably weakens the company's own balance sheet. Interest rates increasing also diminishes the salutary effect of stock buybacks for the broadest number of companies. The cash, equity and working capital see their respective values sapped by the dollar amount represented by the shares repurchased in the stock buyback. Wall Street honchos tend to overlook this; the average program of initiative share repurchasing adds up to billions of dollars, with a financial house of cards engendered. Declining stock prices stubbornly persist against the collected knowledge on Wall Street of buying back shares since a scarcer quantity of shares should lead to higher stock prices. This is what in large part produced some of the most devastating body blows to what had been some of the most iconic brokerage firms and banks in the U.S. almost a decade ago. Shareholder value, in the aggregate, is in fact not increased with stock buybacks.

Craterous drops in stock prices should necessitate repurchasing shares if stock buybacks are naturally good for a company, but the logic employed by Wall Street is abandoned during tough times. From January through May 2007, Citigroup, J.P. Morgan, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Wachovia Corporation and Washington Mutual bought back $14.4 billion of their collective common stock. When Wall Street was rocked by harsher waters, from January through May 2008, these same seven companies repurchased a mere $786 million of their shares, which is a reduction of approximately 94%. Balance sheets still matter, and all corporate management teams recognize the persistent truth that tough times are not when one goes about further watering down one's own house's balance sheet. 

Ultimately, repurchases of shares only benefit a sliver of extraordinarily well-connected corporate insiders. The rules are properly modified so that they may benefit while their companies remain financially stagnant, which would be one thing, but Wall Street is home to one bank and brokerage whose top bosses and most exclusive shareholders directly benefit from the economic stagnation wedded to the annihilation of the company's balance sheet. Citigroup is probably the best all-around case study of this phenomenon. After sustaining a cumulative net loss of $17.4 billion Citigroup aggressively repurchased shares, all while Citigroup's management team expected these losses as a mere part of doing business from the mass speculation in mortgage-backed securities, extending some of the shakiest loans in the history of Wall Street, participating in sheer speculative leveraged buyouts and myriad other highly explosive financial activities. Citigroup credit standards were almost nonexistent as revenues climbed to the heavens. In December 2007, Citigroup, at the apex of its own dizzyingly irresponsible practice of stock buyback programs being run, saw its stock peak at over $55 per share, all leading to the inevitable, pulverizing losses as the share price tumbled down a little over 65% a mere six months later. 

Essentially, stock buyback schemes are self-aggrandizing Wall Street scams and highly "sketchy" as the kids might say today. You can see why I opted to limit this post to this modest portion of the topic at large. :lol Goodnight, :trump thread.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



DesolationRow said:


> Fascinating story and discussion, @Tater and @L-DOPA. As always I'm touched by someone invoking me as some expert. :lol
> 
> The hour is a little bit late since I did not get any sleep last night so rather than discuss capitalism or even the Federal Reserve or any other overarching matters introduced here I will instead limit this post to the topic of stock buybacks because that is an intriguing and seldom-discussed topic unto itself.
> 
> Stock buybacks are a sort of high finance scam which are generally floated in order to behoove a company's earnings per share, boosting the price of the stock itself. Have discussed companies using their vestige assets for stock buybacks in the past but it is important to consider how much of a role they potentially play in the ballooning of bubbles. Stock buybacks as a rule are not necessarily harmful as a theoretical matter: when they are performed with any sense of judiciousness, stock buybacks enable the purchasing of shares at a time when the company's management comprehends that the stock is undervalued. Sounds good, yes, but it is actively carried out in nearly all cases with the explanation that the shareholder value will wax. Companies insist that what is a positive event for the generic shareholder, such as a stock buyback, is equally good medicine for the company. This is almost never the case. Stock buybacks unfortunately carry with them long-term problems for the company at large while admittedly benefitting a generally exclusive cluster of connected shareholders. Repurchasing shares invariably weakens the company's own balance sheet. Interest rates increasing also diminishes the salutary effect of stock buybacks for the broadest number of companies. The cash, equity and working capital see their respective values sapped by the dollar amount represented by the shares repurchased in the stock buyback. Wall Street honchos tend to overlook this; the average program of initiative share repurchasing adds up to billions of dollars, with a financial house of cards engendered. Declining stock prices stubbornly persist against the collected knowledge on Wall Street of buying back shares since a scarcer quantity of shares should lead to higher stock prices. This is what in large part produced some of the most devastating body blows to what had been some of the most iconic brokerage firms and banks in the U.S. almost a decade ago. Shareholder value, in the aggregate, is in fact not increased with stock buybacks.
> 
> Craterous drops in stock prices should necessitate repurchasing shares if stock buybacks are naturally good for a company, but the logic employed by Wall Street is abandoned during tough times. From January through May 2007, Citigroup, J.P. Morgan, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Wachovia Corporation and Washington Mutual bought back $14.4 billion of their collective common stock. When Wall Street was rocked by harsher waters, from January through May 2008, these same seven companies repurchased a mere $786 million of their shares, which is a reduction of approximately 94%. Balance sheets still matter, and all corporate management teams recognize the persistent truth that tough times are not when one goes about further watering down one's own house's balance sheet.
> 
> Ultimately, repurchases of shares only benefit a sliver of extraordinarily well-connected corporate insiders. The rules are properly modified so that they may benefit while their companies remain financially stagnant, which would be one thing, but Wall Street is home to one bank and brokerage whose top bosses and most exclusive shareholders directly benefit from the economic stagnation wedded to the annihilation of the company's balance sheet. Citigroup is probably the best all-around case study of this phenomenon. After sustaining a cumulative net loss of $17.4 billion Citigroup aggressively repurchased shares, all while Citigroup's management team expected these losses as a mere part of doing business from the mass speculation in mortgage-backed securities, extending some of the shakiest loans in the history of Wall Street, participating in sheer speculative leveraged buyouts and myriad other highly explosive financial activities. Citigroup credit standards were almost nonexistent as revenues climbed to the heavens. In December 2007, Citigroup, at the apex of its own dizzyingly irresponsible practice of stock buyback programs being run, saw its stock peak at over $55 per share, all leading to the inevitable, pulverizing losses as the share price tumbled down a little over 65% a mere six months later.
> 
> Essentially, stock buyback schemes are self-aggrandizing Wall Street scams and highly "sketchy" as the kids might say today. You can see why I opted to limit this post to this modest portion of the topic at large. :lol Goodnight, :trump thread.


:applause

Well said, as always, Des. The key line being: "Ultimately, repurchases of shares only benefit a sliver of extraordinarily well-connected corporate insiders."

The entire capitalist system we have these days is a massive scam and I would like to hear more of your thoughts on capitalism when you have the time.

In the meantime, I'm going to post this here for you, @L-DOPA and any other interested party. The last *great* Republican president. Everything that he warned about has come true. This is a man who got it. This is a man from a time when left was left and right was right. Our political spectrum is so fucked nowadays that modern Democrats are further right than Ike himself. If Eisenhower was running today, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat, partisan politics be damned.






This speech legit makes me want to stand and applause.


----------



## amhlilhaus

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Wrong. The last great republican was reagan. To argue otherwise, theres no words. On paper, and in reality, reagan ruled.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



amhlilhaus said:


> Wrong. The last great republican was reagan. To argue otherwise, theres no words. On paper, and in reality, reagan ruled.


To be completely fair about it, Reagan had a few admirable qualities. It doesn't put him in the _great Republican president_ category but at least he wasn't full retard like the party has become these days. Reagan at least understood that we shouldn't try to use military might to solve all of the world's problems and I will always give him credit for that. I'd take Reagan over Clinton any day but he ain't no Ike.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

what is the primary argument against capitalism? I'm genuinely curious what some of the main objections are.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Goku said:


> what is the primary argument against capitalism? I'm genuinely curious what some of the main objections are.


Exploitation of labor to enrich those at the very top. When the Walton family is worth more than the bottom 40% of the country and they train their employees on how to receive government assistance instead of paying them a living wage, you have capitalism to thank for that. The capitalist system we have now rewards the owner class for simply being the owner class instead of rewarding the people who actually do the work to produce the wealth. Call me a crazy socialist if you want to but I will always be of the opinion that the people who produce the wealth should share in the wealth.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

While Reagan is considered great, some of what he did was sketchy and didn't help much, it was because of him that so many people got amnestied and compounded the problem. Reagan doesn't get flack for it because it's the "Fart in the closed room" scenario, anything that wasn't kosher was blamed on someone else because the effects weren't noticed until later.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> While Reagan is considered great, some of what he did was sketchy and didn't help much, it was because of him that so many people got amnestied and compounded the problem. Reagan doesn't get flack for it because it's the "Fart in the closed room" scenario, anything that wasn't kosher was blamed on someone else because the effects weren't noticed until later.












:draper2


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@DesolationRow fantastic post as always :clap. Put it into better terms than I could ever do so.



Tater said:


> I'll be looking forward to that response. And to our other conversation, as well.
> 
> Being opposed to regulation as you are, would you admit that maybe the Fed needs to be regulated more so shit like this doesn't happen?
> 
> And would you also admit that if wealth wasn't concentrated so much, we wouldn't regularly have these devastating crashes?
> 
> When all the wealth is concentrated and those at the top play dangerous games with money, it's the common man that ends up getting fucked over when the crashes happen. In a less capitalistic, more socialist society, where wealth is more evenly distributed, if a crash happens, it is more compartmentalized and doesn't end up fucking over the entire population. And just to be clear, when I talk about socialism, I am not talking about state capitalism, which is a common misconception amongst brainwashed Westerners. What I'm *not* talking about is the State owning everything and everyone working for the State. What I *am* talking about is pure socialism, where businesses are owned and operated by the public. When you have an economic system with _decentralized_ power and certain aspects of it fail, it doesn't bring down the entire system with it, unlike what we have now. If you break up the big banks and all the mega financial institutions and heavily regulate the Fed, we wouldn't see the kind of devastating crashes that are currently built into the system. Just like any good architect will tell you, everything starts with a strong foundation. It doesn't matter how nice the house is if it is built on a pile of sand.


As seemingly with every economic issue we seem to recognize the same problems but come to entirely different conclusions on how to fix it. The biggest problem to me isn't that the Federal Reserve isn't regulated enough rather that the Federal Reserve exists in the first place. Banking in a centralized manner handled by a system which has complete and total monopolized control over fiscal and monetary policy as well as the currency over countries to me is what causes these problems to begin with. When you have bankers try to control and distort the market as a way to either to create an economic boom, to "secure" the market place or to work towards their own self interest that is when you start seeing these massive inflationary boom cycles followed by a massive contraction and a long period of economic depression. What some historians and a lot of economists fail to tell you is that before the Great Depression in the 1930's there was no prolonged economic depression that took years and years to recover from. Even in the so-called free banking system in the 75 year gap between the 2nd Bank of America and the Federal Reserve where restrictions on branch banking made it very difficult for U.S. banks to protect themselves against location-specific risk, such as crop failures or industrial downturns; the most time that the economy experienced downturn in the United States during that period was around 18 months, not several years. Furthermore, the volume of notes U.S. banks were allowed to issue was limited by legal restrictions. As a result, every autumn, the U.S. experienced a small-scale crisis as farmers needed cash to help bring their crops to market.

Canada, in contrast, did not restrict branching or note issuance, and thus faced no such trouble. The result was that note circulation in the harvest months was approximately 20 percent higher in Canada than in the United States. In addition, interest rates fluctuated greatly in the U.S. during this time but did not do so in Canada, which eventually succumbed to international pressure to nationalize its central bank in 1938.

The problem with your argument surrounding regulating the bank system more is that it assumes that regulation isn't increasing or that we are deregulating the banking system, the opposite in fact overall has been happening. After the passage of Dodd-Frank in 2010, regulatory restrictions have sharply increased over the last several years yet the same problems are still occurring as in 2007-2008:



















And that is just recently, regulation of the financial industry substantially increased over the last thirty years. Government spending on financial regulations, to take one measure, ballooned from $725 million in 1980 to $2.07 billion in 2007. The big argument for increased regulation of the banks comes from the repealing of Glass Steagall....or to be more specific: the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLB). There are a few myths that I have seen when it comes to the deregulation of the Banking system is what caused the Sub-Prime Mortgage crash in 2007-2008. First of all, Joesph Stiglitz, for instance, in a lengthy piece for Vanity Fair, could only muster two examples of the deregulation he thinks bears primary responsibility for the crisis: The first we already know. The second however is interesting, the SEC’s 2004 decision to raise banks’ debt-to-capital ratio from 12:1 to 30:1. That was not *deregulation, but re-regulation.*

The point to make is what the Glass Steagall restrictions that were repealed by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act would have actually done. If you tally the institutions that ran into severe problems in 2008-09, the list includes Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, AIG, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, none of which would have come under Glass-Steagall’s restrictions. This is something even Obama has admitted. As for FDIC-insured commercial banks, what got them into trouble were not activities restricted by Glass-Steagall. Their problems arose from investments in residential mortgages and residential mortgage-backed securities—investments they had always been free to engage in. Who or what encouraged these practices through the lending of cheap credit at an extremely risky rate? *The policies of the Federal Reserve.*

Even the NPR's fact checking on Glass Steagall came to the conclusion that *at best*, it was just one factor that caused the economic crash:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...lass-steagall-cause-the-2008-financial-crisis




> Taking on Wall Street makes for good politics in the Democratic Party. And several of the candidates at Tuesday night's debate had tough words about big banks. That was particularly true of former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.
> 
> Although he didn't say so directly, O'Malley suggested several times that consolidation in the banking business was a big factor in the 2008 financial crash and that the U.S. economy remains vulnerable because of it.
> 
> His solution: Bring back Glass-Steagall, the Depression-era law that barred commercial banks from engaging in investment banking that was scaled back in the Clinton administration. We decided to look at O'Malley's claim about the risks of bank consolidation.
> 
> The Claim:
> 
> "[T]he big banks — I mean, once we repealed Glass-Steagall back in the late 1999s, the big banks, the six of them, went from controlling, what, the equivalent of 15 percent of our GDP to now 65 percent of our GDP."
> The Big Question:
> 
> How much bigger have the largest banks gotten, what did Glass-Steagall have to do with it and, most important, did the scaling back of Glass-Steagall lead to the 2008 financial collapse?
> 
> The Broader Context:
> 
> Despite what O'Malley and many other people believe, Glass-Steagall was not technically repealed in 1999, but it was effectively neutered. Legislation was passed that year that allowed bank holding companies to engage in previously forbidden commercial activities, such as insurance and investment banking.
> 
> The change in the law opened the floodgates for giant mergers, such as the $33 billion deal between J.P. Morgan and Chase Manhattan in September of 2000. During the darkest days of the financial crisis, Bank of America acquired two troubled financial companies — Countrywide Financial Services and Merrill Lynch, deals that wouldn't have been possible before 1999.
> 
> The Long Answer:
> 
> The biggest banks are a lot bigger than they once were, mostly because of mergers and acquisitions. What's not in dispute is that changes to Glass-Steagall allowed the biggest banks to grow bigger, which has raised new concerns about risks to the financial system.
> 
> At issue is the "too big to fail" problem: Will the federal government once again be forced to come to the aid of federally insured megabanks that have taken outsize risks with their money?
> 
> Since 2008, regulatory changes in the U.S. and abroad have supposedly mitigated that danger. The Dodd-Frank financial overhaul bill contains complicated provisions that would allow regulators to step in and take over failing banks, if necessary.
> 
> But there's plenty of skepticism that the changes have gone far enough.
> 
> Some critics, such as Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, have long seen the changes to Glass-Steagall as a major factor in the 2008 crash. By bringing "investment and commercial banks together, the investment bank culture came out on top," Stiglitz wrote in 2009. "There was a demand for the kind of high returns that could be obtained only through high leverage and big risk-taking."
> 
> But others, like former Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, have said the focus on Glass-Steagall is misguided. They argue other factors were more important in causing the 2008 crisis, such as bad mortgage underwriting, poor work by the ratings agencies and a securitization market gone crazy. All of that would have happened no matter the size of the big banks.
> 
> In fact, some of the financial institutions that fared the worst, such as Bear Stearns, AIG, Lehman Brothers and Washington Mutual, weren't part of large bank holding companies at all.
> 
> "I have often posed the following question to critics who claim that repealing Glass-Steagall was a major cause of the financial crisis: What bad practices would have been prevented if Glass-Steagall was still on the books?" wrote former Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Alan Blinder. "I've yet to hear a good answer."
> 
> Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona teamed up to sponsor a bill that would bring back Glass-Steagall-type restrictions.
> 
> It was never allowed to come up for a vote.
> 
> The Short Answer:
> 
> The 1999 changes to Glass-Steagall led to much bigger banks, but that was, at best, just one factor in the 2008 financial crisis.


As for your public ownership idea or socialism from the bottom down, the biggest problem with the Socialism in the 20th or 21st centuries which are controlled from the state down isn't the political apparatus they worked under through an authoritarian manner where all aspects were handled by the state although we would agree it is both horrific and consequential. The biggest problem is the economic system that it runs under itself. The problem with your public ownership idea is that it still rely on human beings to be able to predict and read the trends of market activity far in advance than what can really be predicted. It is one thing to be able to read and predict when an inflationary cycle caused by the Central Bank is going to come to a screeching halt. We all know it is happening, the question is when. It is quite another to be able to read the signals of supply and demand from a position where you are controlling the supply of resources to fit the demands of the consumer. That is what has socialism's undoing in every instance that it has been tried. The private market of the economy why it works so well in the case of individuals being able to make choices in the case of supply and demand whether as producers or consumers through the mechanism of the price signal. In the case of socialism, this is distorted when the productive sector of the economy which is the private sector is squeezed out of existence in favour of the unproductive part which is the public sector. Whether companies or sectors are publicly owned through the people or nationalized through the state, those same problems of not being able to meet the supply and demand of goods and services from a collectivized position would still eventually come to pass and we would see situations such as Venezuela of today.

I had to rush the last part of this post so admittedly the points I made about socialism as an economic system weren't as crisp as they could be so at some point I may come back to it and refine what I am arguing. But to summarize: I don't think regulation is the issue but the issue is simply getting the Federal Reserve out of banking regulation entirely and ending the centralized cartel and monopoly the Central Banks have over the economy. We need to go back to a system where instead of having banks being able to get away with irresponsible policies due to being propped by the Federal Reserve and fractional reserve banking as a whole through lending, borrowing and printing of money, banks are having to compete for customers and are beholden to the consumer through the fear of going out of business should they not be responsible with the lending of their own private capital. Until we end the strangle hold the Federal Reserve has over fiscal and monetary policy as well as having a monopoly on currency through legal tender laws and the abandonment of the gold standard then we will continue to run the risk of having these inflationary boom-bust cycles which do unspeakable damage.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



L-DOPA said:


> As seemingly with every economic issue we seem to recognize the same problems but come to entirely different conclusions on how to fix it.


Let's just get this out of the way right from the start. Our ideas on how to fix what is wrong with our broken economic system are not nearly as far apart as you think they are.



L-DOPA said:


> The biggest problem to me isn't that the Federal Reserve isn't regulated enough rather that the Federal Reserve exists in the first place.


I don't actually disagree with this. Yeah, if the Fed exists, it has to be heavily regulated, but I would not at all be opposed to getting rid of it altogether.



L-DOPA said:


> Banking in a centralized manner handled by a system which has complete and total monopolized control over fiscal and monetary policy as well as the currency over countries to me is what causes these problems to begin with.


Sounds like you're agreeing with me here, seeing as how I am arguing in favor of decentralized power.



L-DOPA said:


> The problem with your argument surrounding regulating the bank system more is that it assumes that regulation isn't increasing or that we are deregulating the banking system, the opposite in fact overall has been happening. After the passage of Dodd-Frank in 2010, regulatory restrictions have sharply increased over the last several years yet the same problems are still occurring as in 2007-2008:


This is something you and I have discussed in the past. We don't need "more" regulation of the banks. We simply need _the right kind_ of regulation, which is more simplified than what we have now.

Dodd-Frank is a fucking joke, BTW. I'd repeal it too because it is so full of loopholes that it is practically meaningless.



L-DOPA said:


> The big argument for increased regulation of the banks comes from the repealing of Glass Steagall....or to be more specific: the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLB).


I have Kyle to thank for my education about the GLB act. Credit where credit is due. 

Can anyone not in the financial industry argue for why we shouldn't keep commercial banking and investment banking separate? If so, I'd love to hear that argument.



L-DOPA said:


> As for your public ownership idea or socialism from the bottom down, the biggest problem with the Socialism in the 20th or 21st centuries which are controlled from the state down isn't the political apparatus they worked under through an authoritarian manner where all aspects were handled by the state although we would agree it is both horrific and consequential.


No disagreement here. You'll never hear me argue for anything authoritarian.



L-DOPA said:


> The biggest problem is the economic system that it runs under itself. The problem with your public ownership idea is that it still rely on human beings to be able to predict and read the trends of market activity far in advance than what can really be predicted.


This is where you need to break out of your capitalist mindset. Fuck the market. What we should be striving for as a society is creating prosperity for all. We all need stuff, right? We need food and shelter and TVs and phones and whatever else have you. Profit doesn't need to be the motivating factor for fuckin' everything. I don't see it as impossible at all that we create an economic system that puts the needs of the people first and puts profit second. I'm not even arguing that everyone should always have equal everything. There will always be winners and losers in the world. The point *I* am making is that with the kind of advanced technology we have these days, we could easily create a society where even the losers are not living in poverty. There would still be rich people and poor people but the poor people would still have a place to live and food on their table and a doctor to go to when they're sick.

It's a point I have raised with you before but it is fucking insane that the USA throws away 40% of the food it produces solely because capitalism deems that poor people cannot afford to buy that food. This is not medieval times. We are not lacking in resources. We have more than enough to provide good lives for the poor of the world and still allow rich people to exist. With the advanced society that we live in today, allowing poverty is purely a choice. And it's a choice that I choose not to make. We should not allow some people to live in the lap of luxury while others suffer in poverty. Not only is that immoral, it is unhealthy for an economic system, because as we all know, poor people always put their extra spending cash back into the economy.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Goku said:


> what is the primary argument against capitalism? I'm genuinely curious what some of the main objections are.


It only works for the rich not the poor or middle class. It makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. it also lets the rich dictate everything and that is why the poor and middle class get screwed over. There is a reason why the top .1% own more wealth than the bottom 90% combined

The US has crony capitalism and its not working. Its only going to get worse under Trump especially with his cabinet picks.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> Exploitation of labor to enrich those at the very top. When the Walton family is worth more than the bottom 40% of the country and they train their employees on how to receive government assistance instead of paying them a living wage, you have capitalism to thank for that. The capitalist system we have now rewards the owner class for simply being the owner class instead of rewarding the people who actually do the work to produce the wealth. Call me a crazy socialist if you want to but *I will always be of the opinion that the people who produce the wealth should share in the wealth.*


why? Were it not for the opportunity that the owner class has presented to the labourers, they would create no wealth.



birthday_massacre said:


> It only works for the rich not the poor or middle class. It makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. it also lets the rich dictate everything and that is why the poor and middle class get screwed over. There is a reason why the top .1% own more wealth than the bottom 90% combined
> 
> The US has crony capitalism and its not working. Its only going to get worse under Trump especially with his cabinet picks.


I am also against crony capitalism but that is a reaction to government intervention and would not be possible without it.

Disagree that things will get worse under Trump but that is just an assumption. Wait and see.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> :draper2


You have a problem with Reagan meeting with the future Northern Alliance?


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> I'll be looking forward to that response. And to our other conversation, as well.
> 
> Being opposed to regulation as you are, would you admit that maybe the Fed needs to be regulated more so shit like this doesn't happen?
> 
> And would you also admit that if wealth wasn't concentrated so much, we wouldn't regularly have these devastating crashes?
> 
> When all the wealth is concentrated and those at the top play dangerous games with money, it's the common man that ends up getting fucked over when the crashes happen. In a less capitalistic, more socialist society, where wealth is more evenly distributed, if a crash happens, it is more compartmentalized and doesn't end up fucking over the entire population. And just to be clear, when I talk about socialism, I am not talking about state capitalism, which is a common misconception amongst brainwashed Westerners. What I'm *not* talking about is the State owning everything and everyone working for the State. What I *am* talking about is pure socialism, where businesses are owned and operated by the public. When you have an economic system with _decentralized_ power and certain aspects of it fail, it doesn't bring down the entire system with it, unlike what we have now. If you break up the big banks and all the mega financial institutions and heavily regulate the Fed, we wouldn't see the kind of devastating crashes that are currently built into the system. Just like any good architect will tell you, everything starts with a strong foundation. It doesn't matter how nice the house is if it is built on a pile of sand.


Ah yes, the good old socialism hasn't really been tried bit. We're calling it "pure socialism" now, are we? What precisely is the entity that the "public" will operate through in "pure socialism"? Might it be... the State? Just how is that different from "State socialism"? 

Just where did you get the idea that a "pure socialist" system is more "decentralized" than capitalism? Just where did you get the idea that socialist systems, "pure" or "State," are less harmed by crashes than capitalist ones? Certainly not from history... you also certainly are not getting from historical understanding the idea that if you 'break up the big banks and mega financial institutions (whatever those are) and heavily regulate the quasi-Central Bank' that devastating crashes aren't built into the system anymore, whatever _that_ means. 

Why is America in better economic and financial shape than Europe? Surely Europe is closer to "pure socialism" than America. America beats the Continent like a drum on unemployment, solvency of the State, innovation, wages, and general economic growth, and has for 100+ years now. What gives? 

Is there actually any meaning behind your words? Because it doesn't seem like there is any. Just a lot of unsupported assertions stacked on top of each other, which is of course quite amusing when you start talking about foundations. 

I'll hang up and listen.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Goku said:


> why? Were it not for the opportunity that the owner class has presented to the labourers, they would create no wealth.
> 
> 
> 
> I am also against crony capitalism but that is a reaction to government intervention and would not be possible without it.
> 
> Disagree that things will get worse under Trump but that is just an assumption. Wait and see.


I hope they get better under Trump, and yes its an assumption it will get worse under him based on his cabinet picks. But all I see them doing to tax cuts for the rich and cutting anything that benefits the middle class and poor. but we will see.

As for your other question about why should the rich share their wealth, there is no reason why CEOs and the upper execs are making millions per year especially in bonus's while paying their workers a non-living wage or under what they are worth and always laying off the hard workers that are the life blood of the money. In most cases layoffs would never be needed if the exec's were not getting millions in bonuses. 

Hell look at Wal Mart as an example, they are one of the richest companies in the US and a lot of workers there are on welfare because they dont pay shit. That profit they make should be share in pay with the workers on the store level. 

Walmart makes like 50m BILLION in revenue. That should be shared with his workers in better wages dont you think?


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Trump has outdone himself with a beautifully savage tweet to close out 2016. :done


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/815185071317676033
Of course, the media and many of Trump's critics, who have spent the last year distorting his words and calling him a racist, sexist, rapist are playing dumbfounded that Trump would call anyone his "enemy". So very, very shameful of Trump indeed. :lol 

Speaking of the rapist allegations, I wonder where all those sexual accusers went? Seems they vanished once Trump won. Could it be that, as suspected all along by those who looked at the situation with an ounce of scrutiny, they were completely bogus? Well, I'm sure CNN and co. will be along any minute to admit they were *at the very least* fooled by these con artists into giving them any credibility or air time. Their disgusting tactics truly made it easy for me to support Donald Trump, despite our many political differences.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Funny story about the Waltons

John T. Walton, the son of Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton, dropped out of college to fight in Vietnam and became a Green Beret fighting in SOG as a field medic

His squad got hit in A Shau Valley and were completely surrounded. Walton ended up having to call in an air strike on himself to break the seige and then single handily stitched up everyone till extraction came

He got a Silver Star

He later founded a major school scholarship program and died flying a custom made experimental plane 

Say what you want about the "rich" but some of them are badasses

Also I worked at Wal-mart, all the issues I ran into was at the middle management level, its bureaucratic as fuck so everything is SUPER slow, at the high level its greased lightning


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> Trump has outdone himself with a beautifully savage tweet to close out 2016. :done
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/815185071317676033
> Of course, the media and many of Trump's critics, who have spent the last year distorting his words and calling him a racist, sexist, rapist are playing dumbfounded that Trump would call anyone his "enemy". So very, very shameful of Trump indeed. :lol
> 
> Speaking of the rapist allegations, I wonder where all those sexual accusers went? Seems they vanished once Trump won. Could it be that, as suspected all along by those who looked at the situation with an ounce of scrutiny, they were completely bogus? Well, I'm sure CNN and co. will be along any minute to admit they were *at the very least* fooled by these con artists into giving them any credibility or air time. Their disgusting tactics truly made it easy for me to support Donald Trump, despite our many political differences.


The media did not distort anything LOL You can read Trumps own tweets and words or his live speeches to see what a racist, sexist and bigot he is. 

But keep your head in your ass and pretend Trump did not say those things it just makes you look even worse denying it. 

And Trump admitted he likes to sexually assault women but yeah lets ignore that too. And no its not they were bogus people in power rape because they now they can rush the little person and ruin their lives when they come out and speak up about it. 
But keep defending the racist, sexist, bigotted and rapist trump.

it just shows what kind of person you are.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> Trump has outdone himself with a beautifully savage tweet to close out 2016. :done
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/815185071317676033
> Of course, the media and many of Trump's critics, who have spent the last year distorting his words and calling him a racist, sexist, rapist are playing dumbfounded that Trump would call anyone his "enemy". So very, very shameful of Trump indeed. :lol
> 
> Speaking of the rapist allegations, I wonder where all those sexual accusers went? Seems they vanished once Trump won. Could it be that, as suspected all along by those who looked at the situation with an ounce of scrutiny, they were completely bogus? Well, I'm sure CNN and co. will be along any minute to admit they were *at the very least* fooled by these con artists into giving them any credibility or air time. Their disgusting tactics truly made it easy for me to support Donald Trump, despite our many political differences.


It's a good thing we live in a society where facts and evidence are needed in the court of law and your guilt isn't based on if people like you or who is the alleged victim. If that was the case than we'd live in a Laci Green world where any woman or anyone could claim rape or abuse and you'd be guilty just because you were accused. There was a time when this was practiced and we can all see how it turned out, think it was in a place called Salem.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

BM shitposting right into the New Year good on ya BM :lmao


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Goku said:


> why? Were it not for the opportunity that the owner class has presented to the labourers, they would create no wealth.


That's like defending feudalism because were it not for the opportunity the nobility presented to the peasantry, they would create no wealth.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Alkomesh2 said:


> That's like defending feudalism because were it not for the opportunity the nobility presented to the peasantry, they would create no wealth.


:carlo


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/815185071317676033












wens3


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Goku said:


> :carlo


Seriously though, if the factory owner has inherited the factory/bought the factory with inherited money, what is the real, practical difference?

I mean if you really boil it down the only practical difference between feudalism and capitalism is that in capitalism workers are allowed to choose where to live and work but in a feudalism you are required to live and work in the one place your whole life. 

In terms of the morality of the distribution of wealth created very few distinctions can really be made.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Seriously though, if the factory owner has inherited the factory/bought the factory with inherited money, what is the real, practical difference?
> 
> I mean if you really boil it down the only practical difference between feudalism and capitalism is that in capitalism workers are allowed to choose where to live and work but in a feudalism you are required to live and work in the one place your whole life.
> 
> In terms of the morality of the distribution of wealth created very few distinctions can really be made.


not getting into the whole Capitalism thing but your bringing up inheritance makes me think of when you look at Hollywood mags etc at how stagnant and how much nepotism and inheritance plays a role there. Things just passed on from family to family, wealth to buy themselves into the spotlight or to run things from behind the scenes. We have daughters of famous models setting standards of beauty etc when they're not even as attractive as their parents etc. Inheritance seems to fuck over more people than it helps.

Look at Colleges and legacies etc, pretty much prevents a certain number of new people from getting into good colleges because so many spaces are reserved for legacies and people with the wealth to donate to buy their pea brain kid a spot. The same type of people will always run things because the same money gets passed from generation to generation to nearly 70% of the same families.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Seriously though, if the factory owner has inherited the factory/bought the factory with inherited money, what is the real, practical difference?
> 
> I mean if you really boil it down the only practical difference between feudalism and capitalism is that in capitalism *workers are allowed to choose where to live and work* but in a feudalism you are required to live and work in the one place your whole life.
> 
> In terms of the morality of the distribution of wealth created very few distinctions can really be made.


but that is an enormous difference. It changes everything. The distribution of wealth being a subject of morality is arguable in itself.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



deepelemblues said:


> BM shitposting right into the New Year good on ya BM :lmao


You are the biggest shit poster on this board, not sure what you are talking about. Your posts are a joke, no one takes you seriously. You are as bad as beatles.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@deepelemblues @birthday_massacre 

Enough. Keep the personal jabs out of the discussion.

Anyway, 19 more days. :trump3


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

oh my god that Trump tweet that @CamillePunk posted

:lmao

2017 starting out perfectly.



CamillePunk said:


> Speaking of the rapist allegations, I wonder where all those sexual accusers went? Seems they vanished once Trump won. Could it be that, as suspected all along by those who looked at the situation with an ounce of scrutiny, they were completely bogus? Well, I'm sure CNN and co. will be along any minute to admit they were *at the very least* fooled by these con artists into giving them any credibility or air time. Their disgusting tactics truly made it easy for me to support Donald Trump, despite our many political differences.


I was talking about this the other day with my mom. She despises Trump but does concede that might have been an assassination attempt without actually literally killing the Donald.


----------



## Hencheman_21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

It is a new year and I have new respect for Trump. After the Orange Bowl I was upset at the Florida State fans whooping and hollering. Now, thanks to Trump, I realize they were just upset over their "big loss". Thank you Donald. (Y)


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> not getting into the whole Capitalism thing but your bringing up inheritance makes me think of when you look at Hollywood mags etc at how stagnant and how much nepotism and inheritance plays a role there. Things just passed on from family to family, wealth to buy themselves into the spotlight or to run things from behind the scenes. We have daughters of famous models setting standards of beauty etc when they're not even as attractive as their parents etc. Inheritance seems to fuck over more people than it helps.
> 
> Look at Colleges and legacies etc, pretty much prevents a certain number of new people from getting into good colleges because so many spaces are reserved for legacies and people with the wealth to donate to buy their pea brain kid a spot. The same type of people will always run things because the same money gets passed from generation to generation to nearly 70% of the same families.


I couldn't agree more. 

I mean I totally think some inheritance is good because it encourages people to accumulate wealth in a sensible and sustainable manner. But we have to acknowledge its getting to the point that it is making our system fall apart. 

I'm a big believer in things to try to ameliorate the problems caused by inheritance, ie college entry should only be merits based.

If we don't have a system that allows for the best people to gain positions of influence and power we're all screwed. 



Goku said:


> but that is an enormous difference. It changes everything. The distribution of wealth being a subject of morality is arguable in itself.


Surely it is immoral for someone to take the benefit of someone else's effort?

Really it's theft if you think about it. You'd agree that theft is immoral considering you seem to be a fairly strong believer in private property rights, right? 

If it's moral for the factory owners to take the benefit of the effort of the workers merely because they inherited the factory then surely it is moral for the nobles to have benefited from the effort of the peasants merely because they inherited the farmland?


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Alkomesh2 said:


> I couldn't agree more.
> 
> I mean I totally think some inheritance is good because it encourages people to accumulate wealth in a sensible and sustainable manner. But we have to acknowledge its getting to the point that it is making our system fall apart.
> 
> I'm a big believer in things to try to ameliorate the problems caused by inheritance, ie college entry should only be merits based.
> 
> If we don't have a system that allows for the best people to gain positions of influence and power we're all screwed.


I agree that it is, there are two types of people I've noticed from inheritance families. You got the people sans school and home that are as intelligent and savvy as their parents, they would succeed without the millions and millions of dollars left to them

Then you got the fucks who just party all the time, squander money, are terrible people yet they take up headlines and get bailed out of every situation they themselves cause while the "lesser" people go to prison or lose everything for the same sins. They don't care nor do they really change because they never have to worry about anything. 

We're at the point where mega rich people and all the embedded families in politics, business and hollywood never have to give up anything, ever. We're not talking a few million dollars but multi million, even billion left. Strangle holds on an entire establishments. In 10-20 years you'll have families with so much power and wealth that they'll be able to control pretty much everything. The worst part is these people will be buffoons who have no experience of anything outside their rich golden pampered bubble and they'll be telling us how to live, what to buy, what to wear, who to vote for and how precious and special and beautiful they are. 

It's scary :frown2:


----------



## ecclesiastes10

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> Let's just get this out of the way right from the start. Our ideas on how to fix what is wrong with our broken economic system are not nearly as far apart as you think they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is where you need to break out of your capitalist mindset. Fuck the market. What we should be striving for as a society is creating prosperity for all. We all need stuff, right? We need food and shelter and TVs and phones and whatever else have you. Profit doesn't need to be the motivating factor for fuckin' everything. I don't see it as impossible at all that we create an economic system that puts the needs of the people first and puts profit second. I'm not even arguing that everyone should always have equal everything. There will always be winners and losers in the world. The point *I* am making is that with the kind of advanced technology we have these days, we could easily create a society where even the losers are not living in poverty. There would still be rich people and poor people but the poor people would still have a place to live and food on their table and a doctor to go to when they're sick.
> 
> It's a point I have raised with you before but it is fucking insane that the USA throws away 40% of the food it produces solely because capitalism deems that poor people cannot afford to buy that food. This is not medieval times. We are not lacking in resources. We have more than enough to provide good lives for the poor of the world and still allow rich people to exist. With the advanced society that we live in today, allowing poverty is purely a choice. And it's a choice that I choose not to make. We should not allow some people to live in the lap of luxury while others suffer in poverty. Not only is that immoral, it is unhealthy for an economic system, because as we all know, poor people always put their extra spending cash back into the economy.


if u don't mind me butting in, id like to point out that the u.s is NOT a purely capitalistic society and the reason why they throw away 40% is not because poor people cant afford it, its because those foods are considered blemished/undeserables, ive seen a documentary on u.s food wastage n that is the priamary reason...also u say the system should be fair for all, in my opinion the system though not perfect, has ways of making it so that people can survive, with food drives/ soup kitchen, homeless centers, charity, churches, etc... and It is important to note that cell phones, tvs, are not NEEDS but WANTS, the human race has survived for thousands of years without these items, theses items make our lives more enjoyable and easier but these items also have negative affect on our physical, mental, and social state coming with risk... plus as a counter do u think some farmer in a village in the small islands, or amish, and 3rd world countries miss something they live without or have no knowledge of? and to finish off I think its unfair u look at America poor as some disgrace to human history when their are other countries where the people are in a more dire strait... p.s who is this "we" that can make a better society and all that jazz, change start with you and the individual if u really feel this way share every meal u have with a homeless person, and invite a person to live with u who is without if u can( if not doing already) don't expect society to come together to fix its problems...that's not how human history plays itself


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

This article really made a lot of sense to me.

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/12/how-trump-will-convince-the-never-trumpers

Looking so far at a substantial number of Trump's picks for his Cabinet, I am impressed with a majority of them. His pick for the Department of Education is a huge advocate for school choice. His choice for the Department of Health and Human Services is anti-ACA and has a plan set forth to repeal the ACA and replace it with free-market solutions. His choices for Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security have very solid military backgrounds. There are some I have an issue with (trying to wrap my head around the idea of a former CEO of ExxonMobil having anything to do with being a top diplomat/Secretary of State) but I like the fact that he is nominating folks with conservative bonafides. 

I'm a firm believer in conservatism not because I fear change, but because conservatism (coupled with the upholding of the documents of our country like the Constitution) is a time-proven system of governing that flat-out works. If change comes along, it should be something that is organic and natural, not reactionary and revolutionary. Populist movements have shown in the past to be temporary and don't hold up long-term. Examples of these include the People's Party in the 1890s, Theodore Roosevelt's Bull Moose ticket in 1912, and Ross Perot's third-party candidacy in 1992. Trump fed on the populist movement this time around, when both parties ignored a substantial number of people to the point they got a wake-up call. 

Again, there are those of you who might disagree with me, but I want to see him succeed. However, while many appreciated that he talked about the issues that a lot of people wouldn't touch...I live by a very simple philosophy. John Locke said, "I have always thought the actions of men the best interpreters of their thoughts.” Or, in a simpler version..."I don't want to hear what you're going to do, I want you do actually do it." Many people voted for Trump because they're tired of politicians saying that they will do something and then not following through. They expect the government and the newly elected POTUS to roll up their sleeves and get the shit done they've been telling us they're going to do. I'm in that category. Now's the time for action to replace words. 

If he can do that and follow the conservative principles that actually work, I will be willing to give credit where credit is due.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Surely it is immoral for someone to take the benefit of someone else's effort?


most certainly not.



> Really it's theft if you think about it. You'd agree that theft is immoral considering you seem to be a fairly strong believer in private property rights, right?


no, I wouldn't say I'm a supporter of any kind of rights. But theft is a violent act.



> If it's moral for the factory owners to take the benefit of the effort of the workers merely because they inherited the factory then surely it is moral for the nobles to have benefited from the effort of the peasants merely because they inherited the farmland?


Indeed, as long as the peasants are voluntarily engaged in their labour and are not forced to work, I don't think it would qualify as immoral.

Are you anti-inheritance?


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> This is something you and I have discussed in the past. We don't need "more" regulation of the banks. We simply need _the right kind_ of regulation, which is more simplified than what we have now.
> 
> Dodd-Frank is a fucking joke, BTW. I'd repeal it too because it is so full of loopholes that it is practically meaningless.



This is true, however in your original post which I responded to, you asked me whether or not we should increase the regulations on the federal reserve as a way to counteract the problems that have occurred and are predicted to occur. So I answered that question directly. Also to make another point clear, the "right kind" of regulation doesn't always mean it should be heavily regulated. There have been instances where either as you pointed out the regulation in place doesn't do it's job and has many loopholes that can exploited or can actually do damage to the sector in which you are trying to make more stable or protect for public interest.

I have my own views on what the "right regulation" is in general when it comes to the economy, but that isn't what is important.

I won't answer anything else except the big disagreement because you have agreed with most of my points.




Tater said:


> This is where you need to break out of your capitalist mindset. Fuck the market. What we should be striving for as a society is creating prosperity for all. We all need stuff, right? We need food and shelter and TVs and phones and whatever else have you. Profit doesn't need to be the motivating factor for fuckin' everything. I don't see it as impossible at all that we create an economic system that puts the needs of the people first and puts profit second. I'm not even arguing that everyone should always have equal everything. There will always be winners and losers in the world. The point *I* am making is that with the kind of advanced technology we have these days, we could easily create a society where even the losers are not living in poverty. There would still be rich people and poor people but the poor people would still have a place to live and food on their table and a doctor to go to when they're sick.
> 
> It's a point I have raised with you before but it is fucking insane that the USA throws away 40% of the food it produces solely because capitalism deems that poor people cannot afford to buy that food. This is not medieval times. We are not lacking in resources. We have more than enough to provide good lives for the poor of the world and still allow rich people to exist. With the advanced society that we live in today, allowing poverty is purely a choice. And it's a choice that I choose not to make. We should not allow some people to live in the lap of luxury while others suffer in poverty. Not only is that immoral, it is unhealthy for an economic system, because as we all know, poor people always put their extra spending cash back into the economy.


I don't think anyone in this thread will state that capitalism in it's current form doesn't have problems or issues. This is why for example I feel some big changes need to be made in regards to how the system is ran in it's place, one of the issues obviously being mentioned is the issue of Central Banking and how that institution makes economies far more erratic and unstable than it should be. However generally speaking with the ideas you have expressed in it's place there are two major problems which I see with the type of system you are advocating for.

The first I have already alluded to which is an issue of economics. You say fuck the market but the question is how do you create an economic system which works without the mechanisms which are provided in a market economy? Now I am not saying that we will never devise a system to which this could happen but every idea thus far created by humans that has gone away from the principles of capitalistic-market economies in the long run have not been sustainable and have done untold amounts of damage to the countries in which have gone away from market economies and ventured into usually a more collectivized planned economy. The truth is your ideas are not any more unique or different from those countries that have tried similar approaches from an economic standpoint.

From what I understand, your idea is to have businesses ran and publicly owned whereby the workers run the businesses and therefore at least have a somewhat shared purchasing power from the profits that have been made via the business transaction. The problem is for that to be enforced not only would you have to have those businesses publicly owned but because of the transfer of resources in order to make certain products for different companies through voluntary exchange those companies in which provide resources say for example windows to be made would also have to be publicly owned. For it to be universal across the board, the entire system would have to be changed from one of mostly private businesses where there is a hierarchy from the top to the bottom to a system of public businesses where that form of hierarchy is destroyed. I say this because if you apply this principle to some but not others you will still naturally have some massive imbalance of inequality between those who are running the business from an executive or management position and the workers. Meaning that for example the companies who produce the glass or the frames for the window shop to sell would also have the same publicly owned set up as the window shop itself. I'm using it as an example to come to the most important point which will follow. But the problem with for example applying this standard to some businesses and not to others is naturally you still allow for an element of choice to the business in how it runs and operates, especially if this isn't enforced by some sort of authority and is just being done by applied social pressure. In the short term of today the owners, the people who hire and fire workers, put in the most hours generally speaking from the time they started to when they got their positions and got to their positions based on merit (of course it doesn't always happen like this, there is never a 100% record with these things) will not give up those positions of power based on that choice meaning that only the businesses who have decided in advance that they wish to run on the basis of public ownership will go ahead with it. This is unless you enforce it with some sort of authority, a point I will come back to.

This means that the only way you can run your idea economically speaking is through a collectivized planned economy which is no different than the socialist regimes of the 20th and 21st centuries. Now I understand you have said you want things to be more equal but have not advocated for total and unilateral equality but in order to even try to attempt the type of equality you are proposing under the system you have advocated for you would need to have a planned economy that is driven away from the individualism of a market economy. That has never worked.

Let me explain the problems with what I mean by the fact that that is the same or at least similar to ideas in which have already been proposed by academics. The economics as I have mentioned before would be no different than what has been tried by the Soviet Union, Venezuela, Cuba, Maoist China and other regimes. What socialists have always confused and I think you are doing this as well is that they believe the reason why those regimes failed was the way in which these political systems were applied i.e from the top down and from an authoritarian dictatorial position. When in fact it was the economic system which has been a constant throughout all socialist thought, both authoritarian and libertarian, top down and bottom up which was the defining factor in why all those regimes failed. So to apply this to your ideas, you would essentially have a planned economy where the sectors of the economy would be in the public sector rather than the private sector as a natural consequence of having the companies publicly owned...meaning that the workers who own at least a fairly equal amount of those said businesses would control the direction in which the economy is going. 

The problems arise from taking those sectors of the market from the productive part of the economy i.e the private sector to the unproductive part which is the public sector. By doing this the main problem you have is you have drifted away from the very mechanisms in which makes the market economy work; those being having the signals to show the supply and demand of resources by which individuals can make choices both as consumers and producers via the price system. Planned economies of this nature have shown that when the resources are controlled by the public sector which in historical contexts have been done through the state that eventually a giant gap between supply and demand is created whereby the demands of the public can no longer be met by the supply which is provided by the public sector. This would be both for the consumer in order to purchase goods or for the producer in order to make products and provide a service. This is because from a planned economy it has been shown historically to be impossible to properly to distribute resources and control goods and services. It is impossible to both be able to tell the supply and demand of all goods and services and be able to see which way the market could and should be heading towards in terms of technological advancement to produce goods and services from which the majority of public benefits from in a planned economy. This has been aptly called the economic calculation problem by Austrian School economists. The pricing system by which is changed through supply and demand by voluntary exchange via medium of exchange (money in our case) can only properly function and work to the degree that it does through a market economy with private businesses competing against each other and selling their products to produce the best service possible. It is of course certainly possible for an individual business to do well in an environment in which it is publicly ran but when the entire system becomes one of public ownership whereby the economy is planned and controlled either through a centralized position or by the citizens themselves you have the very problems which have spawned in socialist regimes in the 20th and 21st centuries.

I mentioned the technological advancement argument and will go into detail about that with an historical example seeing as I have only touched upon it. The most recognizable and perhaps the best example of "Democratic Socialism" (for all you Bernie supporters  ) was Britain in the 1960's and 1970's. When the UK became socialist and nationalized the majority of it's economic sectors and industries it brought with it a whole host of array of problems. Some of which I have mentioned but the biggest being economic stagnation. Simply put, there were industries such as telecommunications which were services that were being held back in terms of advancement due it being taken away from the private sector whilst shipping for example had an extraordinary amount of financial subsidies because as an industry, the shipping companies were highly inefficient and were poor in providing the products and resources for it's own sector. When Thatcher started privatizing key areas of the economy, the services industry boomed and industries such as telecommunications thrived under the Conservative government. Meanwhile, certain industrial industries such as shipping declined and eventually some of these companies had to go out of business. The reasons for this are twofold: 1) because the British economy during that period was venturing towards new industries and industries in which had the capabilities of modernizing through technological advancement but could not do so due to the fact that they were in the public sector under the state. Whereby the sectors were monopolized through coercion and competition was snuffed out, meaning of course less efficiency in terms of acquiring and using resources but also higher prices for the consumer due to monopoly and lack of competition and 2) Because of the policy of having large swathes of the economy in the public sector away from the private sector to begin with....which caused some of the problems I have explained in point 1.

The biggest and most important thing about Britain during those times however was the problems in which I have explained were economic problems and not political ones. Britain had it's own political problems of course, but Britain was still a democratic nation with a parliament to debate and vote on legislation and with parliamentary elections. Considering your proposed alternative to the market still has all the core economic values and principles of socialism you would still have the same results in the long term.

If you want any bigger indication that the application of socialism or planned economies is solely an economic problem and not a political one you could look no further than Chile under the military regime led by Pinochet. A brutal dictatorship which had all the classic signs of authoritarianism the way in which state socialism has had in the last several decades. Yet the economic reforms of the Pinochet era, that of largely free market inspired capitalism has led to Chile today being the most prosperous and economically free country in South America. Hell, one of the most prosperous in the entire world. Does that justify the brutal regime which led that change? Of course it doesn't and any sane left or right wing person would agree. But the facts economically speaking do not lie.

The second major problem going away from economics is how you would enforce this economic system you have proposed. There are really two ways that this can be done. The first would be through persuading the population that your system is the right one to go with. Which would mean persuading the vast majority of businesses to become publicly owned. Whilst it's not impossible it is highly unlikely to happen and you would very likely be waiting at least several decades for this to come to fruition. But if you wish to take the Noam Chomsky route of arguing your way to implement this change then that is at least commendable.

But if you want this system to happen within your lifetime then most likely you will have to do it the second way, which would be through coercion and force. You have talked about being against authoritarian big government regimes however if the changes you seek to happen are not done in a voluntary way where the businesses themselves choose to be publicly owned and thus changing the way in which the economy is run through action then for it to happen you would still need to use some sort of authority to implement the changes against the will of the business owners. That is coercion and authoritarian no matter which way you look at.

And you may justify it and have your own reasons for wanting to do so. Fair enough, but even with certain big banks, businesses and corporations undoubtedly being shady to put it mildly, to push this change on to all big businesses and corporations because some have bent the rules and have used political lobbying for example to their advantage would also punish those that have done nothing wrong. Let me use Mark Zuckerberg for example. I don't like the guy, I think he is a hypocrite and is shady in certain respects but nobody can deny that he hasn't worked hard to achieve all that he has. By taking a new idea at the time which was a form of social media and modifying, applying and presenting it in a way which worked for and appealed to the consumer he has made his company Facebook a multi billion dollar industry practically from the ground up. Without his idea, his vision and the hours he has put in, the workers in which he has employed would not be making the living that they are today. Knowing all of this, do you think considering the economic risks he would have taken to get to where he his and the chances of failure and bankruptcy and loss of money should he failed that he should be forced to give up his ownership to the company that he founded and created in order for it to be distributed among his employees? 

Is it right for example for Steve Jobs who has helped shape technological advancement as far as music players, phones and computing through his work in his lifetime to be forced to give up the company he has founded and helped build so that it can be shared among his work force? I'm sorry but I'm an individualist, not a collectivist. The answer to me is no. It would be one thing if these gentleman decided to do it themselves and of course in that situation I am more than happy with it. But when a system is implemented by coercion and force whether it is via a state or another authority in that regard which takes away the individuals ability for autonomy and ownership then that is when I have to say that is not justified.

To give you example of why it would take a sort of authority to enforce this economic system you have proposed (if you haven't persuaded companies to do so voluntarily), anarcho-communism which has the same sort of economic system which you propose (which you will probably say you wouldn't apply as extremely as they do) propose the use of worker co-operatives and worker councils for example to enforce the public ownership of businesses so that there is no hierarchy within the system and the decision is done democratically. In a sense, the individual's rights i.e the business owner/executive/manager has been violated for the sake of the collective. This goes against the principles that I personally believe is the most morally just which is protection of the individual....because individual rights are universal and apply to everybody. Not just collective groups.


----------



## Blackbeard

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/815185071317676033


You've elected a child. fpalm:cal

He's actually making me grateful for having a Conservative Prime Minster. And that's saying something since us Scots utterly despise the Tories. Thank fuck I was born on this side of the Atlantic.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Bill Paxton said:


> You've elected a child. fpalm:cal
> 
> He's actually making me grateful for having a Conservative Prime Minster. And that's saying something since us Scots utterly despise the Tories. Thank fuck I was born on this side of the Atlantic.


You guys voted against your own independence. :kobe Your opinions on other nations affairs are forever invalid.



BruiserKC said:


> This article really made a lot of sense to me.
> 
> https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/12/how-trump-will-convince-the-never-trumpers
> 
> Looking so far at a substantial number of Trump's picks for his Cabinet, I am impressed with a majority of them. His pick for the Department of Education is a huge advocate for school choice. His choice for the Department of Health and Human Services is anti-ACA and has a plan set forth to repeal the ACA and replace it with free-market solutions. His choices for Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security have very solid military backgrounds. There are some I have an issue with (trying to wrap my head around the idea of a former CEO of ExxonMobil having anything to do with being a top diplomat/Secretary of State) but I like the fact that he is nominating folks with conservative bonafides.
> 
> I'm a firm believer in conservatism not because I fear change, but because conservatism (coupled with the upholding of the documents of our country like the Constitution) is a time-proven system of governing that flat-out works. If change comes along, it should be something that is organic and natural, not reactionary and revolutionary. Populist movements have shown in the past to be temporary and don't hold up long-term. Examples of these include the People's Party in the 1890s, Theodore Roosevelt's Bull Moose ticket in 1912, and Ross Perot's third-party candidacy in 1992. Trump fed on the populist movement this time around, when both parties ignored a substantial number of people to the point they got a wake-up call.
> 
> Again, there are those of you who might disagree with me, but I want to see him succeed. However, while many appreciated that he talked about the issues that a lot of people wouldn't touch...I live by a very simple philosophy. John Locke said, "I have always thought the actions of men the best interpreters of their thoughts.” Or, in a simpler version..."I don't want to hear what you're going to do, I want you do actually do it." Many people voted for Trump because they're tired of politicians saying that they will do something and then not following through. They expect the government and the newly elected POTUS to roll up their sleeves and get the shit done they've been telling us they're going to do. I'm in that category. Now's the time for action to replace words.
> 
> If he can do that and follow the conservative principles that actually work, I will be willing to give credit where credit is due.


Good post, Bruiser. I'm in full agreement with your conclusion. He passed the rhetoric phase, now its time for action. 

I especially like how you didn't include a Hitler reference this time. :lol


----------



## Blackbeard

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> You guys voted against your own independence.


And I would again cause it's no longer the 13th century.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



> Women’s marches are scheduled in Washington DC and other major cities the day following Donald Trump’s inauguration and women across the country are knitting pink “pussy” hats to wear at the protests.
> 
> The hats have little cat ears and are an obvious homage to Trump’s infamous “grab them by the pussy” comment.
> 
> The Pussyhat Project was started by two Los Angeles women who published designs for the hat online. The movement spread and now thousands are getting together to knit the hats to distribute at the marches.
> 
> Get our exclusive newsletter—the best of Heat Street every day
> 
> email address
> 
> Subscribe
> 
> 
> Anyone can knit the hats and then drop them off at various knitting stores across the country or ship them to the Pussyhat Project where they will be later distributed at marches.
> 
> “If everyone at the march wears a pink hat, the crowd will be a sea of pink, showing that we stand together, united,” the website of the Pussy Hat Project says. “Pink is considered a very female color representing caring, compassion, and love – all qualities that have been derided as weak but are actually STRONG. Wearing pink together is a powerful statement that we are unapologetically feminine and we unapologetically stand for women’s rights.”
> 
> Pussyhats are already being spotted around the country and even on statues and other landmarks. With only twenty days left until Trump’s inauguration women are attempting to make enough hats to cover everyone’s heads at the anti-Trump protests.


http://heatst.com/culture-wars/thousands-of-women-knitting-pussy-hats-to-wear-to-protest-trumps-inauguration/


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Damn I was thinking they are going to wear knitted vulvas on their heads. I'd have no choice but to respect that. Just wearing pink hats is fucking lol though.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



MrMister said:


> Damn I was thinking they are going to wear knitted vulvas on their heads. I'd have no choice but to respect that. Just wearing pink hats is fucking lol though.


I feel like having a bunch of women show up with pink cat hats is the kind of thing a Trump insider looking to make the inevitable pussy protests as benign as possible would instigate.

I can imagine Trump taking the podium at his inauguration and seeing the group of pink hat wearing women in the distance and saying "Yes, breast cancer awareness, so important, and believe me, we're going to take care of our women" without a trace of irony and then proceeding. :lol


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/815992069412057088
:lol Another great tweet. I hope he keeps this up as president.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> You guys voted against your own independence. :kobe Your opinions on other nations affairs are forever invalid.
> 
> Good post, Bruiser. I'm in full agreement with your conclusion. He passed the rhetoric phase, now its time for action.
> 
> I especially like how you didn't include a Hitler reference this time. :lol


The skepticism will be there as that's just my nature but let's see what he does. Just don't be quick to judge when I have to rip him when deserved


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



L-DOPA said:


> This is true, however in your original post which I responded to, you asked me whether or not we should increase the regulations on the federal reserve as a way to counteract the problems that have occurred and are predicted to occur. So I answered that question directly. Also to make another point clear, the "right kind" of regulation doesn't always mean it should be heavily regulated. There have been instances where either as you pointed out the regulation in place doesn't do it's job and has many loopholes that can exploited or can actually do damage to the sector in which you are trying to make more stable or protect for public interest.
> 
> I have my own views on what the "right regulation" is in general when it comes to the economy, but that isn't what is important.
> 
> I won't answer anything else except the big disagreement because you have agreed with most of my points.


Forgive me if a misspoke. When I say heavy regulation, I don't necessarily mean a long and complicated list of regulations. I mean a more simplified set of regulations that are easy to follow but strong enough to keep things in line. I hope that makes more sense.



L-DOPA said:


> Spoiler: holy shit!
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone in this thread will state that capitalism in it's current form doesn't have problems or issues. This is why for example I feel some big changes need to be made in regards to how the system is ran in it's place, one of the issues obviously being mentioned is the issue of Central Banking and how that institution makes economies far more erratic and unstable than it should be. However generally speaking with the ideas you have expressed in it's place there are two major problems which I see with the type of system you are advocating for.
> 
> The first I have already alluded to which is an issue of economics. You say fuck the market but the question is how do you create an economic system which works without the mechanisms which are provided in a market economy? Now I am not saying that we will never devise a system to which this could happen but every idea thus far created by humans that has gone away from the principles of capitalistic-market economies in the long run have not been sustainable and have done untold amounts of damage to the countries in which have gone away from market economies and ventured into usually a more collectivized planned economy. The truth is your ideas are not any more unique or different from those countries that have tried similar approaches from an economic standpoint.
> 
> From what I understand, your idea is to have businesses ran and publicly owned whereby the workers run the businesses and therefore at least have a somewhat shared purchasing power from the profits that have been made via the business transaction. The problem is for that to be enforced not only would you have to have those businesses publicly owned but because of the transfer of resources in order to make certain products for different companies through voluntary exchange those companies in which provide resources say for example windows to be made would also have to be publicly owned. For it to be universal across the board, the entire system would have to be changed from one of mostly private businesses where there is a hierarchy from the top to the bottom to a system of public businesses where that form of hierarchy is destroyed. I say this because if you apply this principle to some but not others you will still naturally have some massive imbalance of inequality between those who are running the business from an executive or management position and the workers. Meaning that for example the companies who produce the glass or the frames for the window shop to sell would also have the same publicly owned set up as the window shop itself. I'm using it as an example to come to the most important point which will follow. But the problem with for example applying this standard to some businesses and not to others is naturally you still allow for an element of choice to the business in how it runs and operates, especially if this isn't enforced by some sort of authority and is just being done by applied social pressure. In the short term of today the owners, the people who hire and fire workers, put in the most hours generally speaking from the time they started to when they got their positions and got to their positions based on merit (of course it doesn't always happen like this, there is never a 100% record with these things) will not give up those positions of power based on that choice meaning that only the businesses who have decided in advance that they wish to run on the basis of public ownership will go ahead with it. This is unless you enforce it with some sort of authority, a point I will come back to.
> 
> This means that the only way you can run your idea economically speaking is through a collectivized planned economy which is no different than the socialist regimes of the 20th and 21st centuries. Now I understand you have said you want things to be more equal but have not advocated for total and unilateral equality but in order to even try to attempt the type of equality you are proposing under the system you have advocated for you would need to have a planned economy that is driven away from the individualism of a market economy. That has never worked.
> 
> Let me explain the problems with what I mean by the fact that that is the same or at least similar to ideas in which have already been proposed by academics. The economics as I have mentioned before would be no different than what has been tried by the Soviet Union, Venezuela, Cuba, Maoist China and other regimes. What socialists have always confused and I think you are doing this as well is that they believe the reason why those regimes failed was the way in which these political systems were applied i.e from the top down and from an authoritarian dictatorial position. When in fact it was the economic system which has been a constant throughout all socialist thought, both authoritarian and libertarian, top down and bottom up which was the defining factor in why all those regimes failed. So to apply this to your ideas, you would essentially have a planned economy where the sectors of the economy would be in the public sector rather than the private sector as a natural consequence of having the companies publicly owned...meaning that the workers who own at least a fairly equal amount of those said businesses would control the direction in which the economy is going.
> 
> The problems arise from taking those sectors of the market from the productive part of the economy i.e the private sector to the unproductive part which is the public sector. By doing this the main problem you have is you have drifted away from the very mechanisms in which makes the market economy work; those being having the signals to show the supply and demand of resources by which individuals can make choices both as consumers and producers via the price system. Planned economies of this nature have shown that when the resources are controlled by the public sector which in historical contexts have been done through the state that eventually a giant gap between supply and demand is created whereby the demands of the public can no longer be met by the supply which is provided by the public sector. This would be both for the consumer in order to purchase goods or for the producer in order to make products and provide a service. This is because from a planned economy it has been shown historically to be impossible to properly to distribute resources and control goods and services. It is impossible to both be able to tell the supply and demand of all goods and services and be able to see which way the market could and should be heading towards in terms of technological advancement to produce goods and services from which the majority of public benefits from in a planned economy. This has been aptly called the economic calculation problem by Austrian School economists. The pricing system by which is changed through supply and demand by voluntary exchange via medium of exchange (money in our case) can only properly function and work to the degree that it does through a market economy with private businesses competing against each other and selling their products to produce the best service possible. It is of course certainly possible for an individual business to do well in an environment in which it is publicly ran but when the entire system becomes one of public ownership whereby the economy is planned and controlled either through a centralized position or by the citizens themselves you have the very problems which have spawned in socialist regimes in the 20th and 21st centuries.
> 
> I mentioned the technological advancement argument and will go into detail about that with an historical example seeing as I have only touched upon it. The most recognizable and perhaps the best example of "Democratic Socialism" (for all you Bernie supporters  ) was Britain in the 1960's and 1970's. When the UK became socialist and nationalized the majority of it's economic sectors and industries it brought with it a whole host of array of problems. Some of which I have mentioned but the biggest being economic stagnation. Simply put, there were industries such as telecommunications which were services that were being held back in terms of advancement due it being taken away from the private sector whilst shipping for example had an extraordinary amount of financial subsidies because as an industry, the shipping companies were highly inefficient and were poor in providing the products and resources for it's own sector. When Thatcher started privatizing key areas of the economy, the services industry boomed and industries such as telecommunications thrived under the Conservative government. Meanwhile, certain industrial industries such as shipping declined and eventually some of these companies had to go out of business. The reasons for this are twofold: 1) because the British economy during that period was venturing towards new industries and industries in which had the capabilities of modernizing through technological advancement but could not do so due to the fact that they were in the public sector under the state. Whereby the sectors were monopolized through coercion and competition was snuffed out, meaning of course less efficiency in terms of acquiring and using resources but also higher prices for the consumer due to monopoly and lack of competition and 2) Because of the policy of having large swathes of the economy in the public sector away from the private sector to begin with....which caused some of the problems I have explained in point 1.
> 
> The biggest and most important thing about Britain during those times however was the problems in which I have explained were economic problems and not political ones. Britain had it's own political problems of course, but Britain was still a democratic nation with a parliament to debate and vote on legislation and with parliamentary elections. Considering your proposed alternative to the market still has all the core economic values and principles of socialism you would still have the same results in the long term.
> 
> If you want any bigger indication that the application of socialism or planned economies is solely an economic problem and not a political one you could look no further than Chile under the military regime led by Pinochet. A brutal dictatorship which had all the classic signs of authoritarianism the way in which state socialism has had in the last several decades. Yet the economic reforms of the Pinochet era, that of largely free market inspired capitalism has led to Chile today being the most prosperous and economically free country in South America. Hell, one of the most prosperous in the entire world. Does that justify the brutal regime which led that change? Of course it doesn't and any sane left or right wing person would agree. But the facts economically speaking do not lie.
> 
> The second major problem going away from economics is how you would enforce this economic system you have proposed. There are really two ways that this can be done. The first would be through persuading the population that your system is the right one to go with. Which would mean persuading the vast majority of businesses to become publicly owned. Whilst it's not impossible it is highly unlikely to happen and you would very likely be waiting at least several decades for this to come to fruition. But if you wish to take the Noam Chomsky route of arguing your way to implement this change then that is at least commendable.
> 
> But if you want this system to happen within your lifetime then most likely you will have to do it the second way, which would be through coercion and force. You have talked about being against authoritarian big government regimes however if the changes you seek to happen are not done in a voluntary way where the businesses themselves choose to be publicly owned and thus changing the way in which the economy is run through action then for it to happen you would still need to use some sort of authority to implement the changes against the will of the business owners. That is coercion and authoritarian no matter which way you look at.
> 
> And you may justify it and have your own reasons for wanting to do so. Fair enough, but even with certain big banks, businesses and corporations undoubtedly being shady to put it mildly, to push this change on to all big businesses and corporations because some have bent the rules and have used political lobbying for example to their advantage would also punish those that have done nothing wrong. Let me use Mark Zuckerberg for example. I don't like the guy, I think he is a hypocrite and is shady in certain respects but nobody can deny that he hasn't worked hard to achieve all that he has. By taking a new idea at the time which was a form of social media and modifying, applying and presenting it in a way which worked for and appealed to the consumer he has made his company Facebook a multi billion dollar industry practically from the ground up. Without his idea, his vision and the hours he has put in, the workers in which he has employed would not be making the living that they are today. Knowing all of this, do you think considering the economic risks he would have taken to get to where he his and the chances of failure and bankruptcy and loss of money should he failed that he should be forced to give up his ownership to the company that he founded and created in order for it to be distributed among his employees?
> 
> Is it right for example for Steve Jobs who has helped shape technological advancement as far as music players, phones and computing through his work in his lifetime to be forced to give up the company he has founded and helped build so that it can be shared among his work force? I'm sorry but I'm an individualist, not a collectivist. The answer to me is no. It would be one thing if these gentleman decided to do it themselves and of course in that situation I am more than happy with it. But when a system is implemented by coercion and force whether it is via a state or another authority in that regard which takes away the individuals ability for autonomy and ownership then that is when I have to say that is not justified.
> 
> To give you example of why it would take a sort of authority to enforce this economic system you have proposed (if you haven't persuaded companies to do so voluntarily), anarcho-communism which has the same sort of economic system which you propose (which you will probably say you wouldn't apply as extremely as they do) propose the use of worker co-operatives and worker councils for example to enforce the public ownership of businesses so that there is no hierarchy within the system and the decision is done democratically. In a sense, the individual's rights i.e the business owner/executive/manager has been violated for the sake of the collective. This goes against the principles that I personally believe is the most morally just which is protection of the individual....because individual rights are universal and apply to everybody. Not just collective groups.


As for the rest, damn son, think you got enough in there? :lol

You still don't really grasp the scope of what I am suggesting for a future free of capitalism and it's inherently immoral exploitation of labor but that's probably my fault for not explaining myself better. I'm not just suggesting a change in the ownership structure of businesses. I'm suggesting that we change how we do _everything_, including completely rethinking how we use money and what value we put on stuff. A few tweaks here and there aren't going to solve our problems. That 150 trillion (and rising) in global debt is never getting paid off. The 62 people who own more wealth than the bottom half of the global population is never giving up that wealth willingly. The jobs that have been automated are never coming back. We're going to have to completely change how we do everything because modern technology is going to render most jobs obsolete. There will be no more capitalism because there will no longer be a need to exploit labor.

The biggest economic issue facing the world today is to decide how we distribute wealth when human labor is no longer required to produce all the things we need in life. You're absolutely right about the mechanics of everything. People aren't going to change until they have no choice in the matter. Change happens when the masses demand change. When that time comes, either wealth will be distributed more fairly or there will be pitchforks at the gates. All you have to do is study history to see what happens when poverty runs rampant for the common man while a handful of people hoard all the wealth. It's a story as old as human civilization. The American Empire is following the same path as so many empires before it. 

Humanity could have a great future ahead of it if we decided as a society to use advanced technology to create good lives for us all. There's no reason outside of capitalistic greed that we couldn't end poverty and world hunger with the kinds of resources we have these days. But, knowing humanity, we'll probably go back to feudalism or something even worse. I don't particularly have much faith in the human race.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> You guys voted against your own independence. :kobe Your opinions on other nations affairs are forever invalid.
> 
> Good post, Bruiser. I'm in full agreement with your conclusion. He passed the rhetoric phase, now its time for action.
> 
> I especially like how you didn't include a Hitler reference this time. :lol


Voting for Trump is voting against your own independence its funny you voting against him was LOL It just shows how uninformed you are.




CamillePunk said:


> I feel like having a bunch of women show up with pink cat hats is the kind of thing a Trump insider looking to make the inevitable pussy protests as benign as possible would instigate.
> 
> I can imagine Trump taking the podium at his inauguration and seeing the group of pink hat wearing women in the distance and saying "Yes, breast cancer awareness, so important, and believe me, we're going to take care of our women" without a trace of irony and then proceeding. :lol
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/815992069412057088
> :lol Another great tweet. I hope he keeps this up as president.


Trump didnt win big, anyone who thinks he did has no clue what they are talking about. Trump won by one of the lowest EC votes ever and he lost the popular vote by 3 million.

Trump and his supporters are delusional thinking Trump won big.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/816075222793256961


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I think Tater should write fiction. People would read it 50 years in the future and think, hey maybe this could work some day.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Goku said:


> I think Tater should write fiction. People would read it 50 years in the future and think, hey maybe this could work some day.


That assumes there will still be anyone around in 50 years to read anything. Considering our current trajectory, there's reason to doubt that.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> That assumes there will still be anyone around in 50 years to read anything. Considering our current trajectory, there's reason to doubt that.


dig post-apocalypse stuff.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Trump proves again he cannot be trusted with his twitter. He's childish at best, dangerous at worst. No one apart from his verbal fellators will take him seriously.


----------



## NotGuilty

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Trump proves again he cannot be trusted with his twitter. He's childish at best, dangerous at worst. No one apart from his verbal fellators will take him seriously.



I suggest you visit your local motor vehicle mechanic and request an alignment on yourself. You seem to be leaning too far to the left :trump2


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



NotGuilty said:


> I suggest you visit your local motor vehicle mechanic and request an alignment on yourself. You seem to be leaning too far to the left :trump2


How very droll. I'm unsure why commenting on Trump's childish and unhinged tweeting has anything to do with political leanings, however considering you have the intellect to come up with such a witty statement I'm sure you can tell me.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

political leanings aren't just political leanings anymore. They're indicators as to what biases one subscribes to and what propaganda they project.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Goku said:


> political leanings aren't just political leanings anymore. They're indicators as to what biases one subscribes to and what propaganda they project.


Now this is interesting! Considering we usually hear about the left and their failings ALOT in here, what would you say are some of the Rightist's biases and propaganda?

Or you can do both if you want :draper2


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Now this is interesting! Considering we usually hear about the left and their failings ALOT in here, what would you say are some of the Rightist's biases and propaganda?
> 
> Or you can do both if you want :draper2


^ He skurred of :trump


----------



## Neuron

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Do you guys honestly think big daddy Xi is strategizing around every bantz tweet Trump puts out?


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Voting for Trump is voting against your own independence its funny you voting against him was LOL It just shows how uninformed you are.


Care to explain what you mean by this? Seems like very blanket statement to make so I hope you can argue and clarify your position.

@Tater I will respond to your post soon mate . :lol Yeah I tend to go into detail when I am in a discussion I'm genuinely interested in exploring. Maybe a little too much .


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



L-DOPA said:


> @Tater I will respond to your post soon mate . :lol Yeah I tend to go into detail when I am in a discussion I'm genuinely interested in exploring. Maybe a little too much .


No worries.

And all due respect but what you say you want and how you say you want to achieve it are not compatible. Free market capitalism only ends in one way and that's extreme wealth concentration. It has not and will not ever be something that is prosperous for society as a whole. It will only ever benefit the few at the expense of the many. I don't know how to be any more clear about it but you're just flat out wrong in what will happen. But, that's exactly why I want an economy that is unapologetically right wing. The system we have now has been steadily drifting right for 40 years, which is why things are so fucked, yet certain people are still convinced that center right policies masquerading as leftist are the problem. To that, I say, fine, let's go for it. Go all the way to the right. Give the right wing everything they want and let everyone learn the hard way what happens when you go full right wing. You might not admit you are wrong now but when your ideas are fully implemented and the whole system crashes, you won't have any choice but to admit you were wrong. It's not going to take much longer either because the people in charge of the world economy right now are about as far right wing capitalist as you can get.

Hey, if I'm wrong, and this works out great for everybody, I will happily eat my humble pie and admit that I was wrong; just so long as you are willing to do the same when I end up being correct about the collapse of capitalism.


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ford-mexico-idUSKBN14N1EO



> Ford Motor Co said Tuesday it will cancel a planned $1.6 billion factory in Mexico and invest $700 million at a Michigan factory, after President-elect Donald Trump had harshly criticized the Mexico investment plan.
> 
> The second largest U.S. automaker said it would build new electric, hybrid and autonomous vehicles at the Flat Rock, Michigan plant and add 700 jobs.


:bjpenn


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The Absolute said:


> http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ford-mexico-idUSKBN14N1EO
> 
> 
> 
> :bjpenn


Funny how Trump has done more before getting inaugurated than Obama did in the 8 years he was in office


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

:lmao @ this Ford news

There's a sucker born every minute.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> No worries.
> 
> And all due respect but what you say you want and how you say you want to achieve it are not compatible. *Free market capitalism only ends in one way and that's extreme wealth concentration. It has not and will not ever be something that is prosperous for society as a whole. It will only ever benefit the few at the expense of the many.* I don't know how to be any more clear about it but you're just flat out wrong in what will happen. But, that's exactly why I want an economy that is unapologetically right wing. The system we have now has been steadily drifting right for 40 years, which is why things are so fucked, yet certain people are still convinced that center right policies masquerading as leftist are the problem. To that, I say, fine, let's go for it. Go all the way to the right. Give the right wing everything they want and let everyone learn the hard way what happens when you go full right wing. You might not admit you are wrong now but when your ideas are fully implemented and the whole system crashes, you won't have any choice but to admit you were wrong. It's not going to take much longer either because the people in charge of the world economy right now are about as far right wing capitalist as you can get.
> 
> Hey, if I'm wrong, and this works out great for everybody, I will happily eat my humble pie and admit that I was wrong; just so long as you are willing to do the same when I end up being correct about the collapse of capitalism.


^Says this with a straight face while the greatest distribution of wealth across all socioeconomic classes of a society in history has been achieved in free market capitalist societies. 

3000 BC: 99% of wealth concentrated in the hands of the ruling and priestly classes worldwide. Free market capitalism does not exist.
0 AD: 99% of wealth concentrated in the hands of the ruling and priestly classes worldwide. Free market capitalism does not exist.
1000 AD: 99% of wealth concentrated in the hands of the ruling and priestly classes worldwide. Free market capitalism does not exist.
2000 AD: 50% of the wealth concentrated in the hands of private individuals who are neither government officials nor priests. Free market capitalism is the dominant economic system globally.

If we look at history instead of whistling past the graveyard as you've been doing incessantly for months, we find that wealth concentrates in the hands of a few far more readily in societies without the trappings of free market capitalism, where private property is respected under the rule of law and prices are set by market forces rather than by fiat. All are necessary, if not entirely sufficient, conditions for the great mass of common people to accumulate their own wealth past a subsistence, hand-to-mouth level. You have managed to, somehow, look at a situation with greater wealth distribution - largely having taken place with no left-wing policies in force - than any other in history and declared that the situation is actually one where wealth is not distributed but instead concentrated. How did you arrive at such a completely ignorant conclusion? 

No left-wing economic policy in history has ever succeeded without the explosion of wealth free market capitalism causes having taken place first, thus providing enough wealth for taxation to make such policies economically viable. 

Keep clinging to that predicted crash, it betrays the fundamental weakness of your position when you have to hope for the economy to completely break down in order for your preference to not even be vindicated but instead to even be given a chance by the public. Your various fantasies about capitalism and the near future are the only things you have left, and your stubborn grip on them shows the magnitude of your failure at persuading the public that left-wing policies do anything but jack up the public debt to unsustainable levels while distorting the economy to the point where a country like, say, France, that has long been in the grip of left-wing economic policies, considers it a major achievement when unemployment briefly dips under 10%. You can assert whatever you please, and fail to back it up as you please, but those assertions and that failure don't change anything.

You will never be correct about the "collapse of capitalism" as capitalism never will collapse. It is too attractive to the great mass of common people. 8 years ago capitalism was supposed to be collapsing. Today you're crying about pro-capitalist policies being ascendant. What happened? 80 years ago capitalism was supposed to be collapsing. Didn't happen then either. For much of the last 100 years the revolution was supposed to be imminent, the capitalist half of the world was going to be swept away. Turned out that capitalism was the system that ended up doing the sweeping. 

Every time capitalism is supposed to be collapsing, within a decade it is once again the clear champion in the economic arena. You'd be better off trying to take advantage of the opportunities capitalism creates for the implementation of various left-wing fantasies. Capitalism is too stronk for the likes of you to defeat. It has too much allure to the masses to collapse. But if you want to continue to fail at realizing that, that is just fine too. Keep thinking your slingshot and pebbles will bring down the castle walls.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> No worries.
> 
> And all due respect but what you say you want and how you say you want to achieve it are not compatible. Free market capitalism only ends in one way and that's extreme wealth concentration. It has not and will not ever be something that is prosperous for society as a whole. It will only ever benefit the few at the expense of the many. I don't know how to be any more clear about it but you're just flat out wrong in what will happen. But, that's exactly why I want an economy that is unapologetically right wing. The system we have now has been steadily drifting right for 40 years, which is why things are so fucked, yet certain people are still convinced that center right policies masquerading as leftist are the problem. To that, I say, fine, let's go for it. Go all the way to the right. Give the right wing everything they want and let everyone learn the hard way what happens when you go full right wing. You might not admit you are wrong now but when your ideas are fully implemented and the whole system crashes, you won't have any choice but to admit you were wrong. It's not going to take much longer either because the people in charge of the world economy right now are about as far right wing capitalist as you can get.
> 
> Hey, if I'm wrong, and this works out great for everybody, I will happily eat my humble pie and admit that I was wrong; just so long as you are willing to do the same when I end up being correct about the collapse of capitalism.


I am sure my great grand children will admit it as they will be the first to have the convenience of being able to complain about pointless things online 

Your post capitalist utopia would take decades or even centuries of violent power struggles to even come close to being attempted in even small enclaves 

You would never come close to seeing it

I don't think people realized that this "flawed" society is THOUSANDS of years in the making and some people want to start from scratch, fuck that noise


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



> At last count, Hillary Clinton was ahead in the popular vote by almost 2.9 million, winning 48 percent to President-elect Donald Trump’s 46. And while for some this fact has raised concerns about the function of the Electoral College, for others it’s leverage. On Monday, Humanity for Progress released a video demanding that Congress hold Trump’s administration accountable — especially because the majority of the American people oppose it.
> 
> 
> In the video, which is called #StandUpForUs, celebrities and activists including Rosie Perez, Keegan-Michael Key, Tavi Gevinson, Lea Delaria, Sally Field, and Janet Mock speak to members of Congress directly, demanding they fight Trump’s administration should it seek to do harm to marginalized groups. It’s accompanied by a petition addressed to the House of Representatives and the Senate. “The old adage is ‘silence equals death,’” said Liz Garbus, who directed the video. “We need to show lawmakers and representatives that we won’t be silent. Ultimately, we gave those in Congress their jobs. And we’re watching.”
> 
> Actress and activist Rosie Perez said that when she was approached to do the video, her response was “Hell yeah.” “I think that a lot of Americans don’t understand the power of our elected officials,” she said. “They think the only effective way to protest [is] against the White House, and that’s not the case.” She added that she’s long taken advantage of her right to protest policy she disagrees with. “I was born into the system as a ward of the state, and every time there was a policy change it either affected my life for the better or for the worse,” she said. “So I understand what it means to really fight to have effective policy in the United States.”
> 
> Both Perez and Garbus agree that Trump’s election has a silver lining: It’s galvanized people to speak up. “We’re going to rise to the top,” Perez said. “We have it in us to do so, we’ve done it before, and we can do it again.”


http://nymag.com/thecut/2017/01/celebrities-and-activists-tell-congress-stand-up-for-us.html

First, celebrities is a loose term here. Second, do these idiots think that anyone cares what they want. They don't speak for anyone but themselves.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

While it's good to keep jobs here in the US and I'm all for it, you want to be careful about fully going down the protectionist road in order to make this happen...case in point...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/gm-fires-back-trump-most-134850069.html

The majority of Chevrolet Cruzes. are made here in the United States, with the exception of a handful of them made in a plant in Mexico for international sales. A small fraction of those do end up getting sold here, but it's 4500 out of about 190,000 Cruzes. Is it necessary to slap a 35% tariff on these goods for only a small fraction that are made elsewhere? Meanwhile, I'm all for American jobs and I try to buy products made in the USA whenever possible, but I have to figure cost into it. Tariffs mean that the cost will be passed on to the consumer and that means the cost of the car would go up. If the cars cost too much, they're going to sit on the lot and not sell. Eventually, those cars will stop getting sold. 

It boils down to making sure that the deals are better for business and free-trade, but free-trade still works if we change things so that it will be more beneficial for companies to do business here and not play the liberal game of being protectionist.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



BruiserKC said:


> It boils down to making sure that the deals are better for business and free-trade, but free-trade still works if we change things so that it will be more beneficial for companies to do business here and not play the liberal game of being protectionist.


What in the world are you even talking about here? This statement makes absolutely no sense. If we're to accept that the Obamas and Clintons of the world are the "liberals", then it's nonsensical to call protectionism a liberal game because modern Democrats are globalists. And if you're trying to say Trump is a liberal, that makes even less sense.

Also, all of our free trade deals are _nothing but_ business friendly. They were all written by corporate lobbyists to benefit the corporations. If you want free trade deals that make it more beneficial for companies to do business here, they need to be *more* protectionist and less globalist. What we have now are free trade deals that make it more profitable to ship all the jobs out of the country. What we need are free trade deals that make it more profitable to keep the jobs here. Of course, Trump is full of shit and he's not going to do protectionism. He's going to do crony capitalism, as shown by the corporate welfare deal he made with Carrier, but he's 100% correct in his rhetoric about it. His supporters are going to have to find out the hard way that all of his populist talk was nothing more than an elaborate con.


----------



## The Dazzler

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/816691146860675072
Hopefully Trump does as he's promised to.


----------



## Headliner

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



virus21 said:


> Funny how Trump has done more before getting inaugurated than Obama did in the 8 years he was in office


This is one of the most ignorant statements I've ever seen on this forum.:lmao

I get it, most of the people on this forum are republican fanboys, but being delusional is a choice, not a mandate.


----------



## krtgolfing

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> The media did not distort anything LOL You can read Trumps own tweets and words or his live speeches to see what a racist, sexist and bigot he is.
> 
> But keep your head in your ass and pretend Trump did not say those things it just makes you look even worse denying it.
> 
> And Trump admitted he likes to sexually assault women but yeah lets ignore that too. And no its not they were bogus people in power rape because they now they can rush the little person and ruin their lives when they come out and speak up about it.
> But keep defending the racist, sexist, bigotted and rapist trump.
> 
> it just shows what kind of person you are.


Annndddd your NEEEWWW President of the United States... #Notyourpresident uh??? When ya leaving?


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Headliner said:


> This is one of the most ignorant statements I've ever seen on this forum.:lmao
> 
> I get it, most of the people on this forum are republican fanboys, but being delusional is a choice, not a mandate.


Really huh. First, Im no Republican. Second, what did Obama do outside of Obamacare and continuing Bush's foreign policies. Trump's win seems to be making so progression, something I didn't much of when Obama was president.

Finally, insulting people isn't exactly good behavior for a mod.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



krtgolfing said:


> Annndddd your NEEEWWW President of the United States... #Notyourpresident uh??? When ya leaving?


When did i ever say I would leave the country if Trump won. Oh that is right never.


----------



## krtgolfing

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> When did i ever say I would leave the country if Trump won. Oh that is right never.


The whole #notmypresident is hilarious.. He is everyone's president unless they leave. :justsaying


----------



## Headliner

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



virus21 said:


> Really huh. First, Im no Republican. Second, what did Obama do outside of Obamacare and continuing Bush's foreign policies. Trump's win seems to be making so progression, something I didn't much of when Obama was president.
> 
> Finally, insulting people isn't exactly good behavior for a mod.


I didn't insult you. I insulted your statement. Being called delusional is not an insult either. 

-As of November 2016, the unemployment rate is 4.6%. When he took office it was at 7.8%, rising to 10% later that year at the peak of the recession. The poverty rate is lower and incomes are rising. 

-Saved the Auto Industry when some politicians said let it, and Detroit collapse and go broke. The bail out resulted not only in a recovery, but higher and some cases, record profits for GM and others while saving anywhere from 1 million to 1.5 million jobs. 

-15 million jobs added. 81 (mise well say 82 since it doesn't include December) months of positive job creation after losing hundreds of thousands of jobs during the recession. Might be the longest streak on record btw:
http://www.dpcc.senate.gov/files/images/DPCCPrivateSectorPayroll120216.png

-Killed Osama Bin Laden. The move at the time was gutsy because he was dealing with probabilities. 

-Ended two financially costly wars that we had no business being in, although he had to send some troops back with the emergence of ISIS. The military presence over there is only in the thousands compared to the 6 digit number when he took office from Bush.

-Will be the first President in like 50 years to leave office with a lower prison population than when he first took office. Partly due to his criminal justice reform that led to the re-sentencing or release of thousands of non-violent drug offenders who were sentenced under outdated harsh laws. A move to combat mass incarnation and promote fairness and second chances. Also, dropping the number of cases (by 20%) tried under mandatory minimum sentencing for non-violent drug offenders and instead, giving them a sentence based on the individual conduct. And also promoting alternate programs for these offenders instead of prison. 

There are many other parts of his criminal justice reform such as banning the box on federal applications to help people re-enter society and get back on their feet, limiting solitary confinement, signing the fair sentencing act in 2010 which reverses Reagan's 100 to 1 crack to cocaine sentencing ratio to 18:1. Reagan's law resulted in many black people getting thrown in prison doing basketball number sentences while the white counterparts who had the same volume of coke got off light. Once again, under this law, thousands of people were re-sentenced and received shorter sentences.

It's one thing to make changes from a desk, but to truly understand why you are making the change, you have to talk to people in these situations. That's why he was the first sitting President to visit a prison last year. He seen the conditions, he had sit down talks with inmates and it gave him a better understanding of the changes that needed to be made. There's several other components to his criminal justice reform but people can look it up for themselves. 

-His visit to Cuba was the gateway to opening relations between the US and Cuba. It was historic. It can't be downplayed. 

-The Iran Nuclear Deal that stops Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon by placing limits on their programs. 

-Signing away don't ask don't tell, being a champion of gay rights while also being a champion of women's equality and fair pay. (Lilly Ledbetter law and other)

-Clemency and second chances for non violent drug offenders. He's commuted more sentences than the last 11 Presidents combined. 395 of them were facing life sentences. 
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/images/chart_121916_commutations.jpg

------------------

Things that Obama wanted to get done, but got shut down by a majority GOP Congress or stalled out in Congress:

-His infrastructure bill (that was part of his jobs plan) in 2011 that would have provided $60 billion dollars to infrastructure projects that would have led to the creation of thousands of jobs across the US. They turned it down because in order to pay for it, Obama would have risen taxes for those making over $1 million dollars. So it's hilarious hearing Trump say he wants to do the same shit. I can see this Republican Congress passing it too:done

-Stopped Obama from raising federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10. As a side step, Obama made an executive order ordering those who get federal construction and service contracts to get a minimum wage of $10.10. 

-Blocked the paycheck fairness act twice, a move that would help women get equal pay with other components designed to protect them from retaliation. 

-Criminal Justice Reform. Which is why most of Obama's Criminal Justice Reform is on Executive Order and can easily be reversed by the incoming President & Attorney General. 

-Getting two year community colleges free. One bill was turned down, another is stalling in congress. A side step component he did on his own was creating a $100m grant competition in the summer to give organizations free training and education programs that can help people land jobs. 
https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/eta/eta20161117




So don't sit here and act like he just played with himself in the oval office for 8 years. He wasn't perfect by any means, but the hate he gets his ridiclous. President Clinton never got this level of hate from the opposing side. Interesting.:mj


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Bill Clinton was pretty damn reviled. He was almost removed from office. Jimmy Carter is still seen by a lot of people as the worst president in history.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

neat





In other news: http://www.fox32chicago.com/news/crime/227116738-story


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Cipher said:


> neat
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other news: http://www.fox32chicago.com/news/crime/227116738-story


But Trump supporters are the violent bigots. IT must be lies


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

a month later, the tears are still delicious

:trump


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@DesolationRow @AryaDark @MissSally; @Tater @CamillePunk @Carte Blanche

Here we fucking go, so this is where I'm inevitably going to start railing against the Republican controlled government and we'll see whether Trump supporters will either turn on me or agree....I suspect it probably will be mixed on here. So the Republicans have the presidency, the Senate and House of Representatives; the first time since 2001 during the George W Bush years. And what is the very first thing they do with this new power even before Trump gets into office? They push forward a budget that will project to add *$9.7 TRILLION DOLLARS* to the debt over 10 years.

http://rare.us/story/rand-paul-blas...-the-debt-in-the-name-of-repealing-obamacare/



> Sen. Rand Paul gave a fiery speech on the senate floor Wednesday, blasting his own party for wanting to pass a budget that would add trillions to the national debt all in the name of repealing Obamacare.
> 
> “The more things change, the more they seem to stay the same. Republicans won the White House. Republicans control the Senate. Republicans control the House,” Paul began.
> 
> “And what will the first order of business be for the new Republican majority? To pass a budget that never balances […] To pass a budget that will add $9.7 trillion dollars of new debt over ten years,” Paul said.
> 
> Paul continued:
> 
> Is that really what we campaigned on? Is that really what the Republican Party represents? Our first order of business will be a budget that never balances? And they tell, ‘oh, but it’s not a budget.’ If you listen they will say ‘no, no, it is a vehicle to repeal Obamacare.’
> 
> And yet I have the title in front of me. It says ‘Concurrent Resolution for the Budget of 2017.’ We have special rules that when you pass the budget, that we may be able to repeal Obamacare, and I’m all for that.
> 
> But why should we vote on a budget that doesn’t represent our conservative view?
> 
> Because we’re in a hurry, we can’t be bothered, it’s just numbers. I was told again and again, ‘swallow it, take it, they’re just numbers.’
> 
> Paul vowed to oppose the budget as it is currently written.
> 
> “That’s not why I ran for office!” Paul said, slamming budget papers down. “That’s not why I’m here.”
> 
> “That’s not why I spend time away from my family and from my medical practice, it’s because debt is consuming our country […] There is a time and place to debate Obamacare, and I’m willing to debate that, but this is a budget,” Paul said on Wednesday.
> 
> The senator offered his solution to his problems with the current Republican budget.
> 
> “I, for one, will put forward a conservative opposition to the Republican majority’s budget. I will put forward a budget that freezes spending, and balances the budget over a five year period,” Paul declared.
> 
> On Monday, in an op-ed for Rare, Sen. Paul called for the repeal of Obamacare, but also for an immediate replacement.
> 
> “My fear is that if you leave part of Obamacare in place (the dictate that insurance companies must sell insurance to individuals with pre-existing conditions) then you will see an acceleration of adverse selection and ultimately mass bankruptcy of the healthcare insurance industry,” Paul wrote.
> 
> “Don’t misunderstand me. We should repeal Obamacare, but partial repeal will only accelerate the current chaos and may eventually lead to calls for a taxpayer bailout of insurance companies,” the senator warned.
> 
> “Partial repeal of Obamacare will likely win the day, but when the insurance companies come to Washington crying for a bailout don’t say that no one warned of this preventable disaster.”







Rand Paul once again seems to be the only one who cares about what I think is the biggest issue in American politics today. He's the only one who sees the mountain of debt piling up and how much economic insecurity it is causing the country. I am encouraged about the *Audit the Fed* bill which Trump seemingly supports, but this is both wholly unsurprising and would be enraging for me if I were an American citizen.

It has been clear for a long time that the Republican party doesn't have fiscal conservative principles. Both Republicans and Democrats are still utterly horrible when it comes to spending and debt. This time around there are literally no excuses to be made on the Republican end, they simply are incompetent and do not care.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

it takes 9.7 trillion dollaz to _repeal_ obamacare? :lmao

wat


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Goku said:


> it takes 9.7 trillion dollaz to _repeal_ obamacare? :lmao
> 
> wat


From the sounds of it the Congressional Republican Leadership put forward a full budget which contains a heap of different stuff, and amongst that different stuff happens to be things which will allow for the later appeal of Obamacare and they are trying to pressure the other Republicans in Congress to vote for it just on the basis of the Obamacare stuff without looking at any of the other measures contained within, and the 9.7 Trillion probably comes from the other measures, prob a fair bit of pork barreling in there.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Alkomesh2 said:


> From the sounds of it the Congressional Republican Leadership put forward a full budget which contains a heap of different stuff, and amongst that different stuff happens to be things which will allow for the later appeal of Obamacare and they are trying to pressure the other Republicans in Congress to vote for it just on the basis of the Obamacare stuff without looking at any of the other measures contained within, and the 9.7 Trillion probably comes from the other measures, prob a fair bit of pork barreling in there.


Ah, I see.

I do expect to see a budget that does in the short term increase national debt if due to nothing else the slew of promises trump has made that he needs to come through on (THE WALL, increased military etc.). At the same time, I expect trump to take measures to cut down on the structures that encourage routine spending. Would take a bit of analysis to figure out exactly where these 2 points are.


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Damn right there is a lot of pork in there. And there is so much in there, and so much legal mumbo-jumbo, that the average American isn't even able to make themselves commit to finding out what all is in there. Oh, but we'll listen to what our "elected representatives" tell us it's all about. Because none of them have ever steered us wrong in the past, am I right? Got to keep the machine going... :mj


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I hate legal mumbo jumbo and bloated paperwork style actions. The American people have a right to read what's going on and understand it, when it comes to Politics, I want meat and potatoes! I want to know exactly what I'm going to get.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@L-DOPA 

As much as I respect Rand Paul, especially for his stances on foreign policy, his concern over the national debt is fighting a lost cause. He and so many others still seems to think it's an issue that can be solved and it cannot. That debt is never getting paid off because of the failures of capitalism. It's just going to keep growing and growing until the entire global economy collapses under it's weight. His concern is admirable but it is far too little, far too late.

Also...



> “My fear is that if you leave part of Obamacare in place (the dictate that insurance companies must sell insurance to individuals with pre-existing conditions) then you will see an acceleration of adverse selection and ultimately mass bankruptcy of the healthcare insurance industry,” Paul wrote.


...the fuck? He's bitching about requiring _health insurance companies_ to offer _health insurance_ to people who are sick? That was about the only thing I liked about Romneycare. I'm against private, for-profit healthcare insurance in general principal but it's entirely fucked up to argue that only healthy people should be allowed to have health insurance and that you're shit outta luck if you're already sick. The USA has ridiculously fucked up priorities when it values the profit of the individual over the health of the population. I mean, who gives a fuck if people are suffering and dying if it means some rich asshole can make another buck? fpalm


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> I hate legal mumbo jumbo and bloated paperwork style actions. The American people have a right to read what's going on and understand it, when it comes to Politics, I want meat and potatoes! I want to know exactly what I'm going to get.


US is law is designed to be very complex and specific so it can be super non-flexable 

"simple easy to read" things can be interpreted in a verity of ways and most pre-US rights and laws were so vague that they could shifted very easily

The US government is a labyrinth, slow, bureaucratic hell out of failure, its by design 

A lighting fast government with simple simple laws is called a dictatorship


----------



## Headliner

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



MrMister said:


> Bill Clinton was pretty damn reviled. He was almost removed from office. Jimmy Carter is still seen by a lot of people as the worst president in history.


Clinton's worst hate was due to his affair. Otherwise he had normal hate from the opposing side, but he never experienced the polarizing hate and disrespect that Obama has faced since the moment he stepped in office. Clinton's opponents were able to at least give him credit for his accomplishments. Obama's opponents and haters refuse to give him any sort of credit for anything with mild, mild exceptions. 

Carter is partly hated because he's too nice of a guy and didn't have war in his heart. Other reasons are other Presidential reasons, but that reason made him vulnerable. He's probably one of the nicest or genuine people to ever hold office though. Kinda hilarious how even his own party seemed to shun him away since he wasn't a two term President. 

By the way, gas in America is half the price it was during Bush's last years and the recession peak. Thanks Obama :lebron8


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Goku said:


> a month later, the tears are still delicious
> 
> :trump


Are they...spicy by any chance? :trump


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Are they...spicy by any chance? :trump


they come in all varieties :trump


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Goku said:


> they come in *all varieties* :trump












brb chalice for catching the tears


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

It is moments like these where it is important to remind yourself that the Republican Party has always been "the big government party" from its inception, it's just that the Democratic Party was able to move with stunning alacrity to become "the bigger big government party" beginning a century ago with Woodrow Wilson. 

Having said that, @L-DOPA, @Tater is right that the U.S. debt is not going to be paid off, not after the last sixteen years of mad monetary policy. This is a check that the U.S. federal government cannot even remotely begin to cash. Donald Trump seemed to understand this as he spoke of the U.S. government eventually defaulting on the debt before panic struck one commentator after another concerning this inevitability.


----------



## sesshomaru

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

A lot of people are going to be just as mad at Trump as they were at Bush jr in 2004/2008. And he won't even really his his fault, but he'll be the scapegoat for all the shitty Republican crap that will be pushed in the next 4 years.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@DesolationRow @Tater Yeah you guys are right, the debt won't be paid off due to the mad monetary and fiscal policies...particularly of the last two presidents and now it seems the Republicans are picking up where Obama left off....

It still really doesn't excuse how massive this budget will be in terms of exploding the debt and the deficit's over the next 10 years....


----------



## blackholeson

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

*I'm not sure what it is exactly, but I just have this unsettling feeling about all of this. Something just isn't sitting so well. Sometimes things are too good to be true. In this case it's the exact opposite. This is practically too bad to be true. Society hasn't faced something like this in a rather long time.*


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@DesolationRow @CamillePunk @Tater @Carte Blanche @MissSally; @Pratchett @Lumpy McRighteous 






Seeing as Audit the Fed is seemingly back on the agenda and on the table now that Trump is president and we have a Republican majority everywhere, I felt it would be appropriate to share a video showing and explaining why this bill is so important and how the FED and Central Banking as a whole is so destructive for a multitude of reasons.

#AuditTheFed #EndTheFed .


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

The melody might change... but it's the same old song over and over again. We need a massive collapse of these bureaucratic structures if we want actual change. Change is never coming from the inside.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The AP said:


> US lawmakers introduce amendment to limit Congressional terms.












- Vic


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



> The Democratic National Committee announced a new round of hires on Tuesday — including several former campaign staffers for Hillary Clinton — as it builds out a “war room” to do political battle with President-elect Donald Trump.
> 
> The DNC is beefing up its communications and opposition research shop under interim Chairwoman Donna Brazile, who said that the new staff’s priorities will be to “support an independent and bipartisan congressional investigation of Russia’s unprecedented interference in the 2016 election, take on the incoming Trump administration, and protect President Obama’s legacy.”
> 
> Leading that effort as interim communications director will be John Neffinger, a veteran Democratic strategist who will take a leave of absence from the nonprofit liberal strategy firm Franklin Forum for his new role.
> 
> Beneath Neffinger will be two veterans of Clinton’s campaign.
> 
> 
> Clinton’s former rapid response director, Zac Petkanas, will act as senior adviser to the DNC and will run the war room. Petkanas previously handled communications for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).
> 
> Former Clinton campaign spokeswoman Adrienne Watson will be the DNC's national press secretary. Watson has also worked as communications director for Correct the Record, a Clinton-aligned super PAC.
> 
> The DNC also announced on Tuesday that it had promoted Tessa Simonds to digital director for the war room.
> During the 2016 campaign, those operatives focused heavily on digging up and driving negative storylines about Trump — a skill Brazile said will serve the DNC well as it works to “hold Donald Trump’s feet to the fire as he forms his new government.”
> 
> Among the war room’s priorities will be to champion a congressional investigation into Russia’s alleged interference in the 2016 election, which many Democrats blame for Clinton’s defeat.
> 
> They’ll also be fighting the GOP’s attempts to repeal ObamaCare and looking to dig up dirt on Trump’s “egregious and unethical self-dealing, as well as his appointment of nominees whose extreme policies would actively undermine the missions that their respective agencies are responsible for pursuing.”
> 
> The DNC's plan to comb through Trump's past for material to use against the incoming president echoes other efforts in the party. In December, the American Bridge super PAC announced its own operation to review old footage of Trump, as well as his business dealings, charitable foundation, and personal life.
> 
> The hires come during a contentious campaign to elect the next DNC chairperson.
> 
> Like the Democratic primary between Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the DNC chair race is lining up as a proxy war between progressives, who support Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), and centrist Democrats — including some in the White House — who back President Obama’s Labor secretary, Tom Perez.
> 
> There is still roiling anger in some quarters of the left over the DNC’s handling of the Democratic primary. Sanders supporters have seethed over what they view as DNC scheming that sought to undermine Sanders's insurgent campaign in an attempt to pave the way for a Clinton nomination.
> 
> When WikiLeaks published internal DNC emails that appeared to give credence to those suspicions, the revelations forced then-DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz to step down, as well as the departure of several of her top aides.
> 
> Brazile then stepped into the interim chair role.
> 
> Brazile is beloved by many Democrats but has been singed by controversy herself, thanks to one email exposed by WikiLeaks that appeared to show her giving Clinton's campaign an early look at a question Clinton would receive at a forum with Sanders.
> 
> Some liberals are pushing for a wholesale gutting of the DNC and could question the timing of bringing on former Clinton staffers before the election for chair.
> 
> But in her statement, Brazile indicated that she didn’t believe Democrats could wait until the late February election to mount a sustained political assault against Trump.
> 
> “In this critical lead up to the election of our next chair, the DNC will be leveraging our resources, our unparalleled research operation, and our experienced team to assist with an independent and bipartisan Congressional investigation of Russia’s interference in the election, hold Donald Trump’s feet to the fire as he forms his new government, and lead the charge in defending the achievements made under the Obama administration,” Brazile said in a statement.


http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/312529-dnc-adds-former-clinton-staffers-for-trump-war-room


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*










:nowords


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



virus21 said:


> http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/312529-dnc-adds-former-clinton-staffers-for-trump-war-room


----------



## ecclesiastes10

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



L-DOPA said:


> @DesolationRow @AryaDark @MissSally; @Tater @CamillePunk @Carte Blanche
> 
> Here we fucking go, so this is where I'm inevitably going to start railing against the Republican controlled government and we'll see whether Trump supporters will either turn on me or agree....I suspect it probably will be mixed on here. So the Republicans have the presidency, the Senate and House of Representatives; the first time since 2001 during the George W Bush years. And what is the very first thing they do with this new power even before Trump gets into office? They push forward a budget that will project to add *$9.7 TRILLION DOLLARS* to the debt over 10 years.
> 
> http://rare.us/story/rand-paul-blas...-the-debt-in-the-name-of-repealing-obamacare/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rand Paul once again seems to be the only one who cares about what I think is the biggest issue in American politics today. He's the only one who sees the mountain of debt piling up and how much economic insecurity it is causing the country. I am encouraged about the *Audit the Fed* bill which Trump seemingly supports, but this is both wholly unsurprising and would be enraging for me if I were an American citizen.
> 
> It has been clear for a long time that the Republican party doesn't have fiscal conservative principles. Both Republicans and Democrats are still utterly horrible when it comes to spending and debt. This time around there are literally no excuses to be made on the Republican end, they simply are incompetent and do not care.
> 
> The more things change, the more they stay the same.


every major country is saddle with ginmorous debt, the economy is slowing down, robots are being used to replace millions in work place...it will not get better unless the debt can be forgiven/ or be agreed to be lowered to a payable rate... social security has to go


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



L-DOPA said:


> @DesolationRow @AryaDark @MissSally; @Tater @CamillePunk @Carte Blanche
> 
> Here we fucking go, so this is where I'm inevitably going to start railing against the Republican controlled government and we'll see whether Trump supporters will either turn on me or agree....I suspect it probably will be mixed on here. So the Republicans have the presidency, the Senate and House of Representatives; the first time since 2001 during the George W Bush years. And what is the very first thing they do with this new power even before Trump gets into office? They push forward a budget that will project to add *$9.7 TRILLION DOLLARS* to the debt over 10 years.
> 
> http://rare.us/story/rand-paul-blas...-the-debt-in-the-name-of-repealing-obamacare/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rand Paul once again seems to be the only one who cares about what I think is the biggest issue in American politics today. He's the only one who sees the mountain of debt piling up and how much economic insecurity it is causing the country. I am encouraged about the *Audit the Fed* bill which Trump seemingly supports, but this is both wholly unsurprising and would be enraging for me if I were an American citizen.
> 
> It has been clear for a long time that the Republican party doesn't have fiscal conservative principles. Both Republicans and Democrats are still utterly horrible when it comes to spending and debt. This time around there are literally no excuses to be made on the Republican end, they simply are incompetent and do not care.
> 
> The more things change, the more they stay the same.


Not to mention the $1 trillion infrastructure plan Trump has floated in regards to repairing highways, bridges, etc. I'm all for getting this fixed, but where is the money going to come from? We are nearly $20 trillion in debt and rising and we can't keep this up long-term. This was one of the biggest issues that led to the Great Recession. Cutting taxes is fine but it doesn't work without cutting spending, Bush's government blew money like a drunken sailor on shore leave. There's so much pork here that many BBQ fanatics could roll up their smokers to Capitol Hill and have the biggest tailgate. Lord knows there'd be enough pork to cook. 

I would mark out for auditing the Fed, and would also like us to go back to the gold standard. It makes plain economic sense to have something tangible to back our money. Trump has said it is something he would very seriously consider. Printing more money won't help us, it just means the dollar goes down in value.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Well you have to pay for the Mexican wall first before paying for the bridges and highways.

Wreck the Mexican economy, and say they will pay for your vanity project...eventually probably after he leaves office. OPM as long as he gets to build his wall. One way or the other. lulz.


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/817413321058029568
Your move, Peacock.

:heyman6


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@L-DOPA @DesolationRow @AryaDark 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/817557831683608576
Also, Rand Paul will be on Tucker Carlson tonight! :mark: Looking forward to that interview immensely.

Here is that interview:


----------



## Lady Eastwood

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

As a Trump supporter, I still must say that this man needs to stay the fuck off of twitter. He is really making himself look like a dicknugget. I was just reading about his jabs at Schwarzenegger about Celebrity Apprentice and, holy shit, jealous or something? I don't get why he has to knock people down for doing work. He left his show to be president, they got a replacement, why destroy the guy just because he took over your show? Apparently the ratings were meh (I don't watch it, nor care to) so that opened Trump up to throw bombs at the former GOVENATOR.

AHHHNOLD came back with a very mature response.

Petty shit like that and his dumbass responses make him look so stupid, and he needs to realize he is representing an entire country, just like anyone who works for a business is representing that name. He wonders why people ridicule his (soon to be) presidential qualities while posting ignorant fucking shit all day long.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Catalanotto said:


> As a Trump supporter, I still must say that this man needs to stay the fuck off of twitter. He is really making himself look like a dicknugget. I was just reading about his jabs at Schwarzenegger about Celebrity Apprentice and, holy shit, jealous or something? I don't get why he has to knock people down for doing work. He left his show to be president, they got a replacement, why destroy the guy just because he took over your show? Apparently the ratings were meh (I don't watch it, nor care to) so that opened Trump up to throw bombs at the former GOVENATOR.
> 
> AHHHNOLD came back with a very mature response.
> 
> Petty shit like that and his dumbass responses make him look so stupid, and he needs to realize he is representing an entire country, just like anyone who works for a business is representing that name. He wonders why people ridicule his (soon to be) presidential qualities while posting ignorant fucking shit all day long.


There is a time to tweet and not to tweet. Trump has said some funny stuff and people like him for that, he's also said some really dumb shit. It's best to use it as a tool to communicate with the people and bypass the dying MSM. Sometimes less is more!


----------



## Lady Eastwood

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I agree, there have been some things he has said that are LULZ, but, for the most part, he has a problem keeping his emotions in check and feels he needs to be a giant dildo more often than not LOL


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Catalanotto said:


> I agree, there have been some things he has said that are LULZ, but, for the most part, he has a problem keeping his emotions in check and feels he needs to be a giant dildo more often than not LOL


How dare you call our new president a dildo?!


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@CamillePunk fantastic interview there with Rand and Tucker :mark:.

If he somehow manages to achieve what he is stating (which may be unlikely unfortunately...) then things are looking up .


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@L-DOPA @DesolationRow @BruiserKC



> January 7, 2017
> *The Trump Bubble*
> by Mike Whitney
> 
> Donald Trump has a plan for dealing with the stock market bubble. Make it bigger.
> 
> Before the election candidate Trump blasted Federal Reserve chairman Janet Yellen for keeping interest rates too low for too long to keep the economy humming along while Obama was still in office. The president elect accused Yellen of being politically motivated suggesting that the Fed’s policies had put the country at risk of another stock market Crash like 2008.
> 
> “If rates go up, you’re going to see something that’s not pretty,” Trump told Fox News in an interview in September. “It’s all a big bubble.”
> 
> Yellen of course denied Trump’s claims saying, “We do not discuss politics at our meetings, and we do not take politics into account in our decisions.”
> 
> As we shall see later in this article, Yellen was lying about the political role the Fed plays in setting policy, in fact, last week’s FOMC statement clearly establishes the Fed as basically a political institution that implements an agenda that serves a very small group of powerful constituents, the 1 percent. If serving the interests of one group over all of the others is not politics, than what is it?
> 
> The problem we have with Trump is not his critique of the market or the Fed. The problem is his remedy which can be sussed out by reviewing his economic plan. Trump wants to slash personal and corporate taxes in order to put more money into the economy to increase business investment, boost hiring, and rev up growth. Regrettably, his tax plan achieves none of these.
> 
> First of all, slashing taxes for the wealthy does not boost growth. We know that. It doesn’t work. Period. Check out this blurb from an article on CNBC:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “A study from the Congressional Research Service — the non-partisan research office for Congress — shows that “there is little evidence over the past 65 years that tax cuts for the highest earners are associated with savings, investment or productivity growth.”
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, the study found that higher tax rates for the wealthy are statistically associated with higher levels of growth…
> 
> The CRS study looked at tax rates and economic growth since 1945. The top tax rate in 1945 was above 90 percent, and fell to 70 percent in the 1960s and to a low of 28 percent in 1986.
> 
> The top current rate is 35 percent. The tax rate for capital gains was 25 percent in the 1940s and 1950s, then went up to 35 percent in the 1970s, before coming down to 15 percent today — the lowest rate in more than 65 years.
> 
> Lowering these rates for the wealthy, the study found, isn’t aligned with significant improvement in any of the areas it examined…
> 
> There is one part of the economy, however, that is changed by tax cuts for the rich: inequality….
> 
> The share of total income going to the top 0.1 percent hovered around 4 percent during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, then rose to 12 percent by the mid-2000s. During this period, the average tax rate paid by the 0.1 percent fell from more than 40 percent to below 25 percent.” (“Study: Tax Cuts for the Rich Don’t Spur Growth“, CNBC)
> 
> Trump’s tax plan will increase inequality by making the rich richer. He wants to reduce the top tax rate from 39.6% to 33% which means that people “making $3.7 million or more in a year, would receive $1 million in annual tax savings.” (USA Today) The plan is bad for the economy, bad for the deficits and bad for working people who will see more aggressive attacks on Social Security to make up for the losses in revenue.
> 
> Second, the huge tax break Trump intends to award to the tax dodging corporations that stash their money overseas will not be used to fire up growth or invest in future business ventures, but to issue more dividends to shareholders or increase stock buybacks that pump up stock prices. There’s a great article at the Intercept website that sums it up perfectly. Here’s a short excerpt:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “The official line from U.S.-based multinational corporations is that if they get a huge tax break, they’ll bring home the trillions of dollars in profits they’ve stashed overseas and use it to hire tons of Americans.
> 
> But now that Donald Trump’s election means it might really happen, corporate executives are telling Wall Street analysts what they’ll actually use that money for: enriching their shareholders and buying other companies.
> 
> The Intercept’s examination of dozens of earnings calls and investor conference talks since Trump won the presidential election finds that many executives are telling analysts at large banks that they are eager to take the money to increase dividends and stock buybacks as well as snap up competitors. They demonstrate considerably less if any enthusiasm for going on a domestic hiring spree…..
> 
> “The wealthy are going to create tremendous jobs. They’re going to expand their companies,” Trump asserted during the first presidential debate. “They’re going to bring $2.5 trillion back from overseas, … to be put to use on the inner cities and lots of other things, and it would be beautiful.” During the third debate he promised that “We’re going to start hiring people, we’re going to bring the $2.5 trillion that’s offshore back into the country. We are going to start the engine rolling again.” (“Corporations Prepare to Gorge on Tax Cuts Trump Claims Will Create Jobs“, Jon Schwartz, The Intercept)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump knows his so called “tax holiday” scam is a bunch of baloney. Why would companies expand their operations, hire more workers, and generate more product when consumer demand is still in the crapper seven years after the Great Recession?
> 
> They’re not going to do that. They’re going to do exactly what their shareholders expect them to do, pursue those areas of investment that promise the best possible return. In this case that means stock buybacks, the financial engineering swindle that’s going to add another $2 trillion to equities valuations and send Trump’s “bubble” to the moon.
> 
> The people who believe that Trump is going to defend the “little guy” against the special interests, corporate lobbyists and elitist oligarchy who run this country are going to be pretty disappointed. Behind his widely-ballyhooed public relations campaign aimed at convincing his backers that he’s determined to keep the jobs in the US, Trump is working all the levers to ensure the big money keeps flowing in the same direction it has been for the last 30 years. Upwards.
> 
> As for Yellen, last week’s FOMC statement made it crystal clear that if Trump makes any attempt to veer from the predatory, neoliberal course she’s charted, he will be quickly slapped down with higher interest rates. Check out her comments from the post-statement press conference:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “We’re operating under a cloud of uncertainty at the moment…..Some participants noted that if the labor market appeared to be tightening significantly more than expected, it might become necessary to adjust the Committee’s communications about the expected path of the federal funds rate, consistent with the possibility that a less gradual pace of increases would become appropriate.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, if wages finally manage to break-free from their seven years of flatlining stagnation due to an unforeseen surge in growth, the Fed will immediately extinguish that improvement by raising rates and reducing the level of economic activity. Yellen’s statement simply confirms the Fed’s anti-worker bias.
> 
> Which is why we say the Fed is basically a political institution.
> 
> SOURCE
Click to expand...

If you're of the mind that slashing taxes for the rich and things like repatriation holidays will do anything to help the working man, you are sadly mistaken. It's a belief based in ideology and not in factual reality. In reality, it's just another scam that continues enriching those at the top at the expense of everybody else. It's also a stupid ideology too because it hinges entirely on trusting the rich to invest all that extra money in hiring people at better wages. What actually happens is they use that extra money to game the system via cons like stock buybacks.

People like to ignore history but if you look back at what things were like back in the 40s-70s, when the USA had a strong economy and built the strongest middle class the world has ever seen, taxes were high on the rich. It's a simple basic fact that you can't allow extreme wealth concentration at the very top and have a strong middle class at the same time. It just doesn't work that way. It never has and it never will. I still see some of you pushing the notion that taxes are too high on corporations and that's why the economy sucks, which is completely fucking absurd and does not line up with historical facts. We've been slashing taxes for the rich for the past 40 years and things keep getting shittier and shittier. It blows my mind that people still believe we need to do *more* of the things that fucked up everything so badly to begin with.

Of course, I'd like to scrap capitalism altogether. I'd be perfectly happy getting rid of the owner class and putting the working class in charge of the economy. If the workers were making all the money instead of having all the rich welfare queens leeching off the hard work of others, then there would be no need to have high taxes on the rich. But, if we are going to continue operating under the system that we have now, the fact is you have to have higher taxes on the rich or you end up with the shit economy we see today.

But let's say for the sake of argument that Trump is right and everything magically starts working out better for the common man. *Even if* that were to happen, the Fed would just raise the rates and fuck everyone over that way. There is no current scenario where life improves for the majority of people. Everything is just going to keep getting worse until the system collapses under it's own weight.


----------



## Dilawar

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Great


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



> I'd be perfectly happy getting rid of the owner class and putting the working class in charge of the economy.


In germany I believe employees automatically get a 30% voting rights at shareholders meetings.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> @L-DOPA @DesolationRow @BruiserKC
> 
> 
> 
> If you're of the mind that slashing taxes for the rich and things like repatriation holidays will do anything to help the working man, you are sadly mistaken. It's a belief based in ideology and not in factual reality. In reality, it's just another scam that continues enriching those at the top at the expense of everybody else. It's also a stupid ideology too because it hinges entirely on trusting the rich to invest all that extra money in hiring people at better wages. What actually happens is they use that extra money to game the system via cons like stock buybacks.
> 
> People like to ignore history but if you look back at what things were like back in the 40s-70s, when the USA had a strong economy and built the strongest middle class the world has ever seen, taxes were high on the rich. It's a simple basic fact that you can't allow extreme wealth concentration at the very top and have a strong middle class at the same time. It just doesn't work that way. It never has and it never will. I still see some of you pushing the notion that taxes are too high on corporations and that's why the economy sucks, which is completely fucking absurd and does not line up with historical facts. We've been slashing taxes for the rich for the past 40 years and things keep getting shittier and shittier. It blows my mind that people still believe we need to do *more* of the things that fucked up everything so badly to begin with.
> 
> Of course, I'd like to scrap capitalism altogether. I'd be perfectly happy getting rid of the owner class and putting the working class in charge of the economy. If the workers were making all the money instead of having all the rich welfare queens leeching off the hard work of others, then there would be no need to have high taxes on the rich. But, if we are going to continue operating under the system that we have now, the fact is you have to have higher taxes on the rich or you end up with the shit economy we see today.
> 
> But let's say for the sake of argument that Trump is right and everything magically starts working out better for the common man. *Even if* that were to happen, the Fed would just raise the rates and fuck everyone over that way. There is no current scenario where life improves for the majority of people. Everything is just going to keep getting worse until the system collapses under it's own weight.


The economy wasn't the best back then, either. We started seeing a rise in inflation and overspending at the government level way back then. Look at the LBJ Guns and Butter programs, as well as inflation and the economy grinding to a halt during the Ford and Carter administrations. The markets basically slowed down and we were in recession mode about the time Reagan took office. When Dubya was in office, we saw it happen again, trying to finance two wars and at the same time government spending on everything else spiraling out of control while he pushed higher our national debt. Cutting taxes is all good and fine, you need to find a way to get the economy really going and the market is really on a house of cards right now. We need the businesses to get the incentives to start investing and growing again in this country. However, you have to cut government spending at the same time. With the government's national debt at nearly $20 trillion, it's not feasible to keep this going at this rate, the market will eventually bottom out. All of these factors means that many of these businesses are sitting on their money right now, they're not as willing to spend and certainly not willing to invest in new personnel, etc...to get things going. 

A correction is coming, the market will eventually start dipping as that's just the way things go with a market-based economy. The key is to try to not make it hurt as much...we can't keep up the ridiculous spending that the government is going through now. We're paying off just the interest on the debt, not to mention nations like China that own a significant portion of that debt. If we don't do something now, when the crash comes it's really going to hurt. Not to mention it hurting all the more if China decides to call in its marker. 




Catalanotto said:


> As a Trump supporter, I still must say that this man needs to stay the fuck off of twitter. He is really making himself look like a dicknugget. I was just reading about his jabs at Schwarzenegger about Celebrity Apprentice and, holy shit, jealous or something? I don't get why he has to knock people down for doing work. He left his show to be president, they got a replacement, why destroy the guy just because he took over your show? Apparently the ratings were meh (I don't watch it, nor care to) so that opened Trump up to throw bombs at the former GOVENATOR.
> 
> AHHHNOLD came back with a very mature response.
> 
> Petty shit like that and his dumbass responses make him look so stupid, and he needs to realize he is representing an entire country, just like anyone who works for a business is representing that name. He wonders why people ridicule his (soon to be) presidential qualities while posting ignorant fucking shit all day long.


You can't make policy statements in 140 characters, but it's obvious Trump is doing this just for the LOLz. As for the ratings of the show...it's been off the air for a couple of years so many people obviously moved on from watching it, not to mention all the TV options that are out there right now for people to watch.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



BruiserKC said:


> Not to mention the $1 trillion infrastructure plan Trump has floated in regards to repairing highways, bridges, etc. I'm all for getting this fixed, but where is the money going to come from? We are nearly $20 trillion in debt and rising and we can't keep this up long-term. This was one of the biggest issues that led to the Great Recession. Cutting taxes is fine but it doesn't work without cutting spending, Bush's government blew money like a drunken sailor on shore leave. There's so much pork here that many BBQ fanatics could roll up their smokers to Capitol Hill and have the biggest tailgate. Lord knows there'd be enough pork to cook.


With the risk of sounding like I'm brushing everyone with a broad stroke so to speak, this is what a lot of liberals...and seemingly Trump at this point don't seem to get....well in Trump's case it might just be not seem to care. It's all well and dandy having an infrastructure bill, I have no problem with this but it's got to be done in a way that can be paid for and not just come out of thin air. Many liberals will say that they want an infrastructure bill, they want increased spending on entitlements, free college education, free healthcare...but they don't seem to think about how they will pay for it without exponentially increasing deficit spending and adding more to the debt.

And the one's that do are only prepared to cut spending on areas that they don't like such as the military but aren't willing to look at reforming areas which they do like such as medicaid and social security. In Trump's case, $1 Trillion dollars worth of infrastructure spending is unlikely to just come from cutting military spending, excess waste and corporate welfare if you were to go that route and Trump has explicitly said he wants to increase military spending...which is asinine at a time when the US spends more on their military than the next 10 or 12 countries combined.

As I have said, I am okay with infrastructure spending but it seems to me to make zero sense to talk about more public spending at a time where the deficits are going through the roof and the debt is at $20 Trillion dollars. At some point there has to be a position where people say enough is enough. The US hasn't had a balanced budget since 2002. That's almost *15 years* which is ridiculous. What's even more insane is what Rand pointed out with freezing spending you could potentially balance the budget yet nobody on either side is for either cutting or freezing spending. So you'll never get a balanced budget at this rate and the US eventually down the line may have to talk about defaulting on it's debt and currency like the Greek's really ought have done instead of giving into the fiscal tyranny of the EU Central Bank.

This isn't a problem unique to the US btw, the same is happening in the UK on a smaller scale. The Conservatives here on their manifesto, promised to balance the budget in 5 years by 2020. That's what they projected. This was down from the projection of doing it by 2015 but they were in a coalition government with the Center-Left Liberal Democrats, so begrudgingly as a sort of lesser than two evils scenario and wanting to secure the EU referendum, I voted for them. Less than two years later, David Cameron resigns after losing the referendum and in comes to Theresa May. Now the new Chancellor of the Exchequer who essentially is the head of Treasury comes out and says we're abandoning the plans to balance the budget and are instead coming out with a new infrastructure bill of £23 Billion pounds and has ripped up the borrowing rules to allow for more flexibility for government spending. Now obviously compared to Trump's proposals it's not nearly as severe, but our own national debt has doubled in the last 10 years and we haven't had a balanced budget for over 10 years. Seemingly the only person who has talked about this and about the need to reduce the size of the state is Nigel Farage who is hated by the left unsurprisingly and the so called Conservative government is continuing Keynesian fiscal policy. It's certainly not what I voted for and for that as well as a number of other reasons I will likely not be voting for the Theresa May led Conservatives in the new election cycle.




BruiserKC said:


> I would mark out for auditing the Fed, and would also like us to go back to the gold standard. It makes plain economic sense to have something tangible to back our money. Trump has said it is something he would very seriously consider. Printing more money won't help us, it just means the dollar goes down in value.





Tater said:


> No worries.
> 
> And all due respect but what you say you want and how you say you want to achieve it are not compatible. Free market capitalism only ends in one way and that's extreme wealth concentration. It has not and will not ever be something that is prosperous for society as a whole. It will only ever benefit the few at the expense of the many. I don't know how to be any more clear about it but you're just flat out wrong in what will happen. But, that's exactly why I want an economy that is unapologetically right wing. The system we have now has been steadily drifting right for 40 years, which is why things are so fucked, yet certain people are still convinced that center right policies masquerading as leftist are the problem. To that, I say, fine, let's go for it. Go all the way to the right. Give the right wing everything they want and let everyone learn the hard way what happens when you go full right wing. You might not admit you are wrong now but when your ideas are fully implemented and the whole system crashes, you won't have any choice but to admit you were wrong. It's not going to take much longer either because the people in charge of the world economy right now are about as far right wing capitalist as you can get.
> 
> Hey, if I'm wrong, and this works out great for everybody, I will happily eat my humble pie and admit that I was wrong; just so long as you are willing to do the same when I end up being correct about the collapse of capitalism.


First of all, god dammit Tater you have written too many long posts to respond to :lol. 

I'm quoting these two together because they actually both have answers on a subject that I want to breach and talk about. To answer your statement though Tater, "Capitalism" in it's current form certainly is going to have a tonne of problems if the trend which I see continues down that road. Though I do not have the same apocalyptic vision as you do when it comes to this matter. Certainly thus far market economies have been resilient and have survived for a number of centuries, even in the midst of German hyper inflation in the early 1930's where it cost literally millions of Deutsche Marks to buy a loaf of bread that eventually Germany came out of that horrible economic time and has now become one of the biggest economies in the entire world.

But yes, on a global scale, capitalism in it's current form could in future face a lot of problems. However my view and analysis is if capitalism on a global scale were to collapse, it would not be because that capitalism as an economic system is inherently flawed (though it isn't perfect by any means, nothing ever is) but it would be because of government policy on both a national and global scale. Now this may seem rich for me to say considering that earlier I spent an entire post on why socialism as an economic system never works even in the form in which you have advocated for (I understand you clarified some of your positions on this so bare with me). But I do believe I have the historical facts and analysis to back up my argument.

This is where Bruiser's post that I have quoted comes into play, if capitalism is to collapse on a global scale it will not be for any of the reasons you have said though certainly they are a matter of concern. It will not be due to the collusion of governments and corporations though it is an issue we both very much agree on. It will not be due to wall street greed, corporate welfare or the federal reserve rigging and propping up several different sectors of the economy though on a national level these are massive problems. Nor will it come from income inequality which of course I think everyone would agree equality is a good thing but with all due respects I am not interested in absolute forced income equality because history has shown not only does it not work but it can be rather destructive and sometimes even abhorrent. What I think it will actually come from is something that is much more simpler than that in terms of pointing out but a bit more complex to explain. I will tag @DesolationRow in this because I'm sure he would be interested in reading this.

I am talking about world economies moving away from the gold standard and the removal of the gold standard as the world reserve currency. Why is this so important? Well let me explain both in American and global scales. This all dates back to in my opinion the worst US president in history Richard Nixon and the Bretton Woods agreement. This essentially marked the beginning of the end of the US dollar being fixed to Gold and ended the direct international convertibility of the United States dollar to gold. In US terms this is important because before the Bretton Woods agreement, the US dollar in terms of value was fixed to the rate of gold and started at 28 dollars an ounce. This was so that for example if the US dollar had devalued and the strength of gold was increased compared to the value of the dollar, the consumer could swap out their dollars for the stronger medium of exchange in gold. Because of the fixed rates to gold in terms of value, this to a certain extent kept the US government in check as to not devalue the dollar too much and thus whilst the US was still accumulating some form of debt, the results were not as severe. You did not have massive amounts of spending and printing of money to the extent you have now. If you compare the levels of deficit spending and debt compared to before the Bretton Woods agreement up until now, you will see the correlation between the Bretton Woods agreement and the explosion of deficit spending and the accumulation of the debt.

Jimmy Carter lost the election to Reagan due to the reasons of stagnate growth in the economy with high inflation and unemployment but also because of the amount of debt he was accumulating in the process. Yet in the first year of the Reagan administration he tripled the amount of deficit spending and since then with the exception of the final years of Bill Clinton and the first two years of George W. Bush, the deficits have mounted and continued to rise both under Republicans and Democrats. If you want to get the deficit spending problem under some sort of control, not only is a balanced budget amendment advisable but you need to go back to the gold standard and have the value of the dollar fixed to gold and give the consumer some options in terms of legal tender. One of the biggest problems in all modern countries including the US is the legal tender laws which essentially gives Central Banks complete monopoly over currency and the medium of exchange. It allows Central Bankers to manipulate the value of money whilst in the process accumulating a massive amount of public debt to which us the taxpayer will be forced to pay off. That along with the gold standard being shelved, you essentially have no other option other than national currencies and now bitcoin over the most important aspect of market economies which is the medium of exchange. So in order to solve some of these problems you have to get rid of the legal tender laws, go back to the gold standard and fix the value of the dollar to gold again. If you put the consumer back in control of the aspect of money instead of the Central Bank, you help alleviate some of the problems. Nobody is really talking about it though.

To give you another indication of how this is so damaging to the United States, over the last decade between 2005-2015 under Bush and Obama, the dollar has devalued by 25%. That is an absolutely staggering amount and really tells you how weak of a currency the dollar has been for a long time.

I would really recommend you watch this interview with the economist Judy Shelton, who is one of the people who really opened my eyes to these problems:






On a global scale however, this is where capitalism in it's modern form could really run into some big problems. So when the 2008 sub-prime mortgage crisis happened, the value of the dollar crashed along with it. With the dollar currently being the reserve currency and with the global economy being on free floating exchange rates which was the one of things Milton Friedman got wrong in terms of predicting how they would bring about economic stability, the economies particularly in Europe who were also not fixed to gold also crashed along with the United States. The reserve currency is essentially the default currency in terms of converting money and in terms of trading, stocks and shares in the market. It is supposed to act as the stabilizing force in the stock market to deal with the trends of the global market going up and down in the valuation of stocks, shares and currency. The problem is the reserve currency now is a currency that is being supplied by the Federal Reserve Central Bank which it's value can be manipulated and can be used as a tool for government policy. So when the dollar crashed, because it is paper money and it is not a form of medium of exchange that can actually be valued in terms that mean anything like weight, both the stock/shareholders and the consumers themselves lost confidence both in the dollar and the market itself when it realized the United States was heading into recession, thus the world economy crashed with it (I really hope I'm explaining this well because it's a tricky subject :lol.).

Why gold is so important in that regard is that it is a form of medium of exchange that actually has value in the form of weight because it is a precious metal. It cannot be manipulated by governments or Central Banks in terms of policy so it is a very stable form of exchange. Thus had we had the gold standard as the reserve currency, not only do I believe we would not be seeing so much debt in many different countries but that the economic crash of 2008 would have solely been a US recession, not a world wide one. The upcoming crash in the next few years we must remember will not only hit the US but it will hit the world economy due to the dollar being the reserve currency. Global markets will lose confidence in the dollar as the default currency in terms of trading, stocks and shares. So we will experience many of the same symptoms from the upcoming crash but this time it's projected to be a lot worse. And it will be worse for countries such as mine because we have also created a huge bubble in our own economy thanks to the Keynesian policies the government has undertaken...particularly in ironically the housing market.

So generally speaking, if we want to save capitalism from a global crisis, we need to get away from floating exchange rates and we need to have the gold standard back as the reserve currency....otherwise the same thing will definitely happen as in 2008.

As far as Audit the Fed goes Bruiser, I am not as confident as you are in terms of it bringing the US back to the gold standard but it does give me hope as far as the FED's policies and what it has been doing with the US's money being brought into the spotlight and that should I reckon cause people to think about what role the Federal Reserve should have in bank regulation....if any at all.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



> Even after the turmoil of the 2016 presidential bout, political hubbub continues. Consider that Hillary Clinton is now mulling a run for New York City mayor in an election that will take place in just nine months. No, really. She is being urged by “major Democratic donors and leaders” to challenge incumbent Bill de Blasio, says John Gizzi, White House correspondent for Newsmax who cites unnamed sources in local Democratic and media circles and suggests that Mrs. Clinton’s famous “inner circle” is intrigued by the whole idea of Madame Mayor.
> “If she ran, she’d win,” one insider told Mr. Gizzi.
> Well, who knows? Perhaps former President Bill Clinton will get to serve as a “first gentleman” after all. And if President-elect Donald Trump establishes a Manhattan White House of sorts at Trump Tower, the dynamics could be most interesting. The news media is keen on the notion of “Mayor Clinton”; a dozen major reports addressing the possibilities have appeared in the last 24 hours. It’s not a new idea, however. Convinced she was an ideal candidate, Michael Bloomberg - once Big Apple mayor himself - contacted Mrs. Clinton in 2012 and urged her to enter the race the following year, according to The New York Times. What about residency requirements?
> “The Clintons live in the Westchester County hamlet of Chappaqua, but state law requires only that a candidate for mayor be a New York City resident by Election Day, a spokesman for the State Board of Elections said,” The Times notes.
> Should she decide to take the plunge this time around, Mrs. Clinton has some serious competition: nine other Democrats are eyeing the plum post, along with Republican billionaire and talk radio host John Catsimatidis, who reportedly plans to reveal his ultimate mayoral plans some time this month.
> “I’m a people person. I’m a law-and-order person. I believe our people from the inner city have to be helped. Maybe we should start a new party called the Common Sense Party,” Mr. Catsimatidis recently noted in a radio appearance.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/5/hillary-clinton-being-urged-to-run-for-mayor-of-ne/


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Alkomesh2 said:


> In germany I believe employees automatically get a 30% voting rights at shareholders meetings.


I can tell you one thing, if the working class was in charge of the economy, you never would have seen jobs being outsourced because who the hell would outsource their own jobs.



BruiserKC said:


> The economy wasn't the best back then, either. We started seeing a rise in inflation and overspending at the government level way back then. Look at the LBJ Guns and Butter programs, as well as inflation and the economy grinding to a halt during the Ford and Carter administrations. The markets basically slowed down and we were in recession mode about the time Reagan took office.


While the New Deal wasn't perfect, it was the closest the USA has ever come to having a fair balance between the working class and the owner class. The reason it failed is because FDR didn't go far enough. He still left the same assholes in charge who wrecked everything to begin with and from the moment of the inception of the New Deal, they were on an all out mission to tear it down. They kept chipping away and chipping away and then blamed the other side for the problems they themselves created. The USA has been on a downward right wing spiral ever since, which is exactly why the middle class is disappearing, poverty is expanding exponentially and wealth inequality has skyrocketed. It's the 1920s all over again. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to deduce what is going to happen next.



BruiserKC said:


> Cutting taxes is all good and fine, you need to find a way to get the economy really going and the market is really on a house of cards right now. We need the businesses to get the incentives to start investing and growing again in this country.


Businesses grow when they have customers. Businesses have customers when the working class has disposable income. The working class has disposable income when they make higher wages. Giving tax breaks to the rich does nothing to give businesses incentive to invest and grow again because it doesn't do anything to create more customers to buy their products. It makes zero sense for a business to spend money on hiring more people and producing more products when there is no one to buy said products. There is no empirical evidence whatsoever that supply side economics has ever worked long term or created a stable economy but yet, right wingers still believe in it religiously. I say religiously because religion is something else that requires faith without evidence.

Alas, people have to learn things the hard way. Whaddya gonna do. :draper2


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



L-DOPA said:


> First of all, god dammit Tater you have written too many long posts to respond to :lol.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

To those who don't know

The great depression was not caused by the stock market crash

It didn't help but it would not have been very bad if that is all that happened 

During the depression there was a large string of natural events including the infamous dust bowl that hit the midwest which heavily damaged the farming industry

This lead to increases in food prices as well as tons of people moving to cites looking for work when at the same time all business were currently down sizing 

Not to mention the great "New Deal" that made things so "fair" created a lot of artificial booms that turned the west coast into the struggling region it is with its massive water problems 

The 1930s were a perfect storm of bad events that would have been fairly manageable if they hit one at time but all happened at the same time

it was a one in a million event and can't be compared to the modern world


----------



## Brock

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

http://batman-news.com/2017/01/07/mark-hamill-donald-trump-tweets-joker-voice/

The God Mark Hamill reads Trump tweet in his Joker voice.

:heston Brilliant.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



L-DOPA said:


> It's all well and dandy having an infrastructure bill, I have no problem with this but it's got to be done in a way that can be paid for and not just come out of thin air.


I read your entire post but I am quoting only this one line because after reading all of that, it just reminds me of how annoyed I get at the whole fucking bullshit monetary system that mankind has created. It's not that we don't have enough resources to rebuild all the roads and bridges and airports. This is not medieval times. We have access to all the concrete and asphalt and steel that we need to do all that building. Those are all real, tangible things and we have plenty of it. Money is basically an imaginary construct that we as humans apply value to. It's only worth as much or as little as we decide it is worth. It is not real in the same sense as a concrete brick or a steel beam. I find it very tiresome that humanity wastes so much time arguing over something as fictitious as money instead of figuring out a way to simply use the resources we have to build the things we need.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> I read your entire post but I am quoting only this one line because after reading all of that, it just reminds me of how annoyed I get at the whole fucking bullshit monetary system that mankind has created. It's not that we don't have enough resources to rebuild all the roads and bridges and airports. This is not medieval times. We have access to all the concrete and asphalt and steel that we need to do all that building. Those are all real, tangible things and we have plenty of it. Money is basically an imaginary construct that we as humans apply value to. It's only worth as much or as little as we decide it is worth. It is not real in the same sense as a concrete brick or a steel beam. I find it very tiresome that humanity wastes so much time arguing over something as fictitious as money instead of figuring out a way to simply use the resources we have to build the things we need.


With that logic you should be pro-capitalist

Money provides universal value to objects to small scale supply and demand issues that plagued the barter system where of say a chicken's value could spike depending on who you traded it to as well as providing an incentive for people to produce things they don't directly need even if they did not know someone who would use it as I can exchange my production for vouchers that I can use 100 miles to the east even if my product needs to go 100 miles west

The ultimate humanitarian action was creating the incentive to produce things that don't necessarily benefit them nor people they directly know 

your posts remind me of middle school level "why can't everything be free and stuff"


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> I read your entire post but I am quoting only this one line because after reading all of that, it just reminds me of how annoyed I get at the whole fucking bullshit monetary system that mankind has created. It's not that we don't have enough resources to rebuild all the roads and bridges and airports. This is not medieval times. We have access to all the concrete and asphalt and steel that we need to do all that building. Those are all real, tangible things and we have plenty of it. Money is basically an imaginary construct that we as humans apply value to. It's only worth as much or as little as we decide it is worth. It is not real in the same sense as a concrete brick or a steel beam. I find it very tiresome that humanity wastes so much time arguing over something as fictitious as money instead of figuring out a way to simply use the resources we have to build the things we need.


There are some pretty obvious questions to ask when it comes to your statement. The first being, how to create a prosperous society not so much without money in the form of fiat or paper money which we have had for the past number of centuries but without a medium of exchange which has been the key to voluntary transactions which has been the basis of our modern world.

The reason why we have a medium of exchange is because the previous voluntary exchange economic system of a barter economy didn't work. The reason why we attribute prices to resources isn't necessarily because we don't have enough of them but it is so we know best how to allocate them. Under a barter system without the medium of exchange there was no real way to tell who needed what in a growing economic environment because it was becoming too big to manage everybody's economic needs simply through trading items. This is why we came up with the medium of exchange and that coinage was invented and taken on by the likes of the Romans and in Anglo-Saxon England. The argument that money is meaningless and is an imaginary construct is only so true as it comes to fiat money because gold as a medium of exchange is based on tangible wealth of precious metals and coinage if we go before the age of paper money was essentially the melting of these precious metals into a form of medium of exchange that could actually be handled properly and used for voluntary transactions.

Where this has obviously changed, is fiat money used to simply be an IOU for banks to hold gold reserves and then century after century we've moved further and further away from the principle of actually having gold or precious metals as a form of currency or medium of exchange to a system where yes indeed the fiat money is based on little but the confidence the markets and the consumer has in the paper note.

My concern is you essentially want to move away from the medium of exchange and the price system which is a way to not only attribute value to resources and products but so that these resources can be managed properly. The question becomes how do you then manage those resources so that they are allocated and not mismanaged like they have been done so many times from a planned economic position which is seemingly the one I'm finding you are taking more and more in a stance against the current stand of market economies. Which yes we agree there are problems but I don't think you are taking the right approach to fixing them.

Ultimately the reason why I would say resources are finite or scarce isn't because we don't have enough of them but if they are mismanaged can lead you into a position where you do eventually struggle and run out of them. I'm not against the idea of a new system if it can be shown to work, but all the systems that have ever been produced by human design thus far are both very economically and politically collectivized which I personally find to be morally objectionable but even taking my personal feelings aside, they simply haven't been practical and haven't worked.

My worry is you will go too far down the rabbit hole of arguing with emotions over reason. And I know you are better than that.

(I don't mean to offend you with the last sentence, I'm just being honest with you because I like you).


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



L-DOPA said:


> There are some pretty obvious questions to ask when it comes to your statement. The first being, how to create a prosperous society not so much without money in the form of fiat or paper money which we have had for the past number of centuries but without a medium of exchange which has been the key to voluntary transactions which has been the basis of our modern world.
> 
> The reason why we have a medium of exchange is because the previous voluntary exchange economic system of a barter economy didn't work. The reason why we attribute prices to resources isn't necessarily because we don't have enough of them but it is so we know best how to allocate them. Under a barter system without the medium of exchange there was no real way to tell who needed what in a growing economic environment because it was becoming too big to manage everybody's economic needs simply through trading items. This is why we came up with the medium of exchange and that coinage was invented and taken on by the likes of the Romans and in Anglo-Saxon England. The argument that money is meaningless and is an imaginary construct is only so true as it comes to fiat money because gold as a medium of exchange is based on tangible wealth of precious metals and coinage if we go before the age of paper money was essentially the melting of these precious metals into a form of medium of exchange that could actually be handled properly and used for voluntary transactions.
> 
> Where this has obviously changed, is fiat money used to simply be an IOU for banks to hold gold reserves and then century after century we've moved further and further away from the principle of actually having gold or precious metals as a form of currency or medium of exchange to a system where yes indeed the fiat money is based on little but the confidence the markets and the consumer has in the paper note.
> 
> My concern is you essentially want to move away from the medium of exchange and the price system which is a way to not only attribute value to resources and products but so that these resources can be managed properly. The question becomes how to you then manage those resources so that they are allocated and not mismanaged like they have been done so many times from a planned economic position which is seemingly the one I'm finding you are taking more and more in a stance against the current stand of market economies. Which yes we agree there are problems but I don't think you are taking the right approach to fixing them.
> 
> Ultimately the reason why I would say resources are finite or scarce isn't because we don't have enough of them but if they are mismanaged can lead you into a position where you do eventually struggle and run out of them. I'm not against the idea of a new system if it can be shown to work, but all the systems that been produced by human design thus far are both very economically and politically collectivized which I personally find to be morally objectionable but even taking my personal feelings aside, they simply haven't been practical and haven't worked.
> 
> My worry is you will go too far down the rabbit hole of arguing with emotions over reason. And I know you are better than that.
> 
> (I don't mean to offend you with the last sentence, I'm just being honest with you because I like you).


I feel paper money is a better choice in today's world than basing it on pure coinage or some type of gold standard

The idea is that money has value because the government who issued it says it has value and guarantees that legal vendors in the that nation's territory will accept that currency for the value stated on it 

Paper money encourages government stability as an unstable unstable currency would not be accepted nor traded by the world at large as well as prevents regime shifts and changes as the "loot" for taking over is rendered almost moot 

Not to mention under a mineral standard there is always the idea of an individual with enough resources producing their own currency (a legal version of counterfeiting as the mineral coinage will have the same mineral value as the legal coinage) as well as rival nations taking each others coinage and melting them down to reduce their wealth

In a global society paper money is the best


----------



## KPnDC

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The Absolute said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/817413321058029568
> Your move, Peacock.
> 
> :heyman6


Thankfully it doesn't work like that. First he's not president yet. Second how embarrassing would it be if he were asking for an investigation via social media. The information NBC obtained was the declassified version.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



KPnDC said:


> Thankfully it doesn't work like that. First he's not president yet. Second how embarrassing would it be if he were asking for an investigation via social media. The information NBC obtained was the declassified version.


Maybe they will tweet the information back 

140 letters at a time


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



stevefox1200 said:


> I feel paper money is a better choice in today's world than basing it on pure coinage or some type of gold standard
> 
> The idea is that money has value because the government who issued it says it has value and guarantees that legal vendors in the that nation's territory will accept that currency for the value stated on it
> 
> Paper money encourages government stability as an unstable unstable currency would not be accepted nor traded by the world at large as well as prevents regime shifts and changes as the "loot" for taking over is rendered almost moot
> 
> Not to mention under a mineral standard there is always the idea of an individual with enough resources producing their own currency (a legal version of counterfeiting as the mineral coinage will have the same mineral value as the legal coinage) as well as rival nations taking each others coinage and melting them down to reduce their wealth
> 
> In a global society paper money is the best


Let me first start off by saying that my mentioning of coinage and gold wasn't to argue against the issue of paper money but to give historical context to the argument that money is valueless. I am not against fiat money entirely, nor am I promoting we go fully back to the gold standard because generally speaking it would be rather impractical. When people realized it was a lot easier to take money out through IOU's instead of shifting gold backwards and forwards from the bank that was the moment that gold as a practical form of medium of exchange seized to exist. It simply is more practical to have fiat money even more than it is to have coinage and so I'm not saying we should abolish fiat money.

Where I disagree with you is on having monopolies on paper money when it comes to nation states. My reasoning for this has already mostly been explained in my post towards both Bruiser and Tater. The problem is it gives Central Banks and governments license to use money as an instrument of government policy rather than a unit of account to convey accurate price signals. The manipulation of money and it's devaluation through printing above the market rates as well as increased borrowing presents situations where deficit spending increases accumulating more and more debt and inflation rising so that prices go up not by the natural ebb and flow of the market but by the policies of the Central Bank. 

Also with the legal tender laws and currencies no longer being attached to gold, consumers can't trade out those dollars or pounds or euro's for a different currency to use as legal tender (or for gold for that matter). So the citizen is stuck with whatever the value the national currency is and the government and central banks have no incentive to keep the value of those currencies high which is why we see massive devaluation of currencies in many different countries as well as massive levels of debt. A big reason why you see countries like the US and Japan with insurmountable amounts of debt that will never be paid off is because of the monopoly central banks have over fiat money and none of the checks and balances I've explained. It becomes even worse when it is a continental central bank like the EU Central Bank which has a currency for several different countries instead of it being national. I can at least see positives on a national level, I see very few when it comes to the EU Central Bank.

Of course there are positives as you have mentioned but I think the negatives definitely outweigh them. So I agree with you on fiat money being around but not having governments and central banks monopolize the area of currency and legal tender.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



L-DOPA said:


> Let me first start off by saying that my mentioning of coinage and gold wasn't to argue against the issue of paper money but to give historical context to the argument that money is valueless. I am not against fiat money entirely, nor am I promoting we go fully back to the gold standard because generally speaking it would be rather impractical. When people realized it was a lot easier to take money out through IOU's instead of shifting gold backwards and forwards from the bank that was the moment that gold as a practical form of medium of exchange seized to exist. It simply is more practical to have fiat money even more than it is to have coinage and so I'm not saying we should abolish fiat money.
> 
> Where I disagree with you is on having monopolies on paper money when it comes to nation states. My reasoning for this has already mostly been explained in my post towards both Bruiser and Tater. The problem is it gives Central Banks and governments license to use money as an instrument of government policy rather than a unit of account to convey accurate price signals. The manipulation of money and it's devaluation through printing above the market rates as well as increased borrowing presents situations where deficit spending increases accumulating more and more debt and inflation rising so that prices go up not by the natural ebb and flow of the market but by the policies of the Central Bank.
> 
> Also with the legal tender laws and currencies no longer being attached to gold, consumers can't trade out those dollars or pounds or euro's for a different currency to use as legal tender (or for gold for that matter). So the citizen is stuck with whatever the value the national currency is and the government and central banks have no incentive to keep the value of those currencies high which is why we see massive devaluation of currencies in many different countries as well as massive levels of debt. A big reason why you see countries like the US and Japan with insurmountable amounts of debt that will never be paid off is because of the monopoly central banks have over fiat money and none of the checks and balances I've explained. It becomes even worse when it is a continental central bank like the EU Central Bank which has a currency for several different countries instead of it being national. I can at least see positives on a national level, I see very few when it comes to the EU Central Bank.
> 
> Of course there are positives as you have mentioned but I think the negatives definitely outweigh them. So I agree with you on fiat money being around but not having governments and central banks monopolize the area of currency and legal tender.


With every good idea there is always someone who will screw it up 

I prefer something having a "official this is worth X" stamp on it and the insurance that a central bank provides

Of course this could lead to elitism and a central bank ganging up to bomb someones currency but I think in the end people want to sell to as many people as possible and fucking up someone place to the point they can no longer be customers is a bad idea

This is a topic that has been debated for hundreds of years so there is clearly pros and cons to both sides


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



L-DOPA said:


> There are some pretty obvious questions to ask when it comes to your statement. The first being, how to create a prosperous society not so much without money in the form of fiat or paper money which we have had for the past number of centuries but without a medium of exchange which has been the key to voluntary transactions which has been the basis of our modern world.
> 
> My worry is you will go too far down the rabbit hole of arguing with emotions over reason. And I know you are better than that.
> 
> (I don't mean to offend you with the last sentence, I'm just being honest with you because I like you).


No offense taken. I wasn't arguing with emotion over reason, nor was I offering up any specific plan of action. I was simply offering up thoughts in general and making the point that arguing over a man-made construct like money has prevented us from achieving maximum production with real resources. I'm not arguing that we should get rid of money either. It just seems like to me that as of right now, in our current state and how we have decided to allocate wealth, it has become somewhat of a hindrance to society. Maybe it's just me but I believe it's kinda retarded that we have an economic system that allows the top tenth of one percent to own 90% of the wealth, while the 99.9% are left to figure out how to pay for resources with the remaining 10% of it. It's why I get so annoyed when I hear people ask how we are going to pay for stuff. Well, maybe if we stopped allowing such a small handful of people to hoard so much of the wealth, paying for stuff wouldn't be a problem anymore.

There are different ways to define a prosperous society. One could point out that the USA is the wealthiest nation in the history of the world because it has the most money collectively but that's not much consolation to the half of the population that is poor or living in poverty. One might define a prosperous society as one that has eliminated poverty, provided enough food for everyone to eat and enough roofs to go over everyone's head. Did you know that there are more empty houses in the USA than there are homeless people? It doesn't seem right to me that we as a society allow people to live in the streets when there are perfectly good homes sitting empty based solely on the capitalist economic system deciding that those people don't deserve to live in homes because they don't have enough money. It would be a different story if there weren't enough homes to go around. It goes back to my point about money vs. resources. We have resources that are not being put to use because we have decided to distribute wealth so unevenly.

According to most estimates, it would take around 30-40 billion a year to end world hunger. The USA alone spends over a trillion dollars yearly on all things military related. Has anyone ever stopped to think that maybe we're going about this the wrong way? Instead of bombing the world, what if we tried feeding the world instead? What we've been doing clearly has not worked. Maybe we should try killing everyone with kindness instead of just killing them. Maybe there would be fewer terrorists trying to kill us if we were giving them food instead of more death and destruction. Just a thought...


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The Absolute said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/817413321058029568
> Your move, Peacock.
> 
> :heyman6


Maybe if Trump would actually attending the intelligence briefings he refuses to attend, he would see that info.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> @L-DOPA @DesolationRow @AryaDark
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/817557831683608576
> Also, Rand Paul will be on Tucker Carlson tonight! :mark: Looking forward to that interview immensely.
> 
> Here is that interview:



All repealing Obamacare is going to do is save the rich money, and tax the middle class and poor more while losing millions of jobs in the healthcare section, and fucking over people on their insurance especially people with preexisting conditions. The republicans don't give a shit about anyones healthcare, especially the middle class and poor that is why they are always trying to defend planned parenthood and want to cut medicare. It also going to make everyone insurance shitty and the most basic while paying more than that do now. Ron Paul even said on this site that healthcare isn't a right.

The republican plan will be a disaster and will fuck over way more people than obamacare ever did.

Dont say i didn't warn you, especially people like Beatles. People like him will be in for a rude awakening when the shitty republican plan comes to play, especially. You better hope the republicans keep the preexisting conditions part of Obamacare in their new plan.

Unless they put in a single payer system, they are going to set back healthcare ten years.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> I was simply offering up thoughts in general and making the point that arguing over a man-made construct like money has prevented us from achieving maximum production with real resources.


you know what else is a man made construct? Rights.

and people argue over them incessantly.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



>












HULK HOGAN!

- Vic


----------



## 3ku1

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Hahahah you are all screwed!!


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Goku said:


> you know what else is a man made construct? Rights.
> 
> and people argue over them incessantly.


Morals as well. We'd be opening another can of worms, though.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Oda Nobunaga said:


> Morals as well. We'd be opening another can of worms, though.


The only known things in the Universe not a man made construct is God, big breasted Alien babes, hard liquor, cocaine and laser sharks. Everything else is debatable!


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> No offense taken. I wasn't arguing with emotion over reason, nor was I offering up any specific plan of action. I was simply offering up thoughts in general and making the point that arguing over a man-made construct like money has prevented us from achieving maximum production with real resources. I'm not arguing that we should get rid of money either. It just seems like to me that as of right now, in our current state and how we have decided to allocate wealth, it has become somewhat of a hindrance to society. Maybe it's just me but I believe it's kinda retarded that we have an economic system that allows the top tenth of one percent to own 90% of the wealth, while the 99.9% are left to figure out how to pay for resources with the remaining 10% of it. It's why I get so annoyed when I hear people ask how we are going to pay for stuff. Well, maybe if we stopped allowing such a small handful of people to hoard so much of the wealth, paying for stuff wouldn't be a problem anymore.
> 
> There are different ways to define a prosperous society. One could point out that the USA is the wealthiest nation in the history of the world because it has the most money collectively but that's not much consolation to the half of the population that is poor or living in poverty. One might define a prosperous society as one that has eliminated poverty, provided enough food for everyone to eat and enough roofs to go over everyone's head. Did you know that there are more empty houses in the USA than there are homeless people? It doesn't seem right to me that we as a society allow people to live in the streets when there are perfectly good homes sitting empty based solely on the capitalist economic system deciding that those people don't deserve to live in homes because they don't have enough money. It would be a different story if there weren't enough homes to go around. It goes back to my point about money vs. resources. We have resources that are not being put to use because we have decided to distribute wealth so unevenly.
> 
> According to most estimates, it would take around 30-40 billion a year to end world hunger. The USA alone spends over a trillion dollars yearly on all things military related. Has anyone ever stopped to think that maybe we're going about this the wrong way? Instead of bombing the world, what if we tried feeding the world instead? What we've been doing clearly has not worked. Maybe we should try killing everyone with kindness instead of just killing them. Maybe there would be fewer terrorists trying to kill us if we were giving them food instead of more death and destruction. Just a thought...


the top .1% doesn't even own 50% of the wealth

the US 2017 fiscal year military budget is 582.7$ billion, not well over 1 trillion

besides your ignorance of actual facts (to a gargantuan degree, thinking that the .1% wealthiest in the world own 90% of the world's wealth is so staggeringly incorrect that there is no way any chain of reasoning stemming from such a massive misconception can have any worth whatsoever)...

it's cute that you think that homeless people could just be given empty homes and that would end homelessness. no mention of the large proportion of mentally ill among the homeless and how giving them a free home does nothing to solve their actual problems, the solving of which would enable them to acquire and maintain housing on their own, and the destructive and criminal behaviors most homeless usually engage in, plus their unwillingness to follow any kind of rules so they prefer to live on the street. how long would they remain in those homes? how would you prevent those homes from turning into flophouses filled to the brim with alcoholics? crackheads? junkies? what about the people already living in those neighborhoods? how are you going to ensure property values don't go down and quality of life issues don't arise? 

it's also cute that you think that the world could be fed if 30-40 billion was just spent on it instead of being used for bombs. how clever. you ever looked at a map of where extreme hunger and starvation occur? it overlaps nicely with a map of places where wars are happening or where murderous dictators, warlords and the corrupt rule. how are you going to get that food to the hungry people? you going to overthrow the government of north korea? because if you don't you could give north korea $100 billion in food and the NK government would sell it on the black market instead of distributing it to their starving citizens. you going to intervene in a tribal war in the congo to make sure the food shipments get through? because if you don't, they'll waylay the shipments and keep the food for themselves, or destroy it or sell it to increase their own power and starve their tribal enemies. going to take over the government of south sudan and replace its officials with not-corrupt officials? because if you don't...

how much would all that cost?

have you ever stopped to think that the way you look at the world is the way a small child looks at the world? 

just be nice to people and they'll behave. give a homeless person an abandoned house and all his problems and all the problems his behavior causes will be solved. give food to societies terrorists hide in and terrorists will see how nice we are and they'll stop thinking allah wants them to kill. just spend money on food not bombs and world hunger will be solved! because the problem isn't bad people doing bad things that destroy crops and livestock and steal them and disrupt transportation routes, it's the rich not being generous enough!

that's not the way things work.


----------



## GothicBohemian

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> The only known things in the Universe not a man made construct is God, big breasted Alien babes, hard liquor, cocaine and *laser sharks*. Everything else is debatable!











Totally man-made. You show me a shark who can make his own laser and I'll treat him like the laser-wielding god he is.

You guys are going to be posting about Donald Trump until the end of time, aren't you? :lol
Congrats. You got him, he won, enjoy him. Just keep him tucked away in the US, ok?


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*






Rand has introduced an amendment to the budget for a spending freeze that will lead to a balanced budget in 5 years (Y).

Let's hope the Republicans see sense and vote for this, I doubt it will happen but at least it is now on the table.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I after hearing that interview I now know why Rand Paul is disliked by his party

Its not because of his ideas or because the "elite are scared of him" or shit like that

Its because he has a tongue like a roll of quarters and is incredibly un-charismatic


----------



## MillionDollarProns

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Why is Rand Paul so perfect?


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Rand Paul's alternative budget proposal failed, as expected. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/818614840352772096


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-kushner-idUSKBN14T251

:ha


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



deepelemblues said:


> the top .1% doesn't even own 50% of the wealth
> 
> the US 2017 fiscal year military budget is 582.7$ billion, not well over 1 trillion
> 
> besides your ignorance of actual facts (to a gargantuan degree, thinking that the .1% wealthiest in the world own 90% of the world's wealth is so staggeringly incorrect that there is no way any chain of reasoning stemming from such a massive misconception can have any worth whatsoever)...
> 
> it's cute that you think that homeless people could just be given empty homes and that would end homelessness. no mention of the large proportion of mentally ill among the homeless and how giving them a free home does nothing to solve their actual problems, the solving of which would enable them to acquire and maintain housing on their own, and the destructive and criminal behaviors most homeless usually engage in, plus their unwillingness to follow any kind of rules so they prefer to live on the street. how long would they remain in those homes? how would you prevent those homes from turning into flophouses filled to the brim with alcoholics? crackheads? junkies? what about the people already living in those neighborhoods? how are you going to ensure property values don't go down and quality of life issues don't arise?
> 
> it's also cute that you think that the world could be fed if 30-40 billion was just spent on it instead of being used for bombs. how clever. you ever looked at a map of where extreme hunger and starvation occur? it overlaps nicely with a map of places where wars are happening or where murderous dictators, warlords and the corrupt rule. how are you going to get that food to the hungry people? you going to overthrow the government of north korea? because if you don't you could give north korea $100 billion in food and the NK government would sell it on the black market instead of distributing it to their starving citizens. you going to intervene in a tribal war in the congo to make sure the food shipments get through? because if you don't, they'll waylay the shipments and keep the food for themselves, or destroy it or sell it to increase their own power and starve their tribal enemies. going to take over the government of south sudan and replace its officials with not-corrupt officials? because if you don't...
> 
> how much would all that cost?
> 
> have you ever stopped to think that the way you look at the world is the way a small child looks at the world?
> 
> just be nice to people and they'll behave. give a homeless person an abandoned house and all his problems and all the problems his behavior causes will be solved. give food to societies terrorists hide in and terrorists will see how nice we are and they'll stop thinking allah wants them to kill. just spend money on food not bombs and world hunger will be solved! because the problem isn't bad people doing bad things that destroy crops and livestock and steal them and disrupt transportation routes, it's the rich not being generous enough!
> 
> that's not the way things work.



One thing you forgot to add, how does MORE feeding and giving out medicine slow down the birth rates in these places where feeding them and giving medicine have created this population boom that cannot be sustained?

Handouts haven't made the world a better place so far as anyone can tell.


----------



## amhlilhaus

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



deepelemblues said:


> the top .1% doesn't even own 50% of the wealth
> 
> the US 2017 fiscal year military budget is 582.7$ billion, not well over 1 trillion
> 
> besides your ignorance of actual facts (to a gargantuan degree, thinking that the .1% wealthiest in the world own 90% of the world's wealth is so staggeringly incorrect that there is no way any chain of reasoning stemming from such a massive misconception can have any worth whatsoever)...
> 
> it's cute that you think that homeless people could just be given empty homes and that would end homelessness. no mention of the large proportion of mentally ill among the homeless and how giving them a free home does nothing to solve their actual problems, the solving of which would enable them to acquire and maintain housing on their own, and the destructive and criminal behaviors most homeless usually engage in, plus their unwillingness to follow any kind of rules so they prefer to live on the street. how long would they remain in those homes? how would you prevent those homes from turning into flophouses filled to the brim with alcoholics? crackheads? junkies? what about the people already living in those neighborhoods? how are you going to ensure property values don't go down and quality of life issues don't arise?
> 
> it's also cute that you think that the world could be fed if 30-40 billion was just spent on it instead of being used for bombs. how clever. you ever looked at a map of where extreme hunger and starvation occur? it overlaps nicely with a map of places where wars are happening or where murderous dictators, warlords and the corrupt rule. how are you going to get that food to the hungry people? you going to overthrow the government of north korea? because if you don't you could give north korea $100 billion in food and the NK government would sell it on the black market instead of distributing it to their starving citizens. you going to intervene in a tribal war in the congo to make sure the food shipments get through? because if you don't, they'll waylay the shipments and keep the food for themselves, or destroy it or sell it to increase their own power and starve their tribal enemies. going to take over the government of south sudan and replace its officials with not-corrupt officials? because if you don't...
> 
> how much would all that cost?
> 
> have you ever stopped to think that the way you look at the world is the way a small child looks at the world?
> 
> just be nice to people and they'll behave. give a homeless person an abandoned house and all his problems and all the problems his behavior causes will be solved. give food to societies terrorists hide in and terrorists will see how nice we are and they'll stop thinking allah wants them to kill. just spend money on food not bombs and world hunger will be solved! because the problem isn't bad people doing bad things that destroy crops and livestock and steal them and disrupt transportation routes, it's the rich not being generous enough!
> 
> that's not the way things work.


This is absolutely brutal

Go easy next time, jesus


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



deepelemblues said:


> the top .1% doesn't even own 50% of the wealth
> 
> besides your ignorance of actual facts (to a gargantuan degree, thinking that the .1% wealthiest in the world own 90% of the world's wealth is so staggeringly incorrect that there is no way any chain of reasoning stemming from such a massive misconception can have any worth whatsoever)...


I misspoke on this one. The top .1% in the USA owns as much as the bottom 90% combined, not 90% of the wealth. 

Also, globally, 62 people own as much as the entire bottom half of the population, over 3.5 billion people. 

No matter how you look at it, that's an insanely fucked up and out of balance distribution of wealth. The reason we have problems paying for things is not because we don't have enough wealth. It's because we have an economic system that funnels so much of that wealth to the top that there isn't enough remaining for everyone else to pay for the things that need to be paid for. It's the same reason why global debt has skyrocketed to over 150 trillion.



deepelemblues said:


> the US 2017 fiscal year military budget is 582.7$ billion, not well over 1 trillion


Notice the caveat "all things military related" ...? Yes, the official number for the military budget is about 600 billion but it goes to over a trillion when you add in _all things military related_. Our Insanely Big $1 Trillion National Security Budget. That's not to mention all the missing trillions of dollars due to the Pentagon cooking their books.

It's funny how we never seem to have a problem paying to blow shit up but we never have enough money to build things. Funny, indeed.



deepelemblues said:


> have you ever stopped to think that the way you look at the world is the way a small child looks at the world?


It's not that I see the world in the same way that a child does. It's that you have the comprehension level of a child. No one is suggesting that we just give everything away and everyone on the planet will turn into shiny happy people holding hands. However, I _would_ suggest that the world wouldn't be such a fucked up and violent place if our priorities were making people's lives better instead of trying to force them into submission through military power. We end up creating more problems than we solve.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I used to think that when a group of powerful men in suits went into a closed meeting that cool hardcore shit was going on the other side 

Now I know they are just going in there to tweet insults at actors they don't like 

its only the CIA that does cool backroom meetings now they are about grain prices most of the time 

kayfabe is ruined


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Former RT journalist Abby Martin debunks New York Times article implicating RT involvement in US election meddling:

https://www.rt.com/usa/373141-abby-martin-nyt-odni-rt/

If you're reading the New York Times, you're reading FAKE NEWS.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Using fucking RT to show "real news"

A FUCKING OPENLY STATE SPONSORED NEWS SOURCE 

A FUCKING NEWS SOURCE THAT HAS DONE SPECIALS ON US CHEM TRAILS 

ahghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



stevefox1200 said:


> I used to think that when a group of powerful men in suits went into a closed meeting that cool hardcore shit was going on the other side
> 
> Now I know they are just going in there to tweet insults at actors they don't like
> 
> *its only the CIA that does cool backroom meetings now they are about grain prices most of the time *
> 
> kayfabe is ruined


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Fake news organization Washington Post flies the white flag on the term (fake news) it created and propagated as part of its general agitprop campaign:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...tml?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.7fc4d5d470fc#comments

:heston






This is what happens when you think the people you don't like are so stupid and ummm stupid that you're invincible. 

How much hubris does your heart have to be full of to think that an ill-conceived propaganda campaign won't be turned against you...


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcar...ptic-to-lead-commission-on-vaccination-safety

How is this real


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

CNN did their final report card on Obama

They were surprisingly harsh giving him a B-/C+ average

the general theme was his ideas sounded way better in speeches and on paper than he was able to execute


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Cipher said:


> http://thehill.com/policy/healthcar...ptic-to-lead-commission-on-vaccination-safety
> 
> How is this real


Jesus is it real?

Oh wait it's okay. I just saw on Info Wars that Prof. Jenny McCarthy is heading up the studies so it should be okay.


I wonder what the Trump faithful in here think of this decision and the strange coincidence of his son-in-law ending up with a cushy White House position???


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> I wonder what the Trump faithful in here think of this decision and the strange coincidence of his son-in-law ending up with a cushy White House position???


Nepotism? In MY politics?!? THIS CANNOT BE ALLOWED! :cuss:

Except that it's happened from the senate to the presidency and is therefore gonna happen again in some way or another, because lolMuricanPoliticalSystem.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Sessions owning liberal assclowns right now.


----------



## Headliner

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/818963168772976640
Whether it's true or not, I legit LOL'd. "The Pisser". This is apart of the new case with Russia & Trump ties now if people been watching today.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Headliner said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/818963168772976640
> Whether it's true or not, I legit LOL'd. "The Pisser". This is apart of the new case with Russia & Trump ties now if people been watching today.


I think the anti-Trump news people have gone full retard.


----------



## Headliner

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



virus21 said:


> I think the anti-Trump news people have gone full retard.


I'm 50/50 on whether it's true or not. There's a situation going on right now. Comey got grilled by Senate Democrats today and this is what happened.



> James Comey refuses to tell Senate if FBI is investigating Trump-Russia links
> FBI director: ‘I would never comment on investigations in an open forum’
> Response stuns senators after his public remarks on Clinton’s email case





> The director of the FBI – whose high-profile interventions in the 2016 election are widely seen to have helped tip the balance of against Hillary Clinton – has refused to say if the bureau is investigating possible connections between associates of President-elect Donald Trump and Russia.
> 
> Testifying before the Senate intelligence committee on Tuesday, James Comey said he could not comment in public on a possible investigation into allegations of links between Russia and the Trump campaign.
> 
> “I would never comment on investigations – whether we have one or not – in an open forum like this, so I really can’t answer one way or another,” said Comey, at a hearing into the US intelligence agencies’ conclusion that Russia intervened in the election to benefit Trump.
> 
> Comey’s reticence stunned several senators who pointed to his repeated public discussions of FBI inquiries into Clinton during the campaign.
> 
> Asked by the Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden if he would provide an unclassified answer about any FBI inquiry into Trump-Russia connections before Trump’s inauguration on 20 January, Comey said: “I will answer any question you ask but the answer will likely be the same as I just gave you. I can’t talk about it.”
> 
> Wyden said he was troubled by Comey’s silence. “I think the American people have a right to know this,” he said.
> 
> Other senators went further. Democrat Kamala Harris of California suggested that a “new standard” for discussing FBI investigations publicly had been created in the months before the election.
> 
> Angus King, a Maine independent, told Comey: “The irony of your making that statement here – I cannot avoid.”
> 
> Responding to King, Comey suggested “sometimes we think differently about [discussing] closed investigations”.
> 
> But the FBI had not technically closed its inquiry into the email server when Comey wrote to Congress on 28 October – just 11 days before the general election – to say that the agency was reviewing newly discovered electronic communications for potential relevance to the Clinton case.


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/10/james-comey-trump-russia-links-investigation-senate


Both Hillary Clinton and Trump are scumbags. If they had something on her, surely they have something on him.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Buzzfeed :lol


----------



## Headliner

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Buzzfeed is going to buzzfeed. The reason I'm still 50/50 on it is because millionaires & billionaires involved in politics are some corrupt ass people. 

It could be bullshit, it could be truth.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Headliner said:


> I'm 50/50 on whether it's true or not. There's a situation going on right now. Comey got grilled by Senate Democrats today and this is what happened.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/10/james-comey-trump-russia-links-investigation-senate
> 
> 
> Both Hillary Clinton and Trump are scumbags. If they had something on her, surely they have something on him.


CNN is running that the intelligence reports given to Obama and Trump last week showed that they had info on supposed shady business dealing Trump did and they were waiting till Trump takes office to dump it on the web

It would make sense and this election is an easy spin no matter who wins

Hillary wins "DEMOCRACY IS RUINED, THE ELITES CONTROL EVERYTHING" and dump more Hillary info 

Trump wins "USA IS RUN BY A WHITE SUPREMACIST CORRUPT BUSINESS MAN" and dump Trump info

If a shit ton of Trump info hits the wiki leak circuit next week and Trump keeps up his "Putin is a good guy aye" I will question his intelligence


----------



## 3ku1

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Did anyone here Hillary used to NZ Tax Payers money for her Clinton Foundation? That's my money biatch lol. America has gone full retard, anythings hame now. Trump is Elvis, I would beleive it.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

OMG Trump and Russia hiring pro's to urinate in ObamaJamma's bed! What insane bullshki.

Everyone knows they were classy former 'Miss Russia' contestants, still in Trump Shape :quite by the way.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I'm sorry guys 

I hate to be the "liberal media" but the government intelligence reports mixed with the RT and Sputnik news stories is stacking up 

The republican party and cyber security experts has been saying for years that Russia has become a hackers den and they were hitting very sensitive areas (the whole reason software is cheaper in Russia is because of how much piracy there is there) 

Government sponsored internet trolling has been around for years (china has been the leader with anti-Tibet and anti-Japan trolling)

Sociologists for years have been saying that social media would make it easy to create fake "hysteria" 

Here is what I see

"Dirt was gathered on Hillary and Trump by the Russian government or was at least given to them, their dealings in Eastern Europe and North Africa have been blocked by the US government so they have something to gain. Making sure Hillary loses is important as not only as she more openly hostile to Russia but she her shady connections are better known so it will take a fairly large scandal to rock her. Alex Jones has done appearances for RT (A Russian state run new source) so easy to plant seeds. Infowars goes for far fetched moral hits (the pedophile shit which was not even close to true) while RT works on attacking competing news sources that are more pro-Hillary (info wars has no clue they are being played). If Hillary wins they can use alt media and social media to paint Trump as an honest man that was screwed by the "establishment" and if Trump wins they save it. Trump hears a shit ton about "Russian hackers" but even if believes it he doesn't worry because he has connections in the area and he knows they want him to win so they won't drop it. Trump wins and Russia waits till he takes office to drop what they know about him, likely that he has someone sort of shady dealings in Eastern Europe. Trump looks like a joke and completely loses face and has to spend the rest of his term being extra careful and slow and cant hit back, Russia gets to push western interests and businesses out the region claiming they are the arm of corrupt US business being run by the US government and can paint themselves as fighting corruption to neutral parties. The US and Europe are alienated due to Trumps win and western Europe without US teeth won't be able to stop Russia from knocking over Eastern European nations in the name of "fighting fascism and protecting ethnic Russians". Russia gets 4 good years to do whatever they want and a chance to paint themselves as the clear "world leader" and get to hook in regional powers in Africa, South America and Asia that are united by nothing but anti-US feelings. The US is also left weakened due to an unpopular president civil unrest (the USSR launched several propaganda campaigns hyping up racism in the US, they pushed it so hard that "but you hang ******" became an injoke among Russian and US diplomats as the USSR would use it as a counter to any complaints about their human rights)"


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



stevefox1200 said:


> "Dirt was gathered on Hillary and Trump by the Russian government or was at least given to them, their dealings in Eastern Europe and North Africa have been blocked by the US government so they have something to gain. Making sure Hillary loses is important as not only as she more openly hostile to Russia but she her shady connections are better known so it will take a fairly large scandal to rock her. Alex Jones has done appearances for RT (A Russian state run new source) so easy to plant seeds. Infowars goes for far fetched moral hits (the pedophile shit which was not even close to true) while RT works on attacking competing news sources that are more pro-Hillary (info wars has no clue they are being played). If Hillary wins they can use alt media and social media to paint Trump as an honest man that was screwed by the "establishment" and if Trump wins they save for if. Trump hears a shit ton about "Russian hackers" but even if believes it he doesn't worry because he has connections in the area and he knows they want him to win so they won't drop it. Trump wins and Russia waits till he takes office to drop what they know about him, likely that he has someone sort of shady dealings in Eastern Europe. Trump looks like a joke and completely loses face and has to spend the rest of his term being extra careful and slow and cant hit back, Russia gets to push western interests and businesses out the region claiming they are the arm of corrupt US business being run by the US government and can paint themselves as fighting corruption to neutral parties. The US and Europe are alienated due to Trumps win and western Europe without US teeth won't be able to stop Russia from knocking over Eastern European nations in the name of "fighting fascism and protecting ethnic Russians". Russia gets 4 good years to do whatever they want and a chance to paint themselves as the clear "world leader" and get to hook in regional powers in Africa, South America and Asia that are united by nothing but anti-US feelings. The US is also left weakened due to an unpopular president civil unrest (the USSR launched several propaganda campaigns hyping up racism in the US, they pushed it so hard that "but you hang ******" became an injoke among Russian and US diplomats as the USSR would use it as a counter to any complaints about their human rights)"


Dayum, you've sold me.

This is also way more awesome when you read this like this


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Dayum, you've sold me.
> 
> This is also way more awesome when you read this like this


Either that or I have become a paranoid schizophrenic

well either way I can start my career as an alternative news source


----------



## Phaedra

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

The press have had this story for over six months now but wouldn't touch it because it was uncorroborated. 

It is now corroborated, it comes from british intelligence and now american intelligence. So essentially we have a potus who is a sexual deviant at best but at worst is owned by a foreign government. wonderful. happy new year. 

I'm not taking sides, i'm just reiterating what I know about this story being around for quite a long time now as i have friends who work at London broadsheets, and stating the implications if it were true. even trump supporters have to be a little concerned at this point, surely?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*










4chan at it again :sodone


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

ignore.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Phaedra said:


> The press have had this story for over six months now but wouldn't touch it because it was uncorroborated.
> 
> It is now corroborated, it comes from british intelligence and now american intelligence. So essentially we have a potus who is a sexual deviant at best but at worst is owned by a foreign government. wonderful. happy new year.
> 
> I'm not taking sides, i'm just reiterating what I know about this story being around for quite a long time now as i have friends who work at London broadsheets, and stating the implications if it were true. even trump supporters have to be a little concerned at this point, surely?


Teflon Don has already won and his rusted on supporters will always have the blinders on. 

Even considering the information age we live in now where not much shit slips through the cracks, the real question is, will people care or just accept whatever bullshit he serves up?


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/818997497259585536
:draper2


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/818997497259585536
> :draper2


You're being unfair and twisting his words. The making outlandish claims thing is a nervous tic, like the spastic hand gestures when he's making fun of people. Don't make me bring out my PJW video which completely exonerates him.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

The intel reports almost seem like a warning to Trump to get ready to cover his ass 

If it turns out that he knew the Russians were involved (which the reports are bending towards) I honestly think he will have to step down 

The FBI,CIA,DNI and NSA don't like each other and all compete for funding so when they come together something is really wrong


----------



## Master of the DDT

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

:HA

Oh America... You've given the world a racist, homophobic, misogynistic, lying, failed business man; who has zero experience in politics, the most powerful political position on Earth... Sure you have quite possibly brought us to the brink of extinction because of his ruthless business acumen and nuclear launch codes but on the bright side... Oh there is no bright side. 

If the story is true...
Water sports isn't my fetish, to each their own. What I find so hilarious is that he didn't necessarily hire Russian prostitutes to piss on him because he gets off on it, but because he wanted to spite the Obama's! 
What a petty, insecure little pissant.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

There's zero reason to believe the story is true. :lol Anti-Trumpers are just getting gross now. 

"Failed business man". :lmao How detached from reality can one be?

Even Trump-hater Nick Gillespie isn't falling for this one: http://reason.com/blog/2017/01/10/hey-heres-that-obviously-fake-dossier-cl

Congratulations on once again being led astray by FAKE NEWS.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Based mom Christina H. Sommers just retweeted this 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/819000978644971521
:ha


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

THE BED PISSING IS A DISTRACTION

When the government does reports like this they fill it with everything they can find including rumors 

These reports are summaries of all the info they have gathered and can be refined at a later date

That includes stupid shit because, surprise, so politicians do really weird stupid shit 

Trump's camp is picking out the stupidest one that they can verify as false to get all the attention so they can paint the whole report as stupid

This is old school as fuck information poisoning 

(anyone ever play The Darkness 2? "THE FORESKIN IS A DISTRACTION!")


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@DesolationRow @Carte Blanche @Pratchett @AryaDark @Sincere @L-DOPA @Fringe @Miss Sally @virus21 @Goku @Beatles123 @MillionDollarProns @Lumpy McRighteous @Neuron @The Absolute

Dear god...


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

annointed by god to stop trump

that's how far i got into that before i fucking laughed my ass off


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



MrMister said:


> annointed by god to stop trump
> 
> that's how far i got into that before i fucking laughed my ass off


He's so positively fake and two-faced in this interview (and in general). :lol Let's re-live one of the best moments during the primary, when Glenn Beck was stumping for Cruz at a caucus site and then Donald Trump showed up outta nowhere:


----------



## Ace

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Trump is Putin's bitch... how is this new information?


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



>


So somebody from 4chan intentionally started the golden showers thing to see how far it would go up the media chain, Buzzfeed picked up it and ADMITTED it was a fake story and it STILL got reported by several liberal news outlets and that, my friends, is how fake news gets spread! Liberals in general will believe anything!

- Vic


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Ace said:


> Trump is Putin's bitch... how is this new information?


You've been watching fake news.


----------



## Ace

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> You've been watching fake news.


 Trump has always given off the impression of being a HUGE Putin fan boy. I don't blame him either, Putin is a fantastic leader possessing all the attributes a great leader needs. Too bad Putin doesn't give a shit about America and will use that fan boy worship to his advantage.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Ace said:


> Trump has always given off the impression of being a HUGE Putin fan boy. I don't blame him either, Putin is a fantastic leader possessing all the attributes a great leader needs. Too bad Putin doesn't give a shit about America and will use that fan boy worship to his advantage.


Failed to back up your claim. Caught believing fake news without basis. Sad!


----------



## Ace

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> Failed to back up your claim. Caught believing fake news without basis. Sad!


 Fake news?... Have you seen how Trump salivates at the very mention of Putin...

Fair enough to respect Putin as a leader, but Trump needs to quickly realize Putin isn't an ally that gives a damn about him or America. Putin has a puppet in place now that he can control, that's why the Russians were heavily invested in a Trump win. I have no doubt he has incriminating material on Trump that he can use to get Trump inline too. 

It would be a tragedy if he isn't immediately impeached because every sign points to the Russians having Trump in their pockets, something which doesn't fair well for America or its citizens.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@L-DOPA and @Tater, I have just now finally caught up with all of your back-and-forth ripostes concerning U.S. monetary and financial policies. Unfortunately I have to awake in about four and a half hours and I only had a couple of hours of sleep last night so I will not be staying up much longer, but for some analysis of how the Federal Reserve was instrumental in steering the U.S. into what became the Great Depression I shamelessly recommend revisiting an old post of mine from the older Trump thread... In fact, L-DOPA already read that post, so it's more for Tater's benefit, ha: http://www.wrestlingforum.com/anyth...idential-election-2016-a-18.html#post57436241

With Richard Nixon's severing of the U.S. dollar from what was truly a dubious-at-best, false-at-worst gold standard as engendered by John Maynard Keynes and Soviet spy Harry Dexter White in 1944, the world of Bretton-Woods fundamentally came crashing down. Real wages first began to drastically stagnate in 1973; Nixon's August 15, 1971 address for his floating of the dollar stated that "we must stop the rise in the cost of living..." As the speech went, "Prosperity without war requires action on three fronts: We must create more and better jobs; we must stop the rise in the cost of living; we must protect the dollar from the attacks of international money speculators."

Predictably, over the next ten years prices rose at a faster pace than at any other peacetime period rate in U.S. history. The price and wage controls Nixon instituted without approval by Congress were supposed to go on for a mere ninety days; instead they spanned out three years, until August 1974. 

As Nixon noted to the nation, "I have directed Secretary [of the Treasury John] Connally to suspend temporarily the convertibility of the dollar into gold or other reserve assets, except in amounts and conditions determined to be in the interest of monetary stability and in the best interests of the United States." It's easy to attack Nixon for these maneuverings, some of which were truly idiotic. However, he was simply the custodian tasked with the controlling of a fiat currency and fixed exchange rate--a kind of price control, as it were... In other words, a monetary scheme which was doomed to respire. One thing libertarians are stubbornly correct about is that price controls, once implemented, are perpetually failing. All governmental gold standards which are guaranteed by a government is ultimately a phony. As some might argue, government gold standards are never quite worth the paper on which they are written. In 1914, for instance, the governments of Europe naturally suspended payment, and, lo and behold, payment was never restored but in one country. Only England restored payment, beginning in 1925 and concluding six years later in 1931. Once England left gold in the early 1930s, payment was suspended, and gold has yet to return. Franklin Roosevelt, four decades before Nixon, unilaterally yanked the U.S. off of the gold standard in 1933, and oversaw the making of law which made the purchasing of bullion by Americans illegal, something which persisted until 1974. As Treasury Secretary Connally said at the G-10 meeting that followed Nixon's floating of the dollar, "The dollar is our currency, but it's your problem." And so it has remained. 

A book I recommend to everyone here is Samuel Batten's _The New World Order_, published in the smoky aftermath of the Great War in 1919. It is a theological-political articulation of what Batten saw as the quintessence and doubtless importance of globalism. As he writes on Page 1,


> The world can never again be as it has been. The house has collapsed, and its structure discredited. In this period of reconstruction it is imperative that men should know what are the defective principles of the old order that must be kept out, and what are the true principles that should be builded in as the very foundations of the house that is to be. What kind of world order do we want? What are the principles and ideals that should guide in our planning? What are the immediate things in our efforts, and what are the ultimate ends? ... These are the questions of first importance in this hour.


It's all quite fascinating. When the European Union was being created I recall a few discussions being had in elementary school. I recall asking the teacher, "How is that supposed to function? The cultural and economic mores of frugal, industrious northern Europe and the more free-wheeling southern Europe seem incompatible in such a scheme." The teacher never had an answer; she simply said that the point was "interesting." One student was interested and I recall speaking with him at lunchtime that it seemed "inevitable" that the deficits accumulated by the southern European nations would drown the project. What one could learn only later was that the International Monetary Fund's own independent watchdog would provide the informative examination of the IMF's mishandling of the EU's economic traps, as it were. The assessments by the IMF were deeply faulty; IMF staffers were implicated in being either incompetent or perhaps even worse in how their choices were informed by avarice. The largest central banks provocatively lured the southern European nations and their populations into a sort of almost bottomless indebtedness, the consequences of which we are seeing play out today. With the IMF offering one bailout after another vis-à-vis the establishing of austerity programs. _Confessions of an Economic Hitman_ by John Perkins fantastically demonstrates the mechanics of this, of this, to use the title of the book as parlance, economic assassination. 

That's what's so great about the American dollar, in spite of everything. It stands to gain enormously, as does the pound, because the British were sufficiently prudent to never enter the Eurozone as part and parcel of its currency network. Italian and Spanish banks are teetering on the precipice of all-out bankruptcy as the euro continues to suffer for the entirely predictable consequences of the EU itself. 

Guess I ended up writing a bit more about this than I intended... Long story short, better to be in the U.S. or Great Britain than in the Eurozone, however troubled the financial realities are here, ha. At least a complete fissuring of interwoven currency and a breakup of such currency, as the euro is assuredly predestined to experience, is not quite in the offing! Brighter and better!



CamillePunk said:


> @DesolationRow @Carte Blanche @Pratchett @AryaDark @Sincere @L-DOPA @Fringe @Miss Sally @virus21 @Goku @Beatles123 @MillionDollarProns @Lumpy McRighteous @Neuron @The Absolute
> 
> Dear god...


Glenn Beck one creepy person.

Tucker Carlson's stunned countenance listening to Beck, who spoke of killing Donald Trump, saying that which he was saying here, spoke voluminously.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@DesolationRow Really interesting post mate, especially about the teacher. I remember having a geography teacher who was super pro-EU and would talk about it's benefits all the time. Back then I wasn't interested in politics at all but it sticks out in my mind considering around 5 or so years later when I became more political that I started to question not only whether or not the EU was having a positive effect on the UK and other European countries but whether or not it was legitimate. And of course you know my view on that :lol.








The Russia conspiracy is still bullshit.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-11/donald-trump-appoints-vaccine-sceptic/8174560

Finally, an American President willing to prevent the government forcing autism on innocent children.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Alkomesh2 said:


> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-11/donald-trump-appoints-vaccine-sceptic/8174560
> 
> Finally, an American President willing to prevent the government forcing autism on innocent children.


I already posted this and it go no sold, unsurprisingly.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Cipher said:


> I already posted this and it go no sold, unsurprisingly.


There's nothing to sell. The only people who think that people who support Trump support every Trump policy or appointment are never Trumpers themselves and ignore each and every time Trump supporters actually criticize things he says or does.

Apparently for them the only way they can "win" now is by finally becoming actual political critics, something they've never actually done in their entire lives before Trump got elected. 

For me, I actually see this as a win because even the people who are too dumb for words at least Trump has encouraged them to finally start reading newspapers for the first time in their lives. These same people will not be able to tell you anything about who runs their own governments or Obama's administration but they know everything about Trump's new administration. 

I see that as a win for the right wing if it can get the left to finally know who's running things. 

Let's take vaccines for example, in 2012 the California Governor refused to eliminate the personal and religious exemption in his state - which eventually led to massive disease outbreaks in California which eventually led to children dying before he passed the law to wipe the exemptions. But do we ever hear that? Nope. It doesn't fit the liberal agenda. 

If you want to oppose a guy who thinks vaccines lead to autism, then how about we approach this in bipartisan manner because it is absolutely NOT a partisan issue like the left are pretending now. It's a nation-wide issue (just look at all the states with the religious and philosophical exemptions and they're not leaning either way) but the left, especially liberal Hollywood is the one behind it becoming such a major issue in the first place with asshole liberals like Jim Carrey, Jenny McCarthy and others influencing millions of people at a time and even releasing and playing that sham doctor's documentary all over the place instead of doing anything to block or even debate it.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Alkomesh2 said:


> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-11/donald-trump-appoints-vaccine-sceptic/8174560
> 
> Finally, an American President willing to prevent the government forcing autism on innocent children.


It's a win, the anti-vaxxers and whole food nuts will get their kids vaccines to spite Trump.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> @DesolationRow @Carte Blanche @Pratchett @AryaDark @Sincere @L-DOPA @Fringe @Miss Sally @virus21 @Goku @Beatles123 @MillionDollarProns @Lumpy McRighteous @Neuron @The Absolute
> 
> Dear god...


"Anointed by God"


----------



## TomahawkJock

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Trump just compared the United States to Nazi Germany. Great.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@L-DOPA If you haven't watched it yet, it's worth the time going over to Democracy Now and watching the Glenn Greenwald interview in it's entirety.



Ace said:


> It would be a tragedy if he isn't immediately impeached because every sign points to the Russians having Trump in their pockets, something which doesn't fair well for America or its citizens.


It would be an even bigger tragedy if Trump _did_ get impeached. Even if Trump _is_ 100% Putin's bitch puppet, that's still better than a Christian fundamentalist nutjob like Pence taking over and trying to institute Christian sharia in the USA.


----------



## Cliffy

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

This is amazing

The Donald is cutting an all time great promo

Even slipped into the third person a few times 

We are blessed

Edit: lol he just destroyed cnn and buzzfeed :lmao

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Trump to CNN: "You are fake news."

:dead3



CamillePunk said:


> Dear god...


This only confirms what I suspected from his interview with Samantha Bee. Beck has crossed over to the other side. Fascinating that this is the guy who currently signs Tomi Lahren's paychecks.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

CNN tossed Buzzfeed under the bus to try to save their own sinking ship. This is fucking glorious. They still have not learnt their lesson that they are all done because they're all part of the same pile of cow dung. 

:sodone


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

GOD DAMN IT DONALD CNN HAS A FAMILY


----------



## DELETE

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

is this where all the trump supporters hang out?


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Well that was one of the most savage press conferences I've ever seen.

CNN can whine all it wants, 4 years of this and they're probably gonna go out of business.


----------



## Neuron

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I'm still laughing at the mediatards for that obvious /pol/ack inspired pissgate thing.

I think wheeling out that tax attorney for the business relinquishment was smart. Buzzfeed got the diamond encrusted golden burial shovel from Trump. I wonder if everyone's correct in assuming that it'll become this year's Gawker. Cringed a bit every time he brought up Billary though. The election cycle was fun and all, but I think it's time to move on.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/819235716114718720
Here's that wonderful CNN BTFOing clip btw.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

The sight of a reporter whining that it's "not appropriate" for them to get called out for being lying fucks is so :lmao

They lie all the time and act like they're invincible, like they're 14 year olds. We can say and do whatever we want and consequences are inappropriate because we're sooooo special. 

The First Amendment doesn't say "nobody can call reporters and news organizations lying sacks of shit." They don't seem to know that. They want special privileges in our free society, like they're some special class of nobles and this is the year 1100 and the rest of us serfs better just accept their superior position.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Trump manhandling CNN.








:trump2


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Neuron said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/819235716114718720


What a fucking jackass.

The reporter, that is. I applaud Trump for putting him in his place. Then his whining about Trump not being "appropriate" is about the most pathetic thing I have heard in my entire life. Whoever that was needs to fuck off and find a new profession.


----------



## Neuron

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



deepelemblues said:


> The sight of a reporter whining that it's "not appropriate" for them to get called out for being lying fucks is so :lmao
> 
> They lie all the time and act like they're invincible, like they're 14 year olds. We can say and do whatever we want and consequences are inappropriate because we're sooooo special.
> 
> The First Amendment doesn't say "nobody can call reporters and news organizations lying sacks of shit." Reporters don't seem to know that.


I don't know about that. The almighty Meryl Steep(PBUH) told me that reporters are all victims of unfair persecution.


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

If these are the kinds of press conferences we can expect from our president, these next four years are gonna be fun to watch.


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Not the biggest fan of Trump, but I did enjoy watching CNN get destroyed. The media elite has needed a kick to the nuts for a long time with all the bullshit they have pulled.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

American history seldom has seen a president who so starkly divided the "deep state" as Donald Trump already is well before taking the oath of office. In the past seventy years we have only recorded irreconcilable, internecine conflict under John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. Kennedy sought to restructure the U.S. intelligence agencies which naturally created myriad ripples; Nixon, in 1971, pushed for wholesale mass reorganization of the labyrinthine massive bureaucracies within bureaucracies (highly recommend reading _The Haldeman Diaries_ by H.R. Haldeman) after reading the full report from 1969 following the work performed by the Ash Commission on Executive Branch Reorganization. Treasury Secretary John Connally was able to carry over myriad details from the Lyndon Johnson administration to Nixon's. Connally relayed Johnson's message to Nixon--as Haldeman writes, "...he could reorganize everything, all he wanted, but he had three main problems, 1) press 2) Congress 3) disloyal people in State and CIA." Haldeman fascinatingly considered the power dynamics in his _Ends of Power_: "...by 1971 Nixon had realized he was virtually powerless to deal with the bureaucracy in every department of the government... Civil servants, almost all liberal Democrats, would thumb their noses at him. Washington insiders all acknowledge that the man who is still King in Washington has been dead for 32 years. Franklin D. Roosevelt's legacy lives on." 

Nixon sent four sweeping reorganization bills to Congress throughout the year of 1971. John Ehrlichman wrote in _Witness to Power_, "Congress and the Washington Establishment weren't willing to let him" reorganize the federal leviathan. Nixon prioritized the evisceration of nearly all duplicate functions in an attempt to streamline a government bureaucracy which had become Brobdingnagian in the past forty years. Naturally those in power within the Washington, D.C. bureaucracy found these efforts not only threatening but insulting. None of the bills went anywhere once they made it to Congress. As John Ehrlichman stated, "We would reorganize as completely as the law allowed. We would repopulate the bureaucracy with our people. We would seek new laws or permit the dead (and disloyal) wood to be cast out." Haldeman indicates in his writings that the Nixon administration endeavored to "...initiate a dramatic, even revolutionary, new structure of government. In this structure there would be four 'super Cabinet' officers with offices in the White House supervising activities of their own departments as well as those of associated independent agencies in four areas: Economic Affairs, Human Affairs, Natural Resources, Community Development. In addition, four traditional cabinet posts would be retained: State, Defense, Justice and Treasury. In effect, this would accomplish two goals: streamline all of the dozens of helter-skelter and redundant independent agencies into four departments that were manageable, concentrated them so that all departments of the executive branch of government would be controlled by the White House." 

Elements of the deep state acted like Linda Blair being hit with holy water during the reigns of Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan, and this is why highlighting some of the reforms Nixon attempted to have passed is critical to potentially understanding why so many within the American deep state and the largely fraudulent U.S. media entities such as CNN are viewing Trump's ascension as a near-apocalyptic occurrence. Beyond the sheer entertainment value of Trump rightly declaring CNN "fake news"--a downright kind assessment considering their recent history of collusion with a certain major U.S. political party and surrogates thereof, among a host of other nefarious activities--it is somehow reassuring that he is once again making all the right enemies. May the possibly Jacksonian times roll on...


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



DELETE said:


> is this where all the trump supporters hang out?


"... clique or not, it's cliquey here one way or another unless you're a lone wolf badass killing machine like me."


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

:trump was asked by Breitbart News if he would recommend any "reforms" for the newsmedia.



> “Given that CNN just published fake news and all the problems that we’ve seen throughout the media over the course of the election, what reforms do you recommend for this industry here?”


:trump responded by saying he doesn't recommend any "reforms" and that all he can hope for is that journalists stop being dishonest hacks. 



> “I don’t recommend reforms, *I recommend people that have some moral compass.* You know, I’ve been hearing more and more about a thing called ‘Fake News.’ They’re talking about people that go and say all sorts of things. But I will tell you some of the media outlets I deal with are fake news, more so than anybody. I could name them but I won’t bother. You have a few sitting right in front of us [pointing to CNN’s Acosta and Sara Murray]. *So, they’re very, very dishonest people. But, I think it’s something we’re just going to have to live with.* I guess, the advantage I have is I can speak back. When it happens to somebody that doesn’t have this [points to microphone], doesn’t have that kind of a megaphone, it’s a very sad thing. I’ve seen people destroyed. I’ve seen people absolutely destroyed, and I think it’s very unfair. *So all I can ask for is honest reporters.”*


The threat this man poses to the First Amendment!


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



deepelemblues said:


> :trump was asked by Breitbart News if he would recommend any "reforms" for the newsmedia.
> 
> 
> 
> :trump responded by saying he doesn't recommend any "reforms" and that all he can hope for is that journalists stop being dishonest hacks.
> 
> 
> 
> The threat this man poses to the First Amendment!


Honest reporters from Breitbart and Infowars right big guy? :trump


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



deepelemblues said:


> :trump was asked by Breitbart News if he would recommend any "reforms" for the newsmedia.
> 
> 
> 
> :trump responded by saying he doesn't recommend any "reforms" and that all he can hope for is that journalists stop being dishonest hacks.
> 
> 
> 
> The threat this man poses to the First Amendment!


You can't rebuke the fourth estate... that is a biiiig no no. 

Of course, he is actually absolutely right on this. And glad someone is slamming the media without fear. We have seen lives destroyed by the unethical and wild flailings of an out of control media for nearly two decades. Hell, even the "protected rich white men" in Duke weren't protected from the media's fangs when they thought they had a juicy story about a rape. Shows just how dishonest the media can be. Luckily, we aren't as gullible to believe the media straight out anymore.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Honest reporters from Breitbart and Infowars right big guy? :trump


The honesty or dishonesty of Breitbart and Infowars reporters is irrelevant to Buzzfeed and CNN spreading fake news and being privileged crybabies

Infowars is a bunch of reptile lizard alien believers anyway so why anyone takes it seriously either to defend or attack it I dunno

I don't approve of the Breitbart question because it implies that congress and the president can or should exert some kind of direct control over the press 

Which is obviously wrong and :trump shut that down with his response 

BTFO try again


----------



## QWERTYOP

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Honestly, if you watched the presser today and you still think he's in any way remotely fit for the job, you must have special needs or something.


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



QWERTYOP said:


> Honestly, if you watched the presser today and you still think he's in any way remotely fit for the job, you must have special needs or something.


No one that has been president, especially lately, has been fit for the job.


----------



## Banez

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

George Bush Jr. has nothing on Donald Trump.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



QWERTYOP said:


> Honestly, if you watched the presser today and you still think he's in any way remotely fit for the job, you must have special needs or something.


But if you really thought that he wasn't fit for the job, dangerous, threatened our livelihood or would make America terrible. If people really, really believed that. They'd would be on a boat or train off to somewhere else, no? 

Like most people do (especially the liberal elite who pretty much always leave their countries when dictators rise to power) when actual literal incompetent, literally tyrannical literal demagogues actually come into actual power literally ... But they don't actually literally like literally actually literally like believe that he's literally like not actually dangerous otherwise they'd actually like literally like actually leave. 

acktually.

literally


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



QWERTYOP said:


> Honestly, if you watched the presser today and you still think he's in any way remotely fit for the job, you must have special needs or something.


your check's in the mail from the committee to re-elect :trump

:trump thanks you for your thoughtless sneer at his supporters as it is exactly what got him elected and he wants to continue to keep those supporters fired up for more winning over those who sneer at them

you got four years to figure out that sneering is counterproductive


----------



## GothicBohemian

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



DELETE said:


> is this where all the trump supporters hang out?


Yes, yes it is. Once upon a time I found this thread heartbreaking; now I'm sitting back in awe at the absurdity of what's happening down in the US. Coming here is like peering into a wacky alt-right alt-news conspiracy conference where outsiders showed up to debate the merits of the movement. 

So, right now, a C-list reality show star/businessman is soon to be inaugurated as the next POTUS and a lunatic is giving interviews saying he's anointed by God to stop aforementioned soon-to-be POTUS who, aside from his reality shows and business dealings, is also the subject of a possible intelligence dossier or 4chan prank that includes a story of him paying Russian prostitutes to piss in a bed that the Obamas slept in. POTUS-to-be is also really, really, bigly into Twitter. 

Meanwhile, senate hearings are in progress dealing with confirmation of the proposed new white house team, consisting mainly of people known to support the opposing view of whatever committee they've been put up to lead and few of who have much, if any, international political experience but lots of money and lots of conflicts of interest. And his son-in-law; he wants a white house job for his son-in-law too. Oh, and mainstream media is all lies - as opposed to folks who report the 'real' news on independent websites and blogs. Somehow, all this craziness will fix America's problems, even though there's no real consensus across American society as to what those problems actually are, let alone which problems most need urgent attention.

This is fascinating. Has anyone agreed to perform at the inauguration yet? I mean other than the choir, the dancers and the kid?


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

This Buzzfeed/CNN drama is utterly absurd :lmao. I will say I got a kick out of Trump grilling them, both of those news sources are among the worst right now and in Buzzfeed's case they are complete sensationalized liars and Trump isn't the first case of this happening. CNN of course most notably spent hundred's of hours on the fucking Trump tape whilst covering very little of Hillary's wikileaks scandal. Which shows what type of journalists they are.

But yeah, the whole thing is an utter mess to say the least :lol.






DeFranco covers this pretty well.

And yes to reiterate, #BuzzFeedisGarbage .


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

This a clip of the UN during the Cuban missile crisis 






what the fuck happened?

Politicians used to be so badass, not only could they be bold but they could also be effective

now it seems to be mutually exclusive


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



L-DOPA said:


> This Buzzfeed/CNN drama is utterly absurd :lmao. I will say I got a kick out of Trump grilling them, both of those news sources are among the worst right now and in Buzzfeed's case they are complete sensationalized liars and Trump isn't the first case of this happening. CNN of course most notably spent hundred's of hours on the fucking Trump tape whilst covering very little of Hillary's wikileaks scandal. Which shows what type of journalists they are.
> 
> But yeah, the whole thing is an utter mess to say the least :lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DeFranco covers this pretty well.
> 
> And yes to reiterate, #BuzzFeedisGarbage .


Maybe get video bloggers to take over the MSM institutions? :draper2


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



GothicBohemian said:


> even though there's no real consensus across American society as to what those problems actually are, let alone which problems most need urgent attention.


You hit the nail on the head. The consensus as to what will fix this country is... there is no consensus because everyone has a different idea on how they want this country to be shaped and every four to eight years, the agenda on what must be fixed will be changed. Truly a conundrum.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Maybe get video bloggers to take over the MSM institutions? :draper2


Honestly, I get better news and analysis on politics through YT than I do with any of the mainstream news outlets regardless if they are left or right wing.

So doesn't sound like a bad idea :lol.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



stevefox1200 said:


> This a clip of the UN during the Cuban missile crisis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what the fuck happened?
> 
> Politicians used to be so badass, not only could they be bold but they could also be effective
> 
> now it seems to be mutually exclusive


Democracy happened.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## Blackbeard

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



QWERTYOP said:


> Honestly, if you watched the presser today and you still think he's in any way remotely fit for the job, you must have special needs or something.


Completely agree. I am absolutely baffled and bemused by the adoration that buffoon receives in this thread.


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Oda Nobunaga said:


> You hit the nail on the head. The consensus as to what will fix this country is... *there is no consensus because everyone has a different idea on how they want this country to be shaped and every four to eight years, the agenda on what must be fixed will be changed*. Truly a conundrum.


And the one result we can count on is that every individual who went to college to get Political Science, Law and other degrees in an effort to pursue a CAREER as a politician get so sit back like :lenny5 because they know this gives them job security. In effect, we the voters permit the system to perpetuate itself.

To me the conundrum lies in that we continue to allow this to persist. :mj


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Bill Paxton said:


> Completely agree. I am absolutely baffled and bemused by the adoration that buffoon receives in this thread.


I know it's not easy to understand, and people trying to make sense of it and coming up with wild theories and accusations is part of our entertainment.


----------



## MillionDollarProns

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I'm always amazed that Buzzfeed, the place I go for Selena Gomez gifs, has such way in the main stream news media. What an era I chose to manifest in as a physical being.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I was ready to throw a party after Trump put Acosta in his place!

CNN should have been held accountable for their lies, physiological manipulation, misinformation, and propaganda years ago. Anyone accusing Trump of being a dictator for not allowing CNN "journalists" to speak obviously has no idea how much the network has criminally mislead the public over the past 15+ years.

- Vic


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Bill Paxton said:


> Completely agree. I am absolutely baffled and bemused by the adoration that buffoon receives in this thread.


Eh, let them have their day. Their guy won against all odds. As long as they are under the illusion Trump is fighting for them let them bask in the glow of victory.

Let the rest of us worry about the real world effect. China is flexing their muscles against smaller countries in anticipation of Trump's administration by telling them not to take sides. America is going to get people who has prominent ties to MLM companies who preys on desperate people in the government. His picks and himself have yet to resolve conflict of interests issues that makes the Clinton Foundation look like child's play one week from his inauguration.

But whatever, let us all be distracted by goldenshowers and calling CNN fake news.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Bill Paxton said:


> Completely agree. I am absolutely baffled and bemused by the adoration that buffoon receives in this thread.


You were baffled a lot last year. Might be time to question your understanding of the world.


----------



## Oxidamus

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I've seen some people having a bit of a whine over Trump disregarding CNN. I think he has every right to do it. Fuck the media, no one - not even the President - owes the media anything. The media owe the people. I wish people would just realise that. :mj2


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Guys, guys... stop being so hard on CNN. All the rest of them (FOX/MSNBC/Wapo/NYT/Breitbart/TYT/etc) are just as equally terrible. :lol


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> Guys, guys... stop being so hard on CNN. All the rest of them (FOX/MSNBC/Wapo/NYT/Breitbart/TYT/etc) are just as equally terrible. :lol


They're all pretty bad or biased but CNN has been dropping the ball for the past year over and over again. From their pandering for Clinton to having people like Simone Bryce and Don Lemon babbling about shit. CNN has been worse than all you mentioned, even TYT which is saying something! CNN deserves all the flack they're getting now. Fox, MSNBC, TYT, Brietbart, NYT, Wapo have been getting crap for years now, CNN has not!


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Oops even I forgot this during all this the fake news lulz fest

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-election-hacking-russia-233472

How will the Trumpers spin this now?


----------



## AJ_Styles_P1

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I think DeFranco is over anaylizing.

His fights with the media will last as long as they continue to produce hit pieces, once they start covering him like a regular president like they should there will be no issue I think.

Its just that the media continues to bash and smear him, they are trying so hard to save a sinking ship, and he's just coming back at it with fire just like he did in the election. Which I think is smart, if he just folded like a tent they could continue with the propaganda and get everyone against him in mob form. Then who knows what would happen, and who's hands the country could end up in, they were already so close to a potential war type conflict with Russia before he won.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



> Guys, guys... stop being so hard on CNN. All the rest of them (FOX/MSNBC/Wapo/NYT/Breitbart/TYT/etc) are just as equally terrible.


This country is divided more than ever before thanks to false narratives and fake news stories from major news outlets all in the name of ratings. Since CNN is such a massive network that send reports to other countries around the world, I would put most of the blame on them.

The fact Hillary somehow got almost as many votes as Obama from the last election despite having fewer black, Latino, and female voters than him (and that info came from CNN) and failing to draw record crowds at ANY of her rallies even with celebrities there goes to show you how much influence a media juggernaut like that Counterfeit News Network has on people.




> How will the Trumpers spin this now?


The same Politico that was caught sending stories about Hillary to her campaign chairman for approval.

- Vic


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

But Fox is the top rated cable news so wouldn't you place most of the blame on them instead of CNN? :troll


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

No, because they don't produce produce crap like this:

































A panel of bottom feeders.

- Vic


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> But Fox is the top rated cable news so wouldn't you place most of the blame on them instead of CNN? :troll


You'd have a point if Fox wasn't shit on for the past ten years.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Vic Capri said:


> The same Politico that was caught sending stories about Hillary to her campaign chairman for approval.
> 
> - Vic


It was his own words admitting Russia might be responsible for the hacks after months of trolling the liberals no way it was possible. And you lot ate it up as gospel. :fpalm



Miss Sally said:


> You'd have a point if Fox wasn't shit on for the past ten years.


Huh? So the latecomer to the BS factory deserve to get most of the blame for the current state of partisanship in America while the original BS factory that is still the highest rated cable news network for a decade don't? What logic are you trying to use here?


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Tofu still thinks he makes points :trump


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> Eh, let them have their day. Their guy won against all odds. As long as they are under the illusion Trump is fighting for them let them bask in the glow of victory.
> 
> Let the rest of us worry about the real world effect. China is flexing their muscles against smaller countries in anticipation of Trump's administration by telling them not to take sides. America is going to get people who has prominent ties to MLM companies who preys on desperate people in the government. His picks and himself have yet to resolve conflict of interests issues that makes the Clinton Foundation look like child's play one week from his inauguration.
> 
> But whatever, let us all be distracted by goldenshowers and calling CNN fake news.


Awwwww....






:crying:


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> It was his own words admitting Russia might be responsible for the hacks after months of trolling the liberals no way it was possible. And you lot ate it up as gospel. :fpalm
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? So the latecomer to the BS factory deserve to get most of the blame for the current state of partisanship in America while the original BS factory that is still the highest rated cable news network for a decade don't? What logic are you trying to use here?


I'm using actual logic, not sure what you're using. CNN is outputting the most nonsense and fake news right now. Fox has been talked about for years, most people double check when it comes to Fox news. For a long time CNN was considered a mostly valid source of News, now they been completely exposed. 

The fact is until recently CNN has been blameless but compared to MSNBC or Fox, they're the worst so far when it comes to the BS. They deserve to be bashed. 

High ratings mean nothing, as I said most people double check anything from Fox, people who watch whatever News Source will watch it but CNN getting called out on it's biased reporting, the people they bring on and for their overall quality is something that hasn't happened until now.

Your defending and getting upset over a News Source that's been outed is funny. Fox has been outed long ago and as of late isn't as bad as CNN. All sources which put out BS need to be called out, CNN just happens to be the one peddling the most bullshit. So it's pretty logical to blast the newcomer who's still partially considered unbiased when they're not, more so than the others when that one is clearly going above and beyond the others in it's silliness.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I swear. The Libs in here whine thay all i do is "Troll" and they make more outrageous BS posts than I've ever made. Yall wonder why my posts aren't ever serious when you don't need ME debunking you. ^ Sally just did it for you.


----------



## Stadhart02

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Trump is an all time legend for the way he completely dismissed the BBC in that press conference....about time someone stood up to that taxpayer funded, liberal monster


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*






Great video from Crowder.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> I'm using actual logic, not sure what you're using. CNN is outputting the most nonsense and fake news right now. Fox has been talked about for years, most people double check when it comes to Fox news. For a long time CNN was considered a mostly valid source of News, now they been completely exposed.
> 
> The fact is until recently CNN has been blameless but compared to MSNBC or Fox, they're the worst so far when it comes to the BS. They deserve to be bashed.
> 
> High ratings mean nothing, as I said most people double check anything from Fox, people who watch whatever News Source will watch it but CNN getting called out on it's biased reporting, the people they bring on and for their overall quality is something that hasn't happened until now.
> 
> Your defending and getting upset over a News Source that's been outed is funny. Fox has been outed long ago and as of late isn't as bad as CNN. All sources which put out BS need to be called out, CNN just happens to be the one peddling the most bullshit. So it's pretty logical to blast the newcomer who's still partially considered unbiased when they're not, more so than the others when that one is clearly going above and beyond the others in it's silliness.


Again, the original post puts most of the blame on CNN because he said they were a massive network that send reports to other countries (do we get to vote in your elections? :lol). Your rebuttal that my trolling with FOX news doesn't count because they have been known as a BS factory makes no sense.

How can higher ratings mean nothing? Doesn't that mean more people are watching? The next president of the united states places extra emphasis on ratings all the time. More people factcheck FOX than CNN so that means their BS doesn't count? Are you saying Fox viewers will take the checkers seriously? If nobody was calling out CNN until now, why have their reputation taken hit even before the elections? CNN, Fox News, MSNBC all stood for the MSM that people like you have shitted on for years even before the election. Again, explain your logic.

I'm defending them because the outrage against all corporate media is getting out of hand. CNN was rightfully blasted for trying to make news similar to sports. The current blasting them for bias or false narrative when the other two big cable news network are far worse at it is completely bullshit. Blasting them for adopting a similar strategy as the market leader while excusing the original offenders because they have already been blasted is stupid. Sorry.



Beatles123 said:


> I swear. The Libs in here whine thay all i do is "Troll" and they make more outrageous BS posts than I've ever made. Yall wonder why my posts aren't ever serious when you don't need ME debunking you. ^ Sally just did it for you.


Implying I'm a Lib? I'm from Asia where every country is more conservative than America. Tell me again how many times Trumpers like you tried to ridicule the idea that Russia was interfering in the elections? Now even your messiah has admitted a possibility of that. :lol

I was one of the few here that kept saying Russia's intent was to undermine democracy and could care less who won. Well maybe Putin didn't want Hilary to win so by default was supporting Trump but that isn't the main goal. But the likes of you couldn't see past that and only saw it as pro-Hilary propaganda. 

Your posts aren't ever taken seriously because you are incapable of posting anything other than ranting or memes. You just parrot whoever disagree with the person that disagree with you and try to pretend those are your original thoughts. Think of Obama when your Medicaid checks stop coming.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> Again, the original post puts most of the blame on CNN because he said they were a massive network that send reports to other countries (do we get to vote in your elections? :lol). Your rebuttal that my trolling with FOX news doesn't count because they have been known as a BS factory makes no sense.
> 
> How can higher ratings mean nothing? Doesn't that mean more people are watching? The next president of the united states places extra emphasis on ratings all the time. More people factcheck FOX than CNN so that means their BS doesn't count? Are you saying Fox viewers will take the checkers seriously? If nobody was calling out CNN until now, why have their reputation taken hit even before the elections? CNN, Fox News, MSNBC all stood for the MSM that people like you have shitted on for years even before the election. Again, explain your logic.
> 
> I'm defending them because the outrage against all corporate media is getting out of hand. CNN was rightfully blasted for trying to make news similar to sports. The current blasting them for bias or false narrative when the other two big cable news network are far worse at it is completely bullshit. Blasting them for adopting a similar strategy as the market leader while excusing the original offenders because they have already been blasted is stupid. Sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> Implying I'm a Lib? I'm from Asia where every country is more conservative than America. Tell me again how many times Trumpers like you tried to ridicule the idea that Russia was interfering in the elections? Now even your messiah has admitted a possibility of that. :lol
> 
> I was one of the few here that kept saying Russia's intent was to undermine democracy and could care less who won. Well maybe Putin didn't want Hilary to win so by default was supporting Trump but that isn't the main goal. But the likes of you couldn't see past that and only saw it as pro-Hilary propaganda.
> 
> Your posts aren't ever taken seriously because you are incapable of posting anything other than ranting or memes. You just parrot whoever disagree with the person that disagree with you and try to pretend those are your original thoughts. Think of Obama when your Medicaid checks stop coming.


Implying Obamacare helped me :lmao


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> Implying Obamacare helped me :lmao


No. I'm implying Trump will take away your care even more.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> Again, the original post puts most of the blame on CNN because he said they were a massive network that send reports to other countries (do we get to vote in your elections? :lol). Your rebuttal that my trolling with FOX news doesn't count because they have been known as a BS factory makes no sense.
> 
> How can higher ratings mean nothing? Doesn't that mean more people are watching? The next president of the united states places extra emphasis on ratings all the time. More people factcheck FOX than CNN so that means their BS doesn't count? Are you saying Fox viewers will take the checkers seriously? If nobody was calling out CNN until now, why have their reputation taken hit even before the elections? CNN, Fox News, MSNBC all stood for the MSM that people like you have shitted on for years even before the election. Again, explain your logic.
> 
> I'm defending them because the outrage against all corporate media is getting out of hand. CNN was rightfully blasted for trying to make news similar to sports. The current blasting them for bias or false narrative when the other two big cable news network are far worse at it is completely bullshit. Blasting them for adopting a similar strategy as the market leader while excusing the original offenders because they have already been blasted is stupid. Sorry.


We both know you're playing the Devil's Advocate but I'll bite. 

How are you unable to comprehend that Fox and MSNBC aren't getting blasted as much because everyone knew they both were biased while CNN was thought to be unbiased and more factual. This turned out not to be the case so CNN getting more flack now is because they had a mostly untarnished reputation until they started showing their true colors. Nobody has let Fox or MSNBC or anyone else off the hook, they been roasted fairly often. CNN gets more flack lately because they keep getting worse about this BS. CNN has just gone utterly ridiculous.

Again ratings mean nothing, Howard Stern in the days of shock jock radio was pulling in tons of listeners, it wasn't because he was so great as job but because you had fans, people who hated him and curious people listening to him. Fox news is big but again their ratings mean nothing, has anything wrong they said been let off the hook? Nope! Anytime Fox fucks up, people notice. Fox isn't given magical leeway in the realm of the MSM, no conservative media does.

CNN has sucked for a while now but again, it wasn't until this election where they started to really show their colors. Yes before they been criticized but not as badly as most. If you cannot understand why people are blasting a News source thought to be unbiased and more truthful over another media source that's questionable then there is no use taking this conversation any further. You'll never get it. CNN tried to make it seem they were unbiased, Fox and MSNBC did not, CNN has been overall worse than Fox or MSNBC or even TYT lately and that's pretty sad. 

They tried to make themselves seem as something they were not, they got caught and now they reap the whirlwind!


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> We both know you're playing the Devil's Advocate but I'll bite.
> 
> How are you unable to comprehend that Fox and MSNBC aren't getting blasted as much because everyone knew they both were biased while CNN was thought to be unbiased and more factual. This turned out not to be the case so CNN getting more flack now is because they had a mostly untarnished reputation until they started showing their true colors. Nobody has let Fox or MSNBC or anyone else off the hook, they been roasted fairly often. CNN gets more flack lately because they keep getting worse about this BS. CNN has just gone utterly ridiculous.
> 
> Again ratings mean nothing, Howard Stern in the days of shock jock radio was pulling in tons of listeners, it wasn't because he was so great as job but because you had fans, people who hated him and curious people listening to him. Fox news is big but again their ratings mean nothing, has anything wrong they said been let off the hook? Nope! Anytime Fox fucks up, people notice. Fox isn't given magical leeway in the realm of the MSM, no conservative media does.
> 
> CNN has sucked for a while now but again, it wasn't until this election where they started to really show their colors. Yes before they been criticized but not as badly as most. If you cannot understand why people are blasting a News source thought to be unbiased and more truthful over another media source that's questionable then there is no use taking this conversation any further. *You'll never get it. CNN tried to make it seem they were unbiased, Fox and MSNBC did not,* CNN has been overall worse than Fox or MSNBC or even TYT lately and that's pretty sad.
> 
> They tried to make themselves seem as something they were not, they got caught and now they reap the whirlwind!


You kept saying CNN has been much worse at this than the other two major network but that's just not true. Fox employed a Trump booster in Hannity who has been sucking up to him every night on air for almost 18 months now. Fox consistently paint the narrative that Christianity is under attack in America over the years (remember war on Christmas? lol) while MSNBC has been pandering to SJW and bashing conservatives for a few years. How is CNN worse than the other two in creating the current partisanship in America?

Your whole basis in the argument is CNN was so great before (they weren't) so they deserve to get roasted even more now doesn't fit. Your ratings example with Howard Stern don't even make sense unless you are implying hate watchers make up a significant portion of Fox News watchers so they aren't really changing minds that much? Really what were you trying to get at here? Ratings = advertising revenue = pushing agenda that bring in ratings. Your president-elect seems to disagree that ratings don't matter. Your fellow Trumpers like to shit on MSNBC and CNN's poor ratings. So it seems ratings do mean something.

The bolded parts, have you watched Fox News at all? They can't stop using psychology trick to remind their viewers they are 'fair and balance' every segment.

Seems like you are trying to present yourself as holding CNN to a higher standard than other news sources just to shit on them. :shrug


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

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

- Vic


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> You kept saying CNN has been much worse at this than the other two major network but that's just not true. Fox employed a Trump booster in Hannity who has been sucking up to him every night on air for almost 18 months now. Fox consistently paint the narrative that Christianity is under attack in America over the years (remember war on Christmas? lol) while MSNBC has been pandering to SJW and bashing conservatives for a few years. How is CNN worse than the other two in creating the current partisanship in America?
> 
> Your whole basis in the argument is CNN was so great before (they weren't) so they deserve to get roasted even more now doesn't fit. Your ratings example with Howard Stern don't even make sense unless you are implying hate watchers make up a significant portion of Fox News watchers so they aren't really changing minds that much? Really what were you trying to get at here? Ratings = advertising revenue = pushing agenda that bring in ratings. Your president-elect seems to disagree that ratings don't matter. Your fellow Trumpers like to shit on MSNBC and CNN's poor ratings. So it seems ratings do mean something.
> 
> The bolded parts, have you watched Fox News at all? They can't stop using psychology trick to remind their viewers they are 'fair and balance' every segment.
> 
> Seems like you are trying to present yourself as holding CNN to a higher standard than other news sources just to shit on them. :shrug


Fox does what Fox does and MSNBC does what they do. While Fox did have Hannity, you had a few on Fox including Kelly that bashed Trump and were not high on him. They were not fully in unison behind Trump much like CNN was behind Clinton. Fox actually covered a lot of the bad press Trump got and the stories, CNN pretty much tried to ignore Clinton issues at all costs. They were not called the Clinton News Network for nothing. 

Fox and MSNBC both say stupid shit and again, I'm not saying CNN is making things worse, they've just looked completely bad by constantly fucking up. CNN was never the greatest ever but CNN WAS considered to be far more unbiased and truthful over their two biggest competitors. Go back early in this thread and you'll see people bashing anyone posting Fox news links, any links from Conservative sites and or hardcore lib sites but accepting CNN as being a good source. 

Ratings mean nothing because like in the case with Stern, he was one of the few shock jocks, you had a lot of reasons for his high ratings. Same can be said for Fox, how many Conservative News sources are there? It's basically just Fox. For the Left there is CNN, MSNBC, CBS and ABC. The viewers are more split up among these networks. If there was another Conservative News Source the ratings would be split with that, so the ratings are moot. Besides, despite the ratings has anyone ever really took what Fox says as gospel? Nope! So again it doesn't matter.

Also Trump supporters aren't a hive mind, CNN and MSNBC suck because they're terrible not because their ratings aren't great. The media is saturated with "Leftist" sources so much that a media outlet dedicated to News about Animals would probably compete in ratings. 

CNN getting roasted now is deserved, they grew based on the illusion they weren't biased and they were truthful, which well, wasn't true. CNN could easily fix this mess if they weren't constantly fucking up and making things worse for themselves. It's not just the Right that dislikes CNN but many of the Left who supported Bernie. Again, people knew what Fox and MSNBC stood for, CNN was questionable at best but when they got exposed it opened up a massive can of worms for them. It's that simple. It's like you asking me why the Do Gooder Preacher caught in a sex scandal is bigger news than the Politician and the Skanky Actress who were already known as being terrible people being caught in one. It's not rocket science.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/819440107866509312


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Instead of arguing over who is worse between FOX/CNN/MSNBC, maybe we should just tell all 3 of them to fuck off. Just a thought.

:draper2


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

At least we aren't in the UK where the police is "considering" a speech by an opposition party member a "hate incident". If you wanna know what mental retardation really looks like these days, Europe is kinda where you should start - not America. We're still fairly sensible and haven't completely lost everything to the libtards. Reason why I post this here is because while we're busy talking about "fascism" and "America turning into a dystopia", we should always remember that UK did it first and therefore we should never follow their lead. Ever. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...servative-party-speech-treated-hate-incident/



> *Professor 'didn't see' Amber Rudd speech he complained about as police treat it as a 'hate incident' *
> 
> 
> 
> The Oxford University professor who reported Amber Rudd to the police for "hate crime" has admitted he hadn't heard the speech he alleged she committed the crime in.
> The West Midlands Police have confirmed the Home Secretary's Conservative Party conference speech is being treated as a "hate incident" after Joshua Silver made an official complaint.
> He raised concerns after Ms Rudd warned that companies could be forced to publish the proportion of "international" staff on their books in a speech last October.
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Silver complained to the police that Ms Rudd had used "hate speech" when she suggested businesses could be "named and shamed" for failing to take on British workers.
> However, he admitted to the BBC's Daily Politics that he had based on his complaint on "feedback" from the speech and had only read a draft of the speech after Ms Rudd delivered it in Birmingham.
> He said Ms Rudd had made comments that “discriminated against foreigners” by “keeping lists”.
> 
> 
> 
> But he admitted that he had not listened to the speech – which did not include any reference to keeping lists of foreign workers.
> Prof Silver told the BBC: “I didn’t actually see the speech but I’ve read the draft. And I’ve looked at all the feedback that there was to the speech. I’ve read the speech carefully and I’ve looked at all the feedback.
> “It’s discriminating against foreigners, you pick on them and say we want to give jobs to British people and not to foreigners. It was interpreted that way.”
> 
> 
> 
> West Midlands police said no crime had been committed, but that the the complaint had to be recorded as a "non-crime hate incident".
> In a letter to Prof Silver, the police said the incident had "been recorded in line with the National Police Chiefs’ Council manual as a non-crime hate incident”.
> It follows guidance from the Police Chiefs Council which states: “Where any person, including police personnel, reports a hate incident which would not be the primary responsibility of another agency, it must be recorded regardless of whether or not they are the victim, and irrespective of whether there is any evidence to identify the hate element.”
> 
> 
> 
> In October Ms Rudd's proposal was branded " as "xenophobic" and as evidence of a "return of the Nasty Party".
> Ms Rudd has responded angrily to criticism by saying "don't call me a racist", adding that it was "disgraceful" to accuse her of being one just for talking about migration.
> A Home Office spokeswoman said: "This was not a hate crime. The Home Secretary has been crystal clear that hatred has absolutely no place in a Britain that works for everyone. "She's made countering hate one of her key priorities, indeed one of the first public interventions she made was to launch the Hate Crime Action Plan.


:draper2


----------



## GothicBohemian

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



stevefox1200 said:


> This a clip of the UN during the Cuban missile crisis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what the fuck happened?
> 
> Politicians used to be so badass, not only could they be bold but they could also be effective
> 
> now it seems to be mutually exclusive


Most people, even if they don't want to admit it, miss the days when political leaders were leaders, not men and women of no conviction beyond a vague understanding of being Left or Right. Canada elected Justin Trudeau, Instagram and selfie king, largely out of nostalgia for his charismatic, bold and badass father. The problem with strong leaders is that they tend to rule by their will, not the will of the people, and they have a tendency to fight with each other. I don't know if the modern, much more equally balanced in power and wealth than even a generation ago, world could handle too much strong leadership without a catastrophic war ensuing. 

I get why Trump won. I do. I think he's wrong for the job, and I feel the wrong people are being empowered - those who fear 'the other' (different race, religion, culture, social standing, gender, age and wealth) - but I understand why those who felt moved to vote did what they did. Many older women voted Hilary because they grew up in an age of overt sexism. Many young people voted Bernie or independent or Trump because they want either socialism, libertarianism or a return to a past they didn't live but admire from a distance - all things not part of the America they've grown up in. When times are too easy or too difficult there's always a yearning for change.


----------



## Stephen90

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> Instead of arguing over who is worse between FOX/CNN/MSNBC, maybe we should just tell all 3 of them to fuck off. Just a thought.
> 
> :draper2


I just watch CBS news on my phone. Time Warner which owns CNN donated a ton of money to the Clinton campaign. Fox News lied about the Iraq war for year's. MSNBC is SJW all the way.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Damn FriedTofu still so butthurt that all the seats at the cool kids table were taken by :trump 

Let's go a little deeper into the hurt:



> It was his own words admitting Russia might be responsible for the hacks after months of trolling the liberals no way it was possible. And you lot ate it up as gospel. :


This is the main go-to, something about :trump saying something or other and people Tofu is venting his exasperation on eating it up as gospel or whatever. Now I have yet to see an actual example of this gospel-eating from any of these people on the specific issues he accuses them of gospel-eating on, but accuracy is beside the point when the butthurt is strong. Like with this example, who here ate it up as gospel or whatever that Russia did not hack the DNC. Names, links and quotes would be appreciated. Not expected by any means, but appreciated.



> Huh? So the latecomer to the BS factory deserve to get most of the blame for the current state of partisanship in America while the original BS factory that is still the highest rated cable news network for a decade don't? What logic are you trying to use here?


Well I'm not sure what logic Tofu is trying to use here other than that his butt hurts and we all have to pay for that, because CNN was pushing a milquetoast kind of liberalism long before Fox News Channel came into existence with its own agenda of pushing resentful conservatism. Any assertion that CNN was or is a latecomer to "the BS factory" must be chalked up to simple ignorance or simple mendacity. Moving on...



> I'm defending them because the outrage against all corporate media is getting out of hand. CNN was rightfully blasted for trying to make news similar to sports. The current blasting them for bias or false narrative when the other two big cable news network are far worse at it is completely bullshit. Blasting them for adopting a similar strategy as the market leader while excusing the original offenders because they have already been blasted is stupid. Sorry.


Leaving irrelevant crying about ratings and other incoherent ramblings aside, CNN's honesty or lack thereof is not excused, mitigated, or aggravated by Fox's or MSNBC's honesty or lack thereof. This is a particularly inept example of what-aboutism. Behavior is good or bad on its own merits, not on how many fingers can be pointed elsewhere. 



> Implying I'm a Lib? I'm from Asia where every country is more conservative than America. Tell me again how many times Trumpers like you tried to ridicule the idea that Russia was interfering in the elections? Now even your messiah has admitted a possibility of that.


Again, we see the frustration stemming from the hurt butt pouring out as aspersions and generalizations. Again, quotes, names, and links would be appreciated. The same lack of expectation still applies. :trump ers like who? For all the shitposting Tofu's raw aching butt is doing, you'd think his smarting cheeks would be able to easily construct a smackdown of unassailable proportions. Yet what we get is this weak shit trickling down the leg. Since you're so interested in shitposting about it, why don't you tell us how many times? You seem quite confident in your sneering over the matter, surely you could easily assemble the documentation.



> I was one of the few here that kept saying Russia's intent was to undermine democracy and could care less who won. Well maybe Putin didn't want Hilary to win so by default was supporting Trump but that isn't the main goal. But the likes of you couldn't see past that and only saw it as pro-Hilary propaganda.


Who in this thread said these things you are sneering at them for and when, et cetry, et cetry. The broken record quality of butthurt is quite singular.



> Your posts aren't ever taken seriously because you are incapable of posting anything other than ranting or memes. You just parrot whoever disagree with the person that disagree with you and try to pretend those are your original thoughts. Think of Obama when your Medicaid checks stop coming.


Now here we have an interesting case of a person, in this case ButthurtTofu, being completely unaware of how astutely he has just analyzed his own character and behavior, while trying to castigate another's. 

If I could make a recommendation, a bit less obvious desperation will serve his posts well in the future.


----------



## DELETE

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



GothicBohemian said:


> Yes, yes it is. Once upon a time I found this thread heartbreaking; now I'm sitting back in awe at the absurdity of what's happening down in the US. Coming here is like peering into a wacky alt-right alt-news conspiracy conference where outsiders showed up to debate the merits of the movement.
> 
> So, right now, a C-list reality show star/businessman is soon to be inaugurated as the next POTUS and a lunatic is giving interviews saying he's anointed by God to stop aforementioned soon-to-be POTUS who, aside from his reality shows and business dealings, is also the subject of a possible intelligence dossier or 4chan prank that includes a story of him paying Russian prostitutes to piss in a bed that the Obamas slept in. POTUS-to-be is also really, really, bigly into Twitter.
> 
> Meanwhile, senate hearings are in progress dealing with confirmation of the proposed new white house team, consisting mainly of people known to support the opposing view of whatever committee they've been put up to lead and few of who have much, if any, international political experience but lots of money and lots of conflicts of interest. And his son-in-law; he wants a white house job for his son-in-law too. Oh, and mainstream media is all lies - as opposed to folks who report the 'real' news on independent websites and blogs. Somehow, all this craziness will fix America's problems, even though there's no real consensus across American society as to what those problems actually are, let alone which problems most need urgent attention.
> 
> This is fascinating. Has anyone agreed to perform at the inauguration yet? I mean other than the choir, the dancers and the kid?


we have a guy who has raped women, Mocked A disable reporter, and has owned four businesses that have been bankrupt as our next president. Great job america.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@DesolationRow @CamillePunk @AryaDark @Carte Blanche @MissSally; @Pratchett @Tater @birthday_massacre @Alkomesh; @Vic Capri @FriedTofu

https://capitalresearch.org/article/party-one-percent/



> *Which Party Is the Party of the 1 Percent?*
> _…and other elite questions _
> 
> Which of America’s two political parties is the party of the rich? Many people would say it’s the Republicans. The caricature, common in the 1930s, is that the GOP is the party of the plutocrat in the Monopoly game, complete with top hat and tails. A Pew Research poll found *62 percent of Americans believe the Republicans favor the rich.* But the data tell a different story.
> 
> First, the story is mixed where votes are concerned. Exit polls in recent presidential and congressional elections have shown that both parties receive substantial support from voters who make over $100,000 annually. And the stereotype falls apart when political contributions are examined: Democrats seem to come out ahead of Republicans in raising money from the richest precincts of the nation.
> 
> To shed more light on this question, the Capital Research Center (CRC) has conducted a new analysis of political contributions from the most affluent parts of the country during the 2013–14 campaign cycle (the most recent cycle with complete data).
> 
> *What This Study Measures*
> 
> The data on political giving are so vast and can be dissected in so many ways that no one study can ever be exhaustive. This particular study emphasizes, not who or what are the most powerful political donors in our system (think of the eternal arguments about the relative powers and influence of unions, corporations, and PACs) but rather, which party’s candidates receive the most contributions from America’s wealthy elites who live in the poshest locales.
> 
> In this study of rich donors, CRC has focused on donations by individuals (not by groups) that are given to individual candidates of the two major political parties, not to party committees or to other political actors like super PACs or unions. It’s reasonable to focus on the individuals who donate and receive these funds, given how many politicians and pundits imply that wealthy Americans regularly “buy” elections for the political party that’s supposedly biased toward the rich. But even if the parameters of this study were far broader, there’s little reason to believe the outcomes would significantly change. For example, federal spending by Super PACs in this same cycle skewed *$196.8 million “for Democrats/against Republicans,” versus $139.9 million “for Republicans/against Democrats,” according to the Center for Responsive Politics.*
> 
> In this analysis, CRC relied on data that combined giving to candidates running in local, state, and federal elections; *the data were originally compiled by the National Institute of Money in State Politics, a center-left group that operates the website FollowTheMoney.org.
> *
> 
> *Political Giving by “the 1 Percent”*
> 
> As journalists and scholars have shown in recent years, affluent Americans are concentrated in certain neighborhoods to a considerable extent—indeed, to a greater extent than in the past. Bill Bishop in his 2008 book The Big Sort illustrated how people with similar levels of education, income and wealth, and cultural attitudes have increasingly clustered in places filled with others of similar characteristics. The social scientist Charles Murray in his 2012 book Coming Apart showed how those at the very top of these scales are clustered in zip codes that he christened, “SuperZips.”
> 
> CRC’s study asks to which party do such people—who are much more likely than the ordinary voter to be able to afford sizeable discretionary spending—contribute their money?
> 
> The overall answer is that more money from the top 300 SuperZips in 2013–14 went to Democrats than Republicans, by a significant but not overwhelming margin, if you set aside those contributions over $1 million made by wealthy individuals to their own campaigns. (The largest self-funder in the cycle was Republican Bruce Rauner, who was elected governor of Illinois, but six of the ten largest self-funders in the cycle were Democrats. Seven of the ten failed to win election.)
> 
> This Democratic funding advantage is different from the picture of all contributions across the country made by persons from all levels of income. *Nationally, a total of $2,137 million was contributed to candidates in the 2013-14 cycle* (smaller digits are omitted as trivial and distracting, and the numbers rounded off). Of that, *$1,139 million was contributed to Republicans, $880 million to Democrats, and the remainder to others. In other words, Republicans received 53 percent of contributions; Democrats, 41 percent.* If we count only contributions to the two major parties, Republicans had a 56 percent to 44 percent lead. That’s a financial advantage for Republicans—indeed a slightly larger advantage than either party enjoyed in actual votes in the presidential and congressional elections of the last 30 years—but it’s not an overwhelming advantage. Both parties had substantial resources to pay for their candidates’ campaigns, and of course money given directly to candidates isn’t the only money that’s helping candidates win.
> 
> But when we shift our focus to the 300 zip codes across America that rank as the highest 1.4 percent of socio-economic status, using the formula for SuperZips created by Charles Murray,3 the picture is different. *Among all contributions, Republicans still had an advantage by $192 million to $175 million. But when we set aside self-funders’ million-dollar-plus contributions to their own campaigns (which by law are unlimited), the Democrats are ahead by $160 million to $129 million. In percentage terms, Democrats come out ahead in the SuperZip money race by 55 percent to 45 percent.*
> 
> Democrats have an even greater advantage when one focuses on the contributions—again, aside from those of million-dollar-plus self-funders—made by the lucky persons who live in neighborhoods and towns that have long been notably elite. These are the 14 locales Charles Murray identified as famously elite since at least 1960, including Chicago’s North Shore, Boston’s Brookline, the Philadelphia Main Line, Manhattan’s Upper East Side, and the like. *From these elegant precincts, Democrats raised twice as much money as Republicans—$82 million to $41 million.*
> 
> The Democrats’ fundraising advantage in affluent communities is not uniform across the country. There are metropolitan areas—Chicago, Dallas, Houston, and Atlanta, for example—where Republicans raise more than Democrats from the most affluent zip codes. In contrast, Democrats have an enormous advantage in what Charles Murray calls the Big Four metro areas—New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C.
> 
> The Big Four contain almost one-sixth of the nation’s population and a larger proportion of its SuperZips, many clustered together, as Murray notes, so that residents can drive—or be driven—miles without leaving one. Murray observes that “it is difficult to hold a nationally influential job in politics, public policy, finance, business, academia, information technology, or the media and not live in the areas surrounding” those four metropolises.
> 
> *The Power of the Big Four*
> 
> Rich oil and gas businessmen in places like, say, Dallas, may have a major influence on who’s the next president of ExxonMobil. But the rich folks in the Big Four make decisions that affect every American. The wealthy in San Francisco decide which conservatives to permaban from Twitter; in Los Angeles, what shows will appear on TV next season; in New York, what will lead in the evening news broadcasts; in D.C., what loopholes will be written into the next tax law and whether the Keystone pipeline will be built.
> 
> When examining the Big Four metropolitan-area zip codes, CRC broadens its analysis from the top 1.4 percent to the top 5 percent in socio-economic status. Among this elite, we find the *Democrats raising $179 million and the Republicans $93 million.* The numbers are even more skewed if we narrow that universe down to the core county or city in each metro area, and omit million-dollar-plus self-funders; that leaves *Democrats garnering $96 million, compared to a mere $30 million for Republicans.* In percentage terms, Democrats are receiving 66 percent (in the broader metro areas) and 76 percent (in the core areas) of the money contributed to partisan campaigns in these locales—an overwhelming advantage.
> 
> *Out-of-State Giving*
> 
> Some observers may argue that partisan contributions are not a fair measure of the party preferences of persons living in elite neighborhoods, because many affluent contributors may simply be donating for pragmatic reasons to state and local officials of the dominant party, which in many metro areas, and the Big Four in particular, is overwhelmingly likely to be Democratic. Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, for example, has said he made many of his local donations just to help his business, not because he agreed with the pols who received the money.
> 
> Luckily, the dataset CRC is using allows us to eliminate this phenomenon by looking only at contributions given to out-of-state candidates, a category which also simplifies the analysis by excluding self-funding candidates’ contributions to their own campaigns. Here are the total out-of-state contributions in the categories we have already examined. These numbers reinforce the fact that America’s elite across the nation have powerful sympathies toward the Democratic Party. And the more elite their neighborhood is in America’s most powerful cities, the more strongly they lean Democrat.
> 
> Top 300 zip codes nationwide (representing the top 1.4 percent of socio-economic status):
> *Democrats $71 million
> Republicans $47 million*
> (60 percent Democratic)
> 
> Big Four metropolitan areas’ zip codes in top 5 percent by socio-economic status:
> *Democrats $77 million
> Republicans $42 million*
> (65 percent Democratic)
> 
> Big Four central-city zip codes in top 5 percent of socio-economic status:
> *Democrats $48 million
> Republicans $21 million*
> (70 percent Democratic)
> 
> *Conclusion*
> 
> These data are powerful evidence that affluent Americans in the most elite locales contribute *significantly more money to Democrats than Republicans.* The data also show that Democrats raise a notable chunk of their campaign money in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C. Democratic candidates and party officials attending affluent contributors’ fundraisers evidently have to spend a lot of time in airliners or private jets flying coast to coast across the country, while Republican candidates and party officials have to make significantly more fundraising stops, staggered across the giant landmass of America between the two coasts.
> 
> Half a century ago, many liberal commentators argued that Democrats, as the party whose policies allegedly represented the interests of lower-income Americans, had an unfair disadvantage in raising money for campaigns, because they couldn’t compete with Republicans for access to the checkbooks of the wealthy. The data presented here make clear that that argument, regardless of whether it was valid then, has no validity today.
> 
> These figures also show that both parties are capable of raising substantial and roughly similar sums of money. The Democrats’ advantage in the 2013–14 cycle may owe something to the fact that their party held the White House and a Senate majority in those years, and that the potential support the Republicans could enjoy from their majority in the House of Representatives was diminished by that chamber’s fractiousness. But if the goal is to ensure that each major party has the capacity to raise enough money to be seriously competitive with the other, it seems no change in current laws or arrangements is required.
> 
> Though perhaps a change in rhetoric is needed: *the retirement of the meme that the Republicans are the party of the rich. If either party is the party of the rich, it is the Democrats.*


Although this is not directly related to Trump or the election I felt this was an extremely important article and study to share with all of you considering some of the conversations that have taken place for months. This is an extremely interesting story and I have bolded what I think are the most important points. After reading this, I think I am able to say a couple of key points:

* Of course it points out the obvious, that both parties are taking an extreme amount of money for their campaigns from some very rich sources. The idea that one party is for the working man and the other for the rich is complete and utter bullshit. Both of them are looking after the interests of those who donate to them, if it weren't obvious to you then it should be after reading this.

* Overall whilst both parties take huge money, it is actually the Democrats who now are taking more money and can be argued as the party of the rich. The truth is both of them are which is why this two party system is horrible for the United States. But once and for all and I'm looking at some of you liberals in this thread: the argument that the Republicans are the "party of the rich" whilst the Democrats are not is complete and utter bullshit. You can no longer point fingers and play partisan hackery with your politics. It is time to admit that your party is not abstained when it comes to this issue. It is in fact the worst of the two.

I find this fascinating because it completely shreds apart the narrative that has been built up for decades at this current time. It is time to stop pointing fingers and saying "Oh but your side is worse!" BULLSHIT.

I just hope that not only you all enjoyed reading the report as much as me that that some of you wake up. I fear however that the cycle will continue somehow.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Let's argue with each other without using trollish terms like butt hurt.

In other words argue, but don't troll people.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



L-DOPA said:


> The idea that one party is for the working man and the other for the rich is complete and utter bullshit. Both of them are looking after the interests of those who donate to them, if it weren't obvious to you then it should be after reading this.


Dueling donor classes.



MrMister said:


> Let's argue with each other without using trollish terms like butt hurt.
> 
> In other words argue, but don't troll people.


Except if they are Packers fans. Then it's fair game. :garrett2


----------



## A-C-P

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> Dueling donor classes.
> 
> 
> 
> Except if they are Packers fans. Then it's fair game. :garrett2


:rodgers2 going to DELETE :dak & :zeke


Hello @MrMister :trump


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

my tags never work :brady6

Dallas can't really lose here. They lose the game, eh they're led by rookies. They win, :dak :zeke


on topic hello everyone are drugs legalized yet?


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> *
> Ratings mean nothing because like in the case with Stern, he was one of the few shock jocks, you had a lot of reasons for his high ratings. Same can be said for Fox, how many Conservative News sources are there? It's basically just Fox. For the Left there is CNN, MSNBC, CBS and ABC. The viewers are more split up among these networks. If there was another Conservative News Source the ratings would be split with that, so the ratings are moot. Besides, despite the ratings has anyone ever really took what Fox says as gospel? Nope! So again it doesn't matter.*


I'll bite!

The right still constantly pushing that victim mentality, struggling against the tide mentality. 'We only get one news network whereas you have 4!!!' Even when you've just absolutely flogged your opponents by any metric you want to measure, you're still acting like the world is against you.

You say ratings mean nothing, then you contradict that with trying to justify The Right Network's big ratings by calling all the other channels Leftist. It's bullshit. You can't just act like 4 other networks are on one side versus The Lone Wolf Fox, that's ridiculous. There's plenty of internet conservative news sources out there that get posted in here all the time, that are gaining new followers all the time, you can't discount that.

Plenty of people do take Fox as gospel. If they thought it was bullshit they wouldn't watch. Plenty of people do believe it's fair and balanced. 


You can't talk shit about the media and pick and choose who you blame when they're all part of the 24 hour whirlwind which favours filling up space over the quality of the content. 

It doesn't matter what channel has received what criticism in the past has it? We all need to live in the now. Trump refusing to take questions from a channel he doesn't like is childish and weak. If he's the Master Communicator he projects then he should have no trouble answering their questions.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> I'll bite!
> 
> The right still constantly pushing that victim mentality, struggling against the tide mentality. 'We only get one news network whereas you have 4!!!' Even when you've just absolutely flogged your opponents by any metric you want to measure, you're still acting like the world is against you.
> 
> You say ratings mean nothing, then you contradict that with trying to justify The Right Network's big ratings by calling all the other channels Leftist. It's bullshit. You can't just act like 4 other networks are on one side versus The Lone Wolf Fox, that's ridiculous. There's plenty of internet conservative news sources out there that get posted in here all the time, that are gaining new followers all the time, you can't discount that.
> 
> Plenty of people do take Fox as gospel. If they thought it was bullshit they wouldn't watch. Plenty of people do believe it's fair and balanced.
> 
> 
> You can't talk shit about the media and pick and choose who you blame when they're all part of the 24 hour whirlwind which favours filling up space over the quality of the content.
> 
> It doesn't matter what channel has received what criticism in the past has it? We all need to live in the now. Trump refusing to take questions from a channel he doesn't like is childish and weak. If he's the Master Communicator he projects then he should have no trouble answering their questions.


Why?

Ratings don't mean anything. Also those four sources are mostly leftist, only Fox the one that states it's Conservative, that's not hard to understand. The big four split up viewers between themselves whereas if you're Conservative only Fox caters to this demographic. So there is no contradiction. We're also talking about the MSM, TV news, yes there are other Conservative or Right leaning media out there but nothing on par with MSNBC, Fox, CNN, CBS or ABC and that's a fact.

Plenty of people watch Fox, that doesn't mean that what they say isn't criticized nor ignored, in fact the opposite. 

I'm not picking and choosing favorites, they all suck. My whole point is that CNN got exposed so they're being roasted moreso than Fox or MSNBC LATELY because they acted as if they were unbiased and because of their actions during the election. The entire MSM sucks. They all have their agendas but this acting like CNN doesn't deserve the flack they're getting is silly.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> Why?
> 
> Ratings don't mean anything. Also those four sources are mostly leftist, only Fox the one that states it's Conservative, that's not hard to understand. The big four split up viewers between themselves whereas if you're Conservative only Fox caters to this demographic. So there is no contradiction. We're also talking about the MSM, TV news, yes there are other Conservative or Right leaning media out there but nothing on par with MSNBC, Fox, CNN, CBS or ABC and that's a fact.
> *
> Plenty of people watch Fox, that doesn't mean that what they say isn't criticized nor ignored, in fact the opposite. *
> 
> I'm not picking and choosing favorites, they all suck. My whole point is that CNN got exposed so they're being roasted moreso than Fox or MSNBC LATELY because they acted as if they were unbiased and because of their actions during the election. The entire MSM sucks. They all have their agendas but this acting like CNN doesn't deserve the flack they're getting is silly.


You can't say ratings mean nothing - Ratings = More viewers reached, more influence, wider net. How can you not see that?
It's like saying the WWF/E ratings in the year 2000 for example didn't give them more influence and power via television than they have now when they have much lower ratings. 


The other networks are criticised and ignored then by their viewers too. Everything you've said for FOX can be said for your so-called leftist networks, so it works the other way too. Fox doesn't accept they're are right leaning I don't why you.

No one is saying CNN doesn't deserve flack, they're saying don't act like the others including the right sources don't deserve the same.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> You can't say ratings mean nothing - Ratings = More viewers reached, more influence, wider net. How can you not see that?
> It's like saying the WWF/E ratings in the year 2000 for example didn't give them more influence and power via television than they have now when they have much lower ratings.
> 
> 
> The other networks are criticised and ignored then by their viewers too. Everything you've said for FOX can be said for your so-called leftist networks, so it works the other way too. Fox doesn't accept they're are right leaning I don't why you.
> 
> No one is saying CNN doesn't deserve flack, they're saying don't act like the others including the right sources don't deserve the same.


Ratings don't mean anything when it comes to how it's perceived. Dancing with the Stars gets more viewers than most shows, does that mean it's a good show? No!

Ratings mean absolutely dick in the political spectrum because there so many reasons for the viewership, as I said CNN or any Left leaning media would increase in viewership if it wasn't so saturated. Fox is Right leaning, they can claim they're not but they are, it's the only place on the TV for Right leaning people. It's one source while the others compete against each other. Ratings doesn't protect anyone against critique. 

I don't get what you're saying about other networks being criticized? Nobody said they were not, the whole point was CNN at one time was considered fairly unbiased and truthful. There is a reason why Fox news has been called Faux News, they were criticized far more than anyone else, again not defending them just stating the obvious.

Again, they ALL fucking suck, they ALL lie. They ALL have agendas. Most people double check anything said by the MSM, if ratings statement was right Fox would be the king of truthful news but the general consensus is they are not so ratings haven't done anything to help them in that regard. CNN just got away with their nonsense for a while. They'll get roasted for a little while more and eventually people will move onto another MSM source. 

Anyways I'm tired of this, story short all MSM sucks, they all need to be held accountable, they all need to stop pushing opinion as fact and they all need to be fact checked.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*






I think is relevant to your discussion @Miss Sally @yeahbaby!


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I'm sending Trump a letter asking him to invade Cuba, Nicaragua and Vietnam 

Preferably all at the same time 

Come on Trump!

We got go back and make things right, those sandinistas won't stand a chance this time


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> Ratings don't mean anything when it comes to how it's perceived. Dancing with the Stars gets more viewers than most shows, does that mean it's a good show? No!
> 
> Ratings mean absolutely dick in the political spectrum because there so many reasons for the viewership, as I said CNN or any Left leaning media would increase in viewership if it wasn't so saturated. Fox is Right leaning, they can claim they're not but they are, it's the only place on the TV for Right leaning people. It's one source while the others compete against each other. Ratings doesn't protect anyone against critique.
> 
> I don't get what you're saying about other networks being criticized? Nobody said they were not, the whole point was CNN at one time was considered fairly unbiased and truthful. There is a reason why Fox news has been called Faux News, they were criticized far more than anyone else, again not defending them just stating the obvious.
> 
> Again, they ALL fucking suck, they ALL lie. They ALL have agendas. Most people double check anything said by the MSM, if ratings statement was right Fox would be the king of truthful news but the general consensus is they are not so ratings haven't done anything to help them in that regard. CNN just got away with their nonsense for a while. They'll get roasted for a little while more and eventually people will move onto another MSM source.
> 
> Anyways I'm tired of this, story short all MSM sucks, they all need to be held accountable, they all need to stop pushing opinion as fact and they all need to be fact checked.


Ratings don't make a show good no, however that is a matter of taste and personal opinion. What can't be denied is that a show A with double the viewers of show B has more influence and power. 

Maybe you're underestimating or I'm overestimating the effect the media and entertainment we consume has over us, but if does have an effect - therefore the source and it's reach and viewership does matter.

Also, I disagree that most poeple check anything said by the MSM. No they don't. They can't be bothered. They don't have the time, or they don't have the inclination. The networks know this, that's why the employ people who shout the loudest over those who have the most to say.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

http://www.aim.org/don-irvine-blog/...laughters-the-competition-in-primetime-debut/



> Fox News’ Tucker Carlson got off to a roaring start in his primetime debut Monday night by easily outdistancing both MSNBC and CNN, proving at least for now that the decision to slide him into Megyn Kelly’s old timeslot was an excellent one.
> 
> Carlson averaged 493,000 viewers in the key 25-54 demo, beating out CNN’s town hall special with Bernie Sanders (414,000) and The Rachel Maddow Show (324,000).
> 
> Overall, Tucker Carlson Tonight averaged 2.699 million total viewers, nearly beating the combined total of MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show (1.369 million) and CNN’s town hall special (1.357 million).
> 
> Compared to Kelly’s numbers on the same day last year, Carlson was up 27 percent in total viewers and a whopping 45 percent in the key 25-54 demographic, showing that Fox News may not wind up missing Kelly as much as everyone thought.


Tucker Carlson fucking slaying it in primetime. :banderas


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



deepelemblues said:


> Damn FriedTofu still so butthurt that all the seats at the cool kids table were taken by :trump
> 
> Let's go a little deeper into the hurt:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the main go-to, something about :trump saying something or other and people Tofu is venting his exasperation on eating it up as gospel or whatever. Now I have yet to see an actual example of this gospel-eating from any of these people on the specific issues he accuses them of gospel-eating on, but accuracy is beside the point when the butthurt is strong. Like with this example, who here ate it up as gospel or whatever that Russia did not hack the DNC. Names, links and quotes would be appreciated. Not expected by any means, but appreciated.


Just use the search function in the forums to find examples. I'm not falling for your troll trap to make me do stupid work. Off the to of my head I can remember the various memes of Hillary will start WW3 with Russia if she won but Trump won't because reasons. As for the gospel that Russia didn't hack the DNC, many of you were quoting Julian Assange's word that his source wasn't Russia as truth over your own American intelligence community?





> Well I'm not sure what logic Tofu is trying to use here other than that his butt hurts and we all have to pay for that, because CNN was pushing a milquetoast kind of liberalism long before Fox News Channel came into existence with its own agenda of pushing resentful conservatism. Any assertion that CNN was or is a latecomer to "the BS factory" must be chalked up to simple ignorance or simple mendacity. Moving on...


By your logic, ALL media are BS factory and there is no use for journalism in the world because nobody can escape bias. My assertion that they are a latecomer to the BS factory is the shift towards Fox's business model.





> Leaving irrelevant crying about ratings and other incoherent ramblings aside, CNN's honesty or lack thereof is not excused, mitigated, or aggravated by Fox's or MSNBC's honesty or lack thereof. This is a particularly inept example of what-aboutism. Behavior is good or bad on its own merits, not on how many fingers can be pointed elsewhere.


 Except, the argument was placing most of the blame on one network while excusing the other two because CNN is held to a higher standard. Try to keep up.



> Again, we see the frustration stemming from the hurt butt pouring out as aspersions and generalizations. Again, quotes, names, and links would be appreciated. The same lack of expectation still applies. :trump ers like who? For all the shitposting Tofu's raw aching butt is doing, you'd think his smarting cheeks would be able to easily construct a smackdown of unassailable proportions. Yet what we get is this weak shit trickling down the leg. Since you're so interested in shitposting about it, why don't you tell us how many times? You seem quite confident in your sneering over the matter, surely you could easily assemble the documentation.


There are literally thousands of pages of posts to look through to find your BS. I am not going to waste my time doing that just to prove a point here.



> Who in this thread said these things you are sneering at them for and when, et cetry, et cetry. The broken record quality of butthurt is quite singular.


Posters like Beatles that could only post memes and parrot others for one. :shrug





> Now here we have an interesting case of a person, in this case ButthurtTofu, being completely unaware of how astutely he has just analyzed his own character and behavior, while trying to castigate another's.
> 
> If I could make a recommendation, a bit less obvious desperation will serve his posts well in the future.


Are you disagreeing with my assessment of his posting history? Hey they say we project what we are unto others. Maybe we are all the same here? Maybe deep down your doubt in the president elect is seeping through in your desperation to put down the source of the criticisms instead of talking about it.


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



L-DOPA said:


> @DesolationRow @CamillePunk @AryaDark @Carte Blanche @MissSally; @Pratchett @Tater @birthday_massacre @Alkomesh; @Vic Capri @FriedTofu
> 
> https://capitalresearch.org/article/party-one-percent/
> 
> 
> 
> Although this is not directly related to Trump or the election I felt this was an extremely important article and study to share with all of you considering some of the conversations that have taken place for months. This is an extremely interesting story and I have bolded what I think are the most important points. After reading this, I think I am able to say a couple of key points:
> 
> * Of course it points out the obvious, that both parties are taking an extreme amount of money for their campaigns from some very rich sources. The idea that one party is for the working man and the other for the rich is complete and utter bullshit. Both of them are looking after the interests of those who donate to them, if it weren't obvious to you then it should be after reading this.
> 
> * Overall whilst both parties take huge money, it is actually the Democrats who now are taking more money and can be argued as the party of the rich. The truth is both of them are which is why this two party system is horrible for the United States. But once and for all and I'm looking at some of you liberals in this thread: the argument that the Republicans are the "party of the rich" whilst the Democrats are not is complete and utter bullshit. You can no longer point fingers and play partisan hackery with your politics. It is time to admit that your party is not abstained when it comes to this issue. It is in fact the worst of the two.
> 
> I find this fascinating because it completely shreds apart the narrative that has been built up for decades at this current time. It is time to stop pointing fingers and saying "Oh but your side is worse!" BULLSHIT.
> 
> I just hope that not only you all enjoyed reading the report as much as me that that some of you wake up. I fear however that the cycle will continue somehow.


Anyone who still thinks America should do away with the Electoral College after reading this article really isn't paying attention to the fine details. The most important information is right there, hidden in plain sight.



MrMister said:


> my tags never work :brady6


@MrMister - You just have to know what you are doing. :kobe4


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> http://www.aim.org/don-irvine-blog/...laughters-the-competition-in-primetime-debut/
> 
> 
> 
> Tucker Carlson fucking slaying it in primetime. :banderas


That's only because FOX viewers are sexist and didn't want to watch a woman telling them what's what, preferring a white guy who resembles Andrew McCarthy from the good ol' days.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



L-DOPA said:


> I think is relevant to your discussion @Miss Sally @yeahbaby!


If you mean that, this guy, whoever he is and whatever his qualifications are, is clearly a Rightie and thus only singles out CNN then yes I see your point. 

I do note the massive irony of taking lessons about fake news or any lessons for that matter, from some guy who shows no other skills than having a youtube account, the ability to splice together clips and producing fake laughs at Trump's hilarious antics.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> If you mean that, this guy, whoever he is and whatever his qualifications are, is clearly a Rightie and thus only singles out CNN then yes I see your point.
> 
> I do note the massive irony of taking lessons about fake news or any lessons for that matter, from some guy who shows no other skills than having a youtube account, the ability to splice together clips and producing fake laughs at Trump's hilarious antics.


:lmao.

He is a liberal and clearly states near the start that all the MSM is guilty of what he is talking about including Fox News. He is only singling CNN out RIGHT NOW because they are the ones who have been the most egregious lately.

You clearly only hear what you want to hear.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



L-DOPA said:


> :lmao.
> 
> He is a liberal and clearly states near the start that all the MSM is guilty of what he is talking about including Fox News. He is only singling CNN out RIGHT NOW because they are the ones who have been the most egregious lately.
> 
> You clearly only hear what you want to hear.


Oops you got me! Guess I shouldn't have skipped through the video, it was just so fucking boring I couldn't be bothered sticking with it! I have an excuse I'm at work.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



> The Times of London first reported that Steele, the 52-year-old co-director of a private intelligence company, worked with former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko.
> 
> Steele was assigned to the Russian operative, who left his home country after writing a book accusing his government of a false flag apartment bombing that led to a war in Chechnya, as a case officer, The Telegraph reported.


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...worked-poisoned-russian-spy-article-1.2945107 

Interestingly the British Spy from whom the claim that Trump hired Russian Prostitutes to piss on him and the Russian Gov have it on film comes, used to work with the ex Russian spy who exposed the apartment bombings that lead to the Chechnya war as a false flag operation and was then assassinated using plutonium poisoning.


----------



## Lady Eastwood

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Going to vent for a moment here.

It irks my balls when people who don't live in America and gave 0 fucks about politics in general suddenly 'have a voice' now that Trump has been elected. Saw the wife of a friend post on facebook the CNN video and makes a comment about it, that this is 'what you chose, good luck'.

A few things.

First off, please fuck off. You don't live in the country, and, the country's leader you live in (Trudeau) is a stupid ass motherfucking idiot. Trump may end up the same, or worse, but, until he is in office, plz shut it.

Second, I believe he should have responded to the guy properly, HOWEVER, his anger is understandable. CNN ran with this story, as if it were 100% fact, without even provided any credible sources or even any video. If you are going to run a story, have some fucking proof. Otherwise, yes, you ARE running fake news.

I believe CNN was also very pro-Hillary, were they not? I could be wrong, but, I thought I had read that before.

Trump says stupid stuff (like how he talks about his daughters is just fucking creepy), BUT, he often acts like a regular human being. He gets angry when people lie about him (not that he has never lied), which anyone in his shoes would be angry if a story like this ran with no proof. 

I knew it was stupid and fake when they announced this shit because Putin and Trump are buddy-buddy, so, Russia wouldn't need to go to this length for any reason.

Stupid fucking story.


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

The absolute BEST thing about TRUMP winning, other than HILLARY LOST, are those 4 or 5 SUPREME COURT JUSTICES he will be appointing over time . . . 

That will give a LONG-TERM Conservative MAJORITY in the Supreme Court.

NOW, it's time to DEFROST the "SNOWFLAKES" and DRAIN THE SWAMP !!!


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Outrageous sexual accusations (suddenly silent you notice), the Popular vote, the Electoral College, condescending celebrity videos, Putin, Meryl Streep and now pissing with Russian prostitutes :lmao I wonder what's next on the wheel of fortune



Alkomesh2 said:


> http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...worked-poisoned-russian-spy-article-1.2945107
> 
> Interestingly the British Spy from whom the claim that Trump hired Russian Prostitutes to piss on him and the Russian Gov have it on film comes, used to work with the ex Russian spy who exposed the apartment bombings that lead to the Chechnya war as a false flag operation and was then assassinated using plutonium poisoning.


The spy's real name is Johnny English


----------



## SovereignVA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

The 'Golden Showers' bit of the document :lmao

Holy shit is this bizarro world?


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The Ultimate Warrior said:


> Outrageous sexual accusations (suddenly silent you notice), the Popular vote, the Electoral College, condescending celebrity videos, Putin, Meryl Streep and now pissing with Russian prostitutes :lmao I wonder what's next on the wheel of fortune
> 
> 
> 
> The spy's real name is Johnny English


After they waste enough time on this and the Russian angle, it will be that lizard people are real and Trump is their leader. 

Ahhh, remember the birther issue? These people have their own birther issue with Trump and will come up with crazy shit!


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> After they waste enough time on this and the Russian angle, it will be that lizard people are real and Trump is their leader.


That would explain the ungodly orange glow.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

The thing to keep note of when all of these outrageous accusations and stories come up, liberals act all outraged and push them as undeniably true, and then the facts come out and debunk all the nonsense, is that you never see them circle back and admit they were wrong. They don't admit when they slander a man unjustifiably to undermine his presidency (which I don't actually mind when it's done in a non-partisan manner, and when it's based on facts :mj). This is why I hate to see Trump ever make conciliatory gestures or statements to appease these people. You can't appease them and they will take any such actions as a sign of weakness and attack even harder. Trump needs to be Trump and the GOP needs to honor their constituents. Don't give the parasites, the sycophants, and the bleeders of the greatness that is western civilization a fucking inch. Like it or not, this is a culture war and it's time for the right to learn how to play to win.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> Implying Obamacare helped me :lmao


Like I have been telling you. Trumpcare is going to fuck you over even more but you are too uninformed to even realize that. You will be lucky to even get coverage under Trump because of your preexisting conditions. 

your best bet would have been Bernie Sanders for the best healthcare but you were too ignorant to even realize that. You better hope you are not hte one of 28,000 a year that will die under Trumpcare once he gets rid of Obamacare. Not to mention the tens fo millions who will be losing healthcare.

All Trumpcare is going to do is give millions to the riches people and fuck over the middle and poor classes that you are in. 

Dont say I didnt warn you before but you are in for a rude awaking.




L-DOPA said:


> @DesolationRow @CamillePunk @AryaDark @Carte Blanche @MissSally; @Pratchett @Tater @birthday_massacre @Alkomesh; @Vic Capri @FriedTofu
> 
> https://capitalresearch.org/article/party-one-percent/
> 
> 
> 
> Although this is not directly related to Trump or the election I felt this was an extremely important article and study to share with all of you considering some of the conversations that have taken place for months. This is an extremely interesting story and I have bolded what I think are the most important points. After reading this, I think I am able to say a couple of key points:
> 
> * Of course it points out the obvious, that both parties are taking an extreme amount of money for their campaigns from some very rich sources. The idea that one party is for the working man and the other for the rich is complete and utter bullshit. Both of them are looking after the interests of those who donate to them, if it weren't obvious to you then it should be after reading this.
> 
> * Overall whilst both parties take huge money, it is actually the Democrats who now are taking more money and can be argued as the party of the rich. The truth is both of them are which is why this two party system is horrible for the United States. But once and for all and I'm looking at some of you liberals in this thread: the argument that the Republicans are the "party of the rich" whilst the Democrats are not is complete and utter bullshit. You can no longer point fingers and play partisan hackery with your politics. It is time to admit that your party is not abstained when it comes to this issue. It is in fact the worst of the two.
> 
> I find this fascinating because it completely shreds apart the narrative that has been built up for decades at this current time. It is time to stop pointing fingers and saying "Oh but your side is worse!" BULLSHIT.
> 
> I just hope that not only you all enjoyed reading the report as much as me that that some of you wake up. I fear however that the cycle will continue somehow.


Thre is so much bullshit in that article its not even funny.

Anyone who thinks the GOP is not for the top 1% and fucking over the middle class and poor more than the DNC really needs a reality check. All you have to do is look who gets all the tax breaks and who gets fucked over is single.

The republicans do favor the rich, anyone who claims otherwise is full of shit and anyone who believes they are not a morons and deserved what they get. GOP love people like you that believe the GOP are for the working class when its them who are fucking over the working class and cater to the rich. 

there is reason why the GOP and even Trump admitted why they love the low information voters because they believe the BS you are spewing about how the GOP is not for the rich. 

People keep getting dumber and dumber and this thread.


----------



## MillionDollarProns

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Beatles doesn't have my permission to die.


----------



## Mister Abigail

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

HES NOT MY PRESIDENT!!!


----------



## ecclesiastes10

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

he WILL be Xd!


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Alkomesh2 said:


> That would explain the ungodly orange glow.


Lol what if it was true and Alex Jones was right about everything?


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Oops you got me! Guess I shouldn't have skipped through the video, it was just so fucking boring I couldn't be bothered sticking with it! I have an excuse I'm at work.


Well you could have....you know, not posted then in response to the video if you didn't watch it. Would save some embarrassment .




birthday_massacre said:


> Thre is so much bullshit in that article its not even funny.
> 
> Anyone who thinks the GOP is not for the top 1% and fucking over the middle class and poor more than the DNC really needs a reality check. All you have to do is look who gets all the tax breaks and who gets fucked over is single.
> 
> The republicans do favor the rich, anyone who claims otherwise is full of shit and anyone who believes they are not a morons and deserved what they get. GOP love people like you that believe the GOP are for the working class when its them who are fucking over the working class and cater to the rich.
> 
> there is reason why the GOP and even Trump admitted why they love the low information voters because they believe the BS you are spewing about how the GOP is not for the rich.
> 
> People keep getting dumber and dumber and this thread.



:lmao And this my friends is the partisan hackery and outright denial that I am talking about. Your outright refusal to acknowledge the facts and all the emotional grovelling that comes with it is exactly why everyone...even the left leaning posters on here do not take you seriously. Your DNC partisan bullshit has been exposed time and time again.

Let me explain this one last time: *Both parties are clearly being donated to and work for the rich lobbyists and special interests.* Let me repeat that, *both.* This isn't an either or situation, this isn't a one is good and the other is bad situation, both are guilty of it and you refuse to accept it because it goes against your narrative of the Republicans being the sole party for the top 1% as you would like to call it, it simply isn't true and the facts in this article....more facts and statistics than you have ever given by the way, that proves this.

Nobody who has a shred of integrity in this thread claims that the Republicans under George W. Bush did not push corporate welfare, it's pretty clear that he did and that there is a good chance it will happen under Trump. Nobody denies that, it is you that denies that the Democrats are just as bad if not worse as proven by this study. I would certainly argue that they have become worse, considering the fact it was the Hillary Clinton wing of the party, the corporatist establishment wing of the party who have been and are still dominating the direction of the DNC. The progressive caucus are a minority within the DNC just as the libertarian wing of the RNC is a minority. Clinton took overall *$1.2 Billion* for her campaign and you still want to claim the Democrats are the party of the working man? Absolutely unbelievable denial of reality.

It is only a few politicians on BOTH sides that do not play ball with the establishment, you could probably count them on one or two hands and that has been clear from the beginning. It is only YOU at this point who wants to deny that the Democrats are now just as bad if not worse than the Republicans when it comes to the corruption and the money in politics. And it is making you look very bad indeed.


----------



## amhlilhaus

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Agreed. Both parties are in bed with the rich. Only the truly dedicated socialist and conservatives give two shits for the lower and middle class.

The politicians say whatever to their constituencies to get elected.

Only 2 things can change things: term limits and..... you figure it out 

I personally am not mad at the way things are. The country is still free enough you are responsible for your own condition.

No one but yourself, with FEW exceptions, are responsible for your choices and actions.

No one makes you broke or poor

No one makes you fat

No one makes you miserable

No one makes you on the right or left

Its all on you.

Obama, bush jr, or donald trump ruined your life if you think its shitty.

You did it yourself


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



L-DOPA said:


> Well you could have....you know, not posted then in response to the video if you didn't watch it. Would save some embarrassment .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :lmao And this my friends is the partisan hackery and outright denial that I am talking about. Your outright refusal to acknowledge the facts and all the emotional grovelling that comes with it is exactly why everyone...even the left leaning posters on here do not take you seriously. Your DNC partisan bullshit has been exposed time and time again.
> 
> Let me explain this one last time: *Both parties are clearly being donated to and work for the rich lobbyists and special interests.* Let me repeat that, *both.* This isn't an either or situation, this isn't a one is good and the other is bad situation, both are guilty of it and you refuse to accept it because it goes against your narrative of the Republicans being the sole party for the top 1% as you would like to call it, it simply isn't true and the facts in this article....more facts and statistics than you have ever given by the way, that proves this.
> 
> Nobody who has a shred of integrity in this thread claims that the Republicans under George W. Bush did not push corporate welfare, it's pretty clear that he did and that there is a good chance it will happen under Trump. Nobody denies that, it is you that denies that the Democrats are just as bad if not worse as proven by this study. I would certainly argue that they have become worse, considering the fact it was the Hillary Clinton wing of the party, the corporatist establishment wing of the party who have been and are still dominating the direction of the DNC. The progressive caucus are a minority within the DNC just as the libertarian wing of the RNC is a minority. Clinton took overall *$1.2 Billion* for her campaign and you still want to claim the Democrats are the party of the working man? Absolutely unbelievable denial of reality.
> 
> It is only a few politicians on BOTH sides that do not play ball with the establishment, you could probably count them on one or two hands and that has been clear from the beginning. It is only YOU at this point who wants to deny that the Democrats are now just as bad if not worse than the Republicans when it comes to the corruption and the money in politics. And it is making you look very bad indeed.


Sadly many Democrats won't accept this though it's pretty obvious when the party is supported by ultra rich Celebs and Hollywood, Tech giants, big business and various other wealthy donors. When Zuckerberg, Cook and Soros are donating to you, it's kind of hard to deny you're not working for the 1%.

What's funny is that many of these Celebs use cheap labor for everything, they're so rich yet still take advantage of the poor. You got "Leftists" like Cook who stand for LBGTQYDTYNB + rights, claims they need more diversity (Altho all their main guys are white) and helping people out yet they seek to hire foreign workers in the Tech industry, manufacture in places with pretty shady worker rights and try to cost cut at all times. Where is their support for all the Americans who went to College and vote Democrat? Nowhere! Because they don't care.

This is why the Democrats will never be Left truly, because for every rich Republican donor that the Republicans got, they have just as many if not more and people with large platforms to say what the people want to hear. If it wasn't for Wikileaks and the CNN debacle, people would still be thinking the Democrats love people! (They do love their taco bowl voters and needy latinos!) 

The Emperor has no clothes but still have the faithful claiming they do. Wake up people, both parties are bad but stop blaming the Republicans for everything when your shady as fuck party is doing the exact same stuff or worse. At least Republican voters are trying to change the party, can't say the same about the Democrat voters and the Democrats in charge who think the party is fine and it's everyone else.


----------



## Mister Abigail

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



ecclesiastes10 said:


> he WILL be Xd!


No because I'm Australian.


----------



## Alco

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Can we all agree that Trump's clothesline is badass, but his punching game needs some work? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Whatever the outcome of Trump's presidency, it's already clear that there's a major shift coming the Western worldview. Populist parties on both sides of the (outdated) spectrum are gaining ground and I am both intrigued and nervous at what the final outcome will be. I'm not sure I'm ready for a Trumpian or Putinian Europe :hmm: nor am I ready for some NeoCommunism bullshit that's becoming very popular in the southern part of my country and, coincidentally, other Southern European countries.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



L-DOPA said:


> Well you could have....you know, not posted then in response to the video if you didn't watch it. Would save some embarrassment .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :lmao And this my friends is the partisan hackery and outright denial that I am talking about. Your outright refusal to acknowledge the facts and all the emotional grovelling that comes with it is exactly why everyone...even the left leaning posters on here do not take you seriously. Your DNC partisan bullshit has been exposed time and time again.
> 
> Let me explain this one last time: *Both parties are clearly being donated to and work for the rich lobbyists and special interests.* Let me repeat that, *both.* This isn't an either or situation, this isn't a one is good and the other is bad situation, both are guilty of it and you refuse to accept it because it goes against your narrative of the Republicans being the sole party for the top 1% as you would like to call it, it simply isn't true and the facts in this article....more facts and statistics than you have ever given by the way, that proves this.
> 
> Nobody who has a shred of integrity in this thread claims that the Republicans under George W. Bush did not push corporate welfare, it's pretty clear that he did and that there is a good chance it will happen under Trump. Nobody denies that, it is you that denies that the Democrats are just as bad if not worse as proven by this study. I would certainly argue that they have become worse, considering the fact it was the Hillary Clinton wing of the party, the corporatist establishment wing of the party who have been and are still dominating the direction of the DNC. The progressive caucus are a minority within the DNC just as the libertarian wing of the RNC is a minority. Clinton took overall *$1.2 Billion* for her campaign and you still want to claim the Democrats are the party of the working man? Absolutely unbelievable denial of reality.
> 
> It is only a few politicians on BOTH sides that do not play ball with the establishment, you could probably count them on one or two hands and that has been clear from the beginning. It is only YOU at this point who wants to deny that the Democrats are now just as bad if not worse than the Republicans when it comes to the corruption and the money in politics. And it is making you look very bad indeed.


No one is saying the DNC is not in bed with the rich but to claim the democrats are more than the republicans is total bullshit.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Those on the bottom right of the political compass should get a chuckle out of this:


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*






Suck it you Emperor Palpatine﻿ looking motherfucker


----------



## december_blue

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

On a lighter note, the list of acts for his inauguration party has been revealed. This is from the Instagram page for the band 3 Doors Down.



> The "'Make America Great Again!' Welcome Celebration" will take place Thursday, January 19th and will be broadcast live to the nation from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. It will feature historic remarks from President-elect Trump and special appearances from Toby Keith, Jon Voight, Jennifer Holliday, DJ Ravidrums, The Piano Guys, Tim Rushlow ("Little Texas"), Larry Stewart ("Restless Heart"), Marty Roe ("Diamond Rio"), Lee Greenwood, and 3 Doors Down.
> 
> Information for free public events can be found at 58PIC2017.org
> 
> https://www.instagram.com/p/BPNjRtVjVqR/


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



> Comedian, TV personality and longtime Donald Trump foe Rosie O’Donnell on Wednesday evening called for the use of martial law to stop the president-elect's inauguration next week.
> 
> 
> The tweet appeared to be in response to U.S. intelligence agencies concluding that Russia interfered in the presidential election to help Trump and reports that Moscow may have sought to compromise the president-elect.
> 
> Reports emerged this week that Trump had been presented with evidence that Russia had sought to compile potentially damaging evidence against him, and O'Donnell appeared eager to delay him entering the Oval Office.
> 
> 
> While critics have expressed concern over conflicts of interest Trump brings to the presidency, there are no charges against him.
> 
> O’Donnell and Trump have feuded publicly for years. Just last week, O’Donnell tweeted, “DONALD TRUMP IS MENTALLY UNSTABLE,” linking to a report that a Trump biographer says the billionaire kicked him off a golf course over the weekend.


http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/314070-rosie-odonnell-supports-imposing-martial-law-to-stop-trump

First of all, its clear that she doesn't know what martial law actually is. Second, its also clear that Hollywood has no concept of reality.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Martial Law :lmao :lmao :lmao 

I also saw someone on Imgur comment that Mattis should be American president with hundreds of upvotes (I've even seen an article or two about it and have been shaking my head since). 

Never-Trumpers really have lost their fucking minds ... Wanting the military to have anything to do with government other than taking orders or having advisory positions is the absolute ULTIMATE in demanding TOTAL fascism ... Holy shite.


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Martial Law :lmao :lmao :lmao
> 
> I also saw someone on Imgur comment that Mattis should be American president with hundreds of upvotes (I've even seen an article or two about it and have been shaking my head since).
> 
> Never-Trumpers really have lost their fucking minds ... Wanting the military to have anything to do with government other than taking orders or having advisory positions is the absolute ULTIMATE in demanding TOTAL fascism ... Holy shite.


There is a certain Star Wars quote that works really well here... and some thought it applied only to the extreme right's "fascism".


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

3 Doors Down. Wow.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> No one is saying the DNC is not in bed with the rich but to claim the democrats are more than the republicans is total bullshit.


Well all the evidence I have seen and everybody else seemingly seems is contradicting what you think. There comes a point where you are denying what is right in front of your face.

But hey, if you have a recent study which shows the opposite then feel free to post it to counter what I have shared. Barring a few people, I have no love for the Republicans either so I'll be more than happy to read it .


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Martial Law :lmao :lmao :lmao
> 
> I also saw someone on Imgur comment that Mattis should be American president with hundreds of upvotes (I've even seen an article or two about it and have been shaking my head since).
> 
> Never-Trumpers really have lost their fucking minds ... Wanting the military to have anything to do with government other than taking orders or having advisory positions is the absolute ULTIMATE in demanding TOTAL fascism ... Holy shite.


Mattis is pretty badass

Really when you look at younger democracies the candidates are "Richest guy" vs. "Highest ranking guy in the military"

its about going back to basics


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

_The Comforting Fictions of Obama's Farewell Speech_

http://reason.com/archives/2017/01/13/the-comforting-convictions-of-obamas-far


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/13/russian-journalist-compares-trump-presser-putins-w/

Russian journalist compares Trump presser to Putin’s, warns: ‘Welcome to the era of bull****’

By Andrew Blake - The Washington Times - Friday, January 13, 2017
President-elect Donald Trump’s rare pre-inauguration press conference this week was rife with attacks against journalists and an outright refusal at times to answer their questions — nothing too unusual, Russian journalist Alexey Kovalev remarked afterwards, at least when compared with President Vladimir Putin’s own interactions with the media.
“Congratulations, U.S. media! You’ve just covered your first press conference of an authoritarian leader with a massive ego and a deep disdain for your trade and everything you hold dear,” Mr. Kovalev, a Moscow-based reporter, wrote in a widely-shared blog post published on Medium in the aftermath of the Wednesday press conference.
While Mr. Trump did in fact weigh in on topics involving his imminent administration and concerns thereof, the conference took a notably hostile turn towards the end when he launched a heated tirade against CNN reporter Jim Acosta before abruptly ending the event with many unanswered questions.
Mr. Kovalev, a frequent critic of the Kremlin who regularly reports on its propaganda efforts, said Mr. Trump’s behavior bore significant similarities with those of his soon-to-be Russian counterpart.
“Given that Putin is probably a role model for Trump, it’s no surprise that he’s apparently taking a page from Putin’s playbook,” the journalist wrote.
Assuming the president-elect stays on his current course after next week’s inauguration, Mr. Kovalev used his Medium post to share advice with American journalists he expects to endure similar treatment in the years to come.

“You’re in this for at least another four years, and you’ll be dealing with things Russian journalists have endured for almost two decades now,” he wrote.
Less subtly, Mr. Kovalev explained to his American colleagues: “Welcome to the era of bull***.”

“Facts don’t matter. You can’t hurt this man with facts or reason. He’ll always outmaneuver you. He’ll always wriggle out of whatever carefully crafted verbal trap you lay for him. Whatever he says, you won’t be able to challenge him,” he continued, evoking examples from Mr. Putin’s own previous press events.

In addition to facing opposition from the White House, the journalist said reporters should be wary of their own ilk in anticipation of Mr. Trump’s administration.
“These people are not your partners or brothers in arms. They are your rivals in a fiercely competitive, crashing market and right now the only currency in this market is whatever that man on the stage says,” he wrote. “It’s in this man’s best interests to pit you against each other, fighting over artificial scarcities like room space, mic time or, of course, his attention.”


----------



## Lady Eastwood

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> *People keep getting dumber and dumber and this thread.*


Just going to leave this here.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



stevefox1200 said:


> Really when you look at younger democracies the candidates are "Richest guy" vs. "Highest ranking guy in the military"


Yeah, I'm from one of those younger democracies that have this "highest ranking guy in the military" as its supreme leader. 

2 of them actually. 

One of them helped create the Taliban. The other was busier saving his government than saving his people from the Taliban. 

Military should stay with the military. They have no fucking clue how to run a civilian democracy because once you're in the military you are intentionally removed from civil life and forget what it's like. You're ideas around justice and how to achieve it are rotten to the core. 

I'm ok with military by itself as a separate institution, but never as the supreme leader of a country. Never.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Yeah, I'm from one of those younger democracies that have this "highest ranking guy in the military" as its supreme leader.
> 
> 2 of them actually.
> 
> One of them helped create the Taliban. The other was busier saving his government than saving his people from the Taliban.
> 
> Military should stay with the military. They have no fucking clue how to run a civilian democracy because once you're in the military you are intentionally removed from civil life and forget what it's like. You're ideas around justice and how to achieve it are rotten to the core.
> 
> I'm ok with military by itself as a separate institution, but never as the supreme leader of a country. Never.


I was being sarcastic about going back to basics

Personally I am fine with a general be president as long as doesn't think he can be both


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



stevefox1200 said:


> I was being sarcastic about going back to basics
> 
> Personally I am fine with a general be president as long as doesn't think he can be both


Ah. Missed that. I don't think a general can ever stop being one. That's why military kids are distinctly different from civilian kids. It's an actual thing.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Eisenhower is thought to have been a pretty good president. Pretty sure he's a consensus top 10 guy. I think even both parties respect him.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*






You know it had to sting Democrats that they were getting shut down by Joe Biden.

#Irony



> there is no debate. There is no debate! THERE IS NO DEBATE!


- Vic


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Catalanotto said:


> Just going to leave this here.


You are one of them and comical watching your posts in here. Trump said he loves people like you, the poorly educated and uninformed.


----------



## Lady Eastwood

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> You are one of them and comical watching your posts in here. Trump said he loves people like you, the poorly educated and uninformed.


My posts in this thread are only comical to the poorly educated and uninformed.


----------



## NotGuilty

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I don't understand why people are so afraid of :trump2 making America great again. In 4 years you will be thanking the people for electing such a caring individual.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



L-DOPA said:


> Well all the evidence I have seen and everybody else seemingly seems is contradicting what you think. There comes a point where you are denying what is right in front of your face.
> 
> But hey, if you have a recent study which shows the opposite then feel free to post it to counter what I have shared. Barring a few people, I have no love for the Republicans either so I'll be more than happy to read it .


Stop watching fox news then and get the facts. You are the one who is denying what is right in front of your face. 

Who are the ones who are always trying to cut welfare, planned parenthood, social security, medicare, think the min wage is too high etc etc, You know things that help the middle class and poor while giving tax breaks to the rich. That would be republicans. They are always raising taxes on the middle class and poor while cutting it for the rich. 

All you have to do is look at their policies to see but yeah dont let the facts get in your way.

Anyone that is middle class or poor and votes republican are just fucking themselves over.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

if you think the democrats aren't the party of the mega rich all you gotta do is look at political contributions over the last ten years

the richest people and corporations in wall street and silicon valley have given far more to the democratic party than to the republican party in that time period

the democratic party used to only get huge contributions from mega rich hollywood types and rich lawyers

now it's the masters of the universe in finance, the banksters, the currency manipulators, the tech megalomaniacs, the ultra wealthy globalists of all stripes who donate much much more to the democrats than to the republicans

the last time a republican received and spent more than a democrat in a presidential campaign was 2004

those who are super rich and also think that they're smarter and better than everyone else and their opinions about everything need to be socially dominant put their money on the democrats, probably because they know an intrusive and authoritarian government of the type that the democratic party wants offers them more opportunity to tilt the playing field in their direction and offers them more opportunity to stroke their egos by pushing their narcissism-driven opinions with the backing of the force of law.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Just finished watching that Trump press conference that had certain liberals clutching their pearls and fainting (absolutely nothing concerning in that press conference to me, but I'm not currently suffering from TDS). He ended it with his fucking "You're Fired" catchphrase talking about what he'd say to his sons if they did a bad job running his companies for the next 8 years. :lmao :done Way to keep me entertained, Mr. Trump. :mark:

That CNN reporter is probably going to win the "Most Gotten To" award of 2017. I know it's early but I feel confident on this.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> Just finished watching that Trump press conference that had certain liberals clutching their pearls and fainting (absolutely nothing concerning in that press conference to me, but I'm not currently suffering from TDS). He ended it with his fucking "You're Fired" catchphrase talking about what he'd say to his sons if they did a bad job running his companies for the next 8 years. :lmao :done Way to keep me entertained, Mr. Trump. :mark:
> 
> That CNN reporter is probably going to win the "Most Gotten To" award of 2017. I know it's early but I feel confident on this.


Trump showed once again what a baby he is and how he needs a safe space because he would not answer a question from CNN then called them fake news and the funniest part was he then took a question from someone from breitbart lol

Trump is scared of anyone who opposes him.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump showed once again what a baby he is and how he needs a safe space because he would not answer a question from CNN then called them fake news and the funniest part was he then took a question from someone from breitbart lol
> 
> Trump is scared of anyone who opposes him.


Mind if I throw some of my clothes in this spin cycle mate?


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

What question from CNN?

:trump BTFO Acosta so hard he didn't even get to ask a question, he sat down and shut up like the beta male he is :heston


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> Mind if I throw some of my clothes in this spin cycle mate?


All Trump does is projects, he is a baby. He is a pussy and cant take any criticism. Its always funny to hear the BS Trump spews out about others when its really him talking about himself.

Anyone says anything about Trump and at any hour he is tweeting and crying about it, then saying how bad that person is or how they suck at what ever they do LOL

People like you are pathetic that ignore all these facts.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> All Trump does is projects


Trump has done a lot of projects indeed. Remarkable business empire. Hope he has similar success in governance!


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> Trump has done a lot of projects indeed. Remarkable business empire. Hope he has similar success in governance!


yeah he is 2 billion in debt that is great not to mention his numerous failed businesses and bankruptcies. He has his money because his daddy gave it to him and bailed him out the first time he failed when he was young. But again not let the facts get in your way of your ignorance and stupidity.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Yeah, keep the personal jabs and antagonism out of the discussion. One can make their points without blanket attacks on the intelligence of others.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> But again not let the facts get in your way of your ignorance and stupidity.


Devastating.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Obama care done :trump

Panic in the streets, libs!


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



MillionDollarProns said:


> Beatles doesn't have my permission to die.


 I LOVE YOU TOO MAN. :trump3


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

every time i visit this thread, I wish I'd done it sooner. :trump

what a life


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



virus21 said:


>


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



virus21 said:


>


Jesus fucking Christ those people are retarded. They have no earthly idea how much they are hurting their own cause by doing stupid shit like this. I'd rather watch the world burn under right wing lunatics than ever side with people like that.


----------



## Genking48

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



virus21 said:


>


Why can't people ever post the original video but rather post it with someone talking over it or interrupting the video to give their input.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Genking48 said:


> Why can't people ever post the original video but rather post it with someone talking over it or interrupting the video to give their input.


I just put it up because its were I learned of it. But as you wish


----------



## Genking48

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



virus21 said:


> I just put it up because its were I learned of it. But as you wish


Thanks, much appreciated.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> Jesus fucking Christ those people are retarded. They have no earthly idea how much they are hurting their own cause by doing stupid shit like this. I'd rather watch the world burn under right wing lunatics than ever side with people like that.


Sometimes I wonder if they're just trolling Hollywood "Left" with this nonsense.

Rob Schneider is a little right leaning and he did a small piece a few years ago talking about how Right leaning people in Hollywood had to keep it to themselves unless they were Legends or too big to mess with or connected. He talked about how nearly everything was an agenda push and you kind of had to be on board. Politics in Hollywood was touchy and it was easy to offend people and hurt your career.

Freddie Prinze Jr also talked about the agenda pushing onto people, that it was pretty much saturated. You HAD to be on board with whatever was the hot topic at the time. 

I'd really love a Documentary on this but I doubt we'd get one because too many careers would be ended. Anyone you knew or liked could be blackballed. It's like speaking out about the child sexual exploitation or the exploitation of young men in women in Hollywood gets crushed.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

ROBERT REICH: THE LIES TRUMP TELLS TO TYRANNIZE

ROBERT REICH: THE LIES TRUMP TELLS TO TYRANNIZE
BY ROBERT REICH ON 1/13/17 AT 12:49 PM

Tyrants don’t allow open questioning, and they hate the free press. They want total control.

Try Newsweek for only $1.25 per week

That’s why Trump’s so-called “news conference” on January 11—the first one that he’s held in six months—wasn’t really a news conference at all.

1. Trump refused to answer questions from reporters who have run stories he doesn’t like, or from news outlets that have criticized him.

This is a blatant attempt to control the news media by making them reluctant to run negatives stories about Trump for fear they’ll be frozen out.

2. He loaded the audience with paid staffers who cheered his statements and jeered at reporters.

Never before has a president-elect or president held a news conference larded with paid staffers designed to give the impression that the media are divided between those who support him and those who criticize him.

3. He continued calling the media “dishonest.”

This is part of Trump’s continuing effort to discredit the press and to reduce public confidence in it.

4. He condemned individual news outlets .

Trump criticized CNN for dispensing “fake news,” called BuzzFeed “a pile of garbage” and sarcastically called the BBC “another beauty.”

Related: Robert Reich: Rallies and Lies. This Is How Tyranny Begins

5. He repeatedly lied, and the media in attendance weren’t allowed to question him on his lies.

A sampling of Trump lies culled from his “news conference”:

(1) “It’s very familiar territory, news conferences, because we used to give them on an almost daily basis.”

Wrong. His last news conference was July 27.

(2) Trump claimed credit for Chrysler and Ford announcing more U.S. car production.

Wrong. Sergio Marchionne, the Fiat Chrysler chief executive, said Chrysler’s plan had been in the works for more than a year and had nothing to do with Trump. Marchionne credited the decision to talks with the UAW.

Analysts say Ford’s decision to expand in Michigan rather than Mexico had mostly to do with the company’s long-term plans to invest in electric vehicles. It’s easier for companies to find highly skilled workers to build new products, such as electric cars, in the U.S.

(3) “When we lost 22 million names and everything else that was hacked recently, [the press] didn’t make a big deal out of that.”

Wrong. The Chinese hack of 22 million accounts at the Office of Personnel Management was front-page news.

(4) “The Democratic National Committee was totally open to be hacked. They did a very poor job. … And they tried to hack the Republican National Committee, and they were unable to break through.”

Wrong. FBI Director James B. Comey said there was evidence that Republican National Committee domains were also targeted, but none of the information that may have been obtained was leaked. Comey said that the Russians “got far deeper and wider into the [DNC] than the RNC,” adding that “similar techniques were used in both cases.”

(5) “I have no deals that could happen in Russia, because we’ve stayed away. And I have no loans with Russia.”


Wrong. Trump repeatedly sought deals in Russia. In a 2008 speech, Donald Trump Jr. said, “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross section of a lot of our assets,” and “we see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.”

In short, Trump’s first news conference as president-elect—his first news conference in six months—wasn’t a “news conference” at all, and shouldn’t be called one.

It’s another example of Trump’s attempt to control the media. Trump isn’t even president yet, but he’s already eroding our democracy.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> Obama care done :trump
> 
> Panic in the streets, libs!


Yeah and good luck getting or affording insurance now under Trump LOL You voted against your best interest.




Miss Sally said:


> Sometimes I wonder if they're just trolling Hollywood "Left" with this nonsense.
> 
> Rob Schneider is a little right leaning and he did a small piece a few years ago talking about how Right leaning people in Hollywood had to keep it to themselves unless they were Legends or too big to mess with or connected. He talked about how nearly everything was an agenda push and you kind of had to be on board. Politics in Hollywood was touchy and it was easy to offend people and hurt your career.
> 
> Freddie Prinze Jr also talked about the agenda pushing onto people, that it was pretty much saturated. You HAD to be on board with whatever was the hot topic at the time.
> 
> I'd really love a Documentary on this but I doubt we'd get one because too many careers would be ended. Anyone you knew or liked could be blackballed. It's like speaking out about the child sexual exploitation or the exploitation of young men in women in Hollywood gets crushed.


They are just doing it to trigger Trump and his supporters and it works every time.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*










:kobelol


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



> Meryl Streep’s rebuke of Donald Trump during the Golden Globes ceremony on Sunday has revived the familiar complaint, heard from the left and right, that Hollywood’s liberalism hurts the Democratic Party. In Jacobin, Eileen Jones argued that Streep “strikes me as about the worst possible spokesperson imaginable for the Left in an era of working-class rage, so naturally she’s embraced even more tightly by liberals doubling down on their delusional Clinton Democrat worship.” National Review’s David French offered a conservative assessment that made essentially the same point: that Streep’s speech shows “why Trump won.” “Lots of voters don’t like to be hectored,” he wrote. “Lots of voters defy Hollywood’s commands.”
> 
> MOST POPULAR
> Who’s the Illegitimate President Now, Mr. Birtherism?
> Don’t Watch Donald Trump’s Inauguration
> Bernie Sanders Is a Big Letdown
> Trump Is Exactly the Monster We Feared, and Republicans Are Enabling Him
> Are Democrats the Party of Science? Not Really.
> French, however, does think this liberal alliance has won something more important: the culture wars. “Indeed, since 1968—when the modern Left really got rolling—the Democratic party has been largely losing ground,” he argued. “But in that same period, whose cultural values have most advanced? The secular Left has taken a sledgehammer to God, family, and country—the pillars of our national culture—and Hollywood has led the way.”
> 
> This wrinkle exposes an argumentative flaw: If Hollywood is powerful enough to make people lose faith in God, family, and country, then why should it be a liability in winning elections? The whole business of Hollywood is popularity, which is also the whole business of winning elections. If celebrity endorsements are partly to blame for Hillary Clinton’s loss, why did her husband and Barack Obama win the White House with a comparably impressive set of star endorsements? And if these endorsements are so toxic, then wouldn’t celebrity candidates be even more so?
> 
> But history shows that celebrity candidates can win, and it’s for the same reason that politicians like Obama and the Clintons tout celebrity endorsements: We live in a media-saturated world where fame has persuasive power.
> 
> Of course, celebrity candidates seem to surface more often in one major party than the other. Two of the last four Republican presidents, Ronald Reagan and Trump, had substantial showbiz careers. Arnold Schwarzenegger won the governorship of deep-blue California, and would have contended for the presidency if not for the constitutional requirement that candidates be natural-born citizens. Fred Thompson is best remembered for his performances as a tough but fair district attorney on Law & Order, but he also served as senator from Tennessee. The Democrats have nothing comparable except for Senator Al Franken, and he was always more of a political comedian than a movie star.
> 
> Charisma is hard to define, but it matters in politics. Over the past half century, the Democrats have won the presidency when they nominated candidates who were more magnetic than their rivals, as Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama were. Conversely, Democrats have always lost when they were outmatched by star power (as when Reagan ran against Carter). This was especially true when the Democrats ran wonkish but drab candidates, are a speciality of the party: Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton. These are all smart political figures, but no one would describe them as charismatic.
> 
> The celebrity gap between the two major parties points to something essential about their nature. Perhaps right-wing complaints about Hollywood liberalism stem from conservatives wanting to have their own celebrity champions. French suggested as much when he wrote of Trump, “In many ways, he is Hollywood—a towering celebrity who has exhibited and lived exactly the personal values that fill the pages of People magazine and Us Weekly. To ‘beat’ Hollywood, the GOP turned to Hollywood.” Conversely, Democrats don’t need to run celebrities because they already have Hollywood on their side. Moreover, the consistent wonkiness of Democratic candidates suggests a party that values technocratic expertise. With Carter, Bill Clinton, and Obama, the party was lucky enough to get eggheads who were also compelling, camera-friendly speechmakers.
> 
> But it’s difficult to find a candidate who is equally smart and charismatic, hence the duds the Democrats often elevate—and who have lost them two close, winnable president elections in recent memory (2000 and 2016). Perhaps it’s time, then, for Democrats to take a page out of the Republican playbook and put a celebrity up for national office.
> 
> In the wake of Clinton’s defeat, Michael Moore said on CNN, “Democrats would be better off if they ran Oprah or Tom Hanks... why don’t we run beloved people?” It’s a question the party ought to ask seriously. For it’s easier to surround a good actor with smart policy advisors than to make a lackluster campaigner seem sexy and exciting. “Sincerity is the main thing,” according to a popular saying attributed to both George Burns or Groucho Marx. “If you can fake that, you’ve got it made.” We can amend that to: “Wonkiness is the main thing. If you can fake that, you’ve got it made.”
> 
> And with the right actor, you can fake it.
> 
> Trump has reinforced the lesson of Reagan: that we live in a polity where entertainment is one of the main prisms through which citizens see and understand the world. Media isn’t just a tool for spreading one’s message, but part of the message itself. Reagan and Trump didn’t just articulate conservative values; they performed those values, convincing many voters that they shared their interests and outlook.
> 
> That Trump responded so virulently to Streep’s Golden Globes speech—he tweeted that she was “one of the most over-rated actresses in Hollywood”—suggests he recognizes the power of fellow celebrities. Since winning the election, he has brushed aside critiques from politicians like Senator Elizabeth Warren, but he knows Streep has the ability to reach a mass audience that otherwise tunes out politics. Other stars, including Samuel L. Jackson to Alec Baldwin to Jon Stewart, have been similarly successful at getting under Trump’s skin, needling him about cheating in golf or labeling him with insulting nicknames such as “Fuckface von Clownstick.”
> 
> Instead of rejecting Streep, as writers like Jones suggest, Democrats would do well to embrace her and fellow Hollywood stars. The party could recruit Streep and others to bait Trump, and perhaps, as Moore suggested, groom some to be presidential candidates. In 2020, the Democrats could run Streep, Leonardo DiCaprio, Beyonce, Matt Damon, or Rosie O’Donnell. Some might guffaw at this idea. After all, wouldn’t running a celebrity candidate further associate Democrats with coastal elitism? But Democrats’ main problem last year wasn’t in appealing to anti-elitist voters; it was in getting out the party’s base. A magnetic, attractive movie star would have a far better chance of accomplishing that than just another accomplished, dowdy politician.


https://newrepublic.com/article/139756/democrats-run-celebrity-president


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

#NeverTrumper Nick Gillespie makes a case as to why Rep. John Lewis is well off-base when he says Trump is not a "legitimate" president:

http://reason.com/blog/2017/01/14/rep-john-lewis-says-trump-is-not-a-legit



__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/820316127096164352

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/820322866830815232
So many people on social media today virtue-signaling hard by sanctifying John Lewis because he was a great civil rights activist, as if that makes him immune to any criticism for his record as a politician. Pushing the "Russia hacked the election" lie as truth is idiotic, destructive, and hypocritical for Democrats who droned on about how the election result must be accepted and respected no matter what or our democracy is finished. This is true even if you did great things 50 years ago. You still deserved to get called out on your bullshit.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



virus21 said:


> https://newrepublic.com/article/139756/democrats-run-celebrity-president


Kyle ripped this article to shreds.






Here's a novel concept... instead of running a celebrity, how about stop being puppets of the donor class and start actually representing the working class. Oh and tell all these limousine liberals to fuck off. Working class common men don't give a fuck about about these shitheels and trying to bring them further into the political process will only alienate more voters.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> Kyle ripped this article to shreds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a novel concept... instead of running a celebrity, how about stop being puppets of the donor class and start actually representing the working class. Oh and tell all these limousine liberals to fuck off. Working class common men don't give a fuck about about these shitheels and trying to bring them further into the political process will only alienate more voters.


Yeah but working class people are icky and they don't throw parties with the best caviar and champagne at their corner penthouse suites and palatial hilltop mansions. They probably think caviar is gross and probably prefer regular old beer to micro-brewed made from organic sustainable barley and hops and wheat and fruit beer and they're probably racist homophobes to boot. How can any person whose mind is filled with doubleplusgoodthink even consider giving those deplorables' bigoted concerns legitimacy? The world would be so much better off if they'd just die already, or at least if they couldn't vote.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



deepelemblues said:


> Yeah but working class people are icky and they don't throw parties with the best caviar and champagne at their corner penthouse suites and palatial hilltop mansions. They probably think caviar is gross and probably prefer regular old beer to micro-brewed made from organic sustainable barley and hops and wheat and fruit beer and they're probably racist homophobes to boot. How can any person whose mind is filled with doubleplusgoodthink even consider giving those deplorables' bigoted concerns legitimacy? The world would be so much better off if they'd just die already, or at least if they couldn't vote.


Sadly, this is a spot on representation of how many of them think. And Democrats are going to continue to lose until they expel each and every one of these elitist jackasses from the party.


----------



## ShiningStar

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> Jesus fucking Christ those people are retarded. They have no earthly idea how much they are hurting their own cause by doing stupid shit like this. I'd rather watch the world burn under right wing lunatics than ever side with people like that.


:laugh: I guess Hilary and her campaign can blame them too instead of herself to go along with Russia and Comey. Clearly the tipping point of 2016 was Celebrities annoy Conservative Snowflakes by not giving them a election free safe space.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

http://rare.us/story/trumps-pick-to...&utm_campaign=Influencers_Rare_Julia_Borowski



> *Trump’s pick to head the CIA wants to collect your personal metadata—all of it*
> 
> That headline isn’t an exaggeration. Mike Pompeo, the Kansas congressman and Donald Trump’s pick to head the CIA, who testified on Capitol Hill earlier today, wants the government to collect all metadata from everyone, regardless of whether they’re suspected of a crime or not.
> 
> Pompeo’s expansive view of the surveillance state was made clear in an op-ed he wrote for the Wall Street Journal earlier this year, titled “Time for a Rigorous National Debate About Surveillance.” That headline alone is a red flag: “national debate,” and its more common cousin “national dialogue,” are among the most bullshit terms in our political discourse, employed almost exclusively by those who desire the opposite. In the case of surveillance, we already had an extensive debate, between Edward Snowden’s revelations in 2013 and the passage of the USA Freedom Act in 2015. What Pompeo really means is that he wants to suppress the will of Congress and enshroud all discussion about signals intelligence back within the hyper-secretive NSA.
> 
> Among the questionable claims in Pompeo’s Journal piece is that “[c]ollection of phone metadata under the Patriot Act was banned by Congress.” In fact, the Freedom Act merely rehoused metadata collection from within the government to within the telecom companies—all the NSA has to do for access is obtain a warrant from the notoriously licentious FISA court.
> 
> But even that’s too cumbersome for Pompeo, who continues, “Congress should pass a law re-establishing collection of all metadata, and combining it with publicly available financial and lifestyle information into a comprehensive, searchable database.” In other words, they should have information about all your calls, all your communications, supplemented with whatever other color they’ve been able to gather about you. And they should be able to access it through a simple search prompt.
> 
> Senator Ron Wyden, one of the Upper Chamber’s few privacy advocates, finds all this to be vexing, and quizzed Pompeo about the Journal piece earlier today. Pompeo responded by saying that he’d voted for the USA Freedom Act (he did) and that it was now settled law. Wyden objected that Pompeo had written his op-ed after the Freedom Act was passed, meaning he was advocating an overhaul of present statutes. Could he really be entrusted not to create his illegal database? Pompeo assured he would “not engage in unlawful activity.” He later declared that he takes “a backseat to no one with respect to protecting Americans’ privacy.”



Uggggh well this isn't a surprise but it's still an awful pick to say the least.


#SaveUsRand


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Yeah Trump is pretty god awful when it comes to surveillance. He probably still wants Snowden executed.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> Kyle ripped this article to shreds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a novel concept... instead of running a celebrity, how about stop being puppets of the donor class and start actually representing the working class. Oh and tell all these limousine liberals to fuck off. Working class common men don't give a fuck about about these shitheels and trying to bring them further into the political process will only alienate more voters.


You can apply this to the Rock wanting to run too. Dems can be so stupid, Sanders would have wiped the floor with Trump, we need someone like Sanders or Ellison to run against Trump in 2020. Only problem with Ellison is he is Muslim and the GOP would use that against him. 

Hell Clinton probably could have beaten Trump if she stuck to the policies instead of bashing Trumps character all the time.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Oh and to make matters worse..... @CamillePunk @Tater


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



L-DOPA said:


> Oh and to make matters worse..... @CamillePunk @Tater


1984.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Even if the CIA had everything about you including your taste in films they couldn't do shit with it

Their jurisdiction is only outside US territory

They would have to turn the info over to the FBI who they compete for funding with which will never happen

Snowden intentionally got his job with the intention of leaking information, THAT'S NOT FUCKING WHISTLEBLOWING, that's straight by definition espionage which every nation on earth allows the perpetrator executed, the fucking Geneva convention doesn't even protect them 

1984 is based on the fucking Soviet Union, not "government polices that make me call the waambulance"

Context is 90% of communication


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

*Twas the Night Before Inauguration!

Twas the night before Inauguration, and up in the tower,
The Donald reflected on his new found power.
The conservative masses had come out in force,
And delivered a victory that would chart a new course.

The snowflakes were shell-shocked with tears in their eyes,
The media lied to them . . . What a surprise.
They had been promised a Hillary win,
But the criminal Clinton took one on the chin.

And though from all corners celebrities flew,
They made no impression, for they hadn’t a clue.
They talked about climate, racism, and such,
And they made up good stories . . . But didn’t know much.

The fake news and ignorance came at a cost,
And they can’t understand all the reasons they lost.
They blame it on Comey and Bernie and Vlad,
But fail to acknowledge the one that was bad.

Yes, Hillary Clinton, in many ways flawed,
Was her own biggest hurdle toward getting the nod.
The campaign exposed her corruptness and greed,
And her speeches were punch-less as ten dollar weed.

So out in the streets there arose such a clatter,
It was Soros-paid protestors and Black Lives Matter.
With cities to pillage and windows to smash,
They knew not the issues, but needed the cash.

Eight years of Obama had given them cause,
To expect a replacement of their Santa Claus.
But soon the protestors will feel the pain,
When the wheels fall off of the old gravy train.

And now all the snowflakes are riddled with fear,
Upset and offended by things that they’ll hear.
The cocoa and crayons will help for a while,
But fact-based opinions will soon cramp their style.

I originally supported, and voted, for Cruz,
In the end, I would vote for whoever they choose.
He wasn’t my first choice, but soon I would cede,
The one they call Trump is the one that we need.

I saw him on TV in front of a crowd,
He spoke about veterans, it made me feel proud.
He spoke about energy, safety, and jobs,
Taking this country back from the Washington snobs.

He was dressed in Armani, all tailored and neat,
And the Brunos he wore made the outfit complete.
For a man of his vintage, he seemed rather fit,
And he looked presidential, I have to admit.

His eyes glowed like embers, his smile was the best,
And his hair was the color of my old hunting vest.
His love for this country was on full display,
And his actions spoke louder than his words could say.

He thanked all his voters, and before he was gone,
Saved thousands of jobs while Obama looked on.
The fate of this country left nothing to chance,
So, he filled out his cabinet weeks in advance.

The men he had chosen were of the same mind,
Let’s set the bar high, and not lead from behind.
He picked up his phone as he rose from his seat,
With a flick of his finger, he sent out this tweet;

“Now Mattis!, now Kelly!’ now Sessions! And Pruitt!
On Perry! On Flynn, You’re the ones who can do it.
Start lifting restrictions and building the wall,
Now dash away! Dash away! Dash away all!”;

The roar of his audience rose from the stands,
He kissed all their babies and shook all their hands.
He answered their questions and calmed all their fears,
They knew it would be a fantastic four years.
Then he jumped in his limo, and off to his jet,
A fellow that Liberals won’t soon forget.
He sent one more tweet as the evening expired;

"Happy Inauguration to all,
"AND OBAMA – YOU’RE FIRED!"*


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Lunatic Fringe said:


> *Twas the Night Before Inauguration!
> 
> Twas the night before Inauguration, and up in the tower,
> The Donald reflected on his new found power.
> The conservative masses had come out in force,
> And delivered a victory that would chart a new course.
> 
> The snowflakes were shell-shocked with tears in their eyes,
> The media lied to them . . . What a surprise.
> They had been promised a Hillary win,
> But the criminal Clinton took one on the chin.
> 
> And though from all corners celebrities flew,
> They made no impression, for they hadn’t a clue.
> They talked about climate, racism, and such,
> And they made up good stories . . . But didn’t know much.
> 
> The fake news and ignorance came at a cost,
> And they can’t understand all the reasons they lost.
> They blame it on Comey and Bernie and Vlad,
> But fail to acknowledge the one that was bad.
> 
> Yes, Hillary Clinton, in many ways flawed,
> Was her own biggest hurdle toward getting the nod.
> The campaign exposed her corruptness and greed,
> And her speeches were punch-less as ten dollar weed.
> 
> So out in the streets there arose such a clatter,
> It was Soros-paid protestors and Black Lives Matter.
> With cities to pillage and windows to smash,
> They knew not the issues, but needed the cash.
> 
> Eight years of Obama had given them cause,
> To expect a replacement of their Santa Claus.
> But soon the protestors will feel the pain,
> When the wheels fall off of the old gravy train.
> 
> And now all the snowflakes are riddled with fear,
> Upset and offended by things that they’ll hear.
> The cocoa and crayons will help for a while,
> But fact-based opinions will soon cramp their style.
> 
> I originally supported, and voted, for Cruz,
> In the end, I would vote for whoever they choose.
> He wasn’t my first choice, but soon I would cede,
> The one they call Trump is the one that we need.
> 
> I saw him on TV in front of a crowd,
> He spoke about veterans, it made me feel proud.
> He spoke about energy, safety, and jobs,
> Taking this country back from the Washington snobs.
> 
> He was dressed in Armani, all tailored and neat,
> And the Brunos he wore made the outfit complete.
> For a man of his vintage, he seemed rather fit,
> And he looked presidential, I have to admit.
> 
> His eyes glowed like embers, his smile was the best,
> And his hair was the color of my old hunting vest.
> His love for this country was on full display,
> And his actions spoke louder than his words could say.
> 
> He thanked all his voters, and before he was gone,
> Saved thousands of jobs while Obama looked on.
> The fate of this country left nothing to chance,
> So, he filled out his cabinet weeks in advance.
> 
> The men he had chosen were of the same mind,
> Let’s set the bar high, and not lead from behind.
> He picked up his phone as he rose from his seat,
> With a flick of his finger, he sent out this tweet;
> 
> “Now Mattis!, now Kelly!’ now Sessions! And Pruitt!
> On Perry! On Flynn, You’re the ones who can do it.
> Start lifting restrictions and building the wall,
> Now dash away! Dash away! Dash away all!”;
> 
> The roar of his audience rose from the stands,
> He kissed all their babies and shook all their hands.
> He answered their questions and calmed all their fears,
> They knew it would be a fantastic four years.
> Then he jumped in his limo, and off to his jet,
> A fellow that Liberals won’t soon forget.
> He sent one more tweet as the evening expired;
> 
> "Happy Inauguration to all,
> "AND OBAMA – YOU’RE FIRED!"*


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> Sadly, this is a spot on representation of how many of them think. And Democrats are going to continue to lose until they expel each and every one of these elitist jackasses from the party.


It is. I said years ago that Hollywood was the modern aristocracy and they have been showing their true colors more and more. I hope that they start going down the same way MSM is.


Also, remember that article about Rosie O Donnell I posted. Well....


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Lol any singer or act going for the inauguration is getting death threats, lol Democrat leaders not showing up. Do these morons realize they're hurting their own cause? They're far worse than any people who were upset by Obama winning. It's hilarious.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

We won. :trump3


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> Lol any singer or act going for the inauguration is getting death threats, lol Democrat leaders not showing up. Do these morons realize they're hurting their own cause? They're far worse than any people who were upset by Obama winning. It's hilarious.


Oh Miss Sally, these poor bastards went full retard so long ago, they no longer any concept of reality. The ending of 2001, End of Evangelion and pretty much anything done by David Lynch are more grounded in reality than the thought processes of these people


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



stevefox1200 said:


> Snowden intentionally got his job with the intention of leaking information, THAT'S NOT FUCKING WHISTLEBLOWING, that's straight by definition espionage which every nation on earth allows the perpetrator executed, the fucking Geneva convention doesn't even protect them


He had already been working within the NSA for over a year prior to seeking to collect and release anything. The job you mention was actually his second job where he would be working with the NSA. Important not to dishonestly portray the facts as you have here to create a mythological version of events where Snowden was some type of spy from the beginning instead of a disillusioned American looking to leak government abuses to the public. 



> 1984 is based on the fucking Soviet Union, not "government polices that make me call the waambulance"
> 
> Context is 90% of communication


Utterly irrelevant context considering Orwell has said writing the book was about arguing against totalitarianism. The fact that the society in the book was based on a particular real-world totalitarian regime that doesn't exist anymore doesn't somehow invalidate any comparisons between the book and modern day totalitarian policies, which would include mass surveillance. 

Now, why you're trying to throw up so much fog at people rightly supporting Snowden and criticizing totalitarianism, well, I'm sure you have some high-minded reasoning but to the rest of us it's actually pretty easy to recognize and understand. In this instance I'm compelled to curb your *usefulness* to the deep state by providing _relevant_ context and facts.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> He had already been working within the NSA for over a year prior to seeking to collect and release anything. The job you mention was actually his second job where he would be working with the NSA. Important not to dishonestly portray the facts as you have here to create a mythological version of events where Snowden was some type of spy from the beginning instead of a disillusioned American looking to leak government abuses to the public.
> 
> Utterly irrelevant context considering Orwell has said writing the book was about arguing against totalitarianism. The fact that the society in the book was based on a particular real-world totalitarian regime that doesn't exist anymore doesn't somehow invalidate any comparisons between the book and modern day totalitarian policies, which would include mass surveillance.
> 
> Now, why you're trying to throw up so much fog at people rightly supporting Snowden and criticizing totalitarianism, well, I'm sure you have some high-minded reasoning but to the rest of us it's actually pretty easy to recognize and understand. In this instance I'm compelled to curb your *usefulness* to the deep state by providing _relevant_ context and facts.


Snowden said the only reason he got a job at the NSA was to leak info. He would have been a spy if he found nothing and just leaked the food expenses. It doesn't matter he if it was his second, first or thriteenth job he got it with the goal of leaking info. There are many disillusioned Americans, some of them got on the news when Trump won setting storefronts on fire.

Orwell was a cocksucker who was fine with traveling to other nations and shooting people in the head for the glory of socialism till he saw fucking horrible the USSR was and then sat on his ass with the "well its not MY socialism" excuse. Hitler had some great points on nationalism and the best way to make your citizens feel fulfilled while improving your nation, but I don't quote him and I don't use him to me the bad points of system he supported


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



> Donald Trump's election has forced U2 to delay the release of their new album, guitarist The Edge has said.
> 
> The Irish rockers had almost completed Songs of Experience, their 14th studio album, and were adding "the final touches" when "the election [happened] and suddenly the world changed," he told Rolling Stone magazine.
> 
> "The world is a different place [after] the Trump election," he continued. "It's like a pendulum has suddenly just taken a huge swing in the other direction."
> U2 at the 2009 Brit Awards
> U2 at the 2009 Brit Awards CREDIT: DAVE HOGAN
> The band have criticised the US president-elect in the past: in September, lead singer Bono called Trump "really dangerous", accusing the then presidential candidate of "trying to hijack the idea of America."
> 
> Songs of Experience will be a follow-up to their last record Songs of Innocence, which sparked a backlash when it was automatically downloaded to half a billion iTunes accounts in 2014, leading Bono to apologise for his "megalomania."
> 
> Watch | The early rejection letter received by rock icon Bono from U2
> 01:30
> Shelving the new album's release will give the group "a chance to think about these songs and make sure they're really what we want to put out," The Edge said. Following the former reality TV star's unexpected election victory, the band decided they needed "to put the album on ice".
> 
> In the mean time, they will be touring their Grammy-winning 1987 album The Joshua Tree, with dates in London and Dublin. Tickets for the tour will be available from January 16. "We're happy to take this moment to regroup and think about an album that's so many years old, but still seems relevant," The Edge said, asserting that "things have come full circle" since the Eighties: "It was a period when there was a lot of unrest... it feel like we're right back there."


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/music/news/u2-delay-new-album-trumps-victory/


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



virus21 said:


> It is. I said years ago that Hollywood was the modern aristocracy and they have been showing their true colors more and more. I hope that they start going down the same way MSM is.
> 
> 
> Also, remember that article about Rosie O Donnell I posted. Well....


We would all appreciate it if you didn't use the phrase "going down" and Rosie O Donnell in the same post. Thanks.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## ecclesiastes10

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Mister Abigail said:


> No because I'm Australian.


got me:frown2:


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## ecclesiastes10

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


>


they believe ppl are dumb, they do this regularly not just ap, all media, say something one month, and completely contradict next month.


----------



## ecclesiastes10

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> Jesus fucking Christ those people are retarded. They have no earthly idea how much they are hurting their own cause by doing stupid shit like this. I'd rather watch the world burn under right wing lunatics than ever side with people like that.


why do u use Jesus name as an explicative, I know others do it, but I find it infurating that the Messiah of the Christian faith/the world can be so disrespected, denigrated to an expression while Muhammad, buddah, and/or other names associated with peoples faith are given a pass, ignored, or given respect....strange.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



> Lol any singer or act going for the inauguration is getting death threats, lol Democrat leaders not showing up. Do these morons realize they're hurting their own cause? They're far worse than any people who were upset by Obama winning. It's hilarious.












When I'm bored, I troll Occupy Democrats on Facebook. Snowflakes having a meltdown (especially when their own illogic is used against them) is always entertaining.



>


Obama's legacy summed up in one picture.




> So many people on social media today virtue-signaling hard by sanctifying John Lewis because he was a great civil rights activist, as if that makes him immune to any criticism for his record as a politician. Pushing the "Russia hacked the election" lie as truth is idiotic, destructive, and hypocritical for Democrats who droned on about how the election result must be accepted and respected no matter what or our democracy is finished. This is true even if you did great things 50 years ago. You still deserved to get called out on your bullshit.


The best part is Lewis has still done jack for his sh** hole district in Georgia.


*Re: I Will Survive*

That Japanese dude from American Idol sings better than them!


- Vic


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



ecclesiastes10 said:


> why do u use Jesus name as an explicative, I know others do it, but I find it infurating that the Messiah of the Christian faith/the world can be so disrespected, denigrated to an expression while Muhammad, buddah, and/or other names associated with peoples faith are given a pass, ignored, or given respect....strange.


You must have me confused with somebody else. I don't give a pass or show respect to _any_ of the bullshit mythologies. I understand that there are certain groups of people in the USA that will hate on Christianity while not showing the same level of disdain towards other religions out of some misguided sense of cultural diversity but that ain't me. All religions can fuck off as far as I am concerned.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

God Damn Pink Flag by Wire is a great Punk album.

(just trying to lighten the mood )


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



ecclesiastes10 said:


> why do u use Jesus name as an explicative, I know others do it, but I find it infurating that the Messiah of the Christian faith/the world can be so disrespected, denigrated to an expression while Muhammad, buddah, and/or other names associated with peoples faith are given a pass, ignored, or given respect....strange.


Come up with some catchy phrases involving Muhammad and/or Buddha and perhaps they'll catch on. Well, probably not the Muhammad one because if the wrong person hears you saying it they might try and murder you.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*










:lmao


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

As the push to repeal the Affordable Care Act is now picking up steam and roll downhill...there's a number of GOP who are saying that we need to slow down and if we're going to do repeal and replace that we need to get it right. After all...one of the main complaints of the implementation of Obamacare in the first place was that it was just rammed through without fully understanding what was in the bill. The Freedom Caucus especially is saying that we have to make sure that the repeal also doesn't add additional trillions to our growing national debt...

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article125557749.html

On the other hand, a growing number of conservative voices are saying that we need to basically repeal and not replace it...saying the government needs to completely get out of the insurance business and to do that we need to go back to basically where we were before the ACA. 

http://www.charismanews.com/politics/opinion/62200-a-suggestion-repeal-but-don-t-replace-obamacare

That sentiment is also being echoed by many of those folks we don't hear much from on the matter...doctors that deal with the repercussions of the ACA on a regular basis. 

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/doctors-say-repeal-obamacare-but-dont-replace-it/

I'll be honest, the government clearly needs to get out of the health care business. The ACA was a disaster which made a bigger clusterfuck out of the mess it was supposedly designed to take care of. I know I saw my insurance premiums nearly double in the last 8 years and my family and I are fairly healthy. Many of the insurance companies have opted out of the exchange, in some states you were basically down to one or two options at most for insurance. Part of me is of the belief that the ACA was set up to deliberately fail so that they could say they attempted this and now the only option is single payer UHC, which would be even worse. 

The problem now is that we have 20 million who will lose their insurance after this year (they are at least set up through this year by signing up for the ACA on their exchanges). For people with pre-existing health conditions, they were unable to obtain insurance in the beginning and when they could they were extremely expensive. People are saying they can get back on Medicaid or hope on the charity of others, but part of why we got into this mess pre-ACA was the fact health costs going up because of the inability of people to fully pay for services rendered because Medicaid/Medicare/Title IX didn't cover certain procedures. 

Hopefully, they can take their time and get this right. You need to provide the right incentives for this, such as being able to open up the markets and purchase insurance across state lines or at least outside your only options now which were Medicaid or your employer's plan. I would be good with keeping the pre-existing condition, but at this point while I was not a fan of Obama just completely ripping out the ACA like a band-aid with nothing to replace it would be foolish.

Hopefully, Trump can tune out all the noise and allow Congress to work on a plan that solves the problem and not be caught up in getting shit from everywhere. In the past, people that have worked with Trump have said that sometimes he will do something based on the last person he hears from. At first, he talked about taking time to get it right, but no doubt heard from people who said, "We didn't elect you to take your time, we want this done now! Repeal Obamacare right meow!"


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



ecclesiastes10 said:


> why do u use Jesus name as an explicative, I know others do it, but I find it infurating that the Messiah of the Christian faith/the world can be so disrespected, denigrated to an expression while Muhammad, buddah, and/or other names associated with peoples faith are given a pass, ignored, or given respect....strange.


Most atheists are equal opportunity offenders (or so they like to believe), but I'm also not a fan of egregious over-defense of religion simply over the use of Jesus's name in slang. 

It's just one of those things you have to deal with. 

Personally, I think that on average christians have less offensive beliefs than muslims ... I mean while you have atheists whining over things christians did over 300-500 years ago, and the occasional peaceful protest over homosexuality, I have seen many of them downplay the evils of Islam and in fact openly campaign on their behalf without having any knowledge. That hypocrisy is definitely something that has very recently crept into western society and I find it annoying. 

Overall, I think western atheists are privileged SJW's who have no idea what real persecution is so they whine about their first world problems and attack Christianity simply because it's hip. Whinging western atheists are my favorite group to troll now because their problems are so over-exaggerated that it's laughable. It's kinda sad that a group that claims ownership over science and reason uses the same victimhood narratives of feminists. :draper2


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> :lmao


Funny but why do I get the feeling if Trump was anti-Russia that the haters would then be begging for peace with the Russians?


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



BruiserKC said:


> Hopefully, Trump can tune out all the noise and allow Congress to work on a plan that solves the problem and not be caught up in getting shit from everywhere. In the past, people that have worked with Trump have said that sometimes he will do something based on the last person he hears from. At first, he talked about taking time to get it right, but no doubt heard from people who said, "We didn't elect you to take your time, we want this done now! Repeal Obamacare right meow!"


I think that one of the biggest solutions is to give developmental incentives to opening smaller scale emergency clinics and deregulating the medical industry in a manner which eventually lead to price discrimination and increased competition in healthcare service provision. Same goes for insurance. You should have multi-tiered insurance packages based on the health needs of an individual. Right now I think the way insurance works is that you either get covered for everything or nothing. What I'm getting at is that people should be able to pick and choose what they're paying for. I don't know how the government can help with that, but the customers should have that choice to cover either just hospitalization and emergency or nothing at all. The premiums need to go down somehow. 

They also need to find a way to break the hospitals that have created soft cartels and therefore fixed pricing. Medicaid and charity both are only curing the symptoms. 

There's another very big issue here is the distancing of the customer from the product or service they receive. People need to be educated in the shady practices of hospitals that run up the costs through unnecessary tests that the more educated customer could refuse. I was ill last year and my wife took me to a hospital. For a high fever with no symptoms, the hospital ran up my bill to 4000 dollars, which they never diagnosed and eventually I was diagnosed by a small clinic that charged me 70 bucks plus 10 for anitbiotics. 

Forcing hospitals to not be able to charge for services rendered, but for successful treatment should be something that is worth considering. That will force them to stop doing unnecessary tests and become more effective diagnosticians.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



BruiserKC said:


> Part of me is of the belief that the ACA was set up to deliberately fail so that they could say they attempted this and now the only option is single payer UHC, which would be even worse.


This makes zero sense. The individual mandate system has always been the right wing answer to single payer. Nixon supported it. Bob Dole supported it. Romney instituted it in Massachusetts. Republicans didn't start hating it until Democrats moved over to the right and stole their idea. Now Republicans have no idea what to do because their plan has already been tried and it has failed spectacularly. Your theory that it was deliberately set up to fail is ridiculous. Democrats had complete control of DC and gave us the Republican plan for health care reform. Rather than trying to twist it around and claim that this was some Machiavellian move to show Republicans how retarded their health care plan was, maybe it's just the simple fact that Democrats are right wing corporatist sellouts who won't go against the donor class.

That said, here is Trump playing the accordion. :lmao


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/820475789279891456


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



BruiserKC said:


> As the push to repeal the Affordable Care Act is now picking up steam and roll downhill...there's a number of GOP who are saying that we need to slow down and if we're going to do repeal and replace that we need to get it right. After all...one of the main complaints of the implementation of Obamacare in the first place was that it was just rammed through without fully understanding what was in the bill. The Freedom Caucus especially is saying that we have to make sure that the repeal also doesn't add additional trillions to our growing national debt...
> 
> http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article125557749.html
> 
> On the other hand, a growing number of conservative voices are saying that we need to basically repeal and not replace it...saying the government needs to completely get out of the insurance business and to do that we need to go back to basically where we were before the ACA.
> 
> http://www.charismanews.com/politics/opinion/62200-a-suggestion-repeal-but-don-t-replace-obamacare
> 
> That sentiment is also being echoed by many of those folks we don't hear much from on the matter...doctors that deal with the repercussions of the ACA on a regular basis.
> 
> http://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/doctors-say-repeal-obamacare-but-dont-replace-it/
> 
> I'll be honest, the government clearly needs to get out of the health care business. The ACA was a disaster which made a bigger clusterfuck out of the mess it was supposedly designed to take care of. I know I saw my insurance premiums nearly double in the last 8 years and my family and I are fairly healthy. Many of the insurance companies have opted out of the exchange, in some states you were basically down to one or two options at most for insurance. Part of me is of the belief that the ACA was set up to deliberately fail so that they could say they attempted this and now the only option is single payer UHC, which would be even worse.
> 
> The problem now is that we have 20 million who will lose their insurance after this year (they are at least set up through this year by signing up for the ACA on their exchanges). For people with pre-existing health conditions, they were unable to obtain insurance in the beginning and when they could they were extremely expensive. People are saying they can get back on Medicaid or hope on the charity of others, but part of why we got into this mess pre-ACA was the fact health costs going up because of the inability of people to fully pay for services rendered because Medicaid/Medicare/Title IX didn't cover certain procedures.
> 
> Hopefully, they can take their time and get this right. You need to provide the right incentives for this, such as being able to open up the markets and purchase insurance across state lines or at least outside your only options now which were Medicaid or your employer's plan. I would be good with keeping the pre-existing condition, but at this point while I was not a fan of Obama just completely ripping out the ACA like a band-aid with nothing to replace it would be foolish.
> 
> Hopefully, Trump can tune out all the noise and allow Congress to work on a plan that solves the problem and not be caught up in getting shit from everywhere. In the past, people that have worked with Trump have said that sometimes he will do something based on the last person he hears from. At first, he talked about taking time to get it right, but no doubt heard from people who said, "We didn't elect you to take your time, we want this done now! Repeal Obamacare right meow!"


Single payer is the best possible healthcare they could do.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


>


You are getting as bad as beatles

http://www.snopes.com/bill-clinton-in-the-nude/


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> You are getting as bad as beatles
> 
> http://www.snopes.com/bill-clinton-in-the-nude/


Hugs and kisses! 0


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

so the clinton global initiative is shutting down

is there any doubt that it would have remained in operation had she won

is there any more certain confirmation that it was just a huge influence-peddling operation with it shutting down 3 months after she lost. she's not gonna be president, no point to having it around. no influence to peddle.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> This makes zero sense. The individual mandate system has always been the right wing answer to single payer. Nixon supported it. Bob Dole supported it. Romney instituted it in Massachusetts. Republicans didn't start hating it until Democrats moved over to the right and stole their idea. Now Republicans have no idea what to do because their plan has already been tried and it has failed spectacularly. Your theory that it was deliberately set up to fail is ridiculous. Democrats had complete control of DC and gave us the Republican plan for health care reform. Rather than trying to twist it around and claim that this was some Machiavellian move to show Republicans how retarded their health care plan was, maybe it's just the simple fact that Democrats are right wing corporatist sellouts who won't go against the donor class.
> 
> That said, here is Trump playing the accordion. :lmao
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/820475789279891456


this is of course left-wing fantasy. richard nixon, mitt romney and bob dole are representative of post-reagan republicans :heston

it was a republican idea for about 6 months as in it was a heritage foundation idea that the bulk of the republican party never got behind and was subsequently dropped even by its most fierce advocates in the heritage foundation after its lack of support in the GOP - aside from mitt romney - was made apparent. 25 years ago.

you know the democratic party was once the party of slavery and jim crow, are we to claim with a straight face that because the democratic party supported those things decades or centuries ago, they are democratic party ideas today?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



deepelemblues said:


> this is of course left-wing fantasy. richard nixon, mitt romney and bob dole are representative of post-reagan republicans :heston
> 
> it was a republican idea for about 6 months as in it was a heritage foundation idea that the bulk of the republican party never got behind and was subsequently dropped even by its most fierce advocates in the heritage foundation after its lack of support in the GOP - aside from mitt romney - was made apparent. 25 years ago.
> 
> *you know the democratic party was once the party of slavery and jim crow,* are we to claim with a straight face that because the democratic party supported those things decades or centuries ago, they are democratic party ideas today?


I always love when people bring this up. Those democrats turned into republicans. The parties switched back in The democrats and republican parties back then are not even close to the same as they are now. Learn your history FFS.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I thought they started to switch in the 40's and then pretty much completed it in the 80's? That's why some of the really old Republicans used to be registered Democrats, right?

I'm going on a 3 year old memory here lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Cipher said:


> I thought they started to switch in the 40's and then pretty much completed it in the 80's? That's why some of the really old Republicans used to be registered Democrats, right?
> 
> I'm going on a 3 year old memory here lol


It started in the late 1890s but it was not in full swing until the 40s with the dixiecrats. Point being those racist democrats (philosophy) in the 1890s-40s and even the few leading to the 80s are now the current republican party.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

If anything, this is hilarious


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> You are getting as bad as beatles
> 
> http://www.snopes.com/bill-clinton-in-the-nude/


Fact Checking a meme :lmao


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Fact Checking a meme :lmao


That is because people like beatles and Trump think they are true.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> That is because people like beatles and Trump think they are true.


iz it cos dey iz stoopid


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*






Fake news Vs. Fake news

:lol

- Vic


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Oda Nobunaga said:


> :trump
> 
> The old thread was too cluttered and had too many posts. This is the new thread, so carry on the discussion here.


So, going on 330 pages, so far, this is better ?


----------



## ShiningStar

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Try and guess which set of names were on the VH1 Reality Show "The Surreal Life"
from the Aughts and which have never been on the show and will be performing at The Trump Inaguaration.


Dave Coulier
Toby Keith
Brad Arnold of 3 Doors Down
Vince Neil Of Motley Crue
The Rockettes
Mormon Tabernacle Choir
Caitlyn Jenner
MC Hammer's Church Choir
Charo


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



> A motorcycle group led by a South Carolina chainsaw artist will ride into the nation’s capital on Inauguration Day in support of the 45th President of the United States.
> 
> Bikers for Trump, a group of motorcycle enthusiasts, will likely be toeing the line with protesters, who are also expected to be at the event.
> 
> “The bikers are certainly used to being outnumbered and we are prepared to form a wall of meat,” Chris Cox, the founder of the organization, told the FOX Business Network.
> 
> However, Cox said he doesn’t foresee any problems occurring during the event, especially after the group’s experience at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, where police successfully maintained order between Trump’s supporters and protesters.
> 
> “We’re anticipating a celebration here. We don’t anticipate any problems. We have a strict code of conduct where we don’t condone violence. But again in the event that we’re needed, you can certainly count on the Bikers for Trump,” Cox said.
> 
> He added: “The backbone of the biker community is the veteran. So these are guys that aren’t really used to backing down. You certainly won’t see bikers out there screaming, calling for destruction of private property or the death of police officers.”
> 
> Cox said he and other members of his group support the President-elect because he is not an establishment politician and also because of his outspoken nature on the issues that concern them most.
> 
> “[The bikers looked for] someone who was going to stand up and call it what it is,” Cox explained. “Radical Islam is one of the biggest talking points of Bikers for Trump. Illegal immigration and one of our sweet spots is getting behind the American veteran. We believe it’s incumbent upon all who understand the value and the sacrifice of our servicemen and women that we are there for them. And we’ve got to change these policies now.”
> 
> According to Cox, the bikers’ rally at John Marshall Park will begin “shortly after Donald Trump exits the stage to go into the Capitol. And it will end shortly before the parade on Pennsylvania Ave.”


http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2017/01/13/bikers-for-trump-ready-to-stand-up-to-protesters.html

Oh this is going to be good


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



> Cox said he and other members of his group support the President-elect because *he is not an establishment politician*


I wouldn't want to be on the wrong end of a bunch of pissed off bikers when they figure out they have been conned. Things are going to get real ugly when Trump gets into office and ends up being the most establishment president of all time.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@DesolationRow @Carte Blanche @Pratchett @AryaDark @Sincere @L-DOPA @Fringe @Miss Sally @virus21 @Goku @Beatles123 @MillionDollarProns @Lumpy McRighteous @Neuron @The Absolute @BruiserKC 

Rand Paul went on fake news organization CNN with Jake Tapper to discuss John Lewis, repealing Obamacare, and Rex Tillerson:


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> I always love when people bring this up. Those democrats turned into republicans. The parties switched back in The democrats and republican parties back then are not even close to the same as they are now. Learn your history FFS.


that wooshing sound you hear is the point going right over BM's head

i was talking about ideas that originated in or were supported by one party or parts of one party that later on dropped those ideas entirely

learn my history ffs i forget more history with each bong rip than you ever have or ever will know. then i pick up my book and remember it again. i havent spent thousands of hours reading history books to have someone who has decided to act like a 4 year old since november 8th to tell me to learn my history ffs.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> I wouldn't want to be on the wrong end of a bunch of pissed off bikers when they figure out they have been conned. Things are going to get real ugly when Trump gets into office and ends up being the most establishment president of all time.


Especially when they apparently have chainsaws. Are they covered under the 2nd Amendment?


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Especially when they apparently have chainsaws. Are they covered under the 2nd Amendment?


Right to bear arms. I don't recall it being limited to fire arms.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



virus21 said:


> Right to bear arms. I don't recall it being limited to fire arms.


Splooge


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Lunatic Fringe said:


> So, going on 330 pages, so far, this is better ?


That was what, two months ago? The old thread had 5000 posts under 20 posts per page, which is what I use. I only see 165 pages and 1/5 of that thread's total post count. This thread isn't going anywhere until it reaches the same milestone. No reason for it.

EDIT: Sorry, make that 3/5 of that thread's total post count. I was looking at the wrong thread.


----------



## kendoo

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

The next couple of years should be interesting for America, I hope trump succeeds and silences all his haters.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



kendoo said:


> The next couple of years should be interesting for America, I hope trump succeeds and silences all his haters.


About that:











Well that and his opponents shooting themselves in the foot constantly


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Oda Nobunaga said:


> That was what, two months ago? The old thread had 5000 posts under 20 posts per page, which is what I use. I only see 165 pages and 1/5 of that thread's total post count. This thread isn't going anywhere until it reaches the same milestone. No reason for it.


On inauguration day you should just lock the thread and make using the words "Donald Trump", "Clinton", "fake news" and "mayonnaise (I hate that shit)" a bannable offense


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



stevefox1200 said:


> On inauguration day you should just lock the thread and make using the words "Donald Trump", "Clinton", "fake news" and "mayonnaise (I hate that shit)" a bannable offense


This section would be a veritable ghost town should one follow through with such tyranny. :lmao :mj2

I'm not a big fan of mayonnaise either. :sundin2


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> That is because people like beatles and Trump think they are true.


 HA HA HA HA HA!!!! :lmao


----------



## TheMenace

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



kendoo said:


> The next couple of years should be interesting for America, I hope trump succeeds and silences all his haters.


Define "succeeds".


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



> http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/...rotesters.html
> 
> Oh this is going to be good


I agree. The National Guard and Bikers For Trump are going to help ensure law...AND ORDER!

- Vic


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Vic Capri said:


> I agree. The National Guard and Bikers For Trump are going to help ensure law...AND ORDER!
> 
> - Vic


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


>


:lmao

Do they really make those Bernie shirts or is that one custom made? :trump


----------



## Smarkout

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I know many of you guys are going crazy about fake news and Russia but I'm curious to what everyone thinks about public education right now in America and if Trump supporters even care about education currently? 

I've been working in a public school since the middle of October and you quickly see how ridiculous it is that teachers are the one's getting blamed (even principles) when all these stupid decisions are made from administration. Keep reading, there's a point I am trying to make. 

So while I keep reading about Trump supporting charter schools (and I agree, more school jobs the better), I question why the real worry isn't about draining the swamp so to speak about the admins in awful public schools. I question why they don't try to drain the swamp with bad inner city public schools and give them money to spend how they please since they have little of it anyway. Even if you have good people running the schools, they don't have much money to work with. 

Maybe I am crazy but I think Trump is overthinking this one. Give more money to these underperforming schools. It is tough for a kid that is 8 years old to worry about school when he is hungry and does not have a loving family to go home to later that night. 

Not that I think most of you care about this, but it is very close to my heart and would love to see what the liberals and conservatives here think should happen.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I hope Bernie made some money on all that merch his fans made 

Maybe if he did he would be so eager to tell people to just give theirs away

AM I RIGHT?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


>


Ill just leave this here

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/re...le-rape-melania-sign-to-discredit-protesters/

REVEALED: Pro-Trump trolls made vile ‘Rape Melania’ sign to discredit protesters

Last year, a sign at an anti-Trump rally that read “Rape Melania” drew widespread condemnation from across the political spectrum.

However, text messages obtained by BuzzFeed reveal that the sign was actually created by Jack Posobiec, a notorious pro-Trump troll who wanted to use the sign to discredit opposition to the president-elect.

In one text message conversation, Posobiec and a collaborator brainstormed messages to chant out during the protest in the hopes that unwitting demonstrators would pick them up.

One top suggestion they came up with was “Rape Melania,” which eventually made its way into a sign.

“What’s the mission?” Posobiec asked his partner in crime in regards to a planned protest at a Trump hotel on November 12 last year.

“To discredit them,” his partner replied. “Infiltrate them with bad signs.”

BuzzFeed’s sources claim that it is Posobiec himself hold the “Rape Melania” sign at the rally, although he denies this particular charge.

Interestingly, Posobiec is also being publicly accused of making the “Rape Melania” sign by high-profile alt-right figure Tim Gionet, who goes by the name “@BakedAlaska” on Twitter.


----

Also gotta love how Trump supporters post memes about so called Anti Trump internet trollers when Trump is the biggest internet Troll fo all time. LOL


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Ill just leave this here
> 
> https://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/re...le-rape-melania-sign-to-discredit-protesters/
> 
> REVEALED: Pro-Trump trolls made vile ‘Rape Melania’ sign to discredit protesters
> 
> Last year, a sign at an anti-Trump rally that read “Rape Melania” drew widespread condemnation from across the political spectrum.
> 
> However, text messages obtained by BuzzFeed reveal that the sign was actually created by Jack Posobiec, a notorious pro-Trump troll who wanted to use the sign to discredit opposition to the president-elect.
> 
> In one text message conversation, Posobiec and a collaborator brainstormed messages to chant out during the protest in the hopes that unwitting demonstrators would pick them up.
> 
> One top suggestion they came up with was “Rape Melania,” which eventually made its way into a sign.
> 
> “What’s the mission?” Posobiec asked his partner in crime in regards to a planned protest at a Trump hotel on November 12 last year.
> 
> “To discredit them,” his partner replied. “Infiltrate them with bad signs.”
> 
> BuzzFeed’s sources claim that it is Posobiec himself hold the “Rape Melania” sign at the rally, although he denies this particular charge.
> 
> Interestingly, Posobiec is also being publicly accused of making the “Rape Melania” sign by high-profile alt-right figure Tim Gionet, who goes by the name “@BakedAlaska” on Twitter.
> 
> 
> ----
> 
> Also gotta love how Trump supporters post memes about so called Anti Trump internet trollers when Trump is the biggest internet Troll fo all time. LOL


It's so extreme, not to mention vile, that it doesn't really deserve any more press or exposure than it's already gotten. It's not representative of Trumpers, they don't all go to the extremes of making rape signs.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Also gotta love how Trump supporters post memes about so called Anti Trump internet trollers when Trump is the biggest internet Troll fo all time. LOL


That's really not fair. Trump does plenty of trolling IRL as well as on the internet.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



> However, text messages obtained by BuzzFeed


I stopped reading after that. Try again.

#FakeNews

- Vic


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Single payer is the best possible healthcare they could do.


Actually, that would be the absolute worst option. We already have a clusterfuck with the ACA right now with the government starting to meddle in health insurance. For them to completely go all in and be the only game in town would completely destroy the system. 

For one thing, our taxes would skyrocket to pay for it. We're already taxed enough as is, and we'll be paying a hell of a lot more. Countries that have UHC run into situations where the care is rationed. People end up on long waiting lists for health care that they desperately need, that can be the difference between life and death. Why do you see people come from the UK, Canada, etc...to the US to get procedures done if their health care is supposed to be better? They know that they have to wait in their homeland, the wait is not nearly as long here. With 320 million people to provide cradle-to-grave care, you know we'll have it rationed here. 

If you have the government run the whole show, you're going to kill innovation. There won't be the incentive to provide better medicines, etc, not to mention health care costs won't be lowered as there is no free market. Doctors won't receive the money they are currently getting now, which will kill the incentive for many to enter the medical profession and some to leave the business. 

The reason the ACA was a failure was because the government tried to get involved in something it's not meant to be involved in. To double down on this and completely have it immersed in running the whole show, with all the other shit they've messed up over the years, is an absolute recipe for disaster. 



CamillePunk said:


> @DesolationRow @Carte Blanche @Pratchett @AryaDark @Sincere @L-DOPA @Fringe @Miss Sally @virus21 @Goku @Beatles123 @MillionDollarProns @Lumpy McRighteous @Neuron @The Absolute @BruiserKC
> 
> Rand Paul went on fake news organization CNN with Jake Tapper to discuss John Lewis, repealing Obamacare, and Rex Tillerson:


Like what Paul says about the replacement, it makes sense to have something ready to go and what he proposes will help drive down costs and open up competition across the spectrum. It is also important to open up competition by allowing the insurance options to be opened up across state lines and allow for more choices than just Medicaid and your employer. 

What I find interesting is what Trump's picks have been saying in regards to Russia and it is the absolute opposite of what he believes. Some people say that Trump really has no control over the people he wants running the Cabinet. I say that what is really happening is what Trump referred to when it comes to saying he wants us to be unpredictable. Trump has a clear control of his message and nothing gets said by his followers without his approval. Putin might see chaos when he hears Trump say one thing about him and Mattis, Ted Cruz, etc...say the opposite. I think Trump wants to set relations on edge, so that he can go in with a firm control of the situation because no one will know for sure which direction he will go.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



BruiserKC said:


> Actually, that would be the absolute worst option. We already have a clusterfuck with the ACA right now with the government starting to meddle in health insurance. For them to completely go all in and be the only game in town would completely destroy the system.
> 
> For one thing, our taxes would skyrocket to pay for it. We're already taxed enough as is, and we'll be paying a hell of a lot more. Countries that have UHC run into situations where the care is rationed. People end up on long waiting lists for health care that they desperately need, that can be the difference between life and death. Why do you see people come from the UK, Canada, etc...to the US to get procedures done if their health care is supposed to be better? They know that they have to wait in their homeland, the wait is not nearly as long here. With 320 million people to provide cradle-to-grave care, you know we'll have it rationed here.
> 
> If you have the government run the whole show, you're going to kill innovation. There won't be the incentive to provide better medicines, etc, not to mention health care costs won't be lowered as there is no free market. Doctors won't receive the money they are currently getting now, which will kill the incentive for many to enter the medical profession and some to leave the business.
> 
> The reason the ACA was a failure was because the government tried to get involved in something it's not meant to be involved in. To double down on this and completely have it immersed in running the whole show, with all the other shit they've messed up over the years, is an absolute recipe for disaster.


There is already a shortage of Nurses and Doctors, single payer means more people seeking medical aide and more people completely overworked with little to no additional compensation. Maybe if the single payer people volunteered to help so we weren't overworked it wouldn't be as bad but no, they're the type of people that want "Good" to happen but don't want to help work or pay for it. 

I work with Doctors and Nurses from Canada and other places who have this single payer crap and they came here for a reason, to escape it. It's awful, long wait times, overworking people and more bureaucracy than there is now. Working the ER is usually hell because people don't pay, come in and waste time and generally use the ER as a free clinic which there are plenty of. Oh but guess what, nobody likes to wait at clinics.. well expect fucktons of waiting with Single Payer. The only people who won't deal with it are the wealthy.

Health Care needs an overhaul in the US but Single Payer is not it, especially when we are next to a shit hole like Mexico who has a bunch of failing countries next to them. Places like Canada and the UK don't have to worry about this. Lots of people seem to forget more freebies = more illegals which = more over taxation and stretching of resources.

If you support a single payer and all these social programs, then I hope you have a good fucking job which the Government can tax the fuck out of you. I'm tired of these jobless college losers begging for more social programs and free shit when they contribute absolutely nothing! I work hard, I deal with the cesspool that is the American public just about everyday and my money belongs to me, not to people who will not better themselves.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



BruiserKC said:


> Actually, that would be the absolute worst option. We already have a clusterfuck with the ACA right now with the government starting to meddle in health insurance. For them to completely go all in and be the only game in town would completely destroy the system.
> 
> For one thing, our taxes would skyrocket to pay for it. We're already taxed enough as is, and we'll be paying a hell of a lot more. Countries that have UHC run into situations where the care is rationed. People end up on long waiting lists for health care that they desperately need, that can be the difference between life and death. Why do you see people come from the UK, Canada, etc...to the US to get procedures done if their health care is supposed to be better? They know that they have to wait in their homeland, the wait is not nearly as long here. With 320 million people to provide cradle-to-grave care, you know we'll have it rationed here.
> 
> If you have the government run the whole show, you're going to kill innovation. There won't be the incentive to provide better medicines, etc, not to mention health care costs won't be lowered as there is no free market. Doctors won't receive the money they are currently getting now, which will kill the incentive for many to enter the medical profession and some to leave the business.
> 
> The reason the ACA was a failure was because the government tried to get involved in something it's not meant to be involved in. To double down on this and completely have it immersed in running the whole show, with all the other shit they've messed up over the years, is an absolute recipe for disaster.
> 
> 
> 
> Like what Paul says about the replacement, it makes sense to have something ready to go and what he proposes will help drive down costs and open up competition across the spectrum. It is also important to open up competition by allowing the insurance options to be opened up across state lines and allow for more choices than just Medicaid and your employer.
> 
> What I find interesting is what Trump's picks have been saying in regards to Russia and it is the absolute opposite of what he believes. Some people say that Trump really has no control over the people he wants running the Cabinet. I say that what is really happening is what Trump referred to when it comes to saying he wants us to be unpredictable. Trump has a clear control of his message and nothing gets said by his followers without his approval. Putin might see chaos when he hears Trump say one thing about him and Mattis, Ted Cruz, etc...say the opposite. I think Trump wants to set relations on edge, so that he can go in with a firm control of the situation because no one will know for sure which direction he will go.


To expand on this; Rand is spearheading Obamacare repeal & replace:
@CamillePunk @Carte Blanche @DesolationRow @Miss Sally @Vic Capri @deepelemblues






Rand previews:
>Health Savings Accounts with tax credits
>legalize cheap skeleton plans
>allow individuals and small businesses to form health associations to negotiate plans
>staying on parents plan until 26 likely will be kept
>sounds like GOP is behind it

Other things we can expect:
>Individual mandate gone obviously
>Competition allowed across state lines
>general rollback of taxes and regulation on the industry

Thoughts? Seems pre'ddy good to me so far fam. Democrats are going to have a hard time fighting it, because its nothing crazy and just common sense steps. They are going to throw a fit about removing the pre-existing conditions clause, but thats objectively a huge part of why prices are out of control.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Vic Capri said:


> I stopped reading after that. Try again.
> 
> #FakeNews
> 
> - Vic


I'm like you, I won't believe anything until a snarky 'Youtube Political Commentator' I agree with picks it up.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



BruiserKC said:


> Actually, that would be the absolute worst option. We already have a clusterfuck with the ACA right now with the government starting to meddle in health insurance. For them to completely go all in and be the only game in town would completely destroy the system.
> 
> For one thing, our taxes would skyrocket to pay for it. We're already taxed enough as is, and we'll be paying a hell of a lot more. Countries that have UHC run into situations where the care is rationed. People end up on long waiting lists for health care that they desperately need, that can be the difference between life and death. Why do you see people come from the UK, Canada, etc...to the US to get procedures done if their health care is supposed to be better? They know that they have to wait in their homeland, the wait is not nearly as long here. With 320 million people to provide cradle-to-grave care, you know we'll have it rationed here.
> 
> If you have the government run the whole show, you're going to kill innovation. There won't be the incentive to provide better medicines, etc, not to mention health care costs won't be lowered as there is no free market. Doctors won't receive the money they are currently getting now, which will kill the incentive for many to enter the medical profession and some to leave the business.
> 
> The reason the ACA was a failure was because the government tried to get involved in something it's not meant to be involved in. To double down on this and completely have it immersed in running the whole show, with all the other shit they've messed up over the years, is an absolute recipe for disaster.


On the other side of the coin a big concern is when it's all private - the overriding factor is of course it's big business and profits above all else. The people who really need the help may not get it because they simply can't afford it - I'm sure there's numerous examples out there. I just don't see how a system that is meant to keep a society healthy can work that is first and foremost about profits.

I'm sure I've mentioned this before but Australia, has a single payer UHC that's 'backed up' by private providers that are there for procedures or items that aren't on the Medicare list. 

For example if you need an ambulance that probably won't be covered by medicare in most situations, but a trip to emergency won't see you spend a cent most likely.

I can tell you that most of the concerns you've mentioned - Skyrocketing Taxes, Stifled Innovation, OTT waiting times (they are there ofcourse but it's not crisis level or anything) - are simply not a reality for us as a society. It's not an issue it's handled correctly.


So I honestly don't think the system of a single payer UHC is bad, it's about executing it correctly.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> To expand on this; Rand is spearheading Obamacare repeal & replace:
> @CamillePunk @Carte Blanche @DesolationRow @Miss Sally @Vic Capri @deepelemblues
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rand previews:
> >Health Savings Accounts with tax credits
> >legalize cheap skeleton plans
> >allow individuals and small businesses to form health associations to negotiate plans
> >staying on parents plan until 26 likely will be kept
> >sounds like GOP is behind it
> 
> Other things we can expect:
> >Individual mandate gone obviously
> >Competition allowed across state lines
> >general rollback of taxes and regulation on the industry
> 
> Thoughts? Seems pre'ddy good to me so far fam. Democrats are going to have a hard time fighting it, because its nothing crazy and just common sense steps. They are going to throw a fit about removing the pre-existing conditions clause, but thats objectively a huge part of why prices are out of control.


I would keep the pre-existing conditions option. If you drive down costs and open up competition, then it will be really a moot point. Then the insurance companies will go ahead and be more than willing to permit patients with pre-existing conditions, especially if they know they could lose business to other companies that are more than willing to accommodate them. For those that are right now on short-term plans that they bought on the exchange, find a way to allow them to keep those plans so that they have insurance. 

What would really help is to have portable insurance plans that you can take with you. Right now, my health insurance is through my employer. If I switch jobs, I may face a gap in insurance coverage as some employers require me to be employed for anywhere from 30-90 days to start receiving health/dental insurance and other benefits. Plus, my new insurance might have piss-poor chiropractic coverage or something else. If we have insurance that we can purchase and be able to take with us wherever we go, it will make things much easier and this way we know our health needs are met. 



yeahbaby! said:


> On the other side of the coin a big concern is when it's all private - the overriding factor is of course it's big business and profits above all else. The people who really need the help may not get it because they simply can't afford it - I'm sure there's numerous examples out there. I just don't see how a system that is meant to keep a society healthy can work that is first and foremost about profits.
> 
> I'm sure I've mentioned this before but Australia, has a single payer UHC that's 'backed up' by private providers that are there for procedures or items that aren't on the Medicare list.
> 
> For example if you need an ambulance that probably won't be covered by medicare in most situations, but a trip to emergency won't see you spend a cent most likely.
> 
> I can tell you that most of the concerns you've mentioned - Skyrocketing Taxes, Stifled Innovation, OTT waiting times (they are there ofcourse but it's not crisis level or anything) - are simply not a reality for us as a society. It's not an issue it's handled correctly.
> 
> 
> So I honestly don't think the system of a single payer UHC is bad, it's about executing it correctly.


You also have the benefit of the Australian government only having to provide insurance for 24 million...a far cry from 320 million Americans in this country that would have to be covered cradle-to-grade. It is far more taxing on resources providing for almost 14 times that number of people. Not to mention the even more bureaucratic red tape that would be created that would be needed to cover all those people.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



BruiserKC said:


> You also have the benefit of the Australian government only having to provide insurance for 24 million...a far cry from 320 million Americans in this country that would have to be covered cradle-to-grade. It is far more taxing on resources providing for almost 14 times that number of people. Not to mention the even more bureaucratic red tape that would be created that would be needed to cover all those people.


Um - you have more tax dollars, more resources, bigger govt to go along with that higher population so that doesn't mean anything. There's plenty of other countries with higher populations than us that do much better than America with a public/private system and they're doing the health thing much much better.

You don't need miles of red tape if you do it the right way.

Overall what you need to do is start with is a desire to keep your society healthy above all else, rather than make huge private companies richer and then keep society healthy. I know that's putting it too simply but I'll say it again - if profits are the number one thing then it just won't be effective enough.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



BruiserKC said:


> You also have the benefit of the Australian government only having to provide insurance for 24 million...a far cry from 320 million Americans in this country that would have to be covered cradle-to-grade. It is far more taxing on resources providing for almost 14 times that number of people. Not to mention the even more bureaucratic red tape that would be created that would be needed to cover all those people.


People seem to forget how big America is and where we're located. Most of these single payer places are landlocked or next to other wealthy or stable countries. America is not. What works for one may not work for another, if what works for one individual won't work for another individual, what makes people think the same plan can work for an entirely different country?


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> People seem to forget how big America is and where we're located. Most of these single payer places are landlocked or next to other wealthy or stable countries. America is not. What works for one may not work for another, if what works for one individual won't work for another individual, what makes people think the same plan can work for an entirely different country?


What makes you think it won't work? We share a lot of the same types of setups when it comes to other public and private sectors, why not try it when it comes to health providing as well?


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Um - you have more tax dollars, more resources, bigger govt to go along with that higher population so that doesn't mean anything. There's plenty of other countries with higher populations than us that do much better than America with a public/private system and they're doing the health thing much much better.
> 
> You don't need miles of red tape if you do it the right way.
> 
> Overall what you need to do is start with is a desire to keep your society healthy above all else, rather than make huge private companies richer and then keep society healthy. I know that's putting it too simply but I'll say it again - if profits are the number one thing then it just won't be effective enough.


But wanting to be healthy is not a societal issue, it's a personal one. I do want to be healthy, but it's not for the benefit of society as a whole. I am making the choice to be healthy for my family, as well as I want to enjoy the benefits of a long life. If people notice it and appreciate it, fine, but they aren't the reason I'm doing it.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> What makes you think it won't work? We share a lot of the same types of setups when it comes to other public and private sectors, why not try it when it comes to health providing as well?


Because our population is rather massive and we're next to shithole country that's connected to failing Governments. The tax burden on providing health care for both citizens and illegals would be astronomical. The Hospital I work for hemorrhages money treating people who don't pay, illegals and people who abuse the system. America would need it's own from scratch reformed Health Care system. One Size Fits All doesn't work with Health Care, especially the way our system is setup.

The problem with American Health Care is that there is a load of bureaucracy, too much power for the Insurance companies and smaller companies and manufacturers getting bullied. This is something that pisses me off, if you have Insurance it should be able to compete global, at least within the states but it's not. Insurance Cartels have carved up the map so they can rake people over the coals. 

Single Payer will not work, our current system needs to be redone. One way to lower costs would be to allow smaller manufacturing companies to actually compete. It's insane the red tape and the money you have to spend to become medical grade, it's just a way to see only the big boys get the money. A small example would be drills they use during surgery are mostly just standard drills, stripped of plastic with a few modifications, a rep who I went to dinner with was telling me there is really no difference between these and a drill you buy from your local hardware store. But these medical ones cost 10-15% times as much because they're "Medical". 

Hospitals and HC providers have to use this stuff so they pay out of the ass and then overcharge the patient to make up for the money they had to spend for this. This would be something I'd tackle first and foremost to save money.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



BruiserKC said:


> But wanting to be healthy is not a societal issue, it's a personal one. I do want to be healthy, but it's not for the benefit of society as a whole. I am making the choice to be healthy for my family, as well as I want to enjoy the benefits of a long life. If people notice it and appreciate it, fine, but they aren't the reason I'm doing it.



It is for the benefit of society to have an overall healthy society - how can it not be?

For one: more healthy people = more healthy and able workers and consumers to keep the economy ticking along.

Also, more available preventative measures in the short term - Less drain on the entire system with less small problems turning into big ones.

Personal wants don't come into it, it's about having the services there for anyone who needs it so they can be healthy enough to contribute back to society.


----------



## Simpsons Modern Life

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



BruiserKC said:


> Actually, that would be the absolute worst option. We already have a clusterfuck with the ACA right now with the government starting to meddle in health insurance. For them to completely go all in and be the only game in town would completely destroy the system.
> 
> For one thing, our taxes would skyrocket to pay for it. We're already taxed enough as is, and we'll be paying a hell of a lot more. Countries that have UHC run into situations where the care is rationed. People end up on long waiting lists for health care that they desperately need, that can be the difference between life and death. Why do you see people come from the UK, Canada, etc...to the US to get procedures done if their health care is supposed to be better? They know that they have to wait in their homeland, the wait is not nearly as long here. With 320 million people to provide cradle-to-grave care, you know we'll have it rationed here.
> 
> If you have the government run the whole show, you're going to kill innovation. There won't be the incentive to provide better medicines, etc, not to mention health care costs won't be lowered as there is no free market. Doctors won't receive the money they are currently getting now, which will kill the incentive for many to enter the medical profession and some to leave the business.
> 
> The reason the ACA was a failure was because the government tried to get involved in something it's not meant to be involved in. To double down on this and completely have it immersed in running the whole show, with all the other shit they've messed up over the years, is an absolute recipe for disaster.


Before Obamacare many more wouldn't even have the option to be in the queue for healthcare or be unable to compensate for the care they received, leaving hospitals and patients to be both left in the red after a life is saved. The ACA isn't all bad, seeing as even those who wants it repealed wants to keep some of its provisions but sacrifices have to be made by the more well to do for it to work. A lot of the better health system have private hospitals that attract rich patients that really help to subsidise the overall costs of providing basic healthcare coverage.

Most of the people getting to the US from those countries to get healthcare either have higher disposable income to pay a premium to cut waiting time or have special cases that require special care that isn't available in their homeland. You have more people to care for, but also more resources to take care of them. A better measurement is coverage per population rather than raw numbers of population. You can't tell me the richest country in the world can't afford to provide basic healthcare to its people while churches there can raise millions from its followers for their pastors to fly in private jets.


----------



## 3ku1

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

:lol :lol :lol

Sorry ever since Trump won I have been laughing so hard. I mean go check his twitter account. YOu would swear its a parody account. But nope its the twitter account of the next president of the most powerful nation in the world. Mind Boggiling. Trump is like a social media troll. But I Think America just need to get over it. They made their bed.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

single payer is bad because it employs violence.

there.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Socialists will never understand the relationship between declining jobs in their countries and their social welfare policies. It's a waste of time trying to explain it to them. 

Most of these people can't even accept that their "free" healthcare and employment insurance is essentially the result of stealing from others and the only difference between them and a petty thief is that lawmakers decided that stealing bread from a store is a crime, but taking someone's money under threat of incarceration and giving it to them is legal.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> It is for the benefit of society to have an overall healthy society - how can it not be?
> 
> For one: more healthy people = more healthy and able workers and consumers to keep the economy ticking along.
> 
> Also, more available preventative measures in the short term - Less drain on the entire system with less small problems turning into big ones.
> 
> Personal wants don't come into it, it's about having the services there for anyone who needs it so they can be healthy enough to contribute back to society.


This is all fine and dandy if there are jobs for taxes to be gained from, automation is coming so less jobs. So who pays when people don't have work?

Who pays for the massive influx of people coming to the country to use the Health Care? Again, America is located next to a corrupt poor country and that country is connected to failing countries. Our Border isn't secure one bit, we cannot pay for everyone!

Who is going to make up for the lack of Doctors and Nurses? There is already a shortage in the US and because of being overworked, high Insurance for Doctors, who is going to volunteer to be more overworked than they are now?

Is there a cutoff for old people? Social Security is pretty much dead so who pays for the elderly care?

Working Class and Middle Class is already over taxed, the Middle Class is dying, so who is going to bleed to pay for all this?

Something needs to be done but it isn't Single Payer and I'm sorry but I work hard for my money, I went to school, I don't deserve to pay more taxes. Your thoughts sound good on paper but not application, much like the Welfare system, it's just a system that supports parasites who consume but add nothing to the economy nor job market. I cannot imagine how much the tax payers would be footing the bill for the increase in births to follow "free" Health Care to everyone.

Love this "Free" part of it, it's not free, people who actually work pay for it. Only way I'd support this is if only Tax paying citizens/people with work visas who are retired or working get access to it, nobody else and the coverage should be based on how much taxes you actually pay.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

For any Australians playing along at home Pauline Hanson has been invited to Trump's inauguration and Malcolm Turnbull hasn't. 

And btw, if using Universal Healthcare is theft because it's funded by taxation and taxation is theft, then anything funded by taxation is theft, for example using roads built from using public funds.

Also looks like we're ratifying the TPP?!? I guess it's not dead after all, just will have no America in it, unless Trump "renegotiates".


----------



## Blackbeard

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*










:ken


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Bill Paxton said:


> :ken


The crybaby hyperbole is real. LOL Nazis, does anyone have access to an actual history book? Fuck.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> The crybaby hyperbole is real. LOL Nazis, does anyone have access to an actual history book? Fuck.


I don't think that was saying that he was as bad as Hitler, just pointing out that Trump as President is a classic alternate history thing, ie that Simpsons episode, much like the Nazi's winning WW2 is a common alternate history thing, like in wolfenstien.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> This is all fine and dandy if there are jobs for taxes to be gained from, *automation is coming so less jobs*. So who pays when people don't have work?


What happens when 20% of the jobs are automated? 30%? 50%? What happens when all forms of manual labor are rendered obsolete by automation? What happens when automation starts making white collar jobs disappear too? What happens to society when there simply are not enough jobs to go around anymore?


----------



## THE HAITCH

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> What happens when 20% of the jobs are automated? 30%? 50%? What happens when all forms of manual labor are rendered obsolete by automation? What happens when automation starts making white collar jobs disappear too? What happens to society when there simply are not enough jobs to go around anymore?


Hard times-uhh...

Hard times are when the textile workers around this country are out of work and got four, five kids, and can't pay their wages, can't buy their food. 

Hard times are when the auto workers are out of work and they tell them 'Go home!'. 

And hard times are when a man has worked at a job thirty years — thirty years! — they give him a watch, kick him in the butt and say 'Hey, a computer took your place, daddy!'. That's hard times! That's hard times.


----------



## MillionDollarProns

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Automation will be fine because we won't need to have people working backbreaking or intellectually unsatisfying jobs. Until the Machine Crusade happens and we must initiate the Bulterian Jyhad against the Thinking Machines of course.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Automation has already driven out the vast majority of manual labor jobs that it _can_. There can't be substitutes for the vast majority of service industry jobs until and unless we have *fully *functional AI and Androids and we're at least 4-500 years from that happening. 

At that point, humanity will find solutions. But to find solutions now for what society _might _look like in a few hundred years should not come at the expense of the wealth and well-being of this generation. 

We should never ignore the fact that a good chunk of the unemployed is made up of the unemployable (disabilities, shit degrees, lack of qualification, drive, motivation, industry decline, people not keeping up with what is required by society) and that will _always _be the case no matter how much or how little automation we have. 

I have no sympy for someone that decided to spend 60k on college getting a degree in women's study when that same amount could have been spent on setting up a small business and then that person having the balls to claim that society owes them anything at all when it doesn't. Your choice. Your consequences. 

At some point people have to accept that getting degrees in feminist dance therapy, english, philosophy, political science and sociology doesn't get them jobs (as those degrees are easier to get and therefore the market will always be saturated) and accept the responsibility of their absolutely horrendous choices that lead them to dead-ends and social welfare before they even exit college.



Miss Sally said:


> The crybaby hyperbole is real. LOL Nazis, does anyone have access to an actual history book? Fuck.


Now that I'm officially on Twitter, I get to see good stuff like this: 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/820857589319639040


> And btw, if using Universal Healthcare is theft because it's funded by taxation and taxation is theft, then anything funded by taxation is theft, for example using roads built from using public funds.







































Do you really think that I would disagree with that? :kobelol


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> What happens when 20% of the jobs are automated? 30%? 50%? What happens when all forms of manual labor are rendered obsolete by automation? What happens when automation starts making white collar jobs disappear too? What happens to society when there simply are not enough jobs to go around anymore?


i think all your questions are extremely valid and we should totally act like all jobs have been automated and switch to a resource based economy.

where everyone is happy and healthy and consuming lavish amounts of meat.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> There is already a shortage of Nurses and Doctors, single payer means more people seeking medical aide and more people completely overworked with little to no additional compensation. Maybe if the single payer people volunteered to help so we weren't overworked it would be as bad but no, they're the type of people that want "Good" to happen but don't want to help work or pay for it.
> 
> I work with Doctors and Nurses from Canada and other places who have this single payer crap and they came here for a reason, to escape it. It's awful, long wait times, overworking people and more bureaucracy than there is now. Working the ER is usually hell because people don't pay, come in and waste time and generally use the ER as a free clinic which there are plenty of. Oh but guess what, nobody likes to wait at clinics.. well expect fucktons of waiting with Single Payer. The only people who won't deal with it are the wealthy.
> 
> Health Care needs an overhaul in the US but Single Payer is not it, especially when we are next to a shit hole like Mexico who has a bunch of failing countries next to them. Places like Canada and the UK don't have to worry about this. Lots of people seem to forget more freebies = more illegals which = more over taxation and stretching of resources.
> 
> If you support a single payer and all these social programs, then I hope you have a good fucking job which the Government can tax the fuck out of you. I'm tired of these jobless college losers begging for more social programs and free shit when they contribute absolutely nothing! I work hard, I deal with the cesspool that is the American public just about everyday and my money belongs to me, not to people who will not better themselves.



@DesolationRow already knows this, but I will be making a huge post concerning healthcare in relation to Obamacare, the repeal and other systems of healthcare in Europe and around the world. It should be hugely eye opening to people or at the very least turn some heads. Probably be out later today.

Stay tuned


----------



## Alco

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I certainly hope you will not claim good health is somehow not a basic human right, like I've seen someone do in here.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Alco said:


> I certainly hope you will not claim good health is somehow not a basic human right, like I've seen someone do in here.


I'd say that good health is a human right, but others paying for it without their consent puts this in a murky area where you have to question the moral paradox. 

Think about it this way. 

If a person steals a life-saving drug from a pharmacy, that same government will send him to jail which takes money from someone else to give him the life-saving drug. The act is the same. 1 person taking from another to help themselves. The only reason why we believe that there is a difference is because we've been indoctrinated to believe that taxation is moral while direct stealing isn't without realizing that they're both the same thing. 

Do you see the paradox?


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> It is for the benefit of society to have an overall healthy society - how can it not be?
> 
> For one: more healthy people = more healthy and able workers and consumers to keep the economy ticking along.
> 
> Also, more available preventative measures in the short term - Less drain on the entire system with less small problems turning into big ones.
> 
> Personal wants don't come into it, it's about having the services there for anyone who needs it so they can be healthy enough to contribute back to society.


But it all starts at the personal level anyway. Too many people look at it top-on-down, I look at things from the bottom-on-up. These lifestyle choices are made at the ground level. There are people like me who choose to be healthy. On the other hand, there are people who choose to live an unhealthy lifestyle. Their idea of a mid-morning snack is wolfing down three Big Macs, or they go out and smoke three packs of Marlboros a day. Ultimately, they are the ones who would really raise the costs of our insurance care in a UHC system. I understand people do get sick and sometimes it just flat out happens to healthy people and there's not much you can do to control it. On the other hand, I have no interest in subsidizing someone's unhealthy choice of living. If they choose to do things that are unhealthy, that's on them. 



FriedTofu said:


> Before Obamacare many more wouldn't even have the option to be in the queue for healthcare or be unable to compensate for the care they received, leaving hospitals and patients to be both left in the red after a life is saved. The ACA isn't all bad, seeing as even those who wants it repealed wants to keep some of its provisions but sacrifices have to be made by the more well to do for it to work. A lot of the better health system have private hospitals that attract rich patients that really help to subsidise the overall costs of providing basic healthcare coverage.
> 
> Most of the people getting to the US from those countries to get healthcare either have higher disposable income to pay a premium to cut waiting time or have special cases that require special care that isn't available in their homeland. You have more people to care for, but also more resources to take care of them. A better measurement is coverage per population rather than raw numbers of population. You can't tell me the richest country in the world can't afford to provide basic healthcare to its people while churches there can raise millions from its followers for their pastors to fly in private jets.


The difference is that individuals and businesses are the ones that raise the donations for their pastors to fly around. That's more of a private sector thing, much like donations for our Olympic Committee come strictly from the private sector. With 320 million plus in this country, the healthcare costs for basic coverage from everyone would be staggering. Right now, with our country $20 trillion in the hole, it would really make our debt that much worse and put an even bigger burden on our health system then we already have now. 

I am perfectly fine with keeping the pre-existing conditions clause, but the government doesn't need to be involved in my health care decisions. Besides, when our government has fucked everything else up from foreign relations to our budget, etc...I really don't have an overwhelming urge to put my health and the health of my family in their hands.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



BruiserKC said:


> Besides, when our government has fucked everything else up from foreign relations to our budget, etc...I really don't have an overwhelming urge to put my health and the health of my family in their hands.


Man, if you weren't a declared republican, I'd start thinking you're a libertarian.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Alco said:


> I certainly hope you will not claim good health is somehow not a basic human right, like I've seen someone do in here.


like it's some ludicrous thing to claim.


----------



## Alco

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> I'd say that good health is a human right, but others paying for it without their consent puts this in a murky area where you have to question the moral paradox.
> 
> Think about it this way.
> 
> If a person steals a life-saving drug from a pharmacy, that same government will send him to jail which takes money from someone else to give him the life-saving drug. The act is the same. 1 person taking from another to help themselves. The only reason why we believe that there is a difference is because we've been indoctrinated to believe that taxation is moral while direct stealing isn't without realizing that they're both the same thing.
> 
> Do you see the paradox?


I get where you're coming from and you make a solid point.

However I don't agree that taxation equals theft. Is the system highly flawed, misused or sometimes plain abusive? Yes. I live in Belgium, one of the highest taxed countries in Europe, so I know a thing or two about governments taking half of what you've earned, and then some. However, I believe there are certain services that are important, but could or would never be provided if it weren't for tax euros (or dollars if you will) paying for them. I'm talking about general infrastructure, I'm talking about education (yes, there are private schools, but those tend to cost a fortune), I'm talking about certain cultural activities, parcs, etc. Are these not services we wish to use? If so, I find it logical in a way to pay a certain amount for it. Even if we don't at all times make use of said service. That's where healthcare lies. I'm not sick all the time and I do my best to live a lifestyle that won't destroy my body, but sometimes things happen, sometimes I get sick and when I do, I've got a pretty damn good medical service at my disposal that I've paid for with my taxes. 

There will always be free riders. This is inevitable and will be a problem no matter what system is in place.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Maybe if people spent more time protesting tax dollars going to things like bombing hospitals in Afghanistan instead of whining about tax dollars being "stolen" from them to pay for healthcare, the world might not be such a shitty place.

:draper2


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> It's so extreme, not to mention vile, that it doesn't really deserve any more press or exposure than it's already gotten. It's not representative of Trumpers, they don't all go to the extremes of making rape signs.


Its very representative of Trumpers and Trump himself LOL but sure downplay what Trump supporters do to try and discredit anti-Trump people.




deepelemblues said:


> that wooshing sound you hear is the point going right over BM's head
> 
> i was talking about ideas that originated in or were supported by one party or parts of one party that later on dropped those ideas entirely
> 
> learn my history ffs i forget more history with each bong rip than you ever have or ever will know. then i pick up my book and remember it again. i havent spent thousands of hours reading history books to have someone who has decided to act like a 4 year old since november 8th to tell me to learn my history ffs.


You prove over and over gain how you never have a clue what you are talking about, you have been wrong on 90% of the things you ever talk about when you are not making shit troll posts that add nothing to the discussion.

Also love your projection with the 4 year old thing, that is how you always act like a child, along with beatles.

You are one of the biggest jokes on this board.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

For the record, health care is extremely important. I know that I will always find a way to provide that for myself and my family. I just don't think the government needs to be involved, it tends to really mess things up. 

BTW, @tater...we don't go out of our way to intentionally bomb hospitals, unlike people who go out of their way to deliberately kill innocent civilians in the name of power. Tragic accidents happen, but that's not an excuse for us to try and do the right thing. And it's an unfair comparison to make between that and "stealing" tax dollars for health care. 



Carte Blanche said:


> Man, if you weren't a declared republican, I'd start thinking you're a libertarian.


I'm a conservative...I haven't been a registered Republican in about 8 years. The GOP has talked for years about being the party of limited government when they weren't in control. Suddenly, they forget all about that the moment they are back in charge. Meanwhile, no matter who is in charge, my thoughts and beliefs are non-negotiable. The government needs to handle the basics as set forth by the Constitution. The rest needs to be taken care of by me.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> People seem to forget how big America is and where we're located. Most of these single payer places are landlocked or next to other wealthy or stable countries. America is not. What works for one may not work for another, if what works for one individual won't work for another individual, what makes people think the same plan can work for an entirely different country?


Single payer works in pretty much every country its in, so why would it not work in the US? yes the US has more people than those countries but the US also has more money.


----------



## Smarkout

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Single payer works in pretty much every country its in, so why would it not work in the US? yes the US has more people than those countries but the US also has more money.


Not sure if you paid attention to history class, but our government tends to mess shit up when they get full control. 

Kind of like Common Core.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Dave, what college did you go to and what year?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Smarkout said:


> Not sure if you paid attention to history class, but our government tends to mess shit up when they get full control.
> 
> Kind of like Common Core.


There is nothing wrong with common core. There is a reason why the US is so far behind other countries in education. Common core is needed to fix that.


----------



## Smarkout

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



birthday_massacre said:


> There is nothing wrong with common core. There is a reason why the US is so far behind other countries in education. Common core is needed to fix that.


Not sure how familiar you are with common core, and I know we have talked about it before but this is not the right way to go about things. 

The teacher evaluations are a joke because every teacher is held to the same standard. 
For example:

Teacher A works in a very rich private school where all the kids are upper middle class. Everybody has both parents and are involved in extra curricular activities. 

Teacher B works in an inner city school where kids are coming into school hungry and only have one parent. 

Who's students are going to have the better grades? 

I'm not saying education needs to stay the same exact way, it wasn't working the greatest. But when the government puts together an education program for every student in America.... Give me a break. :rock5

Many people think administration to schools are out of touch, but the national government is not? Giving education back locally allows for more teachers to be involved in curriculum which is a huge win. They are the one's who work with the kids every day and work with Common Core. They know the strengths and weaknesses the best. 

Elementary schools are doing fine with this, the kids are still being treated like kids. State testing is a little ridiculous but you need to know if the teachers are doing their jobs. Like I said before though, this still is not a perfect test on teachers nor students. 

Middle schools and high schools should focus more on potential careers though. I knew by 10th grade I wasn't majoring in science, and knew by 11th grade I wanted to be an elementary school teacher. So why was I forced to take Physics in 11th grade?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@Tater - If you really think that despite everything that's been said in here about Trump being the anti-war candidate and taking that for his word made him the better candidate that someone like me wouldn't oppose the bombing of innocent hospitals as much if not more than I do socialism, then you really have no fucking clue what you're on about with regards to me personally. Also, lack of government means lack of government. It doesn't mean "be selective about where government funding goes".

But given the climate we live in, what makes more sense considering that we're force to live with one? Have one that is more rich and therefore more powerful, or one that is prevented from over-reach and over-taxation at each and every step? Do you really think that the same government that takes your money and bombs hospitals deserves to take even MORE money just because now they're saying that they will give you "free" stuff?

@Alco - Government doesn't provide you anything. Government takes your money and tells you they manage it better than you they've convinced you that you or the capitalist machine won't do it and therefore you need them to do it for you. 

This brainwashing is worse for people in social welfare states so I can understand why you feel that you can't do anything without your government doing it. I can't break you out of this shell (and I don't intend to), but all I can say is that every single service provided is actually provided by people themselves and this is why I'm a proponent of smaller structures and areas of governance as opposed to major superstructures. Before the governments got bigger, it was ALWAYS just private enterprise that paid for and built EVERYTHING because it was in their interests. Where countries have broken/failing governments, the capitalists are still building schools and hospitals and other types of infrastructure in those communities. It's just that since people have been convinced that all forms of capitalism and corporatism are inherently evil, no one actually covers that small village in Africa where Shell built the school for its worker's children (something that capitalists are notoriously ignored for because it doesn't fit the narrative that they're just exploiters). 

We can do it again. In fact, it is still private enterprise that's building everything. The government simply takes your money to pay for it, and then pretends that it's "free".


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Alco said:


> However I don't agree that taxation equals theft. Is the system highly flawed, misused or sometimes plain abusive? Yes. I live in Belgium, one of the highest taxed countries in Europe, so I know a thing or two about governments taking half of what you've earned, and then some. However, I believe there are certain services that are important, but could or would never be provided if it weren't for tax euros (or dollars if you will) paying for them. I'm talking about general infrastructure, I'm talking about education (yes, there are private schools, but those tend to cost a fortune), I'm talking about certain cultural activities, parcs, etc. Are these not services we wish to use? If so, I find it logical in a way to pay a certain amount for it. Even if we don't at all times make use of said service. That's where healthcare lies. I'm not sick all the time and I do my best to live a lifestyle that won't destroy my body, but sometimes things happen, sometimes I get sick and when I do, I've got a pretty damn good medical service at my disposal that I've paid for with my taxes.
> 
> There will always be free riders. This is inevitable and will be a problem no matter what system is in place.


It's a fact that taxation equals theft. It's not really something you get to agree with or disagree with. Throughout human history in common law theft has been the act of forcefully taking something from another person. It doesn't matter if that person would've given it to you anyway had you asked, or if you later give them something in return. It's still theft. If I choose not to pay taxes, I'll get arrested which is a death threat if I resist. Taxation is always forced, and thus is always theft. Doesn't matter if you would pay them anyway. 

If you want to give a group of people money and have them do something that benefits you or others, go spend money at a business or donate to a charity. You don't need the guns and the mass robbery to make things happen in this world.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I think I might have to ban deepelemblues and birthday massacre from this thread. Might not though. Probably will.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Thanks for the buffer post, MrMister.



Alkomesh2 said:


> And btw, if using Universal Healthcare is theft because it's funded by taxation and taxation is theft, then anything funded by taxation is theft, for example using roads built from using public funds.


Now you're getting it. :trump3


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



BruiserKC said:


> BTW, @tater...we don't go out of our way to intentionally bomb hospitals, unlike people who go out of their way to deliberately kill innocent civilians in the name of power. Tragic accidents happen, but that's not an excuse for us to try and do the right thing. And it's an unfair comparison to make between that and "stealing" tax dollars for health care.


I learned something new today. There is a username "tater." :lol I wasn't the only one curious about it either because @Chrome checked it out too.

Also, you didn't know that the USA deliberately kills innocent civilians in the name of power? How adorably naive. unk2

I don't think it's an unfair comparison at all. The USA does all kinds of fucked up things with our tax dollars, especially where the military is concerned. People regularly whine about their tax dollars being used at home to help people but when it comes to all the brutal things being done around the world with them, there's nary a peep. It is absolutely a fair point to bring that up in this conversation. If people are going to bitch about how our tax dollars are being used, it seems like to me that death and destruction abroad should be higher on the list of priorities than things that actually help our citizens at home. We can't even get clean water to Flint and we're going to fix what's wrong with Afghanistan? Give me a fucken break. fpalm


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> I learned something new today. There is a username "tater." :lol I wasn't the only one curious about it either because @Chrome checked it out too.
> 
> Also, you didn't know that the USA deliberately kills innocent civilians in the name of power? How adorably naive. unk2
> 
> I don't think it's an unfair comparison at all. The USA does all kinds of fucked up things with our tax dollars, especially where the military is concerned. People regularly whine about their tax dollars being used at home to help people but when it comes to all the brutal things being done around the world with them, there's nary a peep. It is absolutely a fair point to bring that up in this conversation. If people are going to bitch about how our tax dollars are being used, it seems like to me that death and destruction abroad should be higher on the list of priorities than things that actually help our citizens at home. We can't even get clean water to Flint and we're going to fix what's wrong with Afghanistan? Give me a fucken break. fpalm


I'll agree whole heartedly... which is why I am against the amount of funding the military gets, what the military does (not all of it bad, but I'm sick of being in other countries instead of simply worrying about actual defense), I'm against foreign aid to countries with questionable, at best, practices, and I'm just generally against the gov't in general. 

If I had my way, I'd let the rest of the world have whatever system it wants and I'd be in some private little spot that I can just ignore the idiocy of all these societies that have their head shoved so far up their ass I'm surprised they haven't suffocated on all the shit.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> This is all fine and dandy if there are jobs for taxes to be gained from, automation is coming so less jobs. So who pays when people don't have work?
> 
> Who pays for the massive influx of people coming to the country to use the Health Care? Again, America is located next to a corrupt poor country and that country is connected to failing countries. Our Border isn't secure one bit, we cannot pay for everyone!
> 
> Who is going to make up for the lack of Doctors and Nurses? There is already a shortage in the US and because of being overworked, high Insurance for Doctors, who is going to volunteer to be more overworked than they are now?
> 
> Is there a cutoff for old people? Social Security is pretty much dead so who pays for the elderly care?
> 
> Working Class and Middle Class is already over taxed, the Middle Class is dying, so who is going to bleed to pay for all this?
> 
> Something needs to be done but it isn't Single Payer and I'm sorry but I work hard for my money, I went to school, I don't deserve to pay more taxes. Your thoughts sound good on paper but not application, much like the Welfare system, it's just a system that supports parasites who consume but add nothing to the economy nor job market. I cannot imagine how much the tax payers would be footing the bill for the increase in births to follow "free" Health Care to everyone.
> 
> Love this "Free" part of it, it's not free, people who actually work pay for it. Only way I'd support this is if only Tax paying citizens/people with work visas who are retired or working get access to it, nobody else and the coverage should be based on how much taxes you actually pay.


I don't really see much use in responding to your points since you're so negative and I don't think you'll listen to any reason. I'm just really.... glad that I don't share a world view that is so negative like yours Sally.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Kabraxal said:


> I'll agree whole heartedly... which is why I am against the amount of funding the military gets, what the military does (not all of it bad, but I'm sick of being in other countries instead of simply worrying about actual defense), I'm against foreign aid to countries with questionable, at best, practices, and I'm just generally against the gov't in general.
> 
> If I had my way, I'd let the rest of the world have whatever system it wants and I'd be in some private little spot that I can just ignore the idiocy of all these societies that have their head shoved so far up their ass I'm surprised they haven't suffocated on all the shit.


This guy gets it


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



BruiserKC said:


> But it all starts at the personal level anyway. Too many people look at it top-on-down, I look at things from the bottom-on-up. These lifestyle choices are made at the ground level. There are people like me who choose to be healthy. On the other hand, there are people who choose to live an unhealthy lifestyle. Their idea of a mid-morning snack is wolfing down three Big Macs, or they go out and smoke three packs of Marlboros a day. Ultimately, they are the ones who would really raise the costs of our insurance care in a UHC system. I understand people do get sick and sometimes it just flat out happens to healthy people and there's not much you can do to control it. On the other hand, I have no interest in subsidizing someone's unhealthy choice of living. If they choose to do things that are unhealthy, that's on them.


Well I have no interest in subsidising half the things I do either with my tax, but I'm happy to do it for healthcare because it sure it one of the better things you can spend your money on. That's great that you take care of yourself but you can still get sick out of nowhere like millions of others do all the time.

Sorry if this is generalising or sounds biased (and I'm not completely targeting you), but this is what really irks me about the conservative right mindset when it comes to the idea of things like public healthcare or public anything. You want to throw the whole service out just because some people abuse it - the first thing that comes up is the majority of the sick who need care have done something to deserve it - they weren't responsible enough, they're to blame for their own situation. Therefore no one deserves it. All the people who get cancer and brain tumors and chronic back problems and MS out of nowhere can just get fucked.

Yet when it comes to corporate handouts and massive subsidies to energy companies for example, the fact they dodge paying tax, they put fuck all back in to the community in comparison to what they take out, that's barely mentioned. They're all 'job creators' and we need to pay them to entice them to do business in our countries. Sickening


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Well I have no interest in subsidising half the things I do either with my tax, but I'm happy to do it for healthcare because it sure it one of the better things you can spend your money on. That's great that you take care of yourself but you can still get sick out of nowhere like millions of others do all the time.
> 
> Sorry if this is generalising or sounds biased (and I'm not completely targeting you), but this is what really irks me about the conservative right mindset when it comes to the idea of things like public healthcare or public anything. You want to throw the whole service out just because some people abuse it - the first thing that comes up is the majority of the sick who need care have done something to deserve it - they weren't responsible enough, they're to blame for their own situation. Therefore no one deserves it. All the people who get cancer and brain tumors and chronic back problems and MS out of nowhere can just get fucked.
> 
> Yet when it comes to corporate handouts and massive subsidies to energy companies for example, the fact they dodge paying tax, they put fuck all back in to the community in comparison to what they take out, that's barely mentioned. They're all 'job creators' and we need to pay them to entice them to do business in our countries. Sickening


I don't want a single-payer UHC system for the simple fact that the government should not become involved in the decisions I make in regards to the health of myself and my family. 
Again, the costs of a single-payer health care system is astronomically bigger for the United States' 320 million people compared to 24 million Down Under. It is going to cost substantially a lot more to make it work here in the US. That is going to mean our taxes will be raised dramatically to pay for it, because there is no such thing as free health care. There's also only so much you can do to absorb the costs especially when it comes to catastrophic cases, where will those costs go in UHC? 

Now, I understand the idea is also not to throw all those people onto Medicaid, as some people want to do. I know the system wasn't the best when we started down the road to the ACA, but some want to do just that. They want it to be repealed and not replace it, but that means 20 million people end up on Medicaid, which will find our costs going up then as well for health care. We don't turn people way for their inability to pay, but unpaid bills mean rates go up for the rest of us. 

I wish someone will say, "We need to hit the brakes and make sure that what replaces it is done right." One of the largest complaints people had about the ACA was that we rushed into it. Take the time needed to make sure this is going to work and do it right. Everyone that is already signed up for insurance is good at least through the end of the year, so let's take some time to work out the bugs so that everyone's happy. 




Tater said:


> I learned something new today. There is a username "tater." :lol I wasn't the only one curious about it either because @Chrome checked it out too.
> 
> Also, you didn't know that the USA deliberately kills innocent civilians in the name of power? How adorably naive. unk2
> 
> I don't think it's an unfair comparison at all. The USA does all kinds of fucked up things with our tax dollars, especially where the military is concerned. People regularly whine about their tax dollars being used at home to help people but when it comes to all the brutal things being done around the world with them, there's nary a peep. It is absolutely a fair point to bring that up in this conversation. If people are going to bitch about how our tax dollars are being used, it seems like to me that death and destruction abroad should be higher on the list of priorities than things that actually help our citizens at home. We can't even get clean water to Flint and we're going to fix what's wrong with Afghanistan? Give me a fucken break. fpalm


You have a fan...or a stalker...one of the two. :lol

I know that we kill civilians, I do know that most of the time we try not to do so deliberately. At the same time, we need to change our mindset when it comes to dealing with the rest of the world. I don't want to be the world's cop, but we also need to send a message that to challenge us is a mistake. What keeps our troops overseas is pandering to the rest of the world and trying to be nice. If we send our military to do a job, send them in, let them do their jobs, kick ass, take names, and bring them home. No nation-building. Let them decide what to do from there and don't make us come back. 

Trust me...I want to take care of more of what goes on in this country. I'd love to tell the rest of the world to figure it out for themselves. Unfortunately, the world we live in right now means we need to get involved.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



BruiserKC said:


> I don't want a single-payer UHC system for the simple fact that the government should not become involved in the decisions I make in regards to the health of myself and my family.
> Again, the costs of a single-payer health care system is astronomically bigger for the United States' 320 million people compared to 24 million Down Under. It is going to cost substantially a lot more to make it work here in the US. That is going to mean our taxes will be raised dramatically to pay for it, because there is no such thing as free health care. There's also only so much you can do to absorb the costs especially when it comes to catastrophic cases, where will those costs go in UHC?


You pay taxes to the government and the government uses those taxes to build roads. The government does not tell you which road to drive down. It simply provides the roads for driving on. Now apply that same line of thought for single payer healthcare. The government would not be involved in the decisions you make in regards to the health of you and your family. It would simply provide the insurance for it once you make those decisions.

I really wish you would get it through your head that single payer would actually cost less than what we are doing now. The United States already spends more per capita than other nations that already have UHC. What part about not paying millions in profits to CEOs do you not understand? The only people that would be paying more out of pocket would be the top 1-2%. All the rest of us, yourself included, would end up saving thousands yearly, because your rise in taxes would be less than what you're paying now for private healthcare insurance.

Now, I perfectly well understand your opposition to the United States government, as it is currently constituted, running a pop tart stand much less health insurance. All arguments on how to fix things in the USA should start with fixing our corrupt government first. That should be a given. However, once that first step is taken and we have a government that represents the people instead of the private donors, there is no good reason whatsoever to not advocate for a single payer system. I've said it to you a thousand times and I will say it a thousand more. Healthcare, *should not*, be a for-profit industry. 

Me being the reasonable guy that I am, I say we should start with a public option. You want to continue paying the multi-million dollar salaries of healthcare CEOs? Fine by me. Don't force single payer on people that do not want it but set up a public option for those that do. I guaran'fucken'tee you that once people start figuring out that they can get healthcare insurance at lower rates because they are not having to pay extra so the providers can turn a profit, that most everyone is going to want to use the non-profit over the for-profit entity. It doesn't seem like it should be that difficult to understand but of course health insurance is going to be cheaper if we're not paying extra so CEOs can turn a profit. That's the most duh thing ever.



BruiserKC said:


> I know that we kill civilians, I do know that most of the time we try not to do so deliberately. At the same time, we need to change our mindset when it comes to dealing with the rest of the world. I don't want to be the world's cop, but we also need to send a message that to challenge us is a mistake. What keeps our troops overseas is pandering to the rest of the world and trying to be nice. If we send our military to do a job, send them in, let them do their jobs, kick ass, take names, and bring them home. No nation-building. Let them decide what to do from there and don't make us come back.
> 
> Trust me...I want to take care of more of what goes on in this country. I'd love to tell the rest of the world to figure it out for themselves. Unfortunately, the world we live in right now means we need to get involved.





> Former Drone Operators Say They Were “Horrified” By Cruelty of Assassination Program
> 
> U.S. DRONE OPERATORS are inflicting heavy civilian casualties and have developed an institutional culture callous to the death of children and other innocents, four former operators said at a press briefing today in New York.
> 
> The killings, part of the Obama administration’s targeted assassination program, are aiding terrorist recruitment and thus undermining the program’s goal of eliminating such fighters, the veterans added. *Drone operators refer to children as “fun-size terrorists” and liken killing them to “cutting the grass before it grows too long,”* said one of the operators, Michael Haas, a former senior airman in the Air Force.
> 
> Continue reading...


I'm perfectly fine with having the biggest, strongest military in the world. What I'm not fine with is using that military for wars of aggression. Using military force should always be a last resort and only for defensive purposes. Unless a country is an existential threat to the USA or one of our allies, I say fuck 'em. And stop arming the world FFS. No more arms deals to places like Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Then we use diplomacy to stop other places like China and Russia from selling arms to them. Let the jihadists fight with sticks and stones for all I care, just so long as they are not using our weapons. If they want to be a part of an ancient desert death cult, there is nothing we can do about that. What we can do is stop giving the means to better kill each other. As long as these places don't have nukes or aren't trying to invade other countries, I don't give a shit what they do. Let's worry about our own house and stop worrying about everyone else's.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



> WASHINGTON — With tensions escalating between President-elect Donald J. Trump and prominent black leaders, Mr. Trump met privately on Monday with the eldest son of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. on the holiday devoted to the civil rights hero.
> 
> The hastily arranged meeting at Trump Tower occurred as Mr. Trump feuded publicly with Representative John Lewis, Democrat of Georgia, who fought for civil rights alongside Dr. King.
> 
> It has highlighted the challenges Mr. Trump faces as he prepares to take office on Friday deeply distrusted by minorities across the country, many of whom have been offended by his false allegations that President Obama was born outside the United States, appalled that his candidacy drew backing from white supremacist organizations, and dismayed at policy proposals they consider antithetical to their interests.
> 
> Mr. Trump on Monday did not address those issues, appearing in the lobby to allow news cameras to capture pictures of him shaking hands with Martin Luther King III, but ignoring questions shouted by reporters about their conversation or his statements about Mr. Lewis.
> 
> Continue reading the main story
> RELATED COVERAGE
> 
> 
> Celebration of Martin Luther King Jr. Still Faces Pushback JAN. 16, 2017
> Tentative plans for Mr. Trump to visit the Smithsonian Museum of African-American History and Culture in Washington, as the nation paused to remember Dr. King, had been shelved in favor of the closed-door session, which lasted just under one hour. But Mr. Trump made sure that journalists had an opportunity to see him with Mr. King, a visual manifestation of his stated aspiration to unite a divided nation.
> 
> Mr. King said the session, which included a discussion about voting rights, had been “constructive,” and described Mr. Trump as eager to present himself as inclusive.
> 
> “He said that he is going to represent Americans — he’s said that over and over again,” Mr. King, the president of the Drum Major Institute, a progressive New York-based public policy organization, told reporters. “We will continue to evaluate that.”
> 
> On Monday, Mr. King sought to defuse the furor surrounding Mr. Trump’s remarks about Mr. Lewis, saying, “In the heat of emotion, a lot of things get said on both sides.”
> 
> Mr. King has pressed for the creation of a free photographic government identification card to make it easier for Americans who do not have driver’s licenses, including many black voters, to cast ballots, and he indicated on Monday that Mr. Trump had taken an interest in the plan.
> 
> “It is very clear that the system is not working at its maximum,” Mr. King told reporters. “We believe we provided a solution.”
> 
> But other leaders said Mr. Trump’s relationship with African-Americans — tense bordering on toxic after a strident campaign that instilled fear, and a transition that has done little to allay their concerns — would not improve unless the president-elect altered both his tone and his policy positions.
> 
> “There’s a lot of anxiety, there’s a lot of distrust, there are people who have expressed to me that they’re scared of what his policies might entail,” said Marc Morial, the president of the National Urban League.
> 
> Mr. Trump won election with 8 percent of the African-American vote, according to exit polls. A Pew Research Center poll in November found roughly three-quarters of African Americans believed race relations would worsen during his presidency.
> 
> Get the Morning Briefing by Email
> What you need to know to start your day, delivered to your inbox Monday through Friday.
> 
> 
> Enter your email address
> Sign Up
> 
> Receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services.
> 
> SEE SAMPLE PRIVACY POLICY
> The Rev. Al Sharpton said nothing underscored Mr. Trump’s challenge more vividly than his outburst in a pair of Twitter postings on Saturday that called Mr. Lewis, who was brutally beaten in the “Bloody Sunday” march in 1965 in Selma, Ala., “all talk,” and said that instead of “falsely complaining” about the election results, he should focus on fixing his “falling apart” and “crime infested” Georgia district.
> 
> Mr. Lewis actually represents a district that includes part of the wealthy enclave of Buckhead; the world’s busiest airport, Hartsfield-Jackson; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; and the Georgia Institute of Technology. Mr. Trump’s remarks were a reaction to an interview on Friday in which Mr. Lewis said he would not attend the inauguration and did not see Mr. Trump as a legitimate president because of questions about whether Russian hacking had affected the American election.
> 
> “If you can disrespect John Lewis on Martin Luther King Day, then what are you saying about the rest of us?” Mr. Sharpton said, adding that no single meeting Mr. Trump could hold would alleviate the concerns felt in the African-American community. “He seems to have a one-dimensional, very negative view of what black America looks like, and that is frightening to many black Americans.”
> 
> Mr. Sharpton said he was concerned that Mr. Trump was more interested in public appearances than substantive meetings with African-American activists and lawmakers to address issues of voting rights, criminal justice and policing reform, health care and economic inequality.
> 
> “He still thinks that we’re playing television red carpet here, rather than dealing with the presidency of the United States, with something of real substance. This is not a photo-op,” Rev. Sharpton said.
> 
> Sean Spicer, Mr. Trump’s press secretary and communications director, announced the meeting in New York between Mr. Trump and Mr. King in a morning posting on Twitter.
> 
> In a series of television interviews on Monday, Mr. Spicer said Mr. Lewis had started the fight with his “disappointing” assertion that Mr. Trump was not a legitimate president, and he defended the president-elect’s decision to respond, telling CBS that the president-elect is “not going to sit back and just take attacks without responding.”
> 
> Still, Mr. Trump himself had seemed to temper his attack on Mr. Lewis subtly by Saturday night; he said that the congressman should help him focus on “burning and crime infested inner-cities” throughout the United States and added, “I can use all the help I can get!”
> 
> Outside the African-American history museum in Washington on Monday, some visitors argued that the episode said more about the president-elect’s thin skin than his views on race.
> 
> “Somebody said something bad and he’s got to say something back,” said Nancy Alston of Columbia, Md. “He said bad stuff about Meryl Streep, too.”
> 
> Ginelle Johnson, 35, of San Diego, said that she believed Mr. Trump’s comments were motivated by how he views minorities. But she also said that they appeared to show his proclivity to hit back at whoever criticizes him.
> 
> “Politics has become entertainment and I think Trump is just a bully,” Ms. Johnson said.
> 
> Mr. Trump’s brief sighting on Monday afternoon at Trump Tower was a striking contrast to President Obama, who spent part of Monday — his final observance of Martin Luther King’s Birthday in office — making a stop at a homeless shelter in Washington.
> 
> Earlier, his wife, Michelle Obama, had spoken out subtly in her own Twitter post, saying she was, “Thinking of Dr. King and great leaders like @repjohnlewis who carry on his legacy.”
> 
> “May their example be our call to action,” she wrote.


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/16/us/politics/donald-trump-martin-luther-king-jr-son.html


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

All of you shut your pie holes. Based O'keefe just leaked this:






B-BUT MUH PEACEFUL DEMOCRATS MEME LOL


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Bets on how long before Trump's twitter is taken away again by his handlers? A month into his terms? A week?


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Bets on how long before Trump's twitter is taken away again by his handlers? A month into his terms? A week?


Uhuh, now talk about your party resorting to terrorism later this week.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> Uhuh, now talk about your party resorting to terrorism later this week.


Shut up you pathetic, insignificant little child.

ooh I found another conspiracy for you


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Shut up you pathetic, insignificant little child.
> 
> ooh I found another conspiracy for you


Nope. you don't get to claim this as fake news when the protesters were being RECORDED confirming intrest in using violent methods. Bet you didn't even look at it.

also, you mad.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Alco said:


> I certainly hope you will not claim good health is somehow not a basic human right, like I've seen someone do in here.


Saint Alco is going to pay for everyone's health care guys. Horray he did it!


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> I really wish you would get it through your head that single payer would actually cost less than what we are doing now. The United States already spends more per capita than other nations that already have UHC. What part about not paying millions in profits to CEOs do you not understand? The only people that would be paying more out of pocket would be the top 1-2%. All the rest of us, yourself included, would end up saving thousands yearly, because your rise in taxes would be less than what you're paying now for private healthcare insurance.


Thinking about what you wrote. Conceivably couldn't this also help businesses? I mean, since the majority of the employees' premiums are paid for by the employer. Looked it up and according to this employers spend this much on average for employees' premiums.

What Percent of Health Insurance is Paid by Employers?










So let's say a company employs 50 people with single policies only and pays the average amount. That's a savings of over $250K a year. Now maybe the rise in taxes neutralizes that. I don't know what the amount of the raised taxes would be, but it is something to think about.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> Saint Alco is going to pay for everyone's health care guys. Horray he did it!


1/5. Capable of more if she puts her mind to it.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> 1/5. Capable of more if she puts her mind to it.


Speak up, I can't hear you from inside that bubble you libs live in. :nerd:


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> 1/5. Capable of more if she puts her mind to it.


My reply was to Alco's avatar Moral Oral. "Horray I did it!" Is his catchphrase, I was going to use Oral instead of Alco but figured nobody would know who I was referring to. I'm not sure who Alco was mentioning in his post but I figured the patron saint of naive hope had the solution at hand. (Oral that is.)

If you've not seen the show it is probably one of the best shows put out. It's a shame the head of Adult Swim thought the show later on was overly dark and screwed with the entire story line.

I figured Alco will get my meaning of the post! As for seriously discussing HC I'd gladly do that later.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



BruiserKC said:


> The difference is that individuals and businesses are the ones that raise the donations for their pastors to fly around. That's more of a private sector thing, much like donations for our Olympic Committee come strictly from the private sector. With 320 million plus in this country, the healthcare costs for basic coverage from everyone would be staggering. Right now, with our country $20 trillion in the hole, it would really make our debt that much worse and put an even bigger burden on our health system then we already have now.
> 
> I am perfectly fine with keeping the pre-existing conditions clause, but the government doesn't need to be involved in my health care decisions. Besides, when our government has fucked everything else up from foreign relations to our budget, etc...I really don't have an overwhelming urge to put my health and the health of my family in their hands.


So are you implying the private sector is not putting their fair share into solving the healthcare issue in America?

The issue is you can't keep the good provisions with the ACA without making up the extra costs from somewhere. The GOP can't keep selling to keep the good stuff of Obamacare while saying they will repeal it for something vaguely 'better'. You have to spend money to make money. Similarly, you have to spend money to provide better healthcare for a more productive workforce. 

The government is always involved in your health care decisions. From food safety regulations to housing rules providing shelter to environmental regulations, everything the government does affect it one way or another.


----------



## Alco

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> My reply was to Alco's avatar Moral Oral. "Horray I did it!" Is his catchphrase, I was going to use Oral instead of Alco but figured nobody would know who I was referring to. I'm not sure who Alco was mentioning in his post but I figured the patron saint of naive hope had the solution at hand. (Oral that is.)
> 
> If you've not seen the show it is probably one of the nest shows put out. It's a shame the head of Adult Swim thought the show later on was overly dark and screwed with the entire story line.
> 
> I figured Alco will get my meaning of the post! As for seriously discussing HC I'd gladly do that later.


I like you. I'm glad we can agree on something too :side: 

3 free doctor's visits for you! (that I paid for)


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

RE: Healthcare debate



> January 16, 2017
> *How Pure is Your Hate?*
> by Paul Street
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Photo by janeyhenning
> 
> Fellow workers and citizens, how pure is your hatred? It’s easy to hate on openly authoritarian, loathsome, right-wing political personalities and institutions like Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, Donald Trump, the Koch brothers, Paul Ryan, the Republican Party, the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, Breitbart News, and FOX News. There’s no serious mystery over what those malicious people and entities are about: the ever upward distribution of wealth and power.
> 
> The bigger tests are supposedly liberal and progressive personalities and institutions like Barack Obama, the Clintons, Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic Party, George Soros, the Brookings Institution, the Center for American Progress, the “Public” Broadcasting System (“P”BS), the Washington Post, MSNBC, and the New York Times.
> 
> These people and organizations are no less committed than the nation’s more transparently right-wing counterparts to the nation’s unelected deep state dictatorships of money, empire, and white-supremacy, but their allegiance and service to the nation’s reigning oppression structures and ideologies is cloaked by outwardly multicultural, liberal, and even progressive concern for the poor and nonwhite.
> 
> *“What’s the Something Much Better?” *
> 
> I was reminded of this distinction for the five thousandth time last Thursday while watching Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) member and “P”BS NewsHour host Judy Woodruff interview the longtime Senior Obama Advisor and intimate Obama family mentor and confidant Valerie Jarrett.
> 
> Read the following passage from the interview last week and then tell me, please, to quote Alexander Cockburn, “is your hate pure?”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Judy Woodruff, CFR and “P”BS:* Just last night, the United States Senate took another step toward repeal of Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act. There was a budget vote, which is going to lead to other steps, which will lead to repeal. Just yesterday, the president-elect called Obamacare a complete and total disaster.
> 
> *Valerie Jarrett, White House:* I think it’s very easy to say repeal and replace, but we have been encouraging the Republicans, since the president first started embarking on this effort, to put in place a plan for affordable care to come up with their best ideas. And they have had, what, 50, 60 votes to repeal, and not a single replacement plan. So…
> 
> *Woodruff:* Well, they say that’s what they’re going to do. They’re going to get rid of what’s there now and replace it with something much better.
> 
> *Jarrett:* Well, what’s the something much better? That’s my question. That’s the question the president has been asking for eight years right now. So, if there is a something better, let’s hear it. What’s the secret?
> 
> 
> 
> *Obama, 2003: “What I’d Like to See”*
> 
> After this exchange, Woodruff moved off the health care topic, with no follow up. That was a statement in itself. Surely any reasonably informed “public” media journalist would be aware that national Canadian-style single-payer health insurance – Improved Medicare for All – has long been backed by most Americans. Such a journalist would know that single-payer would provide comprehensive coverage to all the nation’s many millions of uninsured and under-insured while retaining free choice in doctor selection and being the most cost-effective way to go thanks to the elimination of private for-profit insurance corporations’ parasitic control over the system.
> 
> A knowledgeable “public” journalist might even know that then state senator Barack Obama endorsed single payer on these very grounds as late as the summer of 2003, when he said the following to the Illinois AFL-CIO:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obama would quickly drop those sentiments in the interest of getting campaign backing from the nation’s giant insurance and drug companies and their Wall Street investors on his path to the U.S. Senate and the presidency.
> 
> Right after he entered the White House Obama set up a health care reform task force chock full of big insurance company representatives. Not one of the more than 80 U.S. House of Representative members who had endorsed single payer – not even the veteran Black Congressman John Conyers, author of a House single payer bill – was invited to participate.
> 
> *A Sicko Game*
> 
> The outcome was the so-called Affordable Care Act (later dubbed “Obamacare”), a complicated and corporatist bill based on a Republican plan drawn up by the right-wing Heritage Foundation. Since it left the price- and premium-gouging and profit-taking power of the big insurance and drug syndicates intact, the ACA condemned a vast swath of the nation to continuing inadequate and unaffordable coverage – this while the right-wing noise machine has absurdly railed against “socialized health care.”
> 
> Along the way, the new neoliberal president played a sicko (yes, Michael Moore) game to sell his Heritage Foundation bill, promising citizens that his plan would include a public option while having already traded that policy away to get for-profit hospitals to back the ACA. As Miles Moguiescu reported on Huffington Post and as the New York Times confirmed, “Obama made a backroom deal…with the for-profit hospital lobby that he would make sure there would be no national public option in the final health reform legislation…Even while President Obama was saying that he thought a public option was a good idea and encouraging supporters to believe his healthcare plan would include one,” Moguiescu noted, “he had promised for-profit hospital lobbyists that there would be no public option in the final bill.”
> 
> We can be certain that the veteran agent of neoliberal mendacity Valerie Jarrett advised Obama to take this deeply duplicitous path.
> 
> *The Memory Hole*
> 
> It’s quite remarkable how completely the dominant “mainstream” media-politics culture manages to throw majority-supported social-democratic policy proposals down George Orwell’s memory hole.
> 
> Listening to the Woodruff-Jarrett conversation, you’d think Bernie Sanders had never spoken to giant and enthusiastic crowds on behalf of single payer last year.
> 
> You’d think Conyers had never drafted single-payer legislation backed by a considerable number of U.S. Congressman.
> 
> You’d think that Canada and most of the industrialized world had never successfully implemented a widely popular nation-wide systems of universal governmental health insurance.
> 
> You’d think single-payer didn’t have millions of citizen backers – including many thousands of doctors and National Nurses United – from coast to coast.
> 
> You wouldn’t imagine that even Donald Trump has mused that single-payer might be the best way to fund health insurance for all.
> 
> “So, if there is a something better, let’s hear it. What’s the secret?”
> 
> Unreal.
> 
> It reminds me of Hillary Clinton’s response as head of newly elected U.S. President Bill Clinton’s health care task force when Dr. David Himmelstien, the head of Physicians for a National Health Program, told her about the incredible possibilities of a comprehensive, single payer “Canadian style” health plan, supported by more than two-thirds of the U.S. public and certified by the Congressional Budget Office as “the most cost-effective plan on offer.”
> 
> “David,” Hillary (Michael Moore’s heart throb) commented with fading patience before sending him away in 1993, “tell me something interesting.”
> 
> That’s right: tell me something interesting.
> 
> Along with the big insurance companies the Clintons deceptively railed against, the co-presidents Bill and Hill decided from the start to exclude the popular health care alternative – single payer – from the national health care “discussion.” What she advanced instead of the system that bored her was a hopelessly complex and secretly developed program called “managed competition.” Interesting. Obama would have more success with his Heritage Foundation-developed update in 2009 and 2010.
> 
> And they wonder why Trump won.
> 
> SOURCE
Click to expand...

Obama making a backroom deal to not include a public option while simultaneously telling the public that there would be a public option is one of the things that infuriates me the most about his healthcare reform. It's bad enough that he pushed for the right wing reform instead of the left wing reform but then he fucken lied about the one good thing that was supposed to be in there. On top of that, the ACA did nothing to reign in Big Pharma and stop them from price gouging the public. Then there was the vote the other day on importing drugs from Canada that was defeated because Big Pharma puppets like Cory Booker sided with majority Republicans. Not all Republicans, mind you. There were a dozen or so that voted FOR it; including Ted Cruz. Seriously, if you ever find yourself on the wrong side of an issue that even TED FUCKING CRUZ got right, you need to question your entire existence in life.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Sorry, Im not paying for the health of any of you. :troll


----------



## Alco

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> It's a fact that taxation equals theft. It's not really something you get to agree with or disagree with. Throughout human history in common law theft has been the act of forcefully taking something from another person. It doesn't matter if that person would've given it to you anyway had you asked, or if you later give them something in return. It's still theft. If I choose not to pay taxes, I'll get arrested which is a death threat if I resist. Taxation is always forced, and thus is always theft. Doesn't matter if you would pay them anyway.
> 
> If you want to give a group of people money and have them do something that benefits you or others, go spend money at a business or donate to a charity. You don't need the guns and the mass robbery to make things happen in this world.


I actually adopted a gorilla not too long ago. So yeah. Creationists might argue they're not people. :side:

Taxation in my country is way too high and the services I get in return are not of a quality I'd expect, given the money I pay. However, I believe in the basic notion that tax money provides me with goods and services I would otherwise not get. For instance, having time off work for a couple of days a year is a comfort I'll pay for (in part). My mother had a serious disease but it didn't ruin her financially. I'm glad such a system is in place. 

I ultimately believe in a principle of solidarity. And I think that works better within an organized structure (ie social security) than with numerous acts of charity which may appear or dissapear at any given time. 



Carte Blanche said:


> @Tater - If you really think that despite everything that's been said in here about Trump being the anti-war candidate and taking that for his word made him the better candidate that someone like me wouldn't oppose the bombing of innocent hospitals as much if not more than I do socialism, then you really have no fucking clue what you're on about with regards to me personally. Also, lack of government means lack of government. It doesn't mean "be selective about where government funding goes".
> 
> But given the climate we live in, what makes more sense considering that we're force to live with one? Have one that is more rich and therefore more powerful, or one that is prevented from over-reach and over-taxation at each and every step? Do you really think that the same government that takes your money and bombs hospitals deserves to take even MORE money just because now they're saying that they will give you "free" stuff?
> 
> @Alco - Government doesn't provide you anything. Government takes your money and tells you they manage it better than you they've convinced you that you or the capitalist machine won't do it and therefore you need them to do it for you.
> 
> This brainwashing is worse for people in social welfare states so I can understand why you feel that you can't do anything without your government doing it. I can't break you out of this shell (and I don't intend to), but all I can say is that every single service provided is actually provided by people themselves and this is why I'm a proponent of smaller structures and areas of governance as opposed to major superstructures. Before the governments got bigger, it was ALWAYS just private enterprise that paid for and built EVERYTHING because it was in their interests. Where countries have broken/failing governments, the capitalists are still building schools and hospitals and other types of infrastructure in those communities. It's just that since people have been convinced that all forms of capitalism and corporatism are inherently evil, no one actually covers that small village in Africa where Shell built the school for its worker's children (something that capitalists are notoriously ignored for because it doesn't fit the narrative that they're just exploiters).
> 
> We can do it again. In fact, it is still private enterprise that's building everything. The government simply takes your money to pay for it, and then pretends that it's "free".


I don't consider myself brainwashed. I think about these things a lot. I've read quite a lot of articles and books on it. I'm a political scientist and I've formed an opinion. I also dislike BIG government. I consider myself liberal and I believe in individual freedom, but not at the expense of others. I also believe in solidarity. That is why I accept that I pay taxes that sometimes do more benefit to others than directly to myself. I'm glad our government supported the introduction of an educational system that is considered to be among the top in Europe. I'm glad that when I go to the doctor because my eye is infected that I don't pay an enormous bill for just visiting him. You might argue that I do in the end, because I pay a lot of taxes, but these do not just cover my healthcare bill obviously. 

I love big enterprises contributing to communities in developing nations. Fuck people who say they do it to buy themselves a conscience. What, you'd rather have them doing nothing at all, leaving those people worse off than before? Get outta here. There are also a great number of areas where I'd rather the government gets the F out, because they can't run it efficiently and the service provided is of a subpar quality. Our public transport for example is a mess. We have everything in place to have a smoothly run train system, but the government-owned company makes a giant mess out of it time and again. I support liberalizing that market. I support liberalizing postal services. I want other things liberalized as well. 

I feel somewhat offended though that you suggest that I'm in this mindset that I can't do anything without government doing it for me, because this is not how I think. You suggested that government thinks for me, which is hardly the case. I think governments should scale down everywhere. I also completely agree with your notion that it's PEOPLE that are doing all these things. But structures are put in place for people to do wonderful things. And I do not know that these structures would have been put in place had it not been for elected governments allowing for it and facilitating it.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I think if you all could learn to be like @Alco we all wouldn't fight in this thread, libs.


...still not paying for your health tho. What i DO endorse is making it realistic enough for you to work and pay for your own. ObamaScare did not do this. so I voted for Trump. Trump is killing it, vote fulfilled, Beatles is happy.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Alco said:


> Taxation in my country is way too high and the services I get in return are not of a quality I'd expect, given the money I pay. However, I believe in the basic notion that tax money provides me with goods and services I would otherwise not get.


That's a false perception based on the being spoon-fed the idea that without the government you can't get those services or that the government keeps them cheap. 



> For instance, having time off work for a couple of days a year is a comfort I'll pay for (in part). _My mother had a serious disease but it didn't ruin her financially. I'm glad such a system is in place._


What makes you think that this system simply cannot exist without government? I come from Pakistan which has no government at all, and yet my father has had 8 or 9 surgeries major in his life, I've had a life threatening accident which left me with a disability and yet neither of us are in any sort of debt at all because privatization and competition made the medical care cheap enough for us to afford. And poor people in Pakistan aren't charged in hospitals for their treatment. There are at least 6-7 major hospitals in Pakistan that provide services for free without any involvement from the government because they know that otherwise people would die. Government isn't needed because government doesn't exist (it does, but it's ineffective and people know not to rely on it, so they created solutions for themselves).

In countries without free healthcare, the capitalist includes it as a basic compensation package. My wife has an 80/20 plan and I've heard that it's one of the best plans available. She pays peanuts for her healthcare. Same with my dad in Pakistan where his entire healthcare expenses throughout his work life (he's now been working for 50 years) was paid by his employers. 

The existence of government healthcare passes the buck from the capitalist to keep their workers healthy to the "gubberment" which in turns puts more financial pressure on the worker. Then "free healthcare" creates a situation of lack of competition amongst healthcare service providers who continue to drive up costs, which are then responded to by the government by raising taxes, and there is never any control on the expenditures till everyone goes out of control or the quality of healthcare declines. 

*First they pay them less (fewer benefits), and then the worker pays more taxes (for his supposed "free" healthcare) and therefore corporation is even LESS responsible in a welfare state than it is in a non-welfare state* I don't know why you guys simply cannot understand this at all ... 



> I ultimately believe in a principle of solidarity. And I think that works better within an organized structure (ie social security) than with numerous acts of charity which may appear or dissapear at any given time.


But they don't. It's an irrational fear at this point that charity would disappear. I believe that there is a direct relationship between over-taxation and people's unwillingness to be charatable. I'll give you that it's a debatable point. 



> That is why I accept that I pay taxes that sometimes do more benefit to others than directly to myself. I'm glad our government supported the introduction of an educational system that is considered to be among the top in Europe. I'm glad that when I go to the doctor because my eye is infected that I don't pay an enormous bill for just visiting him. You might argue that I do in the end, because I pay a lot of taxes, but these do not just cover my healthcare bill obviously.


But what makes you think that you would pay huge bills in a privatized system where market forces and competition keeps prices under control? 

BTW, don't use the American healthcare system as a blueprint for laissez faire capitalism because it's really not .. It's a misconception that the American health industry is a result of free market capitalism. 



> I love big enterprises contributing to communities in developing nations. Fuck people who say they do it to buy themselves a conscience. What, you'd rather have them doing nothing at all, leaving those people worse off than before? Get outta here. There are also a great number of areas where I'd rather the government gets the F out, because they can't run it efficiently and the service provided is of a subpar quality. Our public transport for example is a mess. We have everything in place to have a smoothly run train system, but the government-owned company makes a giant mess out of it time and again. I support liberalizing that market. I support liberalizing postal services. I want other things liberalized as well.


+1 for this. 



> I feel somewhat offended though that you suggest that I'm in this mindset that I can't do anything without government doing it for me, because this is not how I think. You suggested that government thinks for me, which is hardly the case. I think governments should scale down everywhere. I also completely agree with your notion that it's PEOPLE that are doing all these things. *But structures are put in place for people to do wonderful things. And I do not know that these structures would have been put in place had it not been for elected governments allowing for it and facilitating it.*


I hate to offend you more because you've given me one of the better responses I've had in this thread and while I've agreed with you on some things, the one thing I don't think you can justify is the statement that structures could not exist without the government facilitating it. This is simply not true at all because structures like schools, hospitals, roads, transportation, energy, public health and high living standards are all required for the capitalists' profit motive as well as local communities obviously. What I know for a fact is that government is not needed in order to create, sustain and maintain these structures at all because the capitalist will create and maintain all of these structures in order to complete their profit motive and we have examples of this in our countries which were all developed by non-governmental organizations before the governments got big. I don't see it as simply as you do. I see it that the basic structure for super infrastructure was already there and the capitalists were building it, but the government simply stepped in, got bigger and convinced the people that they did it, when they didn't. 

The british industralization was a period of small government and minimal interference. So was the great American development of the 1700's-1850's. Medical research is a private enterprise and was never facilitated by a government. The government getting involved with their FDA simply made it less effective. The government awarding patents simply removed competition controls. R&D is a private enterprise. Energy, Oil and Gas was (and still is) a private enterprise. Schools before being subsidized by the government were a private enterprise. The government running things only made them more expensive and inefficient. 

We have plenty of examples across the world where structures were developed without government help or involvement and we can do it without them.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Funny how liberals want to jump ship to Canada because America is going to be "so bad" after Trump assumes office. They have no idea what's in store for them up in the Great White North that's currently being run into the ground by Trudeau (whose approval ratings are dropping) and the Liberal Party:






My heart goes out to the woman that he bullshitted to just like everybody else.





> Shut up you pathetic, insignificant little child.
> 
> ooh I found another conspiracy for you













- Vic


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

The Canadians are doing this to themselves, I really have no sympathy for them anymore. Apparently some studies claim that 60% of Canadians support the Carbon Tax. To me, those people are now in the same group of people that I lump in with who think that sitting in front of a fire and tossing money in it will make it rain.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Vic Capri said:


> Funny how liberals want to jump ship to Canada because America is going to be "so bad" after Trump assumes office. They have no idea what's in store for them up in the Great *White* North that's currently being run into the ground by Trudeau (whose approval ratings are dropping) and the Liberal Party


*RACIST!* :nerd:


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*









@Carte Blanche @DesolationRow @deepelemblues 

EU BLOWN THE FUCK OUT!!


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> *RACIST!* :nerd:


TRIGGERED!!


----------



## Alco

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

For the record, @Carte Blanche , I wasn't offended because you presented different points to me. I just don't like how you suggested I'm brainwashed, when I'd like to believe I can construct opinions for myself. I may or may not respond to your excellent post later.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> The Canadians are doing this to themselves, I really have no sympathy for them anymore. Apparently some studies claim that 60% of Canadians support the Carbon Tax. To me, those people are now in the same group of people that I lump in with who think that sitting in front of a fire and tossing money in it will make it rain.


A lot of Canadians voted for Trudeau on the basis that Steven Harper hates science and is an evil man who hates Islam. Not even joking, the words "evil" actually was used. Even John Oliver was pitching Canadians to not vote for him. It's not surprising to me that its possible 60% of polled Canadians are in favor of a carbon Tax, they voted for Trudeau who has no clue what he's doing and has always had an awful attendance record . Simply put, one of the biggest reasons he was voted was his name which is an insane reason to vote for someone


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Stinger Fan said:


> A lot of Canadians voted for Trudeau on the basis that Steven Harper hates science and is an evil man who hates Islam. Not even joking, the words "evil" actually was used. Even John Oliver was pitching Canadians to not vote for him. It's not surprising to me that its possible 60% of polled Canadians are in favor of a carbon Tax, they voted for Trudeau who has no clue what he's doing and has always had an awful attendance record . Simply put, one of the biggest reasons he was voted was his name which is an insane reason to vote for someone


Ah yes, Current year man. Current year man caused all of this, you know:


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> The Canadians are doing this to themselves, I really have no sympathy for them anymore. Apparently some studies claim that 60% of Canadians support the Carbon Tax. To me, those people are now in the same group of people that I lump in with who think that sitting in front of a fire and tossing money in it will make it rain.


Why don't they ask Australia how well having a carbon tax went.

And Trudeau is an idiot. The man is a stupid rich boy who only got the job because his old man was a respected PM and because he was good looking.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



virus21 said:


> Why don't they ask Australia how well having a carbon tax went.
> 
> And Trudeau is an idiot. The man is a stupid rich boy who only got the job because his old man was a respected PM and because he was good looking.


Look up what Maryam Monsef recently said about why changing the Canadian election system shouldn't be up for referendum.

It's not just him. His entire cabinet is full of children and incompetent SJWS.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Rush Limbaugh said:


> I see President Obama regrets not having a greater impact on his party. But he did!!! Obama presided over the Democrat Party being defeated, rejected and repudiated. Since 2010, the Democrats have lost over 1000 electoral seats all across the country. In only 4 states do they control a governorship and state legislature. It doesn’t matter what John Lewis thinks or does, or any other Democrat. Thanks to Obama, they simply do not have the votes to stop Trump--even with John McCain trying to help them--and it is eating them alive.


 People may not like all of his views, but he has a point.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Look up what Maryam Monsef recently said about why changing the Canadian election system shouldn't be up for referendum.
> 
> It's not just him. His entire cabinet is full of children and incompetent SJWS.


Oh I know. This is a man who picked his people to have a gender balanced cabinet. Because thats how one runs a _country_


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Vic Capri said:


> Funny how liberals want to jump ship to Canada because America is going to be "so bad" after Trump assumes office.


Things were already shite under Obama's leadership and they will continue to be shite under Trump's leadership. Anyone who doesn't recognize the basic fact that both Democrats and Republicans have sold the USA down the river is a partisan hack. Moving to Canada and freezing your tookus off under Trudeau's shite leadership isn't going to change the facts.

Me, I'll be staying my happy ass in Hawai'i where it will be beautiful winter day with a high of 78. Maybe I'll go to the beach and have a mai tai. The world might be going to hell but at least I ain't fucking cold.

:trump3


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

^The fact that you can sit pretty in a sovereign state largely unaffected by federal over-reach and shit policies is one of the things that make America greater than Canada :trump3


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> Things were already shite under Obama's leadership and they will continue to be shite under Trump's leadership. Anyone who doesn't recognize the basic fact that both Democrats and Republicans have sold the USA down the river is a partisan hack. Moving to Canada and freezing your tookus off under Trudeau's shite leadership isn't going to change the facts.
> 
> Me, I'll be staying my happy ass in Hawai'i where it will be beautiful winter day with a high of 78. Maybe I'll go to the beach and have a mai tai. The world might be going to hell but at least I ain't fucking cold.
> 
> :trump3


Speak for yourself. Trump has already done what I want him to, and not even ironically in the way that you want him to ruin shit. He has made the world BETTER already.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@DesolationRow; @Tater; @Vic Capri; @Carte Blanche; @BruiserKC; @Miss Sally; @AryaDark; @yeahbaby!; @Pratchett; @CamillePunk; @beatles123; @MrMister; @Alkomesh; @Alco; (I apologize in advance to anyone I've forgotten, will add as I remember)

Hello everyone, I will warn you in advance this will be a long post. Probably the longest I've ever done but I hope it is worth reading. Healthcare is such an important issue and one that is especially important to me as an outsider looking in when it comes to US politics. I am in a particularly unique position as you all know (me and other British citizens who know US politics pretty well) so I have come with some insight and a post specifically on healthcare. I will be touching on Obamacare and whether it should be repealed, whether single payer should be the goal for the US in terms of healthcare and also looking into other healthcare systems across Europe and the world. If I were to sum up this post into three main bullet points it would be:

* Cronyism in Healthcare
* Why the US and UK need to look elsewhere instead of comparing each other
* How monopolies and government can ruin healthcare for an entire nation.

I know that gives some hints as to where this is going but saddle up because I think it's worth reading...and it's going to be detailed :lol .

*Obamacare*

The argument from the left has been that repealing Obamacare will heavily skew healthcare towards the rich whilst hurting the poor. Whilst I can understand that argument there is a big problem with it: Obamacare itself is doing exactly what the progressives claim will happen if it is repealed. Let us call it what it exactly is, it is a corporate insurance mandate which as a consequence is squeezing whatever was left of a competitive market place on healthcare. The 11,000+ page legislation in which nobody can understand the complexity of has effectively started regulating smaller and medium sized insurance companies out of business. Some progressives may even see this as a good thing, here's the problem: with the individual mandate, certain provisions have to be covered by law regardless of whether the patient/consumer wants them covered. With the added provisions + regulations on top, insurance companies have to pay out a lot more to cover the costs of the insurance plans they are offering. The only way to cover those costs on a basic economic level is to raise the prices of the insurance plans they are offering.

Now the rich and well off isn't going to be hurt by this because generally speaking, they can afford and do go for higher priced insurance plans, so naturally this piece of legislation hurts the working person, the middle and lower classed individuals and families who already had insurance that they liked and was affordable who are now being covered for provisions they don't need at a higher price. This legislation overall hurts working individuals and families at the expense of covering others.

Furthermore with the added regulations to healthcare insurance thanks to the ACA, many smaller and medium sized insurance companies are losing profit and some are indeed effectively going out of business. This means that larger insurance companies are now taking larger proportions of the marketplace thanks to Obamacare, meaning less competition and means that these larger insurance companies can afford to raise prices on their insurance plans, meaning once again the middle and lower income individuals and families lose out.

Naturally also, it means some of the burden is being shifted from private practices to hospitals, mainly due to Obamacare's payment reforms. As this article on reviewjournal explains: http://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/editorial-obamacare-forcing-doctors-out-private-practice



> Simply put, Obamacare is making it financially impossible to run a private practice, particularly with regard to Medicare reimbursements. Dr. Gottlieb reports that Medicare pays far more for procedures at hospital outpatient clinics than at independently owned medical practices, including heart scans ($749 to the hospital, $503 to private practice), colonoscopies ($876/$402) and even 15-minute visits ($124/$70). Private practices are put on incredibly unfair financial footing, forcing them to sell out to hospitals, who are buying private practices to take advantage of the reimbursement difference.
> 
> Furthermore, Dr. Gottlieb notes, Obamacare’s payment reforms are all designed to favor hospitals, including this caveat: To comply with the payment plan, providers must control their own IT infrastructure — which can cost millions of dollars, making it all but impossible for independent doctors to take part. Obamacare is becoming so difficult and imposing so many burdens that doctors can’t make it pencil out, which inevitably will exacerbate the current shortage of doctors, especially those in family practice. In Las Vegas and everywhere else, doctors are retiring, refusing to accept insurance in switching to concierge-style medicine, selling their practices and consolidating.


So essentially, at the same time as larger insurance companies taking bigger shares of the insurance market, hospitals are now taking bigger proportions of payment and the healthcare market in general. It was estimated that a further $1 Billion was going to be spent on medicare and medicaid for 2015, whilst that estimate was too high, there was a hike on government healthcare spending, meaning that the healthcare system is relying on government funding more than ever. Keeping in mind that overall US deficit spending has been out of control since the Bush years and that Obama has almost doubled the debt from 11 trillion to 20 trillion dollars. As this article explains: 

http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/22/o...wer-health-care-costs-what-actually-happened/



> Courtesy of the Affordable Care Act, public spending is outpacing private spending. For 2015, the Congressional Budget Office reports that the federal government spent a total of $936 billion on health programs (for example, Medicaid, Medicare, and the Affordable Care Act), a 13 percent increase over the 2014 level.
> 
> For 2015, the Congressional Budget Office reports that Medicare spending increased almost 7 percent, the fastest rate of growth since 2007; and, over the period 2013 to 2015. They also report that Medicaid spending alone jumped by 32 percent.


This is also in conjecture with the fact that the total per capita health insurance spending will be rising, simply put the US which is notorious for having some of if not the worst cost efficiency and effectiveness _before Obamacare_, has actually gotten worse not better. In the same article, it details this:



> Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data show that total per capita health insurance spending will rise from $7,786 in 2016 to $11,681 in 2024. Looking at the future of employer-based health insurance costs, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that job-based premiums are poised to increase by almost 60 percent between now and 2025.


As most of you already know, health insurance premiums under Obamacare this year alone are projected to go up by as much as 25%. Now it may not reach that level, but even 15 or 20% is going to have a massive impact on the health insurance industry and is going to end up bankrupting a lot of insurance companies with insurance coverage for patients increasing and probably more selling to public hospitals as medicare spending continues to rise and corporate insurance companies take even more market share if Obamacare continued under a Democratic president (not named Bernie Sanders).

Of course this would continue the current trend of rising insurance costs due to the ACA legislation: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/04/21/Get-Ready-Huge-Obamacare-Premium-Hikes-2017



> If Tavenner is right, Obamacare will jump dramatically—last year’s premium for the popular silver-level plan surged 11 percent on average. Although Tavenner didn’t mention deductibles, in 2016, *some states saw jumps of 76 percent*, while the average deductible for a 27-year-old male on a silver plan was 8 percent.


It is clear Obamacare as a mandate, is not affordable in the long run especially with a 20 Trillion Dollar debt hanging over the US's head. Even under the Democrats, spending reforms would eventually have to be made to save the healthcare industry potentially. As explained by the medicare trustees:



> These are painful prescriptions. The Medicare trustees report that, if policymakers really go through with these Affordable Care Act provisions, *50 percent of America’s hospitals, 70 percent of the nation’s nursing homes and 90 percent of the nation’s home health agencies will be operating in the red in the next 24 years.* This, the trustees say, will jeopardize seniors’ access and quality of care.


But what is even more worrying than the obvious rising costs is the Obamacare Co-Op's. As of July last year, *only 7 of the 23 Obamacare Co-Op's remain standing.* 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypi...ter-an-unfunny-comedy-of-errors/#4ffe7a8ec91f




> July has been rough for Obamacare's non-profit co-op health plans. Four closed after running out of money -- three in just one week. Just seven of the original 23 co-ops are still standing. Those seven all lost money last year -- and may yet go out of business before the calendar turns to 2017.
> 
> All that failure has been pricey. Taxpayers are out $1.7 billion in federal loans that these co-ops will never pay back.


Both the Forbes and Fiscal Times articles have a staggering amount of information on the effects of Obamacare, both present and potential future. It would do both Liberals and Conservatives to read these articles to see what the effects of Obamacare have been on the healthcare industry, it is potentially staggering. I will quote the best parts of both articles, it is a lot of information so read in your own time but it will show I think why Obamacare despite obviously being well intentioned and having upsides such as covering those with pre-existing conditions has in effect made things much worse than better....and it's about to get even worse.



> *Forbes Article*
> 
> Obamacare's architects settled on these government-sponsored co-ops as a replacement for the government-run "public option," which was cut from the law at the last minute to ensure that it could attract the votes to pass.
> 
> Right from the start, there were warning signs that the co-ops would collapse.
> 
> Vermont's supposedly financially viable co-op failed before it even got started. Then, less than a year after opening for business, Iowa's CoOpportunity Health closed. Despite getting $145 million in start-up loans and signing up tens of thousands of members in Iowa and neighboring Nebraska, the co-op had quickly burned through its cash.
> 
> A July 2015 report from the Department of Health and Human Service's Inspector General warned that every single co-op except one was hemorrhaging money. More than half had net losses of at least $15 million in their first year. The IG also found that, despite those promises of price competition, many co-ops had set premiums higher than policies sold by commercial insurers.
> 
> A month later, Nevada's co-op announced that it was going out of business. Seven more followed suit in October.
> 
> 
> July has been rough for Obamacare's non-profit co-op health plans. Four closed after running out of money -- three in just one week. Just seven of the original 23 co-ops are still standing. Those seven all lost money last year -- and may yet go out of business before the calendar turns to 2017.
> 
> All that failure has been pricey. Taxpayers are out $1.7 billion in federal loans that these co-ops will never pay back.
> 
> The co-ops stand out as perfect examples of how Obamacare's idea of government-managed "competition" is doomed to fail.
> 
> Obamacare created 23 co-ops with the help of $2.4 billion in start-up loans and "solvency" grants. Taxpayers were told not to worry about the loans, because the government had carefully screened co-op applicants and picked those that showed a "high probability of financial viability."
> 
> Consumers were promised that, because the co-ops didn't have to answer to investors, they'd be more efficient and more focused on patients. And they'd provide a crucial source of competition for conventional for-profit insurers. As one of the co-ops put it, these were "plans for people, not for profit."
> 
> Obamacare's architects settled on these government-sponsored co-ops as a replacement for the government-run "public option," which was cut from the law at the last minute to ensure that it could attract the votes to pass.
> 
> Right from the start, there were warning signs that the co-ops would collapse.
> 
> Vermont's supposedly financially viable co-op failed before it even got started. Then, less than a year after opening for business, Iowa's CoOpportunity Health closed. Despite getting $145 million in start-up loans and signing up tens of thousands of members in Iowa and neighboring Nebraska, the co-op had quickly burned through its cash.
> 
> A July 2015 report from the Department of Health and Human Service's Inspector General warned that every single co-op except one was hemorrhaging money. More than half had net losses of at least $15 million in their first year. The IG also found that, despite those promises of price competition, many co-ops had set premiums higher than policies sold by commercial insurers.
> 
> A month later, Nevada's co-op announced that it was going out of business. Seven more followed suit in October.
> 
> At the start of this year, half the co-ops had failed, taking with them more than $1 billion in taxpayer loans.
> 
> The bleeding has continued. Four more are going under this year and will close by year's end. As happened last year, there could be a rash of closures this fall, before open enrollment starts. The co-ops that are still alive may decide that they can't afford to stay in business another year.
> 
> All told, some 800,000 people have been forced to give up health plans they liked and look for another insurance carrier following the demise of their co-op. In some cases, they don't have many other choices. On Connecticut's insurance exchange, for example, there are just two insurers left following the failure of HealthyCT. Both are asking for double-digit premium increases next year.
> 
> Mismanagement, mis-pricing, low enrollment and high enrollment have all been blamed for the co-ops' failure. The Daily Caller found that 18 of the 23 CO-OPs were paying top executives up to half a million dollars a year.
> 
> But Obamacare itself is responsible for the most recent co-op bankruptcies.
> 
> Several co-ops ended up facing big "risk adjustment" bills -- even though they were losing money. HealthyCT, for example, had to grapple with a $13.4 million bill, which immediately made the plan financially unstable. Oregon's Health co-op -- which lost $18 million last year -- had hoped to get $5 million from the risk adjustment program. Instead, it received a $900,000 bill. Unsurprisingly, it's closed up shop.
> 
> The Land of Lincoln co-op was told it owed almost $32 million. It can't afford to pay that sum after losing nearly $91 million in 2015.
> 
> Health Republic of New Jersey paid $17.1 million last year into the risk-adjustment program. Minuteman Health owes $16.6 million. It says that debt could push its premiums in New Hampshire up by more than 40%.
> 
> Maryland's Evergreen Health co-op, meanwhile, is suing the Obama administration over the $22 million the Obama administration wants it to fork over. It says the risk-adjustment scheme is "dangerously flawed."
> 
> Maryland's co-op is not the only one fighting the administration. Oregon's Health Republic and Illinois's Land of Lincoln have each filed lawsuits over Obamacare's risk corridor program, which was to redistribute money from insurers with lower-than-expected claims to those with higher-than-expected claims. New Mexico's Health Connections co-op is considering suing as well.





> *Fiscal Times Article aka what is projected to happen if Obamacare continues in the short term*
> 
> But Tavenner outlined several factors that she could put considerable pressure on premium prices next year. Those include:
> 
> * A general rise in the nation’s health care tab. Overall, U.S. health care spending grew by 5.3 percent in 2014 – reaching an historic level of $3 trillion, after years of relative cost stability. Medical costs rise from year to year and will certainly affect the next round of premium hikes.
> 
> * Soaring prescription drug prices. Insurers as well as government health care programs have been struggling to keep pace with rising drug prices, especially newer specialty drugs to treat the Hepatitis-C virus and cancer. Pfizer Inc., Amgen Inc., Allergan PLC and other companies have raised U.S. prices for scores of branded drugs since late December, with many of the increases between 9 percent and 10 percent, according to the Wall Street Journal.
> 
> * The combination of market forces and limitations imposed by the Affordable Care Act will put enormous pressure on insurers to up their premiums. Under the law, there is a cap on insurers’ profits, companies are obliged to insure anyone regardless of their general health or pre-existing conditions, and the insurance plans must be structured in a certain way that often lead to losses.
> 
> * Finally, two of three federal “risk mitigation” programs created under Obamacare are due to expire in 2017. Those programs were set up to protect insurers from huge, unexpected losses from providing health insurance on the Obamacare exchanges. UnitedHealth and other major insurers have found it difficult to accurately anticipate their costs in providing coverage to sicker or older Americans, and set premiums that were inadequate to cover their risks. Without those programs to fall back on, many companies likely will seek to jack up their premiums.



In effect, what was supposed to be affordable in the long run would end up not only completely unaffordable but potentially catastrophic. What we have at least learned here is that government mandates of this kind simply are not cost effective in the slightest. Eventually whichever way you go Obamacare would potentially have to be abandoned. My prediction is definitely abandoned.

I could write even more about the potential costs but what I will leave now is a superb video by Stefan Molyneux who outlined all the initial impacts of Obamacare in 2013 to both private health insurance companies as well as to the costs of insurance programs. It is a little dated maybe but it is absolutely fundamentally must watch. It covers a myriad of different topics concerning Obamacare:






Finally, we must address two things: the argument that Obamacare is still better than the old system + Obama's infamous promise of "if you like your insurance plan and doctor, you can keep them".

First of all everyone knows now that the latter quote was a lie. Secondly, liberals and progressives have failed to provide a good enough counter argument to the fact that millions of Americans lost out on their initial insurance plan and were replaced with ones that were more expensive. Even Kyle Kulinski who I have a lot of respect for was weak on this issue, his best argument was simply "Well it's a better insurance plan anyway!". This is not universally true and is a testament to the problem of the left's one size fits all argument. It simply does not take into account a persons individual needs.

As perfectly shown in Stefan's video at around 12:50 onwards, Obamacare as a mandate for many individuals ends up covering provisions they don't need which of course adds to the overall costs of insurance. A 50+ woman for example is not going to need cover for pregnancy. Meanwhile as shown in the case study in Molyneux's video, the mandate potentially raises the costs for provisions in which are needed for individual patients. Meaning once again whilst some people benefit, other people suffer. It does not take into account an individuals needs when it comes to healthcare which is why having a government forced mandate on what is covered in the provisions is not only hurtful for insurance companies particularly smaller ones but also potentially a negative for the patients themselves. This is why it is so important for patients to be free to choose if you go for an insurance based model.

To close off this part of the post, a facebook poster on LibertyLaura's page essentially summarized Obamacare perfectly: It is essentially a mandate which covers 20+ million people at the expense of the 200+ million already covered by insurance. It raises costs exponentially in the long run whilst putting the squeeze on the private insurance market, increasing corporate profit and market share whilst putting more of a burden on the public side of healthcare, namely medicare and medicaid. It is a government legislation like many that picks winners and losers. It is financially unsustainable and has hurt millions of Americans in order to try and insure millions more. It had the right intentions I believe but there are better ways of making sure everyone is insured under a market system.

Even if you are someone who wants a public option or single payer, in the long run you will want Obamacare repealed.


*What about Single Payer? UK healthcare vs Europe.*

So what's the answer? Well to progressives it's going to a single payer system like the UK, Canada or the Scandinavian countries. I have the unique insight and experience when it comes to this debate as someone who is living under a single payer system. So I have both first and second hand knowledge in terms of the effects of a state run healthcare system. So let's do some analysis.

First of all, for those who haven't seen them, I already did a couple of posts concerning the UK health system and why I believe the US should not go down the route of a single payer. It is mainly demonstrating some of the effects and financing on the NHS. It will save me having to repeat all of it again (though no doubt I'll refer to them at some point :lol.) by linking them here for anyone who is interested and haven't read them yet:

http://www.wrestlingforum.com/anyth...new-us-president-all-discussion-here-227.html

http://www.wrestlingforum.com/anyth...new-us-president-all-discussion-here-234.html


In order to see what the potential effects of a single payer system in a country that is heavily populated, your best bet is to compare my country's healthcare system of the UK compared to the rest of Europe. The Euro Health Index is probably the best study there is on this matter, they compare 37 different European countries in terms of healthcare, take a years worth of data and ranks them in different aspects including cost efficiency, cost effectiveness and health outcomes. It then takes all of these different aspects and ranks the countries accordingly. There should be one coming out this year for the 2016 calender year but for now we have to rely on the 2015 Euro Consumer Health Index: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro_health_consumer_index

The most telling aspect of this ranking is the top two countries: *The Netherlands* and *Switzerland.* They are both have private insurance based systems. There are also two big differences between those systems and the US: both of them are *universal* which means everyone is covered in those countries but most importantly in the case of the Dutch, there is no government mandate on what needs to be covered other than the basics such as hospital coverage. Meaning that insurance companies are not forced to comply with government regulation in this regard and which allows the patient the freedom to choose what insurance coverage they have. This means again that there is significant competition within the healthcare market insuring that prices stay low. What's more is that government is involved but only in covering public funding for those who cannot afford private insurance on their own, meaning through government subsidies. Whilst yes both systems have a lot of money poured into those systems, they are much more cost effective than the US and obviously provide better quality healthcare than both the US and UK (as the UK's result on this study will show).

On the Dutch healthcare system, the Euro Health Index study said this:



> Ever since a major reform of the health care system in 2006, the Dutch system received more points in the Index each year. According to the HCP (Health Consumer Powerhouse), the Netherlands has 'a chaos system', meaning patients have a great degree of freedom from where to buy their health insurance, to where they get their healthcare service. But the difference between the Netherlands and other countries is that the chaos is managed. Healthcare decisions are being made in a dialogue between the patients and healthcare professionals.


This was also said in 2009: http://www.healthpowerhouse.com/images/stories/press_release_general.pdf



> In 2009, Health Consumer Powerhouse research director, Dr. Arne Bjornberg, commented: [2] “As the Netherlands [is] expanding [its] lead among the best performing countries, the [Euro Health Consumer] Index indicates that the Dutch might have found a successful approach. It combines competition for funding and provision within a regulated framework. There are information tools to support active choice among consumers. The Netherlands [has] started working on patient empowerment early, which now clearly pays off in many areas. And politicians and bureaucrats are comparatively far removed from operative decisions on delivery of Dutch healthcare services!”


The Dutch system much like the American system also has the option of linking insurance to employment, which means you can pool your resources in order to keep costs down. The main difference though unlike the US system, the Dutch system whilst having a regulatory framework, only provides the necessary regulation to make sure everyone is covered. Other than that, *the government gets the hell out of the way.*

In Switzerland for those who like Obamacare, private insurance is compulsory and a number of different provisions have to be covered as explained here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland#Private_coverage



> The compulsory insurance can be supplemented by private "complementary" insurance policies that allow for coverage of some of the treatment categories not covered by the basic insurance or to improve the standard of room and service in case of hospitalisation. This can include complementary medicine, routine dental treatments, half-private or private ward hospitalisation, and others, which are not covered by the compulsory insurance.
> 
> As far as the compulsory health insurance is concerned, the insurance companies cannot set any conditions relating to age, sex or state of health for coverage. Although the level of premium can vary from one company to another, they must be identical within the same company for all insured persons of the same age group and region, regardless of sex or state of health. This does not apply to complementary insurance, where premiums are risk-based.


But as explained later, the Swiss system has three tiers and the insured patient has the full freedom to choose in terms of their insurance provider on a monthly basis and healthcare providers to treat their conditions. Even more of an alternative to single payer system for progressives is detailed earlier in the link showing that you can use a private system and have a level of coverage for everyone whilst allowing freedom of choice in terms of provider. Meaning you aren't saddled with one provider of healthcare: the state.



> Swiss are required to purchase basic health insurance, which covers a range of treatments detailed in the Swiss Federal Law on Health Insurance (German: Krankenversicherungsgesetz (KVG); French: la loi fédérale sur l’assurance-maladie (LAMal); Italian: legge federale sull’assicurazione malattie (LAMal)). It is therefore the same throughout the country and avoids double standards in healthcare. Insurers are required to offer this basic insurance to everyone, regardless of age or medical condition. They are not allowed to make a profit off this basic insurance, but can on supplemental plans.[3]
> 
> The insured person pays the insurance premium for the basic plan up to 8% of their personal income. If a premium is higher than this, the government gives the insured person a cash subsidy to pay for any additional premium.[3]
> 
> The universal compulsory coverage provides for treatment in case of illness or accident (unless another accident insurance provides the cover) and pregnancy.


.

The big lesson to be learned here is that there are more options than simply single payer vs the American system. If more American AND British citizens understood this, both of their healthcare systems could undergo some much needed reform. Unfortunately in the British case, the majority of people treat the state provided healthcare aka the NHS as a religion.

The most important part of this section however will be detailing the performance of the NHS. Here is what the Euro Health Index stated surrounding our system: https://www.theguardian.com/society...-14th-in-europe-wide-survey-on-health-systems



> The NHS is only the 14th best health system in Europe and is delivering mediocre results in too many areas of care, including patient survival, a new continent-wide survey has claimed.
> 
> The findings conflict with those of the influential Commonwealth Fund thinktank, which two years ago said the UK offered the best overall health provision out of 11 western nations it studied.
> The experts behind the new study praise the NHS for some successes, such as cutting the number of people dying from a heart attack, stroke or traffic accident.
> 
> But the 2015 Euro Health Consumer Index (ECHI) concludes that its performance is inadequate in so many important areas that it ranks just above healthcare in Slovenia, Croatia and Estonia.
> Too many patients wait too long to see a GP, for treatment in A&E and to have a CT scan within a week for something serious like suspected cancer, the report says.
> 
> It also accuses the UK of denying cancer patients access to drugs that might extend their lives and of failing to deliver improvements in quality of care made by many other European nations.
> 
> The report points out that in the 11 years in which it has been assessing European countries, “the UK healthcare system has never made it into the top 10 of the ECHI, mainly due to poor accessibility – together with Poland and Sweden the worst among European healthcare systems – and an autocratic top-down management culture.”
> 
> The ECHI also claims that so-called Bismarck health systems, based on citizens taking out insurance from a range of providers that do not provide healthcare, delivers much better results than “Beveridge systems” like the NHS has been since its inception in 1948, were one body funds and provides all the care.
> 
> “The largest Beveridge countries – the UK, Spain and Italy – keep clinging together in the middle of the index”, the report states.
> Prof Arne Björnberg, chair of HCP, said: “The NHS has been doing pretty much as well since the start [of the surveys] in 2005, which is mediocre. Problems are: autocratic management of a very skilled profession, resulting in [overly long] waiting times [for treatment] [and] mediocre treatment results.”
> He added that in cancer care there are “too few radiation treatment facilities (expensive) and meanness on cancer drugs (expensive), resulting in mediocre survival rates”.


It always makes me :lol the obvious bitterness of the Guardian with having to report this. But that being said, the evidence is clear in terms of the mediocre performance the NHS is providing compared to the private insurance based systems of the Dutch and Swiss. Furthermore, mixed healthcare systems in other Western European countries such as France, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, Austria and Portugal all out performed the NHS in the 2015 health index. These systems are either two or three tier systems which of course vary in terms of public and private healthcare coverage but do not have the state monopoly on healthcare that the UK systems have. This indicates it is better to have at least some freedom to choose in healthcare rather than have the state to be the sole provider of healthcare. This again, is the monopoly effect I have been warning Americans about when it comes to healthcare and I'll have way more on that later.

*What about the Scandinavian Countries L-DOPA?*

Yes, the Scandinavian countries on the whole did very well also in the study with Norway coming in the top 3 and Finland and Denmark rounding up the top 5. However, there is one important factor which Bernie Sanders never addresses to his supporters when it comes to these countries and one which I think is either out of plain ignorance or absolute dishonesty. The Scandinavian countries on the whole have very low populations and are less densely populated than the UK, US or Canada. Why is that important? Well it's rather simple, when you have less people to provide for there is a less strain on public services, meaning it is easier for the one provider i.e the state to be able to have the funding, management and resources to provide a good level of healthcare for the population. Let us look at the population of the 4 famous Northern European countries.

* Norway: 5.2 Million
* Finland: 5.5 Million
* Denmark: 5.7 Million
* Sweden: 9.9 Million

Now go back to the Euro Health Index: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro_health_consumer_index

Notice the trend? As the population goes up, the single payer system of healthcare is worse. Not much difference between the first three but notice the upward trend. Now look at Sweden, it goes down *six places* in correlation with an increase of 4 million people. As immigration has increased, the pressure on public services has gone up. As you see, the UK (or England as it's shown for some reason on Wiki...) is a further two places down. The trend of population vs single payer systems may not be absolute but it is clearly a big factor. Another indication is the evaluation of Sweden in the health index: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Sweden



> According to the Euro health consumer index the Swedish score for technically excellent healthcare services, which they rated 10th in Europe in 2015, is dragged down by access and waiting time problems, in spite of national efforts such as Vårdgaranti.


The key here is the often argued point of increased access and waiting time problems, which are often cited as nonsense by leftists. However further down the entry, you will see indeed it has become a bit of a problem in Sweden now:



> Urgent cases are always prioritized and emergency cases are treated immediately. The national guarantee of care, Vårdgaranti, lays down standards for waiting times for scheduled care, aiming to keep waiting time below 7 days for a visit to a primary care physician, and no more than 90 days for a visit to a specialist. [7] It does not however, always deliver. A child with psychiatric problems may often wait 18 months for an appointment.


Sweden's response to this has been to increased privatization of it's healthcare service to combat the changes in population and to hopefully bring waiting times down and improve access. With already excellent healthcare services provided and a decentralized system taking some of the burden away from the national government, it will be interesting if in the next 5-10 years it improves the quality of healthcare overall. My prediction is that it will:

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/sweden-is-evolving-to-private-healthcare/

The issues of access and waiting times will be further explored in the next part concerning the NHS....and boy is that going to be an eye opener for anyone not American.

*Deconstructing the Commonwealth Fund Study*

But let's not be too one sided here and let's give the most famous study on the positives of the NHS a chance. The Commonwealth Fund study, in which the Guardian proclaimed proves the NHS has the best healthcare in the entire world! Here is the full article for you to read at your leisure: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/17/nhs-health

There are however a few glaringly obvious problems with this study. First of all, it only studies 11 countries compared to the 37 on the Euro Health Index. So for anyone to declare that the NHS is best health system off this study is simply ludicrous as it leaves out a number of great healthcare systems in the study. Secondly, it focuses very little on healthcare outcomes which is absolutely essential because it maps out the overall quality of healthcare provided. The Euro Index has a pretty nice balance of categories under cost efficiency, effectiveness and outcomes. The Commonwealth study only mainly focuses on the former two, which are important but do not tell the entire story. What is even worse is some of the questions are heavily skewed towards single payer systems. An example of this is the question:

"How much on average do patients have to pay for out of pocket payments?"

This obviously is a bias towards single payer systems where everything is funded through taxation and where there is little private insurance available. It is little wonder with these types of questions that the NHS ranked first. The biggest problem is that this question and others do not show the relationship between amount of money spent vs the quality of healthcare provided. Which is the most important question of all when it comes to healthcare.

But it's even worse, there was one area in which the NHS was ranked in terms of health outcomes....and it isn't pretty:



> The only serious black mark against the NHS was its poor record on *keeping people alive.* On a composite "healthy lives" score, which includes deaths among infants and patients who would have survived had they received timely and effective healthcare, the UK came 10th.


I seriously cannot be the only person who sees how incredibly insane this quote is. It is supposedly the best healthcare system in the world but it is poor at doing the one thing it's supposed to be doing above all else. To put this into context, this is like saying *I have the best coffee in the world, it is extremely cost efficient and effective in terms of resources and using very well priced beans in order to make it.....the only problem is it doesn't taste very nice.*

This is how the NHS is and that is according to the most positive study people could find on the healthcare service.

*How government control ruins healthcare: Winter Crisis, PFI contracts, Social Care funding and Long Term Problems.*

As we have already seen by now, mixed healthcare and private healthcare systems on the whole provide a better quality of healthcare overall. They are more cost effective and efficient than the US and are better than the UK and Sweden for that matter. The Scandinavian countries with single payer are doing well and we should not just brush that aside, it is a great thing that they are able to provide state healthcare which works for them. Even if you are someone against the concept like me that has to be admired but there are other factors in play as to why it works, the biggest being population. Now you will see the extreme damaging costs of having state single payer healthcare in a largely populated country like the UK.

The problems which are pointed out in the Euro Health Index are part of the reason why right now as I am speaking the NHS is facing a winter crisis. *66%* of hospitals are now under the most severe emergency warning, meaning that they are not only unable to cope with the numbers but it is actually unsafe to work there. In some cases it is taking up to 3 hours to move patients from ambulances to hospitals due to the overcrowding. I wish I was kidding but I'm not. Waiting times are through the roof and staff are having to work an exhausting amount of hours.

What are the problems?

The left and NHS will have you believe it is all to do with funding and that only if we pump more money in that everything will be fixed. The reality obviously is much more complicated than that. I will say that the liberals have a point about funding cuts in one particularly important area and on the fact that funding is indeed a problem. But this is a real long term problem and what is an even bigger problem than funding is actual cost efficiency, the very thing the Commonwealth Fund claimed the NHS was good at. This next part will outline what can potentially happen if you allow the state full control on how your healthcare system is ran.

*PFI Contracts*

One major element which leftists and NHS lovers point out to in terms of why the NHS is in crisis is the PFI contracts. And they are *absolutely correct.* PFI contracts for those who don't know have been essentially sub contracts that the government negotiated with big private corporations in order to provide services to the NHS. It has been disastrous. The Independent perfectly illustrates this: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-hospitals-debts-what-is-it-rbs-a7134881.html



> The NHS has more than 100 PFI hospitals. The original cost of these 100 institutions was around £11.5bn. In the end, they will cost the public purse nearly £80bn. The total UK PFI debt is over £300bn for projects worth only £55bn. This means that nearly £250bn will be spent swelling the coffers of PFI groups.
> 
> Innisfree, a small finance company based in the City of London, is one of the biggest players in the PFI market. One of Innisfree's flagship projects is the largest NHS PFI scheme at St Bartholomew's and the Royal London hospitals in London. This could have been publicly financed for around £1bn; instead, it will end up costing £7bn by the time repayments are complete in 2049. The difference of £6bn will go to PFI consortium Skanska Innisfree and partners. To put these figures into a more digestible format, Barts is paying over £2m a week in interest, which adds up to over £120m a year, before they see a single patient.
> 
> The majority shareholder in Innisfree is Coutts, the Queen's bank. Coutts UK, in turn, is owned by RBS. RBS thus effectively has a controlling stake in hospitals, boosting its profits whilst simultaneously running public services into the ground.
> It is worth recalling that the combined bail-out and losses of RBS since the crash amount to £95 billion. This is almost equivalent to the NHS budget for a whole year, yet it is still extracting profit out of the NHS.


If you have been paying attention, you will already notice the similarities between this and Obamacare in terms of allowing corporate power to have a significant amount of influence over healthcare. The difference being is that in the UK thanks to government policy, we have now a handful of big corporations in control of some major contracts concerning development for the NHS. It has left a giant hole in the budget of the healthcare sector and now we are seeing major consequences because of this.

This is an example of many instances where if you have the state run healthcare, you essentially allow the arbitrary view of the government of the day dictate how healthcare is run. You are essentially not only relying on government to be competent enough to know what it is doing to provide healthcare for 70+ million people from a single source but they have your best interests in mind. Anyone who has common sense knows you can't trust the government with many things. This is why we should keep government restrained in terms of power. This is an example of what happens when you don't in healthcare, self serving interests can potentially win the day.

What is more is that these contracts were signed by the John Major government in 1995, expanded through Tony Blair and kept by the current Tory government. Essentially, successive governments both Conservative and Labour, Left and Right believed this was the right move. What does this tell you? Government does not have the foresight and expertise to negotiate competent deals when it comes to these sort of matters, that are years in advance and that escalate in price. With healthcare being an autonomous top-down state provision here, this means a budget hole of £200 Billion is left in the healthcare sector if you include the debt that the PFI is in with the citizen having no realistic alternative to go to. Yes, you are indeed in slavery when it comes to state healthcare in this instance. Both for the doctors and their patients.

*Social Care*

When NHS supporters say there has been cuts to the NHS, they don't tell the whole story. As I have mentioned in a previous post, NHS spending has increased by 65% over the last decade and spending has increased year on year including the years of the Conservative government. So the NHS budget has not only been protected but increased. One area which has been cut is social care. Social care in the UK has been cut by around 11% over the last year. Furthermore, the Kingsfund reported this:

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/press/press-releases/older-people-social-care-cuts



> The report highlights a growing funding gap within the existing, inadequate system which will reach at least £2.8 billion by 2019/20 as public spending on adult social care shrinks to less than 1 per cent of GDP. If the government is unwilling to properly fund and expand the current system, the report says it must be honest with the public about what they can expect from local authority services so they can plan ahead and make their own arrangements. It calls for a fresh debate about how to pay for social care in the future.


What has been result? It has mean't elderly patients have not been released on time and have been kept in hospital due to inadequate social care being able to be provided. This has led to bed blocking, whereby patients who have to stay overnight cannot even be provided a bed and therefore are having to sleep elsewhere, with of course as rightly elderly patients getting priority.

This is really an indicator of two things: 1) the first point I made in regard to PFI contracts, with government monopoly on healthcare and no realistic alternative provided, the population is stuck with what is being given to them. Meaning that the health service is struggling to cope with the demands in which the population has in the sector of healthcare. And of course, it relies on the arbitrary policies of the government which don't always work even if the best intentions are there.

2) It also correlates with another point I made in another post of mine concerning this subject: that the UK as a single payer system is significantly worse at providing resources to cover the demands of the population in the healthcare system. Of course, let me reiterate that the social care cuts do have weight towards this too but look at the differences in beds per 1000 people provided:



> Let's take for example a well known problem with the NHS which is a lack of beds for patients. The UK had 2.7 hospital beds per 1,000 people in 2014, compared to 8.2 in Germany, 6.2 in France, 3.0 in Spain, 2.8 in New Zealand and 2.7 in Denmark. Our resources when it comes to this crucial area is shocking compared to France and Germany who... you guessed it, have a mixed healthcare system rather than a complete governmental monopoly. Denmark also have state ran healthcare like us but the difference between us and Denmark is that they have a population of 5.7 million. We have over 10 times that.


Essentially funding is a big problem, so is the lack of choice and competition meaning that there is more of a burden on the state to cope with producing the necessary resources, funds (which depends on the overall country budget) and services and it means that the citizen is stuck with whatever is provided.

To put this in these terms, if an insurance company in the Netherlands has financial problems and cannot provide a decent service, it effects the patients with that insurance company but they still have the option of getting out and moving elsewhere. In a mixed system if the government option fails, they are in more trouble but they can always try and move to a private provider or get another form of public insurance if the option is there and one government provider is failing.

In a state run healthcare system if it fails and is in crisis, *everyone suffers.* There is no alternative to go to meaning 90-95% of the population are stuck. Is that the system you really want to saddle the US with?

If the Republicans or corporate Democrats in this type of system saddle you with the same cuts to funding and outsourcing to corporate companies then you are in a sense screwed. The biggest positive to the US system despite it being a mess of sorts is that you still have an element of choice and control over your healthcare. As a British citizen I have none and so I am stuck with whatever cards government deals me with. Do not lose sight of that, because you will not realize how significant it is until you lose that choice entirely.

*Long Term Problems*

But is government funding and efficiency the whole problem? Not quite. There are many long term problems to the NHS that go beyond this issue and underline the glaring faults of the NHS as a single payer system. In this Telegraph article, you will see that the problem is more than funding and it is detailed even further in the Institute of Economic Affairs report on the NHS:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...y-normal-service-system-just-not-good-others/



> Figures from the King’s Fund show that for most of the time between 2005 and 2010 that target was either met or missed only narrowly. Since then, however, it has been consistently missed. The Government relaxed the target, lowering the threshold from 98 per cent to 95 per cent of patients, but even that new target is now constantly being missed, and by an ever-wider margin.
> 
> But it is not true, as Jeremy Corbyn has said, that this situation is “unprecedented”. *Until the early 2000s, A&E waiting times of more than four hours were quite common: this is the reason the target was introduced in the first place*.
> 
> It is true that as far as Western health systems go, the NHS is on the low-spending side. The UK spends just under 10 per cent of GDP on health care, compared with more than 11 per cent in Sweden, Germany, Japan and Switzerland (not to mention the US, which is in a league of its own). Healthcare spending in France, the Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium, Austria and Canada also exceeds 10 per cent of GDP.
> 
> But these are aggregate figures. If we look specifically at *spending on the hospital sector, the UK is about in line with the OECD average. We spend just under 4 per cent of GDP on hospital care, which is less than in France, Sweden and Switzerland, but more than in Germany, Finland and Canada, and about the same as in the Netherlands and Spain.*
> 
> This is, of course, still a high level of aggregation, and more detailed breakdowns are hard to come by. But presumably, the differences in spending on the most essential aspects of care – including A&E – are even narrower. Let’s put it this way: a rich person does not necessarily spend more on bread, butter and milk than a poor person; they spend more on dining out, fancy clothes and foreign holidays. It is the same with health systems.


There are a couple of key notable points to be made with what this article explains. First of all, yes it is true in the early 2000's, waiting times were significantly longer than what they were in recent years and yes Tony Blair did make it a government target to get the waiting times down. 4 hours on average it must be said is a long time to wait as well.

The second point is, breaking down the aggregation of spending on the NHS shows that the issue of spending in the NHS is more than meets the eye. Certainly spending overall should really be increased more but on the whole it is not as drastic as NHS supporters make it out to be. In terms of spending the bigger issue is cost efficiency, where the money is being spent rather than how much is being spent. And that is more an issue of both government competency in terms of knowing where the funds should go and what areas should be cut (which the social care budget has proven is not a good idea) and in terms of the PFI contracts which have made projects vastly more expensive than if they were paid out of pocket by the government themselves. It still essentially relies on government judgement in an area which government still has a vast monopoly on. This has already been shown to be a mistake.

Lastly on the issue of the NHS, the IeA's report on it the past year analyses with deadly effect just how behind the NHS is compared to other mixed and private insurance based systems. It is really worth a read to see the differences in performance:

https://iea.org.uk/publications/universal-healthcare-without-the-nhs/



> * Age-standardised survival rates for the most common types of cancer remain several percentage points below rates achieved in most other developed countries, and such differences translate into thousands of lives lost. For example, if the UK’s breast cancer, prostate cancer, lung cancer and bowel cancer patients were treated in the Netherlands rather than on the NHS, more than 9,000 lives would be saved every year. If they were treated in Germany, more than 12,000 lives would be saved, and if they were treated in Belgium, more than 14,000 lives would be saved. A similar picture emerges for a range of other conditions, as well as for more holistic measures of health system performance. For example, the UK has one of the highest rates of avoidable deaths in Western Europe. If this rate were cut to the levels observed in Belgium, more than 10,000 lives would be saved every year. More than 13,000 lives would be saved if the rate were cut to Dutch levels.
> 
> * The UK spends less on healthcare than many other developed countries, but this must not be mistaken for a sign of superior efficiency. It is mostly the result of crude rationing: innovative medicines and therapies that are routinely available in other high-income countries are often hard to come by in the UK. Any country could keep healthcare spending in check by simply refusing to adopt medical innovation. In more sophisticated estimates of health system efficiency, the NHS ranks, once again, in the bottom third.
> 
> * It would be far more insightful to benchmark the NHS against social health insurance (SHI) systems, the model of healthcare adopted by Switzerland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany and Israel. Like the NHS, SHI systems also achieve universal access to healthcare, albeit in a different way, namely through a combination of means-tested insurance premium subsidies, community rating and risk structure compensation. Unlike in the US, there is therefore no uninsured population (even homeless people have health insurance), and there is no such thing as a ‘medical bankruptcy’. When it comes to providing high-quality healthcare to the poor, these systems are second to none: in this respect, there is nothing the NHS has achieved which the SHI systems have not also achieved.
> 
> * In terms of outcomes, quality and efficiency, social health insurance systems are consistently ahead of the NHS on almost every available measure. They combine the universality of a public system with the consumer sovereignty, the pluralism, the competitiveness and the innovativeness of a market system. We do not see any one particular country’s health system as a role model, because they all have flaws and irritating aspects of their own. But there are also plenty of interesting lessons to be learned, which we are missing out on by ignoring alternatives to both the NHS and the American system.
> 
> * The Dutch system shows that a successful health system needs no state-owned hospitals, no state hospital planning and no hospital subsidies. The Swiss system shows that even substantial levels of out-of-pocket patient charges need not be regressive, and that people can be trusted to choose sensibly from a variety of health insurance plans. The ‘PKVpillar’ of the German system shows that a healthcare system can be fully prefunded, just like a pension system.


*Health Saving Accounts*

The final thing I want to explore before concluding is the idea of Health Savings Accounts which Rand Paul brought up in his healthcare plan. This is the same sort of idea Singapore has in it's system. Essentially what happens in Singapore, is a certain % of your income is put into one of these health saving accounts for both healthcare and social security. Then you have the option of topping up your savings account as much as you want and you can essentially save year on year to the point in which you have saved a massive amount of money in case you need that money for any major out of pocket medical bills. So if you are a healthy citizen and you don't have to go to the doctors for any major reason, you can essentially keep adding money year on year to save whether it be to move on to another insurance plan or move from a public insurance plan to a private one or simply to save for a rainy day. You are essentially in control of your own health funds and can use it however way you see fit.

In Singapore, around 65% of the healthcare market is in the public sector with 35% of it being private. They also have a means tested employment system where depending on how money you earn per month, you can have an amount of your healthcare subsidized by the government. This is great because for lower income families they can have most if not all of their healthcare subsidized whilst still having the choice of which public insurance plan to go on.

What are the results? Well consistently Singapore have ranked among the top healthcare providers in the world. Even in the widely out of date and controversial WHO study of 2000, they ranked 6th in the entire world. And as recently as 2014, Bloomberg found Singapore to have the most cost efficient healthcare system in the world.

So the idea of health saving accounts is a great one and has proven to be very successful in Singapore. There is no reason why the US cannot adopt a similar model and have some great results.

*Conclusion*

My conclusion is one that may not satisfy anyone :lol. Whilst I believe the evidence shows that the US would be much worse off in a single payer system and that you should do anything in your power to avoid it, I also believe like the UK, you guys are essentially viewing the healthcare debate far too narrowly. I get a sense of the same US vs UK healthcare debate and Nationalization vs Privatization debate on the NHS in UK as I do with the US on private insurance vs state provided healthcare.

The truth is like the UK, the US could do well to learn from other healthcare systems across the world that are performing much better that uses the insurance based model in a way that is most cost effective, has better health outcomes and provides more freedom to choose. This is why I am encouraged by Rand Paul's endorsement of Singapore's health savings accounts, because it is a really positive step in the right direction. If I were American, I would look to examples such as the Netherlands, the Swiss and Singapore healthcare.

Most of all I do not care what the progressive left has to say on this issue, repealing Obamacare in the long run is the correct decision. Keeping it like Rand Paul said could effectively bankrupt the healthcare system, it is not a stretch to say this if you look at what is happening and the numbers that have come out. What the Republicans come out with we will see, it may indeed be worse but we won't know until the plan is signed into legislation. But if it is Rand Paul leading the charge, I would be very encouraged indeed.

I know this was a long post and I apologize for probably a lot of mistypes :lol. But I hope it was worth reading.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



L-DOPA said:


> @DesolationRow; @Tater; @Vic Capri; @Carte Blanche; @BruiserKC; @Miss Sally; @AryaDark; @yeahbaby!; @Pratchett; @CamillePunk; @beatles123; @MrMister; @Alkomesh; (I apologize in advance to anyone I've forgotten, will add as I remember)
> 
> Hello everyone, I will warn you in advance this will be a long post. Probably the longest I've ever done but I hope it is worth reading. Healthcare is such an important issue and one that is especially important to me as an outsider looking in when it comes to US politics. I am in a particularly unique position as you all know (me and other British citizens who know US politics pretty well) so I have come with some insight and a post specifically on healthcare. I will be touching on Obamacare and whether it should be repealed, whether single payer should be the goal for the US in terms of healthcare and also looking into other healthcare systems across Europe and the world. If I were to sum up this post into three main bullet points it would be:
> 
> * Cronyism in Healthcare
> * Why the US and UK need to look elsewhere instead of comparing each other
> * How monopolies and government can ruin healthcare for an entire nation.
> 
> I know that gives some hints as to where this is going but saddle up because I think it's worth reading...and it's going to be detailed :lol .
> 
> *Obamacare*
> 
> The argument from the left has been that repealing Obamacare will heavily skew healthcare towards the rich whilst hurting the poor. Whilst I can understand that argument there is a big problem with it: Obamacare itself is doing exactly what the progressives claim will happen if it is repealed. Let us call it what it exactly is, it is a corporate insurance mandate which as a consequence is squeezing whatever was left of a competitive market place on healthcare. The 11,000+ page legislation in which nobody can understand the complexity of has effectively started regulating smaller and medium sized insurance companies out of business. Some progressives may even see this as a good thing, here's the problem: with the individual mandate, certain provisions have to be covered by law regardless of whether the patient/consumer wants them covered. With the added provisions + regulations on top, insurance companies have to pay out a lot more to cover the costs of the insurance plans they are offering. The only way to cover those costs on a basic economic level is to raise the prices of the insurance plans they are offering.
> 
> Now the rich and well off isn't going to be hurt by this because generally speaking, they can afford and do go for higher priced insurance plans, so naturally this piece of legislation hurts the working person, the middle and lower classed individuals and families who already had insurance that they liked and was affordable who are now being covered for provisions they don't need at a higher price. This legislation overall hurts working individuals and families at the expense of covering others.
> 
> Furthermore with the added regulations to healthcare insurance thanks to the ACA, many smaller and medium sized insurance companies are losing profit and some are indeed effectively going out of business. This means that larger insurance companies are now taking larger proportions of the marketplace thanks to Obamacare, meaning less competition and means that these larger insurance companies can afford to raise prices on their insurance plans, meaning once again the middle and lower income individuals and families lose out.
> 
> Naturally also, it means some of the burden is being shifted from private practices to hospitals, mainly due to Obamacare's payment reforms. As this article on reviewjournal explains: http://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/editorial-obamacare-forcing-doctors-out-private-practice
> 
> 
> 
> So essentially, at the same time as larger insurance companies taking bigger shares of the insurance market, hospitals are now taking bigger proportions of payment and the healthcare market in general. It was estimated that a further $1 Billion was going to be spent on medicare and medicaid for 2015, whilst that estimate was too high, there was a hike on government healthcare spending, meaning that the healthcare system is relying on government funding more than ever. Keeping in mind that overall US deficit spending has been out of control since the Bush years and that Obama has almost doubled the debt from 11 trillion to 20 trillion dollars. As this article explains:
> 
> http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/22/o...wer-health-care-costs-what-actually-happened/
> 
> 
> 
> This is also in conjecture with the fact that the total per capita health insurance spending will be rising, simply put the US which is notorious for having some of if not the worst cost efficiency and effectiveness _before Obamacare_, has actually gotten worse not better. In the same article, it details this:
> 
> 
> 
> As most of you already know, health insurance premiums under Obamacare this year alone are projected to go up by as much as 25%. Now it may not reach that level, but even 15 or 20% is going to have a massive impact on the health insurance industry and is going to end up bankrupting a lot of insurance companies with insurance coverage for patients increasing and probably more selling to public hospitals as medicare spending continues to rise and corporate insurance companies take even more market share if Obamacare continued under a Democratic president (not named Bernie Sanders).
> 
> Of course this would continue the current trend of rising insurance costs due to the ACA legislation: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/04/21/Get-Ready-Huge-Obamacare-Premium-Hikes-2017
> 
> 
> 
> It is clear Obamacare as a mandate, is not affordable in the long run especially with a 20 Trillion Dollar debt hanging over the US's head. Even under the Democrats, spending reforms would eventually have to be made to save the healthcare industry potentially. As explained by the medicare trustees:
> 
> 
> 
> But what is even more worrying than the obvious rising costs is the Obamacare Co-Op's. As of July last year, *only 7 of the 23 Obamacare Co-Op's remain standing.*
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypi...ter-an-unfunny-comedy-of-errors/#4ffe7a8ec91f
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both the Forbes and Fiscal Times articles have a staggering amount of information on the effects of Obamacare, both present and potential future. It would do both Liberals and Conservatives to read these articles to see what the effects of Obamacare have been on the healthcare industry, it is potentially staggering. I will quote the best parts of both articles, it is a lot of information so read in your own time but it will show I think why Obamacare despite obviously being well intentioned and having upsides such as covering those with pre-existing conditions has in effect made things much worse than better....and it's about to get even worse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In effect, what was supposed to be affordable in the long run would end up not only completely unaffordable but potentially catastrophic. What we have at least learned here is that government mandates of this kind simply are not cost effective in the slightest. Eventually whichever way you go Obamacare would potentially have to be abandoned. My prediction is definitely abandoned.
> 
> I could write even more about the potential costs but what I will leave now is a superb video by Stefan Molyneux who outlined all the initial impacts of Obamacare in 2013 to both private health insurance companies as well as to the costs of insurance programs. It is a little dated maybe but it is absolutely fundamentally must watch. It covers a myriad of different topics concerning Obamacare:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, we must address two things: the argument that Obamacare is still better than the old system + Obama's infamous promise of "if you like your insurance plan and doctor, you can keep them".
> 
> First of all everyone knows now that the latter quote was a lie. Secondly, liberals and progressives have failed to provide a good enough counter argument to the fact that millions of Americans lost out on their initial insurance plan and were replaced with ones that were more expensive. Even Kyle Kulinski who I have a lot of respect for was weak on this issue, his best argument was simply "Well it's a better insurance plan anyway!". This is not universally true and is a testament to the problem of the left's one size fits all argument. It simply does not take into account a persons individual needs.
> 
> As perfectly shown in Stefan's video at around 12:50 onwards, Obamacare as a mandate for many individuals ends up covering provisions they don't need which of course adds to the overall costs of insurance. A 50+ woman for example is not going to need cover for pregnancy. Meanwhile as shown in the case study in Molyneux's video, the mandate potentially raises the costs for provisions in which are needed for individual patients. Meaning once again whilst some people benefit, other people suffer. It does not take into account an individuals needs when it comes to healthcare which is why having a government forced mandate on what is covered in the provisions is not only hurtful for insurance companies particularly smaller ones but also potentially a negative for the patients themselves. This is why it is so important for patients to be free to choose if you go for an insurance based model.
> 
> To close off this part of the post, a facebook poster on LibertyLaura's page essentially summarized Obamacare perfectly: It is essentially a mandate which covers 20+ million people at the expense of the 200+ million already covered by insurance. It raises costs exponentially in the long run whilst putting the squeeze on the private insurance market, increasing corporate profit and market share whilst putting more of a burden on the public side of healthcare, namely medicare and medicaid. It is a government legislation like many that picks winners and losers. It is financially unsustainable and has hurt millions of Americans in order to try and insure millions more. It had the right intentions I believe but there are better ways of making sure everyone is insured under a market system.
> 
> Even if you are someone who wants a public option or single payer, in the long run you will want Obamacare repealed.
> 
> 
> *What about Single Payer? UK healthcare vs Europe.*
> 
> So what's the answer? Well to progressives it's going to a single payer system like the UK, Canada or the Scandinavian countries. I have the unique insight and experience when it comes to this debate as someone who is living under a single payer system. So I have both first and second hand knowledge in terms of the effects of a state run healthcare system. So let's do some analysis.
> 
> First of all, for those who haven't seen them, I already did a couple of posts concerning the UK health system and why I believe the US should not go down the route of a single payer. It is mainly demonstrating some of the effects and financing on the NHS. It will save me having to repeat all of it again (though no doubt I'll refer to them at some point :lol.) by linking them here for anyone who is interested and haven't read them yet:
> 
> http://www.wrestlingforum.com/anyth...new-us-president-all-discussion-here-227.html
> 
> http://www.wrestlingforum.com/anyth...new-us-president-all-discussion-here-234.html
> 
> 
> In order to see what the potential effects of a single payer system in a country that is heavily populated, your best bet is to compare my country's healthcare system of the UK compared to the rest of Europe. The Euro Health Index is probably the best study there is on this matter, they compare 37 different European countries in terms of healthcare, take a years worth of data and ranks them in different aspects including cost efficiency, cost effectiveness and health outcomes. It then takes all of these different aspects and ranks the countries accordingly. There should be one coming out this year for the 2016 calender year but for now we have to rely on the 2015 Euro Consumer Health Index: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro_health_consumer_index
> 
> The most telling aspect of this ranking is the top two countries: *The Netherlands* and *Switzerland.* They are both have private insurance based systems. There are also two big differences between those systems and the US: both of them are *universal* which means everyone is covered in those countries but most importantly in the case of the Dutch, there is no government mandate on what needs to be covered other than the basics such as hospital coverage. Meaning that insurance companies are not forced to comply with government regulation in this regard and which allows the patient the freedom to choose what insurance coverage they have. This means again that there is significant competition within the healthcare market insuring that prices stay low. What's more is that government is involved but only in covering public funding for those who cannot afford private insurance on their own, meaning through government subsidies. Whilst yes both systems have a lot of money poured into those systems, they are much more cost effective than the US and obviously provide better quality healthcare than both the US and UK (as the UK's result on this study will show).
> 
> On the Dutch healthcare system, the Euro Health Index study said this:
> 
> 
> 
> This was also said in 2009: http://www.healthpowerhouse.com/images/stories/press_release_general.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> The Dutch system much like the American system also has the option of linking insurance to employment, which means you can pool your resources in order to keep costs down. The main difference though unlike the US system, the Dutch system whilst having a regulatory framework, only provides the necessary regulation to make sure everyone is covered. Other than that, *the government gets the hell out of the way.*
> 
> In Switzerland for those who like Obamacare, private insurance is compulsory and a number of different provisions have to be covered as explained here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland#Private_coverage
> 
> 
> 
> But as explained later, the Swiss system has three tiers and the insured patient has the full freedom to choose in terms of their insurance provider on a monthly basis and healthcare providers to treat their conditions. Even more of an alternative to single payer system for progressives is detailed earlier in the link showing that you can use a private system and have a level of coverage for everyone whilst allowing freedom of choice in terms of provider. Meaning you aren't saddled with one provider of healthcare: the state.
> 
> .
> 
> The big lesson to be learned here is that there are more options than simply single payer vs the American system. If more American AND British citizens understood this, both of their healthcare systems could undergo some much needed reform. Unfortunately in the British case, the majority of people treat the state provided healthcare aka the NHS as a religion.
> 
> The most important part of this section however will be detailing the performance of the NHS. Here is what the Euro Health Index stated surrounding our system: https://www.theguardian.com/society...-14th-in-europe-wide-survey-on-health-systems
> 
> QUOTE] The NHS is only the 14th best health system in Europe and is delivering mediocre results in too many areas of care, including patient survival, a new continent-wide survey has claimed.
> 
> The findings conflict with those of the influential Commonwealth Fund thinktank, which two years ago said the UK offered the best overall health provision out of 11 western nations it studied.
> The experts behind the new study praise the NHS for some successes, such as cutting the number of people dying from a heart attack, stroke or traffic accident.
> 
> But the 2015 Euro Health Consumer Index (ECHI) concludes that its performance is inadequate in so many important areas that it ranks just above healthcare in Slovenia, Croatia and Estonia.
> Too many patients wait too long to see a GP, for treatment in A&E and to have a CT scan within a week for something serious like suspected cancer, the report says.
> 
> It also accuses the UK of denying cancer patients access to drugs that might extend their lives and of failing to deliver improvements in quality of care made by many other European nations.
> 
> The report points out that in the 11 years in which it has been assessing European countries, “the UK healthcare system has never made it into the top 10 of the ECHI, mainly due to poor accessibility – together with Poland and Sweden the worst among European healthcare systems – and an autocratic top-down management culture.”
> 
> The ECHI also claims that so-called Bismarck health systems, based on citizens taking out insurance from a range of providers that do not provide healthcare, delivers much better results than “Beveridge systems” like the NHS has been since its inception in 1948, were one body funds and provides all the care.
> 
> “The largest Beveridge countries – the UK, Spain and Italy – keep clinging together in the middle of the index”, the report states.
> Prof Arne Björnberg, chair of HCP, said: “The NHS has been doing pretty much as well since the start [of the surveys] in 2005, which is mediocre. Problems are: autocratic management of a very skilled profession, resulting in [overly long] waiting times [for treatment] [and] mediocre treatment results.”
> He added that in cancer care there are “too few radiation treatment facilities (expensive) and meanness on cancer drugs (expensive), resulting in mediocre survival rates”.


It always makes me :lol the obvious bitterness of the Guardian with having to report this. But that being said, the evidence is clear in terms of the mediocre performance the NHS is providing compared to the private insurance based systems of the Dutch and Swiss. Furthermore, mixed healthcare systems in other Western European countries such as France, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, Austria and Portugal all out performed the NHS in the 2015 health index. These systems are either two or three tier systems which of course vary in terms of public and private healthcare coverage but do not have the state monopoly on healthcare that the UK systems have. This indicates it is better to have at least some freedom to choose in healthcare rather than have the state to be the sole provider of healthcare. This again, is the monopoly effect I have been warning Americans about when it comes to healthcare and I'll have way more on that later.

*What about the Scandinavian Countries L-DOPA?*

Yes, the Scandinavian countries on the whole did very well also in the study with Norway coming in the top 3 and Finland and Denmark rounding up the top 5. However, there is one important factor which Bernie Sanders never addresses to his supporters when it comes to these countries and one which I think is either out of plain ignorance or absolute dishonesty. The Scandinavian countries on the whole have very low populations and are less densely populated than the UK, US or Canada. Why is that important? Well it's rather simple, when you have less people to provide for there is a less strain on public services, meaning it is easier for the one provider i.e the state to be able to have the funding, management and resources to provide a good level of healthcare for the population. Let us look at the population of the 4 famous Northern European countries.

* Norway: 5.2 Million
* Finland: 5.5 Million
* Denmark: 5.7 Million
* Sweden: 9.9 Million

Now go back to the Euro Health Index: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro_health_consumer_index

Notice the trend? As the population goes up, the single payer system of healthcare is worse. Not much difference between the first three but notice the upward trend. Now look at Sweden, it goes down *six places* in correlation with an increase of 4 million people. As immigration has increased, the pressure on public services has gone up. As you see, the UK (or England as it's shown for some reason on Wiki...) is a further two places down. The trend of population vs single payer systems may not be absolute but it is clearly a big factor. Another indication is the evaluation of Sweden in the health index: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Sweden



The key here is the often argued point of increased access and waiting time problems, which are often cited as nonsense by leftists. However further down the entry, you will see indeed it has become a bit of a problem in Sweden now:



Sweden's response to this has been to increased privatization of it's healthcare service to combat the changes in population and to hopefully bring waiting times down and improve access. With already excellent healthcare services provided and a decentralized system taking some of the burden away from the national government, it will be interesting if in the next 5-10 years it improves the quality of healthcare overall. My prediction is that it will:

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/sweden-is-evolving-to-private-healthcare/

The issues of access and waiting times will be further explored in the next part concerning the NHS....and boy is that going to be an eye opener for anyone not American.

*Deconstructing the Commonwealth Fund Study*

But let's not be too one sided here and let's give the most famous study on the positives of the NHS a chance. The Commonwealth Fund study, in which the Guardian proclaimed proves the NHS has the best healthcare in the entire world! Here is the full article for you to read at your leisure: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/17/nhs-health

There are however a few glaringly obvious problems with this study. First of all, it only studies 11 countries compared to the 37 on the Euro Health Index. So for anyone to declare that the NHS is best health system off this study is simply ludicrous as it leaves out a number of great healthcare systems in the study. Secondly, it focuses very little on healthcare outcomes which is absolutely essential because it maps out the overall quality of healthcare provided. The Euro Index has a pretty nice balance of categories under cost efficiency, effectiveness and outcomes. The Commonwealth study only mainly focuses on the former two, which are important but do not tell the entire story. What is even worse is some of the questions are heavily skewed towards single payer systems. An example of this is the question:

"How much on average do patients have to pay for out of pocket payments?"

This obviously is a bias towards single payer systems where everything is funded through taxation and where there is little private insurance available. It is little wonder with these types of questions that the NHS ranked first. The biggest problem is that this question and others do not show the relationship between amount of money spent vs the quality of healthcare provided. Which is the most important question of all when it comes to healthcare.

But it's even worse, there was one area in which the NHS was ranked in terms of health outcomes....and it isn't pretty:



I seriously cannot be the only person who sees how incredibly insane this quote is. It is supposedly the best healthcare system in the world but it is poor at doing the one thing it's supposed to be doing above all else. To put this into context, this is like saying *I have the best coffee in the world, it is extremely cost efficient and effective in terms of resources and using very well priced beans in order to make it.....the only problem is it doesn't very nice.*

This is how the NHS is and that is according to the most positive study people could find on the healthcare service.

*How government control ruins healthcare: Winter Crisis, PFI contracts, Social Care funding and Long Term Problems.*

As we have already seen by now, mixed healthcare and private healthcare systems on the whole provide a better quality of healthcare overall. They are more cost effective and efficient than the US and are better than the UK and Sweden for that matter. The Scandinavian countries with single payer are doing well and we should not just brush that aside, it is a great thing that they are able to provide state healthcare which works for them. Even if you are someone against the concept like me that has to be admired but there are other factors in play as to why it works, the biggest being population. Now you will see the extreme damaging costs of having state single payer healthcare in a largely populated country like the UK.

The problems which are pointed out in the Euro Health Index are part of the reason why right now as I am speaking the NHS is facing a winter crisis. *66%* of hospitals are now under the most severe emergency warning, meaning that they are not only unable to cope with the numbers but it is actually unsafe to work there. In some cases it is taking up to 3 hours to move patients from ambulances to hospitals due to the overcrowding. I wish I was kidding but I'm not. Waiting times are through the roof and staff are having to work an exhausting amount of hours.

What are the problems?

The left and NHS will have you believe it is all to do with funding and that only if we pump more money in that everything will be fixed. The reality obviously is much more complicated than that. I will say that the liberals have a point about funding cuts in one particularly important area and on the fact that funding is indeed a problem. But this is a real long term problem and what is an even bigger problem than funding is actual cost efficiency, the very thing the Commonwealth Fund claimed the NHS was good at. This next part will outline what can potentially happen if you allow the state full control on how your healthcare system is ran.

*PFI Contracts*

One major element which leftists and NHS lovers point out to in terms of why the NHS is in crisis is the PFI contracts. And they are *absolutely correct.* PFI contracts for those who don't know have been essentially sub contracts that the government negotiated with big private corporations in order to provide services to the NHS. It has been disastrous. The Independent perfectly illustrates this: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-hospitals-debts-what-is-it-rbs-a7134881.html



If you have been paying attention, you will already notice the similarities between this and Obamacare in terms of allowing corporate power to have a significant amount of influence over healthcare. The difference being is that in the UK thanks to government policy, we have now a handful of big corporations in control of some major contracts concerning development for the NHS. It has left a giant hole in the budget of the healthcare sector and now we are seeing major consequences because of this.

This is an example of many instances where if you have the state run healthcare, you essentially allow the arbitrary view of the government of the day dictate how healthcare is run. You are essentially not only relying on government to be competent enough to know what it is doing to provide healthcare for 70+ million people from a single source but they have your best interests in mind. Anyone who has common sense knows you can't trust the government with many things. This is why we should keep government restrained in terms of power. This is an example of what happens when you don't in healthcare, self serving interests can potentially win the day.

What is more is that these contracts were signed by the John Major government in 1995, expanded through Tony Blair and kept by the current Tory government. Essentially, successive governments both Conservative and Labour, Left and Right believed this was the right move. What does this tell you? Government does not have the foresight and expertise to negotiate competent deals when it comes to these sort of matters, that are years in advance and that escalate in price. With healthcare being an autonomous top-down state provision here, this means a budget hole of £200 Billion is left in the healthcare sector if you include the debt that the PFI is in with the citizen having no realistic alternative to go to. Yes, you are indeed in slavery when it comes to state healthcare in this instance. Both for the doctors and their patients.

*Social Care*

When NHS supporters say there has been cuts to the NHS, they don't tell the whole story. As I have mentioned in a previous post, NHS spending has increased by 65% over the last decade and spending has increased year on year including the years of the Conservative government. So the NHS budget has not only been protected but increased. One area which has been cut is social care. Social care in the UK has been cut by around 11% over the last year. Furthermore, the Kingsfund reported this:

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/press/press-releases/older-people-social-care-cuts



What has been result? It has mean't elderly patients have not been released on time and have been kept in hospital due to inadequate social care being able to be provided. This has led to bed blocking, whereby patients who have to stay overnight cannot even be provided a bed and therefore are having to sleep elsewhere, with of course as rightly elderly patients getting priority.

This is really an indicator of two things: 1) the first point I made in regard to PFI contracts, with government monopoly on healthcare and no realistic alternative provided, the population is stuck with what is being given to them. Meaning that the health service is struggling to cope with the demands in which the population has in the sector of healthcare. And of course, it relies on the arbitrary policies of the government which don't always work even if the best intentions are there.

2) It also correlates with another point I made in another post of mine concerning this subject: that the UK as a single payer system is significantly worse at providing resources to cover the demands of the population in the healthcare system. Of course, let me reiterate that the social care cuts do have weight towards this too but look at the differences in beds per 1000 people provided:



Essentially funding is a big problem, so is the lack of choice and competition meaning that there is more of a burden on the state to cope with producing the necessary resources, funds (which depends on the overall country budget) and services and it means that the citizen is stuck with whatever is provided.

To put this in these terms, if an insurance company in the Netherlands has financial problems and cannot provide a decent service, it effects the patients with that insurance company but they still have the option of getting out and moving elsewhere. In a mixed system if the government option fails, they are in more trouble but they can always try and move to a private provider or get another form of public insurance if the option is there and one government provider is failing.

In a state run healthcare system if it fails and is in crisis, *everyone suffers.* There is no alternative to go to meaning 90-95% of the population are stuck. Is that the system you really want to saddle the US with?

If the Republicans or corporate Democrats in this type of system saddle you with the same cuts to funding and outsourcing to corporate companies then you are in a sense screwed. The biggest positive to the US system despite it being a mess of sorts is that you still have an element of choice and control over your healthcare. As a British citizen I have none and so I am stuck with whatever cards government deals me with. Do not lose sight of that, because you will not realize how significant it is until you lose that choice entirely.

*Long Term Problems*

But is government funding and efficiency the whole problem? Not quite. There are many long term problems to the NHS that go beyond this issue and underline the glaring faults of the NHS as a single payer system. In this Telegraph article, you will see that the problem is more than funding and it is detailed even further in the Institute of Economic Affairs report on the NHS:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...y-normal-service-system-just-not-good-others/



There are a couple of key notable points to be made with what this article explains. First of all, yes it is true in the early 2000's, waiting times were significantly longer than what they were in recent years and yes Tony Blair did make it a government target to get the waiting times down. 4 hours on average it must be said is a long time to wait as well.

The second point is, breaking down the aggregation of spending on the NHS shows that the issue of spending in the NHS is more than meets the eye. Certainly spending overall should really be increased more but on the whole it is not as drastic as NHS supporters make it out to be. In terms of spending the bigger issue is cost efficiency, where the money is being spent rather than how much is being spent. And that is more an issue of both government competency in terms of knowing where the funds should go and what areas should be cut (which the social care budget has proven is not a good idea) and in terms of the PFI contracts which have made projects vastly more expensive than if they were paid out of pocket by the government themselves. It still essentially relies on government judgement in an area which government still has a vast monopoly on. This has already been shown to be a mistake.

Lastly on the issue of the NHS, the IeA's report on it the past year analyses with deadly effect just how behind the NHS is compared to other mixed and private insurance based systems. It is really worth a read to see the differences in performance:

https://iea.org.uk/publications/universal-healthcare-without-the-nhs/



*Health Saving Accounts*

The final thing I want to explore before concluding is the idea of Health Savings Accounts which Rand Paul brought up in his healthcare plan. This is the same sort of idea Singapore has in it's system. Essentially what happens in Singapore, is a certain % of your income is put into one of these health saving accounts for both healthcare and social security. Then you have the option of topping up your savings account as much as you want and you can essentially save year on year to the point in which you have saved a massive amount of money in case you need that money for any major out of pocket medical bills. So if you are a healthy citizen and you don't have to go to the doctors for any major reason, you can essentially keep adding money year on year to save whether it be to move on to another insurance plan or move from a public insurance plan to a private one or simply to save for a rainy day. You are essentially in control of your own health funds and can use it however way you see fit.

In Singapore, around 65% of the healthcare market is in the public sector with 35% of it being private. They also have a means tested employment system where depending on how money you earn per month, you can have an amount of your healthcare subsidized by the government. This is great because for lower income families they can have most if not all of their healthcare subsidized whilst still having the choice of which public insurance plan to go on.

What are the results? Well consistently Singapore have ranked among the top healthcare providers in the world. Even in the widely out of date and controversial WHO study of 2000, they ranked 6th in the entire world. And as recently as 2014, Bloomberg found Singapore to have the most cost efficient healthcare system in the world.

So the idea of health saving accounts is a great one and has proven to be very successful in Singapore. There is no reason why the US cannot adopt a similar model and have some great results.

*Conclusion*

My conclusion is one that may not satisfy anyone :lol. Whilst I believe the evidence shows that the US would be much worse off in a single payer system and that you do anything in your power to avoid it, I also believe like the UK, you guys are essentially viewing the healthcare debate far too narrowly. I get a sense of the same US vs UK healthcare debate and Nationalization vs Privatization debate on the NHS in UK as I do with the US on private insurance vs state provided healthcare.

The truth is like the UK, the US could do well to learn from other healthcare systems across the world that are performing much better that uses the insurance based model in a way that is most cost effective, has better health outcomes and provides more freedom to choose. This is why I am encouraged by Rand Paul's endorsement of Singapore's health savings accounts, because it is a really positive step in the right direction. If I were American, I would look to examples such as the Netherlands, the Swiss and Singapore healthcare.

Most of all I do not care what the progressive left has to say on this issue, repealing Obamacare in the long run is the correct decision. Keeping it like Rand Paul said could effectively bankrupt the healthcare system, it is not a stretch to say this if you look at what is happening and the numbers that have come out. What the Republicans come out with we will see, it may indeed be worse but we won't know until the plan is signed into legislation. But if it is Rand Paul leading the charge, I would be very encouraged indeed.

I know this was a long post and I apologize for probably a lot of mistypes :lol. But I hope it was worth reading.[/QUOTE]BAH GAWD ALMIGHTY, @L-DOPA JUST EXPLODED ALL OVER OUR COMPUTER SCREENS!!!! SO HUGE IT CAN'T BE TOTALLY QUOTED!!!! SOMEBODDY STOP THIS, KING!!! :jr

Government regulated anything sucks.


----------



## Genking48

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Very good write up @L-DOPA not gonna quote it since Beatles basically proved it would be futile to try 

Alright, I'll quote a little bit


L-DOPA said:


> *What about the Scandinavian Countries L-DOPA?*
> 
> Yes, the Scandinavian countries on the whole did very well also in the study with Norway coming in the top 3 and Finland and Denmark rounding up the top 5. However, there is one important factor which Bernie Sanders never addresses to his supporters when it comes to these countries and one which I think is either out of plain ignorance or absolute dishonesty. The Scandinavian countries on the whole have very low populations and are less densely populated than the UK, US or Canada. Why is that important? Well it's rather simple, when you have less people to provide for there is a less strain on public services, meaning it is easier for the one provider i.e the state to be able to have the funding, management and resources to provide a good level of healthcare for the population. Let us look at the population of the 4 famous Northern European countries.
> 
> * Norway: 5.2 Million
> * Finland: 5.5 Million
> * Denmark: 5.7 Million
> * Sweden: 9.9 Million
> 
> Now go back to the Euro Health Index: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro_health_consumer_index
> 
> Notice the trend? As the population goes up, the single payer system of healthcare is worse. Not much difference between the first three but notice the upward trend. Now look at Sweden, it goes down *six places* in correlation with an increase of 4 million people. As immigration has increased, the pressure on public services has gone up. As you see, the UK (or England as it's shown for some reason on Wiki...) is a further two places down. The trend of population vs single payer systems may not be absolute but it is clearly a big factor. Another indication is the evaluation of Sweden in the health index:











sorry for the idols it's a problem of mine
Being Danish it's something you often discuss, our healthcare vs. other nations and I don't think that the population difference is something that get's brought up enough, glad you did though, the only reason why our system works for us is because we isn't a country populated with 100 million+

I think there is a difference in what you pay for here, I'm currently going through something of a period where I've been coughing and sneezing since october basically, been to my doctor many a times, gotten an X-rayed my lungs to see if something was going on with them, etc. never had to pay (other than my taxes of course). However stuff like dentist, gotta pay up for that (one of the reasons why I hate going, but hey, gotta try and keep my teeth).

I think that the problem is also the age demographics that the world is facing, we have the demographic challenges going on right now in the world, combine this with a decrease in available workforce our healthcare model is facing a challenge in the coming years.

They are trying to fix it in various ways like extending the age from when one can retire, I think my generation is facing having to work until we are 75 compared to my grandparents generation that could retire when they were in their 60's. It's a tricky subject as nobody wan't to face the possibility of your retirement getting fucked when the generation before yours had it so good. but something will have to be done I guess.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

TL;DR version of @L-DOPA's epic: There's no such thing as "free" and government regulated healthcare is expensive or it sucks. 

:troll


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> Speak for yourself. Trump has already done what I want him to, and not even ironically in the way that you want him to ruin shit. He has made the world BETTER already.


:HA

I _always_ speak for myself.

:trump3



L-DOPA said:


> @DesolationRow; @Tater; @Vic Capri; @Carte Blanche; @BruiserKC; @Miss Sally; @AryaDark; @yeahbaby!; @Pratchett; @CamillePunk; @beatles123; @MrMister; @Alkomesh; (I apologize in advance to anyone I've forgotten, will add as I remember)


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> There's no such thing as "free"
> :troll


*YOU RAT-FACED LIAR!* 

BUHNEE SAHNDUHZ TOLD ME I DESERVE LOADS OF FREE SHIT. FUCK YOU. YOU'RE PROBABLY WHITE AND MALE.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


>


Cut me some slack, the damn site won't mention people probably. I did it right  :lol.


----------



## Alco

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

You left me out even though I injected myself in the conversation about two days ago :mj2


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Alco said:


> You left me out even though I injected myself in the conversation about two days ago :mj2


I apologize good sir  I hope you enjoy the post and get something from it anyway :lol.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Alco said:


> You left me out even though I injected myself in the conversation about two days ago :mj2


I like Alco. He's like liberalism if liberalism was actually right for people (it isn't) and they weren't elitist fuckwads. You sir are a credit to your own infected belief system.

(this is a compliment. just take it )

...come to think of it, you're too good for that shitty ideology. Why aren't you right wing?


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> Things were already shite under Obama's leadership and they will continue to be shite under Trump's leadership. Anyone who doesn't recognize the basic fact that both Democrats and Republicans have sold the USA down the river is a partisan hack. Moving to Canada and freezing your tookus off under Trudeau's shite leadership isn't going to change the facts.
> 
> Me, I'll be staying my happy ass in Hawai'i where it will be beautiful winter day with a high of 78. Maybe I'll go to the beach and have a mai tai. The world might be going to hell but at least I ain't fucking cold.
> 
> :trump3


Didn't you know? Obama is considered the greatest president ever.... Not kidding, plenty of people are saying he is. It's fucking baffling


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



L-DOPA said:


> Cut me some slack, the damn site won't mention people probably. I did it right  :lol.


It's a forum glitch. It's happened to me too. Just giving you shit.

BTW...






8 people. Eight. People. 

Now would be a good time to invest in pitchforks.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Stinger Fan said:


> Didn't you know? Obama is considered the greatest president ever.... Not kidding, plenty of people are saying he is. It's fucking baffling


Plenty of people are retarded too. And I'm not talking about the mentally handicapped.

Whaddyagonnado. :draper2


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Im so glad leftist idiocy is on full display. Repubs like me don't even have to do anything anymore. They're coming out as marxists and communists and SJWs and all we have to do is watch. :trump3


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Alco said:


> I actually adopted a gorilla not too long ago. So yeah. Creationists might argue they're not people. :side:
> 
> Taxation in my country is way too high and the services I get in return are not of a quality I'd expect, given the money I pay. However, I believe in the basic notion that tax money provides me with goods and services I would otherwise not get. For instance, having time off work for a couple of days a year is a comfort I'll pay for (in part). My mother had a serious disease but it didn't ruin her financially. I'm glad such a system is in place.
> 
> I ultimately believe in a principle of solidarity. And I think that works better within an organized structure (ie social security) than with numerous acts of charity which may appear or dissapear at any given time.


None of this defends your contention that taxation is not theft and thus I'll consider that point conceded.

You think you can't have those things without mass theft and are comfortable being provided for with stolen goods. All right then. I don't, and I'm not.


----------



## Alco

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> None of this defends your contention that taxation is not theft and thus I'll consider that point conceded.
> 
> You think you can't have those things without mass theft and are comfortable being provided for with stolen goods. All right then. I don't, and I'm not.


How is it theft when I consciously subscribe to it? I can put myself outside of society completely and I won't pay another cent of taxes ever again. But I won't, because I don't want to.

I told you twice already I don't agree with you, yet you consider that concession. Well okay.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Alco said:


> How is it theft when I consciously subscribe to it? I can put myself outside of society completely and I won't pay another cent of taxes ever again. But I won't, because I don't want to.
> 
> I told you twice already I don't agree with you, yet you consider that concession. Well okay.







I believe that the Judge addresses this exact question in this interview (I just forget where). 

This kinda of libertarianism for beginners (which is where I am compared to other libertarians), so I kinda hope that you at least give it a fair listen.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

So what exactly is the 'better health plan' that Trump or the other Rightists have? Is there a plan yet?

Or is it like the Iran Deal where Obama failed miserably and should've negotiated 'A Better Deal'.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/821467569345495040
I'll be goddamned. Color me shocked that Obama actually commuted Manning's sentence.

Also...


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/821470781301555200
:lmao


----------



## Neuron

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I'll be a very happy man if Trump pardons Assange and Snowden.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

assange has always been clear that it's his goal to destroy the ability of the united states to act on the world stage and he doesn't care who and what replaces america (russia and china) as the prime mover of global politics. which would be horrible for the world. he deserves to lose in his quest.

snowden is straight up a traitor and a tool of russian intelligence. he deserves a bullet in the head. assange is a foreign foe and deserves no special enmity, foreign foes are foreign foes. you fight them and beat them but their being foes is not some shocking unconscionable thing. snowden betrayed his country. he didn't stand up for any principle. he could have done what he did but go to the new york times, the guardian, die welt, der spiegel, the london times, and had the same impact on the intelligence/liberties debate. that would have been standing up for a principle. he ran to the kremlin instead so the main beneficiary of his actions was not the public but instead the russian government. the propriety or impropriety of what western intelligence agencies do in their surveillance was obscured by his running to the russians and so nothing really changed at all, certainly not the changes he said he's in favor of. all the CIA / NSA / MI5 / etc. had to do was sit back and blame the russkis and snowden was effectively neutralized. he set back the cause of getting western intelligence agencies out of their own citizen's business for quite some time by bringing a rival foreign power into the equation. he's ineffectual scum.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Not running to rival nations like a bitch and taking your punishment like a (ironically) man makes you 50 times easier to pardon

You act like a criminal you get treated like a criminal


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



stevefox1200 said:


> Not running to rival nations like a bitch and taking your punishment like a (ironically) man makes you 50 times easier to pardon
> 
> You act like a criminal you get treated like a criminal


Part of me wants to agree with this, but at the same time, people also run from mafia bosses so then it makes no sense for a state to also have mafia like laws designed to protect itself and its shady dealings that go against its citizenry from its own citizens. This is bullshit.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Part of me wants to agree with this, but at the same time, people also run from mafia bosses so then it makes no sense for a state to also have mafia like laws designed to protect itself.


The mafia was a illegitimate and criminal organization, there are no exceptions nor anything to really expose nor principal to stand on 

Mafia killings are not seen as "just" anywhere

The government is expected to the "right" thing so if they are exposed for doing something wrong the leaker needs to do the "right" thing in contrast as well as allowing them to take a moral highground

being locked up for doing the "right thing" is a powerful message

its prevents "what about thing shit you do?" from clouding the issue

When you run like a bitch to an even more oppressive place it shows you were more interested in "exposing" things than you were in "doing the right thing" 

The fact he ran to a place with open state sponsored surveillance to protest state sponsored surveillance would be like if someone on the run from the mafia immediately turned around and became a cartel hitman for protection and claimed the moral high-ground because "well I hate the mafia"


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

:LMAO Gloria Allred trying to get one last stab at Trump before he takes office. Meanwhile Trump is probably laughing it up while he thinks of what to tweet.


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@L-DOPA, that was an amazingly informative and comprehensive post. I don't care how tl;dr it might have appeared, as that is some of your finest work. I want to print it up (along with the linked posts and articles) and hand it out to people. My son is approaching an age where he is asking more questions and taking an interest in politics and world events. If he asks me about the healthcare debate, I will encourage him to read your post as part of the discussion.

Great job. :clap


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



stevefox1200 said:


> The mafia was a illegitimate and criminal organization, there are no exceptions nor anything to really expose nor principal to stand on
> 
> Mafia killings are not seen as "just" anywhere
> 
> The government is expected to the "right" thing so if they are exposed for doing something wrong the leaker needs to do the "right" thing in contrast as well as allowing them to take a moral highground
> 
> being locked up for doing the "right thing" is a powerful message
> 
> its prevents "what about thing shit you do?" from clouding the issue
> 
> When you run like a bitch to an even more oppressive place it shows you were more interested in "exposing" things than you were in "doing the right thing"
> 
> The fact he ran to a place with open state sponsored surveillance to protest state sponsored surveillance would be like if someone on the run from the mafia immediately turned around and became a cartel hitman for protection and claimed the moral high-ground because "well I hate the mafia"


He probably ran to Russia because he thought his life was in jeopardy, which might not be such a bad assumption when you consider the organisation(s) he was leaking on. You can't blame him from being worried about his own safety. Who knows how quickly he could've ended up 'missing' if the US Authorities got to him.

Whether or not you agree with what he did, it must've taken an incredible amount of guts to do it and saying he ran away after like a bitch IMO just isn't true.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> He probably ran to Russia because he thought his life was in jeopardy, which might not be such a bad assumption when you consider the organisation(s) he was leaking on. You can't blame him from being worried about his own safety. Who knows how quickly he could've ended up 'missing' if the US Authorities got to him.
> 
> Whether or not you agree with what he did, it must've taken an incredible amount of guts to do it and saying he ran away after like a bitch IMO just isn't true.


He would have never "gone missing"

His leaking hit the main stream news, if he died of predetermined family illness people would have blamed the goverment let alone something like a car crash

its not the 1950s anymore, you can't just van people without their being a massive foot print and with his face on CNN for like a month he was more than safe

I think if he didn't run he would likely already be out of jail by this point just out of public pressure if he was convicted at all 

Worrying about his "safety" and going to even more oppressive nation is stupid as fuck

you don't do the right thing because its easier or safer you do it because its the right thing


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Going back to the Healthcare discussion, I think the pro-capitalists (and others) would do themselves a favor by following The Unbiased America page on Facebook because they sometimes have some good information. 

From their page: 


> (K.R.) Yesterday I shared a post from We Are Capitalists showing that price gouging eventually leads to new companies entering the market to provide the products at at lower price, moving the price back down to equilibrium.
> 
> Unfortunately people usually don't read about the price coming back down, they just see the original gouging, often described in the media as a market failure or a result of greed driven by capitalism. And people respond by blaming capitalism and seeking government regulations to stop it. Yet ironically, it's government regulation that is often responsible for creating the conditions that led to the gouging in the first place.
> 
> Take for example the case of Martin Shkreli and the antiparasitic drug Daraprim. In 2015, Shkreli's company Turing obtained the manufacturing license for Daraprim and raised its price from $13.50 per pill to $750 per pill. The story went public and Shkreli became demonized by the media, who portrayed he and his company as everything that's wrong with capitalism. Bernie Sanders pounced on the issue, calling it more evidence that the government should takeover the healthcare industry.
> 
> *Of course what Bernie won't tell you is that government actions are directly responsible for this mess to begin with. That's because the FDA has made it prohibitively expensive to obtain regulatory approval to manufacture generic drugs. This high barrier to entry has kept potential competitors out of the marketplace, especially for drugs treating rare diseases that have small markets, leading to a situation where some generics only have one manufacturer. Shkreli identified this government failure, and created a business plan around it. He obtained the license for a drug that had no other manufacturers and raised its price knowing other companies could not afford the government's costly approval process to compete with him.
> *
> *In a free market, a competitor would have seen the gouging as an opportunity to take away market share from the company doing the gouging. It would create the same product and sell it for a lower price. But government-created barriers to entry made this impossible.
> *
> *Thus it was not capitalism or a free market that led to this happening, but instead was government over-regulation; it was the ABSENCE of a free market that pushed competitors out of the marketplace and allowed monopolies to form.
> *


In short. Government needs to get the fuck out of regulating healthcare because it is directly responsible for creating the climate of price gouging we live in. It's not just greed (though it's obviously a part of it), but government regulation is not as effective at curtailing greed as perfect competition and market forces are.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I have always been of two minds with the FDA

on one hand they make it almost impossible for none established corporations from producing drugs which could be very effective 

on the other hand the FDA has also stopped the "magic weight loss pill", healing herbs, and other dangerous scams from making it to market


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



stevefox1200 said:


> Mafia killings are not seen as "just" anywhere


it is seen as just within the mafia.



> The fact he ran to a place with open state sponsored surveillance to protest state sponsored surveillance would be like if someone on the run from the mafia immediately turned around and became a cartel hitman for protection and claimed the moral high-ground because "well I hate the mafia"


are you saying assange is taking part in uk's state sponsored surveillance? Because otherwise, this comparison makes no sense.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Going back to the Healthcare discussion, I think the pro-capitalists (and others) would do themselves a favor by following The Unbiased America page on Facebook because they sometimes have some good information.
> 
> From their page:
> 
> 
> In short. Government needs to get the fuck out of regulating healthcare because it is directly responsible for creating the climate of price gouging we live in. It's not just greed (though it's obviously a part of it), but government regulation is not as effective at curtailing greed as perfect competition and market forces are.


My thoughts on this were that a decent solution might be any Pharma company that makes a new drug gets 4 years claim on it. After 4 years, other manufacturers get a crack at it with the creator getting a small royalty on the sales. It wouldn't be a lot but it would add up given if it's a medication that covers a lot.

In order to make sure companies still do research, there would be a clause that any research later on gained by use of this drug the maker gets sole rights to that research for 4 years, Generics will still be getting made but usage and research and benefits of it go to the maker until the 4 year mark. An example would be,

Phizer makes a blood pressure medication, 4 years have past, Generics are made of it, Phizer gets a small royalty for sales.

New research comes out, that medication has been shown to help with alzheimers, Phizer gets 4 years of research rights and profits of that usage of the medication, so any prescription of the medication for alzheimers nets Phizer most of the profit with the Generic getting a royalty + manufacturing costs. Medication never goes up in price regardless of any new applications and both manufacturing and big pharma get profits without it costing people an arm and a leg.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Actually the FDAs involvement in increasing medicine costs is one of the reasons why we're seeing a rise in snake oil again and people choosing magical elixirs over chemotherapy as its obviously the cheaper alternative. 

Not saying you should kill the FDA. just get it out of helping keep the costs high and make sure that generics enter the market quickly and are cheaper. Trump has the right idea here and Sally has a very valid point about limited patent protections as well.

R&D will continue to happen because the best drug will beat it's competition and innovation gives people the pioneering advantage [it's an actual proven fact that first entrants usually make the most money due to uniqueness and in drugs that is helped even more due to better efficacy]. The pioneer almost always wins. Basically, companies use the patent excuse to prevent competition and the government helps them without realizing that in doing so they're hurting the individuals who could have better drugs out faster in a fast-paced, less regulated market. Regulation and lobbying by pharmaceuticals that want to gouge off of just a handful of drugs isn't entirely to be blamed on the pharmaceuticals. They will lobby for their benefit, but that does not mean that the government should allow them to hold back research - because in doing so, what they're doing is hurting innovation in the industry overall by providing a handful of companies an unfair advantage. If the government denies them their unfair advantage, what are they gonna do in protest? Stop selling drugs? Exit the market? Obviously not. They'd become better and one of the ways of becoming better is through innovation. 

I like to compare this with the e-cigarette market that's evolved over the last half-decade. Over-taxation on cigarettes led to high prices. BUT, it was the danger and health risks of cigarettes that eventually led people to switching over as much as price. People started looking for cheaper and safer alternatives. Voila. We had E-cigarettes. What is the government trying to do now? Make E-cigarettes expensive, or outright banning them. Just tell me again, how the government helps in any way shape or form at all? 

A lot of what we've been told by the government and pharma is huge fucking lies because of selfish interests. Government regulation is a disaster in the health industry. Market forces aren't perfect, nor are they magical, but they are BETTER than the government at controlling costs. 

In perfectly competitive industries like clothes and food (and I'm gonna throw technology in there as well ... can you imagine being able to buy a 48" TV for 250 bucks just even 10 years ago?), innovation has happened and also reduced costs over time. The only things that have gone up are education and health - both far more regulated than food and clothing. 










This should really be intuitive by now, but it's sad that social welfare statists have failed to realize this huge difference. Also, your cheap gas in America? It's because of how competitive it is and a direct result of companies forced into R&D in order to stay in business. You wanna stay in business, you need to innovate. 

It's ok if you go out of business because you usually only go out of business because there's a cheaper, or better alternative out there which has replaced you so it's better for society anyways. Plain and simple.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



> Gloria Allred


The biggest ambulance chaser known to man..and woman.

- Vic


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> My thoughts on this were that a decent solution might be any Pharma company that makes a new drug gets 4 years claim on it. After 4 years, other manufacturers get a crack at it with the creator getting a small royalty on the sales. It wouldn't be a lot but it would add up given if it's a medication that covers a lot.
> 
> In order to make sure companies still do research, there would be a clause that any research later on gained by use of this drug the maker gets sole rights to that research for 4 years, Generics will still be getting made but usage and research and benefits of it go to the maker until the 4 year mark. An example would be,
> 
> Phizer makes a blood pressure medication, 4 years have past, Generics are made of it, Phizer gets a small royalty for sales.
> 
> New research comes out, that medication has been shown to help with alzheimers, Phizer gets 4 years of research rights and profits of that usage of the medication, so any prescription of the medication for alzheimers nets Phizer most of the profit with the Generic getting a royalty + manufacturing costs. Medication never goes up in price regardless of any new applications and both manufacturing and big pharma get profits without it costing people an arm and a leg.


Not sure if this happens a lot in the drug game, but with the Great Free Market Forces there's nothing to stop Pfizer gobbling up the generics to stifle competition to make sure they're the main (or only) supplier in town, and then just jack up the price to keep those shareholders happy. Is there?


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Actually the FDAs involvement in increasing medicine costs is one of the reasons why we're seeing a rise in snake oil again and people choosing magical elixirs over chemotherapy as its obviously the cheaper alternative.
> 
> Not saying you should kill the FDA. just get it out of helping keep the costs high and make sure that generics enter the market quickly and are cheaper. Trump has the right idea here and Sally has a very valid point about limited patent protections as well.
> 
> R&D will continue to happen because the best drug will beat it's competition and innovation gives people the pioneering advantage [it's an actual proven fact that first entrants usually make the most money due to uniqueness and in drugs that is helped even more due to better efficacy]. The pioneer almost always wins. Basically, companies use the patent excuse to prevent competition and the government helps them without realizing that in doing so they're hurting the individuals who could have better drugs out faster in a fast-paced, less regulated market. Regulation and lobbying by pharmaceuticals that want to gouge off of just a handful of drugs isn't entirely to be blamed on the pharmaceuticals. They will lobby for their benefit, but that does not mean that the government should allow them to hold back research - because in doing so, what they're doing is hurting innovation in the industry overall by providing a handful of companies an unfair advantage. If the government denies them their unfair advantage, what are they gonna do in protest? Stop selling drugs? Exit the market? Obviously not. They'd become better and one of the ways of becoming better is through innovation.
> 
> I like to compare this with the e-cigarette market that's evolved over the last half-decade. Over-taxation on cigarettes led to high prices. BUT, it was the danger and health risks of cigarettes that eventually led people to switching over as much as price. People started looking for cheaper and safer alternatives. Voila. We had E-cigarettes. What is the government trying to do now? Make E-cigarettes expensive, or outright banning them. Just tell me again, how the government helps in any way shape or form at all?
> 
> A lot of what we've been told by the government and pharma is huge fucking lies because of selfish interests. Government regulation is a disaster in the health industry. Market forces aren't perfect, nor are they magical, but they are BETTER than the government at controlling costs.
> 
> In perfectly competitive industries like clothes and food (and I'm gonna throw technology in there as well ... can you imagine being able to buy a 48" TV for 250 bucks just even 10 years ago?), innovation has happened and also reduced costs over time. The only things that have gone up are education and health - both far more regulated than food and clothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This should really be intuitive by now, but it's sad that social welfare statists have failed to realize this huge difference. Also, your cheap gas in America? It's because of how competitive it is and a direct result of companies forced into R&D in order to stay in business. You wanna stay in business, you need to innovate.
> 
> It's ok if you go out of business because you usually only go out of business because there's a cheaper, or better alternative out there which has replaced you so it's better for society anyways. Plain and simple.


With royalties and reasons to keep R&D up companies can solely run as manufacturing and some as R&D. Both would make profits and by ensuring that there is a bonus for finding new ways to use already established medicines, we'll see people putting tons and tons of research into medicine. With the patents wearing off after 4 years the creator makes money, Generics get made and people have access to cheaper meds. 

Example of Generic manufacturing for medicine A - Standard use, 

Prescription cost 9 dollars
Cost to make = 1 dollar
Manufacturer profits = 5.50
Royalty to creator = 2.50

Example of Generic manufacturing for medicine A- Alternative use - Creator has patent going for this use,

Prescription cost 9 dollars
Cost to make = 1 dollar
Creator profits = 5.50
Manufacturer profits = 2.50

Roles switch, medicine stays the same price and manufacturers still make the medication. Keeps price down, everyone still gets profit. The profit won't come from marketing a single drug but to find more uses for it and to get as much manufacturing of it ass possible, profit in bulk.

It's a crude example but will do.

Another way to lower costs is reduce the requirements and red tape for medical grade, allow for massive competition for Medical equipment without a few companies controlling everything. Now places that produce machinery can have a Medical part to the manufacturing which of course follow high standards but the cost saved by Hospitals and Patients would be huge. Competition will drive down price. 

Look at Lasek and plastic surgery, the costs have gone down and quality has gone up. 

Health Care cannot be looked at with some willy nilly socialist mentality, factors of increasing obesity, over a billion in food stamps spent on junk food, poor education, poor home life are all factors. It must be tackled from every angle to get a good working system. Else you end up with over taxed citizens with epidemics that never end.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Since the welfare statist has brought a typical hysterical social welfare statist argument, I'm addressing. 

Even IF Pfizer buys a million companies that owns a billion drugs, all it would take would be 1 company selling 1 drug cheaper to put them out of business in that drug and so on and so forth. 

The same thing that happens in all other non-regulated industries. 

This is why over the course of being ill for 4 months in a year, my TOTAL drug costs came to a WHOPPING $20 for the whole year in America. Sure, I can say I'm lucky that I didn't need a major drug owned by a company that's fully helped by the state, but in a perfect competition, de-regulated scenario, 1 small company can and does bring a giant to its knees.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Two days until Trump rescinds Obama's...well, everything :troll


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> Two days until Trump rescinds Obama's...well, everything :troll


It's also my birthday :hb


----------



## SWITCHBLADE

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

http://wtop.com/dc/2017/01/man-lights-fire-near-dc-trump-hotel/ :fpalm



Carte Blanche said:


> It's also my birthday :hb


Ayyyyyy :hb


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> It's also my birthday :hb


Today or on Trump day? :surprise:


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> Today or on Trump day? :surprise:


Trump Day brah. Also, uniquely enough, my wife's birthday was on EC vote day :banderas 

Double the celebration for both events. What are the odds?


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Btw taxation isn't theft.

For one thing you get something in return for taxation, and you don't in a theft. 

And furthermore, private property cannot exist without a police force to enforce private property rights, otherwise everyone just steals everything, you cannot have a police force without a state, (any independent, funded body supported by a group of people is a state whatever you want to call it, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck....) and hence cannot have private property without a state. 

So the idea that the state is "stealing your stuff" is nonsense, you only have that stuff because of the state. 

Btw @L-DOPA I am still planning on reading your healthcare post, sounds interesting.

Edit having read some of L-DOPA's post:

- no where near finished, but have read the stuff on the swiss/danish system and praise them for covering everyone but still allowing choice. Which makes me wonder what you think of the Australian system, which has a gov funded single payer option, but you're allowed to (and over 50% do) have your own private insurance instead?


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Just have to say, that was a splendid and tremendously thorough post, @L-DOPA. You hyped it up to me but it more than lived up to--nay, surpassed--the preliminary advertising on your part. 

As @Pratchett noted, I am going to seek to print the entire post out on the morrow and go through it and the myriad sources cited. Thank you for that fantastically exhaustive work, *L-DOPA*! :mark: :mark: :mark: 

:hb on Friday, @Carte Blanche! :mark: :hb :trump :lol I was thinking of buying a birthday cake for Friday and now I will commemorate the first slice to you! :woo 


As for Edward Snowden, a reasonably accurate rule of thumb in these matters is that if you directly oppose or undermine your government's actions, you must be prepared to pursue a life of exile from home for the rest of one's days, dating back to long before the Sumerians. While the activities of the NSA are illustrative of an irresponsible government behaving irresponsibly, it is only the natural of order of the world that the U.S. state seek Snowden's capture. 

In any event, now 55 Democrats are going to be sitting out The Donald's inauguration. Tsk, tsk. :trump


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Btw taxation isn't theft.
> 
> For one thing you get something in return for taxation, and you don't in a theft.


you're just making up your own definitions now.



> And furthermore, private property cannot exist without a police force to enforce private property rights, otherwise everyone just steals everything, you cannot have a police force without a state, (any independent, funded body supported by a group of people is a state whatever you want to call it, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck....) and hence cannot have private property without a state.
> 
> So the idea that the state is "stealing your stuff" is nonsense, you only have that stuff because of the state.


wat. You only have private property because cops?? Like I have a car, and if there weren't cops, I wouldn't have a car? You don't need rights to have private property.

"everyone just steals everything" is a stupid argument and has no basis, same as "everyone just kills everyone".


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Goku said:


> you're just making up your own definitions now.


No, I'm not. The classic dictionary definition of theft has never been to merely take something, there has always been an element of wrong involved, typified for example by the lack of consideration. 



> wat. You only have private property because cops?? Like I have a car, and if there weren't cops, I wouldn't have a car? You don't need rights to have private property.


Yes, without cops someone would take your car. Why wouldn't they?



> "everyone just steals everything" is a stupid argument and has no basis, same as "everyone just kills everyone".


If everyone can be trusted to just work together and be lovely why not have communism?


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Goku said:


> you're just making up your own definitions now.
> 
> wat. You only have private property because cops?? Like I have a car, and if there weren't cops, I wouldn't have a car? You don't need rights to have private property.
> 
> "everyone just steals everything" is a stupid argument and has no basis, same as "everyone just kills everyone".


It baffles me that liberals think they are right when freaken SON GOKU knows Trump is the man :trump


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Alkomesh2 said:


> No, I'm not. The classic dictionary definition of theft has never been to merely take something, there has always been an element of wrong involved, typified for example by the lack of consideration.


This doesn't explain anything. You said giving something back negates theft, irrespective of whether you agreed to it or not.



> Yes, without cops someone would take your car. Why wouldn't they?


because they could get their own car.



> If everyone can be trusted to just work together and be lovely why not have communism?


:carlo


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Goku said:


> This doesn't explain anything. You said giving something back negates theft, irrespective of whether you agreed to it or not.


Yes I would agree with that. For example, I enter a newsagency and see a newspaper advertised for $2, and for some reason there is no one in the store, if I take the paper, but leave $2 on the counter I haven't committed theft.



> because they could get their own car.


And what if they couldn't afford it?


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Yes I would agree with that. For example, I enter a newsagency and see a newspaper advertised for $2, and for some reason there is no one in the store, if I take the paper, but leave $2 on the counter I haven't committed theft.


but if you only left $1, it would be theft? In essence, you have not breached the agreement in the above example. To use the taxation = theft argument here, the taxpayer and the government do not agree on how much should be paid (maybe zero) and what that money should be used for.

And this ignores the biggest issue of the threat of violence.



> And what if they couldn't afford it?


the money that one could save from not paying taxes could go to securing one's property, making it harder to steal than actually buy oneself.

--

if you'd argue that taxation is better for societal improvement than the alternative, then I could see that point of view, but yeah it is theft and it is immoral (if one would want to frame it in terms of morality, which I don't).


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Somebody takes $20 from you without your consent and uses it to buy $20 worth of shit you never asked for/don't want/could've gotten for less and it's not theft? :kobe You would never fucking apply this standard to you and another person in the real world, don't pretend it works for the imaginary entity called the state which people programmed you for several years to believe in its necessity to the point your mind adopts wildly irrational logical positions to keep that programming in tact. This is why Statism is just another religion. Smug atheist socialists are as brainwashed as the religious people they berate all the time.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Goku said:


> but if you only left $1, it would be theft? In essence, you have not breached the agreement in the above example. To use the taxation = theft argument here, the taxpayer and the government do not agree on how much should be paid (maybe zero) and what that money should be used for.
> 
> And this ignores the biggest issue of the threat of violence.


I sympathise with what you are saying, and for what it is worth I think the only difference between a state and an organised crime organisation is the level of societal acceptance.. 

I'll give you taxation could be theft (and in many states in many points in history has been ie feudal levies in medieval europe), it depends on if you are provided with fair consideration or not. So to answer your example directly, if you left a $1 it would be theft. 

So I guess it boils down to if you're provided with fair consideration or not. If the state is providing fair consideration I don't see how you could call taxation theft though. 



> the money that one could save from not paying taxes could go to securing one's property, making it harder to steal than actually buy oneself.


But what if they didn't have a job? And didn't want a job, because they could just steal stuff from people instead?



CamillePunk said:


> Somebody takes $20 from you without your consent and uses it to buy $20 worth of shit you never asked for/don't want/could've gotten for less and it's not theft? :kobe You would never fucking apply this standard to you and another person in the real world, don't pretend it works for the imaginary entity called the state which people programmed you for several years to believe in its necessity to the point your mind adopts wildly irrational logical positions to keep that programming in tact. This is why Statism is just another religion. Smug atheist socialists are as brainwashed as the religious people they berate all the time.


Problem with this is you don't get random shit from taxation, I get healthcare, education, roads, rail, public infrastructure, I directly benefit from my tax contribution literally every single day, and through my vote I have a measure of control on how it is all distributed. 

Also I don't think states are good, I just think they're an inevitable evil you might as well try to make as good as possible.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

None of that invalidates the coercion or the fact that some/many people DON'T consent or have the same subjective experience of the benefits as you do. If you want to pretend the government doesn't steal from you fine, but the fact is it steals from people who would rather keep their money and spend it how they choose.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> This is why Statism is just another religion. Smug atheist socialists are as brainwashed as the religious people they berate all the time.


:ha


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

MUH WORKERS PARADISE BRO.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> None of that invalidates the coercion or the fact that some/many people DON'T consent or have the same subjective experience of the benefits as you do. If you want to pretend the government doesn't steal from you fine, but the fact is it steals from people who would rather keep their money and spend it how they choose.


But then you still get back to who is going to keep their stuff theirs? 

Without a state you don't have anything to keep. 

The government doesn't steal from me, I very happily pay tax and enjoy the benefits of doing so, and if I didn't I'd move to another country.

If you don't like paying tax I'd suggest you move to one of the countries that don't charge personal income tax or have neglible rates, there are plenty of them https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates, they're almost all horrible places to live though as they lack basic infrastructure we take for granted, that only could exist because of the taxes people pay.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Alkomesh2 said:


> But then you still get back to who is going to keep their stuff theirs?
> 
> Without a state you don't have anything to keep.
> 
> The government doesn't steal from me, I very happily pay tax and enjoy the benefits of doing so, and if I didn't I'd move to another country.
> 
> If you don't like paying tax I'd suggest you move to one of the countries that don't charge personal income tax or have neglible rates, there are plenty of them https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates, they're almost all horrible places to live though as they lack basic infrastructure we take for granted, that only could exist because of the taxes people pay.


No, your consequentalist predictions do NOTHING to change the fact that taxation is theft.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Alkomesh2 said:


> But then you still get back to who is going to keep their stuff theirs?
> 
> Without a state you don't have anything to keep.
> 
> The government doesn't steal from me, I very happily pay tax and enjoy the benefits of doing so, and if I didn't I'd move to another country.
> 
> If you don't like paying tax I'd suggest you move to one of the countries that don't charge personal income tax or have neglible rates, there are plenty of them https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates, they're almost all horrible places to live though as they lack basic infrastructure we take for granted, that only could exist because of the taxes people pay.


The tax concept is not the problem. The Fed and the tax SIZE is, and the amount of them.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> No, your consequentalist predictions do NOTHING to change the fact that taxation is theft.


Except it isn't theft if you get fair consideration. And I would accept the corollary is true, that if there isn't fair consideration then it is theft. 



Beatles123 said:


> The tax is not the problem. The Fed and the tax SIZE is, and the amount of them.


My understanding is they are arguing that all taxation is inherently wrong, I could be wrong though.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Except it isn't theft if you get fair consideration. And I would accept the corollary is true, that if there isn't fair consideration then it is theft.
> 
> 
> 
> My understanding is they are arguing that all taxation is inherently wrong, I could be wrong though.


I wouldn't say all taxation...most of it tho.

The Fed can go die.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> I wouldn't say all taxation...most of it tho.
> 
> The Fed can go die.


I'd probably say the bigger problem is priority than size, but fair enough.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/821012282872307712
:trump hates wrestling.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/821012282872307712
> :trump hates wrestling.


our president is a WWE HOFer. what a time to be alive. :trump3


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

This is for people who think that they wouldn't be able to wipe their asses without the government: 

In the early 90's Pakistan had a very famous cricketer by the name of Imran Khan whose mother died of cancer. So he decided to build a hospital with the goal of perpetual free cancer treatment to the people of the nation who are too poor to travel abroad to get cancer treatment. 

How he did that was through a nation-wide drive of selling raffle tickets (which was a unique way of getting donations) and it worked. It was completely voluntary and everyone in the country decided that having a free cancer hospital is a great fucking idea. So the donation drive was a massive, massive success. 

The entire hospital was built entirely through voluntary donations. There are now two hospitals that provide free cancer treatment to anyone deemed too poor to pay. Voluntary donations keep it funded. 

This same model was replicated for at least 1 other series of SIUT hospitals in Pakistan which go so far as provide free transplants all funded through voluntary corporate and individual donations.

Look at the number of kickstarter type projects being funded in the MILLIONS by people through voluntary donations. This same method can be used by groups of local volunteers to raise funding for their roads. So you statists can still have muh roads in a non-government dominated society. 

This is just one example of voluntary group efforts. There are thousands of cases world-wide of small groups of people doing the same thing, from everywhere from Africa to New Zealand.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4130760/Protester-sets-fire-Trump-Washington-hotel.html



> Anti-Trump protester sets himself on fire outside The Donald's D.C. hotel before putting himself out and surrendering to police
> 
> The man set himself on fire outside Trump International Hotel on Tuesday night
> Staff inside the hotel called police and the fire department at around 9.30pm
> He suffered non life-threatening burns and was taken to hospital by police
> The man said he was protesting against Trump who he said was 'incapable of respecting the constitution'
> 
> A protester set himself on fire outside Trump International Hotel in Washington DC on Tuesday.
> The man, who has not yet been identified, said the act was in protest of the President-elect's looming inauguration.
> Witnesses described how he yelled 'Trump' several times as 'flames ran up his back' before lying down in the street.
> He suffered non-life-threatening burns and was taken to hospital shortly after the incident at around 9.30pm.
> A Washington DC Police source told DailyMail.com he was not arrested.
> A man set himself on fire in protest outside Trump International Hotel in Washington D.C. on Tuesday night. His clothes remained ablaze in the middle of the road afterwards
> The man said he was from California and that he was acting in protest against Trump
> In a brief interview with NBC at the scene, he said: 'I tried to light myself on fire as an act of protest.


I guess this guy thought he would be heralded as the next Thích Quang Duc and not just some immature idiot who never grew up fpalm


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4130760/Protester-sets-fire-Trump-Washington-hotel.htmlI guess this guy thought he would be heralded as the next Thích Quang Duc and not just some immature idiot who never grew up fpalm


Instead, we see him for what he really is . . . 

A fully-indoctrinated, far-left, Liberal, "Useful Idiot" who thinks he is part of some great "movement" towards some unattainable "Utopia" of Social Justice, or some other "fantasy agenda" concocted by the Left !

QUOTE : In a brief interview with NBC at the scene, he said: "I tried to light myself on fire as an act of protest. (I'm protesting) the fact that we've elected somebody who is completely incapable of respecting the constitution of the United States."


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/821012282872307712
> :trump hates wrestling.


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

As Trump day approaches I cannot help but imagine Obama and Hillary and the entire DNC being like Hannibal and his "unstoppable" army standing before the gates of Rome, starving, beaten, broken. Only able to scream and enact violence among themselves or the few Roman Citizens they could find. Weakened and disillusioned from ignorance and hubris and thinking they can still win.

Underestimating a people when they had so many victories.

Knowing that the war is over and now they must submit.

The feeling of despair of being promised a Victory that would never come.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/821012282872307712
> :trump hates wrestling.


Nah, he's just one of the greatest heels in the history of our industry. :trump3


----------



## Alco

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> As Trump day approaches I cannot help but imagine Obama and Hillary and the entire DNC being like Hannibal and his "unstoppable" army standing before the gates of Rome, starving, beaten, broken. Only able to scream and enact violence among themselves or the few Roman Citizens they could find. Weakened and disillusioned from ignorance and hubris and thinking they can still win.
> 
> Underestimating a people when they had so many victories.
> 
> Knowing that the war is over and now they must submit.
> 
> The feeling of despair of being promised a Victory that would never come.


The one difference being that Hannibal actually had the Romans beat at one point but refused to pursue them for some reason. History could've taken a whole other turn right there.

Nevertheless that's a nice analogy.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Alco said:


> The one difference being that Hannibal actually had the Romans beat at one point but refused to pursue them for some reason. History could've taken a whole other turn right there.
> 
> Nevertheless that's a nice analogy.


The DNC and Hillary/Obama had Trump beat in the early stages but then they let up on just about everything and it cost them so I think it's perfectly fitting in that regard.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*










- Vic


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I can't wait for 3 Doors Down!!!

"I love 3 Dawns Down, I have all their albums, I have all the best albums, no one knows the great music of 3 Doors like me, believe me, I love music I have all the best music, no one knows music like me - so much more than Hillary" *throws in a spastic gesture.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I once set myself on fire 

It wasn't out of protest

its was for proof that if you wear three pairs of safety gloves you can touch a heat lamp on the lens

they light up as soon as you say "I'm not even feeling it"


----------



## blackholeson

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> This is for people who think that they wouldn't be able to wipe their asses without the government:
> 
> In the early 90's Pakistan had a very famous cricketer by the name of Imran Khan whose mother died of cancer. So he decided to build a hospital with the goal of perpetual free cancer treatment to the people of the nation who are too poor to travel abroad to get cancer treatment.
> 
> How he did that was through a nation-wide drive of selling raffle tickets (which was a unique way of getting donations) and it worked. It was completely voluntary and everyone in the country decided that having a free cancer hospital is a great fucking idea. So the donation drive was a massive, massive success.
> 
> The entire hospital was built entirely through voluntary donations. There are now two hospitals that provide free cancer treatment to anyone deemed too poor to pay. Voluntary donations keep it funded.
> 
> This same model was replicated for at least 1 other series of SIUT hospitals in Pakistan which go so far as provide free transplants all funded through voluntary corporate and individual donations.
> 
> Look at the number of kickstarter type projects being funded in the MILLIONS by people through voluntary donations. This same method can be used by groups of local volunteers to raise funding for their roads. So you statists can still have muh roads in a non-government dominated society.
> 
> This is just one example of voluntary group efforts. There are thousands of cases world-wide of small groups of people doing the same thing, from everywhere from Africa to New Zealand.


*Is the Federal Government too large? Probably. However, I don't think I need the Government to help me wipe my own ass. Human will always create Governing bodies. That's just a fact. You and others apparently don't like the current structure and I guess a few of you even consider "taxation" as theft. Pretending as if Governments don't serve a whole purpose is simply foolish. There is no doubt about it, our Government is flawed, big time. However, who is to blame? The voter, or the people who Americans voted for? Aren't voters to blame for not acting out legally and changing how this Government operates. People like you maybe?

Voting in Hilary, or Donald doesn't count. Simply voting doesn't buy you a pass in this instance. We are all to blame. Aren't we? We live in a Republic, but for the sake of arguing a Democracy. This means we have control. Our Government whether you like it, or not has been heavily influenced not by people like you, or me. This country will forever remain in power by the most wealthy of individuals. If you think otherwise, stop reading now. The amount of subsidies that tax payers are putting to the wealthiest 1/10 of 1% is nearly unimaginable. When you say, or others say that taxes are basically a form of theft I have a hard time agreeing and disagreeing because I don't think you folks really understand what you are really saying. 

The taxpayer has been paying out money, tax money to the wealthy for about a century now. Over time more and more money has been spent and our tax dollars have paid for it. You can sit there and think that your hard earned money goes towards minorities, lazy whites, arts and crafts, etc, but you would be wrong. The reality of this matter is simple, most of your hard earned money goes to the military via contracts, hence the reason your guy Donald Trump wants to go after these military contracts and their inflated costs on tax payers. That's just the military. This doesn't include companies like Wal Mart, Nike, McDonald's, Taco Bell, Macy's, Ford, GM, etc. 

If you know anything about taxes you would know that our Government is just a middle man looking out for the best interests of the people who actually keep them in power. Guess who? Not you, you're just some sucker of a voter (not literally) who thinks they're making change when they cast their vote, or at least we'd like to think we are. Can you blame the taxpayer/voter? As Trump said people like him were telling people like Hilary what he wanted them to do on the Hill. Trump said in the past that he became a nominee for this election because he wanted to change this corruption. Do you remember any of this? I can post a link if you don't. 

The only great thing Trump has ever brought up is exactly my argument to you. Our tax money doesn't help the poor, because if it did we wouldn't have social welfare. Tax payer money would have created better schools, better neighborhoods, more jobs, and a well constructed society. I think some of you think that America is a Socialists country. It really isn't. Parts of our society are, but that's not due to some wild conspiracy, it was willed upon by the people. The Government serves whatever purpose the people who place it in power want it for. I don't think we should be subsidizing any major billion dollar corporation, ever, but we have. 

Look at all the major cities and the professional sports teams that they have. It's common for these wealth owners to ask that the taxpayer pay out towards the stadium. These wealthy, yet cheap, elites still find the time to manipulate our local and state Governments to pay for their stadiums. Whatever happened to paying your own way? Most people don't follow sports and could care less. Why should they pay for stadiums they're not likely to go visit ever? Not only this, but many of these sports arenas charge far too much for the average American family to go out and enjoy. No matter what the taxpayer always gets shit on financially. 

Just because society can't figure out how they want their Government to work for them doesn't make the process a failure. People have failed themselves. We're all responsible for who is in charge. We have only to blame ourselves until someone does something to drastically change the course of American history. Our Government doesn't answer to people like you and I. However, it does respond to those with money and power. Believe me people like Donald Trump, George Soros, Bill Gates, etc were all doing just fine under the current structure. They aren't billionaires because they worked hard. They're billionaires because our Government made you pay them via your taxes. You mentioned people and the charitable donations. We will pay more in the short term than we would paying out in taxes, and we would spend less long term. Whereas through taxation it can be regulated and monitored. Donations are great and Americans are extremely charitable. However, I would rather know that so much money, like penny shavings of my current salary are keeping people fed in poorer communities. Charity is too inconsistent and unreliable. Sorry to burst your bubble.

I think some of you should really do some reading about your Government. Even though we disagree your arguments are heard and understood, but just misguided. I suggest some of you read the book "Free Lunch" by David Cay Johnston. Whether you agree with his politics, or not doesn't matter. This book attacks both sides and how they use their power to keep the wealthy at the to financially. There is factual data gathered by bipartisan groups. It's a great book because it basically lays out how much of your tax dollars pay out the rich. It's also explains in detail how the wealthiest 1/10 of 1% profit off of your tax dollars, hide tax money in offshore accounts, etc. Take the time and just get out of your political bubble. I stopped supporting the Democrats and Republicans a long time ago, I suggest many of you do the same. Abandon them because they certainly abandoned us. We're a split nation because of their bullshit. We need to unite.*


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Alco said:


> The one difference being that Hannibal actually had the Romans beat at one point but refused to pursue them for some reason. History could've taken a whole other turn right there.
> 
> Nevertheless that's a nice analogy.


This reminds me of one of our MSN conversations when we were talking about Hannibal ourselves (and if I recall, you were a little unfamiliar with him). Takes me back to such halcyon days. :lenny5

Okay, no more reminiscing. Two more days.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



> The Clinton Global Initiative has terminated 22 employees and will soon become another casualty of the 2016 election season.
> CGI, which opened in 2005, will officially close April 15, 2017. Paperwork filed with the New York Department of Labor Jan. 12 confirmed the “discontinuation,” along with the termination of 22 employees. The Jan. 12 filing makes permanent plans issued Aug. 22 by former President Bill Clinton as the family attempted to extricate itself from any conflicts of interest.
> A spokesperson for the Clinton Foundation declined to comment on the record with Fox News when contacted Monday about the WARN notice [The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act].
> SEE ALSO: Hillary Clinton donors still in shock over Trump win, hope to ‘wake up’ from nightmare
> “This [group] wasn’t just for charitable ends,” Brian Morgenstern, vice president for the Manhattan Republican Party, told the network. “As the initiative is closing its doors, you see foreign governments who had pledged tens-of-millions of dollars pulling their donations now that Hillary Clinton will not be the president. That shows a lot of people that this was more than just a charity. This was a way for the Clintons to network and really peddle influence due to their positions in leadership.”
> CGI was criticized prior to the Nov. 8, 2016, election when stolen emails belonging to Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta detailed some of the group’s inner workings. WikiLeaks documents revealed Teneo co-founder Douglas Band discussing ways his consulting firm secured lucrative deals for Mr. Clinton.
> “There is no way under any circumstance that The Clinton Foundation should be operating if she is elected president,” NBC’s Chuck Todd said during an Oct. 27, 2016, interview on The Steve Cochran Show. “I don’t see how they can keep that going. I just don’t.”
> 
> 
> “The ease with which somebody apparently — if you give money to Clinton or the foundation you get personal face-time with Clinton — that’s what it looks like what was done here,” Mr. Todd continued, The Washington Times reported. “Doug Band has been a lightning rod in Clinton world for some time.”
> Mr. Clinton made tens-of-millions of dollars on what the Washington Post called an “aggressive” but legal strategy for obtaining consulting contracts.
> Hillary Clinton campaign spokesman Glen Caplin declined to comment on the memo with the newspaper on Oct. 26, 2016, but “he also did not dispute it.”
> Fox News noted Monday that the Australian government recently decided against renewing its partnership with the foundation, while Norway’s donations plummeted from $20 million in 2015 to $4.2 million in 2016.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/16/clinton-global-initiative-lays-off-22-as-donations/


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@blackholeson Epic post. :applause

The greatest trick those at the top ever pulled was convincing poor people that other poor people are the reason they are poor. In reality, it's the .01% who is robbing the world blind, while millions upon millions of people are brainwashed into defending their oppressors. The best kind of slave is the slave who does not know he is a slave.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Nah. It's more to do with anti-capitalists not knowing how to do basic math and not even being able to punch in big numbers into calculaters. 

Even IF you took the ENTIRE fortune of the richest 400 hundred americans' wealth of 2.3 trillion and redistributed it amongst the ENTIRE American population, you'd still only get 6 grand each and then that's it. Now let's say America has 125 million households. If you distribute that wealth of the rich class, you still only get about 16-18k (I'm not using a calculator for this). 

Now that the fortune 400 is broke, there's no more wealth creation and no more money. 

Congratulations at being able to live for at most 4-6 months - about a couple of years (MAXIMUM in the worst conditions possible) after robbing the rich of all their wealth :lmao :clap

Robin Hood was an idiot. He should've started a circus which would have generated more _sustainable_ wealth.

I also have no clue why this blackhole guy made a post about the evils of government to a libertarian. If you want to rant fine but don't quote me when you don't even know that I'm not a supporter of government.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


>


Not bad but it should say Liberal instead of Commie. Or better yet 'Gaffe'


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Not bad but it should say Liberal instead of Commie.


To be fair, many people don't make a distinction between the two


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



virus21 said:


> To be fair, many people don't make a distinction between the two


TBH, a lot of communist strategies and talking points have made their way into liberalism so the distinction isn't always easy to make. 

While the communist says that the state should own everything and distribute wealth and resources equally between all people, most of the liberals now say that the state should regulate and control everything and redistribute the wealth from the rich to the poor

There isn't a huge difference between the two positions.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



virus21 said:


> To be fair, many people don't make a distinction between the two


Many people who mourn for the Reagan era and still salute the flag every morning with their guns in hand.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> This is for people who think that they wouldn't be able to wipe their asses without the government:
> 
> In the early 90's Pakistan had a very famous cricketer by the name of Imran Khan whose mother died of cancer. So he decided to build a hospital with the goal of perpetual free cancer treatment to the people of the nation who are too poor to travel abroad to get cancer treatment.
> 
> How he did that was through a nation-wide drive of selling raffle tickets (which was a unique way of getting donations) and it worked. It was completely voluntary and everyone in the country decided that having a free cancer hospital is a great fucking idea. So the donation drive was a massive, massive success.
> 
> The entire hospital was built entirely through voluntary donations. There are now two hospitals that provide free cancer treatment to anyone deemed too poor to pay. Voluntary donations keep it funded.
> 
> This same model was replicated for at least 1 other series of SIUT hospitals in Pakistan which go so far as provide free transplants all funded through voluntary corporate and individual donations.
> 
> Look at the number of kickstarter type projects being funded in the MILLIONS by people through voluntary donations. This same method can be used by groups of local volunteers to raise funding for their roads. So you statists can still have muh roads in a non-government dominated society.
> 
> This is just one example of voluntary group efforts. There are thousands of cases world-wide of small groups of people doing the same thing, from everywhere from Africa to New Zealand.


http://www.dawn.com/news/1308588/punjabis-are-tired-of-takht-i-lahore-imran-khan



> Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf Chairman Imran Khan addressing a gathering in Dera Ghazi Khan on Sunday said the people of Punjab are tired of 'Takht-i-Lahore'.
> 
> In an attempt to rally support for his party, the PTI chief said, referring to the ruling PML-N, "You will quickly be free from these people."
> 
> "There is one law for the powerful but another for the common man... Young boys are educated in seminaries and can't progress in life," he said.
> 
> "We will build a naya Pakistan in which boys who receive education can go onto become prime minister," he vowed.
> 
> "It is the government's responsibility to give you social benefits as long as you are jobless," he said.
> 
> He announced his intention to "try and build" a Shaukat Khanum Cancer Hospital in DG Khan.
> 
> "It takes a lot of work to build a cancer hospital," he said.
> 
> The PTI chief briefed the audience on the Panama case and conducted an informal audience poll asking attendees whether they believed the prime minister would be proven guilty in the case.


:hmm


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Imran Khan doesn't have to be a libertarian to have his hospital used as an example of libertarianism. Imran is an idiot who probably doesn't even know ANYMORE that his hospital is an example of what people can achieve without a government :kobelol

Brains of the majority of third worlders aren't even capable of comprehending existence without a government so even tho he himself achieved greatness without it he has no clue that more can be achieved without it.

The idiot is a hybrid anarchist/statist without a deep understanding. He simply is a leader with an agenda but doesn't know how to accomplish it any more than the other morons running Pakistan.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Sounds about right for a Trump supporter. Insult someone as an idiot for not agreeing with you ideologically in public even though he is trying to do good. :ha

Oh just to clarify, it applies to leftist liberals like BM too.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Soooo did Imran Khan originally build the hospital in the 90s or not? Is he still trying?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> Sounds about right for a Trump supporter. Insult someone as an idiot for not agreeing with you ideologically in public even though he is trying to do good. :ha
> 
> Oh just to clarify, it applies to leftist liberals like BM too.


Well, I see that you missed the point of what I was saying as always in order to push your own agenda.

Try to explain to me what the point I was actually making without focusing on what I called Imran.



yeahbaby! said:


> Soooo did Imran Khan originally build the hospital in the 90s or not? Is he still trying?


Imran in the early 90's wasn't a politician. He built the hospital through his own leadership with help from philanthropists and chariy. No government as back then Pakistan's government was even more lame duck than it is now. 

Then for some reason he decided to become a politician thereby contradicting his own accomplishment as an individual. 

Since he got into government, while his hospital is being run without major government funding and still functioning through charity, he has started believing that having political power will him to make even greater changes meanwhile in government he has faced more opposition to his mandate than when he was not in government and achieving great things on his own when he didn't have government power. The reason why I call him an anarchist/statist hybrid is that while his goals can be achieved through non governmental means, he thinks that he needs to have full government power in order to make it happen. He's also spent considerable amount of time protesting the majority government literally on the streets like an anarchist while being leader of a political party that runs an entire province. (The province with the highest rate of terrorist attacks in the country). 

FriedTofu doesn't understand this simple point that I have made.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Built it in the 90's. Think he built another one recently too. Still trying to build more.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> Built it in the 90's. Think he built another one recently too. Still trying to build more.


Not bad at all for a liberal idiot.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> Built it in the 90's. Think he built another one recently too. Still trying to build more.


Yes. But how. Using what methods? 

Is he using tax payer money, or philanthropy? A combination of both? How much of the funds acquired for his hospitals are through donations and how much are through government (and therefore tax payer) grants? 

You should have the answers to these questions because they're imperative in understanding my point.



yeahbaby! said:


> Not bad at all for a liberal idiot.


Why are you interjecting yourself into a conversation you know absolutely nothing about and talking about an individual whose name you've probably heard for the first time in your life today?


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Well, I see that you missed the point of what I was saying as always in order to push your own agenda.
> 
> Try to explain to me what the point I was actually making without focusing on what I called Imran.
> 
> 
> 
> Imran in the early 90's wasn't a politician. He built the government on his own with help from philanthropists and chariy. No government.
> 
> Then for some reason he decided to become a politician contradicting his own accomplishment.
> 
> FriedTofu doesn't understand this simple point that I have made.


Your point was saying people think they are helpless without the government, when most reasonable people would say they are less well-off without it. You listed an example of how private sector > government yet the guy you listed as an example believe in the power of the government improving lives, just not the current corrupt one, making you look dumb.

Selling raffle tickets is a unique way of raising donations? Have you heard of something called the lottery? Are you saying governments should not help subsidise hospitals?

By your logic, Trump wasn't a politician. He built an empire employing thousands of employees. No government needed to provide employment. Then for some reason he decided to become a politician contradicting his own accomplishment.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> Your point was saying people think they are helpless without the government, when most reasonable people would say they are less well-off without it. You listed an example of how private sector > government yet the guy you listed as an example believe in the power of the government improving lives, just not the current corrupt one, making you look dumb.


So you don't understand my point. Imran's belief in government has absolutely no bearing on his individual accomplishment in building a hospital because as I pointed out, his belief in government helping people now is a contradiction of his own action. A man who built a cancer hospital on his own without government help should have continued to believe that the government isn't needed to accomplish infrastructure development. 

There's plenty of factual evidence that proves that pretty much every sector the government has gotten involved in they've made worse. So it's a misconception to think that it's "reasonable" to think that people are less well off without it. 

And if you've actually gotten the point I was making, you'd actually realize that this critique of lack of government applies to Trump's government as well. The fact that we have to live with a government does not mean we should never have a dialogue about why a government isn't needed and even if we do end up choosing sides, it should by default go to the candidate that appears to be the closest to our own alignment. Trump claimed to be a small government candidate. If I'm for no government and he starts pushing a big government agenda, why would I continue to support him? 



> Selling raffle tickets is a unique way of raising donations? Have you heard of something called the lottery? Are you saying governments should not help subsidise hospitals?


You're skirting my question and tossing in random statements that have nothing to do with the discussion at hand, but I'll still humor you. Yes. Governments should not help subsidise anything. The private sector is equipped to that all on its own. I don't think you'll read L-Dopa's excellent article on how government subsidized healthcare is disasterous for healthcare overall because if you did, you shouldn't be asking this question at all. After that analysis even the most hardened tax and spend liberals should have their faith at least shaken. 



> By your logic, Trump wasn't a politician. He built an empire employing thousands of employees. No government needed to provide employment. Then for some reason he decided to become a politician contradicting his own accomplishment.


I'll agree with that point. In fact, I'd say that a lot of what he accomplished was through helpful government regulations designed to help people like him. Why would you think that I would disagree with this? If Trump starts pushing a big government agenda, why do you and others think that I would continue to support him? The core difference between Imran and Trump is that Trump has claimed he's a small government individual in many things - but that remains to be seen. I've posted at least a dozen times in this thread that let's wait and see what happens next because we're not fortune tellers. 

Right ... because that's a projection where you guys pick your sides early and refuse to change who you back. As far as I'm concerned, loyalty makes lemmings of all of us and just because I supported a candidate in an election doesn't mean I'm blind to all his moves. The difference is that I'm not as easily convinced to hate or dislike someone as some of you. I look at the facts and take each policy and appointment on its own merits. Don't need to be spoonfed.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*










- Vic


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> So you don't understand my point. Imran's belief in government has absolutely no bearing on his individual accomplishment in building a hospital because as I pointed out, his belief in government helping people now is a contradiction of his own action. A man who built a cancer hospital on his own without government help should have continued to believe that the government isn't needed to accomplish infrastructure development.


Or maybe said person realise the limitations of such a venture and believe the power of the government is needed to accomplish such infrastructure development to reach a larger population.



> There's plenty of factual evidence that proves that pretty much every sector the government has gotten involved in they've made worse. So it's a misconception to think that it's "reasonable" to think that people are less well off without it.


Are you going to go absolute on this when we had the green revolution and moon landing? And there have been evidence where government has ceded control and the private sector have made things worse, for example in the utilities.



> And if you've actually gotten the point I was making, you'd actually realize that this critique of lack of government applies to Trump's government as well. The fact that we have to live with a government does not mean we should never have a dialogue about why a government isn't needed and even if we do end up choosing sides, it should by default go to the candidate that appears to be the closest to our own alignment. Trump claimed to be a small government candidate. If I'm for no government and he starts pushing a big government agenda, why would I continue to support him?


Government is needed to enforce policies. If you believe in the wild west things of running things, why have countries with libertarianism not rise to be a beacon of good governance? Even state capitalism has risen to be an example of wealth generation. Where has libertarianism helped more than the privileged few?




> You're skirting my question and tossing in random statements that have nothing to do with the discussion at hand, but I'll still humor you. Yes. Governments should not help subsidise anything. The private sector is equipped to that all on its own. I don't think you'll read L-Dopa's excellent article on how government subsidized healthcare is disasterous for healthcare overall because if you did, you shouldn't be asking this question at all. After that analysis even the most hardened tax and spend liberals should have their faith at least shaken.


How am I skirting the question? What is the alternative? The wealthy to pick and choose who gets subsidised care instead of the government picking and choosing?





> I'll agree with that point. In fact, I'd say that a lot of what he accomplished was through helpful government regulations designed to help people like him. Why would you think that I would disagree with this? If Trump starts pushing a big government agenda, why do you and others think that I would continue to support him? The core difference between Imran and Trump is that Trump has claimed he's a small government individual in many things - but that remains to be seen. I've posted at least a dozen times in this thread that let's wait and see what happens next because we're not fortune tellers.
> 
> Right ... because that's a projection where you guys pick your sides early and refuse to change who you back. As far as I'm concerned, loyalty makes lemmings of all of us and just because I supported a candidate in an election doesn't mean I'm blind to all his moves. The difference is that I'm not as easily convinced to hate or dislike someone as some of you. I look at the facts and take each policy and appointment on its own merits. Don't need to be spoonfed.


I've waited and waited for his tax returns. And not seen them and he is about to get sworn in. I've waited and waited for him to come up with a decent resolution to conflict of interests issues. And not seen any besides folders without labels at a press conference. Why should he be given the benefit of the doubt? You claim you are for small government, yet Trump's only claim to it is less regulations. He has promised more infrastructure spending, health coverage for all at lower costs, religious registries, and offered subsidises to companies retain jobs. I don't necessary disagree with some of these plans but how are these small government? Either he is lying or you are just letting things slide because you backed him.

Are you sure you aren't projecting about refusing to change sides or being spoonfed? If the candidate that you didn't pick are doing the things he has been doing, would you be in a wait and see approach?


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Just 1 more day :trump


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Goku said:


> Just 1 more day :trump


----------



## SWITCHBLADE

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

The undoing of everything Obama has (or hasn't) done is what excites me the most. :trump3


----------



## TripleG

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Well Trump's presidency has already given me something great. 

I get to telework from home for the next two days because the DC traffic is going to be insane. 

Thank you Trump! I don't have to get up at 6:15 and drive an ungodly length through traffic and yet not fall behind in work in doing so.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



TripleG said:


> Well Trump's presidency has already given me something great.
> 
> I get to telework from home for the next two days because the DC traffic is going to be insane.
> 
> Thank you Trump! I don't have to get up at 6:15 and drive an ungodly length through traffic and yet not fall behind in work in doing so.


_another :trump success the lamestream media won't tell you about! tonight on hannity._

:trump3


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



> The undoing of everything Obama has (or hasn't) done is what excites me the most.


Most of it can undone with a pen and a phone in no time. >

- Vic


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Obama says he'll be watching.. What will he do, talk about his peace prize? His selfawarded honors? 

What a spaz.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

You know, i've mulled over sharing a lot of my political ideas in here when i think of them, but then I remember people in here (repubs alike) already get triggered at Trump. Y'all would fucking HATE what I think about certain issues. :trump


----------



## Alco

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Oda Nobunaga said:


> This reminds me of one of our MSN conversations when we were talking about Hannibal ourselves (and if I recall, you were a little unfamiliar with him). Takes me back to such halcyon days. :lenny5
> 
> Okay, no more reminiscing. Two more days.


Yeah, but I've been listening and reading about Ancient Roman history a lot since mid 2015, so yeah. It has to be one of the most interesting time periods ever. Lots of similarities to today as well, with migration crises, shifting worldviews etc. 

MSN though. Great times. Much love.

Anyway, I can't wait for the inauguration speech. For any analyst and political scientist this is like a wet dream, man.


----------



## Alco

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> Obama says he'll be watching.. What will he do, talk about his peace prize? His selfawarded honors?
> 
> What a spaz.



To be fair I like that a lot more than all those crybaby Democrats and Celebs who want to "boycott" the whole thing.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> You know, i've mulled over sharing a lot of my political ideas in here when i think of them, but then I remember people in here (repubs alike) already get triggered at Trump. Y'all would fucking HATE what I think about certain issues. :trump


how stormfrontish are they?


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Alco said:


> To be fair I like that a lot more than all those crybaby Democrats and Celebs who want to "boycott" the whole thing.


I agree with that, at least he is doing some sort of compromise. These people that will "never" work with Trump are hurting their cause and acting like idiots, not listening to people and refusing to compromise is exactly why Trump is president. 

Even Obama didn't get this much flak when elected. It's just head shaking that they'd prefer failure to giving up their egos and accept change.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

If you read the Constitution, Congress writes the laws, the President enforces the laws, the courts interpret the laws, that's called the "Separation of Powers". That was written to prevent too much power in the hands of too few people.

That was a legitimate fear when the Constitution was written, its a legitimate fear today because we had a President who thought he could write the laws, re-write the laws, could change their meaning, and could change their effect.

He did this by changing the immigration laws writing executive orders that the courts had adjoined. He did this by claiming he could kill Americans without due process (using drones), by continuing to spy on Americans without probable cause (the NSA), and he changed the tax laws to force Obamacare on everybody.

This is not the Constitution he swore to uphold.










In addition to countless of his "Hope And Change" campaign promises being broken, we're now $20 TRILLION in debt, had a record number of mass shootings, more terrorist attacks in America, health insurance costs skyrocketing, more riots than ever, race relations being set back, and the highest poverty level in our nation's history!

The good and scandal free narrative of Barack Obama is a complete and total falsehood.

#PeskyFacts

- Vic


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



MrMister said:


> how stormfrontish are they?


 I'll never tell.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

First of all, thank you to everyone who responded to my long epic post on healthcare :lol. Especially @Pratchett, @BruiserKC and @DesolationRow. You guys were far too kind to me . I will respond to a couple of people in regards to it.




Alco said:


> I certainly hope you will not claim good health is somehow not a basic human right, like I've seen someone do in here.


I didn't really address this point in my post so I'll respond now. I can understand and empathize with that position....probably because mainly I've seen this argued so many times in the UK in regards to the NHS. The problem is people end up defending the institution more than actually arguing how to make our healthcare better. It's more about saving what I perceive to be an archaic form of healthcare rather than improving the horrible mess our healthcare is in.

But enough about those people, I understand the argument but I view things differently I think than most people. To be fair, I'm not interested in those type of arguments. The way I look at things is how do we get the best healthcare for the most amount of people possible, and I believe my post has outlined some ways to do this without having the state monopolize everything and I believe I've shown why for a populated country, the state having a monopoly aka a single payer system is a terrible idea.

This is going to probably annoy you, but the whole argument of "healthcare being a right" to me is an empty platitude of an argument. Because everybody in this thread wants the best healthcare system possible and for everyone to have access. It's just we all have different ideas how to get there. Usually what the argument of healthcare being right boils down to is people having a right to not pay for healthcare. My main question to you in that case would be where are you priorities?

Are your priorities that everyone should have free healthcare at the point of service the regardless of the costs and outcomes? Or is it the same as me which is providing the best healthcare possible even if that means people having to pay for it? If it is the former I cannot agree, because I've seen the cost of free healthcare at the point of access myself and it is absolutely horrendous. All you have to do is search for news on the NHS this month alone and you will see just what a state healthcare is in right now in the UK. Generally speaking, I think people who look at healthcare as a right focus too much on it being free and not enough on the relationship between costs and outcomes. Essentially like every other market, we should think about how to get the best results at the most cost effective and cost efficient way. The state may be able to make it cost efficient due to how much they pour money into the system but in the NHS's case the results have been catastrophic. I'd rather be able to either save for my healthcare or pay a bit more for insurance than be stuck with one provider and then whenever that provider is in a crisis state like the NHS is now I have absolutely no realistic choice whatsoever of getting away from it.

Like most things I see monopolization, whether public or private as the main enemy. I don't even view the NHS for example as nationalization vs privatization. I see it as ending the state cartel over healthcare.

In short, I suppose the answer to "healthcare being a right" is that it is of little importance to me and frankly is completely missing the point in terms of how we deliver the best healthcare for people.

One other thing though I'd like to address is the idea of healthcare being slavery, to which the Paul's have argued if you force me to provide a service on healthcare, you are essentially conscripting me and leaving me with no choice. I again understand the arguments from both sides, but if we take just the statement of healthcare being slavery, I have different idea around that statement.

I personally believe that as long as the patient has the realistic choice of how to provide their healthcare and the doctor/nurse has a realistic choice of where to work in the healthcare industry then there are no grounds for that argument. But if you are in a situation where the state or a private entity is the only provider of healthcare and that if that provider is in a crisis state and you have no alternative to move to another provider of healthcare whether it be public insurance or private insurance then yeah I don't care what anyone says, that is slavery. If you are stuck with just one option and that option is failing and you can't get out of it, then what else would you call it? For the doctor or nurse who is unhappy for example with the governments pay or working conditions who is under the NHS, they have no realistic option to move to another institution. The only two realistic options are to either strike or quit. This is essentially what has happened with the junior doctor's strike over the last year. The government and the junior doctors have been at war over pay and conditions and it is holding the public to ransom. Over a million appointments got cancelled, and important surgeries such as knee and hip replacements got cancelled nationwide. This is what happens when you only have one option for healthcare. Even having a few realistic other options for the doctors in this scenario who were prepared to offer better pay and conditions would force the government to listen to them and comply with their demands but because the government has the monopoly over healthcare, they don't have to and so everybody suffers. This is what liberals do not think about when it comes to healthcare, they are so consumed with the concept of free access that they don't think about the unintended consequences.

Even if you believe the employee's argument is weak because they could effectively change to another profession, there is no getting around it for the patients. They have no other option unless they are exceptionally rich and therefore are stuck with whatever choice the government deals them. If you are in a position where you have no choice or option over your healthcare even in a situation where there is a crisis in the public sector then you are in some form of slavery I believe. And that has nothing to do with privatization vs nationalization, that is the evils of *monopoly. *

And absolutely nobody will convince me that monopoly is a good thing. That is one area I will not compromise on.





Alkomesh2 said:


> Btw @L-DOPA I am still planning on reading your healthcare post, sounds interesting.
> 
> Edit having read some of L-DOPA's post:
> 
> - no where near finished, but have read the stuff on the swiss/danish system and praise them for covering everyone but still allowing choice. Which makes me wonder what you think of the Australian system, which has a gov funded single payer option, but you're allowed to (and over 50% do) have your own private insurance instead?


I swear you Aussies have asked me this question so many damn times :lol. So I hope I provide an accurate answer. I believe you mean't to type Dutch by the way, the Danish system is single payer  .

From what I understand and you can correct me if I am wrong, the Australian system is at least two tier. Which means like you said there is a big private insurance sector alongside a public option provided by the government. That is essentially a mixed healthcare system which I have given European examples of in my post. Now there are of course different ways to do a mixed system, you can have a public option provided by government taxation or you can have public insurance alongside private insurance like in Singapore.

I don't think either way that the Australian system is morally reprehensible. It is not my ideal system for sure but one only has to look at the health outcomes comparing France and Germany to the UK and see just how significant the differences are and how much more ahead those countries are compared to the NHS. To me, as long as the government does not have a full monopoly over healthcare and you give the citizen a good level of choice over how they want their healthcare then that is completely fine with me. If someone wants public insurance or a public option which is available then that should be their choice. I just don't want the government *forcing* their provision on people and leaving them only with that one option.

I think there are a couple of things I need to clear up as well before I make a point about the public option, the first being that there has from a couple of people in the past been this view that because I am against government monopoly over healthcare that I am against any form of public healthcare at all. That isn't true. My personal belief is that a largely free market, competitive private healthcare system is the best option but I'm not against mixed healthcare systems. I cannot say for example that they don't work because they can and often do. 

My objections are to all forms of monopoly in healthcare, whether it be private or public. The Milton Friedman/Adam Smith concerns over the evils of monopoly in economic sectors are some of the most important things I believe I have read and learned in regards to economics and politics and that really is because with the UK, I have seen the impacts and how negative they are as outcomes. The freedom to choose is the most important of concepts when it comes to political and economic life. It is something I have never and will never take for granted.

The second thing is, and this is really directed to Conservatives and Libertarians more than yourself but in my situation when it comes to healthcare, I cannot afford to be an ideologue. This is why in my post I stressed clearly why I believe we should further beyond the ideas of UK vs US style healthcare, single payer vs completely private. This doesn't mean I don't have my preferences, as a Classical Liberal/Libertarian, I'll always argue for a free market healthcare system but if the opportunity comes up where there is a realistic chance of the UK upgrading to a mixed healthcare system or having health savings accounts like Singapore (which would be excellent), I will do everything I can to fight for that change. I cannot sit back and be ideologically pure and reject simply because it is not the ideal when I know the Australian system for example would be SO MUCH BETTER than what my country currently has now. I know that puts me in a weird middle place where nobody agrees with me but I don't care, personal experience dictates to me that the main goal should always be get the hell away from government single payer healthcare monopolies.

Lastly and this really is just something driven from opinion rather than fact mostly but as far as the public option goes, I think we should always whenever enacting ideas like that be able to look at individual countries and where they are at economically and politically and be able to analyze and come to a conclusion whether or not it is a good idea. The reasons why I didn't go into the public option for the US are two fold. Firstly because for liberals and progressives, that is mainly a pit stop towards single payer and not the end goal. But also because honestly I do not have the facts or the analysis to conclude either way. My gut feeling tells me however it would not be a good idea for the US to have the public option mainly because of financial reasons. Obamacare promised to keep healthcare costs down and yet medicare spending increased significantly. Medicare entitlements need serious reform because as of right now, they are around $40 Billion in the red and the debt in that program keeps rising and so they need to at some point reform the spending program so that it is sustainable. A public option by design would significantly raise spending for Medicare and my concerns would be both that it wouldn't be sustainable in terms of affordability and that I do not think the results of it would be worth the extra government funding. But as I said, this is not based on fact like I believe the evidence for Obamacare showed me but rather an opinion, so my word isn't gospel on this. I may in fact be wrong but we won't know now for at least another 4 years anyway :lol.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Vic Capri said:


> If you read the Constitution, Congress writes the laws, the President enforces the laws, the courts interpret the laws, that's called the "Separation of Powers". That was written to prevent too much power in the hands of too few people.
> 
> That was a legitimate fear when the Constitution was written, its a legitimate fear today because we had a President who thought he could write the laws, re-write the laws, could change their meaning, and could change their effect.
> 
> He did this by changing the immigration laws writing executive orders that the courts had adjoined. He did this by claiming he could kill Americans without due process (using drones), by continuing to spy on Americans without probable cause (the NSA), and he changed the tax laws to force Obamacare on everybody.
> 
> This is not the Constitution he swore to uphold.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In addition to all countless of his "Hope And Change" campaign promises being broken, we're now $20 TRILLION in debt, had a record number of mass shootings, more terrorist attacks in America, health insurance costs skyrocketing, more riots than ever, race relations being set back, and the highest poverty level in our nation's history!
> 
> The good and scandal free narrative of Barack Obama is a complete and total falsehood.
> 
> #PeskyFacts
> 
> - Vic


That doesn't show Fast and Furious, where the US flooded Mexico with military grade weapons, lost track of them and now the cartels are even better armed.

This was approved by President Peace Prize and done without the knowledge of the Mexican government. 

Now you know why there is media silence about the border, how cartels have killed US citizens and expanded their drug, gun running and illegal smuggling into the US. 

If people knew the crazy shit that was going on in Mexico, at the border, how cartels are killing cops and how these cartels are forming business with major US gangs, they'd be scared. 

I've never seen a president like Obama just flat out deny facts and pretend everything is okay like he does.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Well, I don't have the time or energy to try to sift through FriedTofu's completely mangled understanding of libertarianism so I'll leave it at that. I hope he actually spends time learning about it. 

My Twitter feed is up in arms about this CNN report that was run recently. 






They apparently went short of claiming "please assassinate Trump and a bunch of other people so the democrats stay in power", but it is extremely heavily implied. They openly listed all the people that need to die in order for a democrat to stay in power. What a great report to run just before the inauguration. 

Interesting that that's what the so-called MSM has come to. Is this really about people's right to know, or is this about fueling a ridiculously twisted fantasy? Obviously, I'm not going to question intent, but at this point, I can't think of anyone that isn't the most twisted mangled brain relying on CNN for their "news" --- because I don't think this is news. This is an outright corporate psychotic break if there was such a thing.

Not surprised that this comes from the hypocritical left that doesn't want anyone to even think racist thoughts, but feel perfectly justified in mass reporting of all the people that need to die in order to get their democrats to stay in power.

Meanwhile: 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...man-threatened-kill-Trump-Clinton-friend.html



> *EXCLUSIVE: Florida man charged with threatening to kill President-elect Trump at his inauguration on Twitter was a close family friend of Bill and Hillary Clinton
> *
> 
> 
> Dominic Puopolo, 51, is being held without bail on charges of threatening harm against a public servant
> Hillary Clinton was especially close to Puopolo's sister Sonia and mother, also named Sonia
> Puopolo once gave $20,000 to the Democratic National Committee, DailyMail.com has learned
> His mother was among 92 people on American Airlines Flight 11 on Sept. 11, 2001, when it crashed into the World Trade Center's north tower
> Puopolo posted a video on his Twitter account that said, 'This is the 16th of January 2017, I will be at the review/inauguration and I will kill President Trump'
> He was arrested a short time later at a Miami Beach Subway restaurant and admitted to officers he had posted the threatening video


Also: 










This J20 group which is an obvious creation of some major corporation as it just came out of nowhere is going for all out violence.

And finally:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...3375f271c9c_story.html?utm_term=.9422ad997234



> *Forget Chelsea Manning. This is the Obama pardon you should be mad about.*
> 
> The vast majority of Obama’s executive clemency orders affected people considered low-level, nonviolent participants in drug-dealing, plus a few odd cases such as that of baseball great Willie McCovey, whose conviction for failing to pay taxes on money he made signing autographs Obama reasonably wiped from the record.
> 
> What was Obama thinking, however, when he ordered the release of Oscar Lopez Rivera? During the 1970s, Lopez Rivera headed a Chicago-based cell of the Armed Forces of National Liberation (FALN), which waged a futile but violent struggle to win Puerto Rican independence.
> 
> The FALN claimed responsibility for more than 120 bombings between 1974 and 1983 in a wave of senseless destruction that killed six and injured dozens. In 1981, a federal court in Chicago sentenced Lopez Rivera, then 37, to 55 years for seditious conspiracy, armed robbery, interstate transportation of firearms and conspiracy to transport explosives with intent to destroy government property.
> 
> Notably, the seditious-conspiracy charge was not some “thought crime,” as Lopez Rivera’s lawyer has said: The indictment listed 28 Chicago-area bombings, some of which caused injuries, as “overt acts” in support of the conspiracy.
> 
> FBI agents discovered dynamite, detonators and firearms at two residences occupied by Lopez Rivera. At trial, a cooperating witness from the FALN testified that Lopez Rivera personally trained him in bomb-making.
> 
> So Lopez Rivera is neither a low-level offender nor a nonviolent one. Nor, crucially, is he repentant.
> 
> He defiantly challenged the legitimacy of the court that tried him. Shortly after entering federal prison at Leavenworth, Kan., he and FALN members on the outside hatched an escape plan; the FBI foiled it by arresting Lopez Rivera’s would-be helpers, who were armed with guns and explosives. A conviction for that escape attempt added 15 years to his sentence.
> 
> In 1999, Lopez Rivera was one of 16 imprisoned Puerto Rican terrorists to whom then-President Bill Clinton offered executive clemency.
> 
> He refused, reportedly because Clinton’s offer did not include one of the FALN members who had tried to break him out of Leavenworth.
> 
> In addition, Clinton required the Puerto Ricans to renounce violence as a condition of receiving clemency.
> 
> Obama’s offer this week came with no such requirement — in puzzling contrast not only to Clinton’s policy in 1999, but also to White House statements that Chelsea Manning deserved clemency because she accepted responsibility and showed remorse.
> 
> Not so Lopez Rivera. True, the 74-year-old probably no longer threatens the community; and yes, 35 years is a long time, perhaps even “a sufficient amount of time,” as a senior administration official put it. Lopez Rivera served honorably in Vietnam before undergoing what today might be called “self-radicalization.”
> 
> Still, unconditional release, for someone who claimed a right to wage war on the United States and repeatedly put innocent civilian lives at risk?
> 
> “I don’t see the guy as a threat,” Rick Hahn, the now-retired FBI special agent who helped investigate the original case against Lopez Rivera, told me. “But people I know who were victims of the FALN say that if the guy would just say he’s sorry, they’d all say, ‘Fine, let him go.’ ”
> 
> The voices Obama heeded instead were those of activists including celebrities such as Lin-Manuel Miranda and South Africa’s Bishop Desmond Tutu, the latter of whom said that Lopez Rivera’s only crime was “conspiring to free his people from the shackles of imperial injustice.” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) referred to Lopez Rivera, bizarrely, as “one of the longest-serving political prisoners in history — 34 years, longer than Nelson Mandela.”
> 
> The presidential pardon descends from similar power wielded by British kings. Alexander Hamilton wanted it in the U.S. Constitution, partly for use “in seasons of insurrection or rebellion . . . when a well-timed offer of pardon to the insurgents or rebels may restore the tranquillity of the commonwealth.”
> 
> The FALN’s season of insurrection is long over. But for the group’s victims, as well as for all Americans concerned with the consequences our government applies to terrorists, this last-minute get-out-of-jail-free card for Oscar Lopez Rivera seems anything but well-timed.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Well, I don't have the time or energy to try to sift through FriedTofu's completely mangled understanding of libertarianism so I'll leave it at that. I hope he actually spends time learning about it.
> 
> My Twitter feed is up in arms about this CNN report that was run recently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They apparently went short of claiming "please assassinate Trump and a bunch of other people so the democrats stay in power", but it is extremely heavily implied. They openly listed all the people that need to die in order for a democrat to stay in power. What a great report to run just before the inauguration.
> 
> Interesting that that's what the so-called MSM has come to. Is this really about people's right to know, or is this about fueling a ridiculously twisted fantasy? Obviously, I'm not going to question intent, but at this point, I can't think of anyone that isn't the most twisted mangled brain relying on CNN for their "news" --- because I don't think this is news. This is an outright corporate psychotic break if there was such a thing.
> 
> Not surprised that this comes from the hypocritical left that doesn't want anyone to even think racist thoughts, but feel perfectly justified in mass reporting of all the people that need to die in order to get their democrats to stay in power.
> 
> Meanwhile:
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...man-threatened-kill-Trump-Clinton-friend.html
> 
> 
> 
> Also:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This J20 group which is an obvious creation of some major corporation as it just came out of nowhere is going for all out violence.
> 
> And finally:
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...3375f271c9c_story.html?utm_term=.9422ad997234


*GO PEDDLE YOUR HATE SOMEWHERE ELSE YOU DAMN RIGHT WING NERD!! #NOTMYPRESIDENT 

DIVERSITY IS OUR STRENGTH AND SHIT. :vince*


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> *GO PEDDLE YOUR HATE SOMEWHERE ELSE YOU DAMN RIGHT WING NERD!! #NOTMYPRESIDENT
> 
> DIVERSITY IS OUR STRENGTH AND SHIT. :vince*


Apparently, I'm a ray cis for simply joking about the Canadian BLM that there aren't even enough blacks in Canada to be oppressed and that it would be costlier to find blacks to oppress and therefore it would be better for a racist to just let them be :lmao 

These people have gone completely and utter nuts.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> *GO PEDDLE YOUR HATE SOMEWHERE ELSE YOU DAMN RIGHT WING NERD!! #NOTMYPRESIDENT
> 
> DIVERSITY IS OUR STRENGTH AND SHIT. :vince*


Wow. Now that i look, Liberal me is an asshole...guess that means im being true to party! :nerd: 0
@Carte Blanche Liberalism simply being put on display to the world is the best way to defeat it. They are handing us their own doom.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Also on the subject of J20, don't worry. They live on #$orosBux so they're fine. :side:


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*





lol quite the stark contrast between the two


----------



## Alco

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



L-DOPA said:


> I didn't really address this point in my post so I'll respond now. I can understand and empathize with that position....probably because mainly I've seen this argued so many times in the UK in regards to the NHS. The problem is people end up defending the institution more than actually arguing how to make our healthcare better. It's more about saving what I perceive to be an archaic form of healthcare rather than improving the horrible mess our healthcare is in.
> 
> But enough about those people, I understand the argument but I view things differently I think than most people. To be fair, I'm not interested in those type of arguments. The way I look at things is how do we get the best healthcare for the most amount of people possible, and I believe my post has outlined some ways to do this without having the state monopolize everything and I believe I've shown why for a populated country, the state having a monopoly aka a single payer system is a terrible idea.
> 
> This is going to probably annoy you, but the whole argument of "healthcare being a right" to me is an empty platitude of an argument. Because everybody in this thread wants the best healthcare system possible and for everyone to have access. It's just we all have different ideas how to get there. Usually what the argument of healthcare being right boils down to is people having a right to not pay for healthcare. My main question to you in that case would be where are you priorities?
> 
> Are your priorities that everyone should have free healthcare at the point of service the regardless of the costs and outcomes? Or is it the same as me which is providing the best healthcare possible even if that means people having to pay for it? If it is the former I cannot agree, because I've seen the cost of free healthcare at the point of access myself and it is absolutely horrendous. All you have to do is search for news on the NHS this month alone and you will see just what a state healthcare is in right now in the UK. Generally speaking, I think people who look at healthcare as a right focus too much on it being free and not enough on the relationship between costs and outcomes. Essentially like every other market, we should think about how to get the best results at the most cost effective and cost efficient way. The state may be able to make it cost efficient due to how much they pour money into the system but in the NHS's case the results have been catastrophic. I'd rather be able to either save for my healthcare or pay a bit more for insurance than be stuck with one provider and then whenever that provider is in a crisis state like the NHS is now I have absolutely no realistic choice whatsoever of getting away from it.
> 
> Like most things I see monopolization, whether public or private as the main enemy. I don't even view the NHS for example as nationalization vs privatization. I see it as ending the state cartel over healthcare.
> 
> In short, I suppose the answer to "healthcare being a right" is that it is of little importance to me and frankly is completely missing the point in terms of how we deliver the best healthcare for people.
> 
> One other thing though I'd like to address is the idea of healthcare being slavery, to which the Paul's have argued if you force me to provide a service on healthcare, you are essentially conscripting me and leaving me with no choice. I again understand the arguments from both sides, but if we take just the statement of healthcare being slavery, I have different idea around that statement.
> 
> I personally believe that as long as the patient has the realistic choice of how to provide their healthcare and the doctor/nurse has a realistic choice of where to work in the healthcare industry then there are no grounds for that argument. But if you are in a situation where the state or a private entity is the only provider of healthcare and that if that provider is in a crisis state and you have no alternative to move to another provider of healthcare whether it be public insurance or private insurance then yeah I don't care what anyone says, that is slavery. If you are stuck with just one option and that option is failing and you can't get out of it, then what else would you call it? For the doctor or nurse who is unhappy for example with the governments pay or working conditions who is under the NHS, they have no realistic option to move to another institution. The only two realistic options are to either strike or quit. This is essentially what has happened with the junior doctor's strike over the last year. The government and the junior doctors have been at war over pay and conditions and it is holding the public to ransom. Over a million appointments got cancelled, and important surgeries such as knee and hip replacements got cancelled nationwide. This is what happens when you only have one option for healthcare. Even having a few realistic other options for the doctors in this scenario who were prepared to offer better pay and conditions would force the government to listen to them and comply with their demands but because the government has the monopoly over healthcare, they don't have to and so everybody suffers. This is what liberals do not think about when it comes to healthcare, they are so consumed with the concept of free access that they don't think about the unintended consequences.
> 
> Even if you believe the employee's argument is weak because they could effectively change to another profession, there is no getting around it for the patients. They have no other option unless they are exceptionally rich and therefore are stuck with whatever choice the government deals them. If you are in a position where you have no choice or option over your healthcare even in a situation where there is a crisis in the public sector then you are in some form of slavery I believe. And that has nothing to do with privatization vs nationalization, that is the evils of *monopoly. *
> 
> And absolutely nobody will convince me that monopoly is a good thing. That is one area I will not compromise on.


Before responding I will applaud you loudly for taking the time to write this, despite reaching near-SUPERSTAR status with your post a couple of pages ago. You could've retired to your glorious mansion along with Deso and enjoy cocktails and women but you opt to continue to feed the thread with intelligent arguments. Admirable.

I think on the bottom line, you and I agree about this matter. I too want the best healthcare for the most amount of people. I'm also very much in favor of a patient having options and being able to choose the solution that best fits to his needs and (financial) constraints. So obviously I'm opposed to a monopoly, especially a state-controlled monopoly. Furthermore I don't believe all people should have a right not to pay for healthcare. 
I do, however, believe that it is wrong that healthcare could ruin people financially. A woman dying in childbirth because she can't afford to give birth to her child in a hospital, is inherently wrong, at least in my opinion. That's why I think there should be partially subsidized healthcare for people who cannot afford it. I think everyone should have at least the opportunity to be in good health. 

Whether this subsidized option is provided by charity, by your employer (in Belgium for example, the employer almost always offers its employees a hospitalization insurance) or by the government, I honestly don't care.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Stinger Fan said:


> lol quite the stark contrast between the two


Obama got elected, come together, put aside your differences!

Trump gets elected, NOT MUH PRESIDENT, prtest/resist! Plot domestic terrorist actions, riot! 

People put up with Obama but guess these people are only tolerant and civil when it's their choice being President.


----------



## ShiningStar

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

What a great point,Trump sure came together after Obama was elected and respected the office he held. He totally didn't spend years trying to deligitimize the President by saying he doesn't have a birth certicifate and that he was a Muslim


----------



## RenegadexParagon

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> This J20 group which is an obvious creation of some major corporation as it just came out of nowhere is going for all out violence.


Sometimes I wonder if you guys actually believe what you're saying. After Trump's election I've seen J20 mentioned in just about every socialist/communist/anarchist space I frequent and as such, is being supported by various socialist organizations and groups. It didn't crop up yesterday. J20 is aiming to be a general strike/mass strike. Mass strikes are a common tactic that various far-leftists support, especially among anarchists/anarcho-syndicalists and other strains of syndicalism. 

You likely haven't heard of it beforehand because it's not a large movement and is hardly going to be the mass strike it's aiming to be.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> Obama got elected, come together, put aside your differences!
> 
> Trump gets elected, NOT MUH PRESIDENT, prtest/resist! Plot domestic terrorist actions, riot!
> 
> People put up with Obama but guess these people are only tolerant and civil when it's their choice being President.


The sad thing is, they believe they're justified in doing all this crap. 



ShiningStar said:


> What a great point,Trump sure came together after Obama was elected and respected the office he held. He totally didn't spend years trying to deligitimize the President by saying he doesn't have a birth certicifate and that he was a Muslim


Why don't you bother mentioning that Trump was pretty much in favor of Obama when he was first elected? The way Obama basically blames Christianity for any Muslim attack and his clear past with Islam makes me think he isn't exactly a Christian. Not that I think it should matter either way . As for his birth certificate, we all know where that was leaked from and if it was true it should have been taken seriously. 

There's a big difference between Trump doing something an essentially an entire political party doing it. You have Leftists who keep claiming George Bush planned 9/11 still . You'll also get leftists claiming that its the right who divides the country yet you look at the two major political candidates in this past election and what they said. Bernie Sanders claimed "When you’re white, you don’t know what it’s like to be living in a ghetto" and "You don’t know what it’s like to be poor." or how about Hillary Clinton claiming that "To just be grossly generalistic, you can put half of Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables" as well as "Right? Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, you name it." , on top of basically saying if you don't vote for her you're sexist. Even Obama pulled that card when he made a "call to men" to vote for Hillary because she's a woman. 

Not to mention countless media outlets claiming that you're a homophobe, sexist, racist bigot if you don't vote Democrat. But yeh, its the republicans who aren't "coming together"


----------



## krtgolfing

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Tomorrow is the big day people.. He will be everyone's president who live in the United States of America. Better get use to it!


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Obama? Who is he? :trump


----------



## TripleG

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

OK for Christ's Sake, Obama is leaving office tomorrow and I NEED an answer on this before he leave. 

This video, right here. 






Now this came out during the 08 election and has been fascinating to me ever since I saw it. Its like a mental rubix cube that I just can't solve and I've asked a ton of people and have never gotten a straight answer or opinion of the video. 

Now, is this song an actual support song for Barack Obama OR is it a parody making fun of the overzealous supporters he had at the time. I honestly can not fucking tell the difference. 

We got one more day of the guy as President and I BADLY need an answer. Weigh in, give me something. PLEASE!


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@TripleG

That is satire.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RenegadexParagon said:


> Sometimes I wonder if you guys actually believe what you're saying. After Trump's election I've seen J20 mentioned in just about every socialist/communist/anarchist space I frequent and as such, is being supported by various socialist organizations and groups. It didn't crop up yesterday. J20 is aiming to be a general strike/mass strike. Mass strikes are a common tactic that various far-leftists support, especially among anarchists/anarcho-syndicalists and other strains of syndicalism.
> 
> You likely haven't heard of it beforehand because it's not a large movement and is hardly going to be the mass strike it's aiming to be.


And sometimes I feel like "you people" have serious reading comprehension problems. How has what you said proven that it's not a new group/movement being funded by corporate interests? It even has it's own fucking marketing paraphernalia / logo ffs. Groups like these when born organically do not have an eloquent language and entire slew of ad agency developed marketing paraphernalia attached to it. Have you seen their mother fucking website? 

I know a guy that does websites for companies and his sites don't look as clean and professional as Disrupt J20's complete with a fully functional donate page. It's also linked to the Action Network which is a "non-profit" with over 350 million in assets and 4 million in regular income. That sort of corporate attachment is kind of anti-thesis of true anarchist movement. 

I know you're a self-proclaimed anarchist, but I'm surprised you're not looking at the obvious hoodwinking of anarchists by what seems like a very corporate effort to organize against Trump. 

I don't see what you said counters anything I said about this group coming out of nowhere and that there isn't possibly a corporation funding their effort. 

Do you have anything that counters this speculation that this is a NEW group and that it's possibly being funded by a major backer?

If this was a legitimate anarchist group, it would not have an obvious as fuck partisan agenda. Anarchists don't take sides so openly.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

:lmao  @Alco :side: :done
@AryaDark @Beatles123 @BruiserKC @CamillePunk @Carte Blanche @Goku @L-DOPA @Miss Sally 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/b...s-20-slash-of-federal-workers/article/2612037



> Boom: Trump eyes 10% spending cuts, 20% slash of federal workers
> 
> Making good on a promise to slash government, President-elect Trump has asked his incoming team to pursue spending and staffing cuts.
> 
> Insiders said that the spending reductions in some departments could go as high as 10 percent and staff cuts to 20 percent, numbers that would rock Washington if he follows through.
> 
> At least two so-called "landing teams" in Cabinet agencies have relayed the call for cuts as part of their marching orders to shrink the flab in government.
> 
> The cuts would target discretionary spending, not mandated programs such as Medicare or Social Security, the sources said.
> 
> Making good on a promise to slash government, President-elect Trump has asked his incoming team to pursue spending and staffing cuts.
> 
> The spending reductions are expected to be used to help pay for Trump's plan to boost the Pentagon's budget, tax cuts and some pet projects, potentially including the anti-immigration wall on the nation's southern border.
> 
> The teams also are looking at staffing cuts over four years through attrition, a hiring freeze and reorganization.
> 
> The plan is winning cheers in conservative, anti-tax and anti-spending corners in Washington that have long sought massive cuts in the bureaucracy.
> 
> Presidents rarely cut spending, choosing freezes instead. In the meantime, federal spending has reached historic levels. Trump has picked a budget hawk, Rep. Mick Mulvaney, to head the Office of Management and Budget, a clear sign that spending cuts are a top priority.
> 
> Still, Trump is likely to face a wall of opposition from Democrats and federal unions who consider much of the federal workforce on their side.


The Mick Mulvaney pick made it clear that, whatever flaws an incoming Trump administration may feature, at least Trump is serious about taking pruning shears to the federal government. Going beyond mere spending freezes (Department of Education-approved textbooks will have generations of kids believing that Ronald Reagan slashed federal programs to the bone, but they leave out that almost all of the cuts under Reagan were "cuts in the rate of growth," hahaha, and usually even then only modest ones like 2-10% cuts in the rate of growth for certain departments' spending). 

10% cutting in spending and a 20% reduction of the federal workforce? Sounds good. 

Also sounds like a good start. osey2


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



DesolationRow said:


> :lmao  @Alco :side: :done
> @AryaDark @Beatles123 @BruiserKC @CamillePunk @Carte Blanche @Goku @L-DOPA @Miss Sally
> 
> http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/b...s-20-slash-of-federal-workers/article/2612037
> 
> 
> 
> The Mick Mulvaney pick made it clear that, whatever flaws an incoming Trump administration may feature, at least Trump is serious about taking pruning shears to the federal government. Going beyond mere spending freezes (Department of Education-approved textbooks will have generations of kids believing that Ronald Reagan slashed federal programs to the bone, but they leave out that almost all of the cuts under Reagan were "cuts in the rate of growth," hahaha, and usually even then only modest ones like 2-10% cuts in the rate of growth for certain departments' spending).
> 
> 10% cutting in spending and a 20% reduction of the federal workforce? Sounds good.
> 
> Also sounds like a good start. osey2


If it actually goes through, it would be a start. Hopefully more cuts are coming.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

More on the illegitimacy of Disrupt J20 movement:










This is from their official facebook page (I'm just posting one as an example). This is *exactly the kind of bullshit you see from major corporations* trying to be hip and talk to their "fellow kids". If they're actual anarchists, then they're the lamest motherfucking anarchists I've ever seen in my life. 

:kobelol


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

If J20 was an undercover cop they'd be so fucking dead.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Even more on the hypocrisy and the overly corporatized look of this Disrupt "Movement": 




























So, they want a "Weekly", "monthly" and "yearly" recurring donation from you for a Single Day Movement after claiming that other NGO's have sold out. 

How can anyone be duped by this? It makes no sense at all.

I'm just tossing this page on here as a visual reference of a reminder of something that looked very familiar when I landed on their donation page.


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Sad when someone is trying to use "anarchy" as a trend.... especially since real anarchists aren't going to pony up cash to support any type of organization. Posers.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Kabraxal said:


> Sad when someone is trying to use "anarchy" as a trend.... especially since real anarchists aren't going to pony up cash to support any type of organization. Posers.


"Anarchy" was corporatized in the early 90's when I started seeing it on T-shirts back then when people didn't have the tech to make their own T-shirts outside of owning elaborate screen printing machinery. My first criticism of anarchy was seeing the A logo on hundreds of shirts being sold in a back water Karachi Bazaar (that was about 24 years ago). 

While I will admit that there are actual anarchists out there, since the 90's I've noticed consistent links between corporatist interests and anarchists, dating as far back as the 1999 Seattle riots - which were successful at the time ... but then their success was disrupted by an active militant group in the Toronto riots which was funded to delegitimize the actual anarchists and that violence destroyed the movement. 

There was constant reports of vandals disrupting peaceful protests in Toronto intentionally to nullify the real anarchists and it was rumoured that large groups were paid to riot in order to delegitimze the protests. 

This DJ20 thing sounds a heck of a lot similar to me. If there is real protests against Trump, then they are the ones that need to be cautious because they will have their protest delegitimized by paid rioters.

I understand anarchy and I understand what it stands for. DJ20 is not it. I was an anti-corporatist myself at one point :shrug


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> "Anarchy" was corporatized in the early 90's when I started seeing it on T-shirts back then when people didn't have the tech to make their own T-shirts outside of owning elaborate screen printing machinery. My first criticism of anarchy was seeing the A logo on hundreds of shirts being sold in a back water Karachi Bazaar.
> 
> While I will admit that there are actual anarchists out there, since the 90's I've noticed consistent links between corporatist interests and anarchists, dating as far back as the 1999 Seattle riots - which were successful at the time ... but then their success was disrupted by an active militant group in the Toronto riots which was funded to delegitimize the actual anarchists and that violence destroyed the movement.
> 
> There was constant reports of vandals disrupting peaceful protests in Toronto intentionally to nullify the real anarchists and it was rumoured that large groups were paid to riot in order to delegitimze the protests.
> 
> This DJ20 thing sounds a heck of a lot similar to me. If there is real protests against Trump, then they are the ones that need to be cautious because they will have their protest delegitimized by paid rioters.


It's maddening how easy things are derailed by what are basically mercenaries. Or how anarchy is always painted as violently hedonistic chaos in the media... hell, with most anarchists it seems to be about the decentralization of all power and it is up to like minded people to govern themselves in small communities. But someone always wants to swing their dick around and force other groups to follow their rules. Giving those people a bigger stick isn't the answer in my mind to solve any issues. 

And I speak as someone that is an anarchist that is forced to support some form of gov't simply to try and push this world away from the growing monster of globalisation. Still, they don't get my money willingly and I grumble constantly when I have to vote. I wish it was as easy as 500 or more years ago when people like me could just head out into the wilderness and get away from gov't entirely.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Kabraxal said:


> It's maddening how easy things are derailed by what are basically mercenaries. Or how anarchy is always painted as violently hedonistic chaos in the media... hell, with most anarchists it seems to be about the decentralization of all power and it is up to like minded people to govern themselves in small communities. But someone always wants to swing their dick around and force other groups to follow their rules. Giving those people a bigger stick isn't the answer in my mind to solve any issues.
> 
> And I speak as someone that is an anarchist that is forced to support some form of gov't simply to try and push this world away from the growing monster of globalisation. Still, they don't get my money willingly and I grumble constantly when I have to vote. I wish it was as easy as 500 or more years ago when people like me could just head out into the wilderness and get away from gov't entirely.


That thing that anarchists need to be careful about in this day and age is being hoodwinked into adopting a partisan mindset by paid, corporatist interests like DJ20 whose partisan agenda is daringly transparent and has not so subtly and consistently called for violent action --- 

What they've done in the last few months is create this new monster that will have the blame placed on the peaceful anarchists that are within their rights to hold peaceful protests and damage their movement in the end. This DJ20 group will disappear like it never existed (and I don't think it actually exists as a group, but rather corporate bots pretending to be anarchists), and actual anarchists will be blamed for any violence that might occur.


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> That thing that anarchists need to be careful about in this day and age is being forced into a partisan mindset by paid, corporatist interests like DJ20 whose partisan agenda is daringly transparent and has not so subtly and consistently called for violent action --- What they've done in the last few months is create this new monster that will have the blame placed on the peaceful anarchists that are within their rights to hold peaceful protests and damage their movement in the end.


Not sure how much can be done at this point. Most people already have a negative perception of anarchy, at best, or an outright misunderstanding of anarchy. I mean, people actually think Tyler Durden is the poster boy of anarchy when that character and that movement is one of the most glaring examples of fascism and collectivism at its most extreme.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Kabraxal said:


> Not sure how much can be done at this point. Most people already have a negative perception of anarchy, at best, or an outright misunderstanding of anarchy. I mean, people actually think Tyler Durden is the poster boy of anarchy when that character and that movement is one of the most glaring examples of fascism and collectivism at its most extreme.







I think all anti-statists need to watch this. While there were "riots", I do not believe that they were started or caused by actual anarchists, but rather paid groups. The Canadian government response however, also was completely pre-planned .. as though they were prepared for violence and for mass incarcerations in pitiful conditions.

I'm seeing something very, very similar starting to unfold with Trump's inauguration (minus the new laws that Canada passed).


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> I think all anti-statists need to watch this. While there were "riots", I do not believe that they were started or caused by actual anarchists, but rather paid groups. The Canadian government response however, also was completely pre-planned .. as though they were prepared for violence and for mass incarcerations in pitiful conditions.
> 
> I'm seeing something very, very similar starting to unfold with Trump's inauguration (minus the new laws that Canada passed).


Shouldn't paid protesters starting violence and riots be considered domestic terrorism? If someone is pulling the strings to make these things happen then it's intentional and is being used as a method of terror.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> Shouldn't paid protesters starting violence and riots be considered domestic terrorism? If someone is pulling the strings to make these things happen then it's intentional and is being used as a method of terror.


Not if as alleged the state itself is involved and infiltrates movements and creates the violence. 

I know a lot of people have tried to dismiss this as a conspiracy theory but the fact remains that Black Bloc was infiltrated therefore the police were either complicit or incompetent and I would imagine that it was the former as the rioting happened with police knowledge of the group.

You can't have infiltrated a group and not know what they're planning with regards to violence.

Watch the whole video I think it'll be worth it. The police did nothing to stop the so called black bloc but we're more than happy to brutalize peaceful protesters. Just watch the whole video.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Starting tomorrow the right person who won the elcetion will be out president. I couldn't have been prouder to vote for Donald Trump.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*






100% *TRUTH.*

Also Blaire will be on Dave Rubin's show on inauguration day :mark:


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I'm off to Orlando tomorrow to catch Lisa Lampaneli [she was big in the early 2000s]. Might have some new material for inauguration day hopefully. It should be a raucous show.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



L-DOPA said:


> 100% *TRUTH.*
> 
> Also Blaire will be on Dave Rubin's show on inauguration day :mark:


"Oh my gaaad like, laaftists, like faaascism and like, laaftists and democats and Congraasss!" Lol I bet Trump would love to grab her right in the you know where! :trump2


I think she does make a good point about Congress boycotting the Inaug and dividing the country further. 

Can anyone link me to her past videos saying the same thing about the Repub Congressmen stopping Govt that time, and basically blocking and halting any progress Obama tried to enact with petty antics for years, that undoubtedly divided the country as well?


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Triple H is going to inauguration so now I have to support Trump cause its all about the game and how you play it



yeahbaby! said:


> "Oh my gaaad like, laaftists, like faaascism and like, laaftists and democats and Congraasss!" Lol I bet Trump would love to grab her right in the you know where! :trump2
> 
> 
> I think she does make a good point about Congress boycotting the Inaug and dividing the country further.
> 
> Can anyone link me to her past videos saying the same thing about the Repub Congressmen stopping Govt that time, and basically blocking and halting any progress Obama tried to enact with petty antics for years, that undoubtedly divided the country as well?


that's not exactly fair, she has only been on youtube a year and the shutdown was several years ago


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> "Oh my gaaad like, laaftists, like faaascism and like, laaftists and democats and Congraasss!" Lol I bet Trump would love to grab her right in the you know where! :trump2


Doesn't refute any of the arguments she's made about anti-Trump/leftists/Democrats trying to overturn a democratic election result by almost any means necessary. So not an argument. Also she's trans, I doubt Trump would want to go down there .




yeahbaby! said:


> I think she does make a good point about Congress boycotting the Inaug and dividing the country further.
> 
> Can anyone link me to her past videos saying the same thing about the Repub Congressmen stopping Govt that time, and basically blocking and halting any progress Obama tried to enact with petty antics for years, that undoubtedly divided the country as well?


Her channel has been up for a year, don't know how she's supposed to cover 8 years worth of "Republican Obstruction" in that time frame :lol. 

I'm not a Trump supporter by any means but she is right, the reaction from the left has been hilariously embarrassing since he won. Even other left leaning channels have agreed with that such as Shoe0nHead, Sargon and the Amazing Atheist.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



L-DOPA said:


> Doesn't refute any of the arguments she's made about anti-Trump/leftists/Democrats trying to overturn a democratic election result by almost any means necessary. So not an argument. Also she's trans, I doubt Trump would want to go down there .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Her channel has been up for a year, don't know how she's supposed to cover 8 years worth of "Republican Obstruction" in that time frame :lol.
> 
> I'm not a Trump supporter by any means but she is right, the reaction from the left has been hilariously embarrassing since he won. Even other left leaning channels have agreed with that such as Shoe0nHead, Sargon and the Amazing Atheist.


I guess I'm not so much on the pulse when it comes to Policitcal YT commentators and I had no idea there were so many out there, especially so many young ladies that sound like they're Straight Outta Clueless. Trans as well you say? I wonder which toilet she goes to.

I do reject her using Rosie O'Donnell as an example of any valid left reaction. Rosie is an insignificant loon with no influence who probably can't get arrested any more. It's not much different to me making a point about the right using this guy:






And yes of course I know she can't go back and criticise the obstruction the Repub Congressman, but my point is her ilk would ignore that conveniently....


----------



## SWITCHBLADE

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Blaire White could get it, no lie.


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



yeahbaby! said:


> "Oh my gaaad like, laaftists, like faaascism and like, laaftists and democats and Congraasss!" Lol I bet Trump would love to grab her right in the you know where! :trump2
> 
> 
> I think she does make a good point about Congress boycotting the Inaug and dividing the country further.
> 
> Can anyone link me to her past videos saying the same thing about the Repub Congressmen stopping Govt that time, and basically blocking and halting any progress Obama tried to enact with petty antics for years, that undoubtedly divided the country as well?


Hey, if the democrats can pretty much freeze the gov't in its track I'll support it like I did the republican stoppage. I'm all for cutting the knees off gov't. 

Though, it just doesn't help the democrats cause when they whine and whine about the dirty republicans and their horrible tactics to only turn around and do the same damn things.


----------



## RenegadexParagon

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> And sometimes I feel like "you people" have serious reading comprehension problems. How has what you said proven that it's not a new group/movement being funded by corporate interests? It even has it's own fucking marketing paraphernalia / logo ffs. Groups like these when born organically do not have an eloquent language and entire slew of ad agency developed marketing paraphernalia attached to it. Have you seen their mother fucking website? I know a guy that does websites for companies and his sites don't look as clean and professional as Disrupt J20's.


:lmao 

You actually are serious about this nonsense, holy shit.
this is your best """"""""""""evidence"""""""""""""" 
a website relating to the movement, flimsy at best accusations, and _I know a guy_ therefore le massive corporations


> I know you're a self-proclaimed anarchist, but I'm surprised you're not looking at the obvious hoodwinking of anarchists by what seems like a very corporate effort to organize against Trump.


lol sure 


> If this was a legitimate anarchist group, it would not have an obvious as fuck partisan agenda. Anarchists don't take sides so openly.


Who's side are they taking exactly by protesting Trump? Democrats? Shillary? Soros? :lmao Is this that weak "grrrrr, if anyone criticizes and shits on my side you clearly support the other!" shit that idiot democrats and republicans use to guilt people? It seems like you're just pissy that socialists are protesting Trump's inauguration. You know, someone that is the complete antithesis of socialism. What a huge surprise, I can't believe socialists have decided to organize against a bourgie pig being elected president /s. Truly incredible. Also weird of someone who isn't involved with the anarchist community to attempt to speak authoritatively on what anarchists do and don't do. And by the way, I never said it was an anarchist group, just that anarchists largely support the movement (and have since they beginning, as the idea was first being spread among Antifa), as do other far-leftists and activist groups. 

The bulk of the organizing and protests is being done by organizations such as Socialist Alternative, Democratic Socialists of America, International Socialist Organization, various local Antifa groups, various strains of the IWW, etc and has received support from other organizations such as International of Anarchist Federations. The issue is you keep insisting it's a movement that popped up out of nowhere instead of being a collaborative effort among leftists to oppose Trump. The earliest I can recall is hearing socialist councilwoman Kshama Sawant call for a nationwide strike following Trump's election and around the same time the idea was spreading among other socialists on twitter, reddit, facebook, etc. The dailykos soon after issued their own support for the general strike. And keep in mind, this was before the #disruptj20 pages were set up (you know, those other pages and website that you have no evidence of being funded by massive corporations but will continue to claim so anyway because this is the sad state of the right wing). Furthermore, here are other early examples of the pages and images of the general strike floating around prior to the #disruptj20 pages (the first two being set up by the same person, a poster on r/anarchism): https://www.facebook.com/events/1122791464440715/ , https://twitter.com/genstrikeusa , https://twitter.com/taygogo/status/796797013794791424 
(but I'm sure that because you're a rightist, you will still shout conspiracy at all of this anyway because y'all seem to live in a separate reality from everyone else)

now with that said, if you can actually provide solid evidence that the movement is being funded by le massive corporations (and come on, just say (((Soros))) or basically anyone associated with Shillary, don't be so politically correct my man!) instead of flimsy, dimwitted assumptions, please do so (and I know, I know.... That's quite unfair of me to ask of a rightist). I will await your best evidence and the inevitable and irrelevant _*I know this other guy*_ response.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RenegadexParagon said:


> :lmao
> 
> You actually are serious about this nonsense, holy shit.
> this is your best """"""""""""evidence""""""""""""""
> a website relating to the movement, flimsy at best accusations, and _I know a guy_ therefore le massive corporations
> 
> 
> lol sure
> 
> 
> Who's side are they taking exactly by protesting Trump? Democrats? Shillary? Soros? :lmao Is this that weak "grrrrr, if anyone criticizes and shits on my side you clearly support the other!" shit that idiot democrats and republicans use to guilt people? It seems like you're just pissy that socialists are protesting Trump's inauguration. You know, someone that is the complete antithesis of socialism. What a huge surprise, I can't believe socialists have decided to organize against a bourgie pig being elected president /s. Truly incredible. Also weird of someone who isn't involved with the anarchist community to attempt to speak authoritatively on what anarchists do and don't do. And by the way, I never said it was an anarchist group, just that anarchists largely support the movement (and have since they beginning, as the idea was first being spread among Antifa), as do other far-leftists and activist groups.
> 
> The bulk of the organizing and protests is being done by organizations such as Socialist Alternative, Democratic Socialists of America, International Socialist Organization, various local Antifa groups, various strains of the IWW, etc and has received support from other organizations such as International of Anarchist Federations. The issue is you keep insisting it's a movement that popped up out of nowhere instead of being a collaborative effort among leftists to oppose Trump. The earliest I can recall is hearing socialist councilwoman Kshama Sawant call for a nationwide strike following Trump's election and around the same time the idea was spreading among other socialists on twitter, reddit, facebook, etc. The dailykos soon after issued their own support for the general strike. And keep in mind, this was before the #disruptj20 pages were set up (you know, those other pages and website that you have no evidence of being funded by massive corporations but will continue to claim so anyway because this is the sad state of the right wing). Furthermore, here are other early examples of the pages and images of the general strike floating around prior to the #disruptj20 pages (the first two being set up by the same person, a poster on r/anarchism): https://www.facebook.com/events/1122791464440715/ , https://twitter.com/genstrikeusa , https://twitter.com/taygogo/status/796797013794791424
> (but I'm sure that because you're a rightist, you will still shout conspiracy at all of this anyway because y'all seem to live in a separate reality from everyone else)
> 
> now with that said, if you can actually provide solid evidence that the movement is being funded by le massive corporations (and come on, just say (((Soros))) or basically anyone associated with Shillary, don't be so politically correct my man!) instead of flimsy, dimwitted assumptions, please do so (and I know, I know.... That's quite unfair of me to ask of a rightist). I will await your best evidence and the inevitable and irrelevant _*I know this other guy*_ response.


the fact that there are Anarchist organizations makes me lol

There was a "kids in the hall" skit where they tried to make an Anarchist Nation and kept having to overthrow each other whenever anyone made suggestions or had anyone authority over anyone else


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Anarchy doesn't preclude organizing. A few people here seem confused about that. Just means no rulers i.e nobody violently imposing their will on others.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RenegadexParagon said:


> :lmao
> 
> You actually are serious about this nonsense, holy shit.
> this is your best """"""""""""evidence""""""""""""""
> a website relating to the movement, flimsy at best accusations, and _I know a guy_ therefore le massive corporations


Yes, because a group working in the shadows is just gonna come out and let you have evidence that openly states that they're responsible. 

You examine clues like language, organization, the people behind the organization, the individual activists, their past history of activism, their beliefs and attitudes, how it tries to communicate, what it communicates to get a feel for an online group's legitimacy and everything about the DJ20 group just looks illegitimate and backed by money. Internet websites, presence, marketing paraphernelia, photoshopping, an entire red faced brand identity, running a facebook page, twitter and instagram only seems "free" but organization to this scale and being all over the airways in less than two months requires a lot of money. This group seems to have gotten a lot of free publicity and why? 

None of your over-reaction has suggested that this is in any way legit. You claiming that it's legit cuz it's legit doesn't make it legit. I asked the above questions and I found no answers hence why I think it's illegit. 

Way to ignore the fact this group is being funded by another so-called non-profit with hundreds of millions of assets. 


> Who's side are they taking exactly by protesting Trump? Democrats? Shillary? Soros? :lmao Is this that weak "grrrrr, if anyone criticizes and shits on my side you clearly support the other!" shit that idiot democrats and republicans use to guilt people?


This group is a partisan group. Nothing they've said suggests otherwise at all. I don't see why you're so hell bent on defending this collective .. As an anarchist, that seems very contradictory to me for you to be defending this particular group. Care to share why you think they're legit except for the fact that you read something about them in some anarchist facebook group? What was said there? Who are the leaders? What are their backgrounds? Who are the faces behind this group? I can find this info on the vast majority of anarchist activists, but there's nothing for this one. You know something we don't? Share it. 



> The bulk of the organizing and protests is being done by organizations such as Socialist Alternative, Democratic Socialists of America, International Socialist Organization, various local Antifa groups, various strains of the IWW, etc and has received support from other organizations such as International of Anarchist Federations. The issue is you keep insisting it's a movement that popped up out of nowhere instead of being a collaborative effort among leftists to oppose Trump. The earliest I can recall is hearing socialist councilwoman Kshama Sawant call for a nationwide strike following Trump's election and around the same time the idea was spreading among other socialists on twitter, reddit, facebook, etc. The dailykos soon after issued their own support for the general strike. And keep in mind, this was before the #disruptj20 pages were set up (you know, those other pages and website that you have no evidence of being funded by massive corporations but will continue to claim so anyway because this is the sad state of the right wing). Furthermore, here are other early examples of the pages and images of the general strike floating around prior to the #disruptj20 pages (the first two being set up by the same person, a poster on r/anarchism): https://www.facebook.com/events/1122791464440715/ , https://twitter.com/genstrikeusa , https://twitter.com/taygogo/status/796797013794791424


I don't give a fuck about other groups in relation to the group I'm talking about so I don't know why you're bringing them up. Most of these are legit and that's fine. You can find out about their history, the people involved etc etc.. 

But no idea how the legitimacy of other groups make DJ20 which just came into existence to specifically opppose Trump's organization has anything to do with these groups. Funny thing is that these groups getting less publicity than DJ20 actually makes me wonder what's going on with this group that it seems to have escalated to the top of the anarchist collective in terms of reach and audience. 



> now with that said, if you can actually provide solid evidence that the movement is being funded by le massive corporations (and come on, just say
> (((Soros))) or basically anyone associated with Shillary, don't be so politically correct my man!) instead of flimsy, dimwitted assumptions, please do so (and I know, I know.... That's quite unfair of me to ask of a rightist). I will await your best evidence and the inevitable and irrelevant _*I know this other guy*_ response.


It's interesting that someone would be so hell bent on getting evidence when the only thing that has convinced you of this group's legitimacy is its existence without evidence. 

You don't seem to understand just how gullible you sound right now. But that's kind of par for the course for most anarchists. Just say "FIGHT THE POWER" and they'll come running :kobelol


----------



## RenegadexParagon

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



stevefox1200 said:


> the fact that there are Anarchist organizations makes me lol
> 
> There was a "kids in the hall" skit where they tried to make an Anarchist Nation and kept having to overthrow each other whenever anyone made suggestions or had anyone authority over anyone else


Why? Anarchist thinkers never suggested there be absolutely no organization in anarchist society. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon for example, envisioned that an anarchist society would be highly organized. 

Historically, I don't recall the Ukrainian and Spanish anarchist movements failing because they kept turning on each other, either. Rather they ended up failing because they made the mistake in assuming that the Red Army and Stalinists wouldn't backstab them.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*










:sodone


----------



## RenegadexParagon

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Yes, because a group working in the shadows is just gonna come out and let you have evidence that openly states that they're responsible.


holy shit literal "yeah I have no proof but muh conspiracy" "lmao


> None of your over-reaction has suggested that this is in any way legit.


You haven't given any compelling reasons, so that's kinda your fault bro. 



> This group is a partisan group. Nothing they've said suggests otherwise. I don't see why you're so hell bent on defending this collective ..


You haven't given any solid evidence to suggest I should believe they're being funded by a massive corporation. I'm waiting my man. Any day. o wait you admitted it's literally impossible, how convenient. I also never denied they were anti-trump. Like no fucking shit, I literally stated that it's a collaborative effort among leftists to protest Trump's inauguration. And since when can anarchists not protest Trump? Oh boy, you really don't know a single thing about the anarchist movement, do you? :lmao 
Somebody pls tell local Antifa groups that after all this time they were clearly being paid by Soros for openly opposing Trump and organizing protests against him for months on end now. 



> As an anarchist, that seems very contradictory to me for you to be defending one group.


How exactly is it contradictory 



> It's interesting that someone would be so hell bent on defending another group just because it calls itself anarchist without any sort of skepticism at all.


You haven't given me reason to believe they're being funded by """"""massive corporations"""""". You've openly stated you have no evidence and stick with flimsy assumptions and accusations. 



> You don't seem to understand just how gullible you sound right now.


Thnx really means a lot coming from you bby good talk. 

So until your reasoning goes beyond being a shit conspiracy theory, I don't think we have anything further to discuss.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RenegadexParagon said:


> holy shit literal "yeah I have no proof but muh conspiracy" "lmao
> 
> You haven't given any compelling reasons, so that's kinda your fault bro.


I gave you a series of questions to answer with regards to DJ20. You haven't answered any of my questions. The questions I asked that you ignored contain the answers as to its legitimacy. 



> You haven't given any solid evidence to suggest I should believe they're being funded by a massive corporation. I'm waiting my man. Any day. o wait you admitted it's literally impossible, how convenient. I also never denied they were anti-trump. Like no fucking shit, I literally stated that it's a collaborative effort among leftists to protest Trump's inauguration. And since when can anarchists not protest Trump? Oh boy, you really don't know a single thing about the anarchist movement, do you? :lmao
> Somebody pls tell local Antifa groups that after all this time they were clearly being paid by Soros for openly opposing Trump and organizing protests against him for months on end now.


Like I've already stated, I don't care about the legitimacy of other anarchist groups. Just this one. Don't ignore the questions that I've asked simply because you can't answer them. Tell me about the activists involved in this group, their past activism. Can you name a single individual that's part of this group that has a history of activism? When something is run with so much anonimity, you can and should ask questions about its legitimacy. 



> How exactly is it contradictory


Isn't healthy skepticism a value that drives anarchy? Or is gullibility like yours the primary driver of action?



> So until your reasoning goes beyond being a shit conspiracy theory, I don't think we have anything further to discuss.


My reasoning involves asking a lot of questions that you yourself don't have the answers to. When you answer them specifically with actual knowledge about the group, feel free to hit me back. 

Till then you can whinge about me being a conspiracy theorist, but at least I'm asking questions. 

The funny thing is that if this group actually infiltrates actual peaceful anarchists and goes roque, in the end it's your movement that gets hurt by it. You should be more skeptical about any group that comes in, urges violence and claims itself to be anarchists because do you really want anarchy to be associated with organized crime/violence?


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I love you all, and I love our posters here that don't love us. :trump


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> I gave you a series of questions to answer with regards to DJ20. You haven't answered any of my questions. The questions I asked that you ignored contain the answers as to its legitimacy.
> 
> 
> 
> Like I've already stated, I don't care about the legitimacy of other anarchist groups. Just this one. Don't ignore the questions that I've asked simply because you can't answer them. Tell me about the activists involved in this group, their past activism. Can you name a single individual that's part of this group that has a history of activism? When something is run with so much anonimity, you can and should ask questions about its legitimacy.
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't healthy skepticism a value that drives anarchy? Or is gullibility like yours the primary driver of action?
> 
> 
> 
> My reasoning involves asking a lot of questions that you yourself don't have the answers to. When you answer them specifically with actual knowledge about the group, feel free to hit me back.
> 
> Till then you can whinge about me being a conspiracy theorist, but at least I'm asking questions.
> 
> The funny thing is that if this group actually infiltrates actual peaceful anarchists and goes roque, in the end it's your movement that gets hurt by it. You should be more skeptical about any group that comes in, urges violence and claims itself to be anarchists because do you really want anarchy to be associated with organized crime/violence?


Gullibility, following main stream "Left", getting information from the "Left" MSM and lots of organization and vying for authoritarian rule is the new Anarchy, gosh Reaper get with the times!


----------



## NotGuilty

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Almost there. :trump2


----------



## Neuron

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/822283319949795329
Beautiful.


----------



## Nolo King

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

From watching most of his rallies on Right Side Broadcasting and being a huge Bobby Lashley mark, I can't help but be optimistic for his run!

I don't necessarily agree with all his policies, but it's good to see someone come in and push for traditional values. Liberalism in the US has gone a bit too far and it's trickling into were I live with me feeling forced to be politically correct or hide my right wing views in fear of being mislabeled.

There was quite a lot of controversy over Trump implying he would disagree with the election results if he lost, yet we see babies out there protesting out of pure emotion. We have "celebrities" along with major "news" organizations intensifying the divide by calling people to stand up against democracy. It is quite ludicrous to me. 

This situation resonates with me because I worked somewhere that claimed to be tolerant and inclusive, but as soon as I mentioned certain beliefs (which weren't harmful or malicious) I was treated with anything but tolerance and inclusiveness. Those ideas only work for people like that when they agree with it or when it doesn't challenge their beliefs. It's just so stupid to me. Those protesters should accept their new president rather than make death threats, whine and be disrespectful to the democratic process.


----------



## Mister Abigail

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

All I did was post a picture of Trump on imgur and ask if anyone had a spare grassy knoll. Not sure why people got upset...


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

The "countdown" . . .
*
countingdownto.com/countdown/inauguration-of-president-trump-countdown-clock*


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Nolo King said:


> This situation resonates with me because I worked somewhere that claimed to be tolerant and inclusive, but as soon as I mentioned certain beliefs (which weren't harmful or malicious) I was treated with anything but tolerance and inclusiveness. Those ideas only work for people like that when they agree with it or when it doesn't challenge their beliefs. It's just so stupid to me. Those protesters should accept their new president rather than make death threats, whine and be disrespectful to the democratic process.


Out of interest, what were the beliefs? I've been in a similar situation myself over my religion and found the experience pretty horrific to deal with so sorry you went through that, never nice.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@Nolo King has returned. Truly the Rise of :trump is a monumental event... :sodone

Now we just need @GOON and @redead to reappear, @CamillePunk. :mj2


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



L-DOPA said:


> I swear you Aussies have asked me this question so many damn times :lol. So I hope I provide an accurate answer. I believe you mean't to type Dutch by the way, the Danish system is single payer  .


Sorry! Yes Dutch haha. 



> From what I understand and you can correct me if I am wrong, the Australian system is at least two tier. Which means like you said there is a big private insurance sector alongside a public option provided by the government. That is essentially a mixed healthcare system which I have given European examples of in my post. Now there are of course different ways to do a mixed system, you can have a public option provided by government taxation or you can have public insurance alongside private insurance like in Singapore.


Yep that is essentially correct, a public option along side a private insurance system. 


> I don't think either way that the Australian system is morally reprehensible. It is not my ideal system for sure but one only has to look at the health outcomes comparing France and Germany to the UK and see just how significant the differences are and how much more ahead those countries are compared to the NHS. To me, as long as the government does not have a full monopoly over healthcare and you give the citizen a good level of choice over how they want their healthcare then that is completely fine with me. If someone wants public insurance or a public option which is available then that should be their choice. I just don't want the government *forcing* their provision on people and leaving them only with that one option.


Ah, I actually totally misunderstood your post, I agree completely, and enforced government only healthcare system would be terrible. 


> I think there are a couple of things I need to clear up as well before I make a point about the public option, the first being that there has from a couple of people in the past been this view that because I am against government monopoly over healthcare that I am against any form of public healthcare at all. That isn't true. My personal belief is that a largely free market, competitive private healthcare system is the best option but I'm not against mixed healthcare systems. I cannot say for example that they don't work because they can and often do.


Yeah, that was my misunderstanding of what you were saying. Sorry.



> My objections are to all forms of monopoly in healthcare, whether it be private or public. The Milton Friedman/Adam Smith concerns over the evils of monopoly in economic sectors are some of the most important things I believe I have read and learned in regards to economics and politics and that really is because with the UK, I have seen the impacts and how negative they are as outcomes. The freedom to choose is the most important of concepts when it comes to political and economic life. It is something I have never and will never take for granted.


Yet again agreed haha


> The second thing is, and this is really directed to Conservatives and Libertarians more than yourself but in my situation when it comes to healthcare, I cannot afford to be an ideologue. This is why in my post I stressed clearly why I believe we should further beyond the ideas of UK vs US style healthcare, single payer vs completely private. This doesn't mean I don't have my preferences, as a Classical Liberal/Libertarian, I'll always argue for a free market healthcare system but if the opportunity comes up where there is a realistic chance of the UK upgrading to a mixed healthcare system or having health savings accounts like Singapore (which would be excellent), I will do everything I can to fight for that change. I cannot sit back and be ideologically pure and reject simply because it is not the ideal when I know the Australian system for example would be SO MUCH BETTER than what my country currently has now. I know that puts me in a weird middle place where nobody agrees with me but I don't care, personal experience dictates to me that the main goal should always be get the hell away from government single payer healthcare monopolies.


I often find myself in similar circumstances, wanting to attack an idea from the left but ending being awkwardly forced to defend it from the right because I like it more than their alternative haha



> Lastly and this really is just something driven from opinion rather than fact mostly but as far as the public option goes, I think we should always whenever enacting ideas like that be able to look at individual countries and where they are at economically and politically and be able to analyze and come to a conclusion whether or not it is a good idea. The reasons why I didn't go into the public option for the US are two fold. *Firstly because for liberals and progressives, that is mainly a pit stop towards single payer and not the end goal. *But also because honestly I do not have the facts or the analysis to conclude either way. My gut feeling tells me however it would not be a good idea for the US to have the public option mainly because of financial reasons. Obamacare promised to keep healthcare costs down and yet medicare spending increased significantly. Medicare entitlements need serious reform because as of right now, they are around $40 Billion in the red and the debt in that program keeps rising and so they need to at some point reform the spending program so that it is sustainable. A public option by design would significantly raise spending for Medicare and my concerns would be both that it wouldn't be sustainable in terms of affordability and that I do not think the results of it would be worth the extra government funding. But as I said, this is not based on fact like I believe the evidence for Obamacare showed me but rather an opinion, so my word isn't gospel on this. I may in fact be wrong but we won't know now for at least another 4 years anyway :lol.


I quite strongly disagree with the bold, as a progressive who knows a heap of progressives, no one in Australia, however left wing seriously supports banning people from using private healthcare if they want to. Everyone is very happy with our system on the left and it is only the right who ever try to tinker with it. Even if there are people in the US right now who may "view" it as a pitstop, I'm sure once they get there they'll realise what a great place it is and be happy. Again, no one on the left here has ever seriously proposed moving to ban private healthcare as a option and it would be utter political suicide. 

Re the economics, the counter argument to the increased costs associated with a public option in terms of government expenditure (undeniably true) is that those extra costs are covered by the efficencies created, people who are healthy work more productively than those who are sick. 

Also hospital care is very expensive, and when people don't have health insurance they'll avoid going to a doctor until it's too late, whereas if they have insurance they are more likely to get themselves checked out early which can often be a stitch in time thing, saving a tonne of money. My understanding is in the US they treat you then send you home with a ludicrous bill, which I assume most people would just never pay.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Lunatic Fringe said:


> The "countdown" . . .
> *
> countingdownto.com/countdown/inauguration-of-president-trump-countdown-clock*







:mark:


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

In honor of our new incoming Universal Overlord, i suggest the male members of the forum take excursion out and about for a spot of pussy-grabbing, while the female member(s?) also take a promenade and who knows sugar tits you may get lucky!

'When you're with :trump THEY LET YOU DO IT!


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



> What a great point,Trump sure came together after Obama was elected and respected the office he held. He totally didn't spend years trying to deligitimize the President by saying he doesn't have a birth certicifate and that he was a Muslim


*Fun fact*: Hillary's campaign started the birther movement.



> In honor of our new incoming Universal Overlord, i suggest the male members of the forum take excursion out and about for a spot of pussy-grabbing, while the female member(s?) also take a promenade and who knows sugar tits you may get lucky!
> 
> 'When you're with THEY LET YOU DO IT!


When you're rich and famous, its amazing how many random hot chicks come flocking to you.

- Vic


----------



## NotGuilty

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Strippers and slot machines at the State of the Union address :banderas


----------



## SWITCHBLADE

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

#NeverForget










:trump3


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@Rainmaka! Rachel Maddow has lost her fucking mind.






That crazy cunt would rather start nuclear war with Russia than side with Trump on ANYthing. Her and all other partisan hacks need to fuck off. This whole mindset of playing for a team instead of caring about the actual issues needs to die. If someone is championing an issue I care about, I don't give a shit what letter is next to their name. Trump doesn't want to start a war with Russia? Fan'fucken'tastic. For that reason alone, we are better off with him in the WH than Hillary "never met a war she didn't like" Clinton.


----------



## SWITCHBLADE

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Maddow has to be the biggest cunt I've ever seen in the mainstream media, man or woman. Never seen someone who was so self-centered.


----------



## 3ku1

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I don't think Trumps that bad tbf. IF you go on social media he is a monster. But he has visited the troops today diddn't he? They seemed civil. I am not saying he is a genius. The guy knows nothing about Demoracy, or Politics in general. But he seems to have some expereience around him. Trump may not be what America wants, but he is what America needs. From Beyonce to... Hillary is the one who diddn't have a press conference in 200 days. Shitty Shitty Campaigner. She made the decision to go to Iraq. She has made so many mistakes as a Senator, and working with Obmas Adminastration. I really beleive your better off with Trump. Hillary offered absoloutely nothing new.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*










Threatening the President of the United States is a class E felony under United States Code Title 18, Section 871. The offense is punishable by up to 5 years in prison, a $250,000 maximum fine, a $100 special assessment, and 3 years of supervised release.

This applies to social media.

- Vic


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



3ku1 said:


> The guy knows nothing about Demoracy, or Politics in general.


He knows how to win a representative democratic election for the highest office in the land. I'd say that puts him well ahead of the pack.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> @Rainmaka! Rachel Maddow has lost her fucking mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That crazy cunt would rather start nuclear war with Russia than side with Trump on ANYthing. Her and all other partisan hacks need to fuck off. This whole mindset of playing for a team instead of caring about the actual issues needs to die. If someone is championing an issue I care about, I don't give a shit what letter is next to their name. Trump doesn't want to start a war with Russia? Fan'fucken'tastic. For that reason alone, we are better off with him in the WH than Hillary "never met a war she didn't like" Clinton.


Blaire's video touched on this, people are treating politics like a sports team, it's not. People put up with Obama and Bush, this endless resistance without listening helps nobody. 

Trump should be called out when he does something wrong, everyone should regardless of your political spectrum you favor or what set of genitals you prefer licking or regardless of your melanin level.

If you constantly bash Trump for everything, nobody is going to listen if he does something stupid. This childish behavior needs to stop.


----------



## sesshomaru

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

People freaking out over this need to remember that the whole fucking southern US tried to secede after Lincoln won, despite Lincoln always claiming that he wasn't going to force the South to abolish slavery.


This "uproar" over Trump is nothing.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Instead of "Hale To The Chief". Trump should come out to this!






*It's #HISWORLD now! :trump*


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

As I type this, we are now about 7 hours away from Donald J Trump taking the oath of office. For those who voted for him and those that didn't (and those around the world that are watching very carefully), I hope that everyone gets the chance to watch or listen to the events that will lead up to the Chief Justice of SCOTUS holding the Bible on which Trump will take the oath. It is a very unique transition of power unlike really any in the world. 

The morning begins with President Obama meeting with his staff to say good-bye, and the staff presents the Obamas with a gift. Staff carpenters also will present them a handcrafted box which will hold two American flags...the flag that flew over the WH on the day Obama took the oath and the one that will fly today, his last day. 

Three hours before the oath, the Trumps and Obamas will meet at the White House for the traditional morning tea that the outgoing and incoming First Families engage in. Meanwhile, upstairs in the residence, you have organized chaos with movers simultaneously loading up the last of the Obamas' belongings and unloading the Trumps' stuff. 

Then, one of the most interesting parts of the day takes place as the limousine ride that both families will share from the White House to the Capitol. As thousands of onlookers watch, the two couples will ride together towards the stage where the transition of power will be completed. This can also be a very awkward moment as well. For example, on President Reagan's inauguration day, Rosalynn Carter and Nancy Reagan did not speak to each other on the way in. Eisenhower was very vocal about how he felt Kennedy did not have the experience to be President, and Jackie Kennedy was outraged at that criticism. This is part of the hand-off of power, but it can make for a very interesting moment. 

There is a military aide that will come to the Capitol with the departing President and will leave in the entourage of the new President. He is the person responsible for holding an attache case, the nuclear football as it's otherwise known, and he will be trailing President Trump wherever he goes from that moment on. 

Afterwards, the Trumps take the limousine ride and parade back to the White House where they will have the traditional luncheon hosted by the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies. Among those in attendance will be VP Pence's family, congressional leaders, and members of SCOTUS. This year's menu will be:

Maine lobster and Gulf shrimp with saffron sauce and peanut crumble
Seven Hills Angus Beef in dark chocolate and juniper jus with potato gratin
Chocolate souffle and cherry vanilla ice cream 

Each course paired with a specific wine. In fact, the dessert champagne, a Korbel Natural "Special Inaugural Cuvee", can be purchased in stores for as little as $13. 

Meanwhile, as the Trumps are feasting, the Obamas are escorted to Andrews Air Force Base by helicopter. From there, the Obamas take one final ride on a presidential aircraft (this one will not have the bearing Air Force One as the commander-in-chief is no longer on board) to Palm Springs, California. There, the Obamas will take family vacation as they begin their lives once again as private citizens. 

The events of today are definitely worth a look. This election was completely out of the ordinary and was non-traditional in every sense of the word. For at least a few hours today, there will be some semblance of tradition as the world watches the peaceful transition of power from one President to the next. No pitchforks, no coup de grace (no matter what Rosie O'Donnell wants), no fleeing in the middle of the night with what belongings you can carry as some leaders end up doing in other nations. It is truly a sight to behold, no matter who you agree with politically, that is like no other transition in the world today. Especially if you consider the fact that the former Presidents (except for Bush 41 who is in a Houston hospital right now) that will be in attendance as well, it is a truly amazing day.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Ah, I actually totally misunderstood your post, I agree completely, and enforced government only healthcare system would be terrible.


That's okay, I'm a government hating Libertarian at heart so I can see why you misunderstood :lol. 





Alkomesh2 said:


> I often find myself in similar circumstances, wanting to attack an idea from the left but ending being awkwardly forced to defend it from the right because I like it more than their alternative haha


Haha I get you, I think for me it's the fact I look at things from the perspective of where I am currently standing and look at the alternatives. If those alternatives I know for a fact will be better then I'd support that alternative at least from my own perspective even if it isn't what my preferred outcome would be.

Put it this way as an example, I'd ideally want all drugs to legal because I think the war on drugs has been an utter disaster and that it mirrors the same problems as alcohol prohibition. So I'd want to treat all drugs the same way and then work on rehabilitation for non-violent drug users instead of incarcerating them for years and essentially making them unemployable.

That is unlikely to happen in the near future if at all in the UK but there is a chance we'll legalize weed and perhaps maybe decriminalize most drugs down the line. Do I say that isn't good enough and hold out for the end game out of moral ethics for my overall position or do I support it and work towards it? I view it as the latter.

Same can be applied to healthcare in this instance.





Alkomesh2 said:


> I quite strongly disagree with the bold, as a progressive who knows a heap of progressives, no one in Australia, however left wing seriously supports banning people from using private healthcare if they want to. Everyone is very happy with our system on the left and it is only the right who ever try to tinker with it. Even if there are people in the US right now who may "view" it as a pitstop, I'm sure once they get there they'll realise what a great place it is and be happy. Again, no one on the left here has ever seriously proposed moving to ban private healthcare as a option and it would be utter political suicide.


That may not be the view of the Australian left and am certainly not accusing you of being for a single payer system but it mostly certainly is the view of a large number of progressives in the US. In fact I would argue you cannot even be a progressive now in the US if you aren't for a single payer system, because that is one of the biggest goals for the movement on the progressive left right now. Particularly with how popular Bernie Sanders has become among those circles who made single payer one of his biggest platforms.

Who knows if they would just be happy with the public option, maybe you are right. I think it depends on essentially if it works for the US. If it doesn't and has a whole heap of problems like Obamacare did, that may be the justification for the progressive left in the US to say that the private insurance model just doesn't work and we need the government to take care of everything. For channels like the Young Turks and Secular Talk, they view the market system of healthcare as something that needs getting rid of and needs destroying. One of their main arguments in the negative on Obamacare is that it didn't do enough because it didn't get rid of the private sector in healthcare. That is the position in the US on the progressive left right now.

I would go as far as in your case that in the US as it currently stands, you cannot be a progressive when it comes to US healthcare. You'd probably be viewed as a Centrist or maybe Centre-Left. 



Alkomesh2 said:


> Re the economics, the counter argument to the increased costs associated with a public option in terms of government expenditure (undeniably true) is that those extra costs are covered by the efficencies created, people who are healthy work more productively than those who are sick.
> 
> Also hospital care is very expensive, and when people don't have health insurance they'll avoid going to a doctor until it's too late, whereas if they have insurance they are more likely to get themselves checked out early which can often be a stitch in time thing, saving a tonne of money. My understanding is in the US they treat you then send you home with a ludicrous bill, which I assume most people would just never pay.


I understand the first argument and where you are coming from, my concern with the US system is that their spending on healthcare is already extraordinarily high on the public side due to the amount of people that are covered by medicare and if you expand that system that that 30-40 million in the red explodes even further and you are left with a hole in the US budget that can never be filled. There was already a chance with Obamacare if it continued that the healthcare system would eventually end up being bankrupt, and that may have sounded too extreme of a claim to make had I not shared some of the statistics which have came out from the impacts of Obamacare. So it's a cost and effect issue, would it work with the US? My concerns are that the cost would outweigh the effects. We could only know if it is implemented.

Secondly, from the position the US is in from a personal standpoint as you probably already know, I wouldn't go this route. The problem with the US system as I see is twofold. The first being is that your second point is correct, the obvious main problem with the US system is that millions of people are uninsured and the debate is how do we make sure they are covered. The single mandate did not work because of the unintended consequences that came with it and I'd be skeptical of more government involvement because of that.

Essentially the US lacks the basic regulatory framework the Dutch and Swiss have to make sure everyone is covered and this is why at the moment I think the social insurance based systems of those countries are superior. The second thing however on top of that ironically is that the private insurance companies themselves are way too regulated and that is effecting costs. Obamacare as an example with the mandatory added provisions raised costs significantly for the insurance companies who then had to raise the costs of their insurance plans. That only benefits the bigger insurance companies and the smaller ones plus the patients suffer from the rising costs. So you need to deregulate and strip away the unnecessary regulatory costs to allow more of a competitive market place and I think that will be done with repealing Obamacare, what they replace it with is key though so we'll have to watch carefully.

Because of this, many on the right believe if we have a largely free market system that the vast majority of people would be covered due to supply and demand bringing the costs of these insurance plans right down. Definitely the US would benefit for example if inexpensive insurance was allowed to be sold and I can see the argument being made because of how over-regulation has killed the health insurance market. Having said that, in the same way that a voucher system would free up poorer students to have school choice whilst making the education sector more competitive and raise the standards of schooling, I believe having that regulatory framework that the Dutch or Swiss have in the US healthcare system would essentially cover the basics of having poorer families and individuals insurance covered whilst allowing the freedom to choose in terms how individuals and families control their own healthcare.

I think if you do that plus install the ideas Rand has suggested of health savings accounts and pooling individuals resources together you'd go a long way in fixing the US healthcare system whilst reducing costs and perhaps reforming and cutting medicare spending as you wane off the government option (if we were to go the Dutch route for example).

That is essentially my idea in terms of viewing it from the US perspective though, I think if we were talking about a country of a smaller size of let's say the European countries or your own country, I think it's more likely the public option would not have the potential costs I see with the US. So it's really just an ideological argument and one in which we won't know the effects of until either idea is tried.


----------



## MillionDollarProns

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Just a few hours left until 2016 ends for real


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> @Rainmaka! Rachel Maddow has lost her fucking mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That crazy cunt would rather start nuclear war with Russia than side with Trump on ANYthing. Her and all other partisan hacks need to fuck off. This whole mindset of playing for a team instead of caring about the actual issues needs to die. If someone is championing an issue I care about, I don't give a shit what letter is next to their name. Trump doesn't want to start a war with Russia? Fan'fucken'tastic. For that reason alone, we are better off with him in the WH than Hillary "never met a war she didn't like" Clinton.


Same with reactions online to the ending of Wet foot Dry foot regarding Cuban asylum seekers no longer receiving visas automatically. They rip on Obama saying he is handcuffing TRump but the new POTUS wants to vet all incoming immigrants.


----------



## krtgolfing

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



BruiserKC said:


> As I type this, we are now about 7 hours away from Donald J Trump taking the oath of office. For those who voted for him and those that didn't (and those around the world that are watching very carefully), I hope that everyone gets the chance to watch or listen to the events that will lead up to the Chief Justice of SCOTUS holding the Bible on which Trump will take the oath. It is a very unique transition of power unlike really any in the world.
> 
> The morning begins with President Obama meeting with his staff to say good-bye, and the staff presents the Obamas with a gift. Staff carpenters also will present them a handcrafted box which will hold two American flags...the flag that flew over the WH on the day Obama took the oath and the one that will fly today, his last day.
> 
> Three hours before the oath, the Trumps and Obamas will meet at the White House for the traditional morning tea that the outgoing and incoming First Families engage in. Meanwhile, upstairs in the residence, you have organized chaos with movers simultaneously loading up the last of the Obamas' belongings and unloading the Trumps' stuff.
> 
> Then, one of the most interesting parts of the day takes place as the limousine ride that both families will share from the White House to the Capitol. As thousands of onlookers watch, the two couples will ride together towards the stage where the transition of power will be completed. This can also be a very awkward moment as well. For example, on President Reagan's inauguration day, Rosalynn Carter and Nancy Reagan did not speak to each other on the way in. Eisenhower was very vocal about how he felt Kennedy did not have the experience to be President, and Jackie Kennedy was outraged at that criticism. This is part of the hand-off of power, but it can make for a very interesting moment.
> 
> There is a military aide that will come to the Capitol with the departing President and will leave in the entourage of the new President. He is the person responsible for holding an attache case, the nuclear football as it's otherwise known, and he will be trailing President Trump wherever he goes from that moment on.
> 
> Afterwards, the Trumps take the limousine ride and parade back to the White House where they will have the traditional luncheon hosted by the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies. Among those in attendance will be VP Pence's family, congressional leaders, and members of SCOTUS. This year's menu will be:
> 
> Maine lobster and Gulf shrimp with saffron sauce and peanut crumble
> Seven Hills Angus Beef in dark chocolate and juniper jus with potato gratin
> Chocolate souffle and cherry vanilla ice cream
> 
> Each course paired with a specific wine. In fact, the dessert champagne, a Korbel Natural "Special Inaugural Cuvee", can be purchased in stores for as little as $13.
> 
> Meanwhile, as the Trumps are feasting, the Obamas are escorted to Andrews Air Force Base by helicopter. From there, the Obamas take one final ride on a presidential aircraft (this one will not have the bearing Air Force One as the commander-in-chief is no longer on board) to Palm Springs, California. There, the Obamas will take family vacation as they begin their lives once again as private citizens.
> 
> The events of today are definitely worth a look. This election was completely out of the ordinary and was non-traditional in every sense of the word. For at least a few hours today, there will be some semblance of tradition as the world watches the peaceful transition of power from one President to the next. No pitchforks, no coup de grace (no matter what Rosie O'Donnell wants), no fleeing in the middle of the night with what belongings you can carry as some leaders end up doing in other nations. It is truly a sight to behold, no matter who you agree with politically, that is like no other transition in the world today. Especially if you consider the fact that the former Presidents (except for Bush 41 who is in a Houston hospital right now) that will be in attendance as well, it is a truly amazing day.


Wow someone knows their shit about inaugurations. A president who likes cheap wine! I guess I know why I voted for him!


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

All i want his a shot of hillarys face today during the inauguration


----------



## TripleG

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Is it sad that I don't even like Trump and I am still enjoying this just to see the liberal misery?


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



krtgolfing said:


> Wow someone knows their shit about inaugurations. A president who likes cheap wine! I guess I know why I voted for him!


Ironically though Trump doesn't drink. He won't be imbibing.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I FEEL GOOD DIS MAWNIN YALL.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



TripleG said:


> Is it sad that I don't even like Trump and I am still enjoying this just to see the liberal misery?


This is essentially me :lol.


----------



## krtgolfing

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@AryaDark lolololololol Cavs, @The Absolute :curry2 @Alco @A-C-P @Beatles123 A most excellent summary of what occurs on inauguration day, @BruiserKC  @CamillePunk @Carte Blanche @Goku @L-DOPA @Miss Sally @Oda Nobunaga @Plato @samizayn @Tater

Find myself examining the _Morai_, which tend to also be referred to as the Fates, indispensable as they are within the denouement to Plato's _Republic_ as crucial to the Myth of _Er_, which could perhaps best be comprehended as "the common man." These are perhaps most readily accessed by being interpreted as being thesis, antithesis and synthesis in through assiduous Marxist study. Put as simply as possible, they stand as mythological representation of dialectic. Hegelian terminology becomes useful, with the concept of an algebra of transformation tending to hinge on these. Many students become frustrated with Plato because of the abundance of cryptic myths employed. 

What is necessary to recall, however, is that Plato is not endeavoring to blatantly tell us what he thinks about this and that. It is one reason he never ventured to write a treatise. Plato's inquiries are more about the structure of learning and the gaining of wisdom. Imagine, for instance, walking into a math class and seeing that the instructor has written a series of problems on the board--along with their respective answers attached to the right problems. It would be perspicuously easy for students to simply copy down the problems and the answers--memorize those, and the students have gained knowledge, no? They have gained some knowledge but it is without context for it was never properly rooted out through reason. Therefore, Plato would seem to argue, it is practically useless. One does not understand complex math problems until one works those math problems out on their own. Being fed answers is an obscene short-circuiting of gaining proper knowledge for it bypasses the most critical matter at hand, the student's working out of the problem on their own after being given just enough direction by the professor. While many students blanch under Plato--and even some professors I've spoken with--because of the roundabout way his dialogues go about in allowing people to reason their way through problems, as it were, it remains indubitably important to remember that this is the service provided by the dialogues. 

It would be useful in the most banal sense for Plato to simply tell us what he thinks about Problem A, but he would rather have us figure out what should be thought of Problem A on our own. With just a little push toward the proper answer, he allows us to become genuinely wiser through the process of our own attainment of knowledge through skillful deciphering of his dialogues through reason and logic. It is the professor's task to allow the student to learn the material as much through their own devices as any other means (at minimum). The approximation of Socrates in the _Meno_ is a blunt voicing of what Plato is getting at: an empty vessel remains fundamentally empty if only knowledge gleaned from spoon-feeding answers is attained rather than the rational deciphering of, in these instances, Plato's dialogues and cryptic myths. Plato is too prudent to simply state what he thinks is true: as the dialogues are typically written, the reader is never allowed to be certain that a perspective is Plato's, or if it actually belongs to Socrates, or if Socrates will, as does happen, change his mind. One of the more fascinating themes to look at when going through Plato is to enjoy the almost paradoxical quandary of a philosopher with a skeptical-at-best view of democracy while delivering a method of learning that is in its own way starkly democratic. For as the aforementioned cases prove, philosophical problems are not solved because great men pontificate and provide answers; truth is discovered by systematic reason. Plato is not interested in merely settling for telling the reader what to think. Rather, Plato's writings are a meticulous maze, the object of which is to demonstrate how one thinks at all. The rigorous and fastidious process of inquiry Plato calls _elenchus_ is what he is going after, time and time again. A swift pointing toward the correct direction is all that is warranted; otherwise, it is up to the student to work out the math problem.

The trajectory between ignorance and knowledge represents a transformation. The Hellenic emphasis bridges these twin polarities through the dialectic. The consciousness or "soul" is but a profound unity of opposites, the thesis of ignorance and antithesis of knowledge, all collapsed together into one space. Therefore thesis and antithesis are not separate qualities: they are contradictory aspects of but one thing. Plato distills this through imagery. And indeed, the most accessible lesson is the allegory of the cave. The images, the shadows, are drawn to be literal. Plato calls this the _eikasia_. As cryptic myth it is altogether intriguing. Children interpret religious myth as literal stories with real people. So Son of Daedalus existed and the myth of Icarus followed with a man endowed with wings who flew too close to the sun. Rather than accept the narrative as the propagation of myth, children saw Icarus as literal the way little children see Super-Man as literal rather than the symbolic mythological protagonist he is. Rather than working beyond the literal, were we to remain perpetual children, we would, in the instance of Icarus, interpret him as real, that he had wings which melted, bringing the heroic figure down. The Hellenic warning against _hubris_ was seldom so blatant, rarely so poetic, but if we have the perspective of a child, we have a mental comic book strip play out. Icarus flying, wonderfully, and then too close to the sun, and his downfall. Images. Plato convinces that this is but the shadow--that which is "seen but not understood." 

It is literally a case study in ignorance, therefore the embracing of the antithesis of knowledge. Icarus's import is that he is a symbol. The story, the person, the particulars--they never happened, but the uncompromising "moral of the story," so to speak, is despairingly, achingly true. Adventure is drama shorn of requiring assistance by any mortal; drama is choosing between two terrible choices; comedy is the story in which the protagonist learns his lesson and is better for it; tragedy is in its myriad shadings comedy without the protagonist ever learning from his great flaw. One tragic Hellenic figure after another cannot recognize his own evil and is therefore consumed by the void created by the character flaw that remained attached to them like a tail bone all along. Taking Icarus, the movement from literal images, to the abstract universal lessons represented by those searing images, delivers unto the seeker of knowledge the dialectic which essays us from what is "seen but not understood" (man versus "the gods" at the most primordial and elemental; like the massive bolt of bluish white lightning which came crashing down here just minutes ago, presumably from Zeus, followed by a bomb-like explosion of thunder) to the inverse, that which is "understood but not seen." 

The shadows on the cave are but the result of what provides for their being seen: the light, the antithesis of the shadows. The fire, the burning source of the light, the orb of light cast against the wall of the cave, serving as surrogate of the sun, and later the sun itself. Plato gives us just enough of a push to let us come to the conclusion that that which exists outside of the cave is intelligible, and that the inside of the cave is visible. Visible, yes: images played out. Myth. That being the synthesis of the real and the imagined. 

Myths are used over and over because they provide us with the crucial ability to recognize the truth, which is that ideology is myth that we use to explain reality (or are confused into thinking is reality). Like Louis Althusser noted 2,500 years later, ideology is "our imagined relationship to our actual conditions of existence." That is the shadow, that which we see but do not understand. Why do we not turn around? Why do we not look to see from what sources these shadows are derived? Simplifying the matter to the point of crudeness, ideology has a mythological component. When we go about uncovering the truths of Plato's myths, unmasking the would-be Scooby-Doo ghosts, we are able to advance the critical analysis to the conclusion to be found in the abstract, or in metaphor. Culture and politics are ultimately built upon collections of myths; reality is an unforgiving venue, brimming with contradictions. It is no coincidence that in the past four hundred years as politics have, in the West, become more based in abstraction, the greater reliance upon myth has sprung up, not less. The philosopher who keeps peering toward the shadow on the cave never turns around to see the light. Without going into everything about the allegory, Plato says that he is obligated to return, and he suggests that the philosopher should very well "take his old seat" before the shadows in the cave. 

Plato provided those for whom philosophy was a remote concern with a powerful, elemental, durable myth. Those who wield ideology well, those who wield power like a virtuoso, they are following in Plato's footsteps. For they become critical authors of the totality of the subject's understanding of the world, just as the person within the cave has his reality deciphered for him. Polities have ever been so sustained and nourished. Intellectual grist for the mill to be filtered all the way down to the images that the proverbial child can see, enjoy, hold on to forever. In understanding how order may exist where law, as it is commonly known, does not, it may be important to recall Lucy Mair's writings vis-à-vis African tribes: "We can take it that the inhabitants of a single homestead always recognize the authority of their senior male..." John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau with their blank slate and natural freedom fallacies at least have the defense that anthropology would only subsequently become vastly better documented with the somewhat predictable findings that even the lowliest tribes alpha males dominate in that always-fascinating (by way of drama if nothing else) symbiotic relationship between protector, ruler, dictator, chieftain, warlord, et. al. 

The carrying on of myth is a critical function of those who keep others entranced by the images, by that which is seen but not understood for the regime's durability. Let it go forward once more today for I myself understand just so much to recognize that I understand next to nothing.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@CamillePunk @DesolationRow @Miss Sally @L-DOPA @Vic Capri @Alco @Carte Blanche @Goku @Oda Nobunaga @Plato @samizayn @Tater 










AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

*MEIN SIDES!!!!!!!!*

:trump 
:trump 
:trump 
:trump 
:trump 
:trump 
:trump 
:trump 
:trump 
:trump 
:trump


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*










Frank Sinatra became an avid supporter of the Republican Party after being disrespected by JFK and would've supported Trump if he was still around, but surprise surprise The Huffington Post is lying to people with their revisionist history.

- Vic


----------



## The RainMaker

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

We're going to MAGA whether you like it or not you snowflake pussies.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Inauguration LiveStream:






Who's the cuck on the megaphone?

Alternate link:


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*






My theme song for this glorious day.

- Vic


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> @CamillePunk @DesolationRow @Miss Sally @L-DOPA @Vic Capri @Alco @Carte Blanche @Goku @Oda Nobunaga @Plato @samizayn @Tater
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> 
> *MEIN SIDES!!!!!!!!*
> 
> :trump
> :trump
> :trump
> :trump
> :trump
> :trump
> :trump
> :trump
> :trump
> :trump
> :trump


Why is CNN bunch of fuckbois? Seriously. They been saying so much stupid shit lately that they may as well be Buzzfeed.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*










I'm just gonna leave this here because it's fucking awesome.


----------



## krtgolfing

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Time to celebrate tonight bayybeeee.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Vic Capri said:


> My theme song for this *glorious* day.
> 
> - Vic


Funnily enough, this is mine for today:






:trips9

brb drinking SJW tears :trump3


----------



## Sensei Utero

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Americans, right-wing folk, and the 'alt-right'. :HA :ha :lol :lmao :reneelel

#StupidIdiots


----------



## The Absolute

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

It's MAGA time, bitches. Let's do this.

:trump


----------



## thedeparted_94

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Watching the inaugaration now, Did they get Titus O'neil to do the announcing? :surprise:


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



InUtero said:


> Americans, right-wing folk, and the 'alt-right'. :HA :ha :lol :lmao :reneelel
> 
> #StupidIdiots


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

It's official: Teflon Don Juan is president. :trump


----------



## TripleG

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Well...he's the President now.


----------



## Oxidamus

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*










*U S A*









WE DID IT
:trump2


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

It's official Trump is the President of the United States


----------



## DoolieNoted

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Happy NoBama day everyone.. >


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*










:squirtle


----------



## Stormbringer

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Never watched an inauguration, how long are these things?


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Plato liked DROW's Plato post :mark:


----------



## DeeGirl

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

And to think 10 years ago, he was at WrestleMania 23. God bless.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

what a speech :trump


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Oh yeah Rachel Maddow @Tater

She looks bad. Like sick bad. I think Trump's election might have broken her irrevocably. She's turned into the leftist lesbian Sean Hannity.


----------



## witchblade000

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Funnily enough, this is mine for today:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :trips9
> 
> brb drinking SJW tears :trump3


This one is perfect. 






Trump to Obama: "Walk on home boy!"

:maury


----------



## Oxidamus

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Hey everyone, especially the Americans of this thread. Despite all the negativity you'll face in the coming weeks from ignorant people who don't actually understand anything other than gender identity, just remember that FACTS WILL ALWAYS TRUMP FEELINGS. And once Trump proves to not be Literally Hitler, life will go back to normal... but possibly better.

#MAGA :trump3


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



MrMister said:


> Oh yeah Rachel Maddow
> 
> *She looks bad. Like sick bad.* I think Trump's election might have broken her irrevocably.


So basically she's a Sally Kohn clone? Because if so, that problem needs to fixed ASAP, since one of each is already terrible, but a copy of one or the other is just tragic.


----------



## glenwo2

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Tremendous speech. Seriously. :clap :clap :clap :clap


And I don't give a shit if the Hilary supporters think he's the Devil incarnate either(which is irony considering who they supported). 


Should be an interesting 4 years.

AMERICA FIRST. As it always should've been. :trump


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



witchblade000 said:


> This one is perfect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump to Obama: "Walk on home boy!"
> 
> :maury


Trump calling any black man "boy" would be one clear-cut instance where he actually comes off as unequivocally racist. :lol

But considering how savvy he is, I sincerely doubt that he'd commit such fuckery, since it'd be one of the very few instances where it'd be too much even for him to stump.


----------



## Screwball

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

This winter has gotten a whole lot warmer.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



MrMister said:


> Oh yeah Rachel Maddow @Tater
> 
> She looks bad. Like sick bad. I think Trump's election might have broken her irrevocably. She's turned into the leftist lesbian Sean Hannity.


Nah. Her and her ilk have always been like this, they just weren't exposed this much because there was no true counter-alternative to the narratives and spinning they built their careers on. The alternative media revolution has exposed a lot of people both on the right and the left.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

You clearly don't remember Air America radio. That was the "alt-left" of its day back when Bush was president. This was waaaay back when that one SNL writer from Minnesota wasn't even a senator yet.

edit: Maddow has always been a leftist shill though, you're right. That's not new.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I almost forgot about the whole inauguration thing. :lol

It was happening right around the time I get home from work and I'm relaxing n watching TV shows. I was like, oh yeah, and flipped over right in time to catch a bit of Trump's speech. I had to change the channel though when he was done and they trotted out some religitard to speak to the crowd. Really, for a country that is supposed to have separation of church and state, it would be nice if they didn't use the opportunity to push all the religious bullshit when the leader of the country is being sworn into office. God is going to keep us all safe? Really? Well, I'll be damned, if we've got a magic wizard living in the sky and watching our backs, why are we spending so much money on the military? Speaking of which, Trump trotted out the old tired trope of our military being depleted. For fuck's sake, people. We've got the largest and most powerful military in the history of the world and we already spend more than the next 8 or 10 countries combined. You've got to be a real special kind of stupid to believe the rhetoric about our military being depleted. Who won the election doesn't really matter in that regard. Clinton, Trump, it doesn't matter, because more money was always going to be given to the military industrial complex. Poverty may be skyrocketing, the national debt may be exploding and the country may be falling apart but there will always be an abundance of money to spend on death and destruction. 'Murica. Love it or get blown the fuck up. That's just how we roll.












MrMister said:


> Oh yeah Rachel Maddow @Tater
> 
> She looks bad. Like sick bad. I think Trump's election might have broken her irrevocably. She's turned into the leftist lesbian Sean Hannity.


I object to you associating her with leftists when she is nothing of the sort but otherwise, spot on. The world would not be any worse off if she landed in a padded cell.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Oh man Air America reminded me of Randi Rhodes. 



Randi Rhodes said:


> Geraldine Ferraro turned out to be the David Duke in drag ... What a whore Geraldine Ferraro is! She's such a fucking whore! I wanna see her have to stand beside her husband at one of those mandatory 'I have sinned against you; I'm a whore' kind of a press conference. Mr. Ferraro should have to stand next to his whore of a wife ... Hillary is a big fucking whore, too. You know why she's a big fucking whore? Because her deal is always, 'Read the fine print, asshole!'


that was part of a stand up comedy bit. she was fired for it.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Tears taste like salt.


----------



## glenwo2

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> I almost forgot about the whole inauguration thing. :lol
> 
> It was happening right around the time I get home from work and I'm relaxing n watching TV shows. I was like, oh yeah, and flipped over right in time to *catch a bit of Trump's speech.*


You should've watched(and heard) the entire speech. It was pretty damn good and he basically BURIED (ala HHH-style) politicians in Washington. It was awesome and long overdue. :lol


----------



## glenwo2

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


>


She's probably a PAID-FOR "Plant" by Hilary to cause a scene.



(and I'm sure many others around her told her to calm down and just shut the fuck up and HAVE RESPECT FOR THE PRESIDENCY OF THE U.S.)


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I hope she was real. I want Libshits to RUE this day.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/822511496177532928
These children should really be ashamed of themselves.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Lots of protesting and property damage going on. Apparently protesters are blocking entrances from people going in? I wonder how much that has effected attendances


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

wow at this Doug Saunders guy. 

thousands of fellow Americans literally murdered before our eyes...and Trump is worse.

ok


----------



## ForYourOwnGood

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

A fine speech, but he needs to act fast. When he threatened to "wipe Islamic extremism from the face of the Earth", he needs to swiftly make good on that commitment. He was elected on the pretense that he was a man of action who would forcibly reassert American dominance - but the fear among his supporters must now be that he will talk tough, but do very little.


----------



## krtgolfing

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/822511496177532928
> These children should really be ashamed of themselves.


Damn proud of voting for Trump. Certainly wasn't going to vote for the ***** Killary!



Carte Blanche said:


> fpalm


Wow.. Pretty over dramatic???


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*










fpalm


----------



## glenwo2

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Stinger Fan said:


> Lots of protesting and property damage going on. Apparently protesters are blocking entrances from people going in? I wonder how much that has effected attendances


This gif is sooooo appropriate for those idiot protestors :











*
U MAD?*


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

This is ridiculous. Can these people grow up already?


----------



## glenwo2

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> fpalm


Send Helen a link to the GIF I provided. :trump


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> fpalm


lol jfc wtf

what a sociopath 

i hope all the socios out themselves. we'll all know to steer clear.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

 :woo @Plato @*MrMr*

Jacksonian populism wedded to a Jeffersonian foreign policy, as per the speech.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/822500031500414976

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/822505320333254657
Yes please.


----------



## glenwo2

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I like that also. Too long have we tried to make other countries like ours when we should've focused on our country and let those foreign countries deal with their own issues.


----------



## ForYourOwnGood

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Kabraxal said:


> This is ridiculous. Can these people grow up already?


It's just as it was with the Brexit. People, especially certain segments of the younger generation, do not understand that democracy entails one side winning and one side losing - and that the system only functions if the losers can accept defeat with grace and work with their opponents.

But they want it all. They don't want contrary opinions, they don't want to exert the effort to debate their positions, and they don't have the nerve to suffer a defeat. Every time they lose, they cry for a do-over.

Such dissident elements should be among the first Trump goes after. America cannot function if people riot every time the police shoot someone, or a politician they dislike is elected. I am sick of seeing this behaviour, and sicker of people defending it.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

The Climate Change page is GONE from the Whitehouse.gov website within hours of Trump taking oath. 

:heston :ha


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



glenwo2 said:


> Send Helen a link to the GIF I provided. :trump


I've been sending this to as many whinging leftists as I've come across today


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> The Climate Change page is GONE from the Whitehouse.gov website within hours of Trump taking oath.
> 
> :heston :ha


I heard the LGB one was too... that one worries me. The Climate Change one... hopefully this gets shelved for some time. Sick of hearing how we can only save the planet by taxing everything.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

according to the DCPD "More specifically, the group damaged vehicles, destroyed the property of multiple businesses, and ignited smaller isolated fires while armed with crowbars, hammers, and asps." 

asps?

Shit's getting serious, they are going around armed with, likely ISIS allied, venomous Egyptian snakes

that or extremely toxic caterpillars, a large freshwater fish or the American Society of Plastic Surgeons


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Kabraxal said:


> *I heard the LGB one was too... that one worries me. *


Why is that worrying? Why would they need a page for themselves on White House now that they have the right to get married?

I'm an ex-muslim atheist from Pakistan and there are hundreds of people like me. I DEMAND REPRESENTATION ON THE WHITE HOUSE WEBSITE!!! GIVE IT TO ME!


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Why is that worrying? Why would they need a page for themselves on White House now that they have the right to get married?
> 
> I'm an ex-muslim atheist from Pakistan and there are hundreds of people like me. I DEMAND REPRESENTATION ON THE WHITE HOUSE WEBSITE!!! GIVE IT TO ME!


If that is all it is, then it wouldn't bother me. It's just the VP is one of the most idiotic and laughable opponents to the LBG rights that I do support. It worries me, but I can wait and see if this administration chooses to fight and ultimately die on the LBG hill. They would lose so much power in 2018 that the turn around after Obama's first 2 years would look like a ripple in comparison to the tsunami that would wipe out the republican party. Especially if they choose that and the war on drugs as priorities.


----------



## TripleG

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Doug, Helen. Seriously, you folks need to take it down a few notches. 

I love how liberals always accuse Conservatives of being fear-mongers (and its true to a point) and then don't realize how fucking off the rails with their mass hysteria, paranoia, and doom and gloom centered mantra they are.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*










BUT I THOUGHT LIBERALS LIKED STARBUCKS! :troll

:trump


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

:trump:trump2:trump3:trumpout:trumpwoah

















































































































:Trump


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

#NEVERSAYGOODBYE2NE1 is beating Trump and inauguration on twitter

YOU CAN'T STOP SOUTH KOREA, THEIR POP MUSIC IS MORE POWERFUL THAN ANY LEADER


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

*FIRST PRESIDENTIAL TWEET!*:


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



ForYourOwnGood said:


> It's just as it was with the Brexit. People, especially certain segments of the younger generation, do not understand that democracy entails one side winning and one side losing - and that the system only functions if the losers can accept defeat with grace and work with their opponents.
> 
> But they want it all. They don't want contrary opinions, they don't want to exert the effort to debate their positions, and they don't have the nerve to suffer a defeat. Every time they lose, they cry for a do-over.
> 
> Such dissident elements should be among the first Trump goes after. America cannot function if people riot every time the police shoot someone, or a politician they dislike is elected. I am sick of seeing this behaviour, and sicker of people defending it.


Peaceful protest is fine and good though. Blocking traffic is not peaceful however since it can affect the lives others. Ambulances have to get where they are going or people die. Future fathers need to get their pregnant wives to the hospital asap (oh shit the patriarchy). Other civilians could have other dire emergencies. 

Blocking traffic gets attention though and that's what these people really are. They're attention seekers, the worst of an already pathetically attention seeking generation.

I'm serious and this isn't a new idea, but participation trophies are partially to blame here.

Dissension is fine and healthy to a free society in my view. It's when the protests start imposing on other people's lives...this is a problem.


----------



## Achilles

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Great day, people. :trump


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Well, SNOWFLAKES, prepare to be DEFROSTED . . . 

Trump is now the PRESIDENT, the 2018 Election will start to DRAIN THE SWAMP ( bye-bye RINO's and vulnerable DEM's ), 4 or 5 CONSERVATIVE Supreme Court Justices will be appointed !!! 

In 2020, Trump will be RE-ELECTED, followed by 8 years of MIKE PENCE . . . America WILL be GREAT AGAIN !!!

If you are NOT part of the SOLUTION, then YOU are the PROBLEM !!!


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

lmfao is "whitelash" really a word people use?

:lmao


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



MrMister said:


> lmfao is "whitelash" really a word people use?
> 
> :lmao


Just him, on CNN's broadcast the night Trump won :trump


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



MrMister said:


> lmfao is "whitelash" really a word people use?
> 
> :lmao


Van Jones used that term . . . ( A couple of sites below )

*http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politics/van-jones-results-disappointment-cnntv/*

*https://www.youtube.com/results?sp=CAM%253D&q=whitelash*


----------



## SWITCHBLADE

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



MrMister said:


> lmfao is "whitelash" really a word people use?
> 
> :lmao


BUT MUH DIVERSITY.


----------



## ForYourOwnGood

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



MrMister said:


> Peaceful protest is fine and good though. Blocking traffic is not peaceful however since it can affect the lives others. Ambulances have to get where they are going or people die. Future fathers need to get their pregnant wives to the hospital asap (oh shit the patriarchy). Other civilians could have other dire emergencies.
> 
> Blocking traffic gets attention though and that's what these people really are. They're attention seekers, the worst of an already pathetically attention seeking generation.
> 
> I'm serious and this isn't a new idea, but participation trophies are partially to blame here.
> 
> Dissension is fine and healthy to a free society in my view. It's when the protests start imposing on other people's lives...this is a problem.


Ah, but when people have become accustomed to rioting and the media has leigitmised this behaviour as "the language of the unheard" or whatever the fuck - wouldn't you agree that a harsh example needs to be made in order to restore order?
Take these protestors in Washington. Looting, creating anarchy, and all because they lost an election. If they were to be shot, do you think anyone would try it again? I don't. I think all this civil disobedience is the result of a complacent government and lberal bias in the media.
People HAVE to be taught that violence against the state will not be tolerated.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Can we not use Ben Garrison comics?

the man has made "fight the Illuminati" comics


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



stevefox1200 said:


> Can we not use Ben Garrison comics?
> 
> the man has made "fight the Illuminati" comics


Gonna use em anyway! :nerd:


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



ForYourOwnGood said:


> Ah, but when people have become accustomed to rioting and the media has leigitmised this behaviour as "the language of the unheard" or whatever the fuck - wouldn't you agree that a harsh example needs to be made in order to restore order?
> Take these protestors in Washington. Looting, creating anarchy, and all because they lost an election. If they were to be shot, do you think anyone would try it again? I don't. I think all this civil disobedience is the result of a complacent government and lberal bias in the media.
> People HAVE to be taught that violence against the state will not be tolerated.


Yes, unlawful protests = people go to jail.

Peaceful protesting is a fundamental right of the people of the United States though.

I am not defending what is going on/went down in DC. I'm against it because it was unlawful (really it's because it can severely adversely affect others).

But I support anyone's right to protest whatever they want if they do it peacefully. I might disagree with their ideas and think they are whining, but I love that they get to speak out against the government.


----------



## MOX

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*










:lol


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



stevefox1200 said:


> Can we not use Ben Garrison comics?
> 
> the man has made "fight the Illuminati" comics


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Van Jones gets a dose of TRUTH from some DEMOCRATS !!!


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



MrMister said:


> Yes, unlawful protests = people go to jail.
> 
> Peaceful protesting is a fundamental right of the people of the United States though.
> 
> I am not defending what is going on/went down in DC. I'm against it because it was unlawful (really it's because it can severely adversely affect others).
> 
> But I support anyone's right to protest whatever they want if they do it peacefully. I might disagree with their ideas and think they are whining, but I love that they get to speak out against the government.


The problem is that unlawful protests create a circle

the protester gets arrested and now has "proof" of "fascism" and now must protest even harder

Some people think that you can't be successful unless you are "hurting" someone to make them pay attention


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Anark said:


> :lol


And then he spots a fan being a fatass in the crowd. In that moment, his MUH FREE GIBSMEDATS AND DIVERSITY instinct sets in because he sees the fan is on welfare and 1/16th syrian. He hands the fan the chair and gives up his weapon, Therefore, with Sanders having nothing to his name as a result of an objectively inferior ideology, Trump is easily able to overpower the feeble old hippie who gets cuckolded by protesters and can't even defend his right to assembly. Something his own party says he has every right to defend. As a result, Trump wins in a squash.

Oh wait, was that too real? :trump


----------



## krtgolfing

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



MrMister said:


> Peaceful protest is fine and good though. Blocking traffic is not peaceful however since it can affect the lives others. Ambulances have to get where they are going or people die. Future fathers need to get their pregnant wives to the hospital asap (oh shit the patriarchy). Other civilians could have other dire emergencies.
> 
> Blocking traffic gets attention though and that's what these people really are. They're attention seekers, the worst of an already pathetically attention seeking generation.
> 
> I'm serious and this isn't a new idea, but participation trophies are partially to blame here.
> 
> Dissension is fine and healthy to a free society in my view. It's when the protests start imposing on other people's lives...this is a problem.


Lock up those sons a bitches.... I am fine with protests, but when you break the law bring in the big guns!


----------



## glenwo2

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



stevefox1200 said:


> according to the DCPD "More specifically, the group damaged vehicles, destroyed the property of multiple businesses, and ignited smaller isolated fires while armed with crowbars, hammers, and asps."
> 
> asps?
> 
> Shit's getting serious, they are going around armed with, likely ISIS allied, venomous Egyptian snakes
> 
> that or extremely toxic caterpillars, a large freshwater fish or the *American Society of Plastic Surgeons*


You mean those that provided face-lifts for the Kardashians? Yep. Shit's definitely getting serious. We should lock them all up just for that. :lol


----------



## MOX

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> And then he spots a fan being a fatass in the crowd. In that moment, his MUH FREE GIBSMEDATS AND DIVERSITY instinct sets in because he sees the fan is on welfare and 1/16th syrian. He hands the fan the chair and gives up his weapon, Therefore, with Sanders having nothing to his name as a result of an objectively inferior ideology, Trump is easily able to overpower the feeble old hippie who gets cuckolded by protesters and can't even defend his right to assembly. Something his own party says he has every right to defend. As a result, Trump wins in a squash.
> 
> Oh wait, was that too real? :trump


:triggered
:chlol


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Larry king has been attacked:

https://twitter.com/kingsthings/status/822525966555566080


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Anark said:


> :triggered
> :chlol


Didn't mean to Trigger you. My bad. :vince


----------



## glenwo2

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Lunatic Fringe said:


>


Hmm...Minorities pull the RACE card.


----------



## the_hound

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

its just soo surreal that linda mcmahons name was mentioned live by the president

wow


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> Larry king has been attacked:
> 
> https://twitter.com/kingsthings/status/822525966555566080


Protesters need to be careful

piss off certain people who usually side with you and you will have to skin a man alive to even be mentioned in the evening news


----------



## glenwo2

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



stevefox1200 said:


> The problem is that unlawful protests create a circle
> 
> *the protester gets arrested and now has "proof" of "fascism" and now must protest even harder
> *
> Some people think that you can't be successful unless you are "hurting" someone to make them pay attention


True but how many protesters want to serve time behind bars, though?

You think they'd want THAT on their resume? You think they want an arrest record?


----------



## glenwo2

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



the_hound said:


> its just soo surreal that linda mcmahons name was mentioned live by the president
> 
> wow


Vince has to be as giddy(if not more) as the time he finally killed WCW(and bought it off). :lol

A McMahon in the U.S. Government. WELCOME TO NEW WORLD ORDER.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



glenwo2 said:


> True but how many protesters want to serve time behind bars, though?
> 
> You think they'd want THAT on their resume? You think they want an arrest record?


A lot of them do

Protesting is an industry now, they make tons from internet donations

You can be a "professional activist" as long as you brand before your heat cools down

Getting locked up is your break through and makes you a real rebel

Look at it this way, in WW2 Stalin preferred to have a large amount of KIA on his side because it made for a better story and made his "struggle" seem more "epic"


----------



## the_hound

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

just think tomorrow is going to have a couple of million bitches marching through the streets moaning about everything in general


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



the_hound said:


> just think tomorrow is going to have a couple of million bitches marching through the streets moaning about everything in general


And how is that any different then it was before the election.



Lunatic Fringe said:


>


Which is stupid since Obama wasn't running and Hilary is white


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



MrMister said:


> I'm serious and this isn't a new idea, but *participation trophies* are partially to blame here.


:applause I've been saying this forever.



ForYourOwnGood said:


> Ah, but when people have become accustomed to rioting and the media has leigitmised this behaviour as "the language of the unheard" or whatever the fuck - wouldn't you agree that a harsh example needs to be made in order to restore order?
> Take these protestors in Washington. Looting, creating anarchy, and all because they lost an election. *If they were to be shot, do you think anyone would try it again? I don't.* I think all this civil disobedience is the result of a complacent government and lberal bias in the media.
> People HAVE to be taught that violence against the state will not be tolerated.


You have a point. If you shoot those mother fuckers dead in the street, they certainly won't try it again. unk2


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Just send these protesters to a "pound me in the ass" prison.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4PJLBHuKJ8 PARADE STREAM. TRUMP NOW HEADED THERE.

Saluting soldiers. so nice!


----------



## Neuron

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*






Trump giving a nod to his hardcore support base.


----------



## SWITCHBLADE

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



the_hound said:


> just think tomorrow is going to have a couple of million bitches marching through the streets moaning about everything in general


So the usual?


----------



## Neuron

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*






A preview of what's to come. Looks like the usual suspects. It's going to be fun to watch even more of these anarcho-LARPers come out at night.


----------



## SWITCHBLADE

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

LOL, here's the full video of that feminazi from earlier!! You can actually pinpoint the second the crushing defeat engulfs her mortal soul!

https://twitter.com/itvnews/status/822514006518853632


----------



## Slickback

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

*WELCOME TO THE TRUMPENREICH*


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

My first exposure to Donald Trump was being the host of #Wrestlemania. As I grew up, I got to see him accomplish many things over the years from real estate mogul to best selling author to some acting including his hit TV show The (Celebrity) Apprentice. And now he's the President! Wow...











All the hard work was worth this moment. Eat shit, Hillary! :lol










#NotMyPresident

- Vic


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

All hail, Melania the FLILF. :sodone
.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

To all protesters

you are not "being smart" if you wear goggles or a wal-mart "gasmask" to protect yourself from tear gas or pepper spray 

The chemicals still burn skin, it takes full protection equipment to stop it if you have not built up a tolerance


----------



## Neuron

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

These shitheads are lighting cars on fire on the stream I'm watching.


----------



## The Bliss Blower

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I hope Trump pulls the United States out of that shithole called the UN


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Neuron said:


> These shitheads are lighting cars on fire on the stream I'm watching.


Seems like a good enough reason to get the sharp shooters


----------



## SWITCHBLADE

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I'M GONNA PROTEST AND IT'S GONNA BE PEACEFUL! YES, I WILL BURN CARS AND ENDANGER OTHERS BUT IT WILL BE PEACEFUL!


Fuck off you regressive douchebags.


----------



## The Bliss Blower

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Neuron said:


> These shitheads are lighting cars on fire on the stream I'm watching.


I was watching some protests on FOX earlier, I was hoping the cops would bash them with shields, I love first amendment rights but that goes out the door as soon as you start being violent.


----------



## the_hound

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

they've been told to get in the cars

if protesters are doing nowt wrong then why are they covering their faces


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



stevefox1200 said:


> A lot of them do
> 
> Protesting is an industry now, they make tons from internet donations
> 
> You can be a "professional activist" as long as you brand before your heat cools down
> 
> Getting locked up is your break through and makes you a real rebel
> 
> Look at it this way, in WW2 Stalin preferred to have a large amount of KIA on his side because it made for a better story and made his "struggle" seem more "epic"


Things like GoFundMe etc are used for nonsense like this. It's utterly retarded, these people need to get a life, not be enabled.

Trump is in! Now get us out of the UN, blow up ISIS, tell the EU to fuck off, give the British a great trade deal, make peace with Russia!


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



the_hound said:


> they've been told to get in the cars
> 
> if protesters are doing nowt wrong then why are they covering their faces


They're full of shit


----------



## SWITCHBLADE

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The Bliss Blower said:


> I was watching some protests on FOX earlier, I was hoping the cops would bash them with shields, I love first amendment rights but that goes out the door as soon as you start being violent.


Which in turn gives the law the right to use the 2nd amendment....


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Scott Baio Now Wants to See Trump Lead an American "Resurgence" . . .

*http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/scott-baio-just-wants-see-trump-lead-an-american-resurgence-966399*


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/822564793856954371
:lol This fucking kid.


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Rainmaka! said:


> Which in turn gives the law the right to use the 2nd amendment....


Private Citizens, too . . . People have been "on their good behavior" with a gun-grabbing Leftist in the White House. 

But, now that Trump is President and the threat of Martial Law keeping Obama in power is gone, folks are likely to respond to violent acts with deadly force. These "thugs" are in for a rude-awakening !


----------



## Headliner

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Lunatic Fringe said:


> Private Citizens, too . . . People have been "on their good behavior" with a gun-grabbing Leftist in the White House.
> 
> But, now that Trump is President and the threat of Martial Law keeping Obama in power is gone, folks are likely to respond to violent acts with deadly force. These "thugs" are in for a rude-awakening !


Define thugs. Who and what.


----------



## The Bliss Blower

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Rainmaka! said:


> Which in turn gives the law the right to use the 2nd amendment....


yup, they are risking the lives of many in Washington DC, some of them need to be put down to ensure the safety of others


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*










*BASED!*


----------



## The Bliss Blower

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/822564793856954371
> :lol This fucking kid.


this kid probably wants to play minecraft after a long day lol.


----------



## amhlilhaus

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



virus21 said:


> Just send these protesters to a "pound me in the ass" prison.


That wouldnt bother them one bit

I give trump credit, he called out the corrupt incompetent government

Kept to his talking points

If he builds the wall, effectively reaches out to african americans and hispanics, and gets growth up to 4 % the dems are toast in 2020


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



amhlilhaus said:


> That wouldnt bother them one bit


As pussified as these bastards probably are, Im sure it actually will.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

TFW you see that trump has Saluted near every passing group...

feels good man :trump3


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Headliner said:


> Define thugs. Who and what.


Here are some examples . . . Let their actions "define " them . . . Note that the victims and perpretrators come in all colors !

These "Thugs" deserve what will be coming to them . . .


----------



## Alco

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> Things like GoFundMe etc are used for nonsense like this. It's utterly retarded, these people need to get a life, not be enabled.
> 
> Trump is in! Now get us *out of the UN*, blow up ISIS, tell the EU to fuck off, give the British a great trade deal, make peace with Russia!


That's what I would define as a bad idea.

Also the EU is your largest trading partner, so telling us to fuck off may not be as awesome either. :hmm:


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Alco said:


> That's what I would define as a bad idea.
> 
> Also the EU is your largest trading partner, so telling us to fuck off may not be as awesome either. :hmm:


Why? The UN is a corrupt organization that has been involved with some vile atrocities and crimes. They need to be disbanded on that alone, let alone the fact that globalisation is just a bad idea.


----------



## Headliner

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Lunatic Fringe said:


> Here are some examples . . . Let their actions "define " them . . . Note that the victims and perpretrators come in all colors !
> 
> These "Thugs" deserve what will be coming to them . . .


Nice videos. Straight from your viewpoint.

Question, are those who riot against Trump induced White Nationalism marches "thugs" too?


----------



## Simpsons Modern Life

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Lunatic Fringe said:


> Here are some examples . . . Let their actions "define " them . . . Note that the victims and perpretrators come in all colors !
> 
> These "Thugs" deserve what will be coming to them . . .


I don't want to get too much into this debate cause honestly, I don't know enough about politics to be honest and I think it's all a sham anyway, however in regards to this, I think you have two different types of people here and that's those who protest and feel passionate about it and those who protest, but really use it as an excuse for this terrible behaviour, I don't think they should be grouped into one (not saying you are personally), but I think they should be completely separated, no matter which side are acting this way or attacking which side, but I think those who did that, are completely different to those who are protesting because they really care and with passion, some people use these things as a niche to get away with terrible behaviour and that's what I think it is sometimes.

It's like in the UK a few years ago when they had all these riots, I forget what it was for but people were smashing shop windows and raiding the shops and things and there was no need for it, you know there was a handful of those people who didn't care what the protest was about, but they wanted to use it as an advantage to get some free trainers, a free TV or whatever, they saw it as an opportunity to be arseholes basically and I think it's the same here, two completely different kettles of fish.

I was talking to someone earlier about all this too, and I was saying how I don't think it's fair for me, or anyone, to criticise people's feelings on this because it's clearly intense over there and that's there for a reason, what I mean is like, I'm hearing people say that those who are protesting should just shut up now and let him do his job, see if he proves himself, because he has got a lot to prove, but to deal with it basically, however I said to her it's easy for us to say that because we're not there, effected by it or feeling the atmosphere from it, some have said a lot of it is sheep and people jumping on the bandwagon, but I explained I think it's deeper than that and too deep for it, people obviously feel this way for a reason and strongly about it too, I think that's what it is that everything is so intense that these things, which aren't right really, but these things are happening where the public are going at war with each other, that's one thing this election does seem to have caused, which I've not known of happen before, admittedly, I'm not clued up on history and politics, but that's also one thing I have noticed about this.

Another thing also that was brought up, which feel free to say how you feel in regards to this, as it was just something that was mentioned to me but this whole Trump election thing has outed that there are still a lot of racist, or sexist or bigot type people in the states that have obviously agree'd with his ways or certain things, depending on what we think personally to them, but what I mean is, he's got the vote from those people too, which shows there is a problem there in America with this, which does make you think really, are there a lot of closet people over there more than we know, I have no idea, you get that everywhere anyway, so it's not a specific thing to America, but just in regards to this, it seems to have outed or highlighted that problem as I'm sure he got a lot of the votes from that audience too, if you get what I mean.

It's such a difficult situation really and I think people are passionate for a reason, I'm not sure if he's divided the country or what, I get people's upset and concerns too and I've seen many things, such as him dismissing certain people, surely the professional thing to do would be to answer the questions people want to know, regardless of what you think to them personally, such as the CNN thing for example, and that doesn't do him any favours with people think has he got something to hide or something, which maybe he hasn't, but I can understand people's concerns.

I really hope he proves people wrong and turns a lot of things around, and all this persona he's put on is just bravado, I have no idea, we just have to see but I do care about the American people and I do truly hope that they are happy with this further down the line and that they realise it doesn't turn out to be as bad as they thought, I think a lot of it is fear and worry at the moment, which obviously you want security in the person running your country, not the opposite.

But yeah, I hear ya, however that's just my feelings on it, as an outside of course, so I realise there may be a lot of things I'm missing or don't understand too, however it's just the vibe that I get really here


----------



## SWITCHBLADE

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Alco said:


> That's what I would define as a bad idea.
> 
> Also the EU is your largest trading partner, so telling us to fuck off may not be as awesome either. :hmm:


The EU needs US DOLLARS more than the USA needs EU "schlock" . . . 

A strong economic relationship with Britain & Russia makes the EU "unnecessary", for the most part, and China will still sell to everyone, especially since they wouldn't want to lose Wal-Mart as a customer !


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Rainmaka! said:


>


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> Larry king has been attacked:
> 
> https://twitter.com/kingsthings/status/822525966555566080


Are you serious? fpalm.

Larry King is about as liberal as you are going to find. These people are literally morons.



Beatles123 said:


> LOL, here's the full video of that feminazi from earlier!! You can actually pinpoint the second the crushing defeat engulfs her mortal soul!
> 
> https://twitter.com/itvnews/status/822514006518853632


:lmao God I'm not a Trump supporter but seeing the SJW meltdowns are glorious.

Reminds me of this:






Play them along side each other :lmao.


Anyway, I was at work during the inauguration but I just watched the speech now and I thought it was actually a really good speech. Some definitely encouraging things in there from both a US and outside perspective. I have some optimism that some good will come out of a Trump presidency. At the same time though, I am also very skeptical about some elements of the Trump administration.

But let's see what happens, I am routing for Trump to do well and to live up to what he is promising at the very least :trump.

Finally:


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



L-DOPA said:


> Are you serious? fpalm.
> 
> Larry King is about as liberal as you are going to find. These people are literally morons.
> 
> 
> 
> :lmao God I'm not a Trump supporter but seeing the SJW meltdowns are glorious.
> 
> Reminds me of this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Play them along side each other :lmao.
> 
> 
> Anyway, I was at work during the inauguration but I just watched the speech now and I thought it was actually a really good speech. Some definitely encouraging things in there from both a US and outside perspective. I have some optimism that some good will come out of a Trump presidency. At the same time though, I am also very skeptical about some elements of the Trump administration.
> 
> But let's see what happens, I am routing for Trump to do well and to live up to what he is promising at the very least :trump.
> 
> Finally:


Ray Gun, T and Blaire? That's a pretty good lineup, interestingly enough they're all part of different political stances, T is an anarcho-capitalist, Blaire is a centrist but Right leaning and Ray is a Liberal.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Well, i don't care for Trump and I will be glad when this next week is over, all this chaos tires me out

I'll be optimistic 

Also Mattis is one of the most Iron-clad motherfuckers to ever hold a government position, and its fucking awesome 



> “I come in peace. I didn’t bring artillery. But I’m pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, I’ll kill you all.”
> 
> “The most important six inches on the battlefield is between your ears.”
> 
> “No war is over until the enemy says it’s over. We may think it over, we may declare it over, but in fact, the enemy gets a vote.”
> 
> "If in order to kill the enemy you have to kill an innocent, don't take the shot. Don't create more enemies than you take out by some immoral act."
> 
> “There is nothing better than getting shot at and missed. It’s really great.”
> 
> “I’m going to plead with you, do not cross us. Because if you do, the survivors will write about what we do here for 10,000 years.”


HE SAID ALL THAT SHIT, AND HE IS CALLED "MAD-DOG" 

HE IS MOST BADASS MOTHERFUCKER TO SIT IN THAT CHAIR

CONGRESSMEN BURST INTO FLAMES WHEN HE WALKS INTO THE ROOM


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> Ray Gun, T and Blaire? That's a pretty good lineup, interestingly enough they're all part of different political stances, T is an anarcho-capitalist, Blaire is a centrist but Right leaning and Ray is a Liberal.


See, Trump brings everyone together.


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

To all the Millennial "Snowflakes" out there . . . Whatcha gonna do when "Trumpamania" runs wild over you ?


----------



## Mifune Jackson

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> Ray Gun, T and Blaire? That's a pretty good lineup, interestingly enough they're all part of different political stances, T is an anarcho-capitalist, Blaire is a centrist but Right leaning and Ray is a Liberal.


Rubin Report is one of my favorite YouTube channels at the moment. I see so much insanity on both sides, but he actually has rational discussions with people on all sides and no one has any delusions that they're solving the world's problems.


----------



## SWITCHBLADE

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> Ray Gun, T and Blaire? That's a pretty good lineup, interestingly enough they're all part of different political stances, T is an anarcho-capitalist, Blaire is a centrist but Right leaning and Ray is a Liberal.


And Rubin is a liberal. Can't wait to watch it later on tonight.


----------



## Café de René

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Rainmaka! said:


>


Liberals have basically turned into North Koreans at this point.


----------



## SWITCHBLADE

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Café de René said:


> Liberals have basically turned into North Koreans at this point.


THAT'S MEAN! Don't kick North Koreans while they're down like that!


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



stevefox1200 said:


> Also Mattis is one of the most Iron-clad motherfuckers to ever hold a government position, and its fucking awesome
> 
> 
> 
> HE SAID ALL THAT SHIT, AND HE IS CALLED "MAD-DOG"
> 
> HE IS MOST BADASS MOTHERFUCKER TO SIT IN THAT CHAIR
> 
> CONGRESSMEN BURST INTO FLAMES WHEN HE WALKS INTO THE ROOM


Only George Patton would have edged him out . . .


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



stevefox1200 said:


> Well, i don't care for Trump and I will be glad when this next week is over, all this chaos tires me out
> 
> I'll be optimistic
> 
> Also Mattis is one of the most Iron-clad motherfuckers to ever hold a government position, and its fucking awesome
> 
> 
> 
> HE SAID ALL THAT SHIT, AND HE IS CALLED "MAD-DOG"
> 
> HE IS MOST BADASS MOTHERFUCKER TO SIT IN THAT CHAIR
> 
> CONGRESSMEN BURST INTO FLAMES WHEN HE WALKS INTO THE ROOM


Sounds like my kind of guy


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*






If you want to see an example of the insanity of anti-Trump protestors, look no further than this video.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



virus21 said:


> Sounds like my kind of guy


Even the Democrats like Mattis, they see him as the "rational view from the ground" type man that Trump's other picks lack

He will likely have to act as a middle man between the cabinet, the mainstream Republicans and democrats, a job he will likely despise but you gotta do what you gotta

The only sticky thing about him is he hates Islamic terrorists with a burning passion which means ISIS is going to lit up hard


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Rainmaka! said:


> And Rubin is a liberal. Can't wait to watch it later on tonight.


I was about to mention this about rubin, what's interesting is his lineup with him included are people who actually have people from all political leanings listening and having a conversation. We need more people like this.


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## The Bliss Blower

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

This will be a good 8 years for America.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

The Child Emperor Barron Trump looks just like his father, @CamillePunk. Eerily awesome. :lol 

Mattis is an awesome continuation of the "warrior monk" staple of history and he boasts an eclectic library. Follows an American tradition of great fighters also being men of letters like Robert E. Lee, George S. Patton, Herbert Norman Schwarzkopf, et. al. His advice about having a plan to kill every person you meet speaks to the callousness required for his role. Neither beset by unnecessary guilt over his occupation of destroying enemies, nor having any delusional grand notions of it, he seems to truly possess the right balance for Secretary of Defense.

Rioters who have given themselves the label "antifa" behaving just like fascists setting things on fire and breaking store windows. "Fascists would never do THIS!" :lmao Almost perversely hilarious.


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

BADASS MATTIS FACTS

1. Before he was "mad dog" he was known as the "warrior monk" for moving his 70,000 book libary from post to post and always carrying a copy of "Meditations of Marcus Aurelius" everywhere he went

2. Mattis wrote the current US counter insurgency field manual 

3. Mattis has said “You cannot allow any of your people to avoid the brutal facts. If they start living in a dream world, it's going to be bad.” and is well known for letting his people know the "dirty truth" for better assessing

4. Mattis is the highest ranking military member to ever be SOD

5. Mattis favors a two-state solution for Israel and thinks the all or nothing mindset is fucking up the region 

6. Mattis was voted in by the Senate in a 98-1 vote with one abstaining due to being part of Trumps cabinet, the one no was from a New York senator who does not believe a military man should be SOD

7. When Mattis jacks-off the earth moves to better suit his pleasure


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



stevefox1200 said:


> BADASS MATTIS FACTS
> 
> 1. Before he was "mad dog" he was known as the "warrior monk" for moving his 70,000 book libary from post to post and always carrying a copy of "Meditations of Marcus Aurelius" everywhere he went
> 
> 2. Mattis wrote the current US counter insurgency field manual
> 
> 3. Mattis has said “You cannot allow any of your people to avoid the brutal facts. If they start living in a dream world, it's going to be bad.” and is well known for letting his people know the "dirty truth" for better assessing
> 
> 4. Mattis is the highest ranking military member to ever be SOD
> 
> 5. Mattis favors a two-state solution for Israel and thinks the all or nothing mindset is fucking up the region
> 
> 6. Mattis was vetoing in Senate in a 98-1 vote with one abstaining due to being part of Trumps cabinet, the one no was from a New York senator who does not believe a military man should be SOD
> 
> 7. When Mattis jacks-off the earth moves to better suit his pleasure


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*






(the channel has a right wing lean buts its the most compact clip I could find)

A senator desperately tries to paint Mattis as a homophobe or sexist and fails massively to the point the moderator tells her to STFU


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



DesolationRow said:


> The Child Emperor Barron Trump looks just like his father, @CamillePunk. Eerily awesome. :lol
> 
> Mattis is an awesome continuation of the "warrior monk" staple of history and he boasts an eclectic library. Follows an American tradition of great fighters also being men of letters like Robert E. Lee, George S. Patton, Herbert Norman Schwarzkopf, et. al. His advice about having a plan to kill every person you meet speaks to the callousness required for his role. Neither beset by unnecessary guilt over his occupation of destroying enemies, nor having any delusional grand notions of it, he seems to truly possess the right balance for Secretary of Defense.
> 
> Rioters who have given themselves the label "antifa" behaving just like fascists setting things on fire and breaking store windows. "Fascists would never do THIS!" :lmao Almost perversely hilarious.


Someone should tell them about kristallnacht since they're so keen to bring up nazis in just about any convo.


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Lunatic Fringe said:


> a gun-grabbing Leftist in the White House.


:ha

On day full of special snowflakes going full retard, this somehow managed to top it. My biggest takeaway from the day is the undeniable proof that most Americans live in a delusional fantasy land. A center right corportist like Obama is considered a leftist by right wing lunatics who are still clutching their guns that were never taken from them even though the "gun-grabbing Leftist" isn't even in office anymore. The useless liberal class are clutching their pearls like Satan himself has just ascended to the throne and clinging to the delusion that Obama was a leftist and their ally, while he spent most of his presidency bombing brown people and fucking over the working class so Wall Street could continue their massive fraud against the American citizen. These same useless liberals that fear Trump for being Hitler incarnate are conveniently ignoring the fact that their own false god Clinton wanted to start a war with Russia and would have been picking from the same group of swamp monsters for her cabinet had she been elected. The most hilarious part of it all is seeing all the RWNJs dancing on quicksand without the slightest fucking clue that their anti-establishment hero is going to end up being the most establishment president of all time. Perhaps the most depressing part is all the blatant partisan hackery. Righties hate Obama and liberals hate Trump and neither side seems to realize that no matter which party is in the WH, the deep state and the oligarchy will continue right on steaming along without giving a fuck about us peons. It would be unfair to say shit is about to get real bad under Trump without pointing out that shit was already bad under Obama and the USA will not be changing course just because a different oligarchic puppet has parked his ass inside the Oval Office. All the RWNJs who are under the mistaken belief that Trump has their best interests at heart are going to be in for just as big a shock as all the libtards who believed in Obama's hope and change 8 years ago. America, you've been fooled again.

_There's nothing in the street.
Looks any different to me.
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye.
And the parting on the left.
Is now the parting on the right.
And the beards have all grown longer overnight.

Meet the new boss.
Same as the old boss._


----------



## Mifune Jackson

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> _There's nothing in the street.
> Looks any different to me.
> And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye.
> And the parting on the left.
> Is now the parting on the right.
> And the beards have all grown longer overnight.
> 
> Meet the new boss.
> Same as the old boss._







_It's a President Trump
It's a President Trump, it's a put on_


----------



## Oxidamus

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

These disgusting "anti-fascists" and "anarchists" gloating about a so-called Neo Nazi being punched in the face during an interview. :sodone
I hear Richard Spencer is an absolute twat, and a horrible person, but for fuck sake.


----------



## SWITCHBLADE

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/822604332277362688
I genuinely feel a little sorry for Bill right about now. Not much. But a little. :lmao


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/822604332277362688
> I genuinely feel a little sorry for Bill right about now. Not much. But a little. :lmao


Christ, Bill looks like he's being possessed


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

This has been the most solemn coverage of a US presidential inauguration from my state-backed news channel since it started covering them from Bush vs Gore. Even when Bush was re-elected with his deep unpopularity in the region, there were some silver lining in his administration's business friendly outlook and stability. For Trump they even invited a Republican talking head and even she was grasping at straws trying hard to spin Trump into a positive. It felt symbolic that it started to rain during the inauguration. At least I learnt a fun trivial that Presidents are to be sworn in by mid-day so Trump was pushing it at the last minute due to the weather. Even the weather couldn't stop :trump I guess. :lol

But his speech....American carnage? Ravages of other countries? Protected by God? You could sub in any comic book/movie villain with Trump and their speech sound awfully similar. Ugh.


----------



## Slickback

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*











You can tell Bill was thinking "Fuck off Hillary" while checking out dat ass


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Oh, PLEASE, PLEASE let this be TRUE !!!


----------



## Headliner

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Oxi X.O. said:


> These disgusting "anti-fascists" and "anarchists" gloating about a so-called Neo Nazi being punched in the face during an interview. :sodone
> I hear Richard Spencer is an absolute twat, and a horrible person, but for fuck sake.


I'm a peaceful person but I'm glad he got punched in the face.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/806308710217826304


----------



## Oxidamus

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Headliner said:


> I'm a peaceful person but I'm glad he got punched in the face.


You shouldn't be. When people are assaulted - verbally or (moreso) physically - they gain the moral high ground. Something a lot of liberals need to realise and stop doing if they don't want shit like this happening.


----------



## Headliner

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Oxi X.O. said:


> You shouldn't be. When people are assaulted - verbally or (moreso) physically - they gain the moral high ground. Something a lot of liberals need to realise and stop doing if they don't want shit like this happening.


....................Nah. You pop shit, you get popped.


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Oxi X.O. said:


> When people are assaulted - verbally or (moreso) physically - they gain the moral high ground. Something a lot of liberals need to realise and stop doing if they don't want shit like this happening.


But, if that happened, Liberals would have nothing to say . . . That's a GREAT IDEA !!!


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

i think violence is easily the best option.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Poor Michelle.


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I missed Trump's speech at his Inauguration while being at work. Will have to give it a listen sometime this weekend when I find time. I did manage to watch the parade commence and I watched coverage of that and thoroughly enjoyed the commentary that went alongside it. Did I mention that I watched this on MSNBC? The *SALT *was incredible, and I was cracking up from time to time listening to Rachel Maddow and her distressed madness. You could tell how much they were all hoping that Trump would stay in his limo so they could slam him for not getting out and walking. And when the procession did stop and he got out, you could almost hear the defeat in their voices that they lost a chance at something. My favorite moment though, was at the point she described Trump's speech as "dark and apocalyptic". :lmao

I only want to listen to it that much more now. :lmao


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Headliner said:


> ....................Nah. You pop shit, you get popped.


I agree with you on this, now someone needs to pop Don Lemon.


----------



## SWITCHBLADE

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Pratchett said:


> I missed Trump's speech at his Inauguration while being at work. Will have to give it a listen sometime this weekend when I find time. I did manage to watch the parade commence and I watched coverage of that and thoroughly enjoyed the commentary that went alongside it. Did I mention that I watched this on MSNBC? The *SALT *was incredible, and I was cracking up from time to time listening to Rachel Maddow and her distressed madness. You could tell how much they were all hoping that Trump would stay in his limo so they could slam him for not getting out and walking. And when the procession did stop and he got out, you could almost hear the defeat in their voices that they lost a chance at something. My favorite moment though, was at the point she described Trump's speech as "dark and apocalyptic". :lmao
> 
> I only want to listen to it that much more now. :lmao


Mark Dice was talking about it and it was so hilarious! :lmao I think one of their words was "HITLARIAN!"


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I like Obama, but lol


----------



## Klorel

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

So many people calling for his impeachment already lol.

Congress is republican controlled, only way Trump is ever getting impeached is if he murders someone.


----------



## 3ku1

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Trumps not getting impeached. But for the non trump supporters.They had to be dashed by his ultranationalist speach. Alot of what he said is true, but Trump said it, so its not true. Well he has Four Years, let's see what happens huh. I am a kiwi but this is a global thing. Because decisions Trump makes imapacts Global Decisions. Case in point, over here when it comes to Trade. Trump may stop Trade with Asia. Alot of our Export comes from Asia. So yeah. But yeah congress is republican controller, so that ain't happening.


----------



## SWITCHBLADE

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

top kek

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/822520253024530441


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*






:lmao


----------



## Neuron

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Goku said:


> :lmao


Did these people completely forget the point of a nation state?


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Neuron said:


> Did these people completely forget the point of a nation state?


They worship at the church of Globalism, so they are against the concept of a nation state


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Goku said:


> :lmao


It's called Trump Derangement Syndrome. These people have a mental condition. Not cool of you to poke fun tbh.


----------



## Mra22

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

I'm so proud to be an American and it's starting to feel like America again. Obama put Muslim's first, Trump is putting America first. I also loved how he allowed people to mention JESUS at the inauguration and Trump's speech was awesome.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> It's called Trump Derangement Syndrome. These people have a mental condition. Not cool of you to poke fun tbh.


yes, TDS, I've heard about it :lenny2


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/822583043781234688
:lmao


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



3ku1 said:


> Trumps not getting impeached. But for the non trump supporters.They had to be dashed by his ultranationalist speach. Alot of what he said is true, but Trump said it, so its not true. Well he has Four Years, let's see what happens huh. I am a kiwi but this is a global thing. Because decisions Trump makes imapacts Global Decisions. Case in point, over here when it comes to Trade. Trump may stop Trade with Asia. Alot of our Export comes from Asia. So yeah. But yeah congress is republican controller, so that ain't happening.


That's the thing, Americans have their congress to limit Trump's domestic decisions. Foreign policies that don't directly impact America not so much. That's why Obama was able to get many foreign policy agenda passed even though Republican controlled congress was losing their shit over him every day.

We are in for a bumpy ride the next 4 years. Maybe you Kiwis need to learn Chinese even more now.


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/822583043781234688
> :lmao


Dear lord that is the best promo I have heard in a long time! So hyped for his debut! :mark:


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

What's the best way to hurt a man? Destroy his legacy. 










#Nobama

- Vic


----------



## SWITCHBLADE

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/822583043781234688
> :lmao


Jones vs. Lesnar vs. Goldberg at Mania. BOOK THAT SHIT VINCE!


----------



## glenwo2

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Neuron said:


> A preview of what's to come. Looks like the usual suspects. It's going to be fun to watch even more of these anarcho-LARPers come out at night.


Didn't even watch the video but judging from the vid-cap picture, the statement "What a DORK!" comes to mind.


----------



## glenwo2

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



stevefox1200 said:


> To all protesters
> 
> you are not "being smart" if you wear goggles or a wal-mart "gasmask" to protect yourself from tear gas or pepper spray
> 
> The chemicals still burn skin, it takes full protection equipment to stop it if you have not built up a tolerance


Why do I feel like you're speaking from experience? :lol


----------



## glenwo2

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Lunatic Fringe said:


> Scott Baio Now Wants to See Trump Lead an American "Resurgence" . . .
> 
> *http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/scott-baio-just-wants-see-trump-lead-an-american-resurgence-966399*


So Charles was in Charge and now Trump is in Charge. :wink2:



(I wonder how many here will get the reference?)


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



glenwo2 said:


> Why do I feel like you're speaking from experience? :lol


He might be military, they expose soldiers to gas and stuff, at least they used to. My History teacher was ex army.


----------



## SWITCHBLADE

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

CNN and MSNBC out of the White House, Breitbart and Info Wars in. Crazy times ahead.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*






Everybody, thank Dave. :lol

- Vic


----------



## glenwo2

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Lunatic Fringe said:


>


The fucking media tears taste so delicious. :trump :trump :trump


----------



## SWITCHBLADE

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

>TFW you're fake news


----------



## glenwo2

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Machiavelli said:


> You can tell Bill was thinking "Fuck off Hillary" while checking out dat ass


Bubba has and always will be a playah... :lol


----------



## Neuron

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



glenwo2 said:


> Didn't even watch the video but judging from the vid-cap picture, the statement "What a DORK!" comes to mind.


He was the guy that streamed everything. He does suffer from an unfortunate case of cuckface, though. Poor guy.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Klorel said:


> So many people calling for his impeachment already lol.
> 
> Congress is republican controlled, only way Trump is ever getting impeached is if he murders someone.


I really wouldn't be so confident about this. There are a lot of establishment Republicans who despise Trump and would very much like to have Pence in charge instead. I remember back when Trump won the nomination, many were pointing out that Trump should pick a VP who even more despised by the establishment than he is, just so they wouldn't be tempted to impeach him. :lol

It's pretty much a given that Trump is already in violation of the Constitution. I'm sure the establishment Republicans will give him a little time to see how things are going but if he continues pissing them off, I can totally see them trying to impeach him to install their guy Pence.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*






America. FUCK YEAH!

- Vic


----------



## The5star_Kid

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

so lets see how many of the promises Trump made to his electorate will be backed up. He already has backed away from a wall to a fence and one Mexico will not pay for lol 

This will be an entertaining Presidency, even if it is suicidal to the American agenda.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Rainmaka! said:


>





Goku said:


> :lmao


These people :lmao. The leftist triggering is delicious.



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/822583043781234688
> :lmao


:lmao :lmao :lmao

Man I love Alex when he gets hyped.



Rainmaka! said:


> >TFW you're fake news


Glorious.


----------



## Seb

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Will be nice to have a president that doesn't have contempt for the UK again.

Churchill bust already back in the Whitehouse.

Good job Murican's :trump


----------



## Beatles123

The5star_Kid said:


> so lets see how many of the promises Trump made to his electorate will be backed up. He already has backed away from a wall to a fence and one Mexico will not pay for lol
> 
> This will be an entertaining Presidency, even if it is suicidal to the American agenda.


Every word you said is false.



Tater said:


> :ha
> 
> On day full of special snowflakes going full retard, this somehow managed to top it. My biggest takeaway from the day is the undeniable proof that most Americans live in a delusional fantasy land. A center right corportist like Obama is considered a leftist by right wing lunatics who are still clutching their guns that were never taken from them even though the "gun-grabbing Leftist" isn't even in office anymore. The useless liberal class are clutching their pearls like Satan himself has just ascended to the throne and clinging to the delusion that Obama was a leftist and their ally, while he spent most of his presidency bombing brown people and fucking over the working class so Wall Street could continue their massive fraud against the American citizen. These same useless liberals that fear Trump for being Hitler incarnate are conveniently ignoring the fact that their own false god Clinton wanted to start a war with Russia and would have been picking from the same group of swamp monsters for her cabinet had she been elected. The most hilarious part of it all is seeing all the RWNJs dancing on quicksand without the slightest fucking clue that their anti-establishment hero is going to end up being the most establishment president of all time. Perhaps the most depressing part is all the blatant partisan hackery. Righties hate Obama and liberals hate Trump and neither side seems to realize that no matter which party is in the WH, the deep state and the oligarchy will continue right on steaming along without giving a fuck about us peons. It would be unfair to say shit is about to get real bad under Trump without pointing out that shit was already bad under Obama and the USA will not be changing course just because a different oligarchic puppet has parked his ass inside the Oval Office. All the RWNJs who are under the mistaken belief that Trump has their best interests at heart are going to be in for just as big a shock as all the libtards who believed in Obama's hope and change 8 years ago. America, you've been fooled again.
> 
> _There's nothing in the street.
> Looks any different to me.
> And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye.
> And the parting on the left.
> Is now the parting on the right.
> And the beards have all grown longer overnight.
> 
> Meet the new boss.
> Same as the old boss._


First of all, Never use The Who for evil, thank you. :nerd:

Second, I don't know why you'd think we'll be outraged. He's already repealing Obama's laws, is confirmed to already have building plans for the wall, AND is exposing the regressive left on a national level.

He's already doing what I voted him in to do.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> AND is exposing the regressive left on a national level.


Can't say I'm not enjoying the shit out of this part.

:trump3


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Even as one of the most anti-Trump poster here, I'll say one thing. His olive branch nominees to establishment Republicans are pretty horrible. Elaine Chao, Betsy DeVos and Ben Carson are laughably bad picks. At least with Trump being at the head more people won't be giving them as easy a pass as compared to if Rubio or Jeb won the presidency.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

what's wrong with betsy?


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*










FEELS

GOOD

MAN


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

So there was a shooting at a Milo event last night.


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

glenwo2 said:


> So Charles was in Charge and now Trump is in Charge. :wink2:
> 
> (I wonder how many here will get the reference?)


I only watched a few episodes of "Charlies in Charge", back in the 1980's. The show didn't hold my interest, as I'm not a fan of Sitcom TV shows.



glenwo2 said:


> The fucking media tears taste so delicious. :trump :trump :trump


All the tears of the Left are !


----------



## KingCosmos

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

:kobelol at anyone thinking things will change. Lol at least the illusion makes some people in the thread feel good. Same shit every 4 years the people are fed lies and they believe America will get better. Bless your hearts. The American people will always be sheep I guess.


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> A center right corportist like Obama is considered a leftist by right wing lunatics who are still clutching their guns that were never taken from them even though the "gun-grabbing Leftist" isn't even in office anymore.


.

ALL Democrats are Leftists and ALL Centrist Republicans might as well be Leftists, as far as I'm concerned . . .

As for guns, they are being "clutched" to keep them from being taken away and to be prepared to use them, if necessary !

ALL of the Left are "gun-grabbers", no matter WHO is President.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Jeez, the left is really stretching to make Trump look as bad as possible. You'd think these analysts were psychiatrists with the way they break down every line from his speech . Calm the fuck down people


----------



## Beatles123

KingCosmos said:


> :kobelol at anyone thinking things will change. Lol at least the illusion makes some people in the thread feel good. Same shit every 4 years the people are fed lies and they believe America will get better. Bless your hearts. The American people will always be sheep I guess.


Lol at MUH EDGY CONTRARIAN VIEWS TO POLITICS Meme



Carte Blanche said:


> So there was a shooting at a Milo event last night.


Milo is a Godsend. He is a literal anti-left Supersoldier. Based powerbottom :grin2:


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Man, you guys need to learn how to multi-quote.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Oda Nobunaga said:


> Man, you guys need to learn how to multi-quote.


Its not my fault the thread is so high energy it moves too fast :trump3


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



KingCosmos said:


> :kobelol at anyone thinking things will change. Lol at least the illusion makes some people in the thread feel good. Same shit every 4 years the people are fed lies and they believe America will get better. Bless your hearts. The American people will always be sheep I guess.


If nothing will change why were you in this thread in the beginning crying and complaining about Trump?If you really believed that you wouldn't have been talking about white conspiracies etc.



Stinger Fan said:


> Jeez, the left is really stretching to make Trump look as bad as possible. You'd think these analysts were psychiatrists with the way they break down every line from his speech . Calm the fuck down people


It didn't matter what he said, if Trump said the sky was blue, drinking water was healthy and love is the best feeling ever as his speech they'd be talking about how he's not addressing the issues etc. They will never be happy, even if it benefits them simply because it's Trump.


----------



## KingCosmos

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> If nothing will change why were you in this thread in the beginning crying and complaining about Trump?If you really believed that you wouldn't have been talking about white conspiracies etc.
> 
> 
> 
> It didn't matter what he said, if Trump said the sky was blue, drinking water was healthy and love is the best feeling ever as his speech they'd be talking about how he's not addressing the issues etc. They will never be happy, even if it benefits them simply because it's Trump.


Because i find this thread entertaining and hilarious with the right and the left both looking like idiots. And i criticized both Hilary and Trump both are horrible but i guess you are so blind you ignored those post and picked to remember what you wanted. The only reason I have talked about Trump more is because obviously he won. If Hilary won i would've have talked about her and her exploitation of the people of Haiti. And with you saying "Conspiracies" i wouldn't except you to understand anything i say anyways. Yes the condition of Race in America is just a conspiracy. Yes the fact that Trump has proven case of housing discrimination is just a conspiracy, i'm completely making it up. You choose to ignore it to make yourself feel better but it's ok.



Beatles123 said:


> Lol at MUH EDGY CONTRARIAN VIEWS TO POLITICS Meme


Not edgy to realize the Country has been bad for awhile. But of course what can i expect from someone who mocks and picks not to address the issues. I should expect this from you tho since you felt like you achieved something in life because you voted. I still remember laughing at that post.


----------



## Push_Miz

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Congratulations America , i hope Trump brings a better future for all the Americans and help stabilise the middle east , greetings from Italia .


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



KingCosmos said:


> Because i find this thread entertaining and hilarious with the right and the left both looking like idiots. And i criticized both Hilary and Trump both are horrible but i guess you are so blind you ignored those post and picked to remember what you wanted. The only reason I have talked about Trump more is because obviously he won. And with you saying "Conspiracies" i wouldn't except you to understand anything i say anyways. Yes the condition of Race in America is just a conspiracy.
> 
> 
> 
> Not edgy to realize the Country has been bad for awhile. But of course what can i expect from someone who mocks and picks not to address the issues. I should expect this from you tho since you felt like you achieved something in life because you voted. I still remember laughing at that post.


Im sure you did. That's okay, cause i'm doing plenty of laughing these days myself.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*










Can you guess what this is?

It's Trump ending ObamaCare.

Promise 1 fulfilled.


----------



## KingCosmos

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> Lol at MUH EDGY CONTRARIAN VIEWS TO POLITICS Meme
> 
> Milo is a Godsend. He is a literal anti-left Supersoldier. Based powerbottom :grin2:





Beatles123 said:


> Im sure you did. That's okay, cause i'm doing plenty of laughing these days myself.


That's good for you. You found some type of fulfillment. Now maybe if Americans can come together instead of laughing at each other or the SJW'S being annoying and the Trump supporters being snarky screaming names like cuck and thinking they somehow beat the media we'd get somewhere. But all i see is people divided with a "haha i won you lost" mentality or a "not my president the world is ending mentality"


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



KingCosmos said:


> That's good for you. You found some type of fulfillment. Now maybe if Americans can come together instead of laughing at each other or the SJW'S being annoying and the Trump supporters being snarky screaming names like cuck and thinking they somehow beat the media we'd get somewhere. But all i see is people divided with a "haha i won you lost" mentality or a "not my president the world is ending mentality"


Im looking for Trump to do what I voted for him to do, not make everyone on both sides happy which is a virtual impossibility. He's going to piss people off and as far as i'm concerned those people can eat it. You're right: People don't want peace. They want victory. In all honesty Trump is more lenient to the left than I even want him to be. Not that they will acknowledge his lenience. 

I want strong borders and a tough stance on terror. I can't help it if that pisses random tumblr Xe' #8675309 off.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



KingCosmos said:


> Because i find this thread entertaining and hilarious with the right and the left both looking like idiots. And i criticized both Hilary and Trump both are horrible but i guess you are so blind you ignored those post and picked to remember what you wanted. The only reason I have talked about Trump more is because obviously he won. If Hilary won i would've have talked about her and her exploitation of the people of Haiti. And with you saying "Conspiracies" i wouldn't except you to understand anything i say anyways. Yes the condition of Race in America is just a conspiracy. Yes the fact that Trump has proven case of housing discrimination is just a conspiracy, i'm completely making it up. You choose to ignore it to make yourself feel better but it's ok.


If you said anything about hillary than I missed it. So that if you did give balanced opinion on both then I apologize for that. 

That being said your racial conspiracy theories are so over the top they may as well be about Lizard men. Your bias seeps through and makes your discussion about it seem like a manifesto of misinformation and your own conjecture. You're not talking about anything that's hard to grasp, you're just simply for the most part wrong.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Lunatic Fringe said:


> ALL Democrats are Leftists and ALL Centrist Republicans might as well be Leftists, as far as I'm concerned . . .


Congratulations. You are one of the brainwashed American sheep that the oligarchy loves so much. Capitalism is right wing and even the "far leftist" Bernie Sanders isn't much more than a centrist by international standards. He certainly never questions capitalism itself. The entire political spectrum in the USA exists on the right side of the spectrum. Democrats now are what we used to call moderate Republicans. Today's moderate Republicans are right wing lunatics themselves. Tea-partiers are further to the right of actual right wing lunatics. The fact that Americans believe that Democrats are anything even remotely resembling a left wing party is due to decades of MSM propaganda designed to brainwash the public into never, ever questioning capitalism. You can continue to believe Democrats are leftists if you so choose to do so but all you're really doing is being a rube playing right into the hands of carneys.












Beatles123 said:


> I want strong borders and a tough stance on terror.


Hey, I'm with ya on the strong borders topic but this whole "tough on terror" thing is a bunch of bullshit. We already spend more on our military than the next 8-10 countries combined and Obama bombed 7 different countries with over 26 thousand bombs in 2016 alone. What would make you happy, full scale Iraq style invasions of the entire Middle East?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



KingCosmos said:


> Not edgy to realize the Country has been bad for awhile. But of course what can i expect from someone who mocks and picks not to address the issues. I should expect this from you tho since you felt like you achieved something in life because you voted. I still remember laughing at that post.


TBH, if you didn't vote, then imo that's less than anything he's ever done politically :draper2


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> Hey, I'm with ya on the strong borders topic but this whole "tough on terror" thing is a bunch of bullshit. We already spend more on our military than the next 8-10 countries combined and Obama bombed 7 different countries with over 26 thousand bombs in 2016 alone. What would make you happy, full scale Iraq style invasions of the entire Middle East?


You keep making this bullshit claim because you don't understand economies of scale, nor foreign exchange, not differential labor and manufacture rates in different counties. @L-DOPA also loves to bring up the military expenditure differentials all the time as well. 

There are many reasons why the american military budget can be equal to or more than the other countries in the world and it would still mean a smaller military simply because a western military is more expensive in relative dollar terms. Do you want me to list them? But it's ok, that little small fry at secular talk is more educated on the subject than the economists and military analysts that have concluded why the American military is depleted in relative terms. 

And of course, no one amongst your groups ever talks about the fact that legal arms sales is used to pay for our military costs as well, and that many military contracts span decades meaning the annual cost isn't actually as high - so the net effect isn't as great as just pure numbers indicate. Real dollar amount is the worst way to look at how effective or large someone's military really is fpalm 

That's like saying that since American gardeners make more than Pakistani gardeners annually therefore we should pay american gardners as much as pakistani gardeners. 

Just please stop.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Hang on you two, time out for a second. 

I wanna talk about this:










Why is this okay? 

Now, im not gonna say that Barron isn't obviously an uninterested kid in all this. A lot of the time he clearly looks like he's miserable and doesn't wanna be there. I get that. He's ten years old and has had all of this thrust onto him. 

However, homeschool shooter? Im not going to call for a safespace and they have a right to say it but...how is that decent?


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> Hang on you two, time out for a second.
> 
> I wanna talk about this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is this okay?
> 
> Now, im not gonna say that Barron isn't obviously an uninterested kid in all this. A lot of the time he clearly looks like he's miserable and doesn't wanna be there. I get that. He's ten years old and has had all of this thrust onto him.
> 
> However, homeschool shooter? Im not going to call for a safespace and they have a right to say it but...how is that decent?


Its a leftist in Twitter. Decency isn't doesn't exist for them


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> Hang on you two, time out for a second.


You haven't to worry about Tater and I getting into it anymore because it's clear that he's stopped responding to me for whatever reason. He's too far in the top left quadrant and I'm too far on the bottom right quadrant. We probably won't even agree on what's the best way to tie our shoe laces anymore :lmao 



> I wanna talk about this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, homeschool shooter? Im not going to call for a safespace and they have a right to say it but...how is that decent?


It's just attention-whoring at this point. Wouldn't concern myself with that shit if I were you. 

Barron is the most typical 10 year old rich kid I've ever seen and he's behaving exactly the way you'd expect a perfectly normal rich kid to act. He grew up with the glitz and the glamor of a highly successful family. He's not wowed by this stuff. 

Frankly speaking, I can identify with him. I was raised in a very successful, relatively rich family with a narcissistic dad who was always in the spotlight .. hanging out with celebrities and seeing his face everywhere. I was rich and I acted literally the same way whenever my father dragged us to one of his ceremonies. For him at this point his dad becoming the president is meaningless and since he's been in probably hundreds of similar events, he doesn't give a rat's ass. 

If I was 10 and this was just one of my father's accolades (even if it was the biggest in the world), I wouldn't give a fuck. I'd just wanna go back home to play video games.

It's the poor folk that make it big that mentally prepare their kids to be "on their best behavior and look excited for dear old dad". When you're already used to the fame and success of your father, you don't give a fuck.


----------



## The5star_Kid

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Stinger Fan said:


> Jeez, the left is really stretching to make Trump look as bad as possible. You'd think these analysts were psychiatrists with the way they break down every line from his speech . Calm the fuck down people


honestly, Trump makes himself look bad


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

OKAY! I know this is Glen "IMMA GO LIVE IN THE MOUNTAINS IF TRUMP WINS" Beck's website, but:

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/0...nternational-planned-parenthood-this-weekend/

PLEASE BE TRUE! I need the salt :trump


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The5star_Kid said:


> honestly, Trump makes himself look bad


They actually compared Donald Trump to Bane from the Dark Knight Rises, think about how ridiculous that is. They've been "decoding" his speech to make everything about it as an attack on anyone who isn't white. It's incredibly absurd


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*










fpalm Mother of God, that sign.


----------



## blackholeson

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> You keep making this bullshit claim because you don't understand economies of scale, nor foreign exchange, not differential labor and manufacture rates in different counties. @L-DOPA also loves to bring up the military expenditure differentials all the time as well.
> 
> There are many reasons why the american military budget can be equal to or more than the other countries in the world and it would still mean a smaller military simply because a western military is more expensive in relative dollar terms. Do you want me to list them? But it's ok, that little small fry at secular talk is more educated on the subject than the economists and military analysts that have concluded why the American military is depleted in relative terms.
> 
> And of course, no one amongst your groups ever talks about the fact that legal arms sales is used to pay for our military costs as well, and that many military contracts span decades meaning the annual cost isn't actually as high - so the net effect isn't as great as just pure numbers indicate. Real dollar amount is the worst way to look at how effective or large someone's military really is fpalm
> 
> That's like saying that since American gardeners make more than Pakistani gardeners annually therefore we should pay american gardners as much as pakistani gardeners.
> 
> Just please stop.


*Great post, but how can you support Trump after saying all of this? He clearly doesn't understand the scale of the global economy either. Military contracts do span decades, but most contracts involving billions of dollars typically do. No one spends more on their military structure than the United States, no one. Stop making a case that there is some sort of balance between what we spend in comparison to other nations. There is no real comparison in terms of total monetary value. You really need to do some research and educate yourself. 

America occupies the rest of the world because financially and militarily they can. No other country can lay claim to this. You are so badly missing this main point. A nation can not occupy another without the financial means and the military to do so. If this weren't the case our great country wouldn't dictate world affairs. Your comparison with American Gardeners and Pakistani Gardeners is just downright awful. There is no comparison. I can't even begin to explain how foolish that actually was. 

American military depleted? This is nonsense. Perhaps we have some old artillery, or out of date computer equipment protecting nuclear sites, but to say it's depleted is just flat out wrong. The United States military is the most advanced military humans have ever seen. It's capable of toppling governments, destroying cities, and annihilating countries in 3 days (first Persian Gulf War), look it up. That was over two decades ago. It's folks like you who seem to think that it's a leftist thing to say our military spending is off the charts, but when Trump says we pay too much for things associated with the military then it's apparently fine. *


----------



## DoolieNoted

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Now all the snowflakes are congregated together.... 

Call in the airstrikes now Mr Trump.. Do us all a favour..


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



blackholeson said:


> *Great post, but how can you support Trump after saying all of this? He clearly doesn't understand the scale of the global economy either. Military contracts do span decades, but most contracts involving billions of dollars typically do. No one spends more on their military structure than the United States, no one. Stop making a case that there is some sort of balance between what we spend in comparison to other nations. There is no real comparison in terms of total monetary value. You really need to do some research and educate yourself.*


Yes, of course there is a real comparison.

I'll give you a very simple explanation. A single US soldier has to be paid at least 10 times as much as a Chinese soldier to even stay enlisted (China spends the equivalent of two entry-level iPhone6s on equipment for its soldiers, while the cost of a U.S. soldier's standard individual battlefield equipment is equal to the value of a mid-level)

Then there's packages and benefits that Russians and Chinese and other countries simply do not offer. 

It takes the America billions to simply have a functioning army because you also have to factor in the value of goods and services and basic cost of living that you have to consider for American soliders which in dollar terms is far, far, far higher than the vast majority of countries in the world. The american facilities are superior and also costly, but that does not necessarily make the better soldier. If anything you can state that the american military budget is poorly managed, which I'll agree on but at the same time our single military unit just costs more to train and maintain. That's a simple irrefutable fact. 

In order to have even the slightest similarity in budgets you'd have to find a way to pay American soldiers as much than other militaries. 

Then you have to look at the cost of production and the people who are producing military goods. Then you have to look at the cost of materials. Much of military production cannot be outsourced so the labor working on american artillery is always going to be higher than the peanuts paid to labor in countries like Russia and China where all labor is far, far cheaper. It's one of the main reasons why those countries have pretty much dwarfed america in many areas of artillery. 

The russians and chinese have more units across the board and better equipped military despite the Americans spending so much simply because labor in China and Russia is hugely inexpensive. 

*



America occupies the rest of the world because financially and militarily they can. No other country can lay claim to this. You are so badly missing this main point. A nation can not occupy another without the financial means and the military to do so. If this weren't the case our great country wouldn't dictate world affairs. Your comparison with American Gardeners and Pakistani Gardeners is just downright awful. There is no comparison. I can't even begin to explain how foolish that actually was.

Click to expand...

*I have no clue what makes you think that America occupies the rest of the world. The 15 years have resulted in hugely depleted resources and wars Americans have lost and we are still losing wars. If America had the most advanced military in the world, we would have wiped the terrorists during the wars. Afghan and Iraqi wars have been an embarrassment for the US simply because they just could not compete in that terrain. That's why they're fighting the coward's war of management through drones - and haven't gone all gung ho. 

*



American military depleted? This is nonsense. Perhaps we have some old artillery, or out of date computer equipment protecting nuclear sites, but to say it's depleted is just flat out wrong. The United States military is the most advanced military humans have ever seen. It's capable of toppling governments, destroying cities, and annihilating countries in 3 days (first Persian Gulf War), look it up. That was over two decades ago. It's folks like you who seem to think that it's a leftist thing to say our military spending is off the charts, but when Trump says we pay too much for things associated with the military then it's apparently fine.

Click to expand...

*Holy shit. 

Holy fucking shit. 

How the fuck can you give the reasons why the American military is depleted and then outright claim the exact fucking opposite? 

America at this point cannot sustain a major conflict whereas the Chinse and Russians can due to sheer man power and resources available to them. In order to compete, America has little choice but to spend more because it costs more ... plain and simple. If a major war happens to break out, we are unprepared for it. 

Here are some graphs in comparison:

Available Military Man Power










Manpower Available










Main Battle Tanks










Light Armored Vehicles










Self-Propelled Guns










Total Artillery Strength










---
Airforce is very strong and it should be and that's where the majority of our budget is going. However, in case of a major land conflict (which is what we tried to get into in Iraq and Afghanistan), we are severely depleted and that is an undeniable fact.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Goku said:


> what's wrong with betsy?


The whole trying to use federal tax payer money to advance Christianity in schools for one. General hostility towards unions is another. And being part of the Amway family which popularised MLM sales tactics that scammers all over the world use is a third.

Oh and her responses during her confirmation hearing reveals how unprepared she is for the job even though she has been an activist for education reform for decades. Suggests to me her primary goal isn't to improve the education of American children but to advance her religious views and to profit from less oversight on charter schools.


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

This woman has CROSSED A LINE !!!


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Rainmaka! said:


>


People actually compared Trump's inauguration to 9/11? What kind of society do we live in where the inauguration of one man is compared to one of the worst tragedies in American history?

A bunch of filthy, spoiled rotten geeks they are.

:bunk


----------



## KingCosmos

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> If you said anything about hillary than I missed it. So that if you did give balanced opinion on both then I apologize for that.
> 
> That being said your racial conspiracy theories are so over the top they may as well be about Lizard men. Your bias seeps through and makes your discussion about it seem like a manifesto of misinformation and your own conjecture. You're not talking about anything that's hard to grasp, you're just simply for the most part wrong.


What exactly have i said that is so over the top it resembles the theory on Lizard men, please inform me.


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> Hang on you two, time out for a second.
> 
> I wanna talk about this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is this okay?
> 
> Now, im not gonna say that Barron isn't obviously an uninterested kid in all this. A lot of the time he clearly looks like he's miserable and doesn't wanna be there. I get that. He's ten years old and has had all of this thrust onto him.
> 
> However, homeschool shooter? Im not going to call for a safespace and they have a right to say it but...how is that decent?


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Gainn_Damage said:


> Now all the snowflakes are congregated together....
> 
> Call in the airstrikes now Mr Trump.. Do us all a favour..


Yes, I favor a "scorched-earth" policy in dealing with them !


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> fpalm Mother of God, that sign.


Also, those pink hats are what they are calling "pussy hats" ( guys in that photo are wearing them, too ) . . . I say, if the shoe fits, wear it . . . LOL !!!

*https://www.pussyhatproject.com/*


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> It's just attention-whoring at this point.
> 
> I was raised in a very successful, relatively rich family with a narcissistic dad ...


Sounds like most of your posts and "like father, like daughter" to me !!!


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Lunatic Fringe said:


> Also, those pink hats are what they are calling "pussy hats" ( guys in that photo are wearing them, too ) . . . I say, if the shoe fits, wear it . . . LOL !!!
> 
> *https://www.pussyhatproject.com/*


Not to forget that post election these people and others were using safety pins, which to me is perpetually associated with these:



Spoiler: What can be seen cannot be unseen






Spoiler: No seriously it cant be unseen




















Lunatic Fringe said:


> Sounds like most of your posts and "like father, like daughter" to me !!!


This guy thinking I'm an SJW just because I don't want to rape women if they're wearing sexy clothing like he does :mj4



Gainn_Damage said:


> Now all the snowflakes are congregated together....
> 
> Call in the airstrikes now Mr Trump.. Do us all a favour..


Eh. I like you and we agree on a ton of things, but honestly, statements like these from the left is what drives me and people like me farther towards the right ... Really don't think statements like these are necessary at all from either side :draper2


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> America at this point cannot sustain a major conflict whereas the Chinse and Russians can due to sheer man power and resources available to them. In order to compete, America has little choice but to spend more because it costs more ... plain and simple. If a major war happens to break out, we are unprepared for it.
> 
> Here are some graphs in comparison:
> 
> Available Military Man Power
> 
> Manpower Available
> 
> Main Battle Tanks
> 
> Light Armored Vehicles
> 
> Self-Propelled Guns
> 
> Total Artillery Strength
> 
> ---
> Airforce is very strong and it should be and that's where the majority of our budget is going. However, in case of a major land conflict (which is what we tried to get into in Iraq and Afghanistan), we are severely depleted and that is an undeniable fact.


You left out our "deterrent assets" . . . We now have a President that would be willing to USE them !

*http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/fact-sheet-who-has-nuclear-weapons-how-many-do-they-n548481*


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Lunatic Fringe said:


> You left out our "deterrent assets" . . . We now have a President that would be willing to USE them !


No he _really _isn't actually. He wants a nuclear arms race without the intention of using them. 

However, the thing I agree with Trump on this is that until and unless there is a real threat of a nuclear war, there is no point in having nuclear weapons. 

In order for a deterrent to remain a deterrent the threat of its imminent use needs to exist. An attitude of no-use undermines the deterrent. Personally, I live fearless and the paranoia of a nuclear holocaust doesn't bother me because I trust that people in power have enough sense not to use them but I appreciate why they need to posture. 

If a backwater hell-hole like Pakistan has been able to protect and control its nukes safely, then there's no reason to worry about the nuclear giants either.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> fpalm Mother of God, that sign.


For being a bunch of people who cry about diversity, there is none in that group.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*


----------



## TripleG

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

See that's my whole issue here. 

It is IMPOSSIBLE for me to take the left seriously when they preach love, acceptance, and peace, and then act like whiny, crybaby, hysterical, paranoid, lunatics.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

When 4 years are over and people realize that Trump didn't take away women's rights(because only an idiot would think that), they'll actually believe these womens marches will be the reason for "stopping" him from doing so.


----------



## glenwo2

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> For being a bunch of people who cry about diversity, there is none in that group.


Yeah. Where are the black people? :lol


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



glenwo2 said:


> Yeah. Where are the black people? :lol


"looks closer" I think I see one black woman in there


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



glenwo2 said:


> Yeah. Where are the black people? :lol


I think I see two, though one looks like a reporter. 

Honestly it looks like a very lame and very gay *********** movement.

Someone should ask them if that's what it is, a *********** movement for women and gay men.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

@DesolationRow @CamillePunk @Miss Sally http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/315465-trump-speaks-with-top-dem-about-high-drug-prices

Boom. Suck it, big Pharma!


----------



## DoolieNoted

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Eh. I like you and we agree on a ton of things, but honestly, statements like these from the left is what drives me and people like me farther towards the right ... Really don't think statements like these are necessary at all from either side :draper2


OK, so maybe naplaming them is a little OTT.

But it would make compelling TV. >


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> @DesolationRow @CamillePunk @Miss Sally http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/315465-trump-speaks-with-top-dem-about-high-drug-prices
> 
> Boom. Suck it, big Pharma!


Would be good thing, boosts trade with Canada and if Trump wants to throw Mexico a bone, Mexico can ship in commonly needed drugs. Win/Win.

Will be interesting to see how the Left and Republicans team up to attack this proposition though.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> I think I see two, though one looks like a reporter.
> 
> Honestly it looks like a very lame and very gay *********** movement.
> 
> Someone should ask them if that's what it is, a *********** movement for women and gay men.


Now Miss Sally, I doubt all of them are gay. Some of them are eunuchs


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


>


Currently watching a live stream of this march. It's the most hilarious SJW event of the century. Trump's victory really brought out the freaks and geeks. I wonder how different today would be if Hillary had won?


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The Absolute said:


> Currently watching a live stream of this march. It's the most hilarious SJW event of the century. Trump's victory really brought out the freaks and geeks. I wonder how different today would be if Hillary had won?


Would be people marching but probably not as white as this group is. Looks like bag of those pink/white marshmellow peeps that come out around Easter. Change those hats white and they'd look like a klan meetup.


----------



## Sensei Utero

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*

Northern Ireland is a pretty corrupt, shitehole country. In saying that, I feel bad for America. Can't wait for this to fall apart so I can laugh at Trump supporters and silly right-wing ******* Yanks.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



InUtero said:


> Northern Ireland is a pretty corrupt, shitehole country. In saying that, I feel bad for America. Can't wait for this to fall apart so I can laugh at Trump supporters and silly right-wing ******* Yanks.


----------



## SWITCHBLADE

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> Would be people marching but probably not as white as this group is. Looks like bag of those pink/white marshmellow peeps that come out around Easter. Change those hats white and they'd look like a klan meetup.


:lol Holy shit, I didn't even think about that connection!


----------



## Sensei Utero

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


>


----------



## Smarkout

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> Hang on you two, time out for a second.
> 
> I wanna talk about this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is this okay?
> 
> Now, im not gonna say that Barron isn't obviously an uninterested kid in all this. A lot of the time he clearly looks like he's miserable and doesn't wanna be there. I get that. He's ten years old and has had all of this thrust onto him.
> 
> However, homeschool shooter? Im not going to call for a safespace and they have a right to say it but...how is that decent?



You don't have to call for a safespace because the tweet is just disgusting. A 10 year old should be in 5th grade if I am correct. I don't care if he said he wants to kill his mom, *he is 10 years old*. 

Maybe he is just a shy kid? Or (SURPRISE) maybe he is nervous around millions of fucking people watching him? 

No no no, he is just a future school shooter. What an awful claim.


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> Would be people marching but probably not as white as this group is. Looks like bag of those pink/white marshmellow peeps that come out around Easter. Change those hats white and they'd look like a klan meetup.


There's been a fair amount of black people at the event though. A lot of pro-BLM groups spoke on the main stage and Angela Davis just finished speaking. With that being said, I do think most of the attendees are white.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*






We freedom-loving individuals are at war with a disgusting and violent enemy seeking to quell debate in the guise of "fighting fascism". Seeing as how the left is trying to violently establish its own government, I see no moral problem with Trump violently cracking down on those violent (including inciting violence with rhetoric) elements in response, which he's unlikely to do as I'm sure most of the GOP are still deluding themselves that these people can be reasoned with or appeased in any way. I wash my hands of these disgusting cretins. They sought to tear apart the fabric of our civilization, smear its history and poison its gifts to the world, so let them reap what they sow. The left has assured there's no way this ends with freedom or peace, so I'd rather the power be in the hands of people who don't vilify me based on my race, gender, or peaceful ideas.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



InUtero said:


>


Shitpost if you want but understand you using adhom doesn't help your argument.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

CIA BRIEFING STREAM LIVE!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEPlIsQoIz8&feature=player_embedded


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/822866354462138368
Remember, anyone with terrible ideas who spoke positively of Trump was cause to demand Trump's immediate and repeated disavowals. These people are violently rioting, calling for violence, and regularly making disgusting statements about Trump's family and Trump supporters. Where are the calls for disavowal from their candidate, Hillary Clinton, or their beloved #FourMoreYears Obama? How about a little consistency?


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/822866354462138368
> Remember, anyone with terrible ideas who spoke positively of Trump was cause to demand Trump's immediate and repeated disavowals. These people are violently rioting, calling for violence, and regularly making disgusting statements about Trump's family and Trump supporters. Where are the calls for disavowal from their candidate, Hillary Clinton, or their beloved #FourMoreYears Obama? How about a little consistency?


What, you mean this didn't do the trick?


----------



## SWITCHBLADE

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/822866354462138368
> Remember, anyone with terrible ideas who spoke positively of Trump was cause to demand Trump's immediate and repeated disavowals. These people are violently rioting, calling for violence, and regularly making disgusting statements about Trump's family and Trump supporters. Where are the calls for disavowal from their candidate, Hillary Clinton, or their beloved #FourMoreYears Obama? How about a little consistency?


Obama would just play the race card aka standard procedure from him.


----------



## southrnbygrace

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

I don't understand the march today AT ALL. Women in this country still have the exact same rights they did on Thursday when Obama was still the president. *NOTHING* has changed. Talk about attention whoring at it's very basic level.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



southrnbygrace said:


> I don't understand the march today AT ALL. Women in this country still have the exact same rights they did on Thursday when Obama was still the president. *NOTHING* has changed. Talk about attention whoring at it's very basic level.


It's not about women's rights, it's about women getting what they want at the expense of men.


----------



## SWITCHBLADE

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



southrnbygrace said:


> I don't understand the march today AT ALL. Women in this country still have the exact same rights they did on Thursday when Obama was still the president. *NOTHING* has changed. Talk about attention whoring at it's very basic level.


Isn't the organizer of this march pro-Sharia Law, which is the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of women's rights?


----------



## virus21

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Rainmaka! said:


> Isn't the organizer of this march pro-Sharia Law, which is the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of women's rights?


Don't worry, feminist have been trying to make women's rights and Sharia Law compatible for a while. They should read this book to see how that would work out


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

>regular politicians are scared shitless of the CIA
>Trump goes straight to their HQ, holds a rally, shits all over the media and at the same time gives them a hidden warning about ISIS and honesty
>They all love it
This is the reason why he won the election. Even Pence was spooked out but Trump just doesn't give a fuck.

Those protestors out there have no idea what they are up against.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

edit: wrong thread


----------



## Reaper

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



TripleG said:


> See that's my whole issue here.
> 
> It is IMPOSSIBLE for me to take the left seriously when they preach love, acceptance, and peace, and then act like whiny, crybaby, hysterical, paranoid, lunatics.


Precisely . . . They are NOT "acting" !


----------



## 307858

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

Donald Trump will Not help the lives of the rust belt/flyover states. I will be laughing in piles of money on the West Coast as you'll realize you've been conned. He's a celebrity, eagerly as thirsty for the laud and praise Hollywood stars get. How is he against his alleged enemy Hollywood despite working for tv, pageants, and appearing in movies? The guy only cares about his brand. His campaign merchandise and his wife weren't even made in America - hypocrisy !


----------



## SWITCHBLADE

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



heel_turn said:


> Donald Trump will Not help the lives of the rust belt/flyover states. I will be laughing in piles of money on the West Coast as you'll realize you've been conned. He's a celebrity, eagerly as thirsty for the laud and praise Hollywood stars get. How is he against his alleged enemy Hollywood despite working for tv, pageants, and appearing in movies? The guy only cares about his brand. His campaign merchandise and his wife weren't even made in America - hypocrisy !


k


----------



## 307858

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Rainmaka! said:


> k


Well this election doesn't really affect me. Trump is spineless. Call me when the impoverished states need welfare money coming in from rich California. Oh wait - they already do!


----------



## Sensei Utero

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> Shitpost if you want but understand you using adhom doesn't help your argument.


To be fair, I've just posted a general comment, and then replied to a GIF mocking my comment with a political tune which is very relevant in today's world, especially with the introduction of Trump. We live in troubled times. John Lennon would be disappointed in the World we live in.


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Rainmaka! said:


> Obama would just play the race card aka standard procedure from him.



Time to play the TRUMP card !


----------



## TripleG

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

I live near DC and friends of mine have been posting "Love Trumps Hate" all over Facebook. 

OK guys, I just have to say this now. 

Love Trumps Hate sounds like a Pro-Trump slogan.

You should really consider switching up your slogan a little bit.


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



southrnbygrace said:


> I don't understand the march today AT ALL. Women in this country still have the exact same rights they did on Thursday when Obama was still the president. *NOTHING* has changed. Talk about attention whoring at it's very basic level.


Those women are probably terrified at the thought of Trump appointing 4 or 5 Conservative Supreme Court Justices . . . Can you say "bye-bye, ROE vs. WADE" !!!


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



InUtero said:


> To be fair, I've just posted a general comment, and then replied to a GIF mocking my comment with a political tune which is very relevant in today's world, especially with the introduction of Trump. We live in troubled times. John Lennon would be disappointed in the World we live in.


i agree, mr. Lennon would abhor these protests.

You will now claim I know nothing of John Lennon. I counter that i know more about him than the average human should.

Leave it at that and let us move on, shall we?


----------



## Mifune Jackson

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



southrnbygrace said:


> I don't understand the march today AT ALL. Women in this country still have the exact same rights they did on Thursday when Obama was still the president. *NOTHING* has changed. Talk about attention whoring at it's very basic level.


I live in Southern California, so of course I have a ton of friends downtown protesting right now, and while I support their right to express themselves, I really have to bite my tongue on this one.

At least wait for Trump to give you a real reason to protest. If he's really that bad, he will.

It's Day Two and the only thing you're really protesting is him assuming office and making some appointments who also haven't done anything yet. I'm not necessarily a fan either, but everything that's happening is the democratic process and I can't protest democracy just because it didn't go my way.

It's just a lot of emotional expression without clear political goals. When you don't want to go to war, when you lose your health insurance, when you lose your house, I get it. When you still have what you had two days ago under Obama, much less so.


----------



## DoolieNoted

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

Now this I'd mark the fuck out for.....


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

WH Press sec. Spicer briefing LIVE:


----------



## Ratedr4life

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



TripleG said:


> I live near DC and friends of mine have been posting "Love Trumps Hate" all over Facebook.
> 
> OK guys, I just have to say this now.
> 
> Love Trumps Hate sounds like a Pro-Trump slogan.
> 
> You should really consider switching up your slogan a little bit.


Are you sure? It sounds anti-Trump to me, it's ironically using his name.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



heel_turn said:


> Donald Trump will Not help the lives of the rust belt/flyover states. I will be laughing in piles of money on the West Coast as you'll realize you've been conned. He's a celebrity, eagerly as thirsty for the laud and praise Hollywood stars get. How is he against his alleged enemy Hollywood despite working for tv, pageants, and appearing in movies? The guy only cares about his brand. His campaign merchandise and his wife weren't even made in America - hypocrisy !


One of the things that I don't understand about people who are against Donald Trump , is the downplaying of what Donald Trump has accomplished . You always hear the same thing, "he's a reality tv star" or "he's just a celebrity" and that baffles me because that's not just what he did. Not that I'm a supporter, I just don't get it. 

For the record, Ronald Reagan was an actor


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



heel_turn said:


> Well this election doesn't really affect me. Trump is spineless. Call me when the impoverished states need welfare money coming in from rich California. Oh wait - they already do!


California imports its water from other states

can we not do this shit?


----------



## Sensei Utero

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> i agree, mr. Lennon would abhor these protests.
> 
> You will now claim I know nothing of John Lennon. I counter that i know more about him than the average human should.
> 
> Leave it at that and let us move on, shall we?


I disagree. Considering what the people are up against, they're right to protest, peacefully. I don't stand up for all the rioting though.

Ha, I am a pretty huge Lennon fan! Glad to see you are too, working class hero.


----------



## 307858

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Stinger Fan said:


> One of the things that I don't understand about people who are against Donald Trump , is the downplaying of what Donald Trump has accomplished . You always hear the same thing, "he's a reality tv star" or "he's just a celebrity" and that baffles me because that's not just what he did. Not that I'm a supporter, I just don't get it.
> 
> For the record, Ronald Reagan was an actor


Prior to becoming President, Reagan had experienced as governor of the most beloved state, California. Also, Reagan was beloved by democrats such that Reagan Democrat was coined. 

Trump is nowhere as universally praised as Reagan. 

Trump has no record of public service. He has a serious of bankruptcies and business failures though. And proof that money cannot purchase good hair.

Like, sure I'll #GiveDonaldTRumpAChance. Based on all the data we have on him, it looks like it will go as smoothly as Dana Brooke vs Eva Marie in an ironwoman match. We'll see. Time is the ultimate truth teller. 
I'll eat it crow if I am wrong. Hopefully he does a good job!

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/04/bill...trump-is-clearly-ashamed-of-his-failures.html


----------



## Neuron

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/822922157344825344
So you mean to tell me I could have gotten free razors this entire time and I didn't even know it?


----------



## SWITCHBLADE

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/822480971152977920


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

A fine video starring Mr. Molyneux, @CamillePunk. :clap

:trump going to the CIA to try to win over as much of the deep state--members of whom did indeed gravitate toward him late in the election based on myriad rumors in spite what most in the greatest positions of power within that deep state wished to see occur on election day--while advocating for his man Mike Pompeo to be approved was quite the stroke on his part. 

*Camille*, just thought I'd drop this off here for you and others as it's from Matthew Strebe, the former founding president of YAL's UC Santa Cruz chapter...  http://notesonliberty.com/2016/08/29/the-libertarian-case-for-immigration-restriction/ @Beatles123 @The Absolute @Carte Blanche @Neuron should find it at least interesting, too.


----------



## virus21

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Rainmaka! said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/822480971152977920


----------



## southrnbygrace

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Mifune Jackson said:


> I live in Southern California, so of course I have a ton of friends downtown protesting right now, and while I support their right to express themselves, I really have to bite my tongue on this one.
> 
> *At least wait for Trump to give you a real reason to protest. If he's really that bad, he will.*
> 
> It's Day Two and the only thing you're really protesting is him assuming office and making some appointments who also haven't done anything yet. I'm not necessarily a fan either, but everything that's happening is the democratic process and I can't protest democracy just because it didn't go my way.
> 
> It's just a lot of emotional expression without clear political goals. When you don't want to go to war, when you lose your health insurance, when you lose your house, I get it. When you still have what you had two days ago under Obama, much less so.


EXACTLY!!! Wait till he does something to protest about! This protesting before there is even anything to protest about is ridiculous!


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



heel_turn said:


> Prior to becoming President, Reagan had experienced as governor of the most beloved state, California. Also, Reagan was beloved by democrats such that Reagan Democrat was coined.
> 
> Trump is nowhere as universally praised as Reagan.
> 
> Trump has no record of public service. He has a serious of bankruptcies and business failures though. And proof that money cannot purchase good hair.
> 
> http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/04/bill...trump-is-clearly-ashamed-of-his-failures.html


Cenk Uygur, is that you?


----------



## Banez

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

I heard there was betting sites that had bets on how many times Trump says 'great' in his inauguration speech, think some folks lost money :lol


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Banez said:


> I heard there was betting sites that had bets on how many times Trump says 'great' in his inauguration speech, think some folks lost money :lol


Not as much as George Soros! :trump3


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

:lmao :lmao :lmao

Sean Spicer verbally slapping variegated elements of media with his opening remarks at this press conference.

This is already so much more entertaining than if Hillary would have won. :sodone


----------



## 307858

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Cenk Uygur, is that you?


No. However, this looks like you. Is that Trump grabbing your mangina?

*Image removed*


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



heel_turn said:


> No. However, this looks like you. Is that Trump grabbing your mangina?
> 
> *Image removed*


This aint rants, pal. Hope you realize what ya just did there.


----------



## DoolieNoted

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Neuron said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/822922157344825344
> So you mean to tell me I could have gotten free razors this entire time and I didn't even know it?


Just don't let those lot get hold of them. >


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

Spicer was awesome just now.


----------



## 307858

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> This aint rants, pal. Hope you realize what ya just did there.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



heel_turn said:


>


Challenge accepted.


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



heel_turn said:


> Prior to becoming President, Reagan had experienced as governor of the most beloved state, California. Also, Reagan was beloved by democrats such that Reagan Democrat was coined.
> 
> Trump is nowhere as universally praised as Reagan.


----------



## GothicBohemian

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

The pussyhat thing; there are local women there. Seriously, some of those folks came all the way from the east coast of Canada. There was also a solidarity march here in my city, among others. I kid you not; the women's march is all over the news in Canada. It's main page on CBC.ca, even for the Canadian news section. 

Just thought I should let you guys know there's busloads of non-Americans there. A lot of Canadians are really nervous about the alt-right ideas that seem connected to Trump, legitimately or not, including anti-feminist backlash, anti-immigration border security and identity politics. Our two countries are almost political opposites on many issues atm.


----------



## Tater

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

@AryaDark






I don't find this to be a particularly difficult decision at all. Even though I disagree with Rand on many, many things, we kinda have to have a planet that has not been blown to smithereens by war mongers to have those disagreements.


----------



## 307858

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

You know what, I'm really tired of the divide. Let's unite Trump supporters and opponents by universal mocking of Rosie O'Donnell (man I wish Trump and Stephanie were feuding):


----------



## virus21

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



heel_turn said:


> You know what, I'm really tired of the divide. Let's unite Trump supporters and opponents by universal mocking of Rosie O'Donnell (man I wish Trump and Stephanie were feuding):
> 
> https://youtu.be/3NXEaF-w2MY


Now thats something I think we can all get behind


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> @AryaDark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't find this to be a particularly difficult decision at all. Even though I disagree with Rand on many, many things, we kinda have to have a planet that has not been blown to smithereens by war mongers to have those disagreements.


*More politicians should be anti-war. Actually we should not tolerate any politician that is not.*


----------



## Magic

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

Does Trump not believe in climate change lol?


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> You keep making this bullshit claim because you don't understand economies of scale, nor foreign exchange, not differential labor and manufacture rates in different counties. @L-DOPA also loves to bring up the military expenditure differentials all the time as well.
> 
> There are many reasons why the american military budget can be equal to or more than the other countries in the world and it would still mean a smaller military simply because a western military is more expensive in relative dollar terms. Do you want me to list them? But it's ok, that little small fry at secular talk is more educated on the subject than the economists and military analysts that have concluded why the American military is depleted in relative terms.
> 
> And of course, no one amongst your groups ever talks about the fact that legal arms sales is used to pay for our military costs as well, and that many military contracts span decades meaning the annual cost isn't actually as high - so the net effect isn't as great as just pure numbers indicate. Real dollar amount is the worst way to look at how effective or large someone's military really is fpalm
> 
> That's like saying that since American gardeners make more than Pakistani gardeners annually therefore we should pay american gardners as much as pakistani gardeners.
> 
> Just please stop.



@Tater


Considering you mentioned me in this post Reaper, allow me to respond.

If you look at the *overall* defence budget of the United States it is absolutely absurd to say that more military spending is needed. The problem with your argument once again is that you are looking at one aspect where the money is being invested which would be actual defence spending, equate it to the whole budget and then claim that this is evidence that more spending is needed. This is factually false. You haven't taken into account the other areas in which there is spending on the military, most notably in terms of *overseas military spending*, and that is where the contention of military spending being too high comes into play.

For example, the last overall defence budget that was released in terms of cost was *$601 Billion.* The cost for maintaining the *overseas military bases* annually is stated at around *$165 Billion dollars.*

http://www.mintpressnews.com/214492-2/214492/

By doing a simple math equation to calculate percentage, you will find that around *25.9%* of the 2015 budget was spent on maintaining these overseas military bases alone. That is over a quarter of the defence budget. Meaning that if you were to close all of those bases there would be a decrease of over *25% military spending without even cutting a cent in actual defence.* With figures like these it is little wonder why the US needs to sell Billions of Dollars worth of arms, the overseas bases need to be paid for somehow and so does there need to be money thrown towards the military interventions the US is currently involved in. All to feed the military industrial complex. Eisenhower and Ron Paul did not warn American citizens about it for no good reason, they warned about it because they knew with special interests that a vast amount of money would be spent in conflicts overseas to which contractors and corporations would profit off. The US is a war economy and has been for a very long time.

And that isn't even taking into consideration the troops which are deployed in different countries like Germany even though WWII has been over for 70+ years.....and all of the military interventions the US has been involved with over the last 15 years. Even if you were to keep some of the bases in the Middle East for the national interests of destroying ISIS and closed the rest of them, you'd like see a reduction of 20% or more in terms of military spending, again not even touching the investments put into defence.

So keeping that in mind and also keeping in mind the overseas military interventions and the deployment of troops in mulitiple different countries, it is not a crazy idea to believe that you could cut at least 30% of military spending which is what Rand Paul proposed a few years ago and still not cut a single cent from spending towards defence. The most ironic thing about all of this is the money saved annually each year from cutting down the overseas military spending could actually be used for the military itself that you are concerned is depleting. In effect, you could use the money saved if you wanted to do to actually invest in defence spending rather than paying Billions to keep hundreds of military bases in several different countries and paying further Billions in military intervention and nation building in the Middle East. 

In reality the only way you can say in terms of overall military spending that the amount should be increased is if you are essentially a neo-conservative who believes in American Imperialism, nation building and being the world's policeman. Anyone else knowing these facts and believing that war is the last option, not the first and who largely believes in non-intervention can see that military spending on current levels needs decreasing and that the area in which it needs dramatic reduction is in the overseas budget, not the investment focused on National Defence.

Finally, as far as arms sales are concerned, I'm pro business more than anyone but there comes a point where the human cost has to be taken into account. When the US approves a weapons deal of $1.15 Billion dollars to Saudi Arabia which only benefits the weapons contractors in the military industrial complex and then they turn around and indiscriminately bomb Yemen killing up to 50% civilian targets on *purpose,* then you have to think when is enough enough. I don't care if you think it's good business sense for the US, morally speaking it is extremely messed up.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

The left got called out on multiple bogus lies today and then turned around and called Trump and his people DERANGED for taking the time to correct them. :faint:

These are not serious people.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Invictus said:


> Does Trump not believe in climate change lol?












_"Do ya think this is a problem...?_"


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



L-DOPA said:


> Considering you mentioned me in this post, allow me to respond.
> 
> If you look at the *overall* defence budget of the United States it is absolutely absurd to say that more military spending is needed. The problem with your argument once again is that you are looking at one aspect where the money is being invested which would be actual defence spending, equate it to the whole budget and then claim that this is evidence that more spending is needed. This is factually false. You haven't taken into account the other areas in which there is spending on the military, most notably in terms of *overseas military spending*, and that is where the contention of military spending being too high comes into play.
> 
> For example, the last overall defence budget that was released in terms of cost was *$601 Billion.* The cost for maintaining the *overseas military bases* annually is stated at around *$165 Billion dollars.*
> 
> http://www.mintpressnews.com/214492-2/214492/
> 
> By doing a simple math equation to calculate percentage, you will find that around *25.9%* of the 2015 budget was spent on maintaining these overseas military bases alone. That is over a quarter of the defence budget. Meaning that if you were to close all of those bases there would be a decrease of over *25% military spending without even cutting a cent in actual defence.* With figures like these it is little wonder why the US needs to sell Billions of Dollars worth of arms, the overseas bases need to be paid for somehow and so does there need to be money thrown towards the military interventions the US is currently involved in. All to feed the military industrial complex. Eisenhower and Ron Paul did not warn American citizens about it for no good reason, they warned about it because they knew with special interests that a vast amount of money would be spent in conflicts overseas to which contractors and corporations would profit off. The US is a war economy and has been for a very long time.
> 
> And that isn't even taking into consideration the troops which are deployed in different countries like Germany even though WWII has been over for 70+ years.....and all of the military interventions the US has been involved with over the last 15 years. Even if you were to keep some of the bases in the Middle East for the national interests of destroying ISIS and closed the rest of them, you'd like see a reduction of 20% or more in terms of military spending, again not even touching the investments put into defence.
> 
> So keeping that in mind and also keeping in mind the overseas military interventions and the deployment of troops in mulitiple different countries, it is not a crazy idea to believe that you could cut at least 30% of military spending which is what Rand Paul proposed a few years ago and still not cut a single cent from spending towards defence. The most ironic thing about all of this is the money saved annually each year from cutting down the overseas military spending could actually be used for the military itself that you are concerned that is depleting. In effect, you could use the money saved if you wanted to do to actually invest in defence spending rather than paying Billions to keep hundreds of military bases in several different countries and paying further Billions in military intervention and nation building in the Middle East.
> 
> In reality the only way you can say in terms of overall military spending that the amount should be increased is if you are essentially a neo-conservative who believes in American Imperialism, nation building and being the world's policeman. Anyone else knowing these facts and believing that war is the last option, not the first and who largely believes in non-intervention can see that military spending on current levels needs decreasing and that the area in which it needs dramatic reduction is in the overseas budget, not the investment focused on National Defence.


I don't disagree on you with regards to improving budget allocation and audit accountability of budget expenditures. 

Your argument to cut foreign base budgets would be fine if Americans did not have international interests worth protecting and that foreign instability did not contribute to diminishing returns from those foreign interests - military or otherwise. 

Surely as a right libertarian you can see why having international military presence is necessary? Even if just as a deterrent to make sure other non friendly non allied militaries do not gain a foothold in important areas key to maintaining peace which ultimately protect American companies and workers. The world as it exists right now is globalized and one country's actions another shift the balance of power and therefore economic interests. If Iran was to invade Iraq for example? Or if Russia decides to move into Afghanistan again?

While I'm a proponent of America within American borders first. At the same time I have to admit that Americans don't simply exist within America and they are potentially targets around the world. Just in Pakistan alone dozens of American civilians have been killed by Taliban and in Afghanistan and Iraq the numbers are higher. These are not military personnel I'm talking about but contractors and government employees as well. We can't simply ignore them and leave them to fend for themselves at the moment.

You seem to be focusing on the anti neoconservative agenda for foreign military presence solely while ignoring the importance of creating an adequate deterrent for non allied forces to nit become emboldened enough to strike in territories that house a great deal of American interests. 

For example should South Korea foot the bill for American industry alone in case north Korea goes on the offensive?

Until and unless America pulls away from the rest of the world it needs an international deployment budget.

We can argue about how much is necessary and making spending more efficient but that budget needs to be there. It's not just the world it's protecting but interests that help Americans and our local economy.

The last core point of my arguments you guys are missing is that America's budget in dollar value cannot he used as an adequate measure to determine military might not when things cost so much more here than they do in other major military powers like China and Russia. Our cost per soldier and military unit is simply not the same. Our living costs and manufacturing costs are much higher.

A Chinese soldier and laborer is relatively comfortable at living off of less than 400 dollars a month. Can the same be said about the American soldier or worker? And as I pointed out you can barely outsource a few things when it comes to military development. 

A Chinese tank builder will take 200 bucks for the whole job. An American engineer will take 25 bucks or higher an hour. You simply cannot compare costs in terms of real value spent. You have to account for difference in economies and labor wage rates and expectations.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> I don't disagree on you with regards to improving budget allocation and audit accountability of budget expenditures.
> 
> Your argument to cut foreign base budgets would be fine if Americans did not have international interests worth protecting and that foreign instability did not contribute to diminishing returns from those foreign interests - military or otherwise.
> 
> Surely as a right libertarian you can see why having international military presence is necessary? Even if just as a deterrent to make sure other non friendly non allied militaries do not gain a foothold in important areas key to maintaining peace which ultimately protect American companies and workers. The world as it exists right now is globalized and one country's actions another shift the balance of power and therefore economic interests. If Iran was to invade Iraq for example? Or if Russia decides to move into Afghanistan again?


I understand this argument to a certain extent but do you realize how many bases America actually has across the world?

Referring back to the link I gave out before, let me detail it:



> The United States maintains about 800 military bases in at least 160 countries, according to a military scholar.
> 
> In a Sept. 13 report for Tomdispatch, based on his book “Base Nation: How U.S. Military Bases Abroad Harm America and the World,” David Vine explained that, while many bases were built during the Cold War era, American military might has spread to almost every part of the world:
> 
> “Seventy years after World War II and 62 years after the Korean War, there are still 174 U.S. ‘base sites’ in Germany, 113 in Japan, and 83 in South Korea, according to the Pentagon. Hundreds more dot the planet in around 80 countries, including Aruba and Australia, Bahrain and Bulgaria, Colombia, Kenya, and Qatar, among many other places. Although few Americans realize it, the United States likely has more bases in foreign lands than any other people, nation, or empire in history.”


There is a whole other article surrounding the extent of this here:

http://investigativereportingworkshop.org/investigations/lily-pads/story/lily-pads/

The US has an insane amount of military bases compared to every other nation in the world. Whilst it may be understandable to have some military bases for national interests like I mentioned in the middle east due to ISIS for example, what justification is there to have near 800 of them, which is more than in human history? Even in the interests of national security I cannot see the justification, especially when the money spent on them can be used elsewhere.





Carte Blanche said:


> While I'm a proponent of America within American borders first. At the same time I have to admit that Americans don't simply exist within America and they are potentially targets around the world. Just in Pakistan alone dozens of American civilians have been killed by Taliban and in Afghanistan and Iraq the numbers are higher. These are not military personnel I'm talking about but contractors and government employees as well. We can't simply ignore them and leave them to fend for themselves at the moment.
> 
> You seem to be focusing on the anti neoconservative agenda for foreign military presence solely while ignoring the importance of creating an adequate deterrent for non allied forces to nit become emboldened enough to strike in territories that house a great deal of American interests.
> 
> Until and unless America pulls away from the rest of the world it needs an international deployment budget.
> 
> We can argue about how much is necessary and making spending more efficient but that budget needs to be there. It's not just the world it's protecting but interests that help Americans and our local economy.


The problem is, the further the intervention and involvement the US has had in foreign affairs and the further it has expanded it's influence across the globe, the worse off those areas actually have become. They haven't gotten better in the slightest and that is because for too long the States has been unable to use restraint and not expand influence.

I like Reagan's mantra of peace through strength as much as anyone, in fact I remember someone and I wish I could remember who it was but they essentially they said the whole point of having a strong national defence is so we don't use it. Which to me makes perfect sense but does not mean the US should continue to expand it's military influence for the sake of protecting American interests when the actions taken by governments have largely escalated the situations and made things worse.

The US needs to scale things back, not push it even more forward.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> I don't disagree on you with regards to improving budget allocation and audit accountability of budget expenditures.
> 
> Your argument to cut foreign base budgets would be fine if Americans did not have international interests worth protecting and that foreign instability did not contribute to diminishing returns from those foreign interests - military or otherwise.
> 
> Surely as a right libertarian you can see why having international military presence is necessary? Even if just as a deterrent to make sure other non friendly non allied militaries do not gain a foothold in important areas key to maintaining peace which ultimately protect American companies and workers. The world as it exists right now is globalized and one country's actions another shift the balance of power and therefore economic interests. If Iran was to invade Iraq for example? Or if Russia decides to move into Afghanistan again?


None of this sounds like something I should be paying for. If Russia wants to invade Afghanistan again, that's their stupid decision. I'd support a boycott of all Russian (or any international aggressor) products, but that's about it. 



> While I'm a proponent of America within American borders first. At the same time I have to admit that Americans don't simply exist within America and they are potentially targets around the world. Just in Pakistan alone dozens of American civilians have been killed by Taliban and in Afghanistan and Iraq the numbers are higher. These are not military personnel I'm talking about but contractors and government employees as well. We can't simply ignore them and leave them to fend for themselves at the moment.


Of course we can. Decisions have consequences. If they want to live in another part of the world - or most heinously, work for the government - I fail to see why I should pay for it.


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

A little LATE, but I absolutely LOVE this !!!






Twas the night before Inauguration 

Twas the night before Inauguration, and up in the tower,
The Donald reflected on his newfound power.
The conservative masses had come out in force,
And delivered a victory that would chart a new course.

The snowflakes were shell-shocked with tears in their eyes,
The media lied to them . . . What a surprise.
They had been promised a Hillary win,
But the criminal Clinton took one on the chin.

And though from all corners celebrities flew,
They made no impression, for they hadn’t a clue.
They talked about climate, racism, and such,
And they made up good stories . . . But didn’t know much.

The fake news and ignorance came at a cost,
And they can’t understand all the reasons they lost.
They blame it on Comey and Bernie and Vlad,
But fail to acknowledge the one that was bad.

Yes, Hillary Clinton, in many ways flawed,
Was her own biggest hurdle toward getting the nod.
The campaign exposed her corruptness and greed,
And her speeches were punch-less as ten dollar weed.

So out in the streets there arose such a clatter,
It was Soros-paid protestors and Black Lives Matter.
With cities to pillage and windows to smash,
They knew not the issues, but needed the cash.

Eight years of Obama had given them cause,
To expect a replacement of their Santa Claus.
But soon the protestors will feel the pain,
When the wheels fall off of the old gravy train.

And now all the snowflakes are riddled with fear,
Upset and offended by things that they’ll hear.
The cocoa and crayons will help for a while,
But fact-based opinions will soon cramp their style.

I originally supported, and voted, for Cruz,
In the end, I would vote for whoever they choose.
He wasn’t my first choice, but soon I would cede,
The one they call Trump is the one that we need.

I saw him on TV in front of a crowd,
He spoke about veterans, it made me feel proud.
He spoke about energy, safety, and jobs,
Taking this country back from the Washington snobs.

He was dressed in Armani, all tailored and neat,
And the Bruno's he wore made the outfit complete.
For a man of his vintage, he seemed rather fit,
And he looked presidential, I have to admit.

His eyes glowed like embers, his smile was the best,
And his hair was the color of my old hunting vest.
His love for this country was on full display,
And his actions spoke louder than his words could say.

He thanked all his voters, and before he was gone,
Saved thousands of jobs while Obama looked on.
The fate of this country left nothing to chance,
So, he filled out his cabinet weeks in advance.

The men he had chosen were of the same mind,
Let’s set the bar high, and not lead from behind.
He picked up his phone as he rose from his seat,
With a flick of his finger, he sent out this tweet;

“Now Mattis!, now Kelly!’ now Sessions! And Pruitt!
On Perry! On Flynn, You’re the ones who can do it.
Start lifting restrictions and building the wall,
Now dash away! Dash away! Dash away all!”;

The roar of his audience rose from the stands,
He kissed all their babies and shook all their hands.
He answered their questions and calmed all their fears,
They knew it would be a fantastic four years.
Then he jumped in his limo, and off to his jet,
A fellow that Liberals won’t soon forget.
He sent one more tweet as the evening expired;

“Happy Inauguration to all,
AND OBAMA – YOU’RE FIRED!”


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

I do not want us to invade other country's every time there is conflict.

I do, however, absolutely want us to be able to annihilate any opposition into paste if necessary. By any means. (even nukes)

Yeah, I said it.


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> I do, however, absolutely want us to be able to annihilate any opposition into paste if necessary. By any means. (even nukes)
> 
> Yeah, I said it.


Yes, the ability to absolutely "FRY" your adversaries certainly has it's advantages . . . It's called "deterrence" and I, for one, prefer that the USA be RESPECTED, rather than LIKED !


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



L-DOPA said:


> I understand this argument to a certain extent but do you realize how many bases America actually has across the world?
> 
> Referring back to the link I gave out before, let me detail it:


This is a very feeling based argument. I'm not defending the existence of the basis, but it sounds like just because we feel that 800 is a huge number we're calling into question their existence without knowing their necessity nor their utility. I'm not going to make an argument for or against those bases because as a layman and a non-military personnel who is not privy to the operation of those bases, I cannot make the conclusion whether they're necessary or not. 



> The US has an insane amount of military bases compared to every other nation in the world. Whilst it may be understandable to have some military bases for national interests like I mentioned in the middle east due to ISIS for example, what justification is there to have near 800 of them, which is more than in human history? Even in the interests of national security I cannot see the justification, especially when the money spent on them can be used elsewhere.


Again, it's the same argument ... It would be like me as a layman dismantling a car and wondering why it has 800 screws and not 500 without understanding the utility of the 300 additional screws since I'm not aware of their necessity and intuitively (and not with any real information) they seem unnecessary. 

Agan, I'm not saying whether they're necessary or not. I'm just not going to proclaim that they are definitely unnecessary without even knowing why they exist (which is something that the article you posted has had to gloss over as well. The article also says that the number has already been reduced from 1600 to 800 ... which indicates that the scaling back as consistently happened). 



> The problem is, the further the intervention and involvement the US has had in foreign affairs and the further it has expanded it's influence across the globe, the worse off those areas actually have become. They haven't gotten better in the slightest and that is because for too long the States has been unable to use restraint and not expand influence.


While I agree and obviously know that many US military interventions and expansions around the globe have been horrible this is at best an argument for scaling back and reallocation. It's not an argument for claiming that all of whatever is being spent ($165 billion) is all unjustified as your original post seemed to imply. What I'm trying to get across to your entire position is the idea of looking at itemized costs as opposed to isolating big chunks of numbers and making a case just because those numbers are big. 

The question why are they that big is more important than simply that they're big and therefore need to be reallocated in their entirety. 



> The US needs to scale things back, not push it even more forward.


Sure, but you and I can't sit here and say that we know by how much or how little when we don't even know what the money we're spending is even getting us if you know what I mean. I would love to know where that money goes. Really would. I hate the fact that taxes are stolen from people and we can't even get a look at the books of where they're being spent. I would love to be able to have some sort of control over the budget and would love for it to be reduced ... Intuitively I think that the tax money is being spent poorly ... but the fact is that at best what we currently have in that regard is educated guess and not facts ... I do support the idea of transparency and knowing exactly where every dollar is being spent as far as the military goes. 

But not knowing is also not an entirely valid reason for claiming that it's all being spent poorly either ... Knowing could even result in realizing that hey, maybe we do need to spend more after all. Not knowing unfortunately lets us draw poor conclusions with regards to prioritization of spending and that's part of the reason why we're having this argument. Personally, I'd love to know more. 

But ultimately, the method of looking at the overall cost and claiming that cost is bloated simply because it's a big number is a very weak and somewhat irrational argument. Stop looking at the real dollar value amount and how big that number is and start breaking it down to its smaller parts to see where that money is really going and why.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*










*OH ITS REAL, ITS DAMN REAL!* :trump3


----------



## Reaper

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

So I did some quick estimate on the number of people in front of the Trump Tower and at least in the images shown, there's about 1600-2000 people ... Which in pictures seems like a lot, but in reality in a city of 9 million and about 70% democrat is minuscule. Even if you raise the number to about 3000. That's still about .0003% ... That would be par for the course for how fringe this movement is. Calling it a million march and not even breaking a 100,000 :ha :heston

Good for them though. It's still about a thousand or so more than I expected. And the poor media has no narrative to spin on it because no one knows what the protest is even about :lmao 

Ok. Good very. Much people :kobelol


----------



## SWITCHBLADE

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

I knew I wasn't bullshitting myself....

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/822975485307133952


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

Another reason that Hillary bit the dust, I hope !
*
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/04/21/meet-the-hookers-for-hillary-why-prostitutes-want-hillary-clinton-for-president.html*


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

I'm no fan of mass protests as I see it more as a nuisance than really settling things, but geeze some of you sound like you would be in delight if terrorists hit these marches.

And this overreaction from the left is the equivalent of the right for 6 years about Obama. The left just has better organisation to make a spectacle. The right's method is to vote for politicians that disrupt things in the decision making process. Just this past year how many of Trumpters in these forums talk about helplessness or one particular poster said he was feeling suicidal if Trump don't win? If you can indulge crazy right wingers saying Obama is the anti-Christ or is a secret Muslim, indulge the crazy left for this hissy fit. Pot kettle black. :lol


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Rainmaka! said:


> I knew I wasn't bullshitting myself....
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/822975485307133952











@Carte Blanche Tell me she's full of shit. I mean, I know she is, but destroy her and let me read it. :trump


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> I'm no fan of mass protests as I see it more as a nuisance than really settling things, but geeze some of you sound like you would be in delight if terrorists hit these marches.
> 
> And this overreaction from the left is the equivalent of the right for 6 years about Obama. The left just has better organisation to make a spectacle. The right's method is to vote for politicians that disrupt things in the decision making process. Just this past year how many of Trumpters in these forums talk about helplessness or one particular poster said he was feeling suicidal if Trump don't win? If you can indulge crazy right wingers saying Obama is the anti-Christ or is a secret Muslim, indulge the crazy left for this hissy fit. Pot kettle black. :lol


Whats up bro, i see that subtle piss take. :quite


----------



## Reaper

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

As for Washington. At most the estimates are about 250,000. But that's probably a gross over exaggeration. However I'll wait for more picture and video evidence. This is indeed an impressive number. 

But still considering how long they've been organizing and how many people have also flown in. In another area of around 7 odd million when put to relative size, 250k isn't all that impressive. 

Congratulations people. You got another day of the same thing that you always get anyways and it won't change a dawned thing because Americans have by and large already seen this everyday for the last decade and have rejected your movement.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> @Carte Blanche Tell me she's full of shit. I mean, I know she is, but destroy her and let me read it. :trump


There is a twisted form of Islamic banking that basically changes interest to renting from the owner (which in this case can be the bank itself). 

Same thing as interest but they don't call it interest because interest is haram so they decided to call it rent instead. You never outright own what you buy. You are leased the item under a complex rent to own system where you pay a monthly rent where you end up paying always more than the original cost. So what she's saying is completely bullshit based on the fact that she herself has never gone to an Islamic bank to lease something :kobelol


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

Not sure how that number isn't impressive for protesting over nothing. A quarter of a million of tantrum throwing activists is something.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

Competent bus drivers always impress me.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/822827393782022144
Ultimately, though, the protests spanning Washington, D.C., New York City, Philadelphia, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco (much of the city is effectively shut down in terms of traveling either by car or via public transportation), and in London, Paris, Melbourne, etcetera, have boasted doubtless voluminous numbers. And for the most part the protests seemed peaceful, unlike the rioting and chaos of Friday in Washington (or at the University of Washington campus during the Milo Yiannopoulos event).


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> There is a twisted form of Islamic banking that basically changes interest to rent. Same thing as interest but they don't call it interest because interest is haram so they decided to call it rent instead. You never outright own what you buy. You are leased the item under a complex rent to own system where you pay a monthly rent where you end up paying always more than the original cost.
> 
> I think rent to own exists here in America as well.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


>


Yeah pretty much. 

There are a few legit philanthropists (my dad being one of them) that actually gives people "loans" to buy stuff and build their businesses interest free (I've done it too), but that's completely different and has nothing to do with Sharia Law. That's just being a good human.


----------



## virus21

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Yeah pretty much.
> 
> There are a few legit philanthropists (my dad being one of them) that actually gives people "loans" to buy stuff and build their businesses interest free (I've done it too), but that's completely different and has nothing to do with Sharia Law. That's just being a good human.


Here's another beauty:












Tell me, are you for or against a registry?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Tell me, are you for or against a registry?


The FBI already has one :lmao 

I was on it myself (or someone with the same name as I) and had to be cleared by homeland security on phone twice before boarding each flight in 2013 when I first visited my Fiance.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> The FBI already has one :lmao
> 
> I was on it myself and had to be cleared by homeland security twice before boarding each flight in 2013 when I first visited my Fiance.


So you're saying the process works :troll

(I kid!)


----------



## Reaper

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> So you're saying the process works :troll
> 
> (I kid!)


Absolutely! Even as a legal immigrant the first thing the FBI did was bioscan my fingerprints. All 10 digits and made me pay for it too :lol

Every legal immigrant in America is required by law to submit to a full medical as well as finger-printing. The only ones that get the best of America without any government interference are the fucking illegals. Great system we're living in ...


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Absolutely! Even as a legal immigrant the first thing the FBI did was bioscan my fingerprints. All 10 digits and made me pay for it too :lol
> 
> Every legal immigrant in America is required by law to submit to a full medical as well as finger-printing. The only ones that get the best of America without any government interference are the fucking illegals. Great system we're living in ...


NOT ANYMORE, BRO! :trump


----------



## Reaper

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/822975939890053120
Twitter code doesn't work in my phone. I'll fix it later.










Heavy metal is really what rules the world.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> [TWITTER]]822975939890053120[/TWITTER]


can't see it D:


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

http://nypost.com/2017/01/21/trumps-team-asked-for-replica-of-obamas-inauguration-cake/

Copying other people's work runs in the team. :lol


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*










Sweet. Tapdancing. Christ. fpalm


----------



## Reaper

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

Last one.


----------



## SWITCHBLADE

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Last one.


Holy shit....


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

@ Reaper holy fuck that is savage :sodone


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/822930622926745602
What is this senile old fuck talking about? :lol Identity politics is the left's game.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> @Reaper holy fuck that is savage :sodone
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/822930622926745602
> What is this senile old fuck talking about? :lol Identity politics is the left's game.


so much for "Oh, I'll work with him, Goys! trust me!" :lmao


----------



## Mifune Jackson

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/822930622926745602
> What is this senile old fuck talking about? :lol Identity politics is the left's game.


When it's an excuse to hang out and feel camaraderie, they're all about being together. When it comes to actually implementing a policy based on the problems they have, they'll start eating each other. What I see in the Left these days is things like Ben Affleck white knighting Sam Harris on Islam, or all the Bernie vs Hillary shit from last year. 

It feels good, what they did today, I'm sure, but they really need to actually start talking and I don't think they actually want to do that. It's a fight they need to have, but it's one I'm seeing no signs of ending or what any sort of resolution could be.


----------



## SWITCHBLADE

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> @ Reaper holy fuck that is savage :sodone
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/822930622926745602
> What is this senile old fuck talking about? :lol Identity politics is the left's game.


There are going to be so many Leftists memes coming these next 4 years. I can't wait :lmao


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

*http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-climate-change-data-20170121-story.html*

" UCLA scientists mark Trump's inauguration with plan to protect climate change data "

On a rainy Inauguration Day morning, dozens of students, archivists, librarians, professors and other concerned citizens gathered in a UCLA classroom, poring over the Department of Energy website. They sifted through pages covering a broad spectrum of topics, from energy-efficient buildings and solar power to transportation and bioenergy.

The goal of Friday’s six-hour workshop: To protect publicly available climate data on government websites – data that some feared could be deleted or otherwise degraded by a new administration that has indicated its aversion to climate science.

“Climate change data is specifically under attack,” said Joan Donovan, a researcher with UCLA’s Institute for Society and Genetics who spoke on a panel at the event. “There are real stakes to doing the work we’re doing today.” 

Without good data, researchers said, you can’t make good policy. Scientific data, carefully taken over many decades, are essential for crafting a long-term strategy to deal with climate change. 

“I am not ‘post-truth’ and neither should you be,” Donovan told the attendees. “Today we are fighting a war of information.”

President Trump has called climate change a hoax; his pick to run the Environmental Protection Agency, Oklahoma Atty. Gen. Scott Pruitt, has repeatedly sued the EPA and in a confirmation hearing said he did not accept the overwhelming scientific consensus that Earth is warming at a catastrophic rate and that human activity is to blame.

The workshop, planned by UCLA information studies graduate students Jennifer Pierre, Brittany Paris, Irene Pasquetto and Morgan Currie in a matter of weeks, was inspired by a “hackathon” hosted by the University of Toronto in December to preserve U.S. environmental data.

For Michelle Murphy, one of the organizers of the hackathon and director of the University of Toronto’s Technoscience Research Unit, the fear that a new administration might wage a war on climate science was rooted in experience — during the years that Conservative Stephen Harper served as Canada’s prime minister, from 2006 to 2015.

“Up here in Canada, under the Harper administration, we saw scientists being fired, scientists being muzzled, data lost, archives destroyed, regulations changed – and there was a big movement here around evidence and evidenced-based governance,” said Murphy, a founding member of the Environmental Data & Governance Initiative.

Since the University of Toronto hackathon, similar efforts have sprung up across the United States, including in Philadelphia, Chicago and Indianapolis. Data are being uploaded to the Internet Archive, a nonprofit digital library, as well as through DataRefuge, an initiative out of the University of Pennsylvania.

Some volunteers worked to “nominate” pages whose data might not have been captured by automatic webcrawlers used by the Internet Archive; others with more technical skills were building scripts that could pull the inaccessible information off those less accessible sites. Among their priorities: making sure that the metadata and other key contextual information is preserved along with the information itself.

It’s also not enough to blindly copy the data, Donovan pointed out. Such information, like a fossil dug haphazardly out of the ground, isn’t all that useful without knowing its original context. That’s why it’s essential to draw on the wisdom of archivists, who know how to properly preserve that information for use by future generations.

Some students and professionals said they attended the event to participate in an activity that, on Inauguration Day, felt both proactive and productive; others said they came simply to learn about and discuss broader issues in data science.

“I’m just glad to learn these things so that I can know how to do this later, too,” said Sara Bond, a UCLA graduate student in information science.

Fellow graduate student Ellen Colvin, sitting next to her, agreed.

“Guaranteed, more information’s just going to go away,” she said. “And it’s going to be our job to try and stop it — to stem the flow.”

Sibyl Schaefer, a digital analyst with the UC San Diego Library, noted that information doesn’t need to be deleted to be damaged.

“I think the bigger threat is the actual funding of the collection of the data,” she said. “Some of that longitudinal data, if you stop collecting it, you have a gap in the record — which is scary.”

The urgency of the event was driven home earlier that morning, when Jonathan Furner, chairman of UCLA’s information studies department, stood up in the middle of a discussion to make a breaking-news announcement.

“The headline that I’m looking at right now is ‘Donald Trump just replaced the White House climate website with nothing,’” he said. “All data about climate change has been deleted from the White House website.”

A pall spread over the room, but soon broke.

“The archive got it,” someone said.

The important thing was not the White House’s information page, which changes with every administration, but the EPA’s databases, the researchers said. And much of that data had already been protected.

Still, they added, there are plenty of climate science data in the constellation of government-funded sites still waiting to be saved. And the removal of climate change from the White House site sent a clear signal to groups trying to salvage that information — which is why the Environmental Data & Governance Initiative is calling for funds to help finish the work as soon as possible. 

“If we cannot raise sufficient funds by the time the president’s full team is in place, data under the EPA and other organizations is at dire risk,” Ted Bordelon of the nonprofit 314 Action, which has partnered with EDGI on the archiving effort, said in a statement.


----------



## MillionDollarProns

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/822930622926745602


But all I see are like white people here. :ghost


----------



## Goku

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

the only thing these protests are going to do is drive more centrists into camp trump. So, basically what the left has been doing for a while now.

And trump wins :trump


----------



## Reaper

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



> * " UCLA scientists mark Trump's inauguration with plan to protect climate change data "*


That right there by itself is the single-most anti-science statement you can possibly make.

And this protectionism of a branch of "science" is one of the primary reasons why I've been forced from a position of firm "belief" to one of skepticism. 

You only hear about protectionism like this in pseudoscience and religion.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> That right there by itself is the single-most anti-science statement you can possibly make.
> 
> And this protectionism of a branch of "science" is one of the primary reasons why I've been forced from a position of firm "belief" to one of skepticism.
> 
> You only hear about protectionism like this in pseudoscience and religion.


i dunno. atheism pulls out bs data too.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> @ Reaper holy fuck that is savage :sodone
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/822930622926745602
> What is this senile old fuck talking about? :lol Identity politics is the left's game.


The Left crying about dividing people up by race, gender, sexuality, yadda yadda while they push this diversity crap on people where everyone is different and divide everyone up? Do they even know what they're talking about anymore?

:laugh:


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Mifune Jackson said:


> When it's an excuse to hang out and feel camaraderie, they're all about being together. When it comes to actually implementing a policy based on the problems they have, they'll start eating each other. What I see in the Left these days is things like Ben Affleck white knighting Sam Harris on Islam, or all the Bernie vs Hillary shit from last year.
> 
> It feels good, what they did today, I'm sure, but they really need to actually start talking and I don't think they actually want to do that. It's a fight they need to have, but it's one I'm seeing no signs of ending or what any sort of resolution could be.


Even CNN noted that the protesters all had different signs and demands and that this will likely fall apart unless the can consolidate and brand themselves very quickly

too big, too fast

The organizer claims it shows that they are not "single issue voters" but I think it will ruin their momentum

If they can pick the big things they want than they will likely get it but it looks like they will split into interest groups that will be competing for air time 

For instance the women's march didn't want to include pro-life feminists (and there are a lot of them)and flat out told them no


----------



## SWITCHBLADE

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

My girl Kelly has 0 chill :lmao

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/822950730885697537


----------



## Reaper

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

Trash left behind by the trash that marched. These cunts and their privilege. So much so that they don't give a shit about who's gonna clean up after them.


----------



## SWITCHBLADE

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/822637639606108160
:trump


----------



## njcam

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

Keith Ellison discussing the possibility of Donald Trump winning the Republican Presidential nomination, and reporters laughing (ABC's "This Week" in July of 2015).







Would love to know who the female horse-head reporter is.


----------



## njcam

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*


----------



## MillionDollarProns

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

What is it with protestors thinking "pink text on pink background" is readable for a sign? Is this the 2017 version of having a yellow on yellow MySpace display?


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

While I'm not the biggest fan of Trump, calling for his assassination is just uncalled for. I was actually watching the parade while I was at a restaurant and I was legitimately worried that something might happen to him. That car was moving so slow.

Those calling for his assassination are no better than the people they criticize and in some ways, have become worse.


----------



## Tater

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

#SpicerFacts

:ha

*White House press secretary inspires new meme: #SpicerFacts*


----------



## Neuron

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Trash left behind by the trash that marched. These cunts and their privilege. So much so that they don't give a shit about who's gonna clean up after them.



The people cleaning this mess up will likely be men as well. I wonder how many of them are aware that being allowed to protest in open daylight in this manner is the ultimate privilege. I will say, unless there was some media suppression and I missed something, I'll give them props for not being violent today. I still think it was a waste of a day. I'm under the impression that this was more so a catharsis for fanatic Hillary supporters to vent about their failure and pretend that they're part of something big. Everyone will forget about this by next week.


----------



## njcam

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Trash left behind by the trash that marched. These cunts and their privilege. So much so that they don't give a shit about who's gonna clean up after them.


Does not surprise me that these female protesters left their garbage behind... those women are the men-hating, armpit-hair wearing, binge-watching "Girls" series.... who are really just selfish individuals.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*










WE MARS NOW!


----------



## SWITCHBLADE

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Neuron said:


> The people cleaning this mess up will likely be men as well. I wonder how many of them are aware that being allowed to protest in open daylight in this manner is the ultimate privilege. I will say, unless there was some media suppression and I missed something, I'll give them props for not being violent today. I still think it was a waste of a day. I'm under the impression that this was more so a catharsis for fanatic Hillary supporters to vent about their failure and pretend that they're part of something big. Everyone will forget about this by next week.


It will only be remembered as it should be: through memes.








>


----------



## virus21

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> WE MARS NOW!


Do it Trump. We can send the protesters there and they can have a planet of their own


----------



## njcam

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



njcam said:


>


Underrated spiciness! :trump


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> #SpicerFacts
> 
> :ha
> 
> *White House press secretary inspires new meme: #SpicerFacts*


Tate...Bruh...the left makes hashtags to try to lick the wounds Trump gives them all the time. Every other day even. Its no great thing and they aren't even true.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



stevefox1200 said:


> Even CNN noted that the protesters all had different signs and demands and that this will likely fall apart unless the can consolidate and brand themselves very quickly
> 
> too big, too fast
> 
> The organizer claims it shows that they are not "single issue voters" but I think it will ruin their momentum
> 
> If they can pick the big things they want than they will likely get it but it looks like they will split into interest groups that will be competing for air time
> 
> For instance the women's march didn't want to include pro-life feminists (and there are a lot of them)and flat out told them no


I know a lot of people who attended these marches. They had no idea what the fuck they were even marching about, except that they're mad Trump is the president and he's a sexist pig who will force women to have babies blah blah blah. I think it's all just meaningless virtue signalling. There's no objective. This isn't going to become a movement that gains momentum and actually achieves anything. 

I'm looking forward to the anti-war protests when Trump bombs ISIS or possibly continues Obama's drone program. I'll be there, right in the face of the organizers, asking where the fuck they've been for the last 8 years.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

I don't even know what the white house is trying to accomplish by trying to paint the crowd at the inauguration as larger than it actually was. It is held in and near democrat strongholds, so Republicans presidents would usually attract lesser crowds than democrat presidents.

And more importantly, visual evidence is hard to deny that there were much less people compared to 2009.

The women's march attracting a larger crowd is hilarious though. :ha


----------



## MillionDollarProns

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

This was a great day to be on social media, because every Stacy I follow has been finding different excuses to post selfies for the sake of empowerment.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

Where's Trump's Peace Prize for getting elected? 

I am interested to see if there are protests over drone strikes when Obama's been bombing the entire mid east for 8 years.


----------



## njcam

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*


----------



## Neuron

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> I know a lot of people who attended these marches. They had no idea what the fuck they were even marching about, except that they're mad Trump is the president and he's a sexist pig who will force women to have babies blah blah blah. I think it's all just meaningless virtue signalling.


Oh yes, that too. Being able to say you marched at Washington is great social capital in these circles.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Where's Trump's Peace Prize for getting elected?
> 
> I am interested to see if there are protests over drone strikes when Obama's been bombing the entire mid east for 8 years.


I know American schools like to give out participation awards to kids but I don't think the peace prize is that for all American Presidents. For what's its worth, someone put Trump's name up for considerations last year. Better luck this year?


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> @ Reaper holy fuck that is savage :sodone
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/822930622926745602
> What is this senile old fuck talking about? :lol Identity politics is the left's game.


The irony is thicker than a New York cheesecake. The Left's identity politics-über-alles approach actually managed to finally push white women--in the election cycle that saw a white woman running as the nominee for the Democrats!!--toward the GOP with a supposed misogynist running for the presidency on behalf of the Republican ticket, so weary of seeing their husbands, sons, brothers, fathers vilified and/or cast aside by agents of the Left they were. 

Various groups within the leftist coalition recognize this truth: 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/822923862132346881
Race will once again trump gender, as just as it did when Democrats flocked to Barack Obama rather than go along with boring "old" Hillary Clinton back in 2008. 

@Carte Blanche provided these thoughts to me via visitor-messaging on this topic as we discussed this very phenomenon:



> This woman march thing is a great thing because give it a few months and it'll cannibalize itself because of identity politics. The black feminists will start their own chapter. The muslim women will start their own chapter. There will be mass inter-fighting and it'll eventually dissipate :shrug


To which I told him that his prediction was already bearing fruit, as per that tweet above (and many other instances exist online as well). He continued:



> We also saw identity politics rear its ugly heads when Obama went against Hillary where a black man got more support than a white woman - which is exactly how intersectionality applies. White women are less impoverished than black men therefore black men are more deserving of our support than white women and so on.
> 
> It's going to keep happening to the democrats till it simply tears the party asunder and they hit the reset button.
> 
> And apparently, they're already gunning for Warren to run in 2020 ... and IIRC at least a few major MSM outlets ran a couple of articles on the next random black democrat they could find to prop up for 2020. We're not done, but in the next primaries, the democrats are going to tear themselves apart again and will be ripe for the picking again. Calling it 4 years in advance!


Sublimely stated, and an excellent analysis of "intersectionality." :clap



Neuron said:


> The people cleaning this mess up will likely be men as well. I wonder how many of them are aware that being allowed to protest in open daylight in this manner is the ultimate privilege. I will say, unless there was some media suppression and I missed something, I'll give them props for not being violent today. I still think it was a waste of a day. I'm under the impression that this was more so a catharsis for fanatic Hillary supporters to vent about their failure and pretend that they're part of something big. Everyone will forget about this by next week.


As @CamillePunk noted in response here (tried to quote that post but it was botched on my part, apparently), there was certainly a great deal of Live Action Roleplaying going on throughout the land. It was almost a "save-face day" for feminism following Hillary's defeat, perhaps. In any event I agree that within a few days it will be forgotten about.


----------



## Goku

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

bernie didn't tag trump in his tweet :mj4

he knows how it would end :mj


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> I know American schools like to give out participation awards to kids but I don't think the peace prize is that for all American Presidents. For what's its worth, someone put Trump's name up for considerations last year. Better luck this year?


Considering Obama got it for nothing while increasing drone strikes and approving of operations which seen many people killed, I thought that the Peace Prize was just given out. Besides my statement was sarcastic.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

There was a lot of joy from the last few days, from the complete flop of an inauguration for one of the biggest buffoons to ever lead a country to the hilarity of all these assholes protesting trump across the world. 

The left and the right are doing a grand job of making 2017 go off with a lot of laughs.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Considering Obama got it for nothing while increasing drone strikes and approving of operations which seen many people killed, I thought that the Peace Prize was just given out. Besides my statement was sarcastic.


He got it before all that though, his getting the reward was a joke, but then they gave it to Henry Kissinger, so really, who gives a fuck about it. Its a joke achievement, on the PS scale of trophies its a silver.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



draykorinee said:


> He got it before all that though, his getting the reward was a joke, but then they gave it to Henry Kissinger, so really, who gives a fuck about it. Its a joke achievement, on the PS scale of trophies its a silver.


It's a joke award, couldn't think of a better person to receive such an award since he did fuckall. Really the award should go to people who actually do good and preferably not for an angle nor money.


----------



## ForYourOwnGood

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

Here's the thing. Why SHOULD Trump care? What have the protestors done? What have they accomplished? They came, they marched, they went back home. 
If you're just going to show up for a day, then fuck off without having actually done anything, why should the President give a flying fuck about anything they have to say?

It's a sad say when a dried up old skank like Madonna is the only one with any productive ideas. Sure, blowing up the White House might technically be illegal, but at least you could respect it. But they did nothing of consequence, went back home, and are now telling people that they've changed the world. How?


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

Secret Service to investigate Madonna following her "blow up the White House" remarks.

Send her to Gitmo imo. :aryha

Mostly kidding.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



draykorinee said:


> There was a lot of joy from the last few days, from the complete flop of an inauguration for one of the biggest buffoons to ever lead a country to the hilarity of all these assholes protesting trump across the world.
> 
> The left and the right are doing a grand job of making 2017 go off with a lot of laughs.





ForYourOwnGood said:


> Here's the thing. Why SHOULD Trump care? What have the protestors done? What have they accomplished? They came, they marched, they went back home.
> If you're just going to show up for a day, then fuck off without having actually done anything, why should the President give a flying fuck about anything they have to say?
> 
> It's a sad say when a dried up old skank like Madonna is the only one with any productive ideas. Sure, blowing up the White House might technically be illegal, but at least you could respect it. But they did nothing of consequence, went back home, and are now telling people that they've changed the world. How?


And you know what will happen? Everyone will go home feeling they accomplished something and go to watch the new Marvel movie a few months later. :lol

Same as the WWE haters here bitching about WWE for 363days and then watch Wrestlemania.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> Secret Service to investigate Madonna following her "blow up the White House" remarks.
> 
> Send her to Gitmo imo. :aryha
> 
> Mostly kidding.


Why even bother? She's an old woman seeking attention. It's like the band Green Day, always crying for attention, they're just 50 year old guys thinking it's the 90's and they're still in their 20's. Young celebs are annoying but these past their prime, hanging onto their last shred of fame by attaching themselves to politics are just pathetic.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

@Miss Sally are you seriously calling _Madonna_ an attention-seeker? No. Way. :aryha

It is sad that anyone would listen to such a sad exhibitionist speak about anything remotely important, let alone take the words spilling out of her mouth seriously.


----------



## SWITCHBLADE

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> @Miss Sally are you seriously calling _Madonna_ an attention-seeker? No. Way. :aryha
> 
> It is sad that anyone would listen to such a sad exhibitionist speak about anything remotely important, let alone take the words spilling out of her mouth seriously.


Is there anything Madonna _WOULDN'T_ blow at this rate?


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*










Gets upset when a billionaire was naughty with gold diggers. Bats an eye when a female politician took donations from Middle East countries.

#WomensMarch 


*Re: Madonna*

The washed up fossil, who made a career out of sexually objectifying women, and admitted terrorist supporter is their champion of "love and justice." The liberal lunacy is out in full swing!

- Vic


----------



## Reaper

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

They rally behind Madonna because unlike in the past of principled and academically oriented liberals modern leftists are all about glitz and glamor and have a weaker intelligentsia than ever. They don't have renowned academics to rally behind because the really intelligent liberals refuse to support their movement so it leaves them ripe for the Hollywood attention whores. 

It's yet another apt symbol of the left's continued descent into madness.

Listen to Camille Paglia on modern feminism. One if the brightest liberals of our generation and wants nothing to do with modern 'liberalism'.


----------



## Beatles123

I notice we have a lot more Centipedes in here than we used to. Good on all of you lads. Death to the regressive left and socialism! :trump

OH SHIT!!!

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/193/text

Will Trump pass it, @DesolationRow ???


ALSO:


----------



## Reaper

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

Nvm


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

^ "Love Trumps Hate"










- Vic


----------



## The5star_Kid

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Stinger Fan said:


> They actually compared Donald Trump to Bane from the Dark Knight Rises, think about how ridiculous that is. They've been "decoding" his speech to make everything about it as an attack on anyone who isn't white. It's incredibly absurd


I watched his speech and there was nothing racist (from what I remember) about it BUT it was absolutely surreal. The man has titans of industry, never elected as senators or any such thing, multi billionaires, as part of his cabinet and the vast majority of his speech was about giving back to the common man.

It was so hypocritical I found myself laughing at people cheering him. SMH.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The5star_Kid said:


> I watched his speech and there was nothing racist (from what I remember) about it BUT it was absolutely surreal. The man has titans of industry, never elected as senators or any such thing, multi billionaires, as part of his cabinet and the vast majority of his speech was about giving back to the common man.
> 
> It was so hypocritical I found myself laughing at people cheering him. SMH.


how do you think people become millionaires? Could it be by providing a product or service that the majority desire, thereby exchanging their money for it?


----------



## amhlilhaus

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

That womens march was crazy.

They gave a shout out to their muslim brothers.

Uh, you dumb fucks, know how your muslim brothers would treat you?

I sometimes wish progressives would get EVERYTHING they want. It wouldnt be the utopia thats in their heads, thats for sure.

Then i remember i live here, and i dont want to be a part of that living hell


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



ForYourOwnGood said:


> Here's the thing. Why SHOULD Trump care? What have the protestors done? What have they accomplished? They came, they marched, they went back home.
> If you're just going to show up for a day, then fuck off without having actually done anything, why should the President give a flying fuck about anything they have to say?
> 
> It's a sad say when a dried up old skank like Madonna is the only one with any productive ideas. Sure, blowing up the White House might technically be illegal, but at least you could respect it. But they did nothing of consequence, went back home, and are now telling people that they've changed the world. How?


When 4 years go by and no rights were taken away, feminists out there will take the credit for it by claiming the march scared the "evil old man". I mentioned this yesterday on facebook... a couple feminists weren't too pleased by it and having their rights(yes plural) taken away but can only mention their desire to not have abortions taken away from them.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

https://canipunchnazis.com/


----------



## Goku

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

can i punch socialists?


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

Socialists who are also racial supremacists, sure.


----------



## Goku

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

so i can't?


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

Do you think socialism and nazism are morally equivalent?


----------



## Goku

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Do you think socialism and nazism are morally equivalent?


it doesn't matter what i think, the question is does anybody think nazism and any other ideology are morally equivalent?

the answer is very likely to be yes.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*










My sister liked this shit this morning fpalm

Makes me disgusted that my sister is slowly turning into a brown supremacist that likes posts of people who implicitly demand white people to apologise to browns simply because they're white and outnumber them in the population.

So there literally were brown women watching the march on screen and thinking .. "wow, so many white people" .. and that's it. That's why intellectual diversity is dead amongst leftists. Because instead of rallying behind ideas, they rally behind trivialities.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

That Brown solidarity. roud

Come, Reaper. Let us Brown brothers act in solidarity too. :banderas


----------



## Reaper

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

:honoraryblack

I also kinda find it weird that light-skinned blacks are now identifying as brown. 

It makes me feel like they're trying to steal *my *identity!


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> :honoraryblack
> 
> I also kinda find it weird that light-skinned blacks are now identifying as brown.
> 
> It makes me feel like they're trying to steal *my *identity!


That's bad but "trans-racial" white people pretending to be something else is probably the worst.

Also if everything I feel is valid and true then if I feel these morons are completely wrong does that mean there is an ideological paradox?!


----------



## Reaper

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Also if everything I feel is valid and true then if I feel these morons are completely wrong does that mean there is an ideological paradox?!


:mj4 No because ultimately only what they feel is true. Not what you or a I feel because remember, we're race traitors because we don't feel oppressed.


----------



## The5star_Kid

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



Goku said:


> how do you think people become millionaires? Could it be by providing a product or service that the majority desire, thereby exchanging their money for it?


lol what are you talking about and how is it related to my post or trumps speech?


----------



## The5star_Kid

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> My sister liked this shit this morning fpalm
> 
> Makes me disgusted that my sister is slowly turning into a brown supremacist that likes posts of people who implicitly demand white people to apologise to browns simply because they're white and outnumber them in the population.
> 
> So there literally were brown women watching the march on screen and thinking .. "wow, so many white people" .. and that's it. That's why intellectual diversity is dead amongst leftists. Because instead of rallying behind ideas, they rally behind trivialities.


You must have terrible English comprehension skills if you think this is a brown supremacy post...


----------



## Reaper

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

^Had a feeling this guy won't get it :lmao 

Oh well, 

1979 vs 2017. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/823191957732282369


The5star_Kid said:


> You must have terrible English comprehension skills if you think this is a brown supremacy post...


1. Talks about browns as though all of these problems were exclusively faced by them 

2. Ignoring years of history of white people as allies for browns and blacks (ignoring historical events in order to push a particular agenda is a classic cry of the color supremacist. Something we've seen specifically with the KKK in the past where they used only the so-called rapes of white women in order to rally violence against blacks at that point in time. 

3. This is literally how the KKK talks when they talk about the rape of white women by blacks exclusively and they used that as a rallying cry to increase their membership). Same strategy as crying about victimhood that's faced by everyone as somehow exclusive to their race makes this a supremacist rallying cry. 

4. Expecting innocent white people to do something about every single brown person's victimization as though whites had some sort of an added responsibility to do something about it is guilt tripping specifically designed to gain their sympathy for only a specific group of people. 

5. Shaming whites who have nothing to do with this problem for marching for their own agendas and suggesting that the brown agenda and suffering is greater. 

It's exclusively talking about a specific group of people sharing a color and is heavily implying that their problems are superior to the fears of the white women protesting. What about the white women who protested fearing that their rights to abortion might get taken away. They don't have the right to do that because they weren't around to protest the specific killings of specific people at some random point in history? White women's problems aren't as important or necessary as black and brown women problems based on the fact that they were faced by some black and brown women at random intervals in the past based on the conspiracy theory that there was an actual racial reason for deportations when whites are also deported when they migrate illegal? 

The supremacist never outright says that we are superior and that's not the only way to determine that they are. The supremacist uses implications to suggest that their problems and their suffering is greater because of their race and not because of other factors. I would say the same thing about whites who claim that their suffering is greater because they're white as long as they can't rationalise it with some sort of reason. 

Where's the rationalization of the brown suffering being greater and that white women should not march in washington and should have marched in the past specifically for brown problems because they were problems faced by browns and therefore that nullifies this march by white women because they didn't march for brown people in the past. 

How is this NOT a supremacist post considering that it's heavily implying in every which way that brown suffering is greater and that white women have a responsibility to march for brown suffering?


----------



## Oxidamus

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

Does anyone have a nice little efficient, compressed blog or something to follow exactly what Trump has done day by day or week by week while in office? I'm very interested in keeping tabs. I don't know how.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



The5star_Kid said:


> lol what are you talking about and how is it related to my post or trumps speech?


sorry don't have time for language classes


----------



## virus21

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*


----------



## Reaper

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

^ What is even that black woman (2:00 minute mark) .. like what is it? ... what's going on ...

Is that voodoo with a rubber chicken?


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> I know a lot of people who attended these marches. They had no idea what the fuck they were even marching about, except that they're mad Trump is the president and he's a sexist pig who will force women to have babies blah blah blah. I think it's all just meaningless virtue signalling. There's no objective. This isn't going to become a movement that gains momentum and actually achieves anything.
> 
> I'm looking forward to the anti-war protests when Trump bombs ISIS or possibly continues Obama's drone program. I'll be there, right in the face of the organizers, asking where the fuck they've been for the last 8 years.


*Well said. It's amazing how much the left tolerates military force when the Left is doing it. Here's a great example of this behavior.





*


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/21/w...tax-returns-flies-past-100000-signature-goal/



> A Whitehouse.gov petition calling for President Donald Trump to immediately release his tax returns has surpassed the 100,000-signature threshold in under a day, garnering a Whitehouse response.
> 
> It’s not clear that the current administration intends to follow the practice established under Former President Barack Obama, of accepting petitions online, reviewing and responding to them should they reach a threshold of 100,000 signatures and meet other terms and conditions. TechCrunch has reached out to the Whitehouse seeking information about any planned changes to the handling of petitions by the Trump administration.


:duck

They're still harping on those tax returns. Can someone please explain to me what they hope to accomplish by doing this? I never quite understood the significance of Trump releasing his tax returns.


----------



## MOX

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*










:hmm:


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

Trump responded to the protests this morning:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/823150055418920960

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/823174199036542980
:sodone


----------



## Reaper

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

If the protestors really believed (or even understood what fascism even means), they would have stayed home afraid of having the might of Trump's Nazis crush their protests. 

They don't believe he's hitler, or a fascist or any of that crap. They is a mass collective delusion that they're victims because that's all they've been taught. They want to believe - and maybe even hoping - that some sort of massive genocide would happen just so that they can tweet about it. 

That's what this fringe of the left has become.

---


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

Linda Sarsour, one of the organizers for the Women's March campaign yesterday, is a firm proponent of Sharia Law, which holds women as inferior to men and deprives them of basic rights provided by the civilized West. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/823070612570574848
This was also going on at the March yesterday:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/823160722658131968


----------



## virus21

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Linda Sarsour, one of the organizers for the Women's March campaign yesterday, is a firm proponent of Sharia Law, which holds women as inferior to men and deprives them of basic rights provided by the civilized West.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/823070612570574848
> This was also going on at the March yesterday:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/823160722658131968


I'll just leave this here


----------



## Genking48

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Anark said:


> :hmm:


Thank you, now I don't feel so bad about posting this.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

Trump with that god tier response.


I still don't know 100% what this is all about. I'm convinced no one does. They all have their different notion of what it is/was. 

If one of the organizers really is into Sharia Law, I just went insane over the irony of this.


----------



## FatherJackHackett

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



The Absolute said:


> https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/21/w...tax-returns-flies-past-100000-signature-goal/
> 
> :duck
> 
> They're still harping on those tax returns. Can someone please explain to me what they hope to accomplish by doing this? I never quite understood the significance of Trump releasing his tax returns.


Trump has made no secret of the fact that he does everything he can to legally pay as little tax as possible. He went on CNN (if memory serves) and outright said it to the presenter. If one disagrees with the fact that the system can yield such an outcome, that's one thing, but don't rag on Trump because he doesn't want to forcibly hand over his money to people who haven't earned it.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*


----------



## Reaper

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*


----------



## jayman321

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

God bless Donald Trump.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

Unfortunately phase 3 of Now President Donald Trump's 'Operation Copy Obama' hit a snag at his recent inauguration.

For those needing a catch-up:

1) Copy First Lady Michelle Obama's speech - Check
2) Copy Obama's cake - check
3) Copy, or if possible, best, Obama's inauguration crowd - umm.... errrr.... (Blame it on the media somehow!)


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Unfortunately phase 3 of Now President Donald Trump's 'Operation Copy Obama' hit a snag at his recent inauguration.
> 
> For those needing a catch-up:
> 
> 1) Copy First Lady Michelle Obama's speech - Check
> 2) Copy Obama's cake - check
> 3) Copy, or if possible, best, Obama's inauguration crowd - umm.... errrr.... (Blame it on the media somehow!)


welcome to 50 pages ago, slowpoke. :troll


----------



## Reaper

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


>


You're not gonna see this so it's ok. I don't really care if you learn something or not - since you've spent practically a year in this thread and have somehow regressed over time. 

But this is the benefit of those who've also been duped by this fake image. 

Here's what Trump's inauguration really looked like after it had started.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> welcome to 50 pages ago, slowpoke. :troll


You must've been pretty upset when The Donald proved he wasn't the draw Obama was.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

^Gotta love how much this guy's celebrating something so wrong :lmao 

Here's more that I just captured from CNN's Gigapixel. 





































That's full capacity.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> You must've been pretty upset when The Donald proved he wasn't the draw Obama was.


Racist. :trump


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

*yeahbaby falling for fake news? :maisielol*


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*










Based Manlet Randlet. :trump3 (I like him tho)


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

*The Paul's are GOAT*


----------



## Mifune Jackson

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> That's full capacity.


I've been seeing conflicting info on this. Here's a timelapse and, and I'm still seeing a lot of white before and after. It's entirely possible that parts were edited out, there is a fade towards the end.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

Ron Paul knowing what's up like always.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Mifune Jackson said:


> I've been seeing conflicting info on this. Here's a timelapse and, and I'm still seeing a lot of white before and after. It's entirely possible that parts were edited out, there is a fade towards the end.


That's not a conflicting report. This Time-lapse ends at sunrise. The inauguration went on till 2. :lol 

You should go check the gigapixel yourself. Now until and unless CNN has actually photoshopped more people in, that is at this point the best evidence.


----------



## Mifune Jackson

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> That's not a conflicting report. This Time-lapse ends at sunrise. The inauguration went on till 2. :lol


Why would people file in and out before sunrise? It shows both people coming in and leaving en masse.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Mifune Jackson said:


> Why would people file in and out before sunrise? It shows both people coming in and leaving en masse.


Even in the description of the video it clearly states that this is just showing us the sunrise.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

Jesus fucking Christ 

next election I want them to change inauguration into a closed ceremony with congress

the president is not a summer blockbuster, using a "draw" as proof of quality is stupid 

North Korea can get world record crowds for Kim's events, I guess he is a great and beloved leader


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

So easily triggered are some of Team Trump, feeling the need to defend Trump's, ahem, smaller size. Who cares how big the crowds were, there are so many factors going into it anyway.

What's quite disappointing in this thread for the Trumpeters is the lack of any positivity, just consistent attack attack attack the other side. Your guy won, he's in, how about some hope for the future and positivity? It's just easier to bash the other side I suppose.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> So easily triggered are some of Team Trump, feeling the need to defend Trump's, ahem, smaller size.* Who cares how big the crowds were, there are so many factors going into it anyway.*
> 
> What's quite disappointing in this thread for the Trumpeters is the lack of any positivity, just consistent attack attack attack the other side. Your guy won, he's in, how about some hope for the future and positivity? It's just easier to bash the other side I suppose.


:mj4 

The hypocrisy of this guy. Instead of admitting that he was wrong, now he's going on a rant about who cares when *he *made the initial post with the fake image :lmao


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> So easily triggered are some of Team Trump, feeling the need to defend Trump's, ahem, smaller size. Who cares how big the crowds were, there are so many factors going into it anyway.
> 
> What's quite disappointing in this thread for the Trumpeters is the lack of any positivity, just consistent attack attack attack the other side. Your guy won, he's in, how about some hope for the future and positivity? It's just easier to bash the other side I suppose.



*I'm left of center and consider myself liberal and I dislike Trump almost with a passion but the majority of the bashing I see is the left bashing the right and it makes the left look fucking pathetic and huge hypocrites. I'd like to say I'm surprised but I'm not. *


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> :mj4
> 
> The hypocrisy of this guy. Instead of admitting that he was wrong, now he's going on a rant about who cares when *he *made the initial post with the fake image :lmao


Leftists hate it when you hit back. :lol Most of the criticism of Trump this election cycle has been because he's hit back at people who hit him first. 

"Wahh, that's not presidential", they cry. Personally, I say "Finally, someone with balls!".


----------



## PanopticonPrime

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Goku said:


> the only thing these protests are going to do is drive more centrists into camp trump. So, basically what the left has been doing for a while now.
> 
> And trump wins :trump


This has happened to me. I am black, growing up it was always vote democrats only, they care about black people. As I became an adult and more educated, I grew out of that irrational point of view and became a centrist, although I did still tend to support democrats. But now I can't. I see the left has gone crazy, especially with the identity politics. Also, I grew up in Chicago on the southside, and Chicago has been ruled by democrats since the 1930s, yet the black neighborhoods are shit. It is time for a change.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



stevefox1200 said:


> Jesus fucking Christ
> 
> next election I want them to change inauguration into a closed ceremony with congress
> 
> the president is not a summer blockbuster, using a "draw" as proof of quality is stupid
> 
> North Korea can get world record crowds for Kim's events, I guess he is a great and beloved leader


I know. I've seen the North Korea comparison on Imgur already. 

However, we should all be vigilant and stop North Korean-isque propaganda from spreading lest we start believing that Madonna doesn't have a butthole and that Katy Perry was raised by wolves and that bearded weirdo celebrity who was tweeting from the march is a man.


----------



## FatherJackHackett

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Leftists hate it when you hit back. :lol Most of the criticism of Trump this election cycle has been because he's hit back at people who hit him first.
> 
> "Wahh, that's not presidential", they cry. Personally, I say "Finally, someone with balls!".


I've always been intrigued by the use of the word 'presidential'. Having heard it said many times now over the years, it seems to mean 'speaking in flowery language and empty platitudes while making sure you couldn't possibly offend anybody'.

In that case yes, there is absolutely nothing presidential about Donald Trump - and thank fuck for that.


----------



## TripleG

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



stevefox1200 said:


> Jesus fucking Christ
> 
> next election I want them to change inauguration into a closed ceremony with congress
> 
> *the president is not a summer blockbuster, using a "draw" as proof of quality is stupid
> *
> North Korea can get world record crowds for Kim's events, I guess he is a great and beloved leader


Yup!


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> So easily triggered are some of Team Trump, feeling the need to defend Trump's, ahem, smaller size. Who cares how big the crowds were, there are so many factors going into it anyway.
> 
> What's quite disappointing in this thread for the Trumpeters is the lack of any positivity, just consistent attack attack attack the other side. Your guy won, he's in, how about some hope for the future and positivity? It's just easier to bash the other side I suppose.


How can you even utter those words when you just attacked us by pulling something out of your ass? :lmao

No positivity? LOL! IM HYPED! ObamaCare is done, arts funding is cut (bye bye wasteful spending) We're negotiating Drug prices and we're going to mars from all reports. Im happy as hell. have been since we won. WTF is this? LMAO


----------



## glenwo2

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



heel_turn said:


> Well this election doesn't really affect me. Trump is spineless. Call me when the impoverished states need welfare money coming in from rich California. Oh wait - they already do!


I bet you're a lot of fun at parties. 

Anyway, last I checked, he's the President of the UNITED STATES and California is part of the UNITED STATES so for you to claim that it won't affect you is really strange. :shrug


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

Triggered Trumpeters Everywhere! Bah Gawd! So easily triggered Maggle


Trump will try to copy more of Obama-Jamma's 'Cool-Hand-Luke' Presidential Pizazz. I'm betting it won't work tho....


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Triggered Trumpeters Everywhere! Bah Gawd! So easily triggered Maggle
> 
> 
> Trump will try to copy more of Obama-Jamma's 'Cool-Hand-Luke' Presidential Pizazz. I'm betting it won't work tho....


Stop stealing my gimmick :troll


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> How can you even utter those words when you just attacked us by pulling something out of your ass? :lmao
> 
> No positivity? LOL! IM HYPED! ObamaCare is done, arts funding is cut (bye bye wasteful spending) We're negotiating Drug prices and we're going to mars from all reports. Im happy as hell. have been since we won. WTF is this? LMAO


I didn't pull anything out of my ass - they're normal photographs of the crowd differences showing Obama had more peeps. It really wouldn't have been an issue if Trump didn't feel the need to talk it up saying it was the biggest crowd of all time. He's like Vince and exaggerating the WM numbers.

Additionally, I'm happy to see your positivity - that's wonderful I'm happy for you that things are going great already and it's great that you feel you're part of the team. Keep it up young man.


----------



## 307858

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



glenwo2 said:


> I bet you're a lot of fun at parties.
> 
> I'm very fun at parties. I love kegs, fireball, and drinking games. I challenge you to a game of bp.
> 
> Anyway, last I checked, he's the President of the UNITED STATES and California is part of the UNITED STATES so for you to claim that it won't affect you is really strange. :shrug


If anything Republicans and Trump are very pro-states rights. California more or less has been marching to the beat of its own drum. It will prioritize its constituents over whatever Trump wants to happen at the federal level. New York is in the same manner. That's another reason why CA and NY don't have to really bend over to Trump like a third world state like Kansas or Alabama. Money talks in this country. So in some way a Trump Presidency benefits Californians and New York since we're wealthier and states rights will be the IT girl and supported by Republicans. 

It's not a strange notion. Donald only has so much power. Checks and balances.

And before someone gets triggered that I offend the third world states, when was the last time WrestleMania or SummerSlam were held in Kansas or Alabama? Why was SummerSlam in LA for 8 years? Why are both Vince and Donald obsessed with getting brownie points from Hollywood? Why do we get shows like Orange County? Why do countless references glorify California. We truly are the Golden State! Why did we get your favorite Republicans like Reagan and Arnold as governors? We are a beautiful state.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Additionally, I'm happy to see your positivity - that's wonderful I'm happy for you that things are going great already and it's great that you feel you're part of the team. Keep it up young man.


See, I'd gladly take this compliment if it weren't for the sarcasm dripping off of it like butter on a hot biscuit. :nerd: You'll need to try harder than that.


----------



## Lady Eastwood

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> What's quite disappointing in this thread for the Trumpeters is the lack of any positivity, just consistent attack attack attack the other side. Your guy won, he's in, how about some hope for the future and positivity? It's just easier to bash the other side I suppose.



You need to be saying this to the pathetic Hillary supporters/anti-Trump supporters. They are the ones causing most of the problems.

These dumb ass dicks destroying businesses....who do they think has to pay for the fucking repairs? What does looting and damaging things do to change the decision? All these idiots saying NOT MY PRESIDENT, well, unless your ass ain't living in America, he IS your President. 

I was watching the inauguration on NBC and these pussy reporters were discussing how 'awkward' it was that Trump was basically insulting the people sharing the stage with him...what the fuck, LMAO, he was just telling it like it is, the same thoughts plenty of Americans have, I mean, fuck, this country is full of such goddamn babies that can't handle someone being as honest as they can be. He feels they failed the American people in different ways, okay? I don't think the things he said were completely wrong. These same reporters were probably dumping all over the Bush administration and how terrible of a position it put America in. I give some credit to Obama, he came in to office and was left to try his best to fix the pile of shit Bush left for him.

Practically every President will have his haters, whatever, people are free to not like whoever wins, but, holy shit, can we give the man a chance? He's been in office for a few days FFS. If he ends up being the worst President ever, awesome, the Trump haters were correct. If he ends up really doing well for the country, I can't wait for those same buffoons that judged a man's Presidency before he even did anything to hop on the Trump wagon and declare how great he is and he saved America.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Stop stealing my gimmick :troll


I actually have something to say, I just piggyback others in an echo chamber, I don't run off for three days every time I'm challenged by some on else. I'm not stealing any gimmick from you. :trump2


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> I actually have something to say, I just piggyback others in an echo chamber, I don't run off for three days every time I'm challenged by some on else. I'm not stealing any gimmick from you. :trump2


Not only are you, you can't even accurately describe what you rip off. :trump3 I find you as bad as Davey at this point. The sad thing is, your ass knows it. :sk


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Catalanotto said:


> You need to be saying this to the pathetic Hillary supporters/anti-Trump supporters. They are the ones causing most of the problems.
> 
> These dumb ass dicks destroying businesses....who do they think has to pay for the fucking repairs? What does looting and damaging things do to change the decision? All these idiots saying NOT MY PRESIDENT, well, unless your ass ain't living in America, he IS your President.
> 
> I was watching the inauguration on NBC and these pussy reporters were discussing how 'awkward' it was that Trump was basically insulting the people sharing the stage with him...what the fuck, LMAO, he was just telling it like it is, the same thoughts plenty of Americans have, I mean, fuck, this country is full of such goddamn babies that can't handle someone being as honest as they can be. He feels they failed the American people in different ways, okay? I don't think the things he said were completely wrong. These same reporters were probably dumping all over the Bush administration and how terrible of a position it put America in. I give some credit to Obama, he came in to office and was left to try his best to fix the pile of shit Bush left for him.
> 
> Practically every President will have his haters, whatever, people are free to not like whoever wins, but, holy shit, can we give the man a chance? He's been in office for a few days FFS. If he ends up being the worst President ever, awesome, the Trump haters were correct. If he ends up really doing well for the country, I can't wait for those same buffoons that judged a man's Presidency before he even did anything to hop on the Trump wagon and declare how great he is and he saved America.


Haha i do love your passion and direct way you say things.

I take your point, but with my comment I was specifically referring to this thread, which is 90% Pro Trump echo chamber. 

I certainly can't defend using violence and destroying property etc whilst protesting and I won't try to.


But tell me, if Hillary won, do you think Pro-Trumpers would simply 'give her a chance'?


----------



## glenwo2

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/822975939890053120
> Twitter code doesn't work in my phone. I'll fix it later.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heavy metal is really what rules the world.


Geez. Does Metallica get THAT many these days?


----------



## glenwo2

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Rainmaka! said:


> My girl Kelly has 0 chill :lmao
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/822950730885697537


An abyss that smells like fish, I bet. :sleep


That was pretty funny by Kelly there.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Haha i do love your passion and direct way you say things.
> 
> I take your point, but with my comment I was specifically referring to this thread, which is 90% Pro Trump echo chamber.


Its not an eco-chamber. If it were, you wouldn't be allowed here. Not only that, but there are quite a few leftest posters who are very fair and balanced like @Tater who i enjoy reading from.

It could just be that most people actually don't have an interest in politics............but that makes it too easy doesn't it? :trump


----------



## glenwo2

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Trash left behind by the trash that marched. These cunts and their privilege. So much so that they don't give a shit about who's gonna clean up after them.


:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao @ "PU$$Y POWER" sign!!! 

That sounds like the corny catchphrase of a SUPERHERO PARODY PORN. :lol


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Its not an eco-chamber. If it were, you wouldn't be allowed here. Not only that, but there are quite a few leftest posters who are very fair and balanced like @Tater who i enjoy reading from.
> 
> It could just be that most people actually don't have an interest in politics............but that makes it too easy doesn't it? :trump


Yes there are leftist posters, about 10%. Thanks for backing up my point.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Yes there are leftist posters, about 10%. Thanks for backing up my point.


If anything it only proves that LEFTISTS are the ones in the eco-chamber. Any time you see new leftists in here it's just a moronic "You guyz iz gettin' conned lulz" post. Anyone is welcome here. YOU are welcome here and (When you want to) you can solidly contribute. There's nothing stopping other reasonable left-minded folk from doing the same.


----------



## SWITCHBLADE

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*


----------



## Lady Eastwood

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Haha i do love your passion and direct way you say things.
> 
> I take your point, but with my comment I was specifically referring to this thread, which is 90% Pro Trump echo chamber.
> 
> I certainly can't defend using violence and destroying property etc whilst protesting and I won't try to.
> 
> 
> But tell me, if Hillary won, do you think Pro-Trumpers would simply 'give her a chance'?



Oh, I definitely think there would be asswipe Trump people who wouldn't dare give her a chance, LOL, it always goes both ways. I don't like her at all, but, I would step back and let her show everyone what steps she takes before I dump on her face. I don't have trust for her, don't think she would have done a better job, did not like some of her ideas, but, actions speak louder than words, so, if Trump can at least back up his words with actions, I can be happy the choice was right, and the same would be for Hillary.

Regardless of whether everyone likes who won or not, everyone needs to just give it time and let things start to pan out before acting stupid. America is crumbling, and a lot of it has to do with the dumbass people. THIS is why America is becoming a joke to other nations, the amount of babies that can't handle not getting their way, and the amount of people online who are going as far as breaking friendships over a fucking election. A good friend of my mom's put as a facebook status fuck all of her 'friends' that were Trump supporters (my mom is one), I mean, really. People need to grow up, whether they are pro-Trump or pro-Hillary.

A lot of the people mad at a Trump presidency are the ones who will now have to set an alarm clock for work instead of living off of everyone else.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



stevefox1200 said:


> Jesus fucking Christ
> 
> next election I want them to change inauguration into a closed ceremony with congress
> 
> the president is not a summer blockbuster, using a "draw" as proof of quality is stupid
> 
> North Korea can get world record crowds for Kim's events, I guess he is a great and beloved leader


Indeed! The crowd seemed big to me but let's not forget location, the protesters preventing people from getting in, anti-trump protesters plotting things all played a part. I'm not sure I'd go simply for the fact people were attacked at trump rallies before. Still it's silly to be using crowd numbers as an indication of anything at this event. Let's not forget if this was held in Texas and had record breaking numbers that the same people who bring up numbers would be dismissing these very same numbers they champion.


----------



## glenwo2

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> I notice we have a lot more Centipedes in here than we used to. Good on all of you lads. Death to the regressive left and socialism! :trump
> 
> OH SHIT!!!
> 
> https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/193/text
> 
> Will Trump pass it, @DesolationRow ???


This is EXACTLY what I've always wanted. To stop playing Big Brother to other countries. This bill would do exactly that. 

I'm crossing my fingers that Trump passes this bill.




> ALSO:


Well-Deserved. I wonder if they caught that guy who was interviewed while wearing a hankerchief(or whatever Gangbangers wore)?


----------



## glenwo2

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



draykorinee said:


> There was a lot of joy from the last few days, from the complete flop of an inauguration for one of the biggest buffoons to ever lead a country to the hilarity of all these assholes protesting trump across the world.
> 
> The left and the right are doing a grand job of making 2017 go off with a lot of laughs.


Explain how Trump qualifies as "one of the biggest buffoons to ever lead a country" when he hasn't even been President for one week? :shrug


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



stevefox1200 said:


> Jesus fucking Christ
> 
> next election I want them to change inauguration into a closed ceremony with congress
> 
> the president is not a summer blockbuster, using a "draw" as proof of quality is stupid
> 
> North Korea can get world record crowds for Kim's events, I guess he is a great and beloved leader


I don't know about others but it is just schadenfreude for me to point out their messiah isn't that popular. Much like how many Trump supporters here find joy in posting about the pathetic leftists crying over the election results. It is even funnier to me that they don't even realise they are whining as much as the people they are mocking in here by trying to 'prove' the crowd at the inauguration is bigger than it actually is.

And it is all about optics in politics. No way will they keep it to a closed ceremony. :lol


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> I don't know about others but it is just schadenfreude for me to point out their messiah isn't that popular. Much like how many Trump supporters here find joy in posting about the pathetic leftists crying over the election results. It is even funnier to me that they don't even realise they are whining as much as the people they are mocking in here by trying to 'prove' the crowd at the inauguration is bigger than it actually is.
> 
> And it is all about optics in politics. No way will they keep it to a closed ceremony. :lol


The irony is Trump created the hoo-haa about the crowd size in the first place by doing his usual loudmouth boasting. He apparently can't get out of his own way, always needing to declare he's the biggest and the best.

Just do the job man, shut up and walk the walk first, then you can talk the talk. :trump


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> I don't know about others but it is just schadenfreude for me to point out their messiah isn't that popular. Much like how many Trump supporters here find joy in posting about the pathetic leftists crying over the election results. It is even funnier to me that they don't even realise they are whining as much as the people they are mocking in here by trying to 'prove' the crowd at the inauguration is bigger than it actually is.
> 
> And it is all about optics in politics. No way will they keep it to a closed ceremony. :lol


look at you trying to play like you're the smartest kid in class. No one here is whining. we've engaged in civil discussion with you for a year now.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> The irony is Trump created the hoo-haa about the crowd size in the first place by doing his usual loudmouth boasting. He apparently can't get out of his own way, always needing to declare he's the biggest and the best.
> 
> Just do the job man, shut up and walk the walk first, then you can talk the talk. :trump


To be fair, the media and twitter started pointing out the difference in crowd sizes first to needle him. It is the fact that he couldn't let that slide and have to send poor Spicer out to boast about being the biggest inauguration that is both worrying and also hilarious at the same time. :lol

FFS he don't even realise he is putting down his party's modern darling Reagan with this petty assertion.


----------



## Lady Eastwood

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

Did someone say Reagan?

<3


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> To be fair, the media and twitter started pointing out the difference in crowd sizes first to needle him. It is the fact that he couldn't let that slide and have to send poor Spicer out to boast about being the biggest inauguration that is both worrying and also hilarious at the same time. :lol
> 
> FFS he don't even realise he is putting down his party's modern darling Reagan with this petty assertion.


Oh right, wasn't aware of the media striking first blow re crowd sizes. Have to stay on top of the important stuff I guess like crowd sizes and cake design thievery. I take back my assertion it was all Trump's fault - but as you say the fact he can't let anything slide makes it x100 times worse.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> I don't know about others but it is just schadenfreude for me to point out their messiah isn't that popular. Much like how many Trump supporters here find joy in posting about the pathetic leftists crying over the election results. It is even funnier to me that they don't even realise they are whining as much as the people they are mocking in here by trying to 'prove' the crowd at the inauguration is bigger than it actually is.
> 
> And it is all about optics in politics. No way will they keep it to a closed ceremony. :lol


Well it seems that the small crowd size stuff might be nonsense, I'm not sure but that fact probably won't matter to you.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Well it seems that the small crowd size stuff might be nonsense, I'm not sure but that fact probably won't matter to you.


How is it nonsense? The crowd size is smaller than Obama's first. Even Trump's bogus estimate of 1.5million is smaller than most estimates of Obama's 2009 of 1.8m. Most of the pictures of Trump's crowd used to compare with 2009 was zoomed in to make it look more dense while the 2009 pictures was zoomed out.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> How is it nonsense? The crowd size is smaller than Obama's first. Even Trump's bogus estimate of 1.5million is smaller than most estimates of Obama's 2009 of 1.8m. Most of the pictures of Trump's crowd used to compare with 2009 was zoomed in to make it look more dense while the 2009 pictures was zoomed out.


 @Carte Blanche already debunked this.


----------



## SWITCHBLADE

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/822941896603357184


----------



## DOPA

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

Sorry to be crass, but I honestly could not give a fuck how big the crowd at Trump's inauguration was.

I only care about what his administration does in government and especially in relation to how it effects the UK.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Rainmaka! said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/822941896603357184


i only chuckle because in south park context it wouldn't have been true, unlike reality.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> Sorry to be crass, but I honestly could not give a fuck how big the crowd at Trump's inauguration was.
> 
> I only care about what his administration does in government and especially in relation to how it effects the UK.


we're meeting May for you this week. Let's facefuck the EU, breh. :trump3


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> How is it nonsense? The crowd size is smaller than Obama's first. Even Trump's bogus estimate of 1.5million is smaller than most estimates of Obama's 2009 of 1.8m. Most of the pictures of Trump's crowd used to compare with 2009 was zoomed in to make it look more dense while the 2009 pictures was zoomed out.


It's nonsense because crowd size doesn't really matter overall and the fact that the crowd size being tiny was debunked already. Given the fact the crowd was big, in a Democrat area, with protesters blocking people from getting in etc, it was a good turn out. I'm just saying the "very small crowd" or "not very popular" stuff needs to go away because it's simply not true.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> It's nonsense because crowd size doesn't really matter overall and the fact that the crowd size being tiny was debunked already. Given the fact the crowd was big, in a Democrat area, with protesters blocking people from getting in etc, it was a good turn out. I'm just saying the "very small crowd" or "not very popular" stuff needs to go away because it's simply not true.


It wasn't debunked. The crowd size is tiny compared to the boast they put out. The metro ridership numbers and aerial images proves it. The women's march had more people. :ha

Now you are taking my position of 'it is a good turnout regardless due to circumstances' compared to your initial 'it was a huge crowd the media is lying' position. I'm glad you changed your mind? 

The not very popular stuff is true as he has historic low numbers and the women's march crowd compares much more favourably to the inauguration crowd says something. The irony of using CNN, which is claimed to be fake news, to debunk aerial images of the crowd is lost on some of you.

Just do the same as you advice the protesters at the women's march and just let it go.


----------



## glenwo2

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Haha i do love your passion and direct way you say things.
> 
> I take your point, but with my comment I was specifically referring to this thread, which is 90% Pro Trump echo chamber.
> 
> I certainly can't defend using violence and destroying property etc whilst protesting and I won't try to.
> 
> 
> *But tell me, if Hillary won, do you think Pro-Trumpers would simply 'give her a chance'?*


If Hilary won, I would've gone and invested heavily in a bomb shelter because she will have definitely become the catalyst for WORLD WAR 3.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> It wasn't debunked. The crowd size is tiny compared to the boast they put out. The metro ridership numbers and aerial images proves it. The women's march had more people. :ha
> 
> Now you are taking my position of 'it is a good turnout regardless due to circumstances' compared to your initial 'it was a huge crowd the media is lying' position. I'm glad you changed your mind?
> 
> The not very popular stuff is true as he has historic low numbers and the women's march crowd compares much more favourably to the inauguration crowd says something. The irony of using CNN, which is claimed to be fake news, to debunk aerial images of the crowd is lost on some of you.
> 
> Just do the same as you advice the protesters at the women's march and just let it go.


You mean the same aerial photo that was taken at a different time of day than Obama's? iper1


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*










Top right.


----------



## glenwo2

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> How is it nonsense? The crowd size is smaller than Obama's first. Even Trump's bogus estimate of 1.5million is smaller than most estimates of Obama's 2009 of 1.8m. Most of the pictures of Trump's crowd used to compare with 2009 was zoomed in to make it look more dense while the 2009 pictures was zoomed out.



This pic brought to you courtesy of Carte_Blanche :


----------



## Nolo King

*Re: Donald Trump: The New US President (All Discussion Here)*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Out of interest, what were the beliefs? I've been in a similar situation myself over my religion and found the experience pretty horrific to deal with so sorry you went through that, never nice.


I worked in a restaurant filled with leftist and it clashed with my conservative values. During most of my tenure I kept silent about my views on how I disagree with abortion, don't believe in open borders and feel that too much welfare is a detriment to society.

This election in US made me speak up and defend Trump because I kept hearing people in my staff tell blatant lies along with the usual "he is misogynist, racist, etc." statement they like to make. I told them that I actually watched the rallies and notice the manipulation done by networks such as CNN. Yeah he made some out there comments, but at least he toned down on that and denounces any form of hate.

I also mentioned how I am all about a traditional household and how raising minimum wage or encouraging social welfare gives people less incentive to make more valuable contributions society.

I'm not stupid, I know a lot of people will disagree with what I believe, but instead of getting responses, I had to deal with being sworn at, faced with rumors that twisted my statements into something else and treated like a subhuman. The funny thing was that they like to boast about being a "tolerant" and "inclusive" establishment, but the minute I respectfully disagreed with some of their beliefs, they proved that they don't have those characteristics.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/20/politics/donald-trump-barack-obama-inauguration-crowd-size/

See for yourself the comparison during the speech. :shrug


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

@CamillePunk @Miss Sally @DesolationRow @Carte Blanche










MAD DOG BREAKING BAD GUYS IN HALF!!!! BAH GAWD!!! :jr


----------



## Reaper

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> Sorry to be crass, but I honestly could not give a fuck how big the crowd at Trump's inauguration was.
> 
> I only care about what his administration does in government and especially in relation to how it effects the UK.


I don't either. I care about not letting people get away with spreading misinformation as I already specified in my original response and a follow up post after that.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/20/politics/donald-trump-barack-obama-inauguration-crowd-size/
> 
> See for yourself the comparison during the speech. :shrug












It's shameful the media tried and successfully portrayed his inauguration as a failure. People believe it was bad and this type of rhetoric isn't helpful because Trump's team are defending themselves and are looking worse because CNN wouldn't lie to the viewer...


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Top right.


Dude. 4chan. :ha


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Dude. 4chan. :ha


So are you saying the photo itself is shopped or just LOLing because of the source? Either way this response is insubstantial in proving or disproving the claim the two photos were taken the same way.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Stinger Fan said:


> It's shameful the media tried and successfully portrayed his inauguration as a failure. People believe it was bad and this type of rhetoric isn't helpful because Trump's team are defending themselves and are looking worse because CNN wouldn't lie to the viewer...


The dude ran a populist campaign. He deserves to get flak for not getting more people to attend his first and historic inauguration. His crowd size is better than Bush's but nobody is bringing that up. From either side. TV ratings is one of the highest too but pale in comparison to Obama's first historic inauguration. There's no shame in losing to Obama's 2009 historic inauguration but the media knew Trump wouldn't stand for it and pushed his button on it. And Trump pushed back with even more hyperbole of his own claiming the best in everything to make himself a punchline again.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> The dude ran a populist campaign. He deserves to get flak for not getting more people to attend his first and historic inauguration. His crowd size is better than Bush's but nobody is bringing that up. From either side. TV ratings is one of the highest too but pale in comparison to Obama's first historic inauguration. There's no shame in losing to Obama's 2009 historic inauguration but the media knew Trump wouldn't stand for it and pushed his button on it. And Trump pushed back with even more hyperbole of his own claiming the best in everything to make himself a punchline again.


So you just ignored the whole part of the media lying about him and his campaign. 

No one said that its shameful to lose to Obama, for Christ sakes he was the first black president, but to purposefully mislead the nation like they did, is incredibly shameful


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> The dude ran a populist campaign. He deserves to get flak for not getting more people to attend his first and historic inauguration. His crowd size is better than Bush's but nobody is bringing that up. From either side. TV ratings is one of the highest too but pale in comparison to Obama's first historic inauguration. There's no shame in losing to Obama's 2009 historic inauguration but the media knew Trump wouldn't stand for it and pushed his button on it. And Trump pushed back with even more hyperbole of his own claiming the best in everything to make himself a punchline again.


No, the media pushed on it because they had their ass blown out and have to destroy Trump to look credible, and they haven't.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> So are you saying the photo itself is shopped or just LOLing because of the source? Either way this response is insubstantial in proving or disproving the claim the two photos were taken the same way.


I'm saying take the screen shot with a pinch of salt. It could be a west coast feed. It could be shopped.

I don't think soon: the swearing in ceremony begins would be used in the byline 3 hours before it happen.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> It wasn't debunked. The crowd size is tiny compared to the boast they put out. The metro ridership numbers and aerial images proves it. The women's march had more people. :ha
> 
> Now you are taking my position of 'it is a good turnout regardless due to circumstances' compared to your initial 'it was a huge crowd the media is lying' position. I'm glad you changed your mind?
> 
> The not very popular stuff is true as he has historic low numbers and the women's march crowd compares much more favourably to the inauguration crowd says something. The irony of using CNN, which is claimed to be fake news, to debunk aerial images of the crowd is lost on some of you.
> 
> Just do the same as you advice the protesters at the women's march and just let it go.


My first post on it was a statement of circumstances, I don't think I brought up the media though there is an obvious media bias, all you have to do is watch the coverage. You're wrong, also using CNN's own photos against them is quite hilarious, people use a Religion's own text against itself all the time, there is nothing wrong with using CNN's own resources to poke holes in what they say. 

I hope when you realize you're wrong you'll admit it but you won't so I guess it doesn't matter.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Stinger Fan said:


> So you just ignored the whole part of the media lying about him and his campaign.
> 
> No one said that its shameful to lose to Obama, for Christ sakes he was the first black president, but to purposefully mislead the nation like they did, is incredibly shameful


What? Misled how? The photos showed his inauguration had empty spaces probably due to planning for more than expected attendees that made for bad optics. Trump probably expected similar crowds to Obama's first but got something similar to Obama's 2nd or even less.

Lying about what? I'm still awaiting for the audit to finish and see his tax returns.


----------



## glenwo2

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

Holy crap. Can we just stop it now with the crowd comparisons(apples and oranges) between Obama and Trump? 

The only thing that annoyed me was the media making it seem like less people showed up for Trump's inauguration than any other president in history and used OBAMA'S historic inauguration(which would've beaten any other president's) as the barometer which was highly unfair and totally douchey.


----------



## glenwo2

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Stinger Fan said:


> It's shameful the media tried and successfully portrayed his inauguration as a failure. People believe it was bad and this type of rhetoric isn't helpful because Trump's team are defending themselves and are looking worse because CNN wouldn't lie to the viewer...


"CNN wouldn't lie to the viewer...." 

I truly hope this is sarcasm. :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao




BTW....










Protestor gets a faceful of mace.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



glenwo2 said:


> Holy crap. Can we just stop it now with the crowd comparisons(apples and oranges) between Obama and Trump?
> 
> The only thing that annoyed me was the media making it seem like less people showed up for Trump's inauguration than any other president in history and used OBAMA'S historic inauguration(which would've beaten any other president's) as the barometer which was highly unfair and totally douchey.


How about we talk about his continuing conflict of interests and lying to the press and the public then?

https://www.propublica.org/article/...-from-his-companies-but-no-record-hes-done-so


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

Lol the die hards still can't accept that, like Trump's hands, his crowd was smaller.

Just accept it FFS. OF course there are different contributing circumstances which caused this and that, but the fact that some continue to deny and deflect the fact Obama was bigger is just hilarious.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*










W....

WAT? :lol


----------



## TheMenace

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

When a camera shot is taken sideways, a single person standing in the distance can block the view of quite a bit of empty space behind the person. When the shot is taken from above, it shows just how much empty space there really is. WWE often uses this trick when their crowds aren't that big to make it seem like the arena floor is packed with people even when it may be mostly empty.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Lol the die hards still can't accept that, like Trump's hands, his crowd was smaller.
> 
> Just accept it FFS. OF course there are different contributing circumstances which caused this and that, but the fact that some continue to deny and deflect the fact Obama was bigger is just hilarious.


Maybe some of us care about the truth getting out? It may or may not have been smaller, but the press are using illogical means to prove that.


----------



## glenwo2

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*










:lol


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Leftists hate it when you hit back. :lol Most of the criticism of Trump this election cycle has been because he's hit back at people who hit him first.
> 
> "Wahh, that's not presidential", they cry. Personally, I say "Finally, someone with balls!".





FatherJackHackett said:


> I've always been intrigued by the use of the word 'presidential'. Having heard it said many times now over the years, it seems to mean 'speaking in flowery language and empty platitudes while making sure you couldn't possibly offend anybody'.
> 
> In that case yes, there is absolutely nothing presidential about Donald Trump - and thank fuck for that.


Yes indeed, yes indeed.
@Beatles123 we shall see about that "U.N Out of the U.S., U.S. Out of the U.N." bill! Haha. :lol It almost surely will not go anywhere like the past four bills seeking U.S. extrication from the U.N. but one can always hope.


----------



## Goku

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

can't handle all the fake news itt rn

:trumpwoah


----------



## glenwo2

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

Here's another one :










Even Obama wanted 'dat ass. :lol :lol :lol


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



glenwo2 said:


> Here's another one :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even Obama wanted 'dat ass. :lol :lol :lol


If this were Trump to Michelle, people woulda lost their shit :lol


----------



## TheMenace

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...crowd-sean-spicers-claims-versus-the-evidence


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Maybe some of us care about the truth getting out? It may or may not have been smaller, but the press are using illogical means to prove that.


Illogical means my ass. Do a quick google search, take in as many sources as you need. Obama is the winner, so it the women's march. 

Let it go son, it's just one tiny thing you have to concede. Just one.

It doesn't matter, it's over now, the press has moved on and rightly so after it was widely proven Obama drew more people, simple as that.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> What? Misled how? The photos showed his inauguration had empty spaces probably due to planning for more than expected attendees that made for bad optics. Trump probably expected similar crowds to Obama's first but got something similar to Obama's 2nd or even less.
> 
> Lying about what? I'm still awaiting for the audit to finish and see his tax returns.


How is it that difficult to comprehend what I said? They misrepresented the pictures to make his turnout look worse than what it was. The fact that people believe his turnout was really that low and are claiming everyone on the Trump team is lying about their attendance, when in actuality its the media who is. You can keep harping about Obama, I simply don't care about the size of his we're talking about the media's portrayal of Trumps and its incredibly irresponsible to do so. Nothing wrong with disliking Trump, but to pass this off as if its nothing or doesn't matter is ridiculous. The media have been pulling this crap off the entire time and these false narratives will continue to hurt the country.

The media purposely misleads the people when it comes to his views on immigration, African American communities , and the belief that Russia has damning intel on Donald Trump just to name a few. They are trying to divide the country as much as possible, then blame the other side for doing it.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

http://www.wpxi.com/news/trending-n...eech-was-full-of-hope-and-inclusion/486617787



> Jesse Jackson: Trump's inauguration speech was 'full of hope and inclusion'
> 
> by: The Atlanta Journal-Constitution Updated: Jan 21, 2017 - 10:52 AM
> 
> WASHINGTON - Not long after President Donald Trump was sworn in, we happened to run into the Rev. Jesse Jackson on the street. He gave a thumbs-up to Trump’s inauguration speech but said the new commander in chief has much work to do in order to unify a nation riven by a divisive campaign.
> 
> “The speech was full of hope and inclusion and he reached out to cities in a way they’ve not been reached out to for a long time,” he said. “But with that must come a target, a timetable and a budget.”
> 
> Trump’s speech hit many of the populist chords he refined on the campaign trail, portraying Washington as full of elite insiders indifferent to the common man.
> 
> “That all changes, starting right here, and right now, because this moment is your moment: it belongs to you,” he said, before ticking off goals: “We will build new roads, and highways, and bridges, and airports, and tunnels, and railways all across our wonderful nation. We will get our people off of welfare and back to work, rebuilding our country with American hands and American labor. We will follow two simple rules: Buy American and hire American.”
> 
> Trump capped his speech with his famous phrase: “Together, we will make America great again.”
> 
> Jackson says Trump must back up his rhetoric with action.
> 
> “I’m hopeful. There’s an awful lot of damage done that needs to be cleaned up,” he said. “The campaign was very divisive and very painful… Referring to President Barack (Obama) as the founder of ISIS, Hillary (Clinton) as a nasty woman. He’ll have to have to clean that stuff up and then put forth some concrete plans.”
> 
> Jackson pointed to Trump’s low approval ratings and issued a challenge.
> 
> “What does a man with so much power do? Grace can expand your power. Arrogance can diminish it. I hope he’ll have the grace and commitment to put all of us under one big tent.”


----------



## glenwo2

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

“The campaign was very divisive and very painful… Referring to President Barack (Obama) as the founder of ISIS, Hillary (Clinton) as a nasty woman. He’ll have to have to clean that stuff up and then put forth some concrete plans.”


Don't agree with the ISIS/Obama part but he was dead-on regarding HELL-ary Clinton.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Illogical means my ass. Do a quick google search, take in as many sources as you need. Obama is the winner, so it the women's march.
> 
> Let it go son, it's just one tiny thing you have to concede. Just one.
> 
> It doesn't matter, it's over now, the press has moved on and rightly so after it was widely proven Obama drew more people, simple as that.


Nice bait


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

Trump got less of a crowd than Obama, the first African American President, something many people thought was impossible until it happened, in a town that voted 90% Hilary to 10% Trump because it's where most of the public servants live. Hardly suprising. Trump and his fans need to get over it honestly. 

And Trump needs to start getting that his success is no longer measured by his ability to draw.


----------



## glenwo2

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

And what exactly did the women's march "win", yeahbaby? 

Even those in the march had no fucking clue what they were marching about truly aside from the fact that they were salty that Trump won.


At the end of the day, Trump is not just our president. He's THEIR president whether they like it or not and will be president for the next 4 years(any talk of Impeachment is just wishful thinking by the sour-grapes/salty Hilary supporters)


----------



## southrnbygrace

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

Yeah, marching for the right to kill your own child, WHICH MAY BE FEMALE, BTW, is really something to be proud of. unkout


----------



## Tater

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Its not an eco-chamber. If it were, you wouldn't be allowed here. Not only that, but there are quite a few leftest posters who are very fair and balanced like @Tater who i enjoy reading from.
> 
> It could just be that most people actually don't have an interest in politics............but that makes it too easy doesn't it? :trump


Some of us actually care about policy substance. FFS, did you guys really just spend the last 10 pages arguing over crowd size? :lmao








Beatles123 said:


> Based Manlet Randlet. :trump3 (I like him tho)


Case in point. All the people who protested Bush's war mongering but ignored Obama's and now plan to protest when Trump does it need to fuck right off. They're a bunch of fucking partisan hack megatards playing for a team instead of paying attention to the actual issues. No, it's not okay to ignore it when your side does it and then turn around and protest when the other side does it. All the Hillbots are protesting Trump's cabinet picks but didn't have a word to say about it when Hillary was in bed with the very same people. Trump literally hired people from Clinton's team after getting elected. They're all full of outrage now because Trump is filling his cabinet with Goldman Sachs people but had none to spare when Hillary was taking bribes from GS in the form of payment for private speeches. The same people out rampaging in the streets over women's rights after Trump got elected didn't have a goddamned thing to say about it when Obama and Clinton were selling billions in arms to Saudi Arabia, one of the biggest oppressors of women on the planet.

Ron Paul is nothing if not consistent. He calls out both sides for their war mongering. The world would be a better place with more Ron Pauls. One would think that consistency from folks isn't too much to ask for but you know, 'Murica.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



glenwo2 said:


> And what exactly did the women's march "win", yeahbaby?
> 
> Even those in the march had no fucking clue what they were marching about truly aside from the fact that they were salty that Trump won.
> 
> 
> At the end of the day, Trump is not just our president. He's THEIR president whether they like it or not and will be president for the next 4 years(any talk of Impeachment is just wishful thinking by the sour-grapes/salty Hilary supporters)


They won the crowd size contest, they beat Trump.

They Beat Trump.

And you just know it eats him alive. 

Because anything about size gets to him, and his tiny. little. hands.




Tater said:


> Some of us actually care about policy substance. FFS, did you guys really just spend the last 10 pages arguing over crowd size? :lmao


I only kept going because of Team Die Hard: Die Trumper being seemingly unable to concede that Trump couldn't beat Obama's numbers. It was quite amusing.


----------



## Tater

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> I only kept going because of Team Die Hard: Die Trumper being seemingly unable to concede that Trump couldn't beat Obama's numbers. It was quite amusing.


Yeah, you sure showed them. unk2


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Yeah, you sure showed them. unk2


Cheers!


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

I am going to weigh in on what went down these last few days...I'm sure there's been heavy discussion on it but I'm just flat out too lazy to comb through it. 

First of all, the inaugural speech was very good. He nailed some very important points on how right now the country is not in the best shape in spite of appearances. It wasn't very flowery (would have liked a couple of references regarding what the Founding Fathers wanted when they wanted to create this country and the ideals of liberty) and did a great job of talking about how "We" can fix it rather than the idea of "I" as he did during the campaign. The one thing I think he missed was he should have reached out and said something about that he hopes that those who didn't vote for him or that have concerns can see he wants to work for them as well. Yes, there's going to be people out there that have no intention of giving him any chance (much like there were plenty who refused to give Obama a chance) but at least make the effort of reaching out with the olive branch even though many want him to hit his opponents with it. 

I understand that there are many people out there that are still angry, and you have people that are protesting peacefully as well as smashing windows and setting shit on fire. What are they really protesting? It's not as silly a question as you think, each one of these protests/marches/riots have different motives on what exactly they are looking for. Do they want a voice at the table? Do they just hate Trump? Do they want anarchy? They won't work together, as certain feminist groups that stated they were pro-life were not allowed to participate in the Women's March. They really show their hypocrisy by devouring their own, plus stupid shit like Madonna saying she dreamed about blowing up the White House now. They need to get on the same page, otherwise this movement is going to dissipate as quick as it was put together. 

Now...the numbers of how many were present on Friday compared to '09 and '13 when Obama was sworn in. The National Park Service tweeted out that the estimation was less than the estimation for Obama's inaugurations. There are probably a substantial number of reasons, perhaps weather concerns (rain) and possible violence from protesters, etc. At the end of the day, does it really matter how many people showed up? Yes, I have no doubt that the media has proved to be less than trustworthy (they are completely in the tank for the idea that they want Trump to fail). At the same time, is it truly worth getting into a pissing contest over the number of people that were there and shitting on the media for it? There are hills to die on, I don't think this was it. Trotting out your Press Secretary to lambaste the media and scold them like government mules over this just seems ridiculous. There will be times where the media will need to be held accountable. I'd rather save the lectures for those moments. 

That being said...now we see what happens starting Monday when he really gets to business.


----------



## Master of the DDT

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

I'm showing up to the party extremely late and I apologize for that. 
However, I'm a Canadian and I'm morbidly curious about Trump and how American's are reacting to...basically everything he's done in the past year. 

Like many in the world, I'm confused about why Americans voted for him and I'm scared because of many of his political policies could be harmful to political allies and his ability to possibly use nuclear weapons. 

What I would like to know from Trump supporters, and this is not an argument, I don't want to create an argument, but I'm curious as to what it is about him that gravitated people to him? 
Trump has no political experience, he hasn't laid out any plans about how to go about creating jobs or bringing jobs back that have gone overseas or are being phased out due to technology or dwindling natural resources, he made several inappropriate comments during his campaign towards women as well as minority groups and appeared to openly mock a mentally handicapped individual and he wants to repeal the affordable health care act which gives millions of my neighbours to the south medical insurance, which is really a human right. 

So again, this is not an argument, I don't want to argue with any Trump supporters, I'm just trying to understand what is about Trump that made you a supporter of his.


----------



## Goku

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Master of the DDT said:


> I'm showing up to the party extremely late and I apologize for that.
> However, I'm a Canadian and I'm morbidly curious about Trump and how American's are reacting to...basically everything he's done in the past year.
> 
> Like many in the world, I'm confused about why Americans voted for him and I'm scared because of many of his political policies could be harmful to political allies and his ability to possibly use nuclear weapons.
> 
> What I would like to know from Trump supporters, and this is not an argument, I don't want to create an argument, but *I'm curious as to what it is about him that gravitated people to him?*
> Trump has no political experience, he hasn't laid out any plans about how to go about creating jobs or bringing jobs back that have gone overseas or are being phased out due to technology or dwindling natural resources, he made several inappropriate comments during his campaign towards women as well as minority groups and appeared to openly mock a mentally handicapped individual and he wants to repeal the affordable health care act which gives millions of my neighbours to the south medical insurance, which is really a human right.
> 
> So again, this is not an argument, I don't want to argue with any Trump supporters, I'm just trying to understand what is about Trump that made you a supporter of his.


tell me, how would you respond to someone that comes to you and says, "hello, I would respectfully like to know why you're such a bad person."

You have misread the situation, partly I imagine by following the biased narratives that surround donald trump.

But if you want a straight and clear answer to the bolded, here. He's smart, appears well-intentioned and severely damages the hold of the regressive left over free speech and thought. He also denotes feasible change to the establishment that career politicians never could. Whether it's positive or not depends on one's point of view. I view it as overwhelmingly positive at least in the lead-up to his presidency. I will judge his term as it becomes apparent what his actions are.


----------



## Master of the DDT

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Goku said:


> tell me, how would you respond to someone that comes to you and says, "hello, I would respectfully like to know *why you're such a bad person*."
> 
> You have misread the situation, partly I imagine by following the biased narratives that surround donald trump.
> 
> But if you want a straight and clear answer to the bolded, here. He's smart, *appears well-intentioned* and severely damages the hold of the regressive left over free speech and thought. He also denotes feasible change to the establishment that *career politicians* never could. Whether it's positive or not depends on one's point of view. I view it as overwhelmingly positive at least in the lead-up to his presidency. I will judge his term as it becomes apparent what his actions are.


Now I never stated that anyone who voted for Trump is a bad person. I don't think the majority of people who voted for Trump is/was bad. 
But thank you, Goku, for your reply. So at least for you, Trump represents a change from standard American politics.... from career politicians... Interesting. That's incredibly informative. Thank you.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

A good post I came across:

For all those economic retards saying "Hurr durr we can't afford the wall", assuming a $4 trillion budget and $20 billion cost, that will be a whopping 0.5% of the budget. That's roughly the budget of NASA. 

It would be the equivalent of the average household making a one time $250 expense. It would be like the air conditioning going out in the average family's home in Arizona and saying "Whelp fuck that, guess we can't afford air conditioning anymore!"

But cutting meme programs like PBS, the National Endowment for the Arts, and the National Park Service are unthinkable crimes. :lol


----------



## TheMenace

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Goku said:


> tell me, how would you respond to someone that comes to you and says, "hello, I would respectfully like to know why you're such a bad person."
> ... *regressive left*


Tell me, how would you respond to someone who calls you regressive when you are anything but?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> Yes indeed, yes indeed.
> 
> @Beatles123 we shall see about that "U.N Out of the U.S., U.S. Out of the U.N." bill! Haha. :lol It almost surely will not go anywhere like the past four bills seeking U.S. extrication from the U.N. but one can always hope.


I would want Trump and his administration to attempt to take this bill as far as is humanly possible. 

The UN is nothing more than a lobbying arena for the failed states to posture at the successful ones, whine about inequalities and beg for money - which they receive in oil tanker loads and do ABSOLUTELY nothing with it in their countries. The majority of african countries have been on aid for decades now and the world has NOTHING to show for it at all except millions of immigrants all over the world - many of whom are now full on rapists and murderers in their host countries. Same goes for failed states like Afghanistan and Pakistan (and no, these countries had failed long before Operation Cyclone). Time to step back and let the incompetent child fend for itself. 

It's just another superstructure that the lazy and incompetent want to lean on to save them when they fail. 

I say let the UN die. Let Americans pull out of the international arena has much as is favorable to the US (but maintaining a decent-sized force to act as a deterrent) and let the countries fix themselves. 

Superstructures replace the gods for these people who they look up for their salvation. Let the motherfuckers realize that there is no "god" to save them anymore. If they want to move individually to America, then let them improve themselves as human beings and join us but they really have no fucking right to our tax money at all.



Beatles123 said:


> A good post I came across:
> 
> For all those economic retards saying "Hurr durr we can't afford the wall", assuming a $4 trillion budget and $20 billion cost, that will be a whopping 0.5% of the budget. That's roughly the budget of NASA.
> 
> It would be the equivalent of the average household making a one time $250 expense. It would be like the air conditioning going out in the average family's home in Arizona and saying "Whelp fuck that, guess we can't afford air conditioning anymore!"
> 
> But cutting meme programs like PBS, the National Endowment for the Arts, and the National Park Service are unthinkable crimes. :lol


I am more than willing to write a $250 cheque right now if I can be assured that it will go towards building the wall.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/01/politics/trump-inauguration-gigapixel/ just leaving this here as its a cool feature.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



TheMenace said:


> Tell me, how would you respond to someone who calls you regressive when you are anything but?


That depends IMO. What would your positions be? How do you implement them?


----------



## TheMenace

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Stinger Fan said:


> How is it that difficult to comprehend what I said? *They misrepresented the pictures to make his turnout look worse than what it was. The fact that people believe his turnout was really that low and are claiming everyone on the Trump team is lying about their attendance, when in actuality its the media who is.* You can keep harping about Obama, I simply don't care about the size of his we're talking about the media's portrayal of Trumps and its incredibly irresponsible to do so. Nothing wrong with disliking Trump, but to pass this off as if its nothing or doesn't matter is ridiculous.


You're basing that on what exactly?


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> I would want Trump and his administration to attempt to take this bill as far as is humanly possible.
> 
> The UN is nothing more than a lobbying arena for the failed states to posture at the successful ones, whine about inequalities and beg for money - which they receive in oil tanker loads and do ABSOLUTELY nothing with it in their countries. The majority of african countries have been on aid for decades now and the world has NOTHING to show for it at all. Same goes for failed states like Afghanistan and Pakistan (and no, these countries had failed long before Operation Cyclone). Time to step back and let the incompetent child fend for itself.
> 
> It's just another superstructure that the lazy and incompetent want to lean on to save them when they fail.
> 
> I say let the UN die. Let Americans pull out of the international arena has much as is favorable to the US (but maintaining a decent-sized force to act as a deterrent) and let the countries fix themselves.
> 
> Superstructures replace the gods for these people who they look up for their salvation. Let the motherfuckers realize that there is no "god" to save them anymore. If they want to move individually to America, then let them improve themselves as human beings and join us but they really have no fucking right to our tax money at all.


Completely agree. Moreover, Trump's stated foreign policy of taking every country individually as its own separate case, and endeavoring to seek as great a degree of "peace, commerce and honest friendship" (per Jefferson) with each country as possible makes the legalistic bureaucracy of the United Nations a probable liability rather than an asset toward this geopolitical shift.


----------



## TheMenace

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> That depends IMO. What would your positions be? How do you implement them?


That's the thing, it depends on the person you're talking to and the person's views on various issues.

I just find it ironic how that other poster took exception to another poster's dislike for Trump, then turns around and takes a cheap shot at those who have a different world view from his.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

So Trump gets the United States of America out of the TPP. @ Bernie Sanders, thoughts? 

Thanks Mr. President btw.

I guess it's not officially official yet so maybe not count those chickens just yet. But hopefully it happens.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> Completely agree. Moreover, Trump's stated foreign policy of taking every country individually as its own separate case, and endeavoring to seek as great a degree of "peace, commerce and honest friendship" (per Jefferson) with each country as possible makes the legalistic bureaucracy of the United Nations a probable liability rather than an asset toward this geopolitical shift.


And individual attention it should be ... If you're referring to the blocs that failed states create (like the muslim bloc and the african blocs for example), then it certainly keeps it impossible to have individualized relations at all. It was one of the weaker points of Obama's administration that it was ruled through the fear of the UN rather than the realization that the UN is weaker than the US in and of itself ... Hopefully sense will be restored in the coming months because in the last 8 years, the UN has become even more of a useless nuisance than it was in the past ... and with it adopting the leftist's agenda of SJW culture and Identity politics, it's soon going to become a cancer upon the western world. 

Right now only privileged muslim immigrants and their children are using western sympathy to benefit in this victim culture ... once full nations start to realize just how pathetically weakened many western nations have become at the hands of SJW governments, it's essentially game over for western culture as a whole. 

The scary support for muslims in the women's march is something that's going to infect the UN sooner or later (and some of it already has) and I hope that people in Trump's administration realize this.


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



TheMenace said:


> You're basing that on what exactly?


and we're back here...

I think why we're here is important: I don't think this is a pissing contest. I disagree with @Tater and @BruiserKC, the point is not who had the bigger crowd. It DOESN'T matter. Accurate reporting, however, DOES. Even if the crowd WERE smaller, why trot that as some kind of failure? Not only that, but the fact they are using inadequate pictures to find this out suggests a slanderous intent. If it were smaller, so what? don't harp on it and make it into a meme as if its Trump's fault. As Bruiser stated, they are in the tank for Trump to fail and this is WRONG! Even if it's a small issue, it's still inexcusably biased of them, and I dunno about you, but i'd like fairness in my reporting. Period. I don't care whether Trump fucks up or not, just be fair about it. I don't need a caption to read "TRUMP SAYS _________ (It Isn't/It's Not)" or a news anchor to state something was "Hitlerian". That's not reporting, that's subtle brainwashing. I never could stand it when Rush Limbaugh does it, and I refuse to give anyone else a pass for it either. When a reporter tweets out that Trump has removed MLK's bust, knowing full well the implications of his story and not bothering to verify, and then the networks pull this shit with the crowd size the same day, yeah, if i were spicer i'd be ripping pissed too. These people need to BE shat on! At any and all opportunity. Pro or Anti Trump.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



TheMenace said:


> That's the thing, it depends on the person you're talking to and the person's views on various issues.
> 
> I just find it ironic how that other poster took exception to another poster's dislike for Trump, then turns around and takes a cheap shot at those who have a different world view from his.


I think he was trying to given an EXAMPLE of an SJW. not accuse him of being one :shrug i may be wrong.


----------



## TheMenace

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> and we're back here...
> 
> the point is not who had the bigger crowd. It DOESN'T matter. Accurate reporting, however, DOES.


That's the thing, did they falsely report the size of the crowd? If so, what are you basing the accusation on?

Your overall disdain for the media may be justified based on past reporting of other events, but that doesn't mean it's ok to start accusing them of doing things they don't actually do.

The WH accuses the media of falsely reporting on the size of the crowd. The WH gives their own numbers on what they believe took place. The media fact checks those numbers and the numbers turn out to be false. Trump supporters lose their minds and cry foul.

At some point, facts have to matter more than emotions.

Also, when one reporter makes a mistake, that is hardly grounds for demonizing the entire media categorically.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



TheMenace said:


> That's the thing, did they falsely report the size of the crowd? If so, what are you basing it on?
> 
> Your overall disdain for the media may be justified based on past reporting of other events, but that doesn't mean it's ok to start accusing them of doing things they don't actually do.
> 
> The WH accuses the media of falsely reporting on the size of the crowd. The WH gives their own numbers on what they believe took place. The media fact checks those numbers and they turn out to be false. Trump supporters lose their minds and cry foul.
> 
> At some point, facts have to matter more than emotions.


Again, the size doesn't matter. I could care less. My issue is with the motive in sating "HE HAD A SMALL CROWD!! LOL" - they know why they did it and the media had no business doing it in the first place and making it into some kind of negative.

As for the size of it, well, i've already seen pictures that confirm the crowd was at least bigger than the picture they are using for their basis so make of it what you will... and as far as the media "Fact-checking". don't even get me started.


----------



## TheMenace

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Again, the size doesn't matter. I could care less. My issue is with the motive in sating "HE HAD A SSMALL CROWD!! LOL" - they know why they did it and the media had no buisness doing it in the first place and making it into some kind of negative.
> 
> As for the size of it, well, i've already seen pictures that confirm the crowd was at least bigger than the picture they are using for their basis and as far as the media "Fact-checking". don't even get me started.


I'd like to see those pictures if it's possible.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/823217610095558656
I think the right and left are going to flip on the credibility of Wikileaks soon. opcorn


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



TheMenace said:


> I'd like to see those pictures if it's possible.


http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/01/politics/trump-inauguration-gigapixel/

Trump claims he had guests to the Washington monument which the media denies. Looking at the link, one can see the area is occupied. Along with the building that is shown to be barren in the circulated image they are using.

The photo was also shot at a different time of day.

Again, the size matters not, but we can clearly see not much care went into making that claim. The comparison had a biased intention when it should have been not even worth the spin.

As I said, it's no different than the MLK bust snafu.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/823217610095558656
> I think the right and left are going to flip on the credibility of Wikileaks soon. opcorn


Nah. Not Me anyway. They have that opinion, then meh. Wikileaks was never pro or anti trump.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

More crowd size photos:
https://theintercept.com/2017/01/22/observable-reality-1-trump-white-house-0/

Sure Trump had guests:
https://theintercept.com/2017/01/21/identify-trump-donors/

Stop dying on this hill about the crowd size Beatles. The ACA is gone soon to help subsidise your healthcare costs.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> And individual attention it should be ... If you're referring to the blocs that failed states create (like the muslim bloc and the african blocs for example), then it certainly keeps it impossible to have individualized relations at all. It was one of the weaker points of Obama's administration that it was ruled through the fear of the UN rather than the realization that the UN is weaker than the US in and of itself ... Hopefully sense will be restored in the coming months because in the last 8 years, the UN has become even more of a useless nuisance than it was in the past ... and with it adopting the leftist's agenda of SJW culture and Identity politics, it's soon going to become a cancer upon the western world.
> 
> Right now only privileged muslim immigrants and their children are using western sympathy to benefit in this victim culture ... once full nations start to realize just how pathetically weakened many western nations have become at the hands of SJW governments, it's essentially game over for western culture as a whole.
> 
> The scary support for muslims in the women's march is something that's going to infect the UN sooner or later (and some of it already has) and I hope that people in Trump's administration realize this.


Yes, the U.N. has a long and largely dubious-at-best history. The blocs you mention will be interesting to watch, as will the Pacific rim bloc that Obama was purportedly attempting to use to block the rise of China (though with the myriad problems engulfing such major swaths of the Chinese economy, one must wonder how spectacular the Chinese rise is actually going to be in the near future).

Off-topic, but amusing:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/823312798977552387

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/823318761117716485 :chlol @AryaDark


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> More crowd size photos:
> https://theintercept.com/2017/01/22/observable-reality-1-trump-white-house-0/
> 
> Sure Trump had guests:
> https://theintercept.com/2017/01/21/identify-trump-donors/
> 
> Stop dying on this hill about the crowd size Beatles. The ACA is gone soon to help subsidise your healthcare costs.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

actual cannibal Shia Lebeouf


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



MrMister said:


> actual cannibal Shia Lebeouf


It all makes sense now. He would be a cannibal since Liberals are barbaric! :taker


----------



## Tater

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Master of the DDT said:


> I'm showing up to the party extremely late and I apologize for that.
> However, I'm a Canadian and I'm morbidly curious about Trump and how American's are reacting to...basically everything he's done in the past year.
> 
> Like many in the world, I'm confused about why Americans voted for him and I'm scared because of many of his political policies could be harmful to political allies and his ability to possibly use nuclear weapons.
> 
> What I would like to know from Trump supporters, and this is not an argument, I don't want to create an argument, but I'm curious as to what it is about him that gravitated people to him?
> Trump has no political experience, he hasn't laid out any plans about how to go about creating jobs or bringing jobs back that have gone overseas or are being phased out due to technology or dwindling natural resources, he made several inappropriate comments during his campaign towards women as well as minority groups and appeared to openly mock a mentally handicapped individual and he wants to repeal the affordable health care act which gives millions of my neighbours to the south medical insurance, which is really a human right.
> 
> So again, this is not an argument, I don't want to argue with any Trump supporters, I'm just trying to understand what is about Trump that made you a supporter of his.


You're looking at this backwards. Trump didn't win because Trump. Hillary really was just that fucking awful.



MrMister said:


> So Trump gets the United States of America out of the TPP. @ Bernie Sanders, thoughts?
> 
> Thanks Mr. President btw.
> 
> I guess it's not officially official yet so maybe not count those chickens just yet. But hopefully it happens.


Republicans aren't going to stop being pro-free trade deals and pro-outsourcing all of a sudden just because Trump got into office. What I expect to happen is that they will come up with a modified TPP, change a couple of provisions in it and call it something else or Trump will rush headlong into scrapping trade deals and end up starting a trade war with China. Either way, the outcome is not going to be good.

But, if Trump manages to do the miraculous and get a Republican administration to do something that is actually good for the economy and the working class, I'll be the first in line to thank him; even though that is about as likely as Roger Goodell cancelling the Super Bowl and playing tiddlywinks on the 50 yard line in his underwear. 



Beatles123 said:


> and we're back here...
> 
> I think why we're here is important: I don't think this is a pissing contest. I disagree with @Tater and @BruiserKC, the point is not who had the bigger crowd. It DOESN'T matter. Accurate reporting, however, DOES.


I fail to see how we are in disagreement here. The crowd size argument is retarded and at the same time, accurate reporting matters.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> You're looking at this backwards. Trump didn't win because Trump. Hillary really was just that fucking awful.
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans aren't going to stop being pro-free trade deals and pro-outsourcing all of a sudden just because Trump got into office. What I expect to happen is that they will come up with a modified TPP, change a couple of provisions in it and call it something else or Trump will rush headlong into scrapping trade deals and end up starting a trade war with China. Either way, the outcome is not going to be good.
> 
> But, if Trump manages to do the miraculous and get a Republican administration to do something that is actually good for the economy and the working class, I'll be the first in line to thank him; even though that is about as likely as Roger Goodell cancelling the Super Bowl and playing tiddlywinks on the 50 yard line in his underwear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I fail to see how we are in disagreement here. The crowd size argument is retarded and at the same time, accurate reporting matters.


You were scoffing at there being such a long discussion on it. I was merely stating the case as to why getting the correct info is important, which plays into why i disagree that Spicer shouldn't have went after the press. He absolutely should and he should go after them over whatever they need to be shredded on.

Also, pro tip: We're already IN a trade war. :trump3


----------



## MrMister

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

I also really can't care less about the crowd size of the inauguration. But carry on about it. I don't care about that either.

I will say the crowd for the women's march was impressive, but it seems more like mass hysteria because Trump is literally Hitler.

and yet here's Donald Trump trying to get the United States out of the Trans Pacific Partnership, something BERNIE SANDERS wants as well.


----------



## Neuron

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

Has anyone seen this?

http://hewillnotdivide.us/


The glass guy that's there right now kinda looks like Sam Hyde.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

If China and India get their shit together and become two US with 4 times the population each, the TPP wouldn't look like such a bad idea anymore. :shrug


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

Also, Trump confirms a renegotiation of *NAFTA!*






Wow, thats a lot of doing what he said he would do, by golly!

In adition....BASED MATTIS!

http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/22/m...-day-at-pentagon-by-blowing-up-isis-31-times/

>President Donald Trump promised during his campaign that he would destroy ISIS as quickly as possible. He said on his first day in office he would convene his top generals and order them to provide a plan to eradicate ISIS once and for all within 30 days.


----------



## Goku

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



TheMenace said:


> Tell me, how would you respond to someone who calls you regressive when you are anything but?


like this :Trump



TheMenace said:


> You're basing that on what exactly?


posts in this very thread. Try to follow a topic before jumping in without any understanding of the conversation.



TheMenace said:


> That's the thing, it depends on the person you're talking to and the person's views on various issues.
> 
> I just find it ironic how that other poster took exception to another poster's dislike for Trump, then turns around and takes a cheap shot at those who have a different world view from his.


you are not a serious person


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...ou-look-like-an-arab-country-right-now-214678



> We were always told that having a strongman in charge is the best solution for Arab countries, otherwise there would be chaos. Perhaps the American people are not ready for democracy after all. Let’s face it America, you look like an Arab country now.


:ha


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


>


Dude....a photo of a group of people from the front does not disprove a photo from the air, you cannot tell at all how big the crowd is from that shot. 

I mean there are a lot of people in the Trump inauguration shot and many full sections, this photo and person are clearly from one of those sections.

And btw, for people still holding out on the whole "but different times!" argument here is an interview where radical socialist Brit Hume counters that by saying that he was in fact there in person the entire time and those gaps were present the entire time. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikZJ5nnd7fM - around 3:30 is the key bit

Again, this was an event that took place in an area that voted 90.9% for Clinton and 4.1% for Trump (http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/district-of-columbia), his turn out is actually very impressive when you keep that in mind.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> It all makes sense now. He would be a cannibal since Liberals are barbaric! :taker


He's no Liberal, he's a moron. Like all politically charged celebs they just shout to hear their own voice. The people with private jets, free everything making tons of money sure have my interest at heart. >


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Dude....a photo of a group of people from the front does not disprove a photo from the air, you cannot tell at all how big the crowd is from that shot.
> 
> I mean there are a lot of people in the Trump inauguration shot and many full sections, this photo and person are clearly from one of those sections.
> 
> And btw, for people still holding out on the whole "but different times!" argument here is an interview where radical socialist Brit Hume counters that by saying that he was in fact there in person the entire time and those gaps were present the entire time.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikZJ5nnd7fM - around 3:30 is the key bit
> 
> Again, this was an event that took place in an area that voted 90.9% for Clinton and 4.1% for Trump (http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/district-of-columbia), his turn out is actually very impressive when you keep that in mind.


You have the wrong impression of my post. The media said he had no people at the monument like Trump claimed. Plus, the comparison was taken at 8:20AM, hours before the ceremony.










Meaning, this journalist was false reporting about the final turnout and the media is running on it, and that is BS. The final crowd may have been smaller, but this proof they use is Bunk.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> You have the wrong impression of my post. The media said he had no people at the monument like Trump claimed. Plus, the comparison was taken at 8:20AM, hours before the ceremony.


Oh ok,still though, you can't actually see how far in the background the monument is. It could still be nowhere near those particular people. 



> Meaning, this journalist was false reporting about the final turnout and the media is running on it, and that is BS. The final crowd may have been smaller, but this proof they use is Bunk.




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/822671902221156352
This is his reply when asked about the 8:20am posting time. 

I'm not going to wade into it too much because I don't understand american time zones and missed the beginning Mania 31 because of this very sad fact.*

It seems unlikely to have been faked, there is more than one source of aerial shots and they all show the same thing.

*Actually it turned out to not be my fault and Michael Cole had actually cocked it up during an announcement I think. Still, too many timezones, no one needs that many timezones.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/822478866035986435
I'm going to assume the tweet will appear in your timezone. Do your own timezone converting.

Beatles getting fooled by 4chan :ha


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Oh ok,still though, you can't actually see how far in the background the monument is. It could still be nowhere near those particular people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/822671902221156352
> This is his reply when asked about the 8:20am posting time. Did that person actually live in the west?
> 
> I'm not going to wade into it too much because I don't understand american time zones and missed the beginning Mania 31 because of this very sad fact.
> 
> It seems unlikely to have been faked, there is more than one source of aerial shots and they all show the same thing.


Didnt consider the timezone effecting the tweet. Still, the irresponsibility of the media is my main driving point, plus i have seen other pictures confirming he had people at or very near the monument, and at the very least looking much more full than that image.










again, the crowd size isnt the issue. I could give less of a shit. The media making it an issue is the problem. Especially with all the other needless crap they spew


----------



## MrMister

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

I think Beatles is totally insane for wanting to nuke people, but he's not wrong about the media and how fucked up they are. 

Yellow journalism isn't even close to being new, but it's the norm now. That's fucked up. not only ridiculous sensationalism but outright lies.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



MrMister said:


> I think Beatles is totally insane for wanting to nuke people, but he's not wrong about the media and how fucked up they are.
> 
> Yellow journalism isn't even close to being new, but it's the norm now. That's fucked up. not only ridiculous sensationalism but outright lies.


I only want the ability to nuke if necessary because others may want to first. If any country is going to have nukes, I want it to be my own.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

Wait wait wait.....


The Media point out that Trump's inauguration had a lower turnout than Obamas. Totally fairly, that is just undeniable fact. It did have a lower turnout.

Trump has a press conference where he says the opposite is true. He has his press secretary come in and double down on the claim that he drew more people than Obama.

And somehow it being an issue is the media's fault?

Trump made this an issue but saying stuff that could be easily disproven, when frankly, it was a non issue and there was no need to say anything at all.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Wait wait wait.....
> 
> 
> The Media point out that Trump's inauguration had a lower turnout than Obamas. Totally fairly, that is just undeniable fact. It did have a lower turnout.


Nope. They didn't "Report" it for the sake of info. They spun it to make it seem as a failure. Not unlike other facts they spin to make him look worse. They knew what they were doing the same way they falsely reported about Nancy Sinatra and Trump using her music or the MLK bust.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Nope. They didn't "Report" it for the sake of info. They spun it to make it seem as a failure. Not unlike other facts they spin to make him look worse. They knew what they were doing the same way they falsely reported about Nancy Sinatra and Trump using her music or the MLK bust.


It was true though. Are they supposed to not report the truth if it makes Trump look bad?

I means seriously. They compare crowd sizes etc at literally every event like this by every past president, why would they randomly not do it for Trump's?


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

Moving on, this is all that matters:


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

EDITED: I said i was done, will pm for less clutter.

Back to MAGA :trump


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> and we're back here...
> 
> I think why we're here is important: I don't think this is a pissing contest. I disagree with @Tater and @BruiserKC, the point is not who had the bigger crowd. It DOESN'T matter. Accurate reporting, however, DOES. Even if the crowd WERE smaller, why trot that as some kind of failure? Not only that, but the fact they are using inadequate pictures to find this out suggests a slanderous intent. If it were smaller, so what? don't harp on it and make it into a meme as if its Trump's fault. As Bruiser stated, they are in the tank for Trump to fail and this is WRONG! Even if it's a small issue, it's still inexcusably biased of them, and I dunno about you, but i'd like fairness in my reporting. Period. I don't care whether Trump fucks up or not, just be fair about it. I don't need a caption to read "TRUMP SAYS _________ (It Isn't/It's Not)" or a news anchor to state something was "Hitlerian". That's not reporting, that's subtle brainwashing. I never could stand it when Rush Limbaugh does it, and I refuse to give anyone else a pass for it either. When a reporter tweets out that Trump has removed MLK's bust, knowing full well the implications of his story and not bothering to verify, and then the networks pull this shit with the crowd size the same day, yeah, if i were spicer i'd be ripping pissed too. These people need to BE shat on! At any and all opportunity. Pro or Anti Trump.


It's called picking your battles and they are making a mountain out of a molehill. By Spicer going out there and ripping on the media for what really doesn't' amount to a whole lot, what happens when there is a situation that comes along where the media does royally screw it up and people write it off as just another example of being thin-skinned? No one will take it seriously then. It's like the boy who cried "Wolf" in a weird type of way, when something comes along that deserves outrage people will be like "meh." Scolding reporters for something like this will just piss them off, you have to be smart about it. 

Don't be one of those who are in the tank for Trump no matter what. If the next four years are any indication, they are going to be every bit as annoying or more so then the ones who licked Obama's balls for 8 years no matter what he did.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> It's called picking your battles and they are making a mountain out of a molehill. By Spicer going out there and ripping on the media for what really doesn't' amount to a whole lot, what happens when there is a situation that comes along where the media does royally screw it up and people write it off as just another example of being thin-skinned? No one will take it seriously then. It's like the boy who cried "Wolf" in a weird type of way, when something comes along that deserves outrage people will be like "meh." Scolding reporters for something like this will just piss them off, you have to be smart about it.
> 
> Don't be one of those who are in the tank for Trump no matter what. If the next four years are any indication, they are going to be every bit as annoying or more so then the ones who licked Obama's balls for 8 years no matter what he did.


Except he wasn't crying wolf. They deserved it, and people are always going to hate him anyway. If you can't stand for something you'll fall for anything! 

I'll get mad at him when and only when he fails to do what i voted for. So far, he hasn't failed. However: I will not cry if he don't end up being perfect.


----------



## RVP_The_Gunner

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

Zeb Coulter is expected to line up with Trump any day now.

WE THE PEOPLE will be the perfect gimmick for Trump


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Except he wasn't crying wolf. They deserved it, and people are always going to hate him anyway. If you can't stand for something you'll fall for anything!
> 
> I'll get mad at him when and only when he fails to do what i voted for. So far, he hasn't failed. However: I will not cry if he don't end up being perfect.


People went after Obama with such a passion for every small thing that when serious shit came along (Fast and Furious for example) that he could brush it off and say "Haters gonna hate." Hold them accountable yes but save the major outrage for when they truly deserve it so the media can't hide behind the same card. Be smart about it. 

He hasn't failed yet as he hasn't yet started to really get down to work. However the echo chamber is already warming up and that if he starts talking about climate change and cuts deals with the Democrats (he is a populist so that is a possibility) that they will love him no matter what. I make no apologies about my concerns on who he is and will give him a fair shake. Howl in outrage when he goes off course and you're golden


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

http://pamelageller.com/2017/01/ted...n.html/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
@Carte Blanche Thoughts? :trump


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> People went after Obama with such a passion for every small thing that when serious shit came along (Fast and Furious for example) that he could brush it off and say "Haters gonna hate." Hold them accountable yes but save the major outrage for when they truly deserve it so the media can't hide behind the same card. Be smart about it.
> 
> He hasn't failed yet as he hasn't yet started to really get down to work. However the echo chamber is already warming up and that if he starts talking about climate change and cuts deals with the Democrats (he is a populist so that is a possibility) that they will love him no matter what. I make no apologies about my concerns on who he is and will give him a fair shake. Howl in outrage when he goes off course and you're golden


He'll always have those haters and Trump is a million times tougher. He'll go after the media itself if he has to.


----------



## amhlilhaus

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



TheMenace said:


> That's the thing, did they falsely report the size of the crowd? If so, what are you basing the accusation on?
> 
> Your overall disdain for the media may be justified based on past reporting of other events, but that doesn't mean it's ok to start accusing them of doing things they don't actually do.
> 
> The WH accuses the media of falsely reporting on the size of the crowd. The WH gives their own numbers on what they believe took place. The media fact checks those numbers and the numbers turn out to be false. Trump supporters lose their minds and cry foul.
> 
> At some point, facts have to matter more than emotions.
> 
> Also, when one reporter makes a mistake, that is hardly grounds for demonizing the entire media categorically.


I think trump loses the crowd size argument. 

Unlike liberals, who cheer when told to give a shout out to a religon where they are considered property at best, slaves at worst, the conservatives i know dont engage in mindless group think.

I voted trump simply to deny the scum bucket from winning. That and the entertainment factor.

Soon, you wont be able to believe a thing either sides say, and thats incredibly dangerous.

The media rails against fake news when its obvious what theyre trying to do. Fake news is anything that doesnt come from them, which when you consider their track record and bias is laughable.

Someones going to get the bright idea of just reporting the facts. No adjectives, no spin. Just plain facts, let the viewer decide.

Id watch a bare bones station like that.


----------



## amhlilhaus

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> http://pamelageller.com/2017/01/ted...n.html/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
> @Carte Blanche Thoughts? :trump



Its depressing to think this hasnt already happened.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

Labeouf has gone insane.


----------



## virus21

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Labeouf has gone insane.


He went insane long ago


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

@DesolationRow @CamillePunk










The final boss of mankind is pissed.


----------



## krtgolfing

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Master of the DDT said:


> I'm showing up to the party extremely late and I apologize for that.
> However, I'm a Canadian and I'm morbidly curious about Trump and how American's are reacting to...basically everything he's done in the past year.
> 
> Like many in the world, I'm confused about why Americans voted for him and I'm scared because of many of his political policies could be harmful to political allies and his ability to possibly use nuclear weapons.
> 
> What I would like to know from Trump supporters, and this is not an argument, I don't want to create an argument, but I'm curious as to what it is about him that gravitated people to him?
> Trump has no political experience, he hasn't laid out any plans about how to go about creating jobs or bringing jobs back that have gone overseas or are being phased out due to technology or dwindling natural resources, he made several inappropriate comments during his campaign towards women as well as minority groups and appeared to openly mock a mentally handicapped individual and he wants to repeal the affordable health care act which gives millions of my neighbours to the south medical insurance, which is really a human right.
> 
> So again, this is not an argument, I don't want to argue with any Trump supporters, I'm just trying to understand what is about Trump that made you a supporter of his.


Because Hillary wasn't any fucking better of a choice.. Was under investigation the whole Benghazi incident :justsayin


----------



## njcam

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

I'm surprised to hear that Scarlett Johansson took an active part in Saturdays 'Womens March' as she spends 10 months of the year living in Paris, France.


----------



## njcam

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*


----------



## Reaper

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

Now that the left has started whinging about how Obama's crowds were bigger, but then accusing us of being petty when we try to counter them, this bit of news is sweetness


> http://ew.com/tv/2017/01/21/trump-inauguration-ratings/
> 
> Donald Trump’s inauguration ratings were the second-highest in 36 years, according to Nielsen.
> 
> The swearing-in of the 45th president was seen by 30.6 million viewers across 12 networks.
> 
> The only inauguration over the last three decades that tops Trump’s number in the linear ratings? Barack Obama’s first inauguration back in 2009, which had a record-setting 37.8 million viewers. So Trump was down from the last new president to take office.
> 
> 
> But before that, to get an Inauguration Day number this high, you’d have to go all the way back to Ronald Reagan in 1981, who was seen by 41.8 million viewers (Nielsen released tracking for inauguration ratings back to 1969).
> 
> Trump’s numbers are all the more remarkable considering he’s entering into office with rather low approval ratings compared to past presidents and sparked protests worldwide along with vows to not watch his inauguration.
> 
> *And actually, Trump could have been seen by more viewers than either Obama or Reagan. Nielsen ratings do not account for online viewing, which has grown sharply in recent years and is far more commonplace than even four years ago. CNN.com, for example, clocked 16.9 million live streams, tying with its Election Day coverage for the site’s top event (live stream tallies are typically not apples-to-apples with Nielsen’s strict methodology of counting average viewers, but are still additive). Plus, portals like YouTube, Facebook and Twitter offered live streams as well.
> *
> In terms of linear coverage, Fox News topped all networks, averaging 8.8 million viewers for the day and peaking with 11 million viewers from noon to 1 p.m. This was the highest-rated inauguration coverage in the network’s history. While on broadcast, NBC was top ranked with 5.8 million viewers for the day.
> 
> Here’s a chart from Nielsen of Inauguration Day coverage ratings over the years. The column on the far right, “Persons 2+,” represents Total Viewers in millions, which is the most commonly used metric when measuring an event’s audience (in addition to the advertiser target demo of adults 18-49, which is not included here).


There's no way to account for all online viewing. But just look at that CNN online number of 17 million by itself. The official record can state that Obaba drew more, but at the time there were no online streams. 










I'm just gonna sit back and enjoy the next few pages of this thread

:trump3



Beatles123 said:


> http://pamelageller.com/2017/01/ted...n.html/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
> @Carte Blanche Thoughts? :trump


Well, even in the article it states that even Saudi Arabia has it listed as a terrorist organization, so it's actually news to me that the USA already doesn't consider it one ...


----------



## Mra22

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

The guy that Trump hired for secretary of defense James "mad dog" Mattis has already started bombing Isis. 

http://www.trunews.com/article/day-1-mad-dog-mattis-bombs-isis-positions-31-times


----------



## DoolieNoted

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Labeouf has gone insane.


I guess irony isn't something you learn at acting school.

The anti-Trump crowd have been far more divisive than the person they're attacking.


----------



## Mra22

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

Trump is also signing an executive order today to get out of that terrible TPP.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/...-executive-order-on-trans-pacific-pact-monday


----------



## Reaper

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

With regards to the bombings, I'm very torn on Trump's administration picking up right where Obama left off in much the same way I was concerned when Obama picked up where Bush left off.

I was hoping for a slower and more nuanced approach... Anyways I'll give my more detailed thoughts on the continued bombing at a later date when the picture becomes clearer. Instinctively... This worries me.


----------



## Alco

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

Trump's press secretary made me think about this guy and it's cracking me up:


----------



## DELETE

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

" alternative facts" :Brock:reneelel:Rollins:deanfpalm


----------



## Reaper

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

http://www.therebel.media/shock_video_rebel_reporter_attacked_by_alberta_ndp_thug


> (UPDATE: Found!) Rebel reporter assaulted at Women's March — $1,000 reward to find him
> 
> UPDATE: WE CAUGHT HIM! Dion Bews of Edmonton, please turn yourself into the nearest police department, and prepare for a massive civil lawsuit.
> 
> BOUNTY: We received several tips, and are checking to see which one came in first. You will be contacted to receive your $1,000 bounty!
> 
> Yesterday our Alberta bureau chief, Sheila Gunn Reid, was hit in the face by an NDP thug, right on the steps of the Alberta Legislature. Here's Sheila's report:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sheila had gone there to report on a left-wing “Women’s March.” It was basically an NDP rally against Donald Trump. So: the usual professional protesters from the left.
> 
> Of course, the event was dominated by NDP men. One of them saw Sheila, and recognized her from The Rebel.
> 
> He started arguing with her; then swearing at her; then he said he’d hit her — and then he did.
> 
> All while Sheila’s camera was rolling. Here is the full unedited video:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even more incredibly, the NDP women standing right there, who saw the whole thing, immediately blocked Sheila, and helped the thug scurry away. They sided with the male criminal, against the female victim.
> 
> So much for women’s rights. The NDP doesn’t even believe women should have the benefit of the Criminal Code, if they’re conservative.
> 
> Even more incredible, a photographer from the Canadian Press named Jason Franson was right there, taking pictures the whole time. But he didn’t publish any of those pictures; he didn’t support his fellow journalist. He actually pushed Sheila, too — and verbally disparaged her.
> 
> Violence against women; blaming the victim; helping the criminal get away — all at an NDP “Women’s March”.
> 
> Obviously Sheila went straight to the police, who are investigating. But the criminal is still on the loose.
> 
> I need your help to find this NDP thug, and bring him to justice.
> 
> I will pay $1,000 to the first person who gives us information leading to the arrest of this violent NDP pig. Ask your friends, send his picture around, go through Facebook pages.
> 
> And send me all the info, at [email protected]. First one to catch him gets $1,000.
> 
> (Please do not take the law into your own hands, however tempting. Leave the illegal violence to the NDP street thugs — that’s not how we behave.)
> 
> I thought Alberta was safe for journalists. But not under Rachel Notley’s NDP.
> 
> Remember, Notley herself set the tone last year, by sending an armed sheriff to block Sheila from the Legislature. And she ordered the NDP’s Justice Department to send Sheila a letter, banning her from all government premises.
> 
> Yesterday, one of Notley’s thugs simply followed the message from the top: silence Sheila at any cost.
> 
> And I’m here to say:
> 
> No. We’re going to find you, you violent thug, and you’re going to jail.
> 
> Send your information to [email protected]
> 
> Yours truly,
> 
> Ezra Levant
> 
> P.S. There is no way I’m letting Notley’s thugs intimidate Sheila. So from now on, I’m sending her to public events with a professional security guard.


And this is why these liberal beta cucks are nothing but shams. 

At this point, whenever I see a male feminist, all I can picture is a just a hateful man whose only reason for being a "feminist" is so that he can hopefully get some pussy, or just be able to put himself up on a pedestal where he can talk to the other sjw around him ... because if riled up enough, these self-hating morons will get extremely violent as they've been forced to repress their natural urges throughout their miserable lives. 

Real men take out our violent urges in healthy ways like sport, punching bags, getting into fights with other men who can take it (and then having a beer afterwards). We don't repress ourselves to the point of wanting to hit a woman.

There's no such thing as a male feminist. He's either a pussy, or after a pussy.


----------



## Master of the DDT

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



krtgolfing said:


> Because Hillary wasn't any fucking better of a choice.. Was under investigation the whole Benghazi incident :justsayin


Thanks to Tater and krtgolfing. Again, being an outsider viewing your politics, most of the people I know, as we saw your presidential campaigns agreed that Clinton was a terrible choice for the Democratic Party yet viewed as a better alternative to Trump, based very much on his lack of political experience and certain comments he made. 

Thanks for your honesty guys.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

In other news, #NotMuSuperbowl is trending on Twitter :lmao 

This stuff is absolute gold :banderas 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/823405444676755456

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/823542564242464768

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/823550892578373632

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/823548500688437248

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/823530606524936192

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/823527759062433792
:sodone


----------



## krtgolfing

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> In other news, #NotMuSuperbowl is trending on Twitter :lmao
> 
> This stuff is absolute gold :banderas
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/823405444676755456
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/823542564242464768
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/823550892578373632
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/823548500688437248
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/823530606524936192
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/823527759062433792
> :sodone


That is gold! LOL


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> @DesolationRow @CamillePunk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The final boss of mankind is pissed.














Mra22 said:


> Trump is also signing an executive order today to get out of that terrible TPP.
> 
> https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/...-executive-order-on-trans-pacific-pact-monday


The Donald signing an executive order to officially withdraw the U.S. from the TPP and another executive order to begin the process of renegotiating NAFTA.

Not bad, not bad. :dance :dance


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Donald Trump said:


> What follows is my 100-day action plan to Make America Great Again. It is a contract between myself and the American voter — and begins with restoring honesty, accountability and change to Washington
> 
> Therefore, on the first day of my term of office, my administration will immediately pursue the following six measures to clean up the corruption and special interest collusion in Washington, DC:
> 
> FIRST, propose a Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress;
> 
> SECOND, a hiring freeze on all federal employees to reduce federal workforce through attrition (exempting military, public safety, and public health);
> 
> THIRD, a requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated;
> 
> FOURTH, a 5 year-ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government service;
> 
> FIFTH, a lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government;
> 
> SIXTH, a complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections.
> 
> On the same day, I will begin taking the following 7 actions to protect American workers:
> 
> FIRST, I will announce my intention to renegotiate NAFTA or withdraw from the deal under Article 2205
> 
> SECOND, I will announce our withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership
> 
> THIRD, I will direct my Secretary of the Treasury to label China a currency manipulator
> 
> FOURTH, I will direct the Secretary of Commerce and U.S. Trade Representative to identify all foreign trading abuses that unfairly impact American workers and direct them to use every tool under American and international law to end those abuses immediately
> 
> FIFTH, I will lift the restrictions on the production of $50 trillion dollars' worth of job-producing American energy reserves, including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal.
> 
> SIXTH, lift the Obama-Clinton roadblocks and allow vital energy infrastructure projects, like the Keystone Pipeline, to move forward
> 
> SEVENTH, cancel billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs and use the money to fix America's water and environmental infrastructure
> 
> Additionally, on the first day, I will take the following five actions to restore security and the constitutional rule of law:
> 
> FIRST, cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by President Obama
> 
> SECOND, begin the process of selecting a replacement for Justice Scalia from one of the 20 judges on my list, who will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States
> 
> THIRD, cancel all federal funding to Sanctuary Cities
> 
> FOURTH, begin removing the more than 2 million criminal illegal immigrants from the country and cancel visas to foreign countries that won't take them back
> 
> FIFTH, suspend immigration from terror-prone regions where vetting cannot safely occur. All vetting of people coming into our country will be considered extreme vetting.
> 
> Next, I will work with Congress to introduce the following broader legislative measures and fight for their passage within the first 100 days of my Administration:
> 
> Middle Class Tax Relief And Simplification Act. An economic plan designed to grow the economy 4% per year and create at least 25 million new jobs through massive tax reduction and simplification, in combination with trade reform, regulatory relief, and lifting the restrictions on American energy. The largest tax reductions are for the middle class. A middle-class family with 2 children will get a 35% tax cut. The current number of brackets will be reduced from 7 to 3, and tax forms will likewise be greatly simplified. The business rate will be lowered from 35 to 15 percent, and the trillions of dollars of American corporate money overseas can now be brought back at a 10 percent rate.
> 
> End The Offshoring Act. Establishes tariffs to discourage companies from laying off their workers in order to relocate in other countries and ship their products back to the U.S. tax-free.
> 
> American Energy & Infrastructure Act. Leverages public-private partnerships, and private investments through tax incentives, to spur $1 trillion in infrastructure investment over 10 years. It is revenue neutral.
> 
> School Choice And Education Opportunity Act. Redirects education dollars to give parents the right to send their kid to the public, private, charter, magnet, religious or home school of their choice. Ends common core, brings education supervision to local communities. It expands vocational and technical education, and make 2 and 4-year college more affordable.
> 
> Repeal and Replace Obamacare Act. Fully repeals Obamacare and replaces it with Health Savings Accounts, the ability to purchase health insurance across state lines, and lets states manage Medicaid funds. Reforms will also include cutting the red tape at the FDA: there are over 4,000 drugs awaiting approval, and we especially want to speed the approval of life-saving medications.
> 
> Affordable Childcare and Eldercare Act. Allows Americans to deduct childcare and elder care from their taxes, incentivizes employers to provide on-side childcare services, and creates tax-free Dependent Care Savings Accounts for both young and elderly dependents, with matching contributions for low-income families.
> 
> End Illegal Immigration Act Fully-funds the construction of a wall on our southern border with the full understanding that the country Mexico will be reimbursing the United States for the full cost of such wall; establishes a 2-year mandatory minimum federal prison sentence for illegally re-entering the U.S. after a previous deportation, and a 5-year mandatory minimum for illegally re-entering for those with felony convictions, multiple misdemeanor convictions or two or more prior deportations; also reforms visa rules to enhance penalties for overstaying and to ensure open jobs are offered to American workers first.
> 
> Restoring Community Safety Act. Reduces surging crime, drugs and violence by creating a Task Force On Violent Crime and increasing funding for programs that train and assist local police; increases resources for federal law enforcement agencies and federal prosecutors to dismantle criminal gangs and put violent offenders behind bars.
> 
> Restoring National Security Act. Rebuilds our military by eliminating the defense sequester and expanding military investment; provides Veterans with the ability to receive public VA treatment or attend the private doctor of their choice; protects our vital infrastructure from cyber-attack; establishes new screening procedures for immigration to ensure those who are admitted to our country support our people and our values
> 
> Clean up Corruption in Washington Act. Enacts new ethics reforms to Drain the Swamp and reduce the corrupting influence of special interests on our politics.
> 
> On November 8th, Americans will be voting for this 100-day plan to restore prosperity to our economy, security to our communities, and honesty to our government.
> 
> This is my pledge to you.
> 
> And if we follow these steps, we will once more have a government of, by and for the people.












The road back to greatness begins now!

- Vic


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> (1) And this is why these liberal beta cucks are nothing but shams.
> 
> (2) At this point, whenever I see a male feminist, all I can picture is a just a hateful man whose only reason for being a "feminist" is so that he can hopefully get some pussy, or just be able to put himself up on a pedestal where he can talk to the other sjw around him ... because if riled up enough, these self-hating morons will get extremely violent as they've been forced to repress their natural urges throughout their miserable lives.
> 
> (3) Real men take out our violent urges in healthy ways like sport, punching bags, getting into fights with other men who can take it (and then having a beer afterwards). We don't repress ourselves to the point of wanting to hit a woman.
> 
> (4) There's no such thing as a male feminist. He's either a pussy, or after a pussy.


OKAY . . . I added number references to your post, so that my replies will be clear in what they pertain to.

(1) I actually agree with you on this item . . . Personally, I believe this applies to most SJW's, male or female.

(2) I disagree with the first part of this statement, about only "looking to score". However, the motive of becoming "relevant" to other SJW's seems plausible. As for the violence issue, much, if not most, of the Left is marked by a tendency towards this trait.

(3) So, according to this, it seems that you are OK with violence, as long as it's not a man doing it to a woman . . . What about "woman on woman" or "man on man" violence ? "Men who can take it" . . . REALLY ???

(4) "There's no such thing as a male feminist. He's either a pussy, or after a pussy." . . . So, what are "female feminists" and what are they "after" ?

Where do you categorize the "metrosexual" men that society is producing today ?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Lunatic Fringe said:


> OKAY . . . I added number references to your post, so that my replies will be clear in what they pertain to.
> 
> (3) So, according to this, it seems that you are OK with violence, as long as it's not a man doing it to a woman . . . What about "woman on woman" or "man on man" violence ? "Men who can take it" . . . REALLY ???
> 
> (4) "There's no such thing as a male feminist. He's either a pussy, or after a pussy." . . . So, what are "female feminists" and what are they "after" ?
> 
> Where do you categorize the "metrosexual" men that society is producing today ?


3. There's such a thing as justifiable violence and that falls under the "stand your ground" laws in Florida where I'm from as well as anything pertain to self-defense. ANd yeah, two men of equal stature duking it out is perfectly justifiable. When one man has power and significant advantage over the other, obviously it's not justified - that's just bullying or you're in a mugging situation which is something entirely different. 

As for women on men, if you believe in sexual dimorophomism then you should have a more nuanced approach assuming that majority of women are weaker than majority of men, so most men should be able to defend themselves simply by restraining the woman. My more nuanced view on the subject is that given the current socio-political climate of western society, the best bet for a man that's physically weaker than a woman, or isn't wielding a weapon should do the best he can to protect himself, RECORD the interaction if possible and contact the police to let the justice system take care of the matter. Make an attempt to subdue. Never pre-emptively strike. Resist the urge to strike a woman as much as is humanly possible (see, we have this thing called adrenaline which makes us even stronger in times of crisis) and therefore more dangerous than the woman attacker. Try to escape and call the police for help. 

Male on male violence is a fact of life. Learn how to defend yourself and if you can't defend yourself, carry a weapon, mace or taser. Or ultimately submit because if you're being attacked and your life or health could be severely threatened, you have several options available to you. It varies from individual to individual. 

4. Live and let live and let the same laws and rules apply to them as are universally applied to everyone else.


----------



## glenwo2

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Master of the DDT said:


> I'm showing up to the party extremely late and I apologize for that.
> However, I'm a Canadian and I'm morbidly curious about Trump and how American's are reacting to...basically everything he's done in the past year.
> 
> Like many in the world, I'm confused about why Americans voted for him and I'm scared because of many of his political policies could be harmful to political allies and his ability to possibly use nuclear weapons.
> 
> What I would like to know from Trump supporters, and this is not an argument, I don't want to create an argument, but I'm curious as to what it is about him that gravitated people to him?
> Trump has no political experience, he hasn't laid out any plans about how to go about creating jobs or bringing jobs back that have gone overseas or are being phased out due to technology or dwindling natural resources, he made several inappropriate comments during his campaign towards women as well as minority groups and appeared to openly mock a mentally handicapped individual and he wants to repeal the affordable health care act which gives millions of my neighbours to the south medical insurance, which is really a human right.
> 
> So again, this is not an argument, I don't want to argue with any Trump supporters, I'm just trying to understand what is about Trump that made you a supporter of his.


I support Trump because he is NOT Hilary Clinton. With Hilary, she would drag this country into WW3, imo.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

Trump signs executive order withdrawing the US from the TPP

http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...-orders-on-tpp-abortion-federal-hiring-freeze


----------



## glenwo2

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/823217610095558656
> I think the right and left are going to flip on the credibility of Wikileaks soon. opcorn


I could care less about whether he releases his tax returns or not. What are they going to do if he doesn't? Impeach him? :lol :lol :lol


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> 3. There's such a thing as justifiable violence and that falls under the "stand your ground" laws in Florida where I'm from as well as anything pertain to self-defense. ANd yeah, two men of equal stature duking it out is perfectly justifiable. When one man has power and significant advantage over the other, obviously it's not justified - that's just bullying or you're in a mugging situation which is something entirely different.
> 
> As for women on men, if you believe in sexual dimorophomism then you should have a more nuanced approach assuming that majority of women are weaker than majority of men, so most men should be able to defend themselves simply by restraining the woman. My more nuanced view on the subject is that given the current socio-political climate of western society, the best bet for a man that's physically weaker than a woman, or isn't wielding a weapon should do the best he can to protect himself, RECORD the interaction if possible and contact the police to let the justice system take care of the matter. Make an attempt to subdue. Never pre-emptively strike. Resist the urge to strike a woman as much as is humanly possible (see, we have this thing called adrenaline which makes us even stronger in times of crisis) and therefore more dangerous than the woman attacker. Try to escape and call the police for help.
> 
> Male on male violence is a fact of life. Learn how to defend yourself and if you can't defend yourself, carry a weapon, mace or taser. Or ultimately submit because if you're being attacked and your life or health could be severely threatened, you have several options available to you. It varies from individual to individual.
> 
> 4. Live and let live and let the same laws and rules apply to them as are universally applied to everyone else.


I'm not picking a fight, but I'd like to discuss some things . . .

(3) - So, are you OK with it, if the little guy picks up something to use as a weapon ? ( I am pro self-defense, and pro-gun, without automaticaly being charged by the cops ). What if the "little guy" was the aggressor and started the incident ? Saying "I'm a wimp, so I can do whatever I want because it's unfair, if you hit me" is ludicrous. I grew up in Ft. Lauderdale in the 1970's & 1980's, BTW, just for reference. Male on male violence . . . We play by our own rules here - LOL !

I never referred to "women on men" violence . . . I asked about "women on women" violence.

However, "make an attempt to subdue", if a woman attacks a man . . . Does that mean begging her to stop, pushing her away, grabbing her to try to restrain her, using Mace, using a choke hold to knock her out, a right-cross to the jaw, etc, etc, etc ? How many of those things should be done before beating her down or shooting her ?

P.S. - ( I would think that "restraining" her might "trigger" her further, either by Panic or Rage )

I carry a concealed .357 magnum, 4" barrel with 125gr hollow-points, everywhere I go . . . If I ever have to draw it in self-defense, it will go off, and it will not be used to try to "scare someone off".

(4) "Live & let live" is a great philosophy, but "reality" is a different matter, in today's world !


----------



## glenwo2

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> With regards to the bombings, I'm very torn on Trump's administration picking up right where Obama left off in much the same way I was concerned when Obama picked up where Bush left off.
> 
> *I was hoping for a slower and more nuanced approach*... Anyways I'll give my more detailed thoughts on the continued bombing at a later date when the picture becomes clearer. Instinctively... This worries me.


Slower and more nuanced?

If anything was slower and more nuanced, it was when Obama was president.

With Trump, he wasted no time in telling "Mad Dog" to bomb ISIS into oblivion...NOW. Not Tomorrow...Not the next day...Not next week...Not Next month or Next year...but *NOW!*


----------



## Reaper

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



glenwo2 said:


> Slower and more nuanced?
> 
> If anything was slower and more nuanced, it was when Obama was president.
> 
> With Trump, he wasted no time in telling "Mad Dog" to bomb ISIS into oblivion...NOW. Not Tomorrow...Not the next day...Not next week...Not Next month or Next year...but *NOW!*


Well by that I meant that the suddenness of the bombings means that the current Trump administration has literally take over what was already going on without even reviewing the intelligence available and have accepted the previous targets on trust that the previous administration's intelligence gathering was flawless. This doesn't bode well for the future imo. 

Even if the previous administration's intelligence was flawless (which we know it wasn't) I would be more confident if I'd heard the current administration take a little more time.


----------



## glenwo2

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

^ Well if Trump can't trust his own intelligence, then who can he trust? :shrug


He has no choice but to use the information they currently have. It's not perfect, of course, but nothing ever is.


----------



## glenwo2

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> @DesolationRow @CamillePunk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The final boss of mankind is pissed.


I could care less what some old fart thinks.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



glenwo2 said:


> ^ Well if Trump can't trust his own intelligence, then who can he trust? :shrug
> 
> 
> He has no choice but to use the information they currently have. It's not perfect, of course, but nothing ever is.


Is it his intelligence?


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

I don't really like Razorfist much (he is a bit dramatic as well as an asshat) but he points out something interesting here






The very loose border acts as a massive "love it or leave" clause for Mexico, no matter many people the cartel kills and how poor Mexico is Mexicans looking for a better life can always jump the line and when they do that just gives further control to people running the show down south

The US is an escape clause for the Mexicans who actually want to improve their lives which leaves Mexico a land of fragmented shanty towns, cartels and old money families and the latter two never have to improve the first groups lives because if they push them enough they can just hop the border and take their poverty with them


----------



## glenwo2

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Is it his intelligence?


It's U.S. Intelligence. 

Not Obama's or any other individual's. :shrug


----------



## glenwo2

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> The road back to greatness begins now!
> 
> - Vic


Can you provide the link to this 100-day plan that Trump stated?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



glenwo2 said:


> It's U.S. Intelligence.
> 
> Not Obama's or any other individual's. :shrug


Same intelligence that led to several civilian targets being bombed. Hence why the necessity to be more vigilant if not hit the reset button and see what led to the missteps before continuing down the same path.


----------



## glenwo2

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

^ okay I get that. I would hope that Trump made sure to tell them to check their information(update it) again before proceeding with the bombing. Thing is that we don't know.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*










Sean Spicer grilling the reporters back during the press conference! This is great! :lol

#TurnaboutIsFairPlay 



> Can you provide the link to this 100-day plan that Trump stated?


It was reported by every news agency back in November. Pick one.

- Vic


----------



## glenwo2

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

^ No need to be snarky about it. :lol


----------



## TheMenace

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/01/politics/trump-inauguration-gigapixel/
> 
> Trump claims he had guests to the Washington monument which the media denies. Looking at the link, one can see the area is occupied. Along with the building that is shown to be barren in the circulated image they are using.
> 
> The photo was also shot at a different time of day.
> 
> Again, the size matters not, but we can clearly see not much care went into making that claim. The comparison had a biased intention when it should have been not even worth the spin.
> 
> As I said, it's no different than the MLK bust snafu.


Looks can be extremely deceiving, especially when you're only looking at the crowd from one particular angle. I'll refer you to what I said earlier in the thread:



TheMenace said:


> When a camera shot is taken sideways, a single person standing in the distance can block the view of quite a bit of empty space behind the person. When the shot is taken from above, it shows just how much empty space there really is. WWE often uses this trick when their crowds aren't that big to make it seem like the arena floor is packed with people even when it may be mostly empty.


----------



## TheMenace

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Goku said:


> like this :Trump


Yup. Great retort! Responses like that go a long way toward dispelling the belief that Trump supporters are smug and self-righteous.



Goku said:


> posts in this very thread. Try to follow a topic before jumping in without any understanding of the conversation.


No offense but you are the one making no sense here. I replied to a post where the poster accused the media of lying about the whole situation. I called that poster out because all the evidence points to the contrary.



> you are not a serious person


A baseless personal attack... disappointing but, somehow, not very surprising.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

Try being a Trump supporter. It's hard not to be smug with all of the winning.

:trump


----------



## Iapetus

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

Some of y'all really stanning Sean Spicer???:con3 :franklol kay


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> Sean Spicer grilling the reporters back during the press conference! This is great! :lol


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

Update regarding that SNL writer who made that inflammatory joke about Barron Trump: her ass got suspended.

http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/katie-rich-saturday-night-live-suspended-1201967234/



> NBC suspended Katie Rich, a writer on the staff of “Saturday Night Live,” after she tweeted a joke about President Trump’s youngest son, Barron, on the day of his inauguration.
> 
> NBC declined to offer any sort of official comment on the matter, but a person familiar with the situation said Rich had been “suspended indefinitely” after making a joke about Barron Trump and predicting he would become “this country’s first homeschool shooter.” Many Twitter users cast aspersion on the effort, which was subsequently deleted.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> So he's doing what his supporters voted him to do.


Amen to that and thank GOD! :trump3

Also, Trump also signed an order to get rid of Federal funding for abortion:










:lmao Cuckington Post aint too happy!


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

@AryaDark @A-C-P @The Absolute @Beatles123 @CamillePunk @Carte Blanche @Goku @Miss Sally @virus21

The Bear and the Eagle shall now unite! :drose 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/823582105095507968


----------



## TomahawkJock

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Amen to that and thank GOD! :trump3
> 
> Also, Trump also signed an order to get rid of Federal funding for abortion:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :lmao Cuckington Post aint too happy!


Yeah, except its not just abortion. Its healthcare centers who are in anyway associated with abortion... Which will hurt millions of women's access to contraceptives or any sexual healthcare of the sort. 13 percent of maternal deaths are due to unsafe abortions because they have nowhere to go to receive it. This will only make it increase.

I'm in no way an abortion fan but women need a safe and healthy way to do it if they so wish.


----------



## A-C-P

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

:trump3 @DesolationRow


----------



## Iapetus

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



glenwo2 said:


> So SNL's job is to viciously attack 10-year-old kids who can't defend themselves. Good to know where SNL stands these days.
> 
> 
> I miss the days when SNL was actually funny with writers who actually knew how to WRITE.


Way to deflect from the question...
:thumbsup


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



TomahawkJock said:


> Yeah, except its not just abortion. Its healthcare centers who are in anyway associated with abortion... Which will hurt millions of women's access to contraceptives or any sexual healthcare of the sort. 13 percent of maternal deaths are due to unsafe abortions because they have nowhere to go to receive it. This will only make it increase.
> 
> I'm in no way an abortion fan but women need a safe and healthy way to do it if they so wish.


Not with my taxes they don't :trump

Besides, its overseas funds that are being axed


----------



## TomahawkJock

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Not with my taxes they don't :trump
> 
> Besides, its overseas funds that are being axed


Considering that foreign aid is like 1 percent of the USA budget, and that these funds are just a small percentage of that 1 percent, I would say you are hardly paying anything. Hell, 25 percent of foreign aid goes to Israel. Israel supports abortions. 

Abortions are only going to up because of this. It did under Reagan and it did under Bush while it went down under Clinton and Obama.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



TomahawkJock said:


> Yeah, except its not just abortion. Its healthcare centers who are in anyway associated with abortion... Which will hurt millions of women's access to contraceptives or any sexual healthcare of the sort. 13 percent of maternal deaths are due to unsafe abortions because they have nowhere to go to receive it. This will only make it increase.
> 
> I'm in no way an abortion fan but women need a safe and healthy way to do it if they so wish.


Nah. You liberals who support abortion and these health initiatives for poor people can go to these centers and donate money manually instead of buying that extra beer or pizza tonight. 

Go right now instead of posting on the internet. Help PP. You don't even need to leave the house I think. I'm sure they take paypal. Or you can find a poor woman who can't afford shit and give her the money directly. 

That goes for all of you that want PP to continue to stay funded. DONATE! Do something other than bitch. Trust me. When you do it, it'll make you feel empowered.


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Amen to that and thank GOD! : Also, Trump also signed an order to get rid of Federal funding for abortion:


Just wait until Trump appoints those 4 or 5 new Conservative Supreme Court Justices . . . Say BYE-BYE to ROE vs. WADE !!!


----------



## TomahawkJock

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Nah. You liberals who support abortion and these health initiatives for poor people can go to these centers and donate money manually instead of buying that extra beer or pizza tonight.
> 
> Go right now instead of posting on the internet. Help PP. You don't even need to leave the house I think. I'm sure they take paypal. Or you can find a poor woman who can't afford shit and give her the money directly.
> 
> That goes for all of you that want PP to continue to stay funded. DONATE! Do something other than bitch.


I don't support abortions. I support people not dying trying to perform them on their own. It's going to happen whether you like it or not and whether its the morally right thing to do. 

You don't even know who the fuck I am and considering I have helped poor people in my city countless times, you can stop telling me that I'm "bitching" when I'm just giving my honest opinion. I don't want women across the world to die. Seems like a reasonable thing to want barely any of my tax dollars to go to. Taxes go to way more stupid shit than something like this.


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Iapetus said:


> Way to deflect from the question...


Simple answer . . . Attack a child, pay the price, including termination . . . If a Conservative did what she did (attacking Obama's daughters, for example), the Left would be frothing at the mouth and surrounding the building with torches. Drop the double-standard !


----------



## Reaper

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



TomahawkJock said:


> I don't support abortions. I support people not dying trying to perform them on their own. It's going to happen whether you like it or not and whether its the morally right thing to do.
> 
> You don't even know who the fuck I am and considering I have helped poor people in my city countless times, you can stop telling me that I'm "bitching" when I'm just giving my honest opinion. I don't want women across the world to die. Seems like a reasonable thing to want barely any of my tax dollars to go to. Taxes go to way more stupid shit than something like this.


All I said was you guys can donate manually to make up for the short fall. Go right ahead. 

I don't give a fuck about your moral superiority crap because this virtual signaling does not negate involuntary taxation and make it moral. 

That said you probably don't even realize that these NGOs have always existed without government funding and they'll continue to exist.

Nobody's gonna die. The apocalypse isn't coming :ha


----------



## Yeah1993

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

Good Lord some of the people throwing insults at Trump's kid must be seriously fucked in the head. Imagine making jokes about a ten year old being a future school shooter or date rapist and thinking you're the one who's fighting injustice in society.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

Very clever of Trump to do both the abortion thing, a play to the right and TPP, a play to the left at the same time. 

Don't get me wrong I disagree with both moves, cutting funding to international orgs which mention abortions to women isn't going to save money, as the budget isn't changed, but will lead to people dying unnecessarily. 

People will die because they'll still have abortions, they'll just be less safe. And people do die from unsafe abortions. Its actually very common. 

But yeah, good strategic move. 

Also helps change the narrative away from inauguration gate which just made him seem petty and untrustworthy.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Very clever of Trump to do both the abortion thing, a play to the right and TPP, a play to the left at the same time.
> 
> Don't get me wrong I disagree with both moves, cutting funding to international orgs which mention abortions to women isn't going to save money, as the budget isn't changed, but will lead to people dying unnecessarily.
> 
> But yeah, good strategic move.
> 
> Also helps change the narrative away from inauguration gate which just made him seem petty and untrustworthy.


Stop. Every single Republican government comes in and does this. Then the democrats come in and rescind it. 

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/...-to-groups-promoting-abortion-overseas-234038

Read a little on the history before making it president-specific.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Stop. Every single Republican government comes in and does this. Then the democrats come in and rescind it.
> 
> Read a little on the history before making it president-specific.


Yeah, I'm well aware of the history, every Republican Pres does it, I critisize it everytime and people die everytime. 
*
I'm critisizing Trump this time because he's the person doing it this time. *

And tbh I was hopeful this was an issue he'd move away from the Republican establishment on.

Isn't that the reason we're meant to like Trump? That he doesn't just do what everyone in the past has done and represents a break from the establishment?


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> People will die because they'll still have abortions, they'll just be less safe. And people do die from unsafe abortions. Its actually very common.


The "cherry on top" comes after the 4 or 5 new Supreme Court justices are appointed and Roe vs. Wade is reversed.

Charge those performing illegal abortions with Murder of the unborn child and the mother with Conspiracy to Commit Murder . . . Watch those numbers drop then !

I'm sure that an attack wave will be coming after I say . . . Don't make it, if you won't bake it !


----------



## Iapetus

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Lunatic Fringe said:


> Simple answer . . . Attack a child, pay the price, including termination . . . If a Conservative did what she did (attacking Obama's daughters, for example), the Left would be frothing at the mouth and surrounding the building with torches. Drop the double-standard !


Conservatives attack Democrat kids plenty of times. The Obama girls have gotten it ranging from attacking their hair to their facial expressions, to their dress length, and so forth. Andrea Tantaros was publicly speculating about Malia's sex life just because Obama lowered the age limit for Plan B to 15. Republicans attacked the Obama girls' vacation and said something to the effect of it "killing the country". That one Republican staffer who resigned under her own will called them classless. And let's talk about Rush Limbaugh calling Chelsea Clinton a dog and saying Amy Carter was the most unattractive first daughter in the country's history. What happened to him about that?

If anything, Trump has made it clear he doesn't play by the rules. Why should anyone else then?

And taking a dig at someone through their kid is not morally higher than mocking a disabled person on live TV, especially if the person receiving the dog is the one who did the mocking.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Yeah, every Republican Pres, I critisize it everytime and people die everytime.
> 
> I'm critisizing Trump this time because he's the person doing it this time. And tbh I was hopeful this was an issue he'd move away from the Republican establishment on.
> 
> Isn't that the reason we're meant to like Trump? That he doesn't just do what everyone in the past has done and represents a break from the establishment?


Whatever happened to good old fashioned value of just admitting that you didn't know something? 

An established practice doesn't mean that it's an establishment move.

Did you ever actually read about what Trump meant by establishment?


----------



## virus21

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

I will not pay taxes of any kind for abortion. Not one red cent so long as i can help it.

Come at me.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Iapetus said:


> Conservatives attack Democrat kids plenty of times. The Obama girls have gotten it ranging from attacking their hair to their facial expressions, to their dress length, and so forth. Andrea Tantaros was publicly speculating about Malia's sex life just because Obama lowered the age limit for Plan B to 15. Republicans attacked the Obama girls' vacation and said something to the effect of it "killing the country". That one Republican staffer who resigned under her own will called them classless. And let's talk about Rush Limbaugh calling Chelsea Clinton a dog and saying Amy Carter was the most unattractive first daughter in the country's history. What happened to him about that?
> 
> If anything, Trump has made it clear he doesn't play by the rules. Why should anyone else then?
> 
> And taking a dig at someone through their kid is not morally higher than mocking a disabled person on live TV, especially if the person receiving the dog is the one who did the mocking.


Never said it was right for them to do it :shrug but Trump was never mocking that reporter


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Iapetus said:


> Conservatives attack Democrat kids plenty of times. The Obama girls have gotten it ranging from attacking their hair to their facial expressions, to their dress length, and so forth. Andrea Tantaros was publicly speculating about Malia's sex life just because Obama lowered the age limit for Plan B to 15. Republicans attacked the Obama girls' vacation and said something to the effect of it "killing the country". That one Republican staffer who resigned under her own will called them classless. And let's talk about Rush Limbaugh calling Chelsea Clinton a dog and saying Amy Carter was the most unattractive first daughter in the country's history. What happened to him about that?
> 
> If anything, Trump has made it clear he doesn't play by the rules. Why should anyone else then?
> 
> And taking a dig at someone through their kid is not morally higher than mocking a disabled person on live TV, especially if the person receiving the dog is the one who did the mocking.



You left out the part about Malia using drugs . . .* https://www.google.com/#q=obama+daughter+drugs*


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Whatever happened to good old fashioned value of just admitting that you didn't know something?


Ok, I'll bite, what makes you think I didn't know it was a thing previous Republicans had also done?


----------



## virus21

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/823007681350868993


----------



## glenwo2

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Iapetus said:


> Way to deflect from the question...
> :thumbsup


The question which was....?


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

Oh Boy here come the anti-abortionists. Bibles in one hand, guns in the other no doubt.

"Yee-haw! I should have the right to shoot and kill anybody that comes on to mah property; I support our government forces invading foreign lands and killing innocent people by accident; BUT don't you dare kill that foetus living inside you that I'll never know or never care for!" *bang bang!


----------



## skypod

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



glenwo2 said:


> So SNL's job is to viciously attack 10-year-old kids who can't defend themselves. Good to know where SNL stands these days.
> 
> 
> I miss the days when SNL was actually funny with writers who actually knew how to WRITE.


Trump was the butt of the joke, not the kid. That joke is that Trump is such a prick a homeschooled child of his would shoot him. The joke would have been made regardless of who the boy is or what he looked like. He's simply a moving piece in a larger joke about Donald Trump. 

Not saying she shouldn't have been punished but I find it hilarious how both sides still use the "well if a WHITE MALE said it" and "WELL IF A BLACK WOMAN DONE THIS". Not sure why everyone can't just be in the centre and see both sides as the morons that they are. 

Also blaming SNL and saying they are literally putting people out there to attack 10 year olds is the same as saying anyone that does anything on the Right should immediately be blamed on Donald Trump because he's the Lorne Michaels in this situaton. Again, both sides are EXACTLY the same. Hypocrisy will be rife in 2017.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

I'm pro-choice for several reasons but I get why many people are pro-life

I've always joked about it this way, "If my GF had a baby we didn't want and the second it left the womb we stabbed it to death with a box cutter we would be going to jail for murder" 

Back during Napoleon's time they had a huge problem with people ice picking their babies during birth and because it was not out of the mother yet it was considered "stillborn" in the eyes of the law and church. They actually had to do some of the earliest state aided adoption system (a bell that you ran that allowed you to drop your baby on the steps of a church and get away before they saw you) because they were tired of the trash being filled with decaying babies


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Oh Boy here come the anti-abortionists. Bibles in one hand, guns in the other no doubt.
> 
> "Yee-haw! I should have the right to shoot and kill anybody that comes on to mah property; I support our government forces invading foreign lands and killing innocent people by accident; BUT don't you dare kill that foetus living inside you that I'll never know or never care for!" *bang bang!


Wrong. Not all abortions, just Overseas federally funded abortions that shouldn't be our concern

Now go ride your kangaroo. :nerd:


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Wrong. Not all abortions, just Overseas federally funded abortions that shouldn't be our concern
> 
> Now go ride your kangaroo. :nerd:


The 80s called, they want your kangaroo joke back. 

Now for a lesson God-boy. You should be more forgiving, loving and forgiving the sinners, that's what your baby jesus wants you to do. You should be making things safer for everyone regardless of who and where they are. That's what Jesus would want. Love your neighbour - that includes neighbours across the sea and every in between.


----------



## virus21

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Oh Boy here come the anti-abortionists. Bibles in one hand, guns in the other no doubt.
> 
> "Yee-haw! I should have the right to shoot and kill anybody that comes on to mah property; I support our government forces invading foreign lands and killing innocent people by accident; BUT don't you dare kill that foetus living inside you that I'll never know or never care for!" *bang bang!


Yeah because thats the only reason people are against abortions. Never mind how glamorized its become in some circles. You got female celebs using it as a badge of honor or to get sympathy. There's has been more than a few stories of women have multiple abortions. Now, Im not pro-lifer, but abortions should be used for the right reasons, such as health risks. It shouldn't be a get out of parenthood free card.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



skypod said:


> Trump was the butt of the joke, not the kid. That joke is that Trump is such a prick a homeschooled child of his would shoot him. The joke would have been made regardless of who the boy is or what he looked like. He's simply a moving piece in a larger joke about Donald Trump.
> 
> Not saying she shouldn't have been punished but I find it hilarious how both sides still use the "well if a WHITE MALE said it" and "WELL IF A BLACK WOMAN DONE THIS". Not sure why everyone can't just be in the centre and see both sides as the morons that they are.
> 
> Also blaming SNL and saying they are literally putting people out there to attack 10 year olds is the same as saying anyone that does anything on the Right should immediately be blamed on Donald Trump because he's the Lorne Michaels in this situaton. Again, both sides are EXACTLY the same. Hypocrisy will be rife in 2017.


THAT WASN'T THE JOKE AT ALL, WTF?? :lmao


----------



## glenwo2

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

^ Health risks? How about rape? 

How about a couple that didn't want a kid but the man's condom actually broke?

EDIT : This is directed to virus21, not Beatles123


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> The 80s called, they want your kangaroo joke back.
> 
> Now for a lesson God-boy. You should be more forgiving, loving and forgiving the sinners, that's what your baby jesus wants you to do. You should be making things safer for everyone regardless of who and where they are. That's what Jesus would want. Love your neighbour - that includes neighbours across the sea and every in between.


What do you have against Kangaroo riding? Why are you shaming your nation's past time? 0

(im just fucking with ya. )


----------



## Lady Eastwood

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

I skimmed and saw a post with the garbage left behind by the women's march.

Wanted to make a comment on that stupid fucking march.

The women marching were ones with fucking rights.

Maybe these cunts should try going to places like the middle east, India, Pakistan, where women are basically shit on a man's shoe. There was a story a few weeks ago about an indian woman who was killed because she chose to go to a mall without a male guardian (they are not allowed to go anywhere without one). That was her 'punishment'.

These dumbass bitches marching in the streets have no idea what it is truly like to be oppressed, so, while they get to freely go shopping, wake up for work, and drive a car, there are women in the world who aren't even allowed to walk outside without being covered head to toe.


----------



## glenwo2

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> THAT WASN'T THE JOKE AT ALL, WTF?? :lmao


It's amazing how some people's minds are warped these days, eh? 

Calling someone's kid, let alone the Commander-In-Chief, a potential homeschool shooter is NOT funny at all.

That's like me calling some poster's family a bunch of murderers and scumbags....and then going "haha! What a great joke, right? RIGHT?"


----------



## virus21

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



glenwo2 said:


> ^ Health risks? How about rape?
> 
> How about a couple that didn't want a kid but the man's condom actually broke?
> 
> EDIT : This is directed to virus21, not Beatles123


I simply used health as an example, but rape is a good enough reason. 

As for your second question, it should be something to think about. The mistake shouldn't be followed by "Yeah lets just have an abortion and be done with it". Think about it before you act. At least think about putting the kid up for adoption at the very least.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> Yeah because thats the only reason people are against abortions. Never mind how glamorized its become in some circles. You got female celebs using it as a badge of honor or to get sympathy. There's has been more than a few stories of women have multiple abortions. Now, Im not pro-lifer, but abortions should be used for the right reasons, such as health risks. It shouldn't be a get out of parenthood free card.


Never said it was the only reason.

It hasn't become glamorized, that's a ridiculous right-wing myth. How the fuck can a procedure like an abortion be glamorized? Please quote some sources or I'll pass this off as a right wing outrage creation.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> What do you have against Kangaroo riding? Why are you shaming your nation's past time? 0
> 
> (im just fucking with ya. )












Putin and Trump have already beaten yeahbaby! to the punch. :banderas


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Oda Nobunaga said:


> Putin and Trump have already beaten yeahbaby! to the punch. :banderas


I petition this to be a smiley!


----------



## Lady Eastwood

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



glenwo2 said:


> It's amazing how some people's minds are warped these days, eh?
> 
> Calling someone's kid, let alone the Commander-In-Chief, a potential homeschool shooter is NOT funny at all.
> 
> That's like me calling some poster's family a bunch of murderers and scumbags....and then going "haha! What a great joke, right? RIGHT?"



You know what's most sad about that?

We have to tell an adult to stop bullying a 10 year old kid.

People can hate his parents all they want, but, a 10 year old kid gets on their radar just for being Trump's kid? Fucking hell, what a douchebag.


----------



## glenwo2

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> I simply used health as an example, but rape is a good enough reason.
> 
> As for your second question, it should be something to think about. The mistake shouldn't be followed by "Yeah lets just have an abortion and be done with it". *Think about it before you act. *At least think about putting the kid up for adoption at the very least.


I have a feeling the woman would think about it and wonder if she wants to go through the AGONY and PAIN of child-birth only to give up the child for adoption(or keep the child outright) *OR* simply have the abortion and be done with it. 

It's a big choice but it would be her choice. :shrug


----------



## glenwo2

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Catalanotto said:


> You know what's most sad about that?
> 
> We have to tell an adult to stop bullying a 10 year old kid.
> 
> People can hate his parents all they want, but, a 10 year old kid gets on their radar just for being Trump's kid? Fucking hell, what a douchebag.


Or in this case : What a cunt.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

Lol at the typical social justice bullshit of "oh look, they were mean and horrible to Obaba's kids, so take that you filthy repubs!" 

Never mind the fact that the very definition of social justice means that the people acting vile and inhumane give up the right to call themselves morally superior the minute they act the same way towards someone else claiming that they're doing it in the name of justice. 

This was the very reason why liberals of the past became paragons of incarceration for murderers and opposed the death penalty because they understood that an eye for an eye merely makes them revenge-seekers.

If you're a liberal, social justice is literally the opposite of the morality that should define you as a person. Remember folks. The creation of the legal system was a response to social justice.

inb4: Someone claims that I'm justifying mean-ness towards Baba's kids with this post. No. If that's what you get from this post, then you're not smart enough to realize that I uphold everyone to the same standards. Idiots that attack Baba's kids to get to him are the same to me as the retards that attack Barron to get to his kids. This is a post directed at those people who think that just because it happened to Baba's kids makes it justified for the attacks on Barron. No it doesn't. If you were smart and disliked what happened to Baba's kids, then you should be equally outraged at what happens to Trump's kids ... that would be the real exercise of moral superiority.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



glenwo2 said:


> Or in this case : What a cunt.


I can't get enough of your signature pic.

"Uhhh this is your Captain speaking, we are unable to take off currently as WWE star Brock Lesnar is currently preparing to suplex the aircraft"


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Oh Boy here come the anti-abortionists. Bibles in one hand, guns in the other no doubt.
> 
> "Yee-haw! I should have the right to shoot and kill anybody that comes on to mah property; I support our government forces invading foreign lands and killing innocent people by accident; BUT don't you dare kill that foetus living inside you that I'll never know or never care for!" *bang bang!


It was about foreign abortion aid if I am correct, I'm against cutting abortion funding overseas, considering that's where the population boom is coming from, we should be pushing abortion vehemently on these places. Will help them in the long run and ensure there is not another mass migration due to overpopulation.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> It was about foreign abortion aid if I am correct, I'm against cutting abortion funding overseas, considering that's where the population boom is coming from, we should be pushing abortion vehemently on these places. Will help them in the long run and ensure there is not another mass migration due to overpopulation.


These groups have a minimal impact on abortions world-wide anyways. A lot of their money is spent on administrative things anyways (at least 40%). The problem is that people would rather bitch out the government for cutting the money and will absolutely refuse to hold these companies accountable for how the money is used. They don't even know which companies the government is funding actually. I bet other than PP, none of the libreals in here defending the overseas funding know which NGO's receive that funding. They've just been told that that money is going to overseas abortion centers and they've believed it on faith. It's remarkable how easy it is to convince people that the government always tells the truth when it's a government they support. 

I'll give you the same advice I gave others. Do the research and support a group yourself so you can be assured that your and everyone else's money is being well spent instead of being taken by a mafia and potentially being given to their friends and families in cutbacks and stuff like that :shrug 

Better chance of your money reaching the needy if you do it yourself than the government.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

its about overseas money coming back into the usa. this is a small part of that.

*TRUMP'S SCHEDULE FOR TOMORROW:*


----------



## SWITCHBLADE

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Catalanotto said:


> I skimmed and saw a post with the garbage left behind by the women's march.
> 
> Wanted to make a comment on that stupid fucking march.
> 
> The women marching were ones with fucking rights.
> 
> Maybe these cunts should try going to places like the middle east, India, Pakistan, where women are basically shit on a man's shoe. There was a story a few weeks ago about an indian woman who was killed because she chose to go to a mall without a male guardian (they are not allowed to go anywhere without one). That was her 'punishment'.
> 
> These dumbass bitches marching in the streets have no idea what it is truly like to be oppressed, so, while they get to freely go shopping, wake up for work, and drive a car, there are women in the world who aren't even allowed to walk outside without being covered head to toe.


:clap :clap This post and this video said it better than I ever could.


----------



## glenwo2

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> I can't get enough of your signature pic.
> 
> "Uhhh this is your Captain speaking, we are unable to take off currently as WWE star Brock Lesnar is currently preparing to suplex the aircraft"


It's the ultimate Brock Lesnar Sig, imo. :lol


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



> BOOM!!! Trump meeting at the WH today with business leaders on JOBS!


He also said and I quote


> I’m not blaming President Obama for this.


Respect.




> If she should be fired from SNL for one inflammatory tweet most likely written in satire cause that's..ya know, kinda her job, then what should happen to Trump for his hundreds of inflammatory tweets and statements???


He wasn't the President then. 



> So he's doing what his supporters voted him to do.


A politician actually doing what he said he's going to do. Shocking I know!


- Vic


----------



## 3ku1

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

On that march, I have more respect for Woman who have said they did not take part in it, because they are their own person, and are not sheep. That was BS. I was embarrassed reading bs female celebs like Scarlett Johanson talking about being oppressed, and privlidges. Really? Coming from someone with your amount of privlidges, and being a multi millionare. Your trying to tell me, you are oppressed? Go to a third world country biatch, then you well know what oppression is. It was just a mask for a anti trump march. Absurd. I mean where was this crap three months ago in the actual election?

And on the TPP being gone. Well from a kiwi stand point, he screwed our country. We do alot of our export trade with Asia. So this deal now being gone. Effectively puts us in the middle now. We have three options now. Make a new deal with TPP 2. OR try to negoiate a deal with the new US Trade Reps. Or this new deal with Asia. Give Trump something, he delevered on his promises :lol. Now for that wall..


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



3ku1 said:


> On that march, I have more respect for Woman who have said they did not take part in it, because they are their own person, and are not sheep. That was BS. I was embarrassed reading bs female celebs like Scarlett Johanson talking about being oppressed, and privlidges. Really? Coming from someone with your amount of privlidges, and being a multi millionare. Your trying to tell me, you are oppressed? Go to a third world country biatch, then you well know what oppression is. It was just a mask for a anti trump march. Absurd. I mean where was this crap three months ago in the actual election?
> 
> And on the TPP being gone. Well from a kiwi stand point, he screwed our country. We do alot of our export trade with Asia. So this deal now being gone. Effectively puts us in the middle now. We have three options now. Make a new deal with TPP 2. OR try to negoiate a deal with the new US Trade Reps. Or this new deal with Asia. Give Trump something, he delevered on his promises :lol. Now for that wall..


As someone who come from another country affected by the TPP decision, I welcome you to join us in welcoming our new Chinese overlord with the RCEP.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> As someone who come from another country affected by the TPP decision, I welcome you to join us in welcoming our new Chinese overlord with the RCEP.


Maybe you can be like hong kong and be under the cozy blanket of China. :sk


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

The Japanese and Australian PMs declared they'd go on with TPP without the US and international legal experts have said it would be doable to alter the agreement so it could go ahead without the US. 

Considering large parts of the TPP are just law harmonisation, largely just meaning all other countries will adopt America's laws on certain things, we have an amusing situation where a whole bunch of countries are doing a big deal to adopt American law, but America though having written the agreement, won't actually be part of it.


----------



## Iapetus

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Lunatic Fringe said:


> You left out the part about Malia using drugs . . .* https://www.google.com/#q=obama+daughter+drugs*


Lmao what does that have to do with what I said? This constant deflecting is amazing.:aryha

Also I'm not sure what your link was supposed to accomplish considering Trump actually snorts coke.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

Fuck AUSland :troll Let countries be china's bitch if they want.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Iapetus said:


> Lmao what does that have to do with what I said? This constant deflecting is amazing.:aryha
> 
> Also I'm not sure what your link was supposed to accomplish considering Trump actually snorts coke.


That is laughably false.


----------



## Iapetus

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> That is laughably false.


Nope. It's just "alternative facts".


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Maybe you can be like hong kong and be under the cozy blanket of China. :sk


We wouldn't have a choice. It's like the ex-Soviet states would be under the blanket of Russia if US and Western power isn't a deterrence anymore.



Alkomesh2 said:


> The Japanese and Australian PMs declared they'd go on with TPP without the US and international legal experts have said it would be doable to alter the agreement so it could go ahead without the US.
> 
> Considering large parts of the TPP are just law harmonisation, largely just meaning all other countries will adopt America's laws on certain things, we have an amusing situation where a whole bunch of countries are doing a big deal to adopt American law, but America though having written the agreement, won't actually be part of it.


TPP is dead without the US and its huge purchasing power that compelled others to comply with their standards. Why go through all the trouble of adding those standards and regulations when the biggest markets left don't give a rat's ass about them? RCEP will be the alternative with more negotiations around standards and regulations that China dictates.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Iapetus said:


> Nope. It's just "alternative facts".


So let's get to it then: You believe Trump snorts coke?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

Sanders just lost the support of the Ex-Muslim community with tweeting his allegiance to that lady Islamist Linda Sorour [don't really care how she spells are name]. The butch even made the ISIS shahada sign on her fucking twitter. 










At least one ex-Muslim even admitted that she's glad GOP won now even though she doesn't like Trump. More had similar thoughts. 

What a fucking cuck. So fucking glad this ISIS loving cuck piece of shit was pussy whipped out of the elections by Hillary.

I'm glad this women's March happened. People that were on the fence are starting to move towards the right. Many on my fb and twitter lists have turned on on feminism.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> TPP is dead without the US and its huge purchasing power that compelled others to comply with their standards. Why go through all the trouble of adding those standards and regulations when the biggest markets left don't give a rat's ass about them? RCEP will be the alternative with more negotiations around standards and regulations that China dictates.


Because a lot of the American law that would be adopted is really pro corporations and corporations in the rest of the countries still want them, hence creating internal political pressure to keep the agreement alive.

Also, Australia and Japan, the two countries seemingly the most keen to go ahead so far are the two countries most at cultural odds with China, China hate Japan so much it's obscene and we're in the middle of building Subs just to fight China and not being very secretive about that fact either.

Also both Australia and Japan are currently run by right wing pro corporate governments. 

I'd put it at about 10% chance of survival, but it _could _happen.



Beatles123 said:


> So let's get to it then: You believe Trump snorts coke?


He's a businessman from New York in the 80s, I'd be mindblown if he doesn't. That said, nothing wrong with coke, should be legal anyway.

And on that note, if it ever comes out that his sniffling during the debate was because he racked a line just before it, I will legit become a Trump supporter.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> We wouldn't have a choice. It's like the ex-Soviet states would be under the blanket of Russia if US and Western power isn't a deterrence anymore.


True enough, hopefully the US backs off more things, think China should play a bigger part in helping the world. 

Well maybe now your country won't have to deal with the mean ol US!


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Because a lot of the American law that would be adopted is really pro corporations and corporations in the rest of the countries still want them, hence creating internal political pressure to keep the agreement alive.
> 
> Also, Australia and Japan, the two countries seemingly the most keen to go ahead so far are the two countries most at cultural odds with China, China hate Japan so much it's obscene and we're in the middle of building Subs just to fight China and not being very secretive about that fact either.
> 
> Also both Australia and Japan are currently run by right wing pro corporate governments.
> 
> I'd put it at about 10% chance of survival, but it _could _happen.
> 
> 
> 
> He's a businessman from New York in the 80s, I'd be mindblown if he doesn't. That said, nothing wrong with coke, should be legal anyway.
> 
> And on that note, if it ever comes out that his sniffling during the debate was because he racked a line just before it, I will legit become a Trump supporter.


And they say weed isn't a gateway drug. :troll

Trump is alcohol and drug free. He talks a lot about it and the media (which is vehemently anti Trump) has admitted this.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Because a lot of the America law that would be adopted is really pro corporations and corporations in the rest of the countries still want them, hence creating internal political pressure to keep the agreement alive.
> 
> Also, and typified by Australia and Japan, the two countries seemingly the most keen to go ahead so far are the two countries most at cultural odds with China, China hate Japan so much it's obscene and we're in the middle of building Subs just to fight China and not being very secretive about that fact either.
> 
> Also both Australia and Japan are currently run by right wing pro corporate governments.
> 
> I'd put it at about 10% chance of survival, but it _could _happen.


There is only internal political pressure to keep the agreement alive in Aus and NZ due to lets face it, cultural factors.

Japan and China might be at odds all the time, but they have become increasingly dependent on each other in trade the past decade. Japan has already said TPP is meaningless without the US, and they were the first country to ratify it.

Pro corporate governments who will also be more likely to accept the lesser RCEP that focuses primary on lesser tariffs if push come to shove to gain entry to new markets.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Trump is alcohol and drug free. He talks a lot about it and the media (which is vehemently anti Trump) has admitted this.


This makes me dislike him so much.



FriedTofu said:


> There is only internal political pressure to keep the agreement alive in Aus and NZ due to lets face it, cultural factors.
> 
> Japan and China might be at odds all the time, but they have become increasingly dependent on each other in trade the past decade. Japan has already said TPP is meaningless without the US, and they were the first country to ratify it.
> 
> Pro corporate governments who will also be more likely to accept the lesser RCEP that focuses primary on lesser tariffs if push come to shove to gain entry to new markets.



We'll see. We do like selling beef to Asia, Australia was more into the TPP for access to the Vietnamese market than the US one tbh. We already have pretty good bilateral deals with them already anyway. As I was reminded today by looking at my passport and realising I can still legally enter the US anytime I want, for basically as long as I want until 2019 as I'm on a special visa you can literally only get if you're Australian haha


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> This makes me dislike him so much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We'll see. We do like selling beef to Asia, Australia was more into the TPP for access to the Vietnamese market than the US one tbh. We already have pretty good bilateral deals with them already anyway. As I was reminded today by looking at my passport and realising I can still legally enter the US anytime I want, for basically as long as I want until 2019 as I'm on a special visa you can literally only get if you're Australian haha


Yeah Japan wouldn't want to reduce tariffs on your beef if they can't sell their parts in the global supply chain to the US with less tariffs. Not like other countries in the TPP have enough demand for them compared to China or the US. So any agreement without either is kind of meaningless to them.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

@Carte Blanche @DesolationRow @CamillePunk @Miss Sally My friends, I hereby introduce you to my boi JONTRON!!! 

(Read from the bottom of each pic upwards.)




























YAAAAAAAAAAAAAS!!! :trump3

Jon is one of the funniest young game reviewers I know and my inspiration. (You can see his influence in my fastlane review even though it's craptaculsr compared to his work.)

SO glad he's not brainwashed being so huge on youtube!


----------



## DOPA

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

@Carte Blanche; @CamillePunk; @MrMister; @AryaDark;@Tater; @DesolationRow; @Miss Sally; @virus_21;

I've seen a lot of related articles I could post regarding Trump but seeing as inauguration day just passed and we had the protests, this is very relevant: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/05/new-study-shows-riots-make-america-conservative.html



> *New Study Shows Riots Make America Conservative*
> 
> The recent spate of protests against police brutality have changed the way the left thinks about rioting. The old liberal idea, which distinguished between peaceful protests (good) and rioting (bad), has given way to a more radical analysis. “Riots work,” insists George Ciccariello-Maher in Salon. “But despite the obviousness of the point, an entire chorus of media, police, and self-appointed community leaders continue to try to convince us otherwise, hammering into our heads a narrative of a nonviolence that has never worked on its own, based on a mythical understanding of the Civil Rights Movement.” Vox’s German Lopez, while acknowledging the downside of random violence, argues, “Riots can lead to real, substantial change.” In Rolling Stone, Jesse Myerson asserts, “the historical pedigree of property destruction as a tactic of resistance is long and frequently effective.” Darlena Cunha, writing in Time, asks, “Is rioting so wrong?” and proceeds to answer her own question in the negative.
> 
> The direct costs of violent protests are fairly self-evident. People who may not have anything to do with the underlying grievances get injured or killed, their livelihoods are impaired, the communities in which the rioting takes place suffer property damage that can linger for decades, and the inevitable police response creates new dangers for innocent bystanders. The pro-rioting (or anti-anti-rioting) argument portrays this as the necessary price of worthwhile social change. Rioting can generate attention among people who might otherwise ignore the underlying conditions that give rise to it.
> 
> It is surely the case that some positive social reforms have emerged in response to rioting. Lopez highlights the Kerner Commission and diversity efforts in the Los Angeles Police Department. But the question is not whether rioting ever yields a productive response, but whether it does so in general. Omar Wasow, an assistant professor at the department of politics at Princeton, has published a timely new paper studying this very question. And his answer is clear: Riots on the whole provoke a hostile right-wing response. They generate attention, all right, but the wrong kind.
> 
> The 1960s saw two overlapping waves of protest: nonviolent civil-rights demonstrations, and urban rioting. The 1960s also saw the Republican Party crack open the New Deal coalition by, among other things, appealing to public concerns about law and order. In 1964, Lyndon Johnson swept every region of the country except the South running a liberal, pro-civil-rights campaign; in 1968, Richard Nixon won a narrower victory on the basis of social backlash.
> 
> Determining just what caused the change in public opinion is obviously tricky. Wasow approaches the problem in different ways. One method he uses is to compare the public’s concern for civil rights and its concern for “social control,” with violent and nonviolent protests. They match up pretty closely:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Examining county-level voting patterns, I find that black-led protests in which some violence occurs are associated with a statistically significant decline in Democratic vote-share in the 1964, 1968 and 1972 presidential elections. Black-led nonviolent protests, by contrast, exhibit a statistically significant positive relationship with county-level Democratic vote-share in the same period. Further, I find that in the 1968 presidential election exposure to violent protests caused a decline in Democratic vote-share. Examining counterfactual scenarios in the 1968 election, I estimate that fewer violent protests are associated with a substantially increased likelihood that the Democratic presidential nominee, Hubert Humphrey, would have beaten the Republican nominee, Richard Nixon. As African Americans were strongly identified with the Democratic party in this time period, my results suggest that, in at least some contexts, political violence by a subordinate group may contribute to a backlash among segments of the dominant group and encourage outcomes directly at odds with the preferences of the protestors.
> Wasow finds that nonviolent civil-rights protests did not trigger a national backlash, but that violent protests and looting did. The physical damage inflicted upon poor urban neighborhoods by rioting does not have the compensating virtue of easing the way for more progressive policies; instead, it compounds the damage by promoting a regressive backlash.
> 
> The Nixonian law and order backlash drove a wave of repressive criminal-justice policies that carried through for decades with such force that even Democrats like Bill Clinton felt the need to endorse them in order to win elections. That wave has finally receded and created space for sentencing reforms, demilitarization, an emphasis on community policing, and other initiatives that even have bipartisan support. If the violent protests in Ferguson and Baltimore supercede nonviolent protest, Wasow’s research implies that the liberal moment might give way to another reactionary era.


So violent protests from the left pushes people further to the right? WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT :lol.

These violent protests are idiots and will only help to elect Trump again in the future if they can continue. Some damage may have already been done.

------------------------------------------------

Concerning the abortion executive order: I'm pro-choice but I don't believe the taxpayers should be forced to fund abortions, it should all be privately funded and through donation/charity. It is too much of a sensitive and morally gray issue and especially in the US it is an issue that really divides the country in two. My position is really out of principle, in my own personal opinion morally speaking, if my tax dollars were to go to abortion, I wouldn't oppose it from a moral position but many would.

So I have to be consistent with getting the government away from involvement in controversial topics such as this.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*






Edited for accuracy. :woo

- Vic


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> Edited for accuracy. :woo
> 
> - Vic


If only it had Jarret's theme. :trump


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

@DesolationRow @Miss Sally @CamillePunk @Carte Blanche

Time for the daily salt rub on detractors wounds! :trump3

Isn't it sad that Trump detractors like a few (But not all) in this very thread have nothing else left but fortune telling and wishing for him to have failure?

Think about it: for this whole campaign those guys at least had hope...

> polls were at their side
> media was at their side
> betting houses were at their side
> pollsters were at their side
> celebrities were at their side

And yet, their side (meaning the anti trump side) lost and lost big.

Trump now has:

> the presidency
> a red senate
> a red congress
> a supreme court pick to be done weeks after being innaugurated
> probably two more to fill before the end of this first term
> not impossible two more right in the middle of his second term
> all but one state legislature needed to start constitutional changes

And now here they are: fortune telling!

> Trump won't such and such
> Senate won't confirm such and such
> Congress won't pass such and such

And every step of the way, much like in the election, they get proved wrong by the facts on the ground (when Trump delivers) and then they move the next fortune telling and the next wish for things to go wrong

It is sad, really. Most of the people on this board and on this general are having the time of their lives and their presence here makes them even happier for knowing someone on the other side is here to witness it

To the Snowflakes of the world (Not necessarily those on the Left in this thread): I salute you. Keep it up tho, and let what I just said sink in.

> you have no hope left other than wishing for other people failure. 
> you have no power and no hope

Think about it


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> Concerning the abortion executive order: I'm pro-choice but I don't believe the taxpayers should be forced to fund abortions, it should all be privately funded and through donation/charity. It is too much of a sensitive and morally gray issue and especially in the US it is an issue that really divides the country in two. My position is really out of principle, in my own personal opinion morally speaking, if my tax dollars were to go to abortion, I wouldn't oppose it from a moral position but many would.
> 
> So I have to be consistent with getting the government away from involvement in controversial topics such as this.


The ban isn't only on places that fund abortions, it extends to organisations which so much as mention to women they could get an abortion elsewhere. 

And wouldn't the gov staying out be for them to not take a stand rather than backing one side monetarily?


----------



## TheLapsedFan

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Isn't it sad that Trump detractors like the shills in this very thread


Can anyone take you seriously when you call people shills itt? Maybe educate yourself. Probably why he preys on the stupid idiots in this country.



Beatles123 said:


> Think about it


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



TheLapsedFan said:


> Can anyone take you seriously when you call people shills it? Maybe educate yourself. Probably why he preys on the stupid idiots in this country.


To be fair I retracted that, but it turns out you prove my point. :trump Maybe I shant regret it after all if that's your attitude! 0


----------



## Goku

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

a lot of the posters in here do seem to be shills though. :draper2


----------



## Reaper

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



TheLapsedFan said:


> Can anyone take you seriously when you call people shills itt? Maybe educate yourself. Probably why he preys on the stupid idiots in this country.


I take him far more serious than most in this thread on more of his posts because his heart is in the right place. And unlike the leftists in this thread he's willing to admit when he's wrong.

Definitely a lot more seriously than you whose first entry in this thread is a pitiful response that you might think is the first time we've read it. 

But this is how you get Trump in office. Keep it up because then you'll get 8 Republican years instead of guaranteed 4.



L-DOPA said:


> @Carte Blanche; @CamillePunk; @MrMister; @AryaDark;@Tater; @DesolationRow; @Miss Sally; @virus_21;
> 
> I've seen a lot of related articles I could post regarding Trump but seeing as inauguration day just passed and we had the protests, this is very relevant: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/05/new-study-shows-riots-make-america-conservative.html
> 
> 
> 
> So violent protests from the left pushes people further to the right? WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT :lol.
> 
> These violent protests are idiots and will only help to elect Trump again in the future if they can continue. Some damage may have already been done.
> 
> ------------------------------------------------


Fantastic read @L-DOPA ... So glad you shared this. It's something I've consistently noticed over the last 2 years. I myself was very liberal and very pro-democrat less than a year ago before the whole "Trump is a *dash *dash *dash and his supporters are horrible people" narrative started. Which at the time I interpreted as verbal violence against my mother in law who while supporting Trump was literally housing a random black homeless guy in her house to help him get back on his feet and I was like .. Man, this woman is a liberal and she's not racist and she's supporting Trump .. I better look at why this is the case *shrug* 

Pretty sure a lot of democrats abandoned the left once we started seeing the violence they were engaged in. Verbal and Physical.


----------



## virus21

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> Edited for accuracy. :woo
> 
> - Vic


Personally, I think Vince's theme would work best


----------



## DoolieNoted

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> Edited for accuracy. :woo
> 
> - Vic





virus21 said:


> Personally, I think Vince's theme would work best


I'd go with The New Day's theme..


Oh Hillary... Don't you DARE be sour!

Clap for your NEW President, and FEEEEEEL... THE.... POWA!


----------



## Reaper

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

I'm obviously pro-choice, but I think we need to get to a point in our conversation to figure out why women are really having abortions. And there is some meat to the claims that a lot of women are having frivolous abortions because they and the men they're sleeping with simply cannot be arsed to take precaution. The 98% figure is where you'll find a huge chunk of women using abortion as a method of birth control. 

I think that the elective abortion figure is a frivolous abortion because it has none of these "compulsions" behind them. And this number makes 66 thousand of the 71 thousand abortions performed. 

You have the right to the facts. Look at them before deciding on assumptions that more women get abortions as a result of some "compulsion". 



> (WR) The State of Florida records a reason for every abortion procedure performed within its borders.
> 
> The pro-life movement often claims it's used as a method of birth control.
> 
> The pro-choice movement claims it's a matter of "reproductive rights" and the women's health.
> 
> Less than 1% of abortion procedures in Florida were performed because the life of the mother was in danger or due to rape.
> 
> An overwhelming majority of abortions were performed as an elective procedure or because of "social or economic reasons."
> 
> The other 1.4% were cited for following reasons:
> 
> Incest - .001%
> 
> Life of mother - .065%
> 
> Rape - .085%
> 
> Threat to physical health of mother - .288%
> 
> Threat to psychological health of mother - .294%
> 
> Fetal abnormality - .666%
> 
> This isn't exactly the best representative sample of the Country as a whole, but eye opening nonetheless. Which side has a more persuasive argument? You decide.


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Iapetus said:


> Lmao what does that have to do with what I said? This constant deflecting is amazing.:aryha


Well, if you read this excerpt from your post that I replied to , see if you can "make the connection" . . . "facial expressions, dress length, Malia's sex life, vacations, calling them classless" . . . You left out her being a "Choom Girl" !!!

QUOTE :

Conservatives attack Democrat kids plenty of times. The Obama girls have gotten it ranging from attacking their hair to their facial expressions, to their dress length, and so forth. Andrea Tantaros was publicly speculating about Malia's sex life just because Obama lowered the age limit for Plan B to 15. Republicans attacked the Obama girls' vacation and said something to the effect of it "killing the country". That one Republican staffer who resigned under her own will called them classless.

END QUOTE:


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*


----------



## Banez

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

I know he's elected n all that but i feel this is the most appropriate thread for this clip :lol


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...rump-protesters-torch-muslim-immigrants-limo/


If this is true, it's hilarious! "Leftists" riot over Trump being a bad man and then burn up a Limo that some Muslim immigrant owned? The irony.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

@DesolationRow @Miss Sally @Carte Blanche @CamillePunk 

:austin "*IF 'YER READY TO SEE SOME GOD DAMN PIPELINES GET BUILT, GIMME A HELL YEAH!*"










http://www.breitbart.com/news/trump-to-sign-orders-advancing-keystone-dakota-pipelines/


----------



## Iapetus

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> So let's get to it then: You believe Trump snorts coke?


I believe that it is an alternative fact that Trump snorts coke.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



> Isn't it sad that Trump detractors like a few (But not all) in this very thread have nothing else left but fortune telling and wishing for him to have failure?
> 
> Think about it: for this whole campaign those guys at least had hope...
> 
> > polls were at their side
> > media was at their side
> > betting houses were at their side
> > pollsters were at their side
> > celebrities were at their side
> 
> And yet, their side (meaning the anti trump side) lost and lost big.
> 
> Trump now has:
> 
> > the presidency
> > a red senate
> > a red congress
> > a supreme court pick to be done weeks after being innaugurated
> > probably two more to fill before the end of this first term
> > not impossible two more right in the middle of his second term
> > all but one state legislature needed to start constitutional changes
> 
> And now here they are: fortune telling!
> 
> > Trump won't such and such
> > Senate won't confirm such and such
> > Congress won't pass such and such
> 
> And every step of the way, much like in the election, they get proved wrong by the facts on the ground (when Trump delivers) and then they move the next fortune telling and the next wish for things to go wrong
> 
> It is sad, really. Most of the people on this board and on this general are having the time of their lives and their presence here makes them even happier for knowing someone on the other side is here to witness it
> 
> To the Snowflakes of the world (Not necessarily those on the Left in this thread): I salute you. Keep it up tho, and let what I just said sink in.
> 
> > you have no hope left other than wishing for other people failure.
> > you have no power and no hope
> 
> Think about it


If Trump gets backing from the trade unions (and doesn't fuck up), it is the kiss of death for Democrats. The Dems will never win rust belt states again. All they have left essentially are some soccer moms in the northeast, the state of California, Black Lives Matter and whatever protest groups Soros decides he wants to fund (usually communists).



> If this is true, it's hilarious! "Leftists" riot over Trump being a bad man and then burn up a Limo that some Muslim immigrant owned? The irony.


:maury


*Re: Dakota Pipeline*

They re-routed it so it shouldn't be a problem right?

- Vic


----------



## Reaper

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

Pretty sure this belongs in here. Tucker's new show is nothing short of brilliant and deservedly DWARF's Kelly's previous ratings. 

Of course, it's all timed to perfection with CNN and MSNBC anchors losing every shred of dignity they had trying to twist narratives to support the Democrats ... but nothing to take away from how great Tucker's been in the last few months. 

He may also be benefiting from this being the inauguration month so we'll have to see how his numbers are at this time next year, but I think the real appeal of his show is in how he brings in members of the fringe left and just destroys them. 

Also, he does have a few liberal regulars that I like listening to like that pretty democrat he has on fairly regularly. 

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/3...early-doubling-megyn-kellys-primetime-ratings



> *Fox's Tucker Carlson nearly doubling Kelly's prime-time ratings
> *
> Fox News's Tucker Carlson is nearly doubling the ratings of his predecessor, Megyn Kelly, when compared to the same time period last year, according to Nielsen Media Research.
> 
> *"Tucker Carlson Tonight" is up 95 percent in the 25- to 54-year-old demographic that advertisers covet most compared with the same period in 2016, when "The Kelly File" occupied the 9 p.m. ET time slot.
> 
> Carlson has averaged 775,000 viewers per night in the category, while Kelly averaged 398,000 during the same time period, Jan. 11–22.
> *
> Carlson took over the 9 p.m. slot on Jan. 9, shortly after Kelly announced she would be leaving for a daytime program on NBC.
> 
> Fox had reportedly offered Kelly $100 million over four years to stay with the network last fall. The former corporate attorney-turned-broadcast journalist said spending more time with her three young children in the afternoon and evening was ultimately more important. She reportedly took less money to go to NBC, where she won't be hosting a show every weekday night as she had at Fox.
> 
> Overall, Carlson — who has hosted programs on CNN and MSNBC in the past — is up 37 percent in total viewers, at 3.73 million, and 50 percent, at 775,000, in the key demographic compared with Kelly's 2016 averages of 2.72 million and 515,000, respectively.
> 
> Kelly is expected to make her NBC debut in September.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

:lmao ISIS stole the "we're number 1" hand symbol?

I was completely unaware of this.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*










All around Dems are familiaaaaaaare faaaaaaaaaces....:trump


----------



## MrMister

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

:lmao the Dems are going to lose more seats to the GOP :lmao

what an absolute implosion we're witnessing.


----------



## skypod

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



glenwo2 said:


> It's amazing how some people's minds are warped these days, eh?
> 
> Calling someone's kid, let alone the Commander-In-Chief, a potential homeschool shooter is NOT funny at all.
> 
> That's like me calling some poster's family a bunch of murderers and scumbags....and then going "haha! What a great joke, right? RIGHT?"



Whether it's funny or offensive isn't relevant, I explained the jokes subject was Donald Trump, not his son.

If you don't think the joke was about Trump being so unlikeable even his own son would shoot him, what was the joke actually about? (or are you too distracted by your fake outrage you accuse libtard pussies of).


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



MrMister said:


> :lmao the Dems are going to lose more seats to the GOP :lmao
> 
> what an absolute implosion we're witnessing.


We're breaking through the left like Ezekiel Elliot through the line of scrimmage, bro! :trump3


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



skypod said:


> Whether it's funny or offensive isn't relevant, I explained the jokes subject was Donald Trump, not his son.
> 
> If you don't think the joke was about Trump being so unlikeable even his own son would shoot him, what was the joke actually about? (or are you too distracted by your fake outrage you accuse libtard pussies of).


The meme the left have ran with is that Barron is Autistic and a problem child, which is a case for many shooters. They were suggesting he has a mental disorder because of his expressions and would grow up deranged. I don't know how you don't see that as bullying.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

The cannibalization of the democrats has begun from the inside. Americans are by and large center/center right/left (which would be conservative for you Europeans, Canadians and Australians even) ... Swaying the moderates is the key to winning an election in America and in the last 3 months there has been a pretty stark shift to the right. As the left gets worse and divided from within, there's no way they'll be able to speak to the moderates at all. 

If this SJW movement picks up steam to try to FORCE the country farther left, they'll have an impossible task nominating a presidential candidate from within that will be CRUSHED in 2020. Some prominent Democrat on TV claimed that they want to embrace more of Bernie's politics going forward and that means in a direction farther away from the moderates and fence-sitters and not towards them - meaning they're about to abandon a HUGE voter base that will likely stick with Trump who will eventually settle on a center right policy direction. 

If Trump makes good on even half of his promises, there's just no way a party so hell bent on self-destruction will ever be able to defeat him.


----------



## virus21

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> *Re: Dakota Pipeline*
> 
> They re-routed it so it shouldn't be a problem right?
> 
> - Vic


Funny, if they did that in the first place, it wouldn't be an issue. But don't worry, somebody will find a reason to bitch about anyway.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> The cannibalization of the democrats has begun from the inside. Americans are by and large center/center right/left (which would be conservative for you Europeans, Canadians and Australians even) ... Swaying the moderates is the key to winning an election in America and in the last 3 months there has been a pretty stark shift to the right. As the left gets worse and divided from within, there's no way they'll be able to speak to the moderates at all.
> 
> If this SJW movement picks up steam to try to FORCE the country farther left, they'll have an impossible task nominating a presidential candidate from within that will be CRUSHED in 2020. Some prominent Democrat on TV claimed that they want to embrace more of Bernie's politics going forward and that means in a direction farther away from the moderates and fence-sitters and not towards them - meaning they're about to abandon a HUGE voter base that will likely stick with Trump who will eventually settle on a center right policy direction.
> 
> If Trump makes good on even half of his promises, there's just no way a party so hell bent on self-destruction will ever be able to defeat him.


The best way to defeat the left and its ideology, as I have stated, is to simply allow it to show itself unfiltered to the masses. It worked on you and you aren't stupid, now it's just a matter of waking others.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

If you had asked me three years ago which party was going to break apart and kill each other I would have said the republicans with 95% certainty

Also while I am very pro-NATO I do agree with Trump that most of its members need to pay more 

When NATO was founded it was a agreed that every member would pay at least 2% of their GDP for military purposes to support each other but only the U.S., Greece, Poland, Estonia and the U.K are meeting that goal and two of the them have a nation that is makes threats to invade them on their border and the only ones really expanding their spending to reach their goal are in eastern Europe due to Russian pressure 

Canada doesn't even attempt to pay it with a touch less than one percent going to military and does not even field armor outside of APCs anymore

The US pays more than half of NATO's overall costs and that includes covering other nations costs


----------



## Reaper

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



> http://freebeacon.com/politics/secret-service-agent-suggests-wouldnt-take-bullet-trump/
> 
> *Secret Service Agent Suggests in Facebook Post She Wouldn’t Take Bullet for Trump*
> 
> 
> A senior Secret Service agent suggested on Facebook that she would refuse to “take a bullet” for President Donald Trump and endure “jail time” instead.
> 
> Kerry O’Grady, the agent in charge of the Secret Service’s Denver district who coordinates with Washington for presidential trips to the area, endorsed Hillary Clinton in a Facebook post in October, the _Washington Examiner_ reported Tuesday.
> 
> In that same message, O’Grady said she would prefer “jail time” to “taking a bullet” for what she called a “disaster” for the United States, referring to then-candidate Trump.
> O’Grady has made her contempt for Trump and his administration well known on Facebook, according to the _Examiner_. Her social media posts have prompted at least one complaint against her to an office that looks into misbehavior by Secret Service agents.
> 
> O’Grady wrote the following in her October message to Facebook, according to the _Examiner_:“As a public servant for nearly 23 years, I struggle not to violate the Hatch Act. So I keep quiet and skirt the median. To do otherwise can be a criminal offense for those in my position. Despite the fact that I am expected to take a bullet for both sides.”
> But this world has changed and I have changed. And I would take jail time over a bullet or an endorsement for what I believe to be disaster to this country and the strong and amazing women and minorities who reside here. Hatch Act be damned. I am with Her.”
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Hatch Act was put into place to bar most federal officials and employees from being involved in politics, including election campaigns. This would include seeking donations for candidates and actively campaigning for the candidate one chooses to support.
> 
> When contacted by the _Examiner_, the Secret Service said it was aware of the Facebook post and is looking into it.


The fact that this woman made this post _*after *_the inauguration clearly implies that she was hoping for an assassination ... This should count as a betrayal of her charge because she should've come out _before _the moment when the president was at his most vulnerable.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



stevefox1200 said:


> *If you had asked me three years ago which party was going to break apart and kill each other I would have said the republicans with 95% certainty*
> 
> Also while I am very pro-NATO I do agree that most of its members need to pay more
> 
> When NATO was founded it was a agreed that every member would pay at least 2% of their GDP for military purposes to support each other but only the U.S., Greece, Poland, Estonia and the U.K are meeting that goal and two of the them have a nation that is makes threats to invade them on their border
> 
> Canada doesn't even attempt to pay it with a touch less than one percent going to military and does not even field armor outside of APCs anymore


Pretty crazy isn't it. A bit like the polls and most people, even in this thread, thought Trump was going to lose - it was just a matter of by how much. That turned out to be insanely wrong of course.

I think we're in a unique time now, with news and information travelling so fast - the rate at which popularity can rise and fall will be greater than ever. The rate at which political parties, therefore, can rise and fall, will be the same.

I think what Trump has shown is people want a leader with charisma to say and promise the right things in the right way. 

If a similar Dem leader comes along that taps into the right vein of America then I have no doubt they'll be back and just as easily as the Dems are crumbling now, the Repubs could do in 4 years time.


----------



## Neuron

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/823736062220599296
I'd like to see even more of this from the democratic party. Please don't stop alienating large portions of your voting base!


----------



## Reaper

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



stevefox1200 said:


> If you had asked me three years ago which party was going to break apart and kill each other I would have said the republicans with 95% certainty


Three years ago, weren't the GOP in control of the House and the Senate which is what everything that didn't happen was being blamed on so I don't see how you can say that the GOP was gonna break apart?


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



> Secret Service Agent Suggests in Facebook Post She Wouldn’t Take Bullet for Trump


That makes her a threat to national security. She needs to be fired ASAP!

- Vic


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Three years ago, weren't the GOP in control of the House and the Senate which is what everything that didn't happen was being blamed on so I don't see how you can say that the GOP was gonna break apart?


The conservative Christians and the pro-business supporters were in a massive civil war over who was "ruining their party" 

You also had the Tea Party types and the mainstream party insulting each other like the socialists and the democrats did this election 

I remember some hardcore Republicans who loathed Paul Ryan for trying to keep these two groups from killing each other


----------



## DOPA

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> The ban isn't only on places that fund abortions, it extends to organisations which so much as mention to women they could get an abortion elsewhere.
> 
> And wouldn't the gov staying out be for them to not take a stand rather than backing one side monetarily?


To be fair, I was only really giving my personal opinion on taxpayers money towards abortions....which we have in the UK, whilst abortion really isn't an issue here, I still think it's wrong to force people to pay for it through the taxpayer. In our case, it's billions.

And I agree with you on the 2nd part, government should just stay the fuck out of it and not choose sides. Not in such a sensitive topic like this.

As far as the legislation itself, I'd have to look into it but on the surface I'd be against them banning taxpayer's money from organizations who merely promote it and not actually do abortions because I do think in terms of sexual health and contraception/birth control, public options should be available.

I still think Planned Parenthood should be defunded though, I understand that there is debate on how much of their money they receive through tax goes to abortions but it should be 0%. If people want that organization funded then people can donate. There are other health clinics that promote women's health, birth control and contraception....

But again, I'd have to look into how deep the ban goes.


----------



## virus21

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

That poor nerdy looking dude, becoming the face of whiny anti Trumpies.


----------



## virus21

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

Not directly related, but seems worth mentioning


----------



## Stephen90

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

Thank god Trump axed TPP


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Stephen90 said:


> Thank god Trump axed TPP


What was so bad about it in the first place?


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-exclusive-idUSKBN1582XQ

*IT HAS BEGUN!*
@Carte Blanche


----------



## Reaper

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

^I'm happy about this for many reasons - and it doesn't even conflict with my libertarian views either. 

The next one is even better. Nikki Haley just got confirmed. 










A very key confirmation imo. It's going to be a good step in the right direction with regards to America's foreign policy and dealing with the little trolls in the UN that call themselves "world leaders". Haley is a total bad ass.


----------



## TheMenace

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

Two things that even the most anti-Trump people have to give him credit for. First of all killing the TPP was absolutely the right thing to do. roud :applause
Also I find it very refreshing to see a politician not only keep his campaign promises but start doing so from the first few days in office. While I may dislike many of his policy positions, I do appreciate his honesty.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

now get us out of DACA! :trump2


----------



## TheMenace

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> What was so bad about it in the first place?


Let's see now... ISDS system allowing corporations to sue national governments in secret tribunals held by an unaccountable kangaroo court. Then there was the intellectual property chapter which would have ushered in the most draconian copyright and patent regime in the history of the world. You think the cost of medical care is high now, holy bejesus it would have skyrocketed under a TPP regime.

Besides, any pact which includes Brunei (has sharia law) and Malaysia (has slavery) is going to be shady AF.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> What was so bad about it in the first place?


From Bernie's website

https://www.sanders.senate.gov/down...de-tpp-agreement-must-be-defeated?inline=file


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

A good post on the subject from a Finland anon:

_You know its funny, because everybody has this idea that its "more complicated and president cant just do things overnight" and Trump is proving people otherwise. Politicians can do things if they want to. Tells us just how much of a scumbag every other politician is. Especially in Finland our politicians just aim to ruin our lives.
But gotta give the man respect, first president in a long time that is actually helping the people_


----------



## SWITCHBLADE

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



TheMenace said:


> Two things that even the most anti-Trump people have to give him credit for. First of all killing the TPP was absolutely the right thing to do. roud :applause
> Also I find it very refreshing to see a politician not only keep his campaign promises but start doing so from the first few days in office. While I may dislike many of his policy positions, I do appreciate his honesty.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*

Our president has done more in 4 days than many could do in an entire term XD


----------



## amhlilhaus

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Pretty crazy isn't it. A bit like the polls and most people, even in this thread, thought Trump was going to lose - it was just a matter of by how much. That turned out to be insanely wrong of course.
> 
> I think we're in a unique time now, with news and information travelling so fast - the rate at which popularity can rise and fall will be greater than ever. The rate at which political parties, therefore, can rise and fall, will be the same.
> 
> I think what Trump has shown is people want a leader with charisma to say and promise the right things in the right way.
> 
> If a similar Dem leader comes along that taps into the right vein of America then I have no doubt they'll be back and just as easily as the Dems are crumbling now, the Repubs could do in 4 years time.


Not gonna happen. Trump is actually fulfilling his campaign pfomises.

If he builds the wall, cuts taxes, spurs massive jobs growth, dems got no chance in 2020.

A lot can still go wrong but trumps doing what he promised, which makes things very interesting


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



amhlilhaus said:


> Not gonna happen. Trump is actually fulfilling his campaign pfomises.
> 
> If he builds the wall, cuts taxes, spurs massive jobs growth, dems got no chance in 2020.
> 
> A lot can still go wrong but trumps doing what he promised, which makes things very interesting


Lol he's been in three days or something, there's a lot of IFs in there.

My point was things can go south so quickly in today's climate, pretty much regardless of what a president actually fulfils. With a few wrong moves here and there public perception can be irreparably damaged very quickly and if the right alternative pops up and starts promising everything people want to hear then people will sway.

Just my 2c.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread (All Trump Discussion Here)*



> *(WR) Alternative facts:*
> 
> I got pretty tired of the left ripping Kellyanne Conway (who I'm not particularly fond of) out of context and acting as though they're the purveyors of truth and facts. I put a little "alternative fact" sheet together that the media accepted without much question, and in some instances, were complicit in disseminating:
> 
> "If you like your doctor, you can keep your keep your doctor." -Obama
> 
> "Fast and Furious" began under the Bush administration." -Obama
> 
> "For the first time since 1990, American manufacturers are creating new jobs." -Obama
> 
> "I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family's premium by up to $2,500 a year." -Obama
> 
> "What is also true is that the legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, discrimination in almost every institution of our lives — you know, that casts a long shadow. And that's still part of our DNA that's passed on. We're not cured of it." -Obama
> 
> "Affordable Care Act"
> 
> "Benghazi was the result of a YouTube video."
> 
> Ben Rhodes on feeding "narratives" or "alternative facts" to journalists about Iran Deal:
> 
> Rhodes set up a team of staffers who were focused on promoting the deal, which apparently included the feeding of talking points at useful times in the news cycle to foreign policy experts who were favorably disposed toward it. “We created an echo chamber,” he told the magazine. “They [the seemingly independent experts] were saying things that validated what we had given them to say.”
> -WaPo
> 
> "The U.S. is the only advanced Democracy that makes it harder to vote."-Obama
> 
> Obama speaking about his powers on immigration:
> 
> "I'm not a king."
> 
> to
> 
> "My position hasn’t changed" on using executive authority to address immigration issues.
> 
> "I found out about Mrs Clinton's email server the same way you did, in the news"


Lol. Given how much of a liar Obaba was, I'm having a ball at the leftists mockery of Kellyanne using the "alternative facts" gaffe because for every Republican lie over the next four years, there's probably going at least 4 Obaba lies - at least initially. Probably gonna even out over the next 8 years though.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread (All Trump Discussion Here)*

So you Trump cucks can't defend the 'big crowd' alternative fact are resorting to the tried and tested offence is the best defence strategy now hoping the rest of us will stop mocking your made up 'evidence'? :ha

And authoritarian governments get things done faster. I know because I live under one. Isn't that right MBA Trumpster? So thank you for agreeing with those that said Trump is a risk of diluting your democracy? You Trump cucks make me :lol. But I guess if you believe in Trump's view of America, then you would want the same government that helped third world country make the leap into 2nd world standards. Too bad that is also what is limiting their ability to make the jump to America's standard of living.

Trump is a liberal at heart that used the anger of the general population combine with religious/tax dogma of the GOP to ride to power. Liberals keep talking about wealth redistribution even at the expense of lower wealth for everyone. In a way Trump is doing that with his policies. Redistributing wealth from richer coastal states into less well off middle America. So yay for liberal champion Trump? :lol


----------



## Reaper

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread (All Trump Discussion Here)*

:mj4 

Your lack of understanding of politics (and the english language and ridiculous attempts to sound intelligent) is another major source of consistent entertainment for me in this thread 

:kobelol

I mean, from your post, it's clear you don't even understand the difference between constitutional republic and parliamental democracy is and you think that Trump is "diluting democracy" .... I guess it sounded nice somewhere else and you decided to plagiarised it. 

There is no "diluting democracy" in a constitutional republic. All Trump has to do is prevent federal over-reach and uphold the constitution. And as many of us have already said a 100 times, but those posts you conveniently ignore because you're the one with the agenda (and pretentiously calling yourself bipartisan), where we've said that we'll all oppose any federal over-reach on Trump's part .. You really have no clue what you're talking about. 

Also, there's no obligation for any "Trumpster" to not go on the offensive. Did we sign some sort of contract that stipulates that we can't call out Obaba's lies and not go on the offensive? Is there some sort of unwritten rule somewhere where if the leftist media is being disingenuous that they can't be called out on it? Or is reading Obaba's lies get slapped around triggering for you? 

Name 1 executive order passed by Trump so far that has been unconstitutional. Just one. 

You really have no clue what you're talking about at this point and simply in here baiting. That's all.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread (All Trump Discussion Here)*

Democrats are refusing to see their issues, they're completely unaware of how they look. It is fitting since some Democrats cannot accept the fact that rich billionaires pump money into the party while ensuring they get the cheapest labor possible and hoard their wealth. At this rate the Democrats will be done for several years to come.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread (All Trump Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> Democrats are refusing to see their issues, they're completely unaware of how they look. It is fitting since some Democrats cannot accept the fact that rich billionaires pump money into the party while ensuring they get the cheapest labor possible and hoard their wealth. At this rate the Democrats will be done for several years to come.


Democrats have always been the party of the rich ... Until and unless you get into the era of the so-called "Switch" where while there was some switching, it wasn't a complete switch from one to another. I think that has been already made clear quite well and I personally learnt a lot too when that particular discussion was happening :shrug


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread (All Trump Discussion Here)*

Undermining the freedom of the press, threatening to be litigious over disagreements, dividing the voters into legitimate and illegitimate based on whether they voted for you, using the threat of populist revolt to hold party members in line with the 'official' version of 'alternative facts'. That was I was referring to and not about federal over-reach. Nice try to bait and switch here to your talking points. Didn't you claim to be from part of the elite establishment in Pakistan so I wonder why can't you see the similarities?

Claiming I have no clue what I am talking about but your inability to admit you were wrong about things here but using that angle to attack others is laughable. Are you projecting again because I hit too close to home again about your political views?


----------



## MrMister

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread (All Trump Discussion Here)*

Let's dial back the personal stuff here. There's enough going on to just argue the whatever.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread (All Trump Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> Undermining the freedom of the press, threatening to be litigious over disagreements, dividing the voters into legitimate and illegitimate based on whether they voted for you, using the threat of populist revolt to hold party members in line with the 'official' version of 'alternative facts'. That was I was referring to and not about federal over-reach. Nice try to bait and switch here to your talking points. Didn't you claim to be from part of the elite establishment in Pakistan so I wonder why can't you see the similarities?
> 
> Claiming I have no clue what I am talking about but your inability to admit you were wrong about things here but using that angle to attack others is laughable. Are you projecting again because I hit too close to home again about your political views?


1. How specifically has Trump has undermined the freedom of the press? Threatening to sue a specific organization for libel is not underminding the press. Libel suits are perfectly normal in western society and if filed go to the courts to decide where the president does not have the power or influence to determine the outcome. Refusing to take a single question from a single member of the press is not underminding the freedom of the press. Publicly scolding the press is not undermining the freedom of the press. This is a completely batshit insane claim. 

2. Threatening litigation does not undermine freedom because this is not a third world shithole where presidents control the legal system of the country. You're viewing this from a very myopic lens. 

3. That's what Hillary did with her deplorable comment and she paid for it because guess what, people are free to decide with their votes. There's no undermining there at all. 

4. The revolt against the established GOP happened already despite the GOP's best efforts initially to keep it from happening. This was the very definition of people choosing their president. Name one thing that Trump did that was undemocratic on his path to becoming President. Was there voter fraud? Did he force anyone to vote? He shamed his political opponents which is perfectly fair game in an election. His opponents failing to defend themselves against his verbal attacks does not delegitimize or undermine democracy. Others had all the same tools and tactics available to them, and no one used negative tactics more than Hillary to try to win. 

5. But you said that Trump is diluting democracy. That is not even a relevant issue in America because America is a constitutional republic. 

Yes, I'm from the elite "establishment" in Pakistan (though you probably are misusing this to assume that I'm some wadera or something), but I'm the son of a self-made man who worked very hard to give me this life. Of course, the personal jab is interesting though even though it has literally no bearing on the discussion we're having. My dad is a rags to riches story and he wasn't born rich. I was. So no, we're not part of the political establishment at all. Just a family that worked hard to get where we are. The personal jab is entertaining though. Keep trying.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread (All Trump Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Democrats have always been the party of the rich ... Until and unless you get into the era of the so-called "Switch" where while there was some switching, it wasn't a complete switch from one to another. I think that has been already made clear quite well and I personally learnt a lot too when that particular discussion was happening :shrug


Pretty much, as i said before, how people can think the Democrats care about people when their policies don't help anyone and the mega rich and celebs love the party doesn't raise brows is beyond me. Hopefully Trump can keep some of these rinos and shady Republicans in check, already some trying to come up with Democrat sounding shit to propose.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread (All Trump Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> Pretty much, as i said before, how people can think the Democrats care about people when their policies don't help anyone and the mega rich and celebs love the party doesn't raise brows is beyond me. Hopefully Trump can keep some of these rinos and shady Republicans in check, already some trying to come up with Democrat sounding shit to propose.


I'm not sure if most republicans actually give a hoot about the poor either. This is a party that's famous for having supporters (and this is from personal experience) that will look at a homeless man and his dog and claim to have more sympathy for the dog than the man. I've seen this happen with my own eyes at Republican rallies, so it's not like with Trump that's going to change at all. 

However, what I approve of with Trump is that at least _personally _he has a better plan than Hillary who was already judged and left wanting by a mile while serving under Obama. In fact, I think that a lot of Obama's failures can be attributed to Hillary, especially with regards to his failure to address local inner city poverty and crime - because he was too wrapped up in Hillary's wars post Libya to achieve anything locally in his last 3-5 years.


----------



## 3ku1

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread (All Trump Discussion Here)*

Hey guys count your luckey stars, you could of had Hillary as your president. Far as I am concerned you dodged a bullet their. Trump seems to be a voice for the working american, middle america. When he signed to get rid of the TPP. He mentioned this is for the working american. So yeah they have a voice now.


----------



## Pronoss

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread (All Trump Discussion Here)*

History repeated itself as I predicted from middle of last year to now

The last "white riot" ending democrats causing fall of the party for 9 out of following 10 elections.

This was the complete fall of the democrats

We've done this about 4 times now at various strengths


68, DNC was a riot inside convention center between progressive and far left liberals and last white riots




3:53 powerful but unnarrated clips only set scene for news summary short vid about call of entire democrat party due to forcing liberal political correctness, war protests banned, pure gestapo thought police from !liberals pushing collectivism ending in the largest and last nationwide "white riot" that booted Democrats out by the masses.












Inside DNC Humphreys asked for peace admitted to Democrats using Gestapo tactics and to stop, but too late, the entire party split between liberalism and the progressives many went independent some went progressive Republican. End part shows Dan Rather's attacks.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread (All Trump Discussion Here)*

I love the "Left" and people like Chelsea Handler, she bashes the first lady for not speaking English and dogging her but she stands for women and minorities? Hahaha! 

The hypocrisy is hilarious.

Also that poor guy who owned the torched limo cannot afford to pay it off it seems, any "Leftists" want to pay for destroying this Muslim man's car for no fucking reason? 

I could imagine the outrage if it was Trump supporters that did this.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread (All Trump Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> I love the "Left" and people like Chelsea Handler, she bashes the first lady for not speaking English and dogging her but she stands for women and minorities? Hahaha!
> 
> The hypocrisy is hilarious.


The new attack is now about how "petrified" Milania is of Trump because she looks lost and out of her element during the proceedings. 

They still don't get it at all. The more they make up this stuff, the more they attack Barron and Milania, the more fence-sitters will dig deeper into the stories and the more they'll realize just how fake and hypocritical the left is. I'm only following about 50 odd atheists (mostly ex-muslims) on Twitter RN and most of them are now deeply divided with many finally listening to conservative talking points. I've seen more far left muslim atheists rattled by the inclusion of radical islamist Linda Sursour after the women's march than I've ever seen them rattled before. Even Obaba's sympathy towards muslims did not get them as riled up as seeing free American women wearing the hijab. 

Basically, there are now comparisons of the hijab to the confederate flag and that's gone viral amongst the ex-muslim blogosphere. 

It has backfired immensely. I think a lot more ex-muslims and liberal muslims are going to move towards the right over the next four years than before. I was just early on bandwagon thanks to this forum.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread (All Trump Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> 1. How specifically has Trump has undermined the freedom of the press? Threatening to sue a specific organization for libel is not underminding the press. Libel suits are perfectly normal in western society and if filed go to the courts to decide where the president does not have the power or influence to determine the outcome. Refusing to take a single question from a single member of the press is not underminding the freedom of the press. Publicly scolding the press is not undermining the freedom of the press. This is a completely batshit insane claim.


Threatening to sue a specific media organization for libel even when there is no case to be made while running for public office is undermining the freedom of the press. Imagine the hysterics if Obama threatened to sue for the birther issue. You are kidding right about the president not having the influence to determine the outcome? I agree refusing to take a question or publicly scolding the press isn't undermining the freedom of the press. What is undermining the press is refuting facts and figures the press use to criticise them while remaining opaque about the source of their alternative facts that led to the dispute.



> 2. Threatening litigation does not undermine freedom because this is not a third world shithole where presidents control the legal system of the country. You're viewing this from a very myopic lens.


You don't need control of the legal system to make it painful to individuals or organisations. You just need deeper pockets to outlast the other party.



> 3. That's what Hillary did with her deplorable comment and she paid for it because guess what, people are free to decide with their votes. There's no undermining there at all.


What the hell are you talking about? Did she claim their votes don't count legally like the alleged 3 million illegal votes Trump have been doing? Was her message from the comment that their votes were illegal or to warn against giving the racists and homophobes a larger voice in the country? Compared to Trump's message that implied the he won the 'real' Americans popular votes. How are they similar?



> 4. The revolt against the established GOP happened already despite the GOP's best efforts initially to keep it from happening. This was the very definition of people choosing their president. Name one thing that Trump did that was undemocratic on his path to becoming President. Was there voter fraud? Did he force anyone to vote? He shamed his political opponents which is perfectly fair game in an election. His opponents failing to defend themselves against his verbal attacks does not delegitimize or undermine democracy. Others had all the same tools and tactics available to them, and no one used negative tactics more than Hillary to try to win.


Threatening to jail his political opponent. Refusing to state he will accept the elections results during the debate when he was behind in the polls. (Hilary did something similar with her reluctance to give a concession speech on the night itself). There was voter fraud with that one female Trump supporter in Iowa. :troll Roger Stone formed a group that threatened to intimidate voters but was exposed before the elections and quietly dissolved.



> ]5. But you said that Trump is diluting democracy. That is not even a relevant issue in America because America is a constitutional republic.


I'm pointing it out because Trump supporters are usually hyperbolic in their praise of democracy and MURICA! and blame liberals for the failings of American democracy or constitutional republic.



> Yes, I'm from the elite establishment in Pakistan, but the son of a self-made man who worked very hard to give me this life. Of course, the personal jab is interesting though even though it has literally no bearing on the discussion we're having. My dad is a rags to riches story and he wasn't born rich. I was. So no, we're not part of the establishment at all. Just a family that worked hard to get where we are. The personal jab is entertaining though. Keep trying.


In other words you grew up in the comfort of being part of the establishment elites and taking those privileges for granted. How are your family not part of the establishment when your family have spent more years being part of the elites than out of it now? There's no shame about being an elite that grew to become part of the estblishment. That's what we should all be striving to become. I find your ranting about establishment elites and government ironic given many might hate politics but they also realise it is a necessary evil or there will be a power vacuum.


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread (All Trump Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> You Trump cucks make me :lol.


When Trump appoints those 4 or 5 conservative Supreme Court Justices, that will slap that smile right off your face . . . Believe that !!!


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread (All Trump Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> Threatening to jail his political opponent.


Remember, Obama didn't pardon Hillary . . .


----------



## Reaper

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread (All Trump Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> Threatening to sue a specific media organization for libel even when there is no case to be made while running for public office is undermining the freedom of the press. Imagine the hysterics if Obama threatened to sue for the birther issue. You are kidding right about the president not having the influence to determine the outcome? I agree refusing to take a question or publicly scolding the press isn't undermining the freedom of the press. What is undermining the press is refuting facts and figures the press use to criticise them while remaining opaque about the source of their alternative facts that led to the dispute.


Here again you're completely misusing an english phrase. To undermine the press would mean to use government authority in order to make sure they don't get to speak up. Undermining the Press would be would Musharraf tried to do by outright blocking and banning TV channels and sending his military to possess the TV channel's assets. You are greatly over-exaggerating the impact of Trump's statements to the point where they sound completely over-blown and hysterical. Not even worth entertaining because the actual undermining of the press would require a heck of a lot more than giving out false facts and threatening to sue for libel. Anyone can sue anyone else. It's up to the courts to decide whether it has any merit and no, this isn't a third world country no matter how much you want to believe that Trump would have the power to influence a judge - he won't. This idea that a president rules over the justice system is a very third world mindset and has no business being brought into any kind of intellectual discussion here. It's a completely made up, over-exaggerated bit of hysteria you've cooked up in your head to have some sort of a negative point against Trump. 



> You don't need control of the legal system to make it painful to individuals or organisations. You just need deeper pockets to outlast the other party.


Considering that most of the media here actually out-Trump's Trump in terms of having deep pockets, this point is completely retarded. Also considering that the President is as a courtesy removing himself from his business (he's not required by the constitution to do so in its entirety btw, but he's still doing it), it would be impossible for Trump to sue anyone now that he's president. Anyone with a brain would know that and therefore it wouldn't factor into their decision to vote for him. The whole "undermining the press" bullshit is bullshit. It never happened and you're over-blowing it to hysterical proportions. 



> What the hell are you talking about? Did she claim their votes don't count legally like the alleged 3 million illegal votes Trump have been doing? Was her message from the comment that their votes were illegal or to warn against giving the racists and homophobes a larger voice in the country? Compared to Trump's message that implied the he won the 'real' Americans popular votes. How are they similar?


This isn't even a legit response to what I said. The deplorables statement is far worse than anything Trump said about voters on the campaign trail. Even the democrats admit that that was the biggest mistake of Hillary's campaign with the second biggest being acknowledged by Obama that she never campaigned in the states she should have campaigned in. Also, the final facts have proven without a shadow of a doubt that there was no racist white-lash or homophobe backlash. The people that voted Obama which is where the real election was decided suddenly didn't become racist or homophobic. Republicans ALWAYS get the racist, homophobic vote and they still lost 2 elections despite it. Trump didn't increase the membership. He swayed the middle-class with his campaign promise of bringing jobs back and the young college vote by pushing back against extreme political correctness that has impacted their lives in American colleges. I can't believe that a month after even many democratic strategists have admitted all the reasons why Hillary lost you're still harping on the racist/sexist/homphobic bullcrap which remains unsubstantiated with any actual facts. 

As for the 3 million comment - that happened after the elections. It also has no bearing on the legitimacy of Trump. Nor does it have anything to do with him "diluting democracy". You still have not given a single, specific answer to how Trump "diluted democracy". It's beginning to sound more and more like you like how those two words sound together so you decided to use them. Be specific. 



> Threatening to jail his political opponent. Refusing to state he will accept the elections results during the debate when he was behind in the polls. (Hilary did something similar with her reluctance to give a concession speech on the night itself). There was voter fraud with that one female Trump supporter in Iowa. :troll Roger Stone formed a group that threatened to intimidate voters but was exposed before the elections and quietly dissolved.


He never threated to Jail Hillary. He made a jab back at her "you would be in jail". And he said that he will hire a special prosecutor to go over the email scandal - which is only a threat to send her to jail if you assume that she's guilty ffs - which a huge chunk of the electorate thought she was anyways so I don't see how that's in any way something Trump shouldn't have done. 

That's a perfectly valid statement to make and even a valid promise to make. 

It's still not "diluting democracy" however. That's a campaign promise. Also, unlike other candidates after winning, he didn't continue to hold it like a carrot on a stick and immediately said that he will not prosecute Hillary. Sure it's going back on a promise. That however doesn't mean he diluted democracy. Making campaign promises is part and parcel of the electoral process and at this point in time only a food would go in to vote thinking that the person they're voting for will uphold every single promise they make. I don't even care if he doesn't hold up all his promises, and there are some that I hope that he doesn't keep. But that's the best you can hope for in a democracy and in no way does this "dilute democracy". 



> I'm pointing it out because Trump supporters are usually hyperbolic in their praise of democracy and MURICA! and blame liberals for the failings of American democracy or constitutional republic.


Yeah, you're pointing it out to the wrong person because while I enjoy poking fun of liberals and leftists and point out the ridiculous flaws and hypocrisy of their arguments, I've made a personal choice to ignore the republicans when they do the same as I'm under no obligation to maintain and stand up to someone else's retarded understanding of bipartisanship and maintaining "equality" through expressing a centrist view. 

That said, I was also the only one in this thread opposing Trump's immediate continuation of Obama's bombing strategy and wherever I've felt the need to do so I've asked questions others haven't asked. 



> In other words you grew up in the comfort of being part of the establishment elites and taking those privileges for granted. How are your family not part of the establishment when your family have spent more years being part of the elites than out of it now? There's no shame about being an elite that grew to become part of the estblishment. That's what we should all be striving to become. I find your ranting about establishment elites and government ironic given many might hate politics but they also realise it is a necessary evil or there will be a power vacuum.


You and other leftists in this thread simply refuse to understand what Trump's administration has referred to as establishment ... You also have no understanding of the establishment at all. In America you have certain Congressmen who've been around forever and even after their terms they join special lobbying groups that exist to influence policy. These are usually wealthy people with corporate interests, but that does not mean that all corporations or wealthy people are lobbyists. THAT is the "Establishment" Trump wants to drain. Not all rich people or corporations because the majority of corporations and rich people do not lobby for special interests. Certain industries attempt that more than others. 

For me and my family to be part of the "establishment" in terms of how it's being used in Trump's administration would mean that my father somehow had political influence which he never did nor did he want. This is why I keep saying that you don't even understand half the things you want to talk about because you see these words and try to use them in ways that they can't be used. You feel like you can twist any word you want to mean what you want. And this is a second language problem that I've seen with many non-native english-speakers. 

However, Just because someone is rich and wealthy does not make them part of an establishment or lobbyist. Not all rich CEO's and companies are out there lobbying for special privileges and not all rich people are part of that establishment. Trump's draining of the swamp is specifically targeted towards lobbyists and lobbying. That's it. It's clear as day to anyone that's actually read and understood his plan. 

Anyways, as always this is going to be my last response to you because I'm fully aware that you're just going to keep twisting and mischaracterising things that are explicitly said in my response to you because you're just going to skim read, refuse to google things you don't understand and pull a lengthy response out of your ass. I'm looking forward to more of your mangled understanding of what I've said in response to you.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread (All Trump Discussion Here)*



> I love the "Left" and people like Chelsea Handler, she bashes the first lady for not speaking English and dogging her but she stands for women and minorities? Hahaha!
> 
> The hypocrisy is hilarious.


Chelsea Handler is a known racist pretending to be a comedian.




> http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...-idUSKBN1582XQ
> 
> IT HAS BEGUN!
> @Carte Blanche


OH SHIT! :mark:



> You Trump cucks make me












- Vic


----------



## Reaper

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread (All Trump Discussion Here)*



> http://www.mediaite.com/tv/abc-news...s-praise-of-sean-spicer-to-sound-like-attack/
> 
> *ABC News Apologizes After Editing Former Bush Spox’s Praise of Sean Spicer to Sound Like Attack
> *
> ABC News apologized Tuesday after the Monday night edition of Nightline edited a quote from former George W. Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer in a way that made it appear that he was more critical of current White House press secretary Sean Spicer than he actually was.
> 
> “[Spicer’s] briefing made me uncomfortable. It was too truculent, too tough. It looks as if the ball was dropped on Saturday,” Nightline quoted Fleischer as saying.
> 
> But Fleischer took to Twitter to complain that he had been taken out of context.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flesicher called on ABC News to issue a correction, saying he didn’t really care if he got an apology. As it happens, he got both:
> 
> Nightline aired a segment Monday night about the first three days of the new administration including Sean Spicer’s statement to the press on Saturday. As part of the report, we interviewed former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer. In editing the piece for air, his quote was shortened and as a result his opinions mischaracterized. We are fixing the piece online to include his full quote and context. We apologize and regret the error.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread (All Trump Discussion Here)*


----------



## Reaper

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread (All Trump Discussion Here)*

:mj4 So much fail in the above. Waiting for your next attempt :mj

I'm thoroughly enjoying you trying to grapple with libertarian / pro-capitalist concepts without any background knowledge. I'm no expert either, but most of what you're saying are easily refutable arguments. I'm just not going to do it anymore because it's like banging my head against a brick wall.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread (All Trump Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Here again you're completely misusing an english phrase. To undermine the press would mean to use government authority in order to make sure they don't get to speak up. Undermining the Press would be would Musharraf tried to do by outright blocking and banning TV channels and sending his military to possess the TV channel's assets. You are greatly over-exaggerating the impact of Trump's statements to the point where they sound completely over-blown and hysterical. Not even worth entertaining because the actual undermining of the press would require a heck of a lot more than giving out false facts and threatening to sue for libel. Anyone can sue anyone else. It's up to the courts to decide whether it has any merit and no, this isn't a third world country no matter how much you want to believe that Trump would have the power to influence a judge - he won't. This idea that a president rules over the justice system is a very third world mindset and has no business being brought into any kind of intellectual discussion here. It's a completely made up, over-exaggerated bit of hysteria you've cooked up in your head to have some sort of a negative point against Trump.


http://www.dictionary.com/browse/undermine



> 1. to injure or destroy by insidious activity or imperceptible stages, sometimes tending toward a sudden dramatic effect.
> 2. to attack by indirect, secret, or underhand means; attempt to subvert by stealth.
> 3. to make an excavation under; dig or tunnel beneath, as a military stronghold.
> 4. to weaken or cause to collapse by removing underlying support, as by digging away or eroding the foundation.


You see to be the one misusing the English language, not me. I think the word you are looking for is silencing the press for your alternative facts.





> Considering that most of the media here actually out-Trump's Trump in terms of having deep pockets, this point is completely retarded. Also considering that the President is as a courtesy removing himself from his business (he's not required by the constitution to do so in its entirety btw, but he's still doing it), it would be impossible for Trump to sue anyone now that he's president. Anyone with a brain would know that and therefore it wouldn't factor into their decision to vote for him. The whole "undermining the press" bullshit is bullshit. It never happened and you're over-blowing it to hysterical proportions.


Now you are resorting to going Sean Spicer on me by claiming the individual media organisations have deeper pockets to fight frivolous legal battles against a man that claims to be worth 10 billion dollars. Is there a law that says presidents can't sue anyone?




> This isn't even a legit response to what I said. The deplorables statement is far worse than anything Trump said about voters on the campaign trail. Even the democrats admit that that was the biggest mistake of Hillary's campaign with the second biggest being acknowledged by Obama that she never campaigned in the states she should have campaigned in. Also, the final facts have proven without a shadow of a doubt that there was no racist white-lash or homophobe backlash. The people that voted Obama which is where the real election was decided suddenly didn't become racist or homophobic. Republicans ALWAYS get the racist, homophobic vote and they still lost 2 elections despite it. Trump didn't increase the membership. He swayed the middle-class with his campaign promise of bringing jobs back and the young college vote by pushing back against extreme political correctness that has impacted their lives in American colleges. I can't believe that a month after even many democratic strategists have admitted all the reasons why Hillary lost you're still harping on the racist/sexist/homphobic bullcrap which remains unsubstantiated with any actual facts.


All these had nothing to do with the point at hand, and you have the gall to say my response wasn't legit to the point. The argument was Hillary's deplorable comment is comparable to Trump's continued insistence of illegal votes denying him the popular vote victory in diluting democracy. Not the mistakes of Hillary's strategy nor Trump's success in winning the elections. Nice attempt to try to deflect though.




> As for the 3 million comment - that happened after the elections. It also has no bearing on the legitimacy of Trump. Nor does it have anything to do with him "diluting democracy". You still have not given a single, specific answer to how Trump "diluted democracy". It's beginning to sound more and more like you like how those two words sound together so you decided to use them. Be specific.


First I didn't claim it denied Trump's legitimacy as president. I was specific in him saying the 3million more votes that voted for his opponent were not legit undermined the belief in the transparency of the voting process which attacks the credibility of American democracy. You are the one that appears to be finding different attack points from right wing sites and attempt to stick them together in attacking my post that had nothing to do with them.




> He never threated to Jail Hillary. He made a jab back at her "you would be in jail". And he said that he will hire a special prosecutor to go over the email scandal - which is only a threat to send her to jail if you assume that she's guilty ffs - which a huge chunk of the electorate thought she was anyways so I don't see how that's in any way something Trump shouldn't have done.
> 
> 
> That's a perfectly valid statement to make and even a valid promise to make.
> 
> It's still not "diluting democracy" however. That's a campaign promise. Also, unlike other candidates after winning, he didn't continue to hold it like a carrot on a stick and immediately said that he will not prosecute Hillary. Sure it's going back on a promise. That however doesn't mean he diluted democracy. Making campaign promises is part and parcel of the electoral process and at this point in time only a food would go in to vote thinking that the person they're voting for will uphold every single promise they make. I don't even care if he doesn't hold up all his promises, and there are some that I hope that he doesn't keep. But that's the best you can hope for in a democracy and in no way does this "dilute democracy".


Inciting lock her up chants isn't threatening to jail her at rallies isn't a threat. The media made a jab at his inauguration crowd size becomes media misled and lied about crowd sizes. OK

Glad you said it. You don't care. Threatening to jail your political opponents hurt the process. You attempting to defend it is just pathetic. There is a difference between making promises and making empty promises. Either he really meant to jail his political opponent or he has a personal and public position that Hilary haters say made her not a good candidate. Which is it?





> Yeah, you're pointing it out to the wrong person because while I enjoy poking fun of liberals and leftists and point out the ridiculous flaws and hypocrisy of their arguments, I've made a personal choice to ignore the republicans when they do the same as I'm under no obligation to maintain and stand up to someone else's retarded understanding of bipartisanship and maintaining "equality" through expressing a centrist view.
> 
> That said, I was also the only one in this thread opposing Trump's immediate continuation of Obama's bombing strategy and wherever I've felt the need to do so I've asked questions others haven't asked.


Basically you are admitting you are hypocritical in pointing out hypocrisy. :ha 



> You and other leftists in this thread simply refuse to understand what Trump's administration has referred to as establishment ... You also have no understanding of the establishment at all. In America you have certain Congressmen who've been around forever and even after their terms they join special lobbying groups that exist to influence policy. These are usually wealthy people with corporate interests, but that does not mean that all corporations or wealthy people are lobbyists. THAT is the "Establishment" Trump wants to drain. Not all rich people or corporations because the majority of corporations and rich people do not lobby for special interests. Certain industries attempt that more than others.


So drain the swamp to Trump supporters just meant replacing the swamp with people that agrees with you and pass the hurt to others but not fixed the underlying issues?



> However, Just because someone is rich and wealthy does not make them part of an establishment or lobbyist. Not all rich CEO's and companies are out there lobbying for special privileges and not all rich people are part of that establishment. Trump's draining of the swamp is specifically targeted towards lobbyists and lobbying. That's it. It's clear as day to anyone that's actually read and understood his plan.


Explain the attempt to stealth hire lobbyists before changing the plan after being exposed for it. Try to explain Betsy Devos. Just as simple, just because a billionaire is claiming to be anti-establishment doesn't mean he wants to change the way things are done for the better of the middle class.



> Anyways, as always this is going to be my last response to you because I'm fully aware that you're just going to keep twisting and mischaracterising things that are explicitly said in my response to you because you're just going to skim read, refuse to google things you don't understand and pull a lengthy response out of your ass. I'm looking forward to more of your mangled understanding of what I've said in response to you.


No you won't. You just can't handle it when someone who disagrees with you isn't a dumb leftist and run for cover the moment someone is willing to call you out for your alternative facts that you try to hide behind walls of text hoping to let your errors be lost in the ensuing back-and-forth.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread (All Trump Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> :mj4 So much fail in the above. Waiting for your next attempt :mj
> 
> I'm thoroughly enjoying you trying to grapple with libertarian / pro-capitalist concepts without any background knowledge. I'm no expert either, but most of what you're saying are easily refutable arguments. I'm just not going to do it anymore because it's like banging my head against a brick wall.


I didn't clean my cookies and older quotes was posted. Sorry Mr. Elite establishment.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread (All Trump Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> http://www.dictionary.com/browse/undermine
> 
> 
> 
> You see to be the one misusing the English language, not me. I think the word you are looking for is silencing the press for your alternative facts.


Another second language problem. Referring to a dictionary and still not understanding the word :mj4



> Now you are resorting to going Sean Spicer on me by claiming the individual media organisations have deeper pockets to fight frivolous legal battles against a man that claims to be worth 10 billion dollars. Is there a law that says presidents can't sue anyone?


Yeah. Pretty much all media organizations have deeper pockets than Trump. And no, Public Figures cannot sue for libel until and unless "actual malice" is present. That wording intentionally makes it practically impossible for a president to win a lawsuit because proving "actual malice" is near impossible. Could you not have GOOGLED this before quoting me? 

CNN is worth 10 billion 
MSNBC is a subsidiary of Microsoft and do I even need to tell you how much Microsoft is worth? 
Fox is worth 12.4 billion

Take your L man. 

:mj4



> All these had nothing to do with the point at hand, and you have the gall to say my response wasn't legit to the point. The argument was Hillary's deplorable comment is comparable to Trump's continued insistence of illegal votes denying him the popular vote victory in diluting democracy. Not the mistakes of Hillary's strategy nor Trump's success in winning the elections. Nice attempt to try to deflect though.


They're not even remotely comparable at all. Hillary making the deplorable comment was about real people. Trump's statement about illegal votes is about fake people that don't exist since they're not part of the electorate. How can you not see the difference? 

How is this diluting democracy? You don't even understand what you're saying at this point. 



> First I didn't claim it denied Trump's legitimacy as president. I was specific in him saying the 3million more votes that voted for his opponent were not legit undermined the belief in the transparency of the voting process which attacks the credibility of American democracy. You are the one that appears to be finding different attack points from right wing sites and attempt to stick them together in attacking my post that had nothing to do with them.


No it didn't undermine anyone's belief in the transparency of the voting process. Even IF it did, how did that help Trump gain more votes? How did it "dilute democracy"? 



> Inciting lock her up chants isn't threatening to jail her at rallies isn't a threat. The media made a jab at his inauguration crowd size becomes media misled and lied about crowd sizes. OK


The crowd can say whatever they want. Where is Trump's direct threat? 

Yyes, because the media has been so reliable so far. That said, you've consistently believed everything the left media has said so I'm not surprised you're in here defending it despite the fact that the media has been caught lying repeatedly - especially CNN. The fact that the media has been caught lying repeatedly has made everyone's (except the leftist's) trust in them shaky and therefore it's perfectly within reason to now question every claim they make and make them prove it. If you're taking the media's word at face value at this point, you're not learning anything at all. 

Again, this has NOTHING to do with "dilution of democracy". Even IF Trump had threatened to lock hillary up, how is that diluting democracy? All you're doing is bringing up examples and trying to stick things that don't indicate what you're trying to make them indicate. This is outright insanity at this point. 



> Glad you said it. You don't care. Threatening to jail your political opponents hurt the process. You attempting to defend it is just pathetic. There is a difference between making promises and making empty promises. Either he really meant to jail his political opponent or he has a personal and public position that Hilary haters say made her not a good candidate. Which is it?


Again, he never threatened to jail his opponent. He threatened to prosecute his opponent. Even then, how does threatening to jail your opponents does not threaten the political process? If Hillary was completely innocent and there was absolutely no questioning that aspect of her, Trump's statement would have backfired on him. The fact that this was a murky area allowed Trump to make statements that a huge chunk of the population was ALREADY thinking. It did not influence anyone. Holy shit, this is really like banging my head against a wall because you are so wrapped up in believing that you're completely right that there's just no further examination of your own position at all. 



> Basically you are admitting you are hypocritical in pointing out hypocrisy. :ha


That's not hypocrisy. That's called being selective and picking my battles. Leftists are more fun to debate because then it's not an echo chamber. 

I've gotten into disagreements and debates with the more intellectually superior element in this thread as well and I've deferred to other Trump supporters and argued with them as well. Just got done with a long debate with L-Dopa over the military thing and we clearly do not agree on that issue at all. 



> So drain the swamp to Trump supporters just meant replacing the swamp with people that agrees with you and pass the hurt to others but not fixed the underlying issues?


What? That's just a weird assumption you've pulled out of your ass. Yes, I'm sure he's going to make questionable appointments. There are few I already disagree with. Also, he hasn't gotten to actually start draining the swamp. That said, it's again clear that you haven't understood Trump's plan on removal of lobbyists. Go and read it. 



> Explain the attempt to stealth hire lobbyists before changing the plan after being exposed for it. Try to explain Betsy Devos. Just as simple, just because a billionaire is claiming to be anti-establishment doesn't mean he wants to change the way things are done for the better of the middle class.


You're still not getting it at all. 



> No you won't. You just can't handle it when someone who disagrees with you isn't a dumb leftist and run for cover the moment someone is willing to call you out for your alternative facts that you try to hide behind walls of text hoping to let your errors be lost in the ensuing back-and-forth.


Well, I enjoy quoting you because I want to see just what kind of terrible logic and lack of knowledge you'll come back with. It's fun. And sometimes I have trouble sleeping sometimes so I need a bunny to torment. And since you and the aussies are up at this time, I like picking on you more sometimes. Basically, you're my late night entertainment. Though I might get bored of you eventually :draper2


----------



## Tater

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread (All Trump Discussion Here)*



Miss Sally said:


> Democrats are refusing to see their issues, they're completely unaware of how they look.


I disagree with this statement. Sure, their baaing voters may be too stupid to realize what's going on but I don't think that's the case with the party leaders. I'm talking about the Bookers, Brazilles, Pelosis and Schumers of the world. It's not that they don't realize that they've been destroyed so badly because they are corporate sellouts. It's not that they can't see the changes they should be making. It's that they know they don't have to change as long as they can retain control of the party. As long as they are still in charge, they know they will be the only other option when Republicans inevitably wreck everything. Everyone on the right is celebrating now but for those of us who pay attention to policy positions, we see that all the Republicans are really doing is doubling down on the policies that fucked things up so badly during the Bush years. The corporate Democrats know that too. That's why they don't see Republicans as their enemy. They don't have to defeat the GOP because the GOP will do that all on their own. No, the enemy of corporate Democrats is the left. As long as they can keep the left from taking over the Democratic party, they know that the USA will have no other option but to turn to them when Republicans tank the economy and ramp up the wars.

That is precisely the reason the duopoly is set up the way it is. No matter who you turn to, the Establishment maintains control of the USA.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> To be fair, I was only really giving my personal opinion on taxpayers money towards abortions....which we have in the UK, whilst abortion really isn't an issue here, I still think it's wrong to force people to pay for it through the taxpayer. In our case, it's billions.
> 
> And I agree with you on the 2nd part, government should just stay the fuck out of it and not choose sides. Not in such a sensitive topic like this.
> 
> As far as the legislation itself, I'd have to look into it but on the surface I'd be against them banning taxpayer's money from organizations who merely promote it and not actually do abortions because I do think in terms of sexual health and contraception/birth control, public options should be available.
> 
> I still think Planned Parenthood should be defunded though, I understand that there is debate on how much of their money they receive through tax goes to abortions but it should be 0%. If people want that organization funded then people can donate. There are other health clinics that promote women's health, birth control and contraception....
> 
> But again, I'd have to look into how deep the ban goes.


Here is Trump's: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pres...ntial-memorandum-regarding-mexico-city-policy

Here is Bush's: https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/20010123-5.html 

And finally Reagan's: 
"The United Nations Declaration of the Rights
of the Child [1959] calls for legal protection
for children before birth as well as after birth.
In keeping with this obligation, the United
States does not consider abortion an
acceptable element of family planning
programs and will no longer contribute to
those of which it is a part. Accordingly . . .
the United States will no longer contribute to
separate nongovernmental organizations
which perform or actively promote abortion
as a method of family planning in other
nations."
http://www.mdrtl.org/files/MexicoCityFS.pdf 

"Actively promote" is the key phrase and that has been interpreted to mean so much as mentioning the option in counselling. 

Call me crazy, but I can't help but feel that if you're going to give out aid funding to medical organisations around the world, you should base how you distribute that funding on the basis of which organisations will get you the most bang for your buck, not what political positions they have taken.

Something like abortion funded by the NHS is a very different argument though, hadn't really thought of that before, but can see where you are coming from. I think in Australia there is a certain amount of government funding through Medicare, but it's a small percentage of the actual cost so the people doing it are still having to pay the vast majority. I'd certainly support funding for abortion for instances of rape or medical emergency, but yeah, if its being used as birth control purely then I don't think taxpayers should be subsidising that.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread (All Trump Discussion Here)*






Banning Muslims? Democrats invented that.


*Edit:* Trump is executive ordering The Wall today! HOLY SHIT!

- Vic


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread (All Trump Discussion Here)*



Vic Capri said:


> Banning Muslims? Democrats invented that.
> 
> - Vic


And as we all know if Carter did it, it must be a brilliant idea :wink2:


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread (All Trump Discussion Here)*



Alkomesh2 said:


> And as we all know if Carter did it, it must be a brilliant idea


I don't think he was arguing that.

Also @Tater, Dems are not your kind anymore. You're reasonable damn it, abandon thy party's evil ways! --also, what you think about Trump actually doing well so far
@Vic Capri WHERE DID YOU HEAR THIS? I thought congress had to approve spending!! :surprise:


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread (All Trump Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> I don't think he was arguing that.


I know, I was just kidding, have added an emoticon to make that more obvious haha Soz that looked bad.



> @Vic Capri WHERE DID YOU HEAR THIS? I thought congress had to approve spending!! :surprise:


"Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump will take executive action Wednesday directing federal resources toward building a border wall, a White House official confirmed to CNN.

The move begins a multi-day roll out of immigration actions that's also expected to include moves related to refugees and visas. Trump will make the announcement during a visit to the Department of Homeland Security at 1:25 p.m. ET.
Trump himself hinted at Wednesday's move on Twitter, writing "Big day planned on NATIONAL SECURITY tomorrow. Among many other things, we will build the wall!"
Follow
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Big day planned on NATIONAL SECURITY tomorrow. Among many other things, we will build the wall!
1:37 PM - 25 Jan 2017
32,243 32,243 Retweets 103,015 103,015 likes
Trump plans to issue two executive orders Wednesday during his visit to the Department of Homeland Security, according to a person familiar with the President's plan.
The first will direct the agency to begin construction of the border wall, as well as take steps to repair existing areas of fencing along the frontier between the US and Mexico. The order will also include a mandate to increase staff at Customs and Border Protection by 5,000 and alleviate the flood of migrants fleeing violence in Central America.
According to the person familiar with the plans, Trump's executive order will require DHS to publicly detail what aid is currently directed to Mexico, an indication of an eventual move toward redirecting some of that money to fund the wall's construction — and giving cover for a longstanding campaign promise to have Mexico pay for the structure."
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/24/politics/donald-trump-immigration-refugees/

Interesting, btw the US gives $50 Mil in aid to Mexico (https://results.usaid.gov/mexico#fy2015), so if they cut the budget to 0 they'll have "made mexico pay for it" in 400 years time (assuming a 20 Billion price tag on the wall).


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread (All Trump Discussion Here)*



Alkomesh2 said:


> I know, I was just kidding, have added an emoticon to make that more obvious haha Soz that looked bad.
> 
> 
> 
> "Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump will take executive action Wednesday directing federal resources toward building a border wall, a White House official confirmed to CNN.
> 
> The move begins a multi-day roll out of immigration actions that's also expected to include moves related to refugees and visas. Trump will make the announcement during a visit to the Department of Homeland Security at 1:25 p.m. ET.
> Trump himself hinted at Wednesday's move on Twitter, writing "Big day planned on NATIONAL SECURITY tomorrow. Among many other things, we will build the wall!"
> Follow
> Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
> Big day planned on NATIONAL SECURITY tomorrow. Among many other things, we will build the wall!
> 1:37 PM - 25 Jan 2017
> 32,243 32,243 Retweets 103,015 103,015 likes
> Trump plans to issue two executive orders Wednesday during his visit to the Department of Homeland Security, according to a person familiar with the President's plan.
> The first will direct the agency to begin construction of the border wall, as well as take steps to repair existing areas of fencing along the frontier between the US and Mexico. The order will also include a mandate to increase staff at Customs and Border Protection by 5,000 and alleviate the flood of migrants fleeing violence in Central America.
> According to the person familiar with the plans, Trump's executive order will require DHS to publicly detail what aid is currently directed to Mexico, an indication of an eventual move toward redirecting some of that money to fund the wall's construction — and giving cover for a longstanding campaign promise to have Mexico pay for the structure."
> http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/24/politics/donald-trump-immigration-refugees/
> 
> Interesting, btw the US gives $50 Mil in aid to Mexico (https://results.usaid.gov/mexico#fy2015), so if they cut the budget to 0 they'll have "made mexico pay for it" in 400 years time (assuming a 20 Billion price tag on the wall).


Im willing to bet we tax them heavily to pay it off. We'll see.

Reminder that people here said it'd never get built. However i will remain hopeful and not backpedal. I want mexico to pay.

EDIT:
https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/Pay_for_the_Wall.pdf


----------



## Tater

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread (All Trump Discussion Here)*



Beatles123 said:


> Also @Tater, Dems are not your kind anymore. You're reasonable damn it, abandon thy party's evil ways!


I never said there were "my kind" and they have never been my party. They haven't been anywhere near my positions within my lifetime. FDR was the closest they ever got and even he was barely left of center. The entire point of FDR's New Deal was to save capitalism. I want to _abolish_ capitalism. All FDR really did was help the working class but he never intended to get rid of the owner class, which is why we are now right back to where we were in the 1920s.



Beatles123 said:


> also, what you think about Trump actually doing well so far


As far as I'm concerned, everything is proceeding exactly according to plan. I am immensely enjoying watching his supporters celebrate their own demise. You're all every bit the suckers that libs were 8 years ago when they believed in Obama's hope and change.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread (All Trump Discussion Here)*



Tater said:


> I never said there were "my kind" and they have never been my party. They haven't been anywhere near my positions within my lifetime. FDR was the closest they ever got and even he was barely left of center. The entire point of FDR's New Deal was to save capitalism. I want to _abolish_ capitalism. All FDR really did was help the working class but he never intended to get rid of the owner class, which is why we are now right back to where we were in the 1920s.
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, everything is proceeding exactly according to plan. I am immensely enjoying watching his supporters celebrate their own demise. You're all every bit the suckers that libs were 8 years ago when they believed in Obama's hope and change.


Why is this, though? No one's expecting Trump to be perfect. Just make an honest to god effort based on what he promised. So far, he's doing it. :shrug


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread (All Trump Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Another second language problem. Referring to a dictionary and still not understanding the word :mj4


Reading the definition and still clinging to your alternative fact. Are you projecting your issue with using English as a second language onto me yet again? :mj4





> Yeah. Pretty much all media organizations have deeper pockets than Trump. And no, Public Figures cannot sue for libel until and unless "actual malice" is present. That wording intentionally makes it practically impossible for a president to win a lawsuit because proving "actual malice" is near impossible. Could you not have GOOGLED this before quoting me?
> 
> CNN is worth 10 billion
> MSNBC is a subsidiary of Microsoft and do I even need to tell you how much Microsoft is worth?
> Fox is worth 12.4 billion
> 
> Take your L man.
> 
> :mj4


What is 'actual malice' according to alternative fact? Did the lack of actual malice prevented Trump from threatening to file lawsuits in the past? Using Microsoft to back up MSNBC's networth to claim they will have the deep pockets to fight a potential frivolous prolonged lawsuit from a petty billionaire. :lol Your grasping at straws. :mj4




> They're not even remotely comparable at all. Hillary making the deplorable comment was about real people. Trump's statement about illegal votes is about fake people that don't exist since they're not part of the electorate. How can you not see the difference?
> 
> How is this diluting democracy? You don't even understand what you're saying at this point.


Thank you for proving my point that they weren't comparable and you bringing it up to try to equate it to Trump's statements regarding voter fraud. So are you saying millions of people voted more than once like the Iowa woman?


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/802972944532209664


> No it didn't undermine anyone's belief in the transparency of the voting process. Even IF it did, how did that help Trump gain more votes? How did it "dilute democracy"?


Makes the winner of the presidency lack the mandate to lead and made people to lose confidence that their votes matter. I did not say he help Trump gain more votes. Nice pathetic attempt to smear me yet again. :lol Ironically he is suffering from that right now because crybaby leftist thinks popular vote > EC vote.




> The crowd can say whatever they want. Where is Trump's direct threat?
> 
> Yyes, because the media has been so reliable so far. That said, you've consistently believed everything the left media has said so I'm not surprised you're in here defending it despite the fact that the media has been caught lying repeatedly - especially CNN. The fact that the media has been caught lying repeatedly has made everyone's (except the leftist's) trust in them shaky and therefore it's perfectly within reason to now question every claim they make and make them prove it. If you're taking the media's word at face value at this point, you're not learning anything at all.
> 
> Again, this has NOTHING to do with "dilution of democracy". Even IF Trump had threatened to lock hillary up, how is that diluting democracy? All you're doing is bringing up examples and trying to stick things that don't indicate what you're trying to make them indicate. This is outright insanity at this point.


You said it yourself he campaigned on appointing a special prosecutor specifically to target his political foe. How more direct can you get? :lol

More reliable than Gateway Pundit who seem to have a correspondent at the White house now. The badly photoshopped BS that posters in here post unironically in here as true. :lol I'm surprised you don't call them out as much as you call out the left media. Have you even admitted the error of your alternative facts about the inauguration crowd size? :ha



> Again, he never threatened to jail his opponent. He threatened to prosecute his opponent. Even then, how does threatening to jail your opponents does not threaten the political process? If Hillary was completely innocent and there was absolutely no questioning that aspect of her, Trump's statement would have backfired on him. The fact that this was a murky area allowed Trump to make statements that a huge chunk of the population was ALREADY thinking. It did not influence anyone. Holy shit, this is really like banging my head against a wall because you are so wrapped up in believing that you're completely right that there's just no further examination of your own position at all.


Now you are nitpicking because you can't defend this BS. He campaigned on locking her up, how hard is that for you grasp? Using your line of logic, if Trump is completely innocent and there was absolutely no questioning that aspect of him, why wouldn't Trump release his tax returns? Because he has a legal out just like Hillary did.

A huge chunk of the population think a giant bearded man is the answer to all issues. Doesn't mean I should take advantage of it to get elec...wait nevermind everyone does it.





> That's not hypocrisy. That's called being selective and picking my battles. Leftists are more fun to debate because then it's not an echo chamber.
> 
> I've gotten into disagreements and debates with the more intellectually superior element in this thread as well and I've deferred to other Trump supporters and argued with them as well. Just got done with a long debate with L-Dopa over the military thing and we clearly do not agree on that issue at all.


No, it means you allowed your partisanship to affect your objectivity. :mj4




> What? That's just a weird assumption you've pulled out of your ass. Yes, I'm sure he's going to make questionable appointments. There are few I already disagree with. Also, he hasn't gotten to actually start draining the swamp. That said, it's again clear that you haven't understood Trump's plan on removal of lobbyists. Go and read it.
> 
> 
> 
> You're still not getting it at all.


He campaigned against Goldman Sachs controlling Hillary and put prominent ex-Goldman Sachs people on his cabinet. I don't know how weird is that assumption. He campaigned against special interests and put GOP establishment donor and pick Betsy Devos and Elaine Chao in his cabinet. What is his plans regarding lobbyists? Remove the middlemen and let the wealthy and powerful just control the government directly with appointments like Wilbur Ross and Betsy Devos?





> Well, I enjoy quoting you because I want to see just what kind of terrible logic and lack of knowledge you'll come back with. It's fun. And sometimes I have trouble sleeping sometimes so I need a bunny to torment. And since you and the aussies are up at this time, I like picking on you more sometimes. Basically, you're my late night entertainment. Though I might get bored of you eventually :draper2


I await the next alternative facts you try to present in here and gets reaffirm by the echo chamber and then ignored when pointed out how wrong they are. I should stop replying too in case it is seen as 'bait' because snowflakes need their safespaces in here. Oops I did it again. Please let me relapse this one time. :ha


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread (All Trump Discussion Here)*



FriedTofu said:


> Reading the definition and still clinging to your alternative fact. Are you projecting your issue with using English as a second language onto me yet again? :mj4
> 
> 
> 
> What is 'actual malice' according to alternative fact? Did the lack of actual malice prevented Trump from threatening to file lawsuits in the past? Using Microsoft to back up MSNBC's networth to claim they will have the deep pockets to fight a potential frivolous prolonged lawsuit from a petty billionaire. :lol Your grasping at straws. :mj4
> 
> 
> Thank you for proving my point that they weren't comparable and you bringing it up to try to equate it to Trump's statements regarding voter fraud. So are you saying millions of people voted more than once like the Iowa woman?
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/802972944532209664
> Makes the winner of the presidency lack the mandate to lead and made people to lose confidence that their votes matter. I did not say he help Trump gain more votes. Nice pathetic attempt to smear me yet again. :lol Ironically he is suffering from that right now because crybaby leftist thinks popular vote > EC vote.
> 
> 
> You said it yourself he campaigned on appointing a special prosecutor specifically to target his political foe. How more direct can you get? :lol
> 
> More reliable than Gateway Pundit who seem to have a correspondent at the White house now. The badly photoshopped BS that posters in here post unironically in here as true. :lol I'm surprised you don't call them out as much as you call out the left media. Have you even admitted the error of your alternative facts about the inauguration crowd size? :ha
> 
> Now you are nitpicking because you can't defend this BS. He campaigned on locking her up, how hard is that for you grasp? Using your line of logic, if Trump is completely innocent and there was absolutely no questioning that aspect of him, why wouldn't Trump release his tax returns? Because he has a legal out just like Hillary did.
> 
> A huge chunk of the population think a giant bearded man is the answer to all issues. Doesn't mean I should take advantage of it to get elec...wait nevermind everyone does it.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it means you allowed your partisanship to affect your objectivity. :mj4
> 
> 
> He campaigned against Goldman Sachs controlling Hillary and put prominent ex-Goldman Sachs people on his cabinet. I don't know how weird is that assumption. He campaigned against special interests and put GOP establishment donor and pick Betsy Devos and Elaine Chao in his cabinet. What is his plans regarding lobbyists? Remove the middlemen and let the wealthy and powerful just control the government directly with appointments like Wilbur Ross and Betsy Devos?
> 
> 
> 
> I await the next alternative facts you try to present in here and gets reaffirm by the echo chamber and then ignored when pointed out how wrong they are. I should stop replying too in case it is seen as 'bait' because snowflakes need their safespaces in here. Oops I did it again. Please let me relapse this one time. :ha


Having a different opinion is being snowflake-y? Dude, you and other Leftists aren't being driven out of here. You're CHOOSING to feel threatened. :sleep


----------



## Reaper

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread (All Trump Discussion Here)*



> What is 'actual malice' according to alternative fact? Did the lack of actual malice prevented Trump from threatening to file lawsuits in the past? Using Microsoft to back up MSNBC's networth to claim they will have the deep pockets to fight a potential frivolous prolonged lawsuit from a petty billionaire. :lol Your grasping at straws. :mj4


"Actual malice" is legal terminology ... not an "alternate fact". 

Dude, now it's more than obvious that you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. The rest of your points are simply too illogical as always because you can't even seem to draw connections between things and know whether they're related to or not. You made several claims, none of which you proved and simply danced out pumping talking point after talking point seriously believing that whatever you're asserting is somehow evidence of what you're asserting and simply putting a few sentences together is proving what you're saying. You don't even have the sense to understand how causalities even work and what is evidence of what ... This isn't even a matter of disagreement. This is a matter of looking through a post and wondering just what the fuck is this guy trying to prove .. and ultimately realizing that the guy doesn't even know how to prove his own claims .. probably doesn't even know the difference between a claim, an assertion and evidence. 

I mean, c'mon, you embarrassed yourself just a few posts earlier to the point where you deleted that post and left a smiley in its place. Don't even have the guts to face up to scrutiny of your bullshit because you realized it was really, really bad. 

I'm not gonna waste any more of time on you beyond this. It's pretty clear that you have no clue what you're talking about and are in here for reasons other than actual discussion. 

If you can't even do a simple search "can a president sue for libel?", then why the hell are you even involved in a discussion with me if not to simply bait. I even hinted in my post to google and yet you came back without doing so. Your teachers must've been really proud of you man. 

It takes less than a few seconds. I mean, if you didn't know about this, I can't even begin to imagine just how many other things you've been pulling out of your ass in this thread or just quoting from various sources without even understanding what you're quoting. 

http://supreme.findlaw.com/legal-commentary/if-the-president-is-libeled-can-he-sue-should-he.html



> *The Elements of a Libel Claim Brought By a Public Figure*
> Libel is defined as a false statement of fact, made with the legally-required state of mind, which causes damage to reputation.
> Because the President is a public figure, the legally required state of mind - as established by the famous 1964 case of _New York Times Co. v. Sullivan_ - is "actual malice."
> The Court's unfortunate choice of words, when it coined this phrase, can be misleading: The publication need not actually be "malicious," in the sense in which that word is commonly used; no nastiness or meanness need occur. (Also, the idea of "malice aforethought" in criminal law is very different from this kind of "malice.")
> In the subsequent case of _St. Amant v. Thompson_ - decided in 1968 -- the Supreme Court further explained that the requirement of "actual malice" means that there must be recklessness, but "reckless conduct is not measured by whether a reasonably prudent man would have published, or would have investigated before publishing."
> Rather, the Court clarified, for recklessness to be shown, "There must be sufficient evidence to permit the conclusion that the defendant in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication. Publishing with such doubts shows reckless disregard for truth or falsity and demonstrates actual malice." (Emphasis added.)
> In short, "actual malice" is not a matter of what a defendant should have known if he had done better research, could have known if he had asked different questions, or would have known if he had pressed the source further.
> Indeed, shoulda-woulda-coulda doesn't come into it; the only question, according to the Court, is: Did the defendant "in fact" seriously doubt the truth of what he published?
> 
> Put another way, it is a matter of whether this particular defendant knew, in his own mind and heart, that he was very likely publishing false material when he published it.


I think after this, you really need to stop embarrassing yourself further. Your credibility is done. Can't even do a simple google search to learn a little bit about the legal system of the states. Can't imagine what else you don't know.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread (All Trump Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> "Actual malice" is legal terminology ... not an "alternate fact".
> 
> Dude, now it's more than obvious that you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. The rest of your points are simply too illogical as always because you can't even seem to draw connections between things and know whether they're related to or not. You made several claims, none of which you proved and simply danced out pumping talking point after talking point seriously believing that whatever you're asserting is somehow evidence of what you're asserting and simply putting a few sentences together is proving what you're saying. You don't even have the sense to understand how causalities even work and what is evidence of what ... This isn't even a matter of disagreement. This is a matter of looking through a post and wondering just what the fuck is this guy trying to prove .. and ultimately realizing that the guy doesn't even know how to prove his own claims .. probably doesn't even know the difference between a claim, an assertion and evidence.
> 
> I mean, c'mon, you embarrassed yourself just a few posts earlier to the point where you deleted that post and left a smiley in its place. Don't even have the guts to face up to scrutiny of your bullshit because you realized it was really, really bad.
> 
> I'm not gonna waste any more of time on you beyond this. It's pretty clear that you have no clue what you're talking about and are in here for reasons other than actual discussion.
> 
> If you can't even do a simple search "can a president sue for libel?", then why the hell are you even involved in a discussion with me if not to simply bait. I even hinted in my post to google and yet you came back without doing so. Your teachers must've been really proud of you man.
> 
> It takes less than a few seconds. I mean, if you didn't know about this, I can't even begin to imagine just how many other things you've been pulling out of your ass in this thread or just quoting from various sources without even understanding what you're quoting.
> 
> http://supreme.findlaw.com/legal-commentary/if-the-president-is-libeled-can-he-sue-should-he.html
> 
> I think after this, you really need to stop embarrassing yourself further. Your credibility is done. Can't even do a simple google search to learn a little bit about the legal system of the states. Can't imagine what else you don't know.


You do realise Trump promised to get rid of the actual malice requirement during his campaign right?

"One of the things I'm going to do if I win, and I hope we do and we're certainly leading. I'm going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We're going to open up those libel laws. So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they're totally protected," Trump said.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/02/donald-trump-libel-laws-219866


----------



## Reaper

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread (All Trump Discussion Here)*



Alkomesh2 said:


> You do realise Trump promised to get rid of the actual malice requirement during his campaign right?
> 
> "One of the things I'm going to do if I win, and I hope we do and we're certainly leading. I'm going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We're going to open up those libel laws. So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they're totally protected," Trump said.
> 
> http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/02/donald-trump-libel-laws-219866


Did you read the description of actual malice? It actually covers exactly what Trump said about them writing *purposely *negative and horrible and false articles. That is *actually already something he can sue for*. At most you can say that he as always was speaking out of his ass without knowledge of the libel laws as they relate to him himself but that's about it. 

However, 

The reason why I'm talking about actual malice is in the context of Trump being able to sue someone successfully ... Or the media actually FEARING that such a lawsuit would succeed against them therefore undermining their ability to report freely. The media is not stupid like the masses and they know exactly what their rights are and Trump threatening any kind of lawsuit wouldn't make them bat an eye-lash. The courts would dismiss the case and anyone with even a little bit of knowledge of the american freedom of speech laws knows this. The fact that both of you who aren't even american and don't even understand how protected speech is in America creating such a huge issue about this simple and meaningless threat is laughable at this point. 

The whole context of this conversation is either lost upon both of you or you haven't been paying attention to the whole conversation. 

Trump threatening to sue anyone would not put any kind of fear in their minds and definitely would not undermine their ability to report. 

If it had, then HuffPo would not publish that dossier it published so fearlessly. This idea that Trump somehow undermined the press through his threat of legal action is a completely buffoonish idea.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread (All Trump Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> At most you can say that he as always was speaking out of his ass without knowledge of the libel laws as they relate to him himself but that's about it.


Considering he's sued people for libel in the past you should consider that incredibly disturbing if true.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread (All Trump Discussion Here)*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Considering he's sued people for libel in the past you should consider that incredibly disturbing if true.


And considering he's never won one definitely creates a climate where it "undermines the media", right?

Stay within the context of the discussion man. These deflections are simply making my assertion stronger that nothing around threatening to sue would ever put the fear of the Donald in the media's hearts and it didn't. They've published whatever they've wanted extremely freely throughout the campaign.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread (All Trump Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> And considering he's never won one definitely creates a climate where it "undermines the media", right?


Until he changes the law, he's kept his promises so far, don't see why he won't keep that one, even if he is a bit hazy on the exact details.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread (All Trump Discussion Here)*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Until he changes the law, he's kept his promises so far, don't see why he won't keep that one, even if he is a bit hazy on the exact details.


Keep reaching. Pretty sure even you know at this point you've got nothing. And of course, betraying the fact that it would take a SUPREME COURT decision in this case to change the law. The Donald is powerful, but not powerful enough to change the first amendment or influence the SUPREME COURT. And if he appoints a conservative judge to the supreme court, he can kiss abusing the 1st amendment of the USA goodbye no matter how much he would want to. A supreme court decision is what would be required for The Donald to successfully WIN a libel decision against the free press and until and unless he puts in puppet judges like they do in third world countries, it ain't happening. 

It's like you have all these puzzles in front of you, but simply cannot piece them together. But you'd be able to if you knew how the system here actually worked :kobelol


----------



## Alco

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread (All Trump Discussion Here)*

It's interesting that people are accepting, cheering on even, a clear shift towards authoritarianism with the new president. For people with more knowledge of the system than I have, can these executive orders be challenged or blocked by parliament or other institutions?


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread (All Trump Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Keep reaching. Pretty sure even you know at this point you've got nothing. And of course, betraying the fact that it would take a SUPREME COURT decision in this case to change the law. The Donald is powerful, but not powerful enough to change the first amendment or influence the SUPREME COURT. And if he appoints a conservative judge to the supreme court, he can kiss abusing the 1st amendment of the USA goodbye no matter how much he would want to. A supreme court decision is what would be required for The Donald to successfully WIN a libel decision against the free press and until and unless he puts in puppet judges like they do in third world countries, it ain't happening.
> 
> It's like you have all these puzzles in front of you, but simply cannot piece them together. But you'd be able to if you knew how the system here actually worked :kobelol


There is an old Native saying, "You cannot wake someone who is pretending to sleep." I think this applies here. 

There is no point in debating people who have no interest in it and who are pretending to want an actual discussion.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread (All Trump Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Keep reaching. Pretty sure even you know at this point you've got nothing. And of course, betraying the fact that it would take a SUPREME COURT decision in this case to change the law. The Donald is powerful, but not powerful enough to change the first amendment or influence the SUPREME COURT. And if he appoints a conservative judge to the supreme court, he can kiss his 1st constitutional amendment goodbye because a supreme court decision is what would be required for The Donald to successfully WIN a libel decision against the free press.
> 
> It's like you have all these puzzles in front of you, but simply cannot piece them together. But you'd be able to if you knew how the system here actually worked :kobelol


I evidently understand it better than your President hahaha

This was a mistake I made because I didn't automatically assume Trump was wrong on something because he's an idiot who "talks out his ass".

Lesson learned! I will always be making that assumption in the future.



Alco said:


> It's interesting that people are accepting, cheering on even, a clear shift towards authoritarianism with the new president. For people with more knowledge of the system than I have, can these executive orders be challenged or blocked by parliament or other institutions?


They can be challenged in the Supreme Court on the basis of ultra vires.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread (All Trump Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> "Actual malice" is legal terminology ... not an "alternate fact".
> 
> Dude, now it's more than obvious that you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. The rest of your points are simply too illogical as always because you can't even seem to draw connections between things and know whether they're related to or not. You made several claims, none of which you proved and simply danced out pumping talking point after talking point seriously believing that whatever you're asserting is somehow evidence of what you're asserting and simply putting a few sentences together is proving what you're saying. You don't even have the sense to understand how causalities even work and what is evidence of what ... This isn't even a matter of disagreement. This is a matter of looking through a post and wondering just what the fuck is this guy trying to prove .. and ultimately realizing that the guy doesn't even know how to prove his own claims .. probably doesn't even know the difference between a claim, an assertion and evidence.
> 
> I mean, c'mon, you embarrassed yourself just a few posts earlier to the point where you deleted that post and left a smiley in its place. Don't even have the guts to face up to scrutiny of your bullshit because you realized it was really, really bad.
> 
> I'm not gonna waste any more of time on you beyond this. It's pretty clear that you have no clue what you're talking about and are in here for reasons other than actual discussion.
> 
> If you can't even do a simple search "can a president sue for libel?", then why the hell are you even involved in a discussion with me if not to simply bait. I even hinted in my post to google and yet you came back without doing so. Your teachers must've been really proud of you man.
> 
> It takes less than a few seconds. I mean, if you didn't know about this, I can't even begin to imagine just how many other things you've been pulling out of your ass in this thread or just quoting from various sources without even understanding what you're quoting.
> 
> http://supreme.findlaw.com/legal-commentary/if-the-president-is-libeled-can-he-sue-should-he.html
> 
> I think after this, you really need to stop embarrassing yourself further. Your credibility is done. Can't even do a simple google search to learn a little bit about the legal system of the states. Can't imagine what else you don't know.


I was implying that Trump administration will change what constitute the legal definition of the term in your alternative fact reality. Not that it doesn't exist. 

Dude I deleted the earlier post with a smilie because it posted a previous quote. Maybe it was really bad one that I didn't bother to post or maybe it was the quote from an earlier discussion we had in this thread. But I posted the reply to the current discussion right after that post didn't I? I posted the reason for what happened and here you are trying to score points with alternative facts.

A word salad to attack me when you have nothing to contribute is exactly what I accused you of and thank you for complying. Pointing out your flawed points in a post is considered bait? Just on this one point in our discussion:

I said Trump was underming democracy by dividing the populace by claiming he lost the popular vote because millions of votes for his opponent were illegal votes. 

You tried to falsely equate that to Hillary's deplorable comments (because sheeps got to be sheeps with your talking point) and then sait it was after the elections so it did not undermine your democracy. You seem fixated by whether his rhetoric have an impact on the results of one election instead of the process which has potential to impact future elections.

When I pointed out the false equivalency, you doubled down on it and you tried to push the discussion into me undermining his legitimacy when I didn't because that is your comfort zone of right wing talking points. You asked how he undermined democracy with his antics. I replied. And you went back to your word salad again.

Let me ask this simple question about Trump illegal voters rhetoric. If you believe your defence of him stating he was pointing out there were 3 millions votes by people that don't exists, wouldn't that mean your voting process is flawed and undermines the credibility of your democracy? If you believe he was referring to 3 million more votes by non-citizens wouldn't that also undermine your democracy? Or if you, like me believe he is trying to divide the voters into 'real voters' for him and 'fake' voters for his opponents, it would still be attacking your democracy.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread (All Trump Discussion Here)*



Alco said:


> It's interesting that people are accepting, cheering on even, a clear shift towards authoritarianism with the new president. For people with more knowledge of the system than I have, can these executive orders be challenged or blocked by parliament or other institutions?


Authoritarianism isn't all bad. Think of it like really running the government like a business/corporation where the boss has the final say.

I lived under one for my whole life and things can be shitty in some places but normal in others. The issue is whether the leader has the mutual trust of a capable team or has a team of sycophants behind him/her. So far Trump and his team don't inspire confidence at all.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread (All Trump Discussion Here)*



Alco said:


> It's interesting that people are accepting, cheering on even, a clear shift towards authoritarianism with the new president. For people with more knowledge of the system than I have, can these executive orders be challenged or blocked by parliament or other institutions?


I don't like or cheer the shift but there are a couple of things to consider:

1) Since at least the Bush years, power has been shifting from the legislative (Congress) to the Executive (President). Obama also shifted a lot of power to the presidency as well as Bush, Congress is in many ways powerless and barring Rand Paul no one has really stepped up to challenge it. Obama for example has used the 9/11 and Iraq pretexts and extended it to Libya and Syria so that Congress which is supposed to be the chamber to declare war can't do so. This is very much a sign on the shift of power to the executive. When the executive can legislate exclusively, then you are in trouble.

2) Trump is not the only president to write a lot of executive orders. In fact, back in the early 20th century it was common. Coolidge wrote 1203 exec. orders, Hoover wrote 968, Truman wrote 907. Reagan and Clinton actually wrote more then George W. Bush and Obama. So this isn't a new thing in the slightest.

I'm not worried about the executive orders rather I am worried about the long term of effects of Congress, particularly in regards to the declaration of war which is the most important vote any politician can have. With Trump taking steps to at least attempt to reduce the size of the state somewhat, one must wonder would he give back the authority to declare war to Congress? I don't think that is likely.

In other news:



> *Trump's migrant crackdown: The President will start building Mexico border wall TODAY -and is set to BAN people from Syria and six other 'dangerous' Muslim countries from entering America by signing executive orders*
> 
> President Donald Trump will start rolling out executive actions on immigration Wednesday - beginning with an order to start building his wall along the border with Mexico.
> The president is also expected to take action over the next few days to temporarily ban immigration from Muslim countries deemed a 'threat to national security' - namely Syria, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Sudan, and Somalia.
> In addition, Trump is set to sign other domestic immigration enforcement measures that will include targeting sanctuary cities that decline to prosecute undocumented aliens.
> Another key policy shift being discussed is whether to scrap rules protecting hundreds of thousands of children of illegal immigrants from deportation. In total over the next few days, Trump is expected to:
> 
> * Direct federal funds toward the construction of a wall along the southern border
> * Target so-called 'sanctuary' cities that decline to prosecute undocumented aliens
> 
> Measures still being finalized and subject to change include:
> * A four-month freeze on admission of all refugees
> * Grant exceptions to Christians and other minorities fleeing Muslim persecution
> * Halt visas to people from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen because the Muslim-majority countries are 'terror prone'
> * The visa bans would last at least 30 days while vetting processes are reviewed
> * Stop protecting illegal immigrants who arrived in the US as children from deportation
> The Donald will get started with an executive order authorizing the wall on Wednesday, while the immigration bans are still being finalized and could come later in the week.
> 
> The president posted a tweet on Tuesday evening signaling that major announcements were in the offing.
> 'Big day planned on NATIONAL SECURITY tomorrow,' Trump tweeted. 'Among many other things, we will build the wall!'
> 
> The new Trump directives are expected to stop most refugees including those from Syria coming to America while vetting processes are reviewed. This could last for four months, or an indefinite amount of time.
> 
> The one exception is religious minorities fleeing persecution - which would apply to Christians fleeing Syria and other Muslim majority countries, according to several congressional aides and immigration experts briefed on the matter.
> The proposed plans also temporary visa ban on all people entering from some Muslim majority countries that pose a perceived terror risk - Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Somalia and Sudan. This would last at least 30 days.
> 
> In addition the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA) - which has shielded illegal immigrant children from deportation by granting them work permits - could be axed after Trump vowed to do so during his campaign, according to the Washington Post.
> 
> The Republican president was expected to sign the orders starting the wall and targeting sanctuary cities today at the Washington headquarters of the Department of Homeland Security, whose responsibilities include immigration and border security.
> On the campaign trail, Trump initially proposed a temporary ban on Muslims entering the United States to protect Americans from jihadist attacks.
> Both Trump and his nominee for attorney general, U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions, have since said they would focus the restrictions on countries whose migrants could pose a threat, rather than placing a ban on people who follow a specific religion.
> 
> Many Trump supporters decried Democratic President Barack Obama's decision to increase the number of Syrian refugees admitted to the United States over fears that those fleeing the country's civil war would carry out attacks.
> Detractors could launch legal challenges to the moves if all the countries subject to the ban are Muslim-majority nations, said immigration expert Hiroshi Motomura at UCLA School of Law. Legal arguments could claim the executive orders discriminate against a particular religion, which would be unconstitutional, he said.
> 
> "His comments during the campaign and a number of people on his team focused very much on religion as the target," Motomura said.
> Stephen Legomsky, who was chief counsel at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in the Obama administration, said the president had the authority to limit refugee admissions and the issuance of visas to specific countries if the administration determined it was in the public’s interest.
> 
> 'From a legal standpoint, it would be exactly within his legal rights,' said Legomsky, a professor at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis. 'But from a policy standpoint, it would be terrible idea because there is such an urgent humanitarian need right now for refugees.'
> 
> To block entry from the designated countries, Trump is likely to instruct the US State Department to stop issuing visas to people from those nations, according to sources familiar with the visa process.
> 
> He could also instruct US Customs and Border Protection to stop any current visa holders from those countries from entering the United States.
> 
> White House spokesman Sean Spicer said on Tuesday that the State and Homeland Security departments would work on the vetting process once Trump's nominee to head the State Department, Rex Tillerson, is installed.
> Other measures may include directing all agencies to finish work on a biometric identification system for non-citizens entering and exiting the United States and a crackdown on immigrants fraudulently receiving government benefits, according to the congressional aides and immigration experts.
> 
> As president, Trump can use an executive order to halt refugee processing. President George W. Bush used that same power in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks.
> Refugee security vetting was reviewed and the process was restarted several months later.
> Trump's insistence that Mexico would pay for the wall was among his most popular proposals on the campaign trail, sparking enthusiastic cheers at his raucous rallies.
> 
> Mexico has repeatedly said it will not pay for any border wall.
> 
> Earlier this month, Trump said the building project would initially be paid for with a congressionally approved spending bill and Mexico will eventually reimburse the US, though he has not specified how he would guarantee payments.
> Trump will meet with Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto at the White House next week.
> 
> In claiming authority to build a wall, Trump may rely on a 2006 law that authorized several hundred miles of fencing along the 2,000-mile frontier.
> 
> That bill led to the construction of about 700 miles of various kinds of fencing designed to block both vehicles and pedestrians.
> The Secure Fence Act was signed by then-President George W. Bush and the majority of the fencing in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California was built before he left office.
> 
> The last remnants were completed after President Barack Obama took office in 2009.
> The Trump administration also must adhere to a decades-old border treaty with Mexico that limits where and how structures can be built along the border.
> 
> The 1970 treaty requires that structures cannot disrupt the flow of the rivers, which define the US-Mexican border along Texas and 24 miles in Arizona, according to The International Boundary and Water Commission, a joint US-Mexican agency that administers the treaty.
> 
> Other executive actions expected Wednesday include bolstering border patrol agents and ending what Republicans have argued is a catch-and-release system at the border.
> Currently, some immigrants caught crossing the border illegally are given notices to report back to immigration officials at a later date.
> 
> If Trump's actions would result in those caught being immediately jailed, the administration would have to grapple with how to pay for jail space to detain everyone and what to do with children caught crossing the border with their parents.


The mad man is actually going to build the wall :lmao. I didn't think he would to be honest. Well at least we can say thus far he is keeping his promises....

I have mixed feelings on the immigration policy.


----------



## njcam

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread (All Trump Discussion Here)*

*Trump Adviser Kellyanne Conway Allegedly Punched A Man In The Face At President Trump's Inaugural Ball
*
Source: Chris Sommerfeldt, nydailynews.com

Top Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway allegedly punched a tuxedo-clad man at an exclusive inauguration ball just hours after the new commander-in-chief was sworn in, according to a witness.

Conway, who serves as President Trump's senior counselor, apparently stepped between two men after they got into a scuffle at the invite-only Liberty Ball on Friday evening, an attendee told the Daily News.

But the two men wouldn't break up the fight and Conway apparently punched one of them in the face with closed fists at least three times, according to the stunned onlooker.

It was not immediately clear what triggered the fistfight and a Trump spokeswoman did not immediately return a request for comment.

Fox Business correspondent Charlie Gasparino gave an account of the brawl in a Monday Facebook post.

"Inside the ball we see a fight between two guys in tuxes and then suddenly out of nowhere came Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway who began throwing some mean punches at one of the guys," Gasparino wrote. "Whole thing lasted a few mins no one was hurt except maybe the dude she smacked."

Gasparino emphasized in the post that he did not "exaggerate" any part of his account, adding, "Now I know why trump hired her."


----------



## njcam

*Kellyanne Conway's Awkward 1998 Stand-Up Routine*

Top Trump adviser bumbles through bits about punditry in unearthed clip from charity event






Long before she was one of Donald Trump's top spin masters, Kellyanne Conway was a burgeoning pollster and pundit – and, as a recently unearthed video shows, a one-time fumbling stand-up comedian. In a video first posted by a user to C-SPAN, Conway (then Kellyanne Fitzpatrick) delivers a cringeworthy 11-minute set packed with a special brand of dad humour for deeply embedded Washington insiders.

The clip is dated November 26th, 1998 and Conway's set is part of an event called, "D.C.'s Funniest Celebrity Charity Event." Conway, apparently in a cast, opens with a few "break a leg" jokes, including a "Top Five" list for how her injury occurred: "Number four: Having just two of his own, Chris Matthews needed someone else's foot to stick in his mouth."

Later, Conway goes on an extended bit about being a "pundette," a term coined at the time to describe young female pundits like herself, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham and Maureen Dowd, per the A.V. Club. In what's possibly her most Nineties joke in a set filled with them , Conway quips: "What's the one difference between a pundette and Ally McBeal? Ally McBeal's on a major network." 

At the end of her set, Conway grabs a feather boa and makes a handful of passing remarks about the investigation into Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky before launching into her grand finale: An original a cappella lounge song with the clunky hook, "I've got the pundit blues."


*I'M FALLING IN LOVE WITH KELLYANNE CONWAY MORE AND MORE EACH DAY.*


----------



## Oxidamus

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread (All Trump Discussion Here)*



Alco said:


> It's interesting that people are accepting, cheering on even, a clear shift towards authoritarianism with the new president. For people with more knowledge of the system than I have, can these executive orders be challenged or blocked by parliament or other institutions?


To make America great again, some peoples' "free speech" has to be ignored, because some peoples' "free speech" is WRONG. :trump3


----------



## Real Deal




----------



## krtgolfing

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread (All Trump Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> I'm not sure if most republicans actually give a hoot about the poor either. This is a party that's famous for having supporters (and this is from personal experience) that will look at a homeless man and his dog and claim to have more sympathy for the dog than the man. I've seen this happen with my own eyes at Republican rallies, so it's not like with Trump that's going to change at all.
> 
> However, what I approve of with Trump is that at least _personally _he has a better plan than Hillary who was already judged and left wanting by a mile while serving under Obama. In fact, I think that a lot of Obama's failures can be attributed to Hillary, especially with regards to his failure to address local inner city poverty and crime - because he was too wrapped up in Hillary's wars post Libya to achieve anything locally in his last 3-5 years.


Because dogs are fucking awesome.. People not so much.


----------



## virus21

> By Eric Beech
> 
> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump vowed on Tuesday to bring federal intervention to bear in Chicago to quell the "carnage" of gun violence plaguing America's third-largest city unless local officials can curb the murder rate on their own.
> 
> Trump appeared to be seizing on a story published by the Chicago Tribune on Monday reporting at least 228 people shot in the city so far this year, up 5.5 percent from the same period last January, with at least 42 homicides to date, an increase of 23.5 percent.
> 
> 
> A Chicago Police Department spokesman, Frank Giancamilli, disputed the Tribune's numbers, saying there were 182 shootings in the city from Jan. 1 to Jan. 23, "which is exactly flat from last year." He said homicides have numbered 38 year to date, compared with 33 for this time in 2016.
> 
> Still, the Tribune said its latest figures put the city on track to exceed last January's 50 homicides, the most for that month in at least 16 years. Chicago's homicide toll for 2016 as a whole reached 762 killings, the most in 20 years.
> 
> "If Chicago doesn't fix the horrible 'carnage' going on, 228 shootings in 2017 with 42 killings (up 24% from 2016), I will send in the Feds!" the president said in a Twitter post.
> 
> It was not clear what Trump meant by "the Feds," or what kind of unilateral government intervention he could order to address the issue.
> 
> Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson responded by saying he was "more than willing to work" in partnership with U.S. law enforcement and to help "boost federal prosecution rates for gun crimes in Chicago."
> 
> Civil rights leader Rev. Jesse Jackson said in a Twitter post: "We need a plan, not a threat. We need jobs, not jails."
> 
> Urban violence, drug trafficking and poverty were recurring themes in Trump's campaign appearances, and he periodically has cited Chicago as an example of rising inner city crime, which ticked up nationally in 2016 after a two-decade decline.
> 
> Speaking in his inauguration address about drugs and crime that "have stolen too many lives," Trump declared: "This American carnage stops right here and stops right now."
> 
> Chicago, with a population of 2.7 million, posted more shootings and homicides last year than any other U.S. city, according to FBI and Chicago police data, and its murder clearance rate, a measure of solved and closed cases, is one of the country's lowest.
> 
> 
> On Jan. 2, Trump tweeted about Chicago's effort to lower its murder rate, saying: "If Mayor can't do it he must ask for Federal help!"
> 
> A spokesman for Mayor Rahm Emanuel, former chief of staff to Trump's Democratic predecessor, Barack Obama, said then that the mayor welcomed the prospect of working with Trump and that the two men had previously spoken together on the issue.


https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-says-send-feds-chicago-doesnt-end-carnage-024703848.html


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread (All Trump Discussion Here)*



Alco said:


> It's interesting that people are accepting, cheering on even, a clear shift towards authoritarianism with the new president. For people with more knowledge of the system than I have, can these executive orders be challenged or blocked by parliament or other institutions?


Obama and Bush did a lot of orders, they both pushed a lot. Every President has. The reason people voted for Trump was to get a Boss, not a Politician. 

You think TPP would have ended without Trump stepping in? The wall? He's facing flak from democrats and rinos. 

I doubt he'll go overboard, it's been like a week. We should wait before panic sets in.


----------



## Goku

what's going overboard though? He won on the platform of promising to do these things. I don't see why you wouldn't expect him to at least try.


----------



## KingCosmos

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/824080766288228352
Interesting


----------



## Banez

:lmao


----------



## QWERTYOP

America is looking more and more like Turkey by the day. Looking like your only hope is the intelligence services arranging a tragic accident.


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread (All Trump Discussion Here)*



Oxi X.O. said:


> To make America great again, some peoples' "free speech" has to be ignored, because some peoples' "free speech" is WRONG. :trump3


Yes, that's right . . . Both sides can't be right and both sides can't be wrong . . . So, someone has to "win" and someone has to "lose", Snowflake !


----------



## Reaper

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread (All Trump Discussion Here)*



Alco said:


> It's interesting that people are accepting, cheering on even, a clear shift towards authoritarianism with the new president. For people with more knowledge of the system than I have, can these executive orders be challenged or blocked by parliament or other institutions?


There's been no shift towards authoritarianism at all. It's just another one of the media's hysterical conclusions based on ignoring certain key points about administrations that have come before Trump. 

There's just been a shift from left authoritarianism to right authoritarianism and that's it. 

Obama and Bush are actually 15th and 16th on the list of presidents with most to least EO's with the wartime presidents dwarfing their numbers. When you look at EO's/year, Bush is at 22 and Obama at 25 overall which put them right in the middle of the pack and below even guys like Kennedy, Clinton, Carter and Bush senior. That said, EO's are not the way you wanna determine whether the States has become more authoritarian at all. Roosevelt has over 3600 EO's, but the US back then was not exactly a fascist state (though one could argue that it was more fascist depending whose perspective you look at it). 

Depending on who you ask, you'll get people who'll claim that Abe Lincoln was the single most fascist, tyrannical presidents the States has ever had. 

As for EO's, as long as they're not a new law they can be enacted .. It's sort of a prioritization of which law is now going to be the lay of the land as opposed creation of any new laws.


----------



## Tater

Beatles123 said:


> Why is this, though? No one's expecting Trump to be perfect. Just make an honest to god effort based on what he promised. So far, he's doing it. :shrug


Is he really, though? Be honest. You can't just pick out a handful of things that he's doing that he claimed he was going to do and then conveniently ignore all the promises he is going back on. Are we supposed to just forget about LOCK HER UP? Hillary Clinton is a criminal and he promised to prosecute her but he abandoned that the moment he got elected. He's doing the same shit that Obama did. Obama also ignored the crimes of the previous administration. There's also the fact that he was 100% full of shit with his drain the swamp rhetoric. His number one talking point was taking on the establishment but now he has surrounded himself with the very same establishment people he campaigned against. He railed against Goldman Sachs specifically during his campaign, then turned around and filled his cabinet with them. He said he wouldn't cut social security and medicare, then picked numerous people who plan on doing exactly that. On day one, he raised taxes on middle class house owners. He said he was against interventionist wars, then picked John fucking Bolton the worst neocon of them all for his #2 at the State Department. He said he was going to get corporations to keep jobs in the USA by slapping tariffs on them if they outsourced their jobs but instead he gave Carrier a corporate welfare check and they outsourced over half the jobs anyways. The jobs that stayed? The company is using their saved money to invest in automation, so there will be even fewer factory jobs. That's even more fucked up when you realize that taxpayer money is being spent to take away taxpayer jobs. His labor secretary pick is also in favor of automating all the jobs and putting people out of work. He makes the claim that giving a tax break to corporate tax dodgers will get them to bring their money back into the country and invest in the USA. In reality, they have already said they'll be using that money on things like stock buybacks to line their own pockets. He's not going to do shit to prevent the subprime mortgage bubble from popping like it did 8 years ago. Nor is he going to push for reinstating Glass-Steagall, which was another of his promises. Even net neutrality is now in danger because of his FCC pick. There's going to be a lot of people freaking out when they realize the new administration is going to try to put the internet on lockdown. The biggest lie of all is Trump claiming that he is going to put the people back in charge of the USA. You've gotta be a real special kind of stupid to fall for that line.

You've been conned. Fleeced. Bamboozled. Time will prove me right on this one. But hey, enjoy your win for now. I wouldn't want to take that away from you. I too am enjoying the devastation of corporate Democrats but it's not like the new administration has your best interests in mind either. If I'm wrong and Trump ends up helping out the working class, then I will happily give him credit where credit is due because I'm not a partisan hack. And when I end up being right about Trump and a completely controlled Republican Congress fucking over the working class, I expect you to admit that you were wrong. Seems fair to me.


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

Now, it's time to get tough on violent crime . . .

*As Chicago violence escalates, Trump threatens to 'send in the feds' . . .*

*http://www.gopusa.com/as-chicago-violence-escalates-trump-threatens-to-send-in-the-feds/*


----------



## Reaper




----------



## Tater

Two sides of the same coin.


----------



## Vic Capri

The haters said he was a con man and wouldn't come through on any of his campaign promises, but now that he is, they're having another glorious meltdown at their safe spaces like Occupy Democrats! :lol

The Wall is going to be built, immigration laws are going to be enforced, American jobs are going to increase, government spending is being cut back, and the Dow Jones hit 20,000!!!

I don't know about you guys, but I'm already getting tired of all this winning! :mark:




> what's going overboard though? He won on the platform of promising to do these things. I don't see why you wouldn't expect him to at least try.


He could find the cure to cancer and the liberals would still bitch and moan about it by the water cooler.

- Vic


----------



## MrMister

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread (All Trump Discussion Here)*



Alco said:


> It's interesting that people are accepting, cheering on even, a clear shift towards authoritarianism with the new president. For people with more knowledge of the system than I have, can these executive orders be challenged or blocked by parliament or other institutions?


Dick Cheney made the executive branch more powerful during his presidency. Trump is doing the same thing Obama did because of President Cheney.

Executive Orders are pretty controversial to be more serious. If you look back to different eras, they were used a lot more, but I don't know the context of their use. As far as I know it's a way for the executive branch to circumvent Congress and pretty much make laws. These laws would still be subject to judicial review, but that takes years.


----------



## Tater

_Don Trump isn’t Adolf Hitler. He is Don Draper._

:draper2



> January 25, 2017
> *Donald Trump’s Genius*
> by David Macaray
> 
> When people blur the relationship between facts and reality—when they jettison what has long been accepted as the basis of “verifiable evidence”—they put themselves in the awkward position of embracing a weird and potentially dangerous form of solipsism. If we can’t trust the “facts,” then what the hell can we “trust”?
> 
> Unfortunately, a guy figured out that once the media and those pointy-headed scientists and those smarty-pants humanities professors were no longer seen as “credible,” it opened the door to another approach. It allowed us to appeal to people’s emotions, prejudices and poisoned dreams. Alas, the guy who figured this out was a thrice-married and four times bankrupt New York real estate billionaire who became president.
> 
> It’s no exaggeration to say that Donald Trump has managed to convince a critical mass of the American public that those so-called “facts” mean almost nothing. Why? Because all we have to do is consider the source. It’s the mainstream media (i.e., the “liberal media”) who’ve been supplying those facts, and who’ve been lying to us the whole time.
> 
> In the eyes of Trump supporters, the media conceal or mischaracterize everything—failing to report how many undocumented immigrants are “known rapists and murderers,” pretending that “climate change” is man-made, refusing to reveal Barack Obama’s actual birthplace, lying about the size of the inauguration crowd in Washington D.C. All lies, and all part of the liberal agenda.
> 
> While glibly comparing Trump’s self-serving rhetoric to Hitler’s use of the “Big Lie” is fairly tempting, it’s a mistake. Trump is no fascist. He hasn’t got the political or ideological underpinnings (or the attention span) to be one. Donald Trump is a Madison Avenue huckster, no more, no less—simultaneously a creation of and proselytizer of old-fashioned American advertising. Don Trump isn’t Adolf Hitler. He is Don Draper.
> 
> Sociologists going back to Thorstein Veblen have suggested that the American economy—celebrated as it is—is largely the product of false or wildly misleading advertising.
> 
> Indeed, false advertising is the engine that drives the economy. And now we can congratulate ourselves for having elected our first “synthetic” president. Because we never bothered to read the fine print on the package, we just earned one. We earned one, we deserved one, and now we have one.
> 
> People may be gullible, but we’re not stupid. Surveys show that upwards of 90% of the public consider commercials to be either “greatly exaggerated or outright lies.” Yet companies continue to spend billions of dollars on them, and consumers continue to engage in an irrational, schizoid dance—on the one hand, knowing they are “fibbing to us,” and on the other hand, buying everything they tell us to buy.
> 
> Reportedly, “High C” fruit drink was forced to acknowledge that it consisted mainly of sugar and artificial flavors. As a consequence, it could no longer trick parents by saying it was “made of” 100% fruit juice. Instead, they began saying it’s “made with” 100% fruit juice. In other words, there may be less than 5% actual fruit contained in the drink, but what there is of it, is actual fruit.
> 
> So perhaps this should be our working analogy. President Donald Trump can be considered analogous to “High C” fruit drink. Both are creations of Madison Avenue, both rely on intentionally misleading semantics, and both, ultimately, are bad for your health.
> 
> SOURCE


----------



## The Absolute

It's officially happening.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/824327265844686848


----------



## Beatles123

Tater said:


> Is he really, though? Be honest. You can't just pick out a handful of things that he's doing that he claimed he was going to do and then conveniently ignore all the promises he is going back on. Are we supposed to just forget about LOCK HER UP? Hillary Clinton is a criminal and he promised to prosecute her but he abandoned that the moment he got elected. He's doing the same shit that Obama did. Obama also ignored the crimes of the previous administration. There's also the fact that he was 100% full of shit with his drain the swamp rhetoric. His number one talking point was taking on the establishment but now he has surrounded himself with the very same establishment people he campaigned against. He railed against Goldman Sachs specifically during his campaign, then turned around and filled his cabinet with them. He said he wouldn't cut social security and medicare, then picked numerous people who plan on doing exactly that. On day one, he raised taxes on middle class house owners. He said he was against interventionist wars, then picked John fucking Bolton the worst neocon of them all for his #2 at the State Department. He said he was going to get corporations to keep jobs in the USA by slapping tariffs on them if they outsourced their jobs but instead he gave Carrier a corporate welfare check and they outsourced over half the jobs anyways. The jobs that stayed? The company is using their saved money to invest in automation, so there will be even fewer factory jobs. That's even more fucked up when you realize that taxpayer money is being spent to take away taxpayer jobs. His labor secretary pick is also in favor of automating all the jobs and putting people out of work. He makes the claim that giving a tax break to corporate tax dodgers will get them to bring their money back into the country and invest in the USA. In reality, they have already said they'll be using that money on things like stock buybacks to line their own pockets. He's not going to do shit to prevent the subprime mortgage bubble from popping like it did 8 years ago. Nor is he going to push for reinstating Glass-Steagall, which was another of his promises. Even net neutrality is now in danger because of his FCC pick. There's going to be a lot of people freaking out when they realize the new administration is going to try to put the internet on lockdown. The biggest lie of all is Trump claiming that he is going to put the people back in charge of the USA. You've gotta be a real special kind of stupid to fall for that line.
> 
> You've been conned. Fleeced. Bamboozled. Time will prove me right on this one. But hey, enjoy your win for now. I wouldn't want to take that away from you. I too am enjoying the devastation of corporate Democrats but it's not like the new administration has your best interests in mind either. If I'm wrong and Trump ends up helping out the working class, then I will happily give him credit where credit is due because I'm not a partisan hack. And when I end up being right about Trump and a completely controlled Republican Congress fucking over the working class, I expect you to admit that you were wrong. Seems fair to me.


Id like to see Hill locked up, but there's no guarantee she wont be later. Even so, its small potatos. Keystone, Wall, no TPP. Those are the big ones. Sure not all his ideas are MUH CONSERVATIVE VALUES but I told you this before: I voted for him to accomplish certain things. for the most part, I have been rewarded.

Now, can he still fuck up? Sure. I dont want him to usher in a net neutrality ban or whatever, and maybe his ideas dont work to help jobs, whatever, but at present ive not been disappointed. He has given honest to god effort and has so far kept his promises that he was made the prez to keep. You can talk about muh drain the swamp and muh glass eagle lulz but as far as draining the swamp, for me, he's doing enough. I dont care what the people he hires have done as long as they make the USA crush other countries under our boot heel in terms of trade. Nafta is dead. TPP is dead. I consider those good things. As far as war goes, he said we'd kick the shit outa isis and we are. Stay away from Russia and we're good.

I really dont care if he puts in plans that upset filthy comie/socialist scum :troll (I love you tho) so his Tax plan is fine for me.

Tarrifs are staying. He warned of this the other day.

Again, even if all of this fucks us in the end, I don't care. My only condition is that he do what he promised to the best of his ability, piss off democrats and left culture. expose their ideology and piss off enemy nations as we protect our own shit. so far, that is being done. i could care less if you don't like his job. what matters is the ones that voted him do. Right now, so far so good :trump


----------



## Tater

I really don't mind beefing up the southern border but if the GOP was serious about curbing illegal immigration, they would go after the businesses who employ illegal immigrants and end the war on drugs. If illegal immigrants can't get jobs, they have much less reason to be here. And if drugs were legalized, taxed and regulated, not only would it destroy the cartels and eliminate drug mules, it would be a huge boon to the economy. That's a win/win all the way around for the American people.

But, of course, the GOP won't do that because they are little bitch puppets of the donor class. Their owners make too much money from employing illegal immigrants and keeping drugs illegal. Building a bigger wall makes people feel safer but it doesn't go after the root causes of illegals crossing the border. As long as there are jobs to be had and drug money to be made, people will find a way in, wall or not.


----------



## Beatles123

Tater said:


> I really don't mind beefing up the southern border but if the GOP was serious about curbing illegal immigration, they would go after the businesses who employ illegal immigrants and end the war on drugs. If illegal immigrants can't get jobs, they have much less reason to be here. And if drugs were legalized, taxed and regulated, not only would it destroy the cartels and eliminate drug mules, it would be a huge boon to the economy. That's a win/win all the way around for the American people.
> 
> But, of course, the GOP won't do that because they are little bitch puppets of the donor class. Their owners make too much money from employing illegal immigrants and keeping drugs illegal. Building a bigger wall makes people feel safer but it doesn't go after the root causes of illegals crossing the border. As long as there are jobs to be had and drug money to be made, people will find a way in, wall or not.


hes talking about it now:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWrPaCk6kfg


----------



## Tater

Beatles123 said:


> Id like to see Hill locked up, but there's no guarantee she wont be later. Even so, its small potatos. Keystone, Wall, no TPP. Those are the big ones. Sure not all his ideas are MUH CONSERVATIVE VALUES but I told you this before: I voted for him to accomplish certain things. for the most part, I have been rewarded.
> 
> Now, can he still fuck up? Sure. I dont want him to usher in a net neutrality ban or whatever, and maybe his ideas dont work to help jobs, whatever, but at present ive not been disappointed. He has given honest to god effort and has so far kept his promises that he was made the prez to keep. You can talk about muh drain the swamp and muh glass eagle lulz but as far as draining the swamp, for me, he's doing enough. I dont care what the people he hires have done as long as they make the USA crush other countries under our boot heel in terms of trade. Nafta is dead. TPP is dead. I consider those good things. As far as war goes, he said we'd kick the shit outa isis and we are. Stay away from Russia and we're good.
> 
> I really dont care if he puts in plans that upset filthy comie/socialist scum :troll (I love you tho) so his Tax plan is fine for me.
> 
> Tarrifs are staying. He warned of this the other day.
> 
> Again, even if all of this fucks us in the end, I don't care. My only condition is that he do what he promised to the best of his ability, piss off democrats and left culture. expose their ideology and piss off enemy nations as we protect our own shit. so far, that is being done. i could care less if you don't like his job. what matters is the ones that voted him do. Right now, so far so good :trump


Rubes are always happy until they realize they've been conned.

:trump3


----------



## Tater

@AryaDark As soon as I heard "one sane Republican voted against him", I knew right away who it was. :lol


----------



## glenwo2

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> The fact that this woman made this post _*after *_the inauguration clearly implies that she was hoping for an assassination ... This should count as a betrayal of her charge because she should've come out _before _the moment when the president was at his most vulnerable.


Well you better believe now that this Women is all but canned from her job(at the very least). Jailtime is a real possibility, too based on her facebook post.

Very stupid thing to put out there with her full name where ANYONE can see. fpalm


----------



## Beatles123

Tater said:


> @AryaDark As soon as I heard "one sane Republican voted against him", I knew right away who it was. :lol


>Cuckular Talk :nerd: Sad!

Also, like I told you, and you seem to miss this point: I don't care if none of this works out in your book. It only has to work out in mine, and in mine, just the fact that he is doing what I voted for makes my vote validated. Whether it helps or hurts us is up to history to decide and even if it's the later, fuck it. I made the best choice based on what i was confident with. All this in mind therefore, Trump's doing about as well as i dreamed. :trump


----------



## TomahawkJock

Not sure this has been discussed but how does everyone feel about the gag rule being applied to EPA and USDA? 

As far as what Trump has done recently, I'm definitely a fan of ending the TPP. I need to look more into NAFTA before I give an opinion on that. I know that if we were to weaken the peso too much it would honestly make Mexico more attractive to businesses than it already appears. Mexico having a good economy is good for the United States so I want to make sure that renegotiation goes smoothly. 

I agree with @Tater on the issue of immigration though. Hell, the war on drugs has adversely affected not only immigration but also inner cities. Its been one of the worst disasters of the past 20-30 years.


----------



## Beatles123

IT'S WALL TIME, BOYS AND GIRLS!!!


----------



## Stinger Fan

Did I miss something with Mike Pence today? It seems like a bunch of stories are popping up today


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

Beatles123 said:


> Also, like I told you, and you seem to miss this point: I don't care if none of this works out in your book. It only has to work out in mine, and in mine, just the fact that he is doing what I voted for makes my vote validated. Whether it helps or hurts us is up to history to decide and even if it's the later, fuck it. I made the best choice based on what i was confident with. All this in mind therefore, Trump's doing about as well as i dreamed.


Absolutely correct, "Beatles123" . . . Trump is doing precisely what I voted for him to do . . . And he's just GETTING STARTED !!!


----------



## glenwo2

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Lol he's been in three days or something, there's a lot of IFs in there.
> 
> My point was things can go south so quickly in today's climate, pretty much regardless of what a president actually fulfils. With a few wrong moves here and there public perception can be irreparably damaged very quickly and if the right alternative pops up and starts promising everything people want to hear then people will sway.
> 
> Just my 2c.


And if my aunt had balls, she'd be Hillary.

Just my 2c. >


----------



## Vic Capri

> As long as there are jobs to be had and drug money to be made, people will find a way in, wall or not.


Yeah, but a deterrent is better than no deterrent. The current wall design sucks ass. Two women climbed over it in like 18 seconds. They didn't even bother to put barb wire on top!

- Vic


----------



## Beatles123

Lunatic Fringe said:


> Absolutely correct, "Beatles123" . . . Trump is doing precisely what I voted for him to do . . . And he's just GETTING STARTED !!!


>TFW im such a Beatles mark I sang to it. :sk


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

Beatles123 said:


> >TFW im such a Beatles mark I sang to it. :sk


Obviously, that wasn't the Beatles performing, but I like their "sound" . . . Adds a little "edge", I think !

They are a band called "OB-LA-DI" . . . Tough to find othe music by them.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



glenwo2 said:


> Well you better believe now that this Women is all but canned from her job(at the very least). Jailtime is a real possibility, too based on her facebook post.
> 
> Very stupid thing to put out there with her full name where ANYONE can see. fpalm


Put her on life long Hillary duty.


----------



## Reaper

This really needs to be done.


----------



## virus21

Carte Blanche said:


> This really needs to be done.


To be fair, Trump isn't exactly a thin man


----------



## Reaper

virus21 said:


> To be fair, Trump isn't exactly a thin man


That's why the burn sticks. Honestly I've been a critic of most of his twitter tirades [some have been great] but now it's time to retire it and stop getting into spats with people that are beneath him. 

I'm perfectly OK with him starting spats with political opponents. But not leftists in general.


----------



## Beatles123

Carte Blanche said:


> That's why the burn sticks. Honestly I've been a critic of most of his twitter tirades [some have been great] but now it's time to retire it and stop getting into spats with people that are beneath him.
> 
> I'm perfectly OK with him starting spats with political opponents. But not leftists in general.


I am. :troll

Also:


----------



## virus21




----------



## Beatles123

@Carte Blanche @DesolationRow @Miss Sally @glenwo2

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...4da832ae861_story.html?utm_term=.e5211d6c49f1

>Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii), who has charged the Obama administration with funneling money to the Islamic State and al-Qaeda-linked groups in Syria, visited Damascus this week on what her office called a “fact-finding trip ... to promote and work for peace.”

>Gabbard’s office, which did not announce the trip, said that for security reasons it would release no details on the trip until her return, including whether she met with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

>“She felt it was important to meet with a number of individuals and groups including religious leaders, humanitarian workers, refugees and government and community leaders,” Gabbard spokeswoman Emily Latimer said in a statement.
____

:lol The Dems are losing their minds!

>Hmm, maybe we shouldn't let the CIA fund terrorists who start a brutal murderous slavering global caliphate

>Jake Tapper: HISSSSSSSSSSSS *melts*

:lmao


----------



## Iapetus

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=NYDailyNewsTw

So how bout those private email servers?
:con1


----------



## Alco

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread (All Trump Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> There's been no shift towards authoritarianism at all. It's just another one of the media's hysterical conclusions based on ignoring certain key points about administrations that have come before Trump.
> 
> There's just been a shift from left authoritarianism to right authoritarianism and that's it.
> 
> Obama and Bush are actually 15th and 16th on the list of presidents with most to least EO's with the wartime presidents dwarfing their numbers. When you look at EO's/year, Bush is at 22 and Obama at 25 overall which put them right in the middle of the pack and below even guys like Kennedy, Clinton, Carter and Bush senior. That said, EO's are not the way you wanna determine whether the States has become more authoritarian at all. Roosevelt has over 3600 EO's, but the US back then was not exactly a fascist state (though one could argue that it was more fascist depending whose perspective you look at it).
> 
> Depending on who you ask, you'll get people who'll claim that Abe Lincoln was the single most fascist, tyrannical presidents the States has ever had.
> 
> As for EO's, as long as they're not a new law they can be enacted .. It's sort of a prioritization of which law is now going to be the lay of the land as opposed creation of any new laws.


Well I can tell you it's entirely coincidental I use the same media rhetoric then, because it's not because of them I've made this observation. 

What I meant to say was not that Trump is more authoritarian per se than his predecessors. I'm saying that people right now seem to be asking for it. Trump signs a bunch of executive orders, fulfilling some electoral promises, and gets a lot of praise for it.

Whereas Obama was frequently criticized for the amount of EOs he signed.

Which is why I see a shift, in the electorate, towards more authoritarianism. People, it seems, crave for a strong leader who gets things done and if that means bypassing one or more institutions, so be it. 

I know others quoted me as well, but I'm too lazy for a multiquote :side: .


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread (All Trump Discussion Here)*



Alco said:


> Well I can tell you it's entirely coincidental I use the same media rhetoric then, because it's not because of them I've made this observation.
> 
> What I meant to say was not that Trump is more authoritarian per se than his predecessors. I'm saying that people right now seem to be asking for it. Trump signs a bunch of executive orders, fulfilling some electoral promises, and gets a lot of praise for it.
> 
> Whereas Obama was frequently criticized for the amount of EOs he signed.
> 
> Which is why I see a shift, in the electorate, towards more authoritarianism. People, it seems, crave for a strong leader who gets things done and if that means bypassing one or more institutions, so be it.
> 
> I know others quoted me as well, but I'm too lazy for a multiquote :side: .


Considdering the things he signed and how hated he is we'd probably still be in gridlock. He knows he needs to start his presidency keeping his promises to his electors and party before he can negotiate congress' woes.


----------



## Beatles123

Good discussion from about 20 mins onward.


----------



## Cliffy

just me or does Donald sound a bit knackered in that borders speech ?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread (All Trump Discussion Here)*



Alco said:


> Well I can tell you it's entirely coincidental I use the same media rhetoric then, because it's not because of them I've made this observation.
> 
> What I meant to say was not that Trump is more authoritarian per se than his predecessors. I'm saying that people right now seem to be asking for it. Trump signs a bunch of executive orders, fulfilling some electoral promises, and gets a lot of praise for it.
> 
> Whereas Obama was frequently criticized for the amount of EOs he signed.
> 
> Which is why I see a shift, in the electorate, towards more authoritarianism. People, it seems, crave for a strong leader who gets things done and if that means bypassing one or more institutions, so be it.
> 
> I know others quoted me as well, but I'm too lazy for a multiquote :side: .


Nah. The whole more or less thing after 2 days in office is perception bias imo. Not that you're biased. Just that the perception will have more ways that it can be biased because of the flow of information these days and just how much of it there is. I joined twitter and only follow 50 people and I get overwhelmed so I ease up and go back to the old-fashioned way of getting aggregated news from real clear politics and other more slower-paced sites. Imagine now that everyone from a janitor at the white house to the president is tweeting about things happening. There's more than several billion people online. 

Obama's early years and Bush never had to deal with that so at this point short of extreme fact checking we have no way of knowing what their first days were like ... 

Anyways, what I'm trying to get at is that based on actual policy decisions, I see nothing to indicate that people have become any more authoritarian than they have always been. 

We'll see how bad things can if they get worse ... The right has always been authoritarian in America just as the left has been. We're controlled by two parties that have always done this, will continue to do this and that's one of the ways things remain in check and the government never gets too powerful. The only reason why Trump can even pass these executive orders is that there is a historical record of them being law --- including the wall. :draper2


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread (All Trump Discussion Here)*



Carte Blanche said:


> Nah. The whole more or less thing after 2 days in office is perception bias imo. Not that you're biased. Just that the perception will have more ways that it can be biased because of the flow of information these days and just how much of it there is. I joined twitter and only follow 50 people and I get overwhelmed so I ease up and go back to the old-fashioned way of getting aggregated news from real clear politics and other more slower-paced sites. Imagine now that everyone from a janitor at the white house to the president is tweeting about things happening. There's more than several billion people online.
> 
> Obama's early years and Bush never had to deal with that so at this point short of extreme fact checking we have no way of knowing what their first days were like ...
> 
> Anyways, what I'm trying to get at is that based on actual policy decisions, I see nothing to indicate that people have become any more authoritarian than they have always been.
> 
> We'll see how bad things can if they get worse ... The right has always been authoritarian in America just as the left has been. We're controlled by two parties that have always done this, will continue to do this and that's one of the ways things remain in check and the government never gets too powerful. The only reason why Trump can even pass these executive orders is that there is a historical record of them being law --- including the wall. :draper2


The pendulum has been left leaning in society a while tho. I'd say even since before Clinton. This shift isn't just needed, its healthy in that it knocks Dems off of their high horse and can hopefully teach them to reign in the PC identity politics and Globalist BS if they want to be taken seriously. Though with how infested and entrenched they have made their ideas in the minds of the modern youth, it may take several presidents worth of Right wing society to undo the cucking proper.


----------



## stevefox1200

CNN wrote an article that Steven Mnuchin, a Trump cabinet pick, is registered to vote in two states

then notes that that is not illegal 

THAN WHY EVEN BRING IT THE FUCK UP?


----------



## Mister Abigail

The only thing I've enjoyed about all this bullshit.


----------



## virus21




----------



## Beatles123

http://www.theamericanmirror.com/tr...t-crimes-committed-illegals-sanctuary-cities/

It's like living in a victory simulator! :trips2


----------



## glenwo2

Beatles123 said:


> I am. :troll
> 
> Also:


I am shocked by this. I had no clue that Obama would do THAT! 221 million of our tax dollars being given to Palestinians when they should be used to...oh I don't know....HELP IMPROVE AMERICAN'S WAY OF LIFE, MAYBE? fpalm


Obama....you could've been remembered for at least being an okay guy who was naive in some respects....now? Up yours, buddy.


----------



## SolarKhan

Beatles123 said:


> Id like to see Hill locked up, but there's no guarantee she wont be later. Even so, its small potatos. Keystone, Wall, no TPP. Those are the big ones. Sure not all his ideas are MUH CONSERVATIVE VALUES but I told you this before: I voted for him to accomplish certain things. for the most part, I have been rewarded.
> 
> Now, can he still fuck up? Sure. I dont want him to usher in a net neutrality ban or whatever, and maybe his ideas dont work to help jobs, whatever, but at present ive not been disappointed. He has given honest to god effort and has so far kept his promises that he was made the prez to keep. You can talk about muh drain the swamp and muh glass eagle lulz but as far as draining the swamp, for me, he's doing enough. I dont care what the people he hires have done as long as they make the USA crush other countries under our boot heel in terms of trade. Nafta is dead. TPP is dead. I consider those good things. As far as war goes, he said we'd kick the shit outa isis and we are. Stay away from Russia and we're good.
> 
> I really dont care if he puts in plans that upset filthy comie/socialist scum :troll (I love you tho) so his Tax plan is fine for me.
> 
> Tarrifs are staying. He warned of this the other day.
> 
> Again, even if all of this fucks us in the end, I don't care. My only condition is that he do what he promised to the best of his ability, piss off democrats and left culture. expose their ideology and piss off enemy nations as we protect our own shit. so far, that is being done. i could care less if you don't like his job. what matters is the ones that voted him do. Right now, so far so good :trump



Hey bro, Point Blank: Are you wealthy? Or are you a business owner? I am asking you sincerely. Feel free to reply via private message.


----------



## Beatles123

SolarKhan said:


> Hey bro, Point Blank: Are you wealthy? Or are you a business owner? I am asking you sincerely. Feel free to reply via private message.


No to both, my man.


----------



## SolarKhan

Beatles123 said:


> No to both, my man.


Okay, so sincerely, how does Trump's presidency, and his actions (more importantly, his recent actions as POTUS) directly benefit you or your loved ones?


----------



## Dr. Middy

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-pipeline-idUSKBN15820N

So I've read stuff on how Trump has basically given the go ahead for the construction of both the Keystone XL and Dakota Access Pipeline, and how apparently it's going to create a slew of temporary and longer term construction jobs. Now, even though I'm an environmentalist and all and really have been against A LOT of what Trump is doing, I'm alright with the pipelines as a whole as long as proper safety precautions are taken, and that they are built as far away from the water table as possible (even though they are within the watershed already). Apparently this is the intent, so I can't complain about that (http://bismarcktribune.com/news/opi...cle_5dc1e955-fd71-5003-86be-0fa0f29d7fbc.html)


Here's what both angers and worries me however:

- Trump apparently has stock in the companies associated with the Dakota Access Pipeline (15k-50k in Energy Transfer Partners, and between 100k-250k in Phillips 66). Effectively, he'll be receiving personal gains, which should not happen. Trump needs to completely divest his self-interests, and never let them effect his decisions in any sort of matter. 

(http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trumps-stock-in-dakota-access-oil-pipeline-raises-concerns/)
(http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/25/donald-trumps-stock-in-oil-pipeline-company-raises-concern.html)
(https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/...-stock-in-oil-pipeline-company-raises-concern)

- They barreled right into Native American lands. Given the lack of any support these people already receive, and how many problems and issues they've had concerning poverty and such, why shovel more shit on them? (This isn't necessarily against Trump himself, but really anybody who is in favor of where they are building it.

- The idea that this is good for jobs, while he also completely restricts funding and the general ability of the EPA to speak to the press. So in essence, the jobs that he would have gained from that are being lost from the now frozen EPA. Also, if there were to be any accidents when it comes to the pipeline, does the EPA now have to report through Trump himself? (And I really don't expect him to just relay information like that which could make him look bad. 

(http://www.businessinsider.com/epa-freeze-trump-2017-1?r=UK&IR=T)
(http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/federal-agencies-trump-information-lockdown-234122)
(https://www.scientificamerican.com/...ientists-at-usda-epa/?wt.mc=SA_Facebook-Share)

Really, I don't see anything positive about this at all if one cares about the environment in any sense of the word. And it seems like there is going to be a huge battle between the EPA and Trump himself, which is pretty horrible news for me, considering I did eventually want to go back to school to become an environmental scientist, but this won't make things any easier for me. 

Just curious as to what some of yall thoughts are on this, since I know there are plenty of Trump supporters in this thread. I'm not looking for any debate or argument, just some opinions from a different perspective.


----------



## FriedTofu

Iapetus said:


> http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=NYDailyNewsTw
> 
> So how bout those private email servers?
> :con1


Being a hypocrite is not a crime. What happened to Hillary was a party wide smear campaign years before she declared her run for the presidency because they feared her family's influence and her political resume.



stevefox1200 said:


> CNN wrote an article that Steven Mnuchin, a Trump cabinet pick, is registered to vote in two states
> 
> then notes that that is not illegal
> 
> THAN WHY EVEN BRING IT THE FUCK UP?


Because

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/824227824903090176

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/824228768227217408
I thought the article explained itself perfectly. It cast a shadow on his administration members who does the same if the thinks being able to register in two states contributes to alleged voter fraud. :shrug


----------



## virus21




----------



## Tater

Beatles123 said:


> Also, like I told you, and you seem to miss this point: I don't care if none of this works out in your book. It only has to work out in mine, and in mine, just the fact that he is doing what I voted for makes my vote validated. Whether it helps or hurts us is up to history to decide and even if it's the later, fuck it. I made the best choice based on what i was confident with. All this in mind therefore, Trump's doing about as well as i dreamed. :trump


No, I haven't missed the point. The point is that whatever Trump does is irrelevant to your opinion of him. It doesn't matter if he lies nor does it matter if he succeeds. Whatever Daddy Trump does, you will view him as your hero. Which is why your arguments have about as much intelligence as a 2 year old's.


----------



## glenwo2

Dr. Middy said:


> http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-pipeline-idUSKBN15820N
> 
> So I've read stuff on how Trump has basically given the go ahead for the construction of both the Keystone XL and Dakota Access Pipeline, and how apparently it's going to create a slew of temporary and longer term construction jobs. Now, even though I'm an environmentalist and all and really have been against A LOT of what Trump is doing, I'm alright with the pipelines as a whole as long as proper safety precautions are taken, and that they are built as far away from the water table as possible (even though they are within the watershed already). Apparently this is the intent, so I can't complain about that (http://bismarcktribune.com/news/opi...cle_5dc1e955-fd71-5003-86be-0fa0f29d7fbc.html)
> 
> 
> Here's what both angers and worries me however:
> 
> -* Trump apparently has stock in the companies associated with the Dakota Access Pipeline (15k-50k in Energy Transfer Partners, and between 100k-250k in Phillips 66). Effectively, he'll be receiving personal gains, which should not happen. Trump needs to completely divest his self-interests, and never let them effect his decisions in any sort of matter.*



I think someone already pointed out that Trump already "divested" any stocks he had. :shrug


----------



## MillionDollarProns

What an amazing day in politics. It's like every day we see a new headline of Trump doing things he promised, but the meadia said he wouldn't do.

The freezing of visas is a great thing. We spend twice as much on Syrian refugees than we do American homeless, and that's a problem. Beside, Germany will be more than happy to take them off our hands.


----------



## Beatles123

SolarKhan said:


> Okay, so sincerely, how does Trump's presidency, and his actions (more importantly, his recent actions as POTUS) directly benefit you or your loved ones?


The better question is, does it have to?


----------



## Beatles123

Tater said:


> No, I haven't missed the point. The point is that whatever Trump does is irrelevant to your opinion of him. It doesn't matter if he lies nor does it matter if he succeeds. Whatever Daddy Trump does, you will view him as your hero. Which is why your arguments have about as much intelligence as a 2 year old's.


Err, no? LOL i keep telling you: I elected him to do certain things. If he fucks those things up or betrays me, I will call him out. *He hasn't, as yet, done those things or met my criteria to deserve that.*

Jesus, what's gotten into you? You're fucking smarter than this, so act like it. Don't go all loopy on me, boy! iper1


----------



## Art Vandaley

glenwo2 said:


> I think someone already pointed out that Trump already "divested" any stocks he had. :shrug


Well he's said he sold all his stocks in June but we won't actually know unless he releases his tax returns or until he next has to publicly announce his holdings in May 2018. 

Regardless of he has or hasn't, and tbh I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on that one, the EPA stuff is worrying. I mean with things like the lead in the water in Flint going on you'd think you'd want to beef up the EPA not weaken it. Also don't forget the new head of the EPA is someone who has spent his entire life suing them to try to weaken environmental protections.


----------



## Beatles123

Alkomesh2 said:


> Well he's said he sold all his stocks in June but we won't actually know unless he releases his tax returns or until he next has to publicly announce his holdings in May 2018.
> 
> Regardless of he has or hasn't, and tbh I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on that one, the EPA stuff is worrying. I mean with things like the lead in the water in Flint going on you'd think you'd want to beef up the EPA not weaken it. Also don't forget the new head of the EPA is someone who has spent his entire life suing them to try to weaken environmental protections.


The entire EPA is a waste and should be cut.


----------



## Art Vandaley

Beatles123 said:


> The entire EPA is a waste and should be cut.


I dunno man, what's the point of having a job if you die at 30 because of shitty air quality and food grown on poisoned soil?

Like imagine living somewhere like Beijing http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...lert-crisis-environment-quality-a7506971.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S27ycsxUtRM - living in Beijing and breathing the air is the equivalent of smoking a pack and half of cigarettes a day for your health.


----------



## Tater

Beatles123 said:


> Err, no? LOL i keep telling you: I elected him to do certain things. If he fucks those things up or betrays me, I will call him out. *He hasn't, as yet, done those things or met my criteria to deserve that.*
> 
> Jesus, what's gotten into you? You're fucking smarter than this, so act like it. Don't go all loopy on me, boy! iper1


Stop embarrassing yourself by acting like a Hillbot. They ignore everything their hero lies about as well. I'd say you're smarter than this but you're really not. iper1


----------



## FriedTofu

Beatles123 said:


> The entire EPA is a waste and should be cut.


https://www.wired.com/2017/01/north-carolina-will-lose-big-scott-pruitt-leading-epa/

OK.


----------



## Beatles123

Tater said:


> Stop embarrassing yourself by acting like a Hillbot. They ignore everything their hero lies about as well. I'd say you're smarter than this but you're really not. iper1


Leftist tactics? Damn, man. where's the real Tater? None the less, I forgive you and we're gonna get through this. it's gonna be okay, even if you don't think it is.

....But you're sleeping on the couch tonight, you naughty boy. :ha 

Trying to pretend like I didn't just say the exact polar opposite to what you stated. :trump3


----------



## Beatles123

FriedTofu said:


> https://www.wired.com/2017/01/north-carolina-will-lose-big-scott-pruitt-leading-epa/
> 
> OK.


Yup :nerd:


----------



## Tater

Beatles123 said:


> Leftist tactics? Damn, man. where's the real Tater? None the less, I forgive you and we're gonna get through this. it's gonna be okay, even if you don't think it is.
> 
> ....But you're sleeping on the couch tonight, you naughty boy. :ha
> 
> Trying to pretend like I didn't just say the exact polar opposite to what you stated. :trump3


I would explain it to you but I don't have any crayons.


----------



## Beatles123

Alkomesh2 said:


> I dunno man, what's the point of having a job if you die at 30 because of shitty air quality and food grown on poisoned soil?
> 
> Like imagine living somewhere like Beijing http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...lert-crisis-environment-quality-a7506971.html
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S27ycsxUtRM - living in Beijing and breathing the air is the equivalent of smoking a pack and half of cigarettes a day for your health.


The world isn't going to hell, We are.


----------



## Beatles123

Tater said:


> I would explain it to you but I don't have any crayons.


I told you to stop eating those. :trump

Why are we fighting exactly?

Edit: Damn thread moving while i post...


----------



## Goku

MillionDollarProns said:


> Beside, Germany will be more than happy to take them off our hands.


----------



## Cipher

Beatles123 said:


> The entire EPA is a waste and should be cut.


----------



## SpeedStick




----------



## FriedTofu

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-voter-fraud-groveling-234187

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...dy-spicer-cited-we-found-no-evidence-of-voter

http://www.mediaite.com/online/why-...e-with-abcs-david-muir-on-voter-fraud-claims/



> *Muir: You say you’re going to launch an investigation into (voter fraud).*
> 
> Trump: Sure. Done.
> 
> *What you have presented so far has been debunked. It’s been called false —*
> 
> No it hasn’t. Take a look at the Pew report.
> 
> *I called the author of the Pew report last night. He told me they found no evidence of voter fraud.*
> 
> Really? Then why did he write the report?
> 
> *He said no evidence of voter fraud.*
> 
> Excuse me. Then why did he write the report? Look at the Pew Report. Then he’s groveling again. You know, I always talk about the reporters that grovel when they wanna write something you wanna hear. But not necessarily millions of people want to hear, or have to hear


So Trump's team cite a report to back their alternative fact, and the author of the study said no evidence of voter fraud found. When told that Trump says the author was grovelling?

WHY DID HE WRITE THE REPORT? is his freaking defence.

How can anyone defend this? :ha


----------



## glenwo2

Cipher said:


>


That expression looks more like Constipation to me. :lmao :lmao :lmao


----------



## glenwo2

FriedTofu said:


> http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-voter-fraud-groveling-234187
> 
> http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...dy-spicer-cited-we-found-no-evidence-of-voter
> 
> http://www.mediaite.com/online/why-...e-with-abcs-david-muir-on-voter-fraud-claims/
> 
> 
> 
> So Trump's team cite a report to back their alternative fact, and the author of the study said no evidence of voter fraud found. When told that Trump says the author was grovelling?
> 
> WHY DID HE WRITE THE REPORT? is his freaking defence.
> 
> How can anyone defend this? :ha




^ Okay so Trump isn't perfect. Oh my fucking god! I'm now going to change my stance and join hands with FriedTofu and sing kumbaya instead. :lol

It is an odd defense but he can't be "winning" all the time.


----------



## Beatles123

FriedTofu said:


> http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-voter-fraud-groveling-234187
> 
> http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...dy-spicer-cited-we-found-no-evidence-of-voter
> 
> http://www.mediaite.com/online/why-...e-with-abcs-david-muir-on-voter-fraud-claims/
> 
> 
> 
> So Trump's team cite a report to back their alternative fact, and the author of the study said no evidence of voter fraud found. When told that Trump says the author was grovelling?
> 
> WHY DID HE WRITE THE REPORT? is his freaking defence.
> 
> How can anyone defend this? :ha


I know! Racist!...no, bigots....no, no, ********....Ah, wait, RACIST BIGOT ********......IN SPACE! :nerd:

What a weak quote to pick apart, by the way. He cited a report, media and the author went "NUH UH" and Trump called out the man for being two faced. its that simple. its not hard to understand. You can disagree, but him defending himself isn't something difficult to understand.


----------



## Beatles123

:rockwut

These men are leaders of their nations...going at it via Twitter.....


WHAT A TIME TO BE ALIVE! :vince5:harper:brock


----------



## Reaper

TomahawkJock said:


> Not sure this has been discussed but how does everyone feel about the gag rule being applied to EPA and USDA?


OMG. Like he's LITERALLY Hitler. 

Nah. I disagree with it even though I understand why he did it. 

All it does is play right into the media's hands the same way it backfired for Harper when he did the same thing in Canada. And they got Trucuck'd as a result.

Every line of communication between climate change alarmists and skeptics should be open because the debate is far from over. Attempting to silence anyone in any way simply lends credibility to the side that's silenced irregardless of the strength of their argument.


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

Beatles123 said:


> I know! Racist!...no, bigots....no, no, ********....Ah, wait, RACIST BIGOT ********......IN SPACE!.


----------



## FriedTofu

Beatles123 said:


> I know! Racist!...no, bigots....no, no, ********....Ah, wait, RACIST BIGOT ********......IN SPACE! :nerd:
> 
> What a weak quote to pick apart, by the way. He cited a report, media and the author went "NUH UH" and Trump called out the man for being two faced. its that simple. its not hard to understand. You can disagree, but him defending himself isn't something difficult to understand.


:ha






Fake News disagrees with your alternative facts though. You trust whatever your fake messiah says than your own eyes and ears.

So are you going to call out Trump for being two faced when cite being registered to vote in two states is part of the 'voter fraud' problem when Bannon, Mnuchin and his OWN DAUGHTER is registered to vote in two states?

Your 'us vs them' grade school and your liberal victimhood mentality makes trying to have a conversation impossible.


----------



## Beatles123

FriedTofu said:


> :ha
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fake News disagrees with your alternative facts though. You trust whatever your fake messiah says than your own eyes and ears.
> 
> So are you going to call out Trump for being two faced when cite being registered to vote in two states is part of the 'voter fraud' problem when Bannon, Mnuchin and his OWN DAUGHTER is registered to vote in two states?
> 
> Your 'us vs them' grade school and your liberal victimhood mentality makes trying to have a conversation impossible.


im sure it does. call me again when any of that adhom is relevant to actually helping the USA.


----------



## amhlilhaus

Carte Blanche said:


> OMG. Like he's LITERALLY Hitler.
> 
> Nah. I disagree with it even though I understand why he did it.
> 
> All it does is play right into the media's hands the same way it backfired for Harper when he did the same thing in Canada. And they got Trucuck'd as a result.
> 
> Every line of communication between climate change alarmists and skeptics should be open because the debate is far from over. Attempting to silence anyone in any way simply lends credibility to the side that's silenced irregardless of the strength of their argument.


There is no debate.

Prince charles said so8


----------



## CamillePunk

It's funny watching people talk about Trump who clearly followed the election mainly through reading news article headlines. Trump said over and over during the campaign that the wall could be paid for in a variety of ways other than a direct payment. Obviously this would entail using tax funds (stolen goods) to pay for the wall initially, and then being reimbursed indirectly later through other methods. People continually to have these false gotcha moments with Trump when they're based entirely on their own false perception and misinformation. :lol

For the record I don't think the wall is a good idea and I'm skeptical that, much like the debt and unfunded liabilities, it will ever be "paid for". Have to reiterate this before non-serious simpletons seek to misrepresent me as well.


----------



## HereNThere

If Trump needs helpers to build the wall. I'll help! It should of been built a long time ago.


----------



## Art Vandaley

CamillePunk said:


> It's funny watching people talk about Trump who clearly followed the election mainly through reading news article headlines. Trump said over and over during the campaign that the wall could be paid for in a variety of ways other than a direct payment. Obviously this would entail using tax funds (stolen goods) to pay for the wall initially, and then being reimbursed indirectly later through other methods. People continually to have these false gotcha moments with Trump when they're based entirely on their own false perception and misinformation. :lol
> 
> For the record I don't think the wall is a good idea and I'm skeptical that, much like the debt and unfunded liabilities, it will ever be "paid for". Have to reiterate this before non-serious simpletons seek to misrepresent me as well.


So people are wrong to mock Trump for saying Mexico will pay for the wall even through indirect means when it obviously won't and it was a stupid thing to have ever said, but you also don't believe Mexico will pay for the wall even through indirect means?


----------



## The RainMaker

I'm glad to have my tax money go to the wall.


----------



## Neuron

I thought Enrique was going to write out a check and hand it to Trump. My expectations for the Trump presidency have been shattered!


----------



## SolarKhan

Beatles123 said:


> The better question is, does it have to?


I am a firm believer in that some actions should directly affect you, while some do not, and a sprinkle of those actions that we are indifferent about.

I am curious, and am seriously asking without malice, in what way will his Presidency and current, or future possible actions directly affect you or your loved ones?

I am asking you because after reading through this thread, you come off as an intelligent person who understands politics.


----------



## MrMister

I think the wall is a massive waste of money but Mexico is paying for it so it's ok :garrett


----------



## Beatles123

SolarKhan said:


> I am a firm believer in that some actions should directly affect you, while some do not, and a sprinkle of those actions that we are indifferent about.
> 
> I am curious, and am seriously asking without malice, in what way will his Presidency and current, or future possible actions directly affect you or your loved ones?
> 
> I am asking you because after reading through this thread, you come off as an intelligent person who understands politics.


Well i'll be damned! thanks for the kind words. 

Allow me to ramble on your inquiry: 

@Miss Sally @DesolationRow @Carte Blanche @Lunatic Fringe @glenwo2 @The Absolute @CamillePunk

To answer your question: Trump can affect me directly a bit. CAN. Not that it's likely (in my opinion.) 

You see, I live in my own house on property that belongs to me in my name. No mortgage. The only thing I have to pay is property tax. So, you might ask, "But wait, you told me you weren't wealthy!" Well, that much is true. I'm not. My family is a farming family and we own some land that was sold to us out of the goodness of some relatives (who obtained it through other family) and we now have the lifetime rights to it. So, here I sit in my double-wide. Therefore i'd say the term is more fortunate than wealthy.

That said, how Trump can affect me directly? Passing MEDICAID REFORM! I was done no favors by Obamacare (despite it changing my doctor..."Keep your doctor" my ass!) and I'd really like a Medicaid system, as a quadriplegic, that actually lets me have more than *A MERE THREE PHYSICAL THERAPY SESSIONS A YEAR* before I am forced to pay hundreds of dollars for a few hours at most a pop. I also need Social security, though it's pretty slim as is. It's just enough to live on with the situation I find myself in. Needing care from a guardian and that guardian being to old to work, its all we can do...though we aren't financially hurting under the current conditions really. Like I said, my situation is unique.

So yes, for those reasons,I'd like to see better care. Everyone ITT thinks Trump is going to screw me, but even if he cut Social security, I wouldn't be out on my ear either. I'd like him to reform it and give more slack to those needing it for the reasons stated however.

Anyway, that's not even the point. My true wants lay within a stronger, more nationalistic America (In B4 Le Nazi meme.  ) A country finishing middle of the pack or worse in almost every area cannot survive. It is my firm belief that we are destined to forever be a superpower unto the world and an example for other society..but this DOES NOT include being a whipping boy and an open door for freeloaders, and while my situation seems contradictory to this, understand that i do not ENDORSE my current way of life as a model for everyone. I'm very comfortably set up here to not have to worry about a job. but I am the exception. Quite honestly, in my heart of hearts I wish that I had the ability to work at all in stead of this. I'd rather have earned what I have on my own back, and i believe this is a model Americans need to follow. No government hands outs beyond a reasonable limit. Chase your dream. Go into business. Let talent rise and others fail, so that they may be bettered THROUGH failure. There should always be programs to help the poor, but not ones that can be exploited. The Government should be a safety net, NOT a candy machine. I believe in capitalism, Not CRONY capitalism. I feel Trump, so far, has made good on what he promised in bringing that back. Im not really a fan of subsidizing businesses, but I AM a fan of american jobs. ONLY american jobs. Fuck the country next door if they want to move out ahead of us on a deal. If we give them anything, we better get as much if not more in return. Is that mean of me? TOO BAD. Im not raising my kids overseas, so If it aint fair to us, it aint worth our time.

As you can see, trump OOZES this attitude. Hey, like I said to Tater, if it fucks us over by the end, i regret nothing. I made the best choice according to what I thought was right for THIS nation.

That said, that doesn't mean I hate immigrants or any such drivel. (Blow me, MSM!) Far from it. I just want people who come here to come the right way, and adopt into OUR culture. NOT vice versa. History shows that periods of mass immigration always lead to the host country becoming lost in terms of identity, and I believe this is a problem we are already experiencing as certain people refuse to assimilate. We see it in sanctuary cities, we see it in Canada and London (that post someone in the UK made months ago about his daughter's school trying to culturally appropriate her by force made me sick. Its in rants if anyone has the link.) and we see it with the refugee crisis. We either bend the knee or be told we are insensitive dispute our own needs. It must be stopped. action must be taken, be it effective or not, after years of am unwillingness to face the issue in Washington. This is why ones personal qualms about the idea of a wall are irrelevant. For too long has no one stepped up with a solution and Trump has given one at last. We MUST at least attempt it, because if not, we risk peril. I think everyone realizes what will go on if NOTHING is done.

So far, All I can say about Trump negatively--and im being honest--is that he has not as yet given Hillary her just deserts in front of a judge! Though, How can he when Dems currently hold his AG hostage for being appointed through the senate... In any case, we shall see. His SCOTUS pick is another big one. I'd LOVE to see...[hide]Lyin'[/hide] Ted Cruz get the nod just for the sheer ungodly amounts of ass-pain that would be felt on the left, but that's just me being a sadist. :trump

So, I do hope that answers your question and that I don't seem like too much of a FUCKING WHITE MALE RACIST NAZI UNICORN CTHULHU OMG. :nerd:

Now, can I get back to being silly? Ahem, as I was saying~...

WOOOOOO LOOKA 'DEM LIBS SIZZLE! :trump2 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4156564/Hillary-television-groundwork-White-House-run.html

YUP...THATS A CLEAN-BURNIN' DNC. I TELL YEH WHAT! 










0


----------



## FriedTofu

MrMister said:


> I think the wall is a massive waste of money but Mexico is paying for it so it's ok :garrett


I found a similar deal in an email about a Nigerian Prince once before too. It worked out well in the end. :troll


----------



## Beatles123

FriedTofu said:


> I found a similar deal in an email about a Nigerian Prince once before too. It worked out well in the end. :troll


You were fooled by modern multiculturalism. :trump3


----------



## DoolieNoted

I'm liking the openness and direct way :trump is transmitting his actions to the world..

I've been calling it 'Trumpsparency'


----------



## Beatles123

*YEEEEEEEEEEEEES!*

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ments-president-executive-order-a7546486.html


FUCK OFF, UN!!! :trump2


----------



## Alco

Beatles123 said:


> *YEEEEEEEEEEEEES!*
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ments-president-executive-order-a7546486.html
> 
> 
> FUCK OFF, UN!!! :trump2


Beatles, explain something to me. In an earlier post you made, which was actually very authentic of you and for which I have nothing but respect, you believe the US is a perennial superpower and that it has to lead by example for the entire world. Yet you cheer on this decision of drastically reducing funds (by as much as 40%) to international organisations, which ultimately means that the US is purposefully reducing its role on the international stage and making the conscious choice to turn inward. It's a choice I can understand, but that I don't support. Why do you support this choice, when that could very well mean the US may lose its leading role in international relations in the long term?


----------



## DOPA




----------



## Reaper

Dr. Middy said:


> http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-pipeline-idUSKBN15820N
> 
> So I've read stuff on how Trump has basically given the go ahead for the construction of both the Keystone XL and Dakota Access Pipeline, and how apparently it's going to create a slew of temporary and longer term construction jobs. Now, even though I'm an environmentalist and all and really have been against A LOT of what Trump is doing, I'm alright with the pipelines as a whole as long as proper safety precautions are taken, and that they are built as far away from the water table as possible (even though they are within the watershed already). Apparently this is the intent, so I can't complain about that (http://bismarcktribune.com/news/opi...cle_5dc1e955-fd71-5003-86be-0fa0f29d7fbc.html)


This isn't the first major pipeline Middy. 










This is what America looks like. Oil and gas pipelines are already the safest structures we have. Cars poise a far more environmental and safety hazard than oil and gas pipelines ever will and I don't see anyone switching to hybrids or taking the bus or cycle :shrug Even an oil spill is not harmful. It doesn't destroy anything because it is largely made up of organic substances that basically seeps back into the ground. 

At most you have some short term damage to wildlife and then it comes right back. It's also not like the oil man just lets it leak and not clean up after himself either :draper2 

Why do we hate the oil man so much (not that I'm saying that you personally hate the oil man .. just society in general) when it is his product that allows us to have so many of our conveniences in our lives?



Alco said:


> Beatles, explain something to me. In an earlier post you made, which was actually very authentic of you and for which I have nothing but respect, you believe the US is a perennial superpower and that it has to lead by example for the entire world. Yet you cheer on this decision of drastically reducing funds (by as much as 40%) to international organisations, which ultimately means that the US is purposefully reducing its role on the international stage and making the conscious choice to turn inward. It's a choice I can understand, but that I don't support. Why do you support this choice, when that could very well mean the US may lose its leading role in international relations in the long term?


Let me jump in for Beatles before he answers as well. 

The UN is essentially a meeting of world elites with their pre-existing ideas of how they should govern their own countries, but also a bunch of whiny smaller countries that have taken to creating large political blocs that do nothing but guilt trip the economic and military superpowers into creating a sort of a global social welfare system for their failing countries and their policies. America is responsible for nearly 1/5th of the UN's entire budget and even more of its so-called "peace-keeping" budget which is basically wasted on a bunch of failed warring states where the outcome of this "peacekeeping" expenditure has shown no positive results in those nations. Most of the failed states are still failing and the way America is currently involved hasn't gotten the majority of these fucked up countries to fix themselves. 

I'm sure what Beatles means by US becoming a paragon means that showing the rest of the world how to create a superpower and not just fund the needs of corrupt world leaders who take all this money and have NOTHING to show for it in their countries. There is no accountability for billions of dollars in any of these countries and consistently funding them has only created more complacency and stunted the organic evolution of humanity across the globe. Basically this the whole teach a man versus give a man argument and it applies at a global scale. 

America imo continuing to fund countries and save failing states and governments is hurting people more than helping them because giving money away creates the impression that nothing needs to change and then there's no need for self-reflection at all. It keeps ignorant people from educating themselves and on a mass scale keeps the individual largely incapable of affecting change which would be more sustainable than UN handouts. 

Same with the EU. They can claim all kinds of laurels for themselves by saying that "look we funded this, that and the other thing", but ultimately that is not a winning argument because that funding is directly taken from people pretending that people wouldn't be able to manage their own money and that some global elite group of appointed (and sometimes self-apponted) people can manage it better on behalf of the little man.


----------



## Alco

Carte Blanche said:


> This isn't the first major pipeline Middy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what America looks like. Oil and gas pipelines are already the safest structures we have. Cars poise a far more environmental and safety hazard than oil and gas pipelines ever will and I don't see anyone switching to hybrids or taking the bus or cycle :shrug Even an oil spill is not harmful. It doesn't destroy anything because it is largely made up of organic substances that basically seeps back into the ground.
> 
> At most you have some short term damage to wildlife and then it comes right back. It's also not like the oil man just lets it leak and not clean up after himself either :draper2
> 
> Why do we hate the oil man so much (not that I'm saying that you personally hate the oil man .. just society in general) when it is his product that allows us to have so many of our conveniences in our lives?
> 
> 
> 
> Let me jump in for Beatles before he answers as well.
> 
> The UN is essentially a meeting of world elites with their pre-existing ideas of how they should govern their own countries, but also a bunch of whiny smaller countries that have taken to creating large political blocs that do nothing but guilt trip the economic and military superpowers into creating a sort of a global social welfare system for their failing countries and their policies. America is responsible for nearly 1/5th of the UN's entire budget and even more of its so-called "peace-keeping" budget which is basically wasted on a bunch of failed warring states where the outcome of this "peacekeeping" expenditure has shown no positive results in those nations. Most of the failed states are still failing and the way America is currently involved hasn't gotten the majority of these fucked up countries to fix themselves.
> 
> I'm sure what Beatles means by US becoming a paragon means that showing the rest of the world how to create a superpower and not just fund the needs of corrupt world leaders who take all this money and have NOTHING to show for it in their countries. There is no accountability for billions of dollars in any of these countries and consistently funding them has only created more complacency and stunted the organic evolution of humanity across the globe. Basically this the whole teach a man versus give a man argument and it applies at a global scale.
> 
> America imo continuing to fund countries and save failing states and governments is hurting people more than helping them because giving money away creates the impression that nothing needs to change and then there's no need for self-reflection at all. It keeps ignorant people from educating themselves and on a mass scale keeps the individual largely incapable of affecting change which would be more sustainable than UN handouts.
> 
> Same with the EU. They can claim all kinds of laurels for themselves by saying that "look we funded this, that and the other thing", but ultimately that is not a winning argument because that funding is directly taken from people pretending that people wouldn't be able to manage their own money and that some global elite group of appointed (and sometimes self-apponted) people can manage it better on behalf of the little man.


Again, you make a good case and I will agree with you that the UN in more ways than one falls short of a lot of its objectives and goals. However, what it does do is set a global agenda. It brings countries together to at least think about solutions to global issues, like health, global warning, education in poor countries etc. I'm not going to try to senselessly defend the UN in how it conducts its business, because that would be plain silly. But it is a platform that should be preserved in my opinion and it has some institutions that does very valuable work, like UNICEF. It has developed the declaration of human rights and it has facilitated climate agreements. 

I also agree with you that some smaller countries tend to favor heavily from bloc-forming and get money that is very badly spent. That doesn't mean that the US cannot swing around its weight in the UN. They're a permanent Security Council member with veto-right. This obviously will not change any time soon regardless of contributions. 

The guilt trip you talk about is essentially what the Congo is doing to us and it's terrible because it's one of the absolute WORST countries on the planet. They way "development" money is spent, is something that should be seriously looked at. Not just from within international organisations, but from within individual nations as well. I then wonder though, is the US going to force this issue from the sidelines? Or will they just stop caring? 

In essence, I do see value in the UN as a global platform for global issues, but as with basically any large organisation, they way it operates is not always effective and efficient and should be under constant surveillance.


----------



## Reaper

Alco said:


> Again, you make a good case and I will agree with you that the UN in more ways than one falls short of a lot of its objectives and goals. However, what it does do is set a global agenda. It brings countries together to at least think about solutions to global issues, like health, global warning, education in poor countries etc. I'm not going to try to senselessly defend the UN in how it conducts its business, because that would be plain silly. But it is a platform that should be preserved in my opinion and it has some institutions that does very valuable work, like UNICEF. It has developed the declaration of human rights and it has facilitated climate agreements.


As a libertarian and anti-collectivist, I'll always be against any sort of over-arching concern of humanity as a whole. The trickle down impact of individual triumph over collectivism has been more evident to me as they've tended to succeed far more than global superstructures. Countries like Japan, South Korea, India, China, America, Germany have all grown in to mega powers based on personal responsibility and the idea of the individual working towards the greatness of the nation state. What I'm basically saying is that localized nationalism succeeds, whereas globalist superstructures fail. Japan's inward and isolation post WWII created an atmosphere of rebuilding their nation and they built it into an economic powerhouse. India's inward isolation created scenario of an economic explosion after the 90's. South Korea's independence and work ethic to oppose communism created a largely capitalist paradise. Germans did the same thing. I work for my country and my personal success and work ethic is best for my country (taking a page out of Weber's protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism here). That's an individualistic approach and that's what defines "nationalism" for me. 

The fact of the matter is that most social welfare states have denounced nationalism while reaping the benefits of that nationalism which is one of the greatest ironies I've seen with regards to global politics. Most of the most nationalist countries (other than the communist ones) have succeeded. The countries that have continued to bank on some sort of global responsibility for the solution of their problems have largely failed. 



> I also agree with you that some smaller countries tend to favor heavily from bloc-forming and get money that is very badly spent. That doesn't mean that the US cannot swing around its weight in the UN. They're a permanent Security Council member with veto-right. This obviously will not change any time soon regardless of contributions.


Cutting funding is one of the ways America is swinging its weight around. That's why in principle I agree with it. Squeeze the wallets of the fat cats and force the local populations to fend for themselves. It will work out better for them in the long term. 



> The guilt trip you talk about is essentially what the Congo is doing to us and it's terrible because it's one of the absolute WORST countries on the planet. They way "development" money is spent, is something that should be seriously looked at. Not just from within international organisations, but from within individual nations as well. I then wonder though, is the US going to force this issue from the sidelines? Or will they just stop caring?


I guess we'll end up disagreeing on what "caring" really means. Does giving handouts mean that people care? Or does pulling funding away and reverting to a series of policies that promote sustainable growth in third world countries (basically the idea that people should take agency for their own problems) caring in the same way? Which approach is better? Historically, we've tried the approach of giving money away to corrupt nations for decades and by and large that hasn't worked in these countries at all ... so maybe a little bit of "tough love" is in order allowing countries to fend for themselves and that can be the new way of "caring". 



> In essence, I do see value in the UN as a global platform for global issues, but as with basically any large organisation, they way it operates is not always effective and efficient and should be under constant surveillance.


But what are global issues in an organization that pre-emptively assumes that if you're an economic power then you have an obligation to help those who are "less fortunate" with the discussion never turning to acknowledging personal responsibility? I don't know if we'll agree on this. I don't think that there is such a thing as a "global issue" and that's just a very sugar coated way of trying to absolve responsibility of personal failures of certain nation states and onto states that aren't failures and guilting them into fixing someone else's problems that they never even created in the first place ... Or in some cases global "problems" that aren't even global problems, but rather a result of very localized failures. 

I mean, is there really such a thing as a global problem is what I'm trying to ask and ascertain here?



MrMister said:


> I think the wall is a massive waste of money but Mexico is paying for it so it's ok :garrett


The wall pays for itself if he gets rid of the millions of illegals that are gaming the system and not paying any taxes. Some estimates suggest that illegals are costing taxpayers more than 100 billion annually. But I'll have to look into it in more depth than I currently have.


----------



## Vic Capri

After seeing these thugs destroy businesses in our nation's capital, we got real sick and tired of their shit.
We're not fucking around anymore and we're taking America back! USA! USA! USA!

#AmericaFirst #LawAndOrder 

- Vic


----------



## glenwo2

Beatles123 said:


> :rockwut
> 
> These men are leaders of their nations...going at it via Twitter.....
> 
> 
> WHAT A TIME TO BE ALIVE! :vince5:harper:brock



We should send Brock over there to "convince" El Presidente to pay for the wall. 

*Vicente :* "We will NOT pay for the fucking wall"

*Brock :*


----------



## glenwo2

The RainMaker said:


> I'm glad to have my tax money go to the wall.


Rather it go there than to Palestinians(fuck you, Obama!)


----------



## Reaper

glenwo2 said:


> Rather it go there than to Palestinians(fuck you, Obama!)


I'm pretty sure Obama did this as a win-win for him and the democrats. 

1. Giving money away makes it look like he's a benevolent man. 
2. Trump rescinding the order gives the democrats a talking point about how republicans are anti-humanitarian. 

There is a similar pattern to all of his last few moves in office and this pattern aligns itself with the post-election democratic call to move even farther left towards Bernie's so-called "democratic socialism". All of this will be played up to the max in 2020. 

I'm not saying it's a good or bad move. I'm just saying that I'm noticing a very obvious pattern here with regards to the left-ward direction of the DNC. I think it's a bad move and will only bite them back in the ass.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



glenwo2 said:


> Explain how Trump qualifies as "one of the biggest buffoons to ever lead a country" when he hasn't even been President for one week? :shrug


:toomanykobes

Only if you explain why the length of time he's been a President has any impact on him being a Buffoon in the first place.


----------



## glenwo2

^ So you have no real answer or explanation other than another pointless anti-trump post. 

Thanks for playing.


----------



## glenwo2

Carte Blanche said:


> I'm pretty sure Obama did this as a win-win for him and the democrats.
> 
> 1. Giving money away makes it look like he's a benevolent man.
> 2. Trump rescinding the order gives the democrats a talking point about how republicans are anti-humanitarian.
> 
> There is a similar pattern to all of his last few moves in office and this pattern aligns itself with the post-election democratic call to move even farther left towards Bernie's so-called "democratic socialism". *All of this will be played up to the max in 2020. *
> 
> I'm not saying it's a good or bad move. I'm just saying that I'm noticing a very obvious pattern here with regards to the left-ward direction of the DNC. I think it's a bad move and will only bite them back in the ass.


Except the american people would not like the idea of 221 million of their tax dollars being given as a GIFT to Palestinians. 

Come on now....if the Dems think THIS would "help them" in the 2020 elections, they're DELUSIONAL. :lmao :lmao


----------



## Reaper

glenwo2 said:


> Except the american people would not like the idea of 221 million of their tax dollars being given as a GIFT to Palestinians.
> 
> Come on now....if the Dems think THIS would "help them" in the 2020 elections, they're DELUSIONAL. :lmao :lmao


They are. But considering that a very large chunk of vocal SJW democrats are claiming that "Bernie would have won", the DNC is hoodwinking itself into believing what is actually a small vocal minority .. a group that doesn't even vote is going to select the direction of the DNC. Until and unless there's some serious direction shifting back towards the center, the DNC is going to have trouble again in 2020. You can't win the country by winning the cities. 2016 already proved that. 

Trump does need to ease up on drugs and combined with an strong illegal deportation policy, there's no way the minorities won't flock towards the Repubs in 2020 again.

---

Also: 

3 Trump supporters left this note and tip for a black feminist waitress in a liberal establishment on inauguration day. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/823894761207721985
Her reaction: https://milo.yiannopoulos.net/2017/...ve-white-trump-supporters-gets-surprise-life/



> The men left before seeing Harris’ reaction to the kind gesture, but Harris told The Washington Post all about it.
> You automatically assume if someone supports Trump that they have ideas about you…but [the customer is]* more embracing than even some of my more liberal friends,* and there was a real authenticity in our exchange.​ *Not only did the experience change the way Harris felt about Trump supporters, it also forced her to rethink her feelings on people’s political affiliations in general.*
> 
> This definitely reshaped my perspective. Republican, Democrat, liberal are all subcategories to what we are experiencing. It instills a lot of hope.​ It looks like Busboys and Poets might be a little more inclusive in the future.


----------



## Draykorinee

glenwo2 said:


> ^ So you have no real answer or explanation other than another pointless anti-trump post.
> 
> Thanks for playing.


My answer was he is a buffoon and his time as a President has no bearing on that so your question was a complete and utter irrelevance, you asked a stupid question and you'll just have to deal with that.

If you'd have asked my why I think he's a buffoon then you might have asked a question with an actual point to it.


----------



## Oxidamus

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



draykorinee said:


> :toomanykobes
> 
> Only if you explain why the length of time he's been a President has any impact on him being a Buffoon in the first place.


You don't need political experience to be a politician.


----------



## Draykorinee

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



Oxi X.O. said:


> You don't need political experience to be a politician.


Okay, thats good but why did you quote me to say that?

You do need an Egg to make an Omelette.


----------



## Vic Capri

This Mexican president seems to not understand the U.S. holds all the cards in this deal. The peso went down 11% after the cancellation news.

- Vic


----------



## Cipher

Beatles123 said:


> :rockwut
> 
> These men are leaders of their nations...going at it via Twitter.....
> 
> 
> WHAT A TIME TO BE ALIVE! :vince5:harper:brock


Uh. He's not the President of Mexico anymore and hasn't been for years.


----------



## glenwo2

Vic Capri said:


> After seeing these thugs destroy businesses in our nation's capital, we got real sick and tired of their shit.
> We're not fucking around anymore and we're taking America back! USA! USA! USA!
> 
> #AmericaFirst #LawAndOrder
> 
> - Vic


In first vid, I got goosebumps listening to all the WINNING going on. 

BTW, I love the Stars and Stripes Forever theme playing at the end there. Nice touch.


In 2nd vid :

"Thank you for doing your job, guys. I appreciate it." :clap

We all do.


----------



## Oxidamus

*Re: President Donald Trump Discussion Thread*



draykorinee said:


> Okay, thats good but why did you quote me to say that?
> 
> You do need an Egg to make an Omelette.


I assumed you were going to say he has no experience and thus, is unfit for the job (like many others). When that's blatantly untrue, especially when it seems being a politician gunning for the presidency of the US these days comes with an awful lot of corruption.

"He was a buffoon before!" is pretty nonsense too, stop drinking the regressive kool-aid where a multi-billionaire 70 year old is supposedly stupid.


----------



## glenwo2

draykorinee said:


> My answer was he is a buffoon and his time as a President has no bearing on that so your question was a complete and utter irrelevance, you asked a stupid question and you'll just have to deal with that.
> 
> *If you'd have asked my why I think he's a buffoon then you might have asked a question with an actual point to it.*



That's odd. I thought I just did ask you to explain why. :shrug


I guess I was expecting you to explain your reasons earlier but I suppose I have to spell it out for you then. 

So I'll ask again :

WHY....DO....YOU...THINK...HE...IS.....A....BUFFOON? 

And next up we learn how to count to 3.....


----------



## Draykorinee

Oxi X.O. said:


> I assumed you were going to say he has no experience and thus, is unfit for the job (like many others). When that's blatantly untrue, especially when it seems being a politician gunning for the presidency of the US these days comes with an awful lot of corruption.
> 
> "He was a buffoon before!" is pretty nonsense too, stop drinking the regressive kool-aid where a multi-billionaire 70 year old is supposedly stupid.


Never said he was stupid, I said he was a buffoon which basically relates to being a clown like figure. I question the use of multi-billionaire as some kind of achievement when he had it handed to him on a silver platter, but its certainly a measure that hes not an idiot, which isn't what I implied anyway.



glenwo2 said:


> That's odd. I thought I just did ask you to explain why. :shrug


Umm no you asked me how I could call him a buffoon when he's not been a president for long which is basically a non question, its also a stupid question, because he is still leading a country, the time is irrelevant.


He's a buffoon to me based on the way he presents himself, his hair, his mannerisms, his seemingly complete lack of stopcock on his thoughts so everything just seems to flow out, his narcissm, his petulant attacks on the media when things are said about him. These are all things that to me give the impression of a joke, a clownlike figure, we all interpret things differently and some may see his brash responses and lack of filter endearing, personally I think he's a buffoon, a very clever buffoon.

I think we can all agree that he is going to produce some fantastic moments in his presidency, for good or bad.


----------



## amhlilhaus

Carte Blanche said:


> They are. But considering that a very large chunk of vocal SJW democrats are claiming that "Bernie would have won", the DNC is hoodwinking itself into believing what is actually a small vocal minority .. a group that doesn't even vote is going to select the direction of the DNC. Until and unless there's some serious direction shifting back towards the center, the DNC is going to have trouble again in 2020. You can't win the country by winning the cities. 2016 already proved that.
> 
> Trump does need to ease up on drugs and combined with an strong illegal deportation policy, there's no way the minorities won't flock towards the Repubs in 2020 again.
> 
> ---
> 
> Also:
> 
> 3 Trump supporters left this note and tip for a black feminist waitress in a liberal establishment on inauguration day.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/823894761207721985
> Her reaction: https://milo.yiannopoulos.net/2017/...ve-white-trump-supporters-gets-surprise-life/


Just look attend a liberal march and a conservative march. Ones full of respectful polite people. The other has even the speakers throwing f bombs.


----------



## Vic Capri

> Never said he was stupid, I said he was a buffoon which basically relates to being a clown like figure. I question the use of multi-billionaire as some kind of achievement when he had it handed to him on a silver platter, but its certainly a measure that hes not an idiot, which isn't what I implied anyway.


Even freaking Slate debunked the absurd liberal notion that millionaire Trump became a billionaire overnight! :lol

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2015/09/03/donald_trump_s_wealth_he_isn_t_only_rich_because_of_his_dad.html

- Vic


----------



## Oxidamus

draykorinee said:


> Never said he was stupid, I said he was a buffoon which basically relates to being a clown like figure. I question the use of multi-billionaire as some kind of achievement when he had it handed to him on a silver platter, but its certainly a measure that hes not an idiot, which isn't what I implied anyway.


Ok, my mistake. Maybe you should pick better wording for the future though.



> He's a buffoon to me based on the way he presents himself, his hair, his mannerisms, his seemingly complete lack of stopcock on his thoughts so everything just seems to flow out, his narcissm, _*his petulant attacks on the media when things are said about him*_. These are all things that to me give the impression of a joke, a clownlike figure, we all interpret things differently and some may see his brash responses and lack of filter endearing, personally I think he's a buffoon, a very clever buffoon.
> 
> I think we can all agree that he is going to produce some fantastic moments in his presidency, for good or bad.


You would probably do the same if you were going to become one of, if not the most important man in the world, and the incredibly divisive media continued perpetuating complete and utter nonsense so that they could dictate what people learn. It is easily the most pervasive non-criminal issue in the entire US.


----------



## virus21

> The United Sates was downgraded from "full democracy" to "flawed democracy" in the 2016 Democracy Index, which cites declining trust in the government as the cause of its new rating.
> 
> The report is the Economist Intelligence Unit's ninth annual Democracy Index, which looks at the state of governments across the world. In 2016, the number of "full democracies" dropped from 20 to 19.
> 
> The United States' downgrade puts it at 21 in the international rankings, below Japan and tied with Italy.
> 
> President Trump, the report says, harnessed that low trust of the government to win the presidency. The report, however, doesn't blame the new rating entirely on Trump, noting the downward trend in trust over the last several decades.
> The U.S. has been "teetering on the brink of becoming a flawed democracy" for years, the report says. It cites the decline starting with the Vietnam War in the 1960s, the civil rights movement, the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy and the Watergate scandal.
> 
> It allegedly continued to decline over the last several decades.
> 
> "By tapping a deep strain of political disaffection with the functioning of democracy, Mr Trump became a beneficiary of the low esteem in which U.S. voters hold their government, elected representatives and political parties, but he was not responsible for a problem that has had a long gestation," the report reads.
> 
> In total, the Economist Intelligence Unit measured a decline in democracy in 72 countries and an increase in 38 countries last year.


http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/blog-summaries/316085-us-no-longer-considered-full-democracy


----------



## Miss Sally

You don't need "experience" to be a Politician, in fact the American system was designed for anyone to be President or hold office based on if the people thought that person was up for the job because they liked their ideas. Being a Politician is simply selling your ideas and implementing them. None of us here are Politicians yet I've seen some fantastic ideas from everyone here regardless of Political affiliation. The only experience needed would be how to do the paper work of such tasks and honestly it's not that difficult. 

The notion of needing "experience" for Politics is just a way to keep out people these professional Politicians don't like, news flash there was never supposed to be professional life long Politicians. There's a reason our forefathers sought to end such things because corrupt men who were "born" to lead or our "betters" had been controlling everything for such a long time. Our Political world has become like Hollywood, things being passed to rich friends, family and those of "better" birth. The things we tried to get away from. Why do people insist we constantly go back to Political Nobility? 

Our forefathers were some of the best and brightest and accomplished a lot because they were men from all walks of life, learned and experienced with life itself. They debated in their own forums and the best ideas won out. That's how it should be done. Our forefathers could drag their nuts over the faces of the types like the Bushes, Obamas or the Clintons because they spent their entire lives to the pursuit of knowledge in a vast area of all matters, not just going through the motions to earn enough "experience" to be President or hold some office.

Frankly I'll take any man or woman who has good, practical ideas regardless of Political affiliation over anyone who sees Political office as a way to make personal gain and not to improve things better than before.


----------



## glenwo2

draykorinee said:


> He's a buffoon to me based on the way he presents himself, his hair, his mannerisms, his seemingly complete lack of stopcock on his thoughts so everything just seems to flow out, his narcissm, his petulant attacks on the media when things are said about him. These are all things that to me give the impression of a joke, a clownlike figure, we all interpret things differently and some may see his brash responses and lack of filter endearing, personally I think he's a buffoon, a very clever buffoon.
> 
> I think we can all agree that he is going to produce some fantastic moments in his presidency, for good or bad.


So I guess you can count me among the *MANY* that view his actions, demeanor, and attitude as "endearing" then. :shrug

And I don't care if he's dressed up like a fucking homeless man. His appearance has ZERO bearing on him being President right now. 


"Actions speak louder than words" is the saying and Trump is not only fulfilling that mantra, he is speaking louder and making his actions even moreso. 

He is actually DOING SOMETHING that he campaigned the American people about instead of just sweeping it under the rug and just disappearing from the public consciousness until the next re-election bid.


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

Vic Capri said:


> This Mexican president seems to not understand the U.S. holds all the cards in this deal. The peso went down 11% after the cancellation news.
> 
> - Vic


Just image what would happen to the Mexican economy, if a US Tourism Embargo were enacted . . . Bye-Bye to all those US Dollars, "El Presidente" !!!


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

Beatles123 said:


> *YEEEEEEEEEEEEES!*
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ments-president-executive-order-a7546486.html
> 
> 
> FUCK OFF, UN!!! :trump2


OH, YEAH !!! 

The USA presently supplies about 1/3 of the total funding of the UN . . . De-fund and KICK THEM OUT OF NEW YORK !!!


----------



## virus21




----------



## Vic Capri

The AP said:


> President Trump calling for 20 percent tax on imports from Mexico to pay for southern border wall.


:lol

- Vic


----------



## virus21

Wait, we import things from Mexico?


----------



## Reaper

Vic Capri said:


> :lol
> 
> - Vic


Dude ... you shouldn't be celebrating this - because this particular tax will impact the consumer as a lot of mexican produce is required to make up for the local shortfall and also variety. 

It'll impact supply which will drive up costs for Americans. 

This is a shit as fuck idea and we shouldn't be supporting it :shrug

Instead of tariffs, the better idea is to make sure local states and feds aren't paying for the services illegal immigrants consume and channeling that funding to the wall. They also need to bring the hammer down on mega corporations and contractors that hire illegals with harsher penalties and fines. 

If you hit a company with a one time fine, they're far less likely to be able to pass on the cost to the consumer than if you impose a tax or a tariff which allows them to pass the cost down to their end consumer.


----------



## Mifune Jackson

Yeah, I like Mexican Cokes. This is bad for me.


----------



## Reaper

Mifune Jackson said:


> Yeah, I like Mexican Cokes. This is bad for me.





virus21 said:


> Wait, we import things from Mexico?


:lol 

This isn't just about specific mexican products. This is about having an inflow of produce that supports the existing supply which keeps prices low for both local and imported products since it all goes into one giant pool of consumer goods available in the market. 

Produce is more price sensitive and has a much greater impact on consumers than electronics and luxury items since they fall into the necessity category.

Well, since our biggest import from Mexico happens to be our own cars, I think that that kind of a tariff might even stimulate the US manufacturing industry. It will really ultimately depend on some smart policy decision-making, I guess.


----------



## Miss Sally

Carte Blanche said:


> :lol
> 
> This isn't just about specific mexican products. This is about having an inflow of produce that supports the existing supply which keeps prices low for both local and imported products since it all goes into one giant pool of consumer goods available in the market.
> 
> Produce is more price sensitive and has a much greater impact on consumers than electronics and luxury items since they fall into the necessity category.
> 
> Well, since our biggest import from Mexico happens to be our own cars, I think that that kind of a tariff might even stimulate the US manufacturing industry. It will really ultimately depend on some smart policy decision-making, I guess.


Frankly America has let it's farming industry nearly die, which is crazy because America has some of the best farm land. America really needs to become self sufficient when it comes to Farming.


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

Carte Blanche said:


> Instead of tariffs, the better idea is to make sure local states and feds aren't paying for the services illegal immigrants consume and channeling that funding to the wall.
> 
> If you hit a company with a one time fine, they're far less likely to be able to pass on the cost to the consumer than if you impose a tax or a tariff which allows them to pass the cost down to their end consumer.


Enact a US Tourism Embargo against Mexico ( No flights in and no cruise ships from the USA ) . . . Bye-Bye to all those US Dollars, "El Presidente" !!!


----------



## Reaper

Lunatic Fringe said:


> Enact a US Tourism Embargo against Mexico ( No flights in and no cruise ships from the USA ) . . . Bye-Bye to all those US Dollars, "El Presidente" !!!


That wouldn't hurt the mexican economy much, if at all. Tourism only makes up about 11% of its GDP and it's mainly from South American countries, not the USA. In fact, a tourism embargo essentially limits american liberty to travel the globe .. You're still hurting the little guy by telling him that he can't go on a vacation to Mexico ... That's anti-liberty. 

Mexican economy is primarily made of up its industry such as automative and electronics both of which are primarily consumed by Americans. So no matter what ... All tariffs on any industry hurts Americans in the end until and unless some really smart deals are made where the automotive industry can come back ---- which at least in 4 years is unlikely because moving facilities back is a costly venture. Which then still hurts the consumers. 

From a purely financial point of view, until and unless America can find ways to divert local federal and state funds to the development, "making Mexicans pay" will still end up hurting Americans. The best option is to simply pull money away from the wastelands of over-blown local contracts and unpopular policies to the wall.


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

Carte Blanche said:


> That wouldn't hurt the mexican economy much, if at all. Tourism only makes up about 11% of its GDP and it's mainly from South American countries, not the USA. In fact, a tourism embargo essentially limits american liberty to travel the globe .. You're still hurting the little guy by telling him that he can't go on a vacation to Mexico ... That's anti-liberty.


We could always "accidentally" nuke Mexico City . . . LOL !


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

Carte Blanche said:


> That wouldn't hurt the mexican economy much, if at all.


80% of Mexico's exports come to the USA . . . "Slam the door" and block US trade with Mexico !

*https://forum.uhnd.com/forum/index.php?action=display&forumid=2&msgid=315904*


----------



## 307858

Lunatic Fringe said:


> We could always "accidentally" nuke Mexico City . . . LOL !


OR maybe Trump is nuking taxpayers' wallets with this pork barrel project. Mind you, we do need to address immigration, but there are more comprehensive approaches to it. 

China will rise as a superpower as a result of Trump's isolationist policies. World leaders aren't afraid of him. Hell, his own citizens think he's the James Ellsworth of presidents. Mexico could easily cut a deal with China other countries. It doesn't need much from the US, and Mexico is not really afraid of the US. You need to make peace that the wall will be coming out of YOUR wallet, out of the wallets of the poor that voted for Trump, and it will do nothing in the long-run equilibrium. Mexico won't pay for the wall. China is the new IT girl now that Trumpster Dumpster is giving America an air of knockoff quality. 

The cat is out of the bag. Globalization = more money, productivity due to comparative advantages, specialization, and trade. Any country partaking in isolationism is doomed to fail. 

No one in the free world is afraid of this:









Also the volume, of delusional Trump supporters on WF is just a friendly reminder that WWE's demographics usually incorporate troglodytes.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Carte Blanche said:


> Dude ... you shouldn't be celebrating this - because this particular tax will impact the consumer as a lot of mexican produce is required to make up for the local shortfall and also variety.
> 
> It'll impact supply which will drive up costs for Americans.
> 
> This is a shit as fuck idea and we shouldn't be supporting it :shrug
> 
> Instead of tariffs, the better idea is to make sure local states and feds aren't paying for the services illegal immigrants consume and channeling that funding to the wall. They also need to bring the hammer down on mega corporations and contractors that hire illegals with harsher penalties and fines.
> 
> If you hit a company with a one time fine, they're far less likely to be able to pass on the cost to the consumer than if you impose a tax or a tariff which allows them to pass the cost down to their end consumer.


This is what I was thinking when i saw the press conference. This isn't Mexico paying for the wall. This is, at least partially, American companies that import paying for the wall and then passing the it on to the consumers.

It's like his proposed tax of 35% on all Mexican produced cars. Ford just add that to the price of their cars, which in turn leads consumers to buy from other car companies, which then probably leads to Ford downsizing.


----------



## Dr. Middy

Carte Blanche said:


> This isn't the first major pipeline Middy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what America looks like. Oil and gas pipelines are already the safest structures we have. Cars poise a far more environmental and safety hazard than oil and gas pipelines ever will and I don't see anyone switching to hybrids or taking the bus or cycle :shrug Even an oil spill is not harmful. It doesn't destroy anything because it is largely made up of organic substances that basically seeps back into the ground.
> 
> At most you have some short term damage to wildlife and then it comes right back. It's also not like the oil man just lets it leak and not clean up after himself either :draper2
> 
> Why do we hate the oil man so much (not that I'm saying that you personally hate the oil man .. just society in general) when it is his product that allows us to have so many of our conveniences in our lives?


I don't hate the oil man at all, I just think that there really isn't a huge need for the pipeline at all, nor do I think the jobs that are going to be created are worth all that much. I mean the majority of the jobs associated with this are contract based, and then what happens after the pipeline is finished? 

And really, one of my main concerns when grouping both oil and coal together is that Trump thinks that the only way to get work for these people again is to bring back the fossil fuel industry, which is slowly being outdated (coal much quicker than oil). I'd rather he try and focus on creating programs to help give those people who worked in coal mines, coal plants, oil fields and refineries which have closed, etc. Have programs that help to find these people work in other industries that would be more beneficial to them and the environment as a whole. A lot of the renewable forms of energy (hydroelectric dams, solar farms, wind farms, etc.) all need engineers to maintain, and if I'm not mistaken a lot of them still use trace amounts of oil when it comes to specific parts and such. Why not help train these people out of work for jobs like this, among others?


----------



## Reaper

heel_turn said:


> Mexico could easily cut a deal with China other countries. It doesn't need much from the US, and Mexico is not really afraid of the US.


Nah. China doesn't have consumers. Until and unless china becomes the world leader in consumption and isn't dwarfing the american consumer in terms of wallet size, it poses absolutely no threat to America. Without the fat wallets of American consumers, China's industry will collapse. 

There are a lot of things going on in the global market. For example, a lot of Asian electronics manufacturers have moved facilities to Mexico as well because that cuts transportation costs to America and that also helps the American consumer. Tariffs are not always a good thing, but it's not like all tariffs are always bad because there are market thresholds to tariff rates. Basically certain levels that the free market can bear before it breaks kind of thing. 

As far as an industrial nation cutting deals with another industrial nation is concerned, we don't have to worry about the tariffs. No country is cutting deals with China because chinese are dirt fucking poor. You have to look at it from who's the buyer and who's the seller. China is a seller as is Mexico. They're both competing for the American consumer. The American government can squeeze both countries to an extent ---- but at the same time, the American government needs to ease the pressure on the American tax payer without with the tariffs will fail.



Dr. Middy said:


> I don't hate the oil man at all, I just think that there really isn't a huge need for the pipeline at all, nor do I think the jobs that are going to be created are worth all that much. I mean the majority of the jobs associated with this are contract based, and then what happens after the pipeline is finished?


You increase the supply of oil within the continent and thereby reducing the dependence on middle east oil and stability even more and keep a check on oil prices within the continent from being influenced by the OPEC. In this case, I'm all for continued cooperation between America and Canada because the continent needs to increase its self-sufficiency and find as many ways as possible to hurt the OPEC oil sheikhs. 



> I'd rather he try and focus on creating programs to help give those people who worked in coal mines, coal plants, oil fields and refineries which have closed, etc. Have programs that help to find these people work in other industries that would be more beneficial to them and the environment as a whole. A lot of the renewable forms of energy (hydroelectric dams, solar farms, wind farms, etc.) all need engineers to maintain, and if I'm not mistaken a lot of them still use trace amounts of oil when it comes to specific parts and such. Why not help train these people out of work for jobs like this, among others?


I'm anti-coal actually because it's much more hazardous to human and enviromental health. There are more mining accidents than oil accidents and coal miners have some of the shortest life spans in the world. 

As far as alternative energy is concerned, almost every country that's tried it so far has realized that it's too expensive. 

We need to go nuclear and not solar or wind.


----------



## Vic Capri

President Trump didn't wave to the press before boarding Air Force One to leave Joint Base Andrews today. Zero fucks given!

- Vic


----------



## Miss Sally

heel_turn said:


> OR maybe Trump is nuking taxpayers' wallets with this pork barrel project. Mind you, we do need to address immigration, but there are more comprehensive approaches to it.
> 
> China will rise as a superpower as a result of Trump's isolationist policies. World leaders aren't afraid of him. Hell, his own citizens think he's the James Ellsworth of presidents. Mexico could easily cut a deal with China other countries. It doesn't need much from the US, and Mexico is not really afraid of the US. You need to make peace that the wall will be coming out of YOUR wallet, out of the wallets of the poor that voted for Trump, and it will do nothing in the long-run equilibrium. Mexico won't pay for the wall. China is the new IT girl now that Trumpster Dumpster is giving America an air of knockoff quality.
> 
> The cat is out of the bag. Globalization = more money, productivity due to comparative advantages, specialization, and trade. Any country partaking in isolationism is doomed to fail.
> 
> No one in the free world is afraid of this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also the volume, of delusional Trump supporters on WF is just a friendly reminder that WWE's demographics usually incorporate troglodytes.


China isn't a consumer :grin2: China makes goods to sell to people, they're not looking to buy goods from Mexico. 

Globalization has pros and cons, it's certainly not all pros.


----------



## 307858

Miss Sally said:


> China isn't a consumer :grin2: China makes goods to sell to people, they're not looking to buy goods from Mexico.
> 
> Globalization has pros and cons, it's certainly not all pros.


You're looking at the short-term equilibrium. Sure stocks are up because the rich expect tax cuts, i.e, the ones who can afford to evade taxes. In the long-run, China will be the consumer:

http://www.economist.com/news/busin...-troubled-economy-consumption-china-resilient

Economists predict Donald Trump won't grow the economy as much as Hillary Clinton:

Hillary: https://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/2016-06-17-Trumps-Economic-Policies.pdf
Drumpf:
https://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/2016-06-17-Trumps-Economic-Policies.pdf

Shane was wise to start a business there. I can name a certain cuntry chick who didn't. 

You want to be on the winning side of globalism. People won't want to deal with America if our president keeps getting barebacked politically by Putin. Furthermore, Trump is embarrassing af.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*It's so funny to watch all the poor and uneducated Trump supporters flip flop on social media within a week of his presidency. He's not the savior they thought he was after freezing government hiring, cutting their healthcare that they voted against because it had Obama's name in it mj4), and using OUR tax money to build the wall after Mexico repeatedly said they won't reimburse us.*


----------



## Beatles123

Alco said:


> Beatles, explain something to me. In an earlier post you made, which was actually very authentic of you and for which I have nothing but respect, you believe the US is a perennial superpower and that it has to lead by example for the entire world. Yet you cheer on this decision of drastically reducing funds (by as much as 40%) to international organisations, which ultimately means that the US is purposefully reducing its role on the international stage and making the conscious choice to turn inward. It's a choice I can understand, but that I don't support. Why do you support this choice, when that could very well mean the US may lose its leading role in international relations in the long term?


Simply because, it is not at present in the US's best interests to be part of it. Thr UN is corrupted, and we are in rebuild mode. Note that I did not say we ARE a superpower. I said it was our destiny to be one. We lost that status, at least compared to the past. We must regain it. The UN is not in the best intrest of that goal at this time.


----------



## Beatles123

Legit BOSS said:


> *It's so funny to watch all the poor and uneducated Trump supporters flip flop on social media within a week of his presidency. He's not the savior they thought he was after freezing government hiring, cutting their healthcare that they voted against because it had Obama's name in it mj4), and using OUR tax money to build the wall after Mexico repeatedly said they won't reimburse us.*


You caall us uneducated yet you are completely false on all of this.


----------



## virus21

> USTIN -- A White House suggestion that the United States could add a 20-percent tax on imports from Mexico to pay for President Donald Trump's promised border wall drew a decidedly chilly response from business interests and Texas officials who warned it could adversely affect both the state's budget and business climate.
> In Washington, Trump spokesman Sean Spicer added a surprising new twist about how the proposed border wall, which is almost universally supported by Texas officials, would be paid for, saying that Trump intends to fund it by imposing a 20-percent tax on all imports from Mexico.
> THE TAX: Trump wants 20 percent tariff to cover cost of Mexican border wall
> Gov. Greg Abbott, who has championed increased trade with Texas' southern neighbor since he became governor a year ago, had no immediate comment.
> Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, an outspoken supporter of the wall who served as Trump's campaign chairman in Texas, told Fox News that he was "not too concerned" at present about any adverse impact of such a tax. He suggested that the proposal might be "the first warning shot across the bow" fired by Trump, and that the tax could end up being something less.
> "We need the wall," he told Fox News' Neil Cavuto. "It will work itself out."
> Business interests in Texas, however, turned thumbs-down to the proposal. Business trade groups in Austin said their initial reaction was that a new import tax would drive up the cost of good for Texans, and could adversely affect Texas' thriving import-export market if Mexico retaliates with new tariffs of its own.
> In addition, they suggested that the proposal could worsen already-strained relations between the two countries, at a time when Texas businesses were counting on increased trade with Texas' southern neighbor as a hedge against a continuing sag in some sectors of the Lone Star economy.
> TRUMP'S MOVES: Abbott applauds president's immigration actions
> "There's a lot of cross-border trade that goes on in Texas, and I'm sure a lot of people on both sides of the border won't like this," said Vicente "Chente" Garcia, a landowner near Del Rio and longtime supporter of a wall, echoing the sentiments of other businessmen. "Nobody is going to like paying a tax. In Texas, this will make goods from Mexico more expensive. And who wants to pay more?"
> Mexican imports into Texas have been estimated in recent years to total more than $85 billion a year, as part of more than $200 billion in annual trade between Texas and Mexico. Last year, in his first international trip as governor, Abbott visited Mexico to court additional trade between the two neighbors.
> "This is a new chapter in the relationship between Mexico and Texas and a new beginning of what has been a rich history," Abbott told Mexican officials during his visit.
> Predictably, Texas Democrats took issue with the proposal -- and used it as an opportunity to bash state GOP leaders.
> "Texas' economy has already sunk from 3rd to 21st under Republicans Greg Abbott and Dan Patrick, now Trump is taking a shot at our jobs," said Crystal Perkins, the party's executive director.
> She insisted that Trump's proposed import tax "will kill Texas jobs, raise the price of goods for Texas families, and slaughter Texas' relationship with its largest trading partner."


http://www.chron.com/news/politics/texas/article/Trump-proposal-for-20-percent-tax-on-Mexico-10886937.php



> It's now 2 ½ minutes to “midnight,” according to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, which warned Thursday that the end of humanity may be near.
> 
> The group behind the famed Doomsday Clock announced at a news conference that it was adjusting the countdown to the End of it All by moving the hands 30 seconds closer to midnight — the closest the clock has been to Doomsday since 1953, after the United States tested its first thermonuclear device, followed months later by the Soviet Union's hydrogen bomb test.
> 
> In announcing that the Doomsday Clock was moving 30 seconds closer to the end of humanity, the group noted that in 2016, “the global security landscape darkened as the international community failed to come effectively to grips with humanity’s most pressing existential threats, nuclear weapons and climate change.”
> 
> But the organization also cited the election of President Trump in changing the symbolic clock.
> 
> [As Trump takes control of nukes, Hiroshima’s ex-mayor urges him to meet atomic-bomb survivors]
> 
> “Making matters worse, the United States now has a president who has promised to impede progress on both of those fronts,” theoretical physicist Lawrence M. Krauss and retired Navy Rear Adm. David Titley wrote in a New York Times op-ed on behalf of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. “Never before has the Bulletin decided to advance the clock largely because of the statements of a single person. But when that person is the new president of the United States, his words matter.”
> 
> Doomsday Clock scientists tell Trump: Climate change exists. 'There are no alternative facts here' Play Video0:41
> David Titley from The Bulletin for Atomic Scientists said, "The Trump Administration needs to state clearly and unequivocally that it accepts climate change caused by human activity as reality. No problem can be solved unless its existence is first recognized." (Reuters)
> The clock is symbolic, sitting at the intersection of art and science, and it has wavered between two minutes and 17 minutes till doom since its inception in 1947. A board of scientists and nuclear experts meets regularly to determine what time it is on the Doomsday Clock.
> 
> The clock was last moved in 2015, when two minutes were taken away to express the group's dissatisfaction with world progress on “unchecked climate change, global nuclear weapons modernizations, and outsized nuclear weapons arsenals.” Those issues, the group said at the time, “pose extraordinary and undeniable threats to the continued existence of humanity.”
> 
> The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists was founded by some of the people who worked on the Manhattan Project. One of them, nuclear physicist Alexander Langsdorf, was married to artist Martyl Langsdorf. She created the clock and set it at seven minutes to midnight, or 11:53, for the cover of the group's magazine. Her husband moved the time four minutes later in 1949.
> 
> Since then, the bulletin's board has determined when the clock's minute hand will move, usually to draw attention to worldwide crises that, the board believes, threaten the survival of the human species. The group's reasoning focuses almost exclusively on the availability of nuclear weapons and a willingness among the world's great powers to use them.
> 
> [Here is every time the Doomsday Clock has moved, and why, according to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists]
> 
> In 2016, the bulletin said in its statement: “The United States and Russia — which together possess more than 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons — remained at odds in a variety of theaters, from Syria to Ukraine to the borders of NATO; both countries continued wide-ranging modernizations of their nuclear forces, and serious arms control negotiations were nowhere to be seen. North Korea conducted its fourth and fifth underground nuclear tests and gave every indication it would continue to develop nuclear weapons delivery capabilities. Threats of nuclear warfare hung in the background as Pakistan and India faced each other warily across the Line of Control in Kashmir after militants attacked two Indian army bases.”
> 
> The group noted that the “climate change outlook was somewhat less dismal — but only somewhat.”
> 
> Notably, the bulletin added: “This already-threatening world situation was the backdrop for a rise in strident nationalism worldwide in 2016, including in a US presidential campaign during which the eventual victor, Donald Trump, made disturbing comments about the use and proliferation of nuclear weapons and expressed disbelief in the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change.”
> 
> Titley, the retired rear admiral and founding director of Penn State’s Center for Solutions to Weather and Climate Risk, said that despite some encouraging signs, such as the Paris agreement, global warming continues to threaten the future of humanity.
> 
> He pointed out that 2016 was the warmest year on record and that 16 of the 17 warmest years on record have been recorded since 2001. He cited a September 2016 intelligence report that highlighted the many threats posed by climate change, including global instability, increased risk to human health and adverse effects on food availability.
> 
> But, Titley said, the political situation in the United States is of “particular concern.”
> 
> “Climate change should not be a partisan issue,” he said. “The well-established physics of the earth's carbon cycle is neither liberal, nor conservative in character. The Trump Administration needs to state clearly and unequivocally that it accepts climate change caused by human activity as reality. There are no alternative facts here.”
> 
> [Scientists feel ignored by the Trump administration — and they’re alarmed]
> 
> Rachel Bronson, the Bulletin's executive director and publisher, said threats such as climate change are being compounded by “a growing disregard for scientific expertise.”
> 
> “There is a troubling propensity to discount, or outright reject, expert advice related to international security, including the conclusions of intelligence experts,” she said. “The board concludes in no uncertain terms that words matter in ensuring the safety and security of our planet.”
> 
> Thomas Pickering, a former undersecretary of state who also served as ambassador to the United Nations and Israel, cited Trump's “casual talk” about nuclear weapons in telling reporters that “nuclear rhetoric is now loose and destabilizing.”
> 
> “We are more than ever impressed that words matter, words count,” he said.
> 
> In their Times op-ed, Krauss and Titley wrote:
> 
> We understand that Mr. Trump has been in office only days, that many of his cabinet nominees are awaiting confirmation and that he has had little time to take official action.
> 
> But Mr. Trump’s statements and actions have been unsettling. He has made ill-considered comments about expanding and even deploying the American nuclear arsenal. He has expressed disbelief in the scientific consensus on global warming. He has shown a troubling propensity to discount or reject expert advice related to international security. And his nominees to head the Energy Department, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Office of Management and the Budget have disputed or questioned climate change.
> 
> Throughout the presidential campaign, Trump faced a recurring charge: that he could not be trusted with the nation's nuclear weapons.
> 
> 'Let it be an arms race': Trump's history of discussing nuclear weapons Play Video2:02
> President-elect Donald Trump has called nuclear weapons “the single greatest problem the world has” – but he's also made some controversial statements about them. (Peter Stevenson/The Washington Post)
> In August, a group of 50 former national security officials who served Republican and Democratic presidents signed an open letter saying Trump lacked the character, values and experience to be president.
> 
> “All of these are dangerous qualities in an individual who aspires to be President and Commander-in-Chief, with command of the U.S. nuclear arsenal,” the group said.
> 
> The worst-possible scenario was at times unspoken but clear — that Trump's lack of self-control could spark nuclear war.
> 
> “A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons,” his Democratic campaign rival, Hillary Clinton, charged.
> 
> While Trump has repeatedly dismissed those criticisms, he has done little to calm fears of impending nuclear war since winning the presidency. Last month, Trump tweeted that the United States “must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability.” He did not elaborate on the message, which followed comments by Russian President Vladimir Putin about strengthening his country's nuclear arsenal.
> 
> Follow
> Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
> The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes
> 10:50 AM - 22 Dec 2016
> 21,413 21,413 Retweets 73,398 73,398 likes
> Trump's tweet — and comments he reportedly made the following day to MSNBC's “Morning Joe” co-host Mika Brzezinski — sparked fears of a renewed arms race between the two countries.
> 
> Although Trump later seemed to back off his statements, suggesting in an interview with two European publications that “nuclear weapons should be way down,” there were reasons to be concerned after he gained control of the United States' nearly 1,400 active nuclear warheads on Inauguration Day, The Washington Post's Ishaan Tharoor said.
> 
> Two days after Trump was elected, the mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki invited him to visit, the Japan Times reported.
> 
> Then, Tadatoshi Akiba, the former mayor of Hiroshima, wrote a letter to Trump just before his inauguration, urging him to make “wise and peaceable” decisions regarding nuclear weapons.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/01/26/the-doomsday-clock-just-moved-again-its-now-two-and-a-half-minutes-to-midnight/?utm_term=.8a65b8cdabe7#comments



> The seven-year-old Syrian girl who gained a global following last year with her Twitter updates from Aleppo has written an open letter to U.S. President Donald Trump asking him to help other children her war-torn country.
> 
> Bana Alabed drew some 363,000 followers after she joined the micro-blogging site in September where she uploaded messages and pictures of daily life in Aleppo on the @AlabedBana handle, an account managed by her mother Fatemah.
> 
> Last month, the young girl and her family were evacuated from the rebel-held eastern part of the city following a government offensive. They arrived in Turkey, where they met President Tayyip Erdogan.
> 
> Turkey has supported rebels fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
> 
> On her own @FatemahAlabed Twitter account, Fatemah posted a picture of the handwritten letter where the young girl introduces herself to Trump as "part of the Syrian children who suffered from the Syrian war".
> 
> "...Can you please save the children and people of Syria? You must do something for the children of Syria because they are like your children and deserve peace like you," the letter reads. "If you promise me you will do something for the children of Syria, I am already your new friend."
> 
> Britain's BBC quoted Fatemah as saying Bana penned the letter before Trump's inauguration last Friday.
> 
> In the letter, Bana also talks about losing friends in the nearly-six-year conflict and her new life outside Syria.
> 
> "Right now in Turkey, I can go out and enjoy. I can go to school although I didn't yet. That is why peace is important for everyone including you," she said.
> 
> "However, millions of Syrian children are not like me right now and suffering in different parts of Syria. They are suffering because of adult people."
> 
> On Wednesday, Trump said he "will absolutely do safe zones in Syria" for refugees fleeing violence, without giving further details. His comments came after Russia, Turkey and Iran on Tuesday backed a shaky truce between Syria's warring parties.


http://mobile.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSKBN15A1W3


----------



## Arya Dark




----------



## virus21




----------



## themuel1

I don't understand how you can promise a nation you'll do something and then suggest (and apparently believe) that another nation will pay for it. If the USA wants to build a wall on it's soil that's it's prerogative but I can't see anyone, at least outside the USA, thinking its anything other than insanity to expect another sovereign nation to pick up the bill for it.

What's the view in the States on the Wall? Divided opinion or is there a majority of thought one way or the other?


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Beatles123 said:


> You caall us uneducated yet you are completely false on all of this.


*It's also funny to watch you guys deny plain facts: http://www.defensenews.com/articles...mp-hiring-freeze-locks-out-military-civilians

http://usuncut.com/politics/dismayed-trump-supporters-obamacare/






If you have any "alternative facts" to contest the actual truth, then you can share this hee haw with Kelly Ann and Sean Spicer:*


----------



## virus21

themuel1 said:


> I don't understand how you can promise a nation you'll do something and then suggest (and apparently believe) that another nation will pay for it. If the USA wants to build a wall on it's soil that's it's prerogative but I can't see anyone, at least outside the USA, thinking its anything other than insanity to expect another sovereign nation to pick up the bill for it.
> 
> What's the view in the States on the Wall? Divided opinion or is there a majority of thought one way or the other?


Personally, I think there should be better border control. Perhaps not the way Trump is suggesting, but yes. From the way I have read Mexican officials word it (though perhaps I am misreading them) they seem to be in favor of unrestricted immigration, which I can't see how that would benefit Mexico as they would lose a percentage of their workforce among other loses.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

I'm not a TrumP fan in the least, but thus far he's done pretty well. He's saved a number of jobs already for Americans, which can't be said for previous years in America. The stock market and economy are on the rise. Gotta give him credit.


----------



## Arya Dark

*People, don't let your politicians lie to you without holding them accountable for it. I don't care what party it is. Never let them do that. People ask why is it a big deal about the number of people that were at the inauguration or the number of people that rode the subway this inauguration as opposed to last. To us it shouldn't matter. I give absolutely ZERO FUCKS... But when you have someone that Trump appointed blatantly lying about it. That's an issue. That's a problem and it has to be called out. You simply cannot allow your politicians to lie to your fucking face. That's simply unacceptable. *


----------



## themuel1

virus21 said:


> Personally, I think there should be better border control. Perhaps not the way Trump is suggesting, but yes. From the way I have read Mexican officials word it (though perhaps I am misreading them) they seem to be in favor of unrestricted immigration, which I can't see how that would benefit Mexico as they would lose a percentage of their workforce among other loses.


I can't understand Mexico wanting unrestricted immigration either and I'd be amazed if they were in favour of it for the same reason as you. Losing the basic workforce would have an impact but losing those in "skilled" jobs would be a huge loss.


----------



## stevefox1200

Mexico's econmy is in a very tricky spot

The US doesn't use them because they are cheap or close, they use them because they are cheap and close 

on pure wages there are better options in South America or the Caribbean 

Mexico doesn't really have any push without NAFTA as they can't compete with East Asian production costs and the they don't really have any customers 

They will either have to lower their standard of living even further or deal with Trump if they want to keep things going



themuel1 said:


> I can't understand Mexico wanting unrestricted immigration either and I'd be amazed if they were in favour of it for the same reason as you. Losing the basic workforce would have an impact but losing those in "skilled" jobs would be a huge loss.


Meixco has very little options for skilled labor which allows those who have connections to have control over their industry. The politicians and cartels like the keep things poor as it gives them better control and an open border lets anyone who disagrees to just leave giving them further control over who is left 

Its like how the communist nations would immigration "purges" to let out people they felt were threats


----------



## ShiningStar

Their is a clear need for migrant workers in the farming industry and other industires which Republicans need to admit but illegal workers in the food industry and construction industry absolutely do bring down the wages which the other side should be willing to admit. Quite simply instead of a wall you just need to lay down the Slap on Employeer's who hire people illegally with Prison time and harsh fines. The system we have now would be like if 95% of the legal punishment and blame in prostitution went on a sex worker and the Pimp and John's got fined like they were Jaywalkers or parked in illegal red spot.As it stands now Undocumenteds are basically treated worse then prostitutes and have to worry about deportation from the feds and from their employeers who don't want to pay them.


----------



## A$AP

Isolating Mexico is just gunna make them cut a deal with someone like China. How does that help the American people?


----------



## stevefox1200

A$AP said:


> Isolating Mexico is just gunna make them cut a deal with someone like China. How does that help the American people?


Mexico has nothing to offer China and vice versa

Mexico is pricey compared to east Asian sweat shops and China produces its own consumer goods and their wealthy imports high-quality goods from Europe 

If anything China would tank Mexico to cut off North American production


----------



## yeahbaby!

Mexico can't possibly afford to pay for the wall in any way shape or form can they? It's just not going to happen.

Building the wall will be like Obama closing Gitmo. Ain't going to happen.


----------



## stevefox1200

I honestly thought the wall was a dumb hill to die on 

Its one of those fun things you yell about and then claim it was "symbolic" and then find something else to work on

Actually building 1,954 miles of wall would be a pain in the ass, I recommend finding a really scary chain link and buying so cool black SUVs for border patrol


----------



## virus21

stevefox1200 said:


> I honestly thought the wall was a dumb hill to die on
> 
> Its one of those fun things you yell about and then claim it was "symbolic" and then find something else to work on
> 
> Actually building 1,954 miles of wall would be a pain in the ass, I recommend finding a really scary chain link and buying so cool black SUVs for border patrol


SUVs? Get the black helicopters


----------



## yeahbaby!

stevefox1200 said:


> I honestly thought the wall was a dumb hill to die on
> 
> Its one of those fun things you yell about and then claim it was "symbolic" and then find something else to work on
> 
> Actually building 1,954 miles of wall would be a pain in the ass, I recommend finding a really scary chain link and buying so cool black SUVs for border patrol


JBL's not doing anything useful. Trump should get him back out there on Patrol.


----------



## stevefox1200

virus21 said:


> SUVs? Get the black helicopters


have you seen Blackwater's SUVs with roof hatches for shooting? they are badass



yeahbaby! said:


> JBL's not doing anything useful. Trump should get him back out there on Patrol.


the Wall is cheaper











(this joke would be better if the wall was not dead)


----------



## yeahbaby!

stevefox1200 said:


> have you seen Blackwater's SUVs with roof hatches for shooting? they are badass
> 
> 
> 
> the Wall is cheaper
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (this joke would be better if the wall was not dead)


OMG I lolled hard.


----------



## Stephen90

stevefox1200 said:


> have you seen Blackwater's SUVs with roof hatches for shooting? they are badass
> 
> 
> 
> the Wall is cheaper
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (this joke would be better if the wall was not dead)


Forgot all about him until this election.


----------



## A$AP

@Dub you better stock up on Guacamole, brother.


----------



## glenwo2

I don't get it. Until I hear/see otherwise, the Wall will be built. Yet everyone here believes it will not happen now. Did something change? 

I kind of missed the presser with Trump saying "My bad. We are not going to build the wall". :shrug


----------



## glenwo2

AryaDark said:


> *People, don't let your politicians lie to you without holding them accountable for it. I don't care what party it is. Never let them do that. People ask why is it a big deal about the number of people that were at the inauguration or the number of people that rode the subway this inauguration as opposed to last. To us it shouldn't matter. I give absolutely ZERO FUCKS... But when you have someone that Trump appointed blatantly lying about it. That's an issue. That's a problem and it has to be called out. You simply cannot allow your politicians to lie to your fucking face. That's simply unacceptable. *


Who are you referring to? Spicer?


----------



## virus21

> Celebrities are given a unique platform to bring awareness to certain issues, and many do not take that for granted. In the case of last year’s election, stars came out in droves to support Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. We all know how that turned out, but that hasn’t stopped Hollywood from trying to take action when it comes to stopping President Trump‘s agenda.
> 
> With Shia LaBeouf’s arrest during his live stream protest of Trump, Madonna’s provocative remarks at the Women’s March, and Chelsea Handler’s controversial comments about first lady Melania Trump, it begs the question… are some stars hurting their own cause?
> 
> Related: Celebrities Have a Lot to Say About Donald Trump’s Inauguration
> 
> LaBeouf — who installed a webcam at the Museum of the Moving Image in New York City and is encouraging people to stop by and repeat the words “He will not divide us” — was charged with misdemeanor assault and a harassment violation after allegedly getting into a confrontation with a neo-Nazi. This isn’t the first incident LaBeouf has had with Trump advocates, and apparently the 30-year-old actor has been getting trolled by Nazi supporters.
> 
> “He pulled another man’s scarf, causing a scratch to that man’s face,” a New York City Police Department spokesman told People. “Also pushed that man … causing him to fall to the ground.”
> 
> The man he allegedly shoved had said, “Hitler did nothing wrong,” triggering the response from LaBeouf. While that’s undoubtedly infuriating, now all headlines are about “Shia’s arrest,” delegitimizing his intention of having a peaceful protest.
> 
> Related: Jaden Smith Stands for Hours as Part of Shia LaBeouf’s Anti-Trump Art Piece
> 
> Handler, who is a vocal supporter of women’s rights in the face of Trump’s policies, is also facing backlash from both sides. When asked if she would have Melania Trump on her show, the comedian responded, “To talk about what? She can barely speak English!”
> 
> The first lady is actually fluent in five languages: French, German, Slovene, and English. Handler received criticism online from the left and right and was accused of “immigrant shaming.” But the negative headlines haven’t exactly affected Handler’s material.
> 
> Follow
> Chelsea Handler ✔ @chelseahandler
> Blink if you need help @MELANIATRUMP
> 9:33 PM - 24 Jan 2017
> 3,165 3,165 Retweets 14,287 14,287 likes
> 
> 
> Madonna also captured headlines after the Women’s March for the wrong reasons. “Yes, I’m angry. Yes, I am outraged. Yes, I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House, but I know that this won’t change anything,” she said to the crowd. The Material Girl, 58, tried to clarify her comments afterward, saying she was speaking in metaphor, but the damage was done, much to the delight of many Trump supporters.
> 
> Related: Scarlett Johansson, Madonna, America Ferrera, and Ashley Judd Kick Off Women’s March on Washington
> 
> Even feminist Cyndi Lauper took issue with it, telling Andy Cohen that Madonna’s speech was counterproductive. “I was glad she went,” Lauper began. “I don’t think that it served our purpose, because anger is not better than clarity and humanity. That is what opens people’s minds. When you want to change people’s minds, you have to share your real story, like Scarlett Johansson.”
> 
> In contrast, Johansson’s speech about her first time going to Planned Parenthood was informative and resonated with many.


https://www.yahoo.com/celebrity/celebrities-speaking-out-are-they-helping-or-hurting-with-anti-trump-antics-225911587.html


----------



## stevefox1200

"Hitler did nothing wrong" is a troll meme 

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/hitler-did-nothing-wrong

internet trolls are legit causing riots now


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

virus21 said:


> https://www.yahoo.com/celebrity/celebrities-speaking-out-are-they-helping-or-hurting-with-anti-trump-antics-225911587.html


Madonna and Handler are as homely on the inside as they are on the outside? Who would've guessed? :eyeroll:


----------



## glenwo2

Gee...a story that basically implies that Trump supporters are NEO-NAZI's. Whodathunkit? 

I mean...a more objective media(yeah...like THAT exists) could've simply mentioned Shia getting into an altercation with a Trump Supporter but no...

"let's reveal that he's a Neo-Nazi to better imply that Trump's supporters are Neo-Nazis." - With love, The Media

The Media just never stops with its attempts to paint Trump in a bad light. It's pathetic.


----------



## Reaper

stevefox1200 said:


> "Hitler did nothing wrong" is a troll meme
> 
> http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/hitler-did-nothing-wrong
> 
> internet trolls are legit causing riots now


That happened long ago with the whole Pepe thing that fooled the DNC establishment and a decent majority of their supporters.

--- 

On that note, this is probably the single best article I've read in a long ass time .. and it's Newsweek of all people finally getting to the heart of the Media vs Trump saga. 

*http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-versus-media-548562*

Must read: @DesolationRow ; @CamillePunk ; @L-DOPA ; @Beatles123 ; @Miss Sally ; ... 

I think even the regular leftists in this thread should read this one. While the article is talking about the media and media only, there is a great amount of similar virtue signalling and moral war raging within most of the left in trying to continue to get that huge GOTCHA moment which they hope will finally, finally end Trump or start the end of Trump. 

Good stuff indeed. 


> *Why the Media Keeps Losing to Donald Trump*
> 
> Donald Trump is obsessed with the media. And the media is obsessed with Trump. Let’s take it as a given that this obsession is unhealthy. The last time there was such a level of neurotic fixation and overwhelming distrust between a president and the press was during the Nixon administration. The current White House would be well aware that the press won that war—and that the stakes now can be mortal.
> 
> 
> Indeed, each side believes that, given its druthers, the other would kill it. So how does this bitter and potentially lethal game play out?
> 
> 
> The media view is that the Trump people are not only mendacious but nincompoops—“alternative facts,” ha-ha. To the media, it is a given that Trump is largely out of control and that the people around him are struggling at all times to save him from himself—and largely failing. This view persists (again in a series of unsourced stories this past week), despite Trump’s victory flattening almost every media assumption about his supposed haplessness and lack of strategy.
> 
> 
> It is the Trump view that the media has been so wrong in its predictions, and made to look in the eyes of the public so woeful and ludicrous, that it must now double down in an effort to prove its thesis about the president and restore its honor. (The Trump White House now hammers a persistent theme: Why was nobody fired in the mainstream media for such dunderheaded election coverage?)
> 
> The media strategy is to show Trump to be an inept and craven sociopath. The Trump strategy is to show that media people are hopeless prigs out of touch with the nation (e.g., CNN’s media correspondent, Brian Stelter, who turns to the camera every Sunday morning and delivers a pious sermon about Trump’s perfidiousness) and nursing personal grudges.
> 
> 
> Accordingly, “alternative facts.” It’s curious to pick a battle whose outcome won’t change anything—like over the actual size of the inaugural crowd. But both sides grabbed it. Hence, the argument becomes about relative reaction. Who is perceived as overreacting more? Whose apoplexy is greater?
> 
> 
> In the media’s view—literal to a fault, in this instance—a lie is a lie. Therefore, Trump is a liar, making the issue of the size of the inaugural crowd a moral one. Trump’s misstatement is grievous and profoundly discreditable, in this view.
> 
> 
> In the Trump team’s view, that the media would turn a so-what issue into a veritable crisis of confidence—and that it rises to this level of high dudgeon on such a regular basis—discredits the media and adds to its crisis of credibility, which is at least as great—and, the Trump team, would argue vastly greater—as its own.
> 
> 
> Perhaps the most salient measure here is that the media took repeated end-of-the-world umbrage during the campaign to no discernible effect. Arguably, its constant sense of injury helped Trump.
> 
> 
> Of course, the media believes the opposite. (While, in almost every instance, it is wrong to speak of the media as a single entity, the Trump view of media sameness and consensus is not unreasonable here.) The media believes that it speaks for Hillary Clinton’s national ballot box majority, for the millions who have now marched against Trump, for the demographically expanding left wing (although not in the right-wing states) and, as well, for obvious common sense. And the media believes that everybody believes what it believes. How could they not? _ It’s Donald Trump!_
> 
> So far, call it a draw (although the Trumpers in the West Wing wouldn’t call it that, daily reminding the media, to its blood-boiling annoyance, that they won).
> 
> 
> The media’s holy grail is, as it’s been for much of the campaign, about what will stick. Of the myriad likely damaging possibilities, which one will be so prima facie damaging (pay no attention to the many instances that many people already thought were, or would be) or so shocking and insulting to the body politic that it will be the end, or at least the beginning of the end, of Trump? Nothing counts but delivering a mortal wound, so everything is delivered as though it is a mortal wound.
> 
> 
> The Trump people recognize this and, it would seem, even encourage it. A key difference between the Trump and Nixon administrations is the relative lack of paranoia in this new White House. There is contempt but not paranoia (that may, of course, come). The Trump strategy, conscious or not, is to invite overreaction—to program for it. Kellyanne Conway, with effortless smile, is more official media tormentor than simple spokesperson. The Trump team’s overt threats against the media—which is quite easy to placate if, in fact, you want to placate it—reliably serve to stoke several news cycles of the media’s breast-beating and self-serving virtue, never a pleasant sight.
> 
> 
> Of course, the media’s inability to damage Trump leads it to try all the more. The list of attempts is long: the dossier, the tax returns, emoluments, conflicts of interest, etc. The weight of all this, the media clearly believes, ultimately brings him down. In turn, the more stuff that is piled on, the Trump team believes, the more it is all diminished.
> 
> 
> This might lead to a natural constitutional crisis: Here is a media united in its opposition to the president and determined to find and pursue that charge, that guilty opening. How can there not be one—it believes—that will surely bring this presidency down? And here is a White House that believes the media’s single goal, and entire reason for being, is its destruction—and that its own survival, its legitimacy, depends on some version of breaking the media tide in the same dramatic way it intends to break the tide of immigrants it sees as so loathsome. (“We’re going to have to rethink our relationship here,” said Conway, with impeccable cool and pointed chill, to NBC’s Chuck Todd.)
> 
> 
> On the other hand, it is not at all unlikely that each side, no matter how determined to kill the other, emerges into a new and beneficial normal—and perfect balance, with news media ratings and profits soaring and the many Trump dramas commanding our undivided attention.
> 
> 
> Until one side makes an error or gains the advantage, and there’s a kill.


Probably a bit of an over-exaggeration in the last line, but I don't fault people for wishfully thinking that the media will bring him down (not to say this reeks of self-importance that at this point Trump's administration is actively trying to bring the media down because they really don't have to do anything as they're losing their own credibility here daily - but you have to allow journalists the ability to bask in their own self-created importance - otherwise they wouldn't be journalists) 

---

Oh and Trump is now sitting on a healthy 59% approval rating so hate to say it, but whoever thinks that Trump supporters are wavering is again buying into the SAME bullshit that they believed when they were deluding themselves with thinking that Hillary was blowing him away in the election. 

This is about 10% above his Canadian counter-part who's dropped to his all-time low and is only declining.


----------



## Miss Sally

Mexico says it believes in open borders because the Mexican government makes money off the millions of illegals living in the US sending money back home. (They don't boost our economy in any meaningful way because they cut costs by living together and only buying the essentials, they work here til they bank enough money to move back.) The Cartels love open borders for smuggling and drug running, we pretty much have a Mexican ISIS lite on the border, they're already killed US citizens and Police, thousands of other Mexicans and we ignore them.

Mexico doesn't like people in it's territory though, they don't let foreigners own land, you basically have no rights if you're not a Mexican citizen. Yet Mexico expects the US let their citizens do whatever. Mexico's response if it was US drug cartels killing Mexicans, pushing drugs, flooding them with illegals wouldn't be just deportation, they would pretty much go full commando on these people. The "cheap labor" doesn't make up for the costly drain on the tax payers for illegals, besides it's about time we stop using near slave labor for this stuff isn't it? Where is the morals and ethics of people when these people work in harsh conditions for nearly nothing but the same people bitch about a fucking 15 dollar minimum wage. Oh but we need this slave labor because "cheap prices mang!".

Is Mexico going to pay for the wall? Probably won't write a check but yes, partly due to taxation on trade. If you really want them to pay for it, put a huge tax on sending money to Mexico via wire services, you'd pay for that thing in a month.


----------



## Beatles123

Legit BOSS said:


> *It's also funny to watch you guys deny plain facts: http://www.defensenews.com/articles...mp-hiring-freeze-locks-out-military-civilians
> 
> http://usuncut.com/politics/dismayed-trump-supporters-obamacare/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you have any "alternative facts" to contest the actual truth, then you can share this hee haw with Kelly Ann and Sean Spicer:*


either contribute in honest debate or be ignored if you intend on posting here. You can have the opinion that Trump is wrong but your attacks are un-needed and counter productive.


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> Is Mexico going to pay for the wall? Probably won't write a check but yes, partly due to taxation on trade. If you really want them to pay for it, put a huge tax on sending money to Mexico via wire services, you'd pay for that thing in a month.


Aren't most remittances through money-laundering though?


----------



## Beatles123

>Trump won't win
>Trump won't order a wall
We are here.

Honestly, do you think Trump hasn't crunched numbers on ways to do this? It may or may not work, but I imagine he feels confident it can.


----------



## Miss Sally

Carte Blanche said:


> Aren't most remittances through money-laundering though?


Yuppers but also wire services back to Mexico, if you go into largely Mexican areas in the states with lots of illegals, you'll see advertisements on wiring money back to Mexico everywhere. There is just so many ways to get that money!


----------



## Vic Capri

> People, don't let your politicians lie to you without holding them accountable for it. I don't care what party it is. Never let them do that. People ask why is it a big deal about the number of people that were at the inauguration or the number of people that rode the subway this inauguration as opposed to last. To us it shouldn't matter. I give absolutely ZERO FUCKS... But when you have someone that Trump appointed blatantly lying about it. That's an issue. That's a problem and it has to be called out. You simply cannot allow your politicians to lie to your fucking face. That's simply unacceptable.


Except he didn't lie.

- Vic


----------



## FriedTofu

Seems to me this is a deal struck by House Republicans and Trump's team to make the GOP's tax reforms plans more appealing to the misinformed while allowing Trump to present the funding for his wall as Mexico paying for it instead of really American consumers paying for it.

:shrug


----------



## Beatles123

FriedTofu said:


> Seems to me this is a deal struck by House Republicans and Trump's team to make the GOP's tax reforms plans more appealing to the misinformed while allowing Trump to present the funding for his wall as Mexico paying for it instead of really American consumers paying for it.
> 
> :shrug


He mentioned this method as a way to do it in his book as well as interviews, so I don't know if the GOP (or your interpretation of the plan) had much to do with it.


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> Yuppers but also wire services back to Mexico, if you go into largely Mexican areas in the states with lots of illegals, you'll see advertisements on wiring money back to Mexico everywhere. There is just so many ways to get that money!


You know, the more I hear about border towns/sanctuary cities, the more they disgust me. One advantage of living in white dominated towns all my life

:tripsscust


----------



## Beatles123

Carte Blanche said:


> You know, the more I hear about border towns/sanctuary cities, the more they disgust me.
> 
> :tripscust


Chicago may as well be classified as one by now. :shrug


----------



## Reaper

Beatles123 said:


> Chicago may as well be classified as one by now. :shrug


I've actually done reading on Chicago ... while the number of homicides are on the rise in Chicago, it was actually worse during the Bush years which wasn't as bad as the 90's... 

It feels like a bigger issue now because frankly everything is since we're exposed to so much more news ... That said, this doesn't mean that something doesn't need to be done because it obviously does ... but other than the huge influx in 2016, the majority of Obama's years in office Chicago had its best years since the 90's.

My point is that the sanctuary cities have progressively gotten worse ... Chicago was pretty much always terrible.


----------



## TripleG

You know why the Wall won't work? 

Trump has, at the most, 8 years to have this thing completed under his watch. That isn't a lot of time for a construction project of this scale. 

And whether the wall is completed or not, uh, what's to stop the next administration from tearing the wall back down, essentially wasting all the moment and resources that went on to it. 

I don't know. I feel like extra patrols along the borders, an improved vetting process, and enforcing the immigration laws we already have would have been sufficient.


----------



## Beatles123

TripleG said:


> You know why the Wall won't work?
> 
> Trump has, at the most, 8 years to have this thing completed under his watch. That isn't a lot of time for a construction project of this scale.
> 
> And whether the wall is completed or not, uh, what's to stop the next administration from tearing the wall back down, essentially wasting all the moment and resources that went on to it.
> 
> I don't know. I feel like extra patrols along the borders, an improved vetting process, and enforcing the immigration laws we already have would have been sufficient.


Well even in the meantime, he's added 5,000 more Ice agents to it with less restriction. Thats a start.

I imagine there could be a clause in the wall law that states it has to be up a certain period of time before deconstruction.


----------



## FriedTofu

Beatles123 said:


> He mentioned this method as a way to do it in his book as well as interviews, so I don't know if the GOP had much to do with it.


The House GOP has been pushing for border adjustable tax plan for a while now to make American goods more competitive. Slapping on Trump's Mexico rhetoric , which #Spicerfacts has already done from the white house, can help sell it better to the people who could care less about the impact of such a move.

I doubt a businessman like Trump truely wants or believes in targeted tariffs because it only benefits specific companies. He can use his rhetoric that he helped sell the House's tax plan to shore up support within the party that he took over via sheer force of personality. I doubt he really cares who funds the wall as long it gets built.


----------



## Beatles123

FriedTofu said:


> The House GOP has been pushing for border adjustable tax plan for a while now to make American goods more competitive. Slapping on Trump's Mexico rhetoric , which #Spicerfacts has already done from the white house, can help sell it better to the people who could care less about the impact of such a move.
> 
> I doubt a businessman like Trump truely wants or believes in targeted tariffs because it only benefits specific companies. He can use his rhetoric that he helped sell the House's tax plan to shore up support within the party that he took over via sheer force of personality. I doubt he really cares who funds the wall as long it gets built.


All I can tell you is what he has said even prior to running :shrug

Of course Mexico is going to defy him, anyway. They literally have to.


----------



## Goku

TripleG said:


> You know why the Wall won't work?
> 
> Trump has, at the most, 8 years to have this thing completed under his watch. That isn't a lot of time for a construction project of this scale.
> 
> And whether the wall is completed or not, uh, what's to stop the next administration from tearing the wall back down, essentially wasting all the moment and resources that went on to it.
> 
> I don't know. I feel like extra patrols along the borders, an improved vetting process, and enforcing the immigration laws we already have would have been sufficient.


dw Ivanka 2024 will finish it :trump


----------



## Beatles123

So im watching Trump's GOP summit: 






Assures Americans will NOT pay for the wall. 

He also rescheduled the meeting with Mexico. 

Says if we ever did have to pay for it, our new trade deals would take care of it.

We'll have to see.


----------



## Miss Sally

TripleG said:


> You know why the Wall won't work?
> 
> Trump has, at the most, 8 years to have this thing completed under his watch. That isn't a lot of time for a construction project of this scale.
> 
> And whether the wall is completed or not, uh, what's to stop the next administration from tearing the wall back down, essentially wasting all the moment and resources that went on to it.
> 
> I don't know. I feel like extra patrols along the borders, an improved vetting process, and enforcing the immigration laws we already have would have been sufficient.


Well Mexican companies are wanting to get in on the action too. I think there should be fences, like great ones along border cities and farm areas and the more open areas should be monitored with censors and drones. Cartels and illegals crossing can be funneled and picked up.


----------



## Reaper

Miami mayor first to come out openly and admit that the only reason why they were a sanctuary city was because of federal funding (well obviously not openly, but the quickness with which this decision was taken betrays obvious foul play to me). 

I think instead of celebrating that it's no longer a sanctuary, I think there is a deeper under-current here of bureaucratic corruption of cities pocketing the money that was freely flowing from the feds. While it may be masked as humanitarianism, ultimately it's just another way for cities to continue to abuse your taxes, while creating cities with higher crime rates and poorer neighborhoods.



> Howard Simon, executive director of the Florida chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, denounced Gimenez’s action, saying that it “flies in the face of Miami’s long history as a city of immigrants” and predicting it will “drive a wedge of distrust between law enforcement and our immigrant community.”
> 
> 
> Gimenez told Fox News that the declined to put illegal aliens, I mean criminally trespassing aliens in Jail because the feds wouldn’t pick up the cost of around $52,000 to hold the 100 inmates wanted by ICE.“I want to make sure we don’t put in jeopardy the millions of funds we get from the federal government for a $52,000 issue,”[$355 million} he said. “It doesn’t mean that we’re going to be arresting more people. It doesn’t mean that we’re going to be enforcing any immigration laws.”
> The mayor’s spokesman told Fox News that the county had been assured that federal authorities would remove the detainees in a timely fashion in an effort to cut down on the detention costs to the county.​Holding the ones they arrest for other criminal reasons is a big step. Remember Kathryn Steinle was killed last year by someone who was deported five times and despite a request by ICE to hold him was released by the San Francisco sheriff’s department because they are a sanctuary city.


Notice the use of the word Immigrant and not Illegal Immigrant. 

I'm an Immigrant in Florida and I have literally not a single fuck to give about illegals. I have my green card and my final decision is pending upon the submission of my paper-work in a couple of weeks. And yeah, I am smart and intelligent enough to not need some fucking fat cat to abuse federal funds to pretend that he's "helping me".


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

stevefox1200 said:


> I honestly thought the wall was a dumb hill to die on
> 
> Its one of those fun things you yell about and then claim it was "symbolic" and then find something else to work on
> 
> Actually building 1,954 miles of wall would be a pain in the ass, I recommend finding a really scary chain link and buying so cool black SUVs for border patrol


Cheap solution would be Gun Towers every 300 yds., about 1/4 mile inside the USA border . . . Snipers "Shoot To Kill" anyone headed North and shoot at those headed South, as a "reminder not to come back" !!!


----------



## Miss Sally

Carte Blanche said:


> Miami mayor first to come out openly and admit that the only reason why they were a sanctuary city was because of federal funding (well obviously not openly, but the quickness with which this decision was taken betrays obvious foul play to me).
> 
> I think instead of celebrating that it's no longer a sanctuary, I think there is a deeper under-current here of bureaucratic corruption of cities pocketing the money that was freely flowing from the feds. While it may be masked as humanitarianism, ultimately it's just another way for cities to continue to abuse your taxes, while creating cities with higher crime rates and poorer neighborhoods.


Like much Democratic policies (Not just them but they're a big example of this) All of their tossing money and programs ended up helping nobody. Look at charities that pocket 80%+ of the funds they get, that's exactly what these cities do. They don't care about the people, hell look at the homeless issue, they toss money at refugees but the homeless are pissed on. 

They pocket the money then nothing happens and then these politicians blame other politicians or "racism" for nothing getting done. Besides we should be pumping money into rebuilding cities and attracting LEGAL immigrants.


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

Miss Sally said:


> Yuppers but also wire services back to Mexico, if you go into largely Mexican areas in the states with lots of illegals, you'll see advertisements on wiring money back to Mexico everywhere. There is just so many ways to get that money!


Impose a 30% surcharge on "Western Union" transactions and similar "Electronic Transfers" of money to Mexico !!!


----------



## Reaper

Lunatic Fringe said:


> Cheap solution would be Gun Towers every 300 yds., about 1/4 mile inside the USA border . . . Snipers "Shoot To Kill" anyone headed North and shoot at those headed South, as a "reminder not to come back" !!!


Can you please go to some other more relevant forum to post about your genocide and murder fantasies. 

Or why not just write some cheap fanfiction? That might be more constructive than shitposting on this site.


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

TripleG said:


> You know why the Wall won't work?
> 
> Trump has, at the most, 8 years to have this thing completed under his watch.



Hmm . . . 8 years, followed by 8 more years of Mike Pence . . . Don't forget those 4 or 5 Conservative Supreme Court Justices that will have been appointed by Trump, either !!!


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

Beatles123 said:


> I imagine there could be a clause in the wall law that states it has to be up a certain period of time before deconstruction.


Declare the Wall as a National Monument !!!


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

*Miami complies with President Trump's executive order cracking down on 'sanctuary cities'*

*https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/01/26/miami-complies-with-president-trumps-executive-order-cracking-d/21701318/*


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

Carte Blanche said:


> Can you please go to some other more relevant forum to post about your genocide and murder fantasies.
> 
> Or why not just write some cheap fanfiction? That might be more constructive than shitposting on this site.


Not a "fantasy", if you consider illegal immigrants as "invaders" . . . Matter of National Security !


----------



## CamillePunk

Lunatic Fringe said:


> Hmm . . . 8 years,* followed by 8 more years of Mike Pence* . . . Don't forget those 4 or 5 Conservative Supreme Court Justices that will have been appointed by Trump, either !!!





Lunatic Fringe said:


> Cheap solution would be Gun Towers every 300 yds., about 1/4 mile inside the USA border . . . *Snipers "Shoot To Kill" anyone headed North and shoot at those headed South, as a "reminder not to come back" !!!*


I disavow


----------



## DesolationRow

@AryaDark @Beatles123 @CamillePunk @Goku



Carte Blanche said:


> That happened long ago with the whole Pepe thing that fooled the DNC establishment and a decent majority of their supporters.
> 
> ---
> 
> On that note, this is probably the single best article I've read in a long ass time .. and it's Newsweek of all people finally getting to the heart of the Media vs Trump saga.
> 
> *http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-versus-media-548562*
> 
> Must read: @DesolationRow ; @CamillePunk ; @L-DOPA ; @Beatles123 ; @Miss Sally ; ...
> 
> I think even the regular leftists in this thread should read this one. While the article is talking about the media and media only, there is a great amount of similar virtue signalling and moral war raging within most of the left in trying to continue to get that huge GOTCHA moment which they hope will finally, finally end Trump or start the end of Trump.
> 
> Good stuff indeed.
> Probably a bit of an over-exaggeration in the last line, but I don't fault people for wishfully thinking that the media will bring him down (not to say this reeks of self-importance that at this point Trump's administration is actively trying to bring the media down because they really don't have to do anything as they're losing their own credibility here daily - but you have to allow journalists the ability to bask in their own self-created importance - otherwise they wouldn't be journalists)
> 
> ---
> 
> Oh and Trump is now sitting on a healthy 59% approval rating so hate to say it, but whoever thinks that Trump supporters are wavering is again buying into the SAME bullshit that they believed when they were deluding themselves with thinking that Hillary was blowing him away in the election.
> 
> This is about 10% above his Canadian counter-part who's dropped to his all-time low and is only declining.


Excellent post, *Reaper*, and a fantastic article--from _Newsweek_, no less, as you say!--concerning how media keep getting outmaneuvered by Donald Trump. 


As for "The Wall," I am all for it for multiple reasons, one plainly being that it was the single greatest cornerstone of Trump's candidacy and it has been refreshing, thus far, to see a newly-sworn president of the United States follow through with the campaign slogans and promises of his candidacy, nomination and in becoming president-elect. 

Moreover, while there remain several different ways by which Mexico may ultimately "pay" for the Wall, even if Mexico does not, as expensive as "The Wall" will be, the long-term benefits are too great to ignore. There will be areas where a "Wall" is not needed as Trump has stated many times, and other areas where it will be fencing, and other areas where it will be up to Border Patrol agents to enforce U.S. immigration laws. What the Border Patrol has told Trump dozens of times at this point, however, is that "The Wall" will be tremendously helpful in limiting the flow of traveling flow of migrants and drugs to a manageable trickle with which they can be more readily successful. 

Have to say, something I have not seen anyone say about this issue is that, as someone who's been in Tijuana and Juarez (for the better part of a week in each place, and then went back to Tijuana for a long day), what is something one sees almost everywhere in the residential areas? Walls. Fences. Gates. Barriers of one sort or another. And when I refer to these barriers, I mean these are serious barriers. Cartel-fueled crime is at dizzying, almost constantly crisis-level heights in these border cities. I imagine @Miss Sally would have a good deal to say about this, as she often does, ha. 

When nearly half of Mexico's citizens live either at or below the poverty line, with the increased economic trauma of Central Americans flooding through Mexico, often en route to the U.S., it becomes apparent just how difficult this matter remains. The video posted by @stevefox1200 about how "Mexico needs the Wall" made some excellent points. Like a troublesome sibling, some tough love and forcing the matter upon them may be in order. Trump was talking about cracking down on businesses hiring illegal aliens, too, but increasing the number of ICE agents and getting to work on solidifying the border coupled with the ending of sanctuary cities has to come just before that. As Robert Frost wrote in his poem "Mending Walls," _"Something there is that doesn't love a wall."_ Hahaha...

Because honestly the United States of America will not exist a thousand years from now, but when the android historians look back on this time they may say that the group who called themselves simply "Americans" did not go quietly before the demographic and migratory rendering of a quarter of the U.S. gradually becoming a sprawling _favela_ with hyper-stratified class structures and tiny gated rich communities fending for themselves against the widespread societal dismalness engulfing the landscape without putting up a fight, without saying, _"We were here and like all civilizations that cared for themselves, we wanted to protect that which we had."_


----------



## Miss Sally

DesolationRow said:


> @AryaDark @Beatles123 @CamillePunk @Goku
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent post, *Reaper*, and a fantastic article--from _Newsweek_, no less, as you say!--concerning how media keep getting outmaneuvered by Donald Trump.
> 
> 
> As for "The Wall," I am all for it for multiple reasons, one plainly being that it was the single greatest cornerstone of Trump's candidacy and it has been refreshing, thus far, to see a newly-sworn president of the United States follow through with the campaign slogans and promises of his candidacy, nomination and in becoming president-elect.
> 
> Moreover, while there remain several different ways by which Mexico may ultimately "pay" for the Wall, even if Mexico does not, as expensive as "The Wall" will be, the long-term benefits are too great to ignore. There will be areas where a "Wall" is not needed as Trump has stated many times, and other areas where it will be fencing, and other areas where it will be up to Border Patrol agents to enforce U.S. immigration laws. What the Border Patrol has told Trump dozens of times at this point, however, is that "The Wall" will be tremendously helpful in limiting the flow of traveling flow of migrants and drugs to a manageable trickle with which they can be more readily successful.
> 
> Have to say, something I have not seen anyone say about this issue is that, as someone who's been in Tijuana and Juarez (for the better part of a week in each place, and then went back to Tijuana for a long day), what is something one sees almost everywhere in the residential areas? Walls. Fences. Gates. Barriers of one sort or another. And when I refer to these barriers, I mean these are serious barriers. Cartel-fueled crime is at dizzying, almost constantly crisis-level heights in these border cities. I imagine @Miss Sally would have a good deal to say about this, as she often does, ha.
> 
> When nearly half of Mexico's citizens live either at or below the poverty line, with the increased economic trauma of Central Americans flooding through Mexico, often en route to the U.S., it becomes apparent just how difficult this matter remains. The video posted by @stevefox1200 about how "Mexico needs the Wall" made some excellent points. Like a troublesome sibling, some tough love and forcing the matter upon them may be in order. Trump was talking about cracking down on businesses hiring illegal aliens, too, but increasing the number of ICE agents and getting to work on solidifying the border coupled with the ending of sanctuary cities has to come just before that. As Robert Frost wrote in his poem "Mending Walls," _"Something there is that doesn't love a wall."_ Hahaha...
> 
> Because honestly the United States of America will not exist a thousand years from now, but when the android historians look back on this time they may say that the group who called themselves simply "Americans" did not go quietly before the demographic and migratory rendering of a quarter of the U.S. gradually becoming a sprawling _favela_ with hyper-stratified class structures and tiny gated rich communities fending for themselves against the widespread societal dismalness engulfing the landscape without putting up a fight, without saying, _"We were here and like all civilizations that cared for themselves, we wanted to protect that which we had."_


Agreed, the wall is something that will benefit the US and Mexico in the long run. As poor as Mexico is, it's mostly because of corruption and poor resource management, Mexico is not resource poor. In fact if I recall Mexico has a better standard of living than most of the other South American countries. The biggest issue is the rest of South America, not Mexico completely, as the Governments fall, those people will migrate, we'll be facing our own migrant crisis within the next decade or two. The wall will ensure we're not overrun like Europe was during this ongoing crisis for them. 

Mexico doesn't want these people in their country, with the wall built it ensures Mexico has to deal with less people crossing into their territory trying to reach the states. Though a funny thought would be Mexicans losing jobs to even cheaper labor as migrants cross over into Mexico from failing Governments. Poetic justice in it's own way. You're 100% right, go into any border city and many cities within Mexico and you'll notice a common sight, fences, dogs and chains and locks. (Someone should tell them walls don't work! Which is funny considering rich communities are all gated and walled off no? Migrant crossing into Europe have dropped dramatically via the balkans due to their fences.. so.. walls don't work but people use them?) With the cartels running wild and showing no signs of stopping, action must take place.

At this point I don't think America will last 100 years let alone a thousand. Though when all is said and done it will be walled and gated off places that will be standing, which again is funny as people keep saying walls don't work yet it seems history and logical thinking are proof that they do. Cracking down on hiring illegals, punishing those that have hired them and making legal immigration a little easier would help. Getting here legally shouldn't be a cakewalk but it should be less confusing and more rewarding for the work put in. I've yet to meet anyone who came here legally who was lazy or who didn't make an effort to speak english. 

People who are worried about produce going up in price shouldn't be as America needs to jump start it's farming again, people need work and many farmers want to farm. Giving better incentives and government funding will ensure more locally grown crops, more work and better land management of our farmlands, rather than turning our rural areas into even more neighborhoods. America needs to protect its border and become self sufficient again.


----------



## Beatles123

We're building the wall...just let it sink in, the fact that every time they say Trump can't do something....he's done it :trump


----------



## Goku

not a fan of sargon aside from his tyt bashing, but thought this was a good listen.


----------



## Beatles123

Just to show its NOT an echo-Chamber in here, I shall post some thoughts (In summary) from Radio host Mark Levin. He's always been a CruzMissle, but I thought his POV could spark some discussion:

*>The Trump administration has floated the idea of a 20% tax on goods coming from Mexico. The problem? If the government imposes a 20% tax on the southern imports, it's not Mexicans or their government that would be paying the tax — you are. Mexico doesn’t get taxed on anything! These are taxes on the American people. This tax isn’t for the workers. You want to do something for the workers? Unleash the economy. How do you do that? Cut taxes. Roll back cumbersome, paralyzing regulations. Rein in government spending. Don’t pass a tax on the American people and claim you’re making Mexico pay for the wall. This 20% tax on Mexican goods has everything to do with Herbert Hoover and big government, not Andrew Jackson. The American people are going to pay a huge price if we have taxes for every country that we have a trade deficit with. What will happen when these countries retaliate with their own tariffs or taxes? Our blue collar workers such as those in the coal industry will lose their jobs. That’s not America first. Also, China is mapping global trading strategies as we pursue protectionist policies. It’s not that China is rushing to the front, but that the U.S is withdrawing from the international stage when it comes to trade. We are going to weaken ourselves from within and make America second.*

Thoughts? I personally think Tariffs are needed.


----------



## Reaper

@Beatles123

^The guy has the right idea, but he's much more of an alarmist on the issue.

The thing with Tariffs is that they're extremely tricky in that the tariff impact is essentially unknowable so in the hands of an incompetent government and poor policy making can drive up prices higher than the influx new jobs create can afford. 

A Tariff will pretty much always shrink demand, shrink competition which leads to higher prices ... but also creates new jobs as the domestic production shifts to try to keep up with demand which creates more people with purchasing ability .. However the unknowns there are whether or not that new job creation stimulates consumer spending or whether raised prices force consumers to save more in the hope of prices declining - which can lead to some pretty odd outcomes hardly any of which can be accurately predicted especially considering that you cannot always account for what the consumer will do.

There is no such thing as economic growth as far as tariffs are concerned however. It pretty much always results in a net loss in the GDP. The worst is however reduction in consumer income is usually greater than increase through new jobs. People are worse off, but this idea that it's a straight 20 for 20 exchange is inaccurate alarmism. It's not going to be a huge increase. The person claiming that a 20% tariff will result in a straight up 20% raise in prices is wrong. It will result in some increase in prices, but not 20%. 

Take it this way. If I'm a producer in Mexico and my entire livelihood is dependent on the American consumer and I sell a Watzit. 

My Watzit is sold to Americans for 100 bucks (I can sell higher because American companies have to sell higher and an equilibrium has been established)
My cost to produce the Watzit is 60 bucks. (I can produce at a lower cost because labor in my area is cheaper)
This means I'm making 40 dollars on my Watzit. 

The Americans also make the Wazit and they sell it to their consumers for 105 bucks. 
The Americans cost to make the Wazit is 75 bucks. 
The americans make 30 bucks on their Wazit. 

Therefore, as a mexican, I have favorable trade conditions. 

Now the government has suddenly imposed a 20% tariff. 
The cost of my Wazit has now gone from 60 bucks to 80 bucks. 

But my market is still just all American and I don't have another consumer elsewhere, so I have to make a living myself. Therefore, now I have to compete in the American market with conditions less favorable to me. 

Knowing that Americans buy their Wazit's for 105, I'm going to absorb some of the cost and raise my price to 104 to still be competitive in order to continue to sell. The price impact on the consumer is a 4% increase in this case because I've had to absorb most of the taxes. 

The other option I have is to create an artificial shortage in order to bump up prices, but that is a high risk move which could potentially have me forced out of business entirely. 

Overall the cost went up for those customers who were buying my 100 dollar watzits, but essentially what was really impacted was my profit margin by a larger margin. 

I still have to sell to the US, I just can't make as much money on it anymore. In order to continue to earn as much profit as I was before the tariff, I have several choices: Increase my price, find cheaper labor, reduce production, lobby my local government for tax relief, find a new market. Finding a new market is the hardest of the 4 major options, and getting cheaper labor is the easiest option for me. 

Over time, in order to regain my profits knowing that the Tariff is going to still be there, I'm going to reduce what I pay my labor and try to make my production more efficient. Basically absorb the tariff as much as I can instead of passing it on to the consumer because in a competitive market that'll drive me out of business.


----------



## glenwo2

Carte Blanche said:


> Can you please go to some other more relevant forum to post about your genocide and murder fantasies.
> 
> Or why not just write some cheap fanfiction? That might be more constructive than shitposting on this site.


Oh come on. It's all tongue-in-cheek with him/her. 

Besides, the posts are entertaining to read. :lol :lol :lol


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

Beatles123 said:


> Chicago may as well be classified as one by now. :shrug


I classify Chicago as a cesspool . . .


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

glenwo2 said:


> Oh come on. It's all tongue-in-cheek with him/her.
> 
> Besides, the posts are entertaining to read. :lol :lol :lol


Some of it is . . . 

Yes, I'm a male.


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

Beatles123 said:


> Well even in the meantime, he's added 5,000 more Ice agents to it with less restriction. Thats a start.
> 
> I imagine there could be a clause in the wall law that states it has to be up a certain period of time before deconstruction.


I like the idea of Deputizing all Citizens along the Border and give them the authority to enforce the new laws that will be coming . . . Yes, they would all be armed and authorized to use deadly force, if necessary . . . Guaranteed that Texas would be "on-board" with that !


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Lunatic Fringe said:


> I like the idea of Deputizing all Citizens along the Border and give them the authority to enforce the new laws that will be coming . . . Yes, they would all be armed and authorized to use deadly force, if necessary . . . Guaranteed that Texas would be "on-board" with that !


So you think a good solution to border control issues is to authorise the population to use their much inferior weaponry taking shots at Mexicans in areas with high levels of Cartel activity? Well at least we now have definite proof that Trump isn't the "worst case scenario" I guess... kay


----------



## Beatles123




----------



## RavishingRickRules

How do illegals even manage to vote in the US? Here it's just not possible, hell even legal EU citizens (like my grandparents) can't vote in the UK unless they get UK citizenship/nationality. Insane that they let illegal immigrants vote in the first place, like where are the checks? I've had to keep registering to vote constantly since I moved to the city I live in over the past 4 years because they're super anal about keeping the electoral roll up to date. I guess I just find it crazy that a country that was always held up as a beacon of progression can't even keep track of their electoral roll well enough to ensure only legit voters are able to do so. :shrug


----------



## glenwo2

^ You're right. It makes no sense which means that there was something really shady going on in certain voting poll locations. I bet those in on the scam simply let the illegals vote without any checks or them being registered.


----------



## Reaper

RavishingRickRules said:


> How do illegals even manage to vote in the US? Here it's just not possible, hell even legal EU citizens (like my grandparents) can't vote in the UK unless they get UK citizenship/nationality. Insane that they let illegal immigrants vote in the first place, like where are the checks? I've had to keep registering to vote constantly since I moved to the city I live in over the past 4 years because they're super anal about keeping the electoral roll up to date. I guess I just find it crazy that a country that was always held up as a beacon of progression can't even keep track of their electoral roll well enough to ensure only legit voters are able to do so. :shrug


Not all countries have the same high standards of document and identity verification before handing out ballots.

There have been several reports of individuals exposing how lax the security is. 

What we basically have now is a situation of trust over control, but if someone really wanted to do it, they could.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Carte Blanche said:


> Not all countries have the same high standards of document and identity verification before handing out ballots.
> 
> There have been several reports of individuals exposing how lax the security is.
> 
> What we basically have now is a situation of trust over control, but if someone really wanted to do it, they could.


Yeah that's what I mean though, it seems crazy to me that in a country as advanced as America they can't manage to implement a really basic and easy system to prevent voter fraud. Here you have to be a legal citizen, sign up for the electoral roll, receive a voter card in the post, exchange that for a paper ballot, hand it in, job done. If there are illegals voting then that needs stopping asap, it's almost deserving of mockery for a country that powerful to have generally no idea whether a person voting is legal or not. Just crazy. (legit stunned about that tbh)


----------



## Reaper

RavishingRickRules said:


> Yeah that's what I mean though, it seems crazy to me that in a country as advanced as America they can't manage to implement a really basic and easy system to prevent voter fraud. Here you have to be a legal citizen, sign up for the electoral roll, receive a voter card in the post, exchange that for a paper ballot, hand it in, job done. If there are illegals voting then that needs stopping asap, it's almost deserving of mockery for a country that powerful to have generally no idea whether a person voting is legal or not. Just crazy. (legit stunned about that tbh)


It's not about being able. It'd about certain interested groups making sure it doesn't happen since elections here so tightly contested in some areas a matter of a few hundred votes could swing an entire state.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Carte Blanche said:


> It's not about being able. It'd about certain interested groups making sure it doesn't happen since elections here so tightly contested in some areas a matter of a few hundred votes could swing an entire state.


I don't know what's more troubling, that that level of corruption is able to function, or that the US population isn't doing anything about it. Almost makes a mockery of the entire election process when it can be swayed by someone with money shipping in illegals.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Beatles123 said:


>


Stealing this from r/conservative



> The blog post doesn't come to that conclusion. It only makes four points:
> A study by the author suggested that 6.4% of 'non-citizens' voted in the 2008 elections. (Whether this study is valid is another question. It uses really small sample sizes and some funky statistics gets involved. Here is an article criticizing the study and here is the author's rebuttal.)
> 
> 'Non-citizens' in the original study went Democrat about 81.8% of the time.
> There are 20.3 million 'non-citizens' currently in the United States. (Not sure where he's getting that number from, but it comes to 6.27% of the country's population, which sounds about right.)
> 
> 20,300,000 * 6.4% * 81.8% = 800,000, give or take.
> 
> So what the blog post finds is that if our estimates on the number of non-citizens are correct and if the original study got its facts right and if non-citizens voted the exact same way they did eight years ago and if anti-fraud laws passed the last eight years have had no effect on non-citizen voting, then about 800 thousand votes were cast by non-citizens for Hillary Clinton.


Link to 2014 study data was extrapolated from.

Researcher's statement.



> *January 24, 2017.*
> Although Press Secretary Sean Spicer claimed today that millions voted illegally in the November 2016 election, on November 28, 2016 I published the following statement indicating that our analysis does not support his claim. Since then, no new data, facts or analyses have emerged that require us to revisit or change the findings of the 2014 study to which Mr. Spicer refers. We stand by our findings.
> 
> *What we posted in on November 28, 2016:*
> Donald Trump recently suggested that his deficit in the popular vote to Clinton might be due entirely to illegal votes cast, for instance by non-citizens. .Is this claim plausible? .The claim Trump is making is not supported by our data.
> 
> Here I run some extrapolations based upon the estimates for other elections from my coauthored 2014 paper on non-citizen voting. .You can access that paper on the journal website here.and Judicial Watch has also posted a PDF. .The basic assumptions on which the extrapolation is based are that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted, and that of the non-citizens who voted, 81.8.percent voted for Clinton and 17.5.percent voted for Trump. .These were numbers from our study for the 2008 campaign. .Obviously to the extent that critics of my study are correct the first number (percentage of non-citizens who voted) may be too high, and the second number (percentage who voted for Clinton) may be too low.
> 
> The count of the popular vote is still in flux as many states have yet to certify official final tallies. .Here I used this unofficial tally linked by Real Clear Politics. .As of this writing Trump is 2,235,663 votes behind Clinton in the popular vote.
> 
> If the assumptions stated above concerning non-citizen turnout are correct, could non-citizen turnout account for Clinton’s popular vote margin? There is no way it could have. .6.4 percent turnout among the roughly 20.3 million non-citizen adults in the US would add.only 834,318.votes to Clinton’s popular vote margin. .This is little more than a third.of the total margin.
> 
> Is it plausible that non-citizen votes added to Clinton’s margin. .Yes. .Is it plausible that non-citizen votes account for the entire nation-wide popular vote margin held by Clinton? .Not at all.
> 
> If the percentage of non-citizens voting for Clinton is held constant, roughly 18.5 percent of non-citizens would have had to vote for their votes to have made up the entire Clinton popular vote margin. .I don’t think that this rate is at all plausible. . Even if we assume that 90 percent voted for Clinton and only 10 percent for Trump, a more than fourteen percent turnout would be necessary to account for Clinton’s popular vote margin. .This is much higher than the estimates we offered. .Again, it seems too high to be plausible.
> 
> *December 1st Update*
> 
> Like so much on this issue, this posting has taken on something of a life of its own, and I want to emphasize and clarify some points that seem to be generating confusion as echo chambers pick this up and re-post it.
> 
> .This post is not intended to make a specific claim on my part concerning how many non-citizens voted in 2016. .It has a much narrower aim. .My goal was to show that an extrapolation from my coauthored work on the 2008 election to the 2016 election did not support the arguments some seemed to be making that the entire popular vote margin for Clinton was due to illegal votes by non-citizens. .In this post I do my own calculation of that extrapolation for the purpose of demonstrating that this extrapolation would not support that claim.
> 
> *There are a number of reasons why one should be cautious about extrapolating from the 2008 CCES data to 2016.
> 
> Many things can and have changed over the course of eight years. .For example, a number of states have made efforts to use matching of records to remove non-citizen registrants from voter rolls. .For example, on this blog I.have recently highlighted data from Virginia and North Carolina.concerning such matching efforts. .These non-citizens are no longer on voter rolls. .There are other states that have been even more aggressive about the issue of attempting to verify that registered voters are citizens. .Furthermore, although the evidence from our 2014 paper suggests that it is only partially effective, many states have moved to adopt tighter identification requirements.
> 
> . The 2008 estimate is inherently uncertain. .It depends upon a number of assumptions including assumptions about the validity of the survey data. Our.critics.have made a variety of arguments and I encourage readers to evaluate those arguments along with our responses to them.
> 
> In the absence of other data, arguably an extrapolation from the earlier (2008) numbers is the best one can do. .But one should recognize that this is an extrapolation fraught with a great deal of uncertainty.*


----------



## Reaper

RavishingRickRules said:


> I don't know what's more troubling, that that level of corruption is able to function, or that the US population isn't doing anything about it. Almost makes a mockery of the entire election process when it can be swayed by someone with money shipping in illegals.


People are a part of it. Voter ID laws aren't opposed just by corrupt government officials but by people as well who believe that having to go get IDs is too difficult for minorities.

So it's not a government exclusive problem. People are part of it as well. You have some people in this very thread who oppose voter ID completely.


----------



## glenwo2

More goodness : 












:lol :lol :lol


----------



## Beatles123

Can't wait for the Presser with May. The EU seems worse than the damn UN. Article 50 now, Parliament!


----------



## glenwo2

Carte Blanche said:


> People are a part of it. Voter ID laws aren't opposed just by corrupt government officials but* by people as well who believe that having to go get IDs is too difficult for minorities.*
> 
> So it's not a government exclusive problem. People are part of it as well. You have some people in this very thread who oppose voter ID completely.


Minorities(at least the illegal ones) that shouldn't be here in the first place, mind you.


----------



## virus21




----------



## Miss Sally

RavishingRickRules said:


> I don't know what's more troubling, that that level of corruption is able to function, or that the US population isn't doing anything about it. Almost makes a mockery of the entire election process when it can be swayed by someone with money shipping in illegals.


Voter ID has been suggested but then "Racism" and all kinds of nonsense gets tossed around. During the Stein recount I supported full recounts of places like Cali etc because I'm pretty sure you'd find a lot of non-citizens voting.


----------



## Beatles123

>Join Trump-May press conference

>BBC Scott Cuckqueen: WOT BOUT MUH MYSO-GENIE?

>Fox lackey: HEY WHAT ABOUT YOUR PHONE CALL WITH MEXICO?

Shit tier.


----------



## CenaBoy4Life

Voter ID is only racist because one party depends on illegals and minorities voting multiple times to stay in power.

If India with its population of over a billion poor peasants making 20 cents a week can give everyone a voter ID then so can the U.S

Anyone making excuses just wants to keep their fake voting scheme going.


----------



## Reaper

CenaBoy4Life said:


> Voter ID is only racist because one party depends on illegals and minorities voting multiple times to stay in power.
> 
> If India with its population of over a billion poor peasants making 20 cents a week can give everyone a voter ID then so can the U.S
> 
> Anyone making excuses just wants to keep their fake voting scheme going.







Best thing I've ever seen on the subject. Completely exposes the bigotry of low expectations and how these libtards actually view minorities. The amount of racism in this video should make one sick to the stomach, but since they're virtue signalling libs, they get a free pass. 

Obviously the minorities in this are disgusted by the idea that they're too poor, ignorant or incapable of getting ID. 

Here are some of the comments: 

"They don't know"
"They don't have the internet"
"These people live in areas where they can't access services"
"They have no idea how to get government ID" 

This is nothing by a white liberal fantasy that minorities are pathetic pieces of trash that need their fucking support.


----------



## virus21

> President Donald Trump has a plan for controlling the number of Syrian refugees flooding into Europe.
> 
> "I'll absolutely do safe zones in Syria," Trump told ABC's David Muir Wednesday.
> 
> "Safe zones" refer to protected havens inside Syria for civilians displaced by the violent conflict -- areas that would need to be established by the U.S. military. The Obama administration considered the idea, but ultimately decided against it, partly out of fear of being drawn into a broader military conflict with Russia and Syrian forces, which together have waged a massive assault against rebel forces.
> 
> Trump told Muir safe zones are a necessary tool in stemming the flow of refugees into Europe and neighboring countries, which he said has been a "disaster."
> 
> McConnell, Ryan Say Congress Will Pay for Trump's $12B Border Wall
> Mexican President Cancels Meeting With Trump After Border Wall Order
> Safe zones have been advocated by prominent Democrats as well, most notably by Trump's campaign rival Hillary Clinton and by Obama's former secretary of state, John Kerry.
> 
> Turkey, which has been greatly affected by the refugee crisis, also wants safe zones in norther Syria and could potentially partner with the U.S. in such an effort. Turkey's Foreign Minister Huseyin Muftuoglu said today he'd seen Trump's comments but held off on commenting further, adding that he would like to see the plans for how this would be enforced first.
> 
> A spokesman for Russian President Vladimir Putin, Dmitry Peskov, said today that Washington did not consult Moscow regarding the creation of safe zones in Syria because high level contacts have yet to be established between the Trump White House and the Kremlin.
> 
> Trump did not provide any details about how the safe zones would be enforced. Previous assessments by the Obama administration found that the process could include the establishment of a no-fly zone.
> 
> An unclassified assessment prepared in 2013 by Obama's former chief of staff, Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, said a no-fly zone over just one area of Syria could require "hundreds of ground and sea-based aircraft, intelligence and electronic warfare support, and enablers for refueling and communications." He said the Pentagon would be required to deploy "thousands of ground forces" and that maintaining such an effort could average as much as $1 billion per month.
> 
> He also said there's a risk "that American jets could be downed."
> 
> The Pentagon refused to comment on whether Trump's new secretary of defense, retired Marine Gen. James Mattis, supported U.S. military involvement in safe zones in Syria.
> 
> "I will tell you right now, what you’re asking about is based on things that are draft and pre-decisional and we’re just not going to be able to comment on pre-decisional things that may or not reflect what ultimately comes out," spokesman Jeff Davis said in today's Pentagon briefing. "Our focus right now is what it has always been -- the degrading and defeating of ISIL."
> 
> Davis added that Mattis had not received an order regarding "safe zones" in Syria.


http://abcnews.go.com/International/president-trump-absolutely-put-safe-zones-syria/story?id=45062805


----------



## Reaper

> A spokesman for Russian President Vladimir Putin, Dmitry Peskov, said today that Washington did not consult Moscow regarding the creation of safe zones in Syria because high level contacts have yet to be established between the Trump White House and the Kremlin.


But but Trump is a lackey of Putin and Putin actually owns America now.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

Trump does what he wants; Putin, Merkel, and Peña be damned.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Carte Blanche said:


> Best thing I've ever seen on the subject. Completely exposes the bigotry of low expectations and how these libtards actually view minorities. The amount of racism in this video should make one sick to the stomach, but since they're virtue signalling libs, they get a free pass.
> 
> Obviously the minorities in this are disgusted by the idea that they're too poor, ignorant or incapable of getting ID.
> 
> Here are some of the comments:
> 
> "They don't know"
> "They don't have the internet"
> "These people live in areas where they can't access services"
> "They have no idea how to get government ID"
> 
> This is nothing by a white liberal fantasy that minorities are pathetic pieces of trash that need their fucking support.


What sort of nonsense? They live in fucking America ffs, it's not like they're actually still living in Africa. It's beyond belief where some of these supposed "liberals" as you all like to call them get their ideas from. I honestly don't know how you guys are still even working as a country, people who will willingly believe "alternative facts" is a valid concept from politicians on one side and complete space cakes on the other side who aren't even aware enough to realise that even poor Americans are pretty fucking rich by global standards. I've video chatted with friend's family in not particularly pretty looking parts of Pakistan and the net's been clear as day, so where the fuck do these people think these minorities are living? I've travelled through a lot of the states, including "poor" areas and compared to Vietnam, Malaysia, India, Kenya, it's not even remotely the same thing. Just ridiculous. You have my sympathy.


----------



## MrMister

oh my god those racist idiot mils in that video

how do they not realize they sound like people from the 1920s


----------



## CamillePunk

EPA Gag Order story is "overblown", says senior EPA officials:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/...cations-as-trump-administration-moves-in.html



> Longtime employees at three of the agencies — including some career environmental regulators who conceded that they remained worried about what President Trump might do on policy matters — said such orders were not much different from those delivered by the Obama administration as it shifted policies from the departing White House of George W. Bush. They called reactions to the agency memos overblown. On Wednesday, Douglas Ericksen, a spokesman for the E.P.A., said that grants had been only briefly frozen for review, and that they would be restarted by Friday.
> 
> “I’ve lived through many transitions, and I don’t think this is a story,” said a senior E.P.A. career official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the news media on the matter. “I don’t think it’s fair to call it a gag order. This is standard practice. And the move with regard to the grants, when a new administration comes in, you run things by them before you update the website.”
> 
> But the White House and State Department did delete nearly all mentions of climate change policy — which had been a top priority for Mr. Obama — and have begun replacing them with pages detailing Mr. Trump’s plans to roll back those policies — a top priority for the new president.
> 
> It is standard practice for new administrations to make changes to their websites to reflect their different policy positions. The full contents of the Obama administration’s White House and State Department websites, including working links to climate change reports, have been archived and are readily available to the public.


----------



## Reaper

RavishingRickRules said:


> What sort of nonsense? They live in fucking America ffs, it's not like they're actually still living in Africa. It's beyond belief where some of these supposed "liberals" as you all like to call them get their ideas from. I honestly don't know how you guys are still even working as a country, people who will willingly believe "alternative facts" is a valid concept from politicians on one side and complete space cakes on the other side who aren't even aware enough to realise that even poor Americans are pretty fucking rich by global standards. I've video chatted with friend's family in not particularly pretty looking parts of Pakistan and the net's been clear as day, so where the fuck do these people think these minorities are living? I've travelled through a lot of the states, including "poor" areas and compared to Vietnam, Malaysia, India, Kenya, it's not even remotely the same thing. Just ridiculous. You have my sympathy.


There was another video recently posted of some antifa assholes calling an Ethiopian migrant and a jew fascists simply because they were trying to tell them about how privileged they are [emoji38]

I'm really not concerned by the people on the fringe left that I mock tbh. For me mocking the liberal term is essentially for reactionary reasons because I'm well aware that what's really happening is that the liberals are being held hostage by their ideological extremists. 

I liken this to how well meaning liberal Muslim reformers are held hostage by their extremists. However I'm of the view that tolerating any form of extremism based on a shared label prevents the extremist arguments from dying the death they deserve to die. Even many on the left are too slow to disavow the hard liners in their movement. And yes I see this on the right too all the time. 

The reason why America continues to function is on the back of its constitution which prevents massive shifts in governance. 

For example Pence can try as hard as he might but there is no way he can introduce creationism in school. [not saying that this is what he wants to do but using it as an example of how he can't.] Same with taking away guns. Making hate speech a crime etc etc. Plenty of extreme ideologies are walled out by the Constitution.


----------



## CamillePunk

Nothing wrong with being an extremist. :mj


----------



## Reaper

^You and I shouldn't get into semantics because that's where this is going to head into, isn't it. :cookie


----------



## Vic Capri

President Trump's press conference with British Prime Minister, Theresa May.



> *You need an ID*:
> 
> To buy alcohol and cigarettes.
> 
> To open a bank account.
> 
> To file for unemployment, and to apply for welfare, and Medicaid, and food stamps.
> 
> To apply for Social Security
> 
> To buy a home, and apply for a mortgage, or to rent a home.
> 
> To drive a car, you need one to buy a new car, to buy a used car, heck, you even need one to rent a car.
> 
> To get on an airplane, and you need one to get married, and you need one to check into a hotel room for your honeymoon.
> 
> To buy a gun, and to apply for a hunting license and a fishing license, and even to adopt a pet.
> 
> To pick up a prescription, you need one to buy certain kinds of cold medicine, and you need one to donate blood.
> 
> To buy a cell phone and apply for a coverage plan and, in perhaps the greatest irony of the entire Voter ID debate, you need a photo ID to hold a rally or protest, such as a rally or protest against requiring a photo ID to vote.


According to liberals, everything on this list is racist.

- Vic


----------



## glenwo2

Carte Blanche said:


> ^You and I shouldn't get into semantics because that's where this is going to head into, isn't it. :cookie


Who is she? Cookies rule, btw.


----------



## skypod

Carte Blanche said:


> Best thing I've ever seen on the subject. Completely exposes the bigotry of low expectations and how these libtards actually view minorities. The amount of racism in this video should make one sick to the stomach, but since they're virtue signalling libs, they get a free pass.
> 
> Obviously the minorities in this are disgusted by the idea that they're too poor, ignorant or incapable of getting ID.
> 
> Here are some of the comments:
> 
> "They don't know"
> "They don't have the internet"
> "These people live in areas where they can't access services"
> "They have no idea how to get government ID"
> 
> This is nothing by a white liberal fantasy that minorities are pathetic pieces of trash that need their fucking support.


Not that I'm against the voter laws, but this video was filmed in one area of the city. 

I'd like to see stats on who doesn't have access to the internet in the US, and who doesn't carry the proper ID required for voting. If the majority of those are Black, then yes you could surely see how pushing the laws forces more Black people out of having their say no? 

I've not looked into the stats, just saying that there's another side here where you can look at certain demographics in the US and choose the assume or discriminate or whatever based on simple market research.


----------



## Reaper

skypod said:


> I've not looked into the stats,


Why don't you just do it? And we can thrash it out. :cookie


----------



## virus21

And in France


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Vic Capri said:


> President Trump's press conference with British Prime Minister, Theresa May.
> 
> 
> 
> According to liberals, everything on this list is racist.
> 
> - Vic


Why wouldn't the majority of people have ID of some form anyway? Hell they do ID's here for school children to prove they're under 16 so they can still pay concession fare whilst going through puberty. I don't think I know a single adult in the UK without a passport or driving license personally. I don't understand how that would be considered racist tbh? Makes voting simple as well, receive a slip with your name and address in the post (like we have here) at no cost, show up identifying who you are and vote. You can't vote as an illegal if they only send out the slips to people who are legal and registered. Problem solved.


----------



## virus21

> In his Executive Order “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States” issued on Wednesday, President Donald Trump directed his Secretary of Homeland Security, John Kelly, on a weekly basis, to “make public a comprehensive list of criminal actions committed by aliens and any jurisdiction that ignored or otherwise failed to honor any detainers with respect to such aliens.”
> 
> At the moment such jurisdictions include nearly 300 so-called sanctuary cities harboring more than 2,000 known criminals residing illegally in the United States. The Washington Times called the move “Name and Shame” while Breitbart News is hopeful that the resulting embarrassment is sufficient to force recalcitrant local and state politicians to stop obstructing immigration officials from enforcing federal immigration laws.
> 
> Katie McHugh, writing for Breitbart, hopes that embarrassment, anger and political pressure will be enough: "Local residents may be outraged when they learn that the gang member, drug trafficker, or the drunk driver who ruined lives is an illegal alien. It lets resistance movements to entrenched political establishments bloom across the country, and will force politicians to be responsive."
> 
> She reminded her readers of the unnecessary and painful deaths of Kate Steinle and Sarah Root. Steinle was shot and killed in 2015 by Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, an illegal immigrant from Mexico who had previously been deported five times. Root was killed when a car driven at high speed by Eswin Mejia, an illegal immigrant from Honduras under the influence of alcohol, struck her vehicle while she was waiting at a light in Omaha last January. Charged with vehicular homicide, Mejia was released on $50,000 bail and subsequently disappeared.
> 
> Anger may not be enough and so Trump’s EO raised the stakes: "The Secretary [of Homeland Security] has the authority to designate, in his discretion and to the extent consistent with law, a jurisdiction as a sanctuary jurisdiction. The Attorney General shall take appropriate enforcement action against any entity that violates [federal information sharing statutes] or which has in effect a statute, policy, or practice that prevents or hinders the enforcement of Federal law."
> 
> If that isn’t enough, Trump can play his most powerful hand, which is eliminating federal funding to those jurisdictions: "In furtherance of this policy, the Attorney General and the Secretary, in their discretion and to the extent consistent with law, shall ensure that jurisdictions that willfully refuse to comply … are not eligible to receive Federal grants."
> 
> In his EO, Trump made his case for ordering these measures:
> 
> Many aliens who illegally enter the United States and those who overstay or otherwise violate the terms of their visas present a significant threat to national security and public safety. This is particularly so for aliens who engage in criminal conduct in the United States.
> 
> Sanctuary jurisdictions across the United States willfully violate Federal law in an attempt to shield aliens from removal from the United States. These jurisdictions have caused immeasurable harm to the American people and to the very fabric of our Republic.
> 
> Trump ripped former President Barack Obama and his administration:
> 
> Although Federal immigration law provides a framework for Federal-State partnerships in enforcing our immigration laws to ensure the removal of aliens who have no right to be in the United States, the Federal Government [under Obama] has failed to discharge this basic sovereign responsibility. We cannot faithfully execute the immigration laws of the United States if we exempt classes or categories of removable aliens from potential enforcement. The purpose of this order is to direct executive departments and agencies to employ all lawful means to enforce the immigration laws of the United States.
> 
> That means that “jurisdictions that fail to comply with applicable Federal law do not receive federal funds” and that “aliens ordered removed from the United States are promptly removed.” That means that Kelly “is authorized under the law to assess and collect from aliens unlawfully present in the United States … all fines and penalties that the Secretary is authorized under the law to assess.” And that applies not only to those violating immigration laws, but their enablers as well, including colleges, universities, businesses and family and friends. Those penalties are severe: fines of up to $10,000 and or jail time for those found conspiring to harbor an illegal alien, and fines of more than $20,000 per illegal alien for entities that are repeat offenders.
> 
> The EO authorizes the hiring of 10,000 additional ICE officers and reminds the agencies involved in enforcement that the Privacy Act that has shielded many illegal aliens no longer applies.
> 
> And, finally, Trump wants reports on their progress in enforcing the order in 90 days and a follow-up report 90 days later.
> 
> The “name and shame” program aimed at sanctuary cities might cause some of them to reconsider their stands. Pressure from enraged citizens learning for the first time the pain and suffering wrought by criminal illegal aliens might help. The drying up of federal funds could also prove persuasive.
> 
> But the real hammer, and the real test, will be when the Secretary and or the Attorney General decide to take on the staunchest resistors in New York and San Francisco. Then citizens will learn about President Trump’s dedication to keeping his campaign promises.


http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/25238-trump-aims-name-and-shame-policy-at-sanctuary-cities


----------



## Reaper

RavishingRickRules said:


> Why wouldn't the majority of people have ID of some form anyway? Hell they do ID's here for school children to prove they're under 16 so they can still pay concession fare whilst going through puberty. I don't think I know a single adult in the UK without a passport or driving license personally. I don't understand how that would be considered racist tbh? Makes voting simple as well, receive a slip with your name and address in the post (like we have here) at no cost, show up identifying who you are and vote. You can't vote as an illegal if they only send out the slips to people who are legal and registered. Problem solved.


Well, tbh the "well off" argument doesn't really apply in America because we do have pockets here and there of extreme poverty and since it's such a huge swath of land that it really difficult. Skypod does have a valid point that while urban areas aren't excluded, there are areas where people are living that have no government infrastructure so they've simply abandoned engagement. 

Now there's two ways to look at this. You can still have voter ID laws and find ways to make it easier for those people to get them, or assume that they simply don't want to engage and that they're not voters and are part of the group that simply won't turn up irregardless of whether they have access to ID or not. 

I actually admit that when it comes to those pockets of extreme poverty areas, there is a racial element to all of it - but what I don't understand is the liberal explanation that instead of encouraging people to make better decisions, or strive to do better that we should simply accept that those poor and unfortunate should be allowed to exist in such an environment where they're simply excluded from everything and instead of finding ways to get ID's to those people that we should simply assume that it cannot be done and just ignore them entirely.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

For stats, in Sep 2016 studies showed that 13% of Americans don't use the internet according to the following source. With a figure of 16% black/hispanic citizens not using internet and 13% white citizens not using the internet I'm not sure an argument can be made that it'd seriously suppress voting from any one demographic massively more than the others. What's the voter turnout like there right now? I'd imagine less than 87% right? So who's being suppressed in the grand scheme of things. I think it's fairly well documented that low-income, uneducated people are less likely to vote. According to that study that percentage (poor uneducated people) is actually higher than the number of non-internet users. Doesn't add up to me. It's a bullshit loophole and regardless of what side you're on, if you're seriously in favour of democracy you should oppose such a glaring hole in the system. If you can rig the system by shipping in unregistered ineligible voters, then it aint democracy really. 

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/09/07/some-americans-dont-use-the-internet-who-are-they/


----------



## glenwo2




----------



## RavishingRickRules

glenwo2 said:


> :mark


Yeah I'd have voted for Willy Wonka myself (the Gene Wilder one obviously.) Imagine how amazing it'd be watching him roly-poly to the podium for public addresses. Oompa Loompa security. That'd be even more entertaining for us outsiders than the big Oompa Loompa you got now . (If anyone actually seriously takes offence to that you're a dildo.)


----------



## virus21

> MEXICO CITY — Amid one of the worst crises in U.S.-Mexico relations in years, President Trump and President Enrique Peña Nieto spoke by phone Friday morning for about an hour, a conversation that Trump said was “very, very friendly” but one he suggested was a prelude to tough negotiations over what he described as an unfair trade relationship.
> 
> “We had a very good call,” Trump said in a joint news conference with visiting British Prime Minister Theresa May. “I have been very strong on Mexico. I have great respect for Mexico. I love the Mexican people.” But he quickly added that “Mexico has outnegotiated us and beat us to a pulp. They’ve made us look foolish.”
> 
> Trump said: “The border is soft and weak. Drugs are pouring in. And I’m not going to let that happen.”
> 
> Today's WorldView
> What's most important from where the world meets Washington
> Sign up
> He said his talk with Peña Nieto “lasted for about an hour” and that “we are going to be working on a fair relationship, a new relationship.”
> 
> Although Trump said that “it was a very, very friendly call,” he also stressed that “we are going to be renegotiating our trade deals.” He said negotiations with Mexico will take place “over the coming months” to ensure that the United States does not “lose” on trade.
> 
> See what it looks like along the border fence between the U.S. and Mexico
> View Photos	About 650 miles of fencing is already in place in parts of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California, but the border is nearly 2,000 miles long.
> Peña Nieto’s office said the two leaders had a “constructive and productive conversation” about the bilateral relationship, including the issue about the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico, the importance of “friendship” between the two countries, “and the need of our countries to work together to stop drug trafficking and the flow of illegal weapons.”
> 
> On the issue of paying for a U.S. border wall that Trump has vowed to build, the Mexican statement said both sides recognized their differences of opinion and that they agreed to “resolve their differences” as part of ongoing discussions about the relationship.
> 
> “The presidents also agreed for now not to talk publicly about this controversial issue,” the statement said.
> 
> [Why Trump can’t simply build a border wall with an executive order]
> 
> A subsequent White House statement echoed the Mexican one, saying that “both presidents recognize their clear and very public differences” on paying for the border wall “but have agreed to work these differences out as part of a comprehensive discussion on all aspects of the bilateral relationship.” However, the White House statement stopped short of saying outright that Trump would no longer talk about the payment issue publicly.
> 
> Trump has vowed to force Mexico to pay for his border wall, which independent experts have said could cost as much as $25 billion. Trump did not mention the issue in his joint news conference with May.
> 
> Mexico: Trump's wall tax would cost U.S. consumers Play Video1:16
> Mexico's Foreign Minister says a 20 percent tax on goods from his country to fund Donald Trump's promise of a border wall would end up impacting American consumers. (Reuters)
> Peña Nieto on Thursday canceled a planned trip to Washington, after Trump reiterated his insistence that Mexico pay for the wall.
> 
> Trump’s decision to move forward with building the wall and his threats to dismantle the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) have opened a serious rift in relations between the two neighbors.
> 
> Earlier Friday, Mexican business leaders and politicians warned of economic disaster and possibly unrest if trade ties between the two neighbors are disrupted by new measures proposed by the Trump administration.
> 
> Some business executives and officials in Mexico are calling for retaliatory plans.
> 
> Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim, one of the world’s richest men, said in a rare news conference Friday afternoon that a possible Trump move to tax imports from Mexico would hurt American consumers and make the U.S. economy less competitive.
> 
> Slim, who recently had dinner with Trump at his Florida mansion, also suggested that Trump was naive to believe he could recapture the lost glory of 20th century U.S. manufacturing. He said it was “totally irrational, costly [and] unaffordable” to transfer thousands of Mexican industrial jobs to the United States.
> 
> Slim predicted an “arduous and difficult negotiation” with the Trump administration but said Mexico has its own economic strengths, and he expressed surprise and satisfaction over his country’s “national unity” in the face of Trump’s “challenge.”
> 
> Mexico’s economy was sluggish even before the prospect of a renegotiation of NAFTA, which has led to a large jump in commerce with its largest trading partner. The value of the peso has fallen 13 percent since the election and is plumbing historic lows against the dollar.
> 
> Economists have downgraded prospects for economic growth. A rise in gas prices that started earlier this month, part of reforms by Peña Nieto to wean the country off gas subsidies, sparked looting, roadblocks and clashes between protesters and police. If Mexico goes into a recession, as some economists have predicted if a trade war erupts with the United States, this could lead to further violence in a country already on edge.
> 
> "We might have unrest," former president Vicente Fox said in an interview this week. "If you have a poor Mexico, yes. If there is hunger, yes. If unemployment comes back to high levels, yes, we will have problems. And the consequences will hit right back on the United States."
> 
> Mexico's exporters rely heavily on the United States market. Northern Mexico has transformed in recent years into a robust manufacturing belt that produces automobiles, flat-screen televisions and countless other products.
> 
> Major American corporations are as common as cactus in the northern Mexican deserts.
> 
> The tensions have left officials on both sides of the border calculating their next moves in a dispute that potentially puts one of the North America’s critical economic partnerships in the balance.
> 
> Trump appeared to tighten the screws with a combative tweet, while Mexican politicians have rallied around Peña Nieto, who is still deeply unpopular but found himself basking in praise after calling off a meeting with Trump.
> 
> Peña Nieto made the decision after Trump suggested he should not come to Washington if Mexico remained unwilling to pay for Trump’s planned border wall.
> 
> The president of Mexico’s national conference of governors, Gov. Graco Ramirez of Morelos, told a Mexican newspaper that Trump had declared “war” on Mexico.
> 
> “With Trump, dialogue is exhausted,” Ramirez told El Universal. “It doesn’t make sense to sit down with him. He doesn’t change his attitude or his position.”
> 
> Foreign Minister Luis Videgaray, who had flown to Washington this week in preparation for Peña Nieto’s visit, told a news conference Thursday at the Mexican Embassy that Trump had effectively impugned “the dignity of the Mexican people.” Paying for the wall, he said, was “absolutely impossible.”
> 
> “There are themes that are not part of a negotiation strategy and are totally unacceptable,” he said.
> 
> Trump seemed unmoved by the outcry from Mexico. On Friday, he tweeted: “Mexico has taken advantage of the U.S. for long enough. Massive trade deficits & little help on the very weak border must change, NOW!”
> 
> The growing rift between the two neighbors, who share a 2,000-mile border and half a trillion dollars in annual trade, comes amid a possible renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement, which has been in place for more than two decades.
> 
> Mexican business executives and officials noted that a 20 percent tax on imports from Mexico — an idea floated Thursday by White House spokesman Sean Spicer — would make those products more expensive for American consumers. Some expressed exasperation that so much effort must be expended to convince the United States about the benefits of free trade.
> 
> “It’s paradoxical,” Juan Pablo Castañon, the president of Mexico’s Business Coordinating Council, a coalition of business groups, said in an interview. “Twenty-five years ago, the United States convinced Mexicans about free trade. Today we’re trying to convince Americans about free trade.”
> 
> [Border Patrol chief resigns after clashing with powerful union]
> 
> Castañon said Mexico should reciprocate on any U.S. tax or tariff. If the United States negotiates with Mexico as a sovereign and respected partner, he said, then both countries can become more competitive and prosperous. If not, then “the first option is not to have NAFTA.”
> 
> On Thursday, White House press secretary Sean Spicer initially said the border barrier would be funded by a 20 percent import tax on goods from Mexico.
> 
> Spicer did not provide details of how the policy would work. Later, he appeared to backtrack, telling reporters that the tax was “one idea” to pay for the wall and that his intent was not to “roll out” a new policy. He said it could be part of a broader import tax plan backed by some House Republicans.
> 
> Critics said that if implemented, such a tax would mean that the wall’s cost ultimately would be borne by U.S. consumers.
> 
> Trump’s moves have rekindled old resentments in Mexico, a country that during its history has often felt bullied and threatened by its wealthier, more powerful neighbor. The legacy of heavy-handed U.S. behavior — which includes invasions in the 19th and 20th centuries and the seizure of significant Mexican lands — has mostly been played down by a generation of Mexican leaders who have pursued pragmatic policies and mutual economic interests with both Republican and Democratic administrations in the United States.
> 
> [Mexicans are angry at their own president for meeting with Trump]
> 
> NAFTA has allowed trade between the neighbors to mushroom. Every day, goods valued at $1.4 billion cross the U.S.-Mexico border, and millions of jobs are linked to trade on both sides. Mexico is the world’s second-largest customer for American-made products, and 80 percent of Mexican exports — automobiles, flat-screen TVs, avocados — are sold to the United States.
> 
> Mexico’s economy secretary, Ildefonso Guajardo, said this week that Mexico is prepared to “mirror” any action by the United States to raise tariffs or impose taxes on imports. Guajardo has also said it might be necessary for Mexico to walk away from NAFTA — a once-unthinkable idea — if there was no benefit in the negotiations for his country.
> 
> “If we are going to go for something that is less than what we have, it makes no sense to stay,” he said.
> 
> Mexicans said they had trouble recalling a time when relations were this bad with the United States or when an American president appeared to be such a threat to Mexico’s core interests.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/mexico-digs-in-and-trump-lashes-back-as-border-wall-standoff-deepens/2017/01/27/7279c196-e41c-11e6-a419-eefe8eff0835_story.html?utm_term=.15165cec0ac5


----------



## CamillePunk

In the press conference with UK Prime Minister Theresa May, President Donald J Trump stated that while he disagrees with the Secretary of Defense James Mattis on torture, he will allow Mattis to override Trump on the issue, trusting in his experience and knowledge. 

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-james-mattis-override-torture-2017-1



> President Donald Trump on Friday said he had authorized newly minted Secretary of Defense James Mattis to "override" him on decisions related to whether the US employed torture.
> 
> Trump, an unabashed supporter of so-called enhanced-interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, noted that Mattis "does not necessarily believe in torture or waterboarding or however you want to define it."
> 
> "I don't necessarily agree, but I will tell you that he will override because I am giving him that power," Trump said. "He is an expert. He is highly respected. He is the general's general."
> 
> "So I'm going to rely on him," Trump later added. "I happen to feel that it does work. I have been open for a long period of time. But I am going with our leaders and we are going to win with or without."
> 
> Trump made the comments during a joint news conference with UK Prime Minister Theresa May. Trump met earlier in the day with May in what was the new president's first official meeting with a foreign leader.


That's correct, Trump hired someone with different views than himself, and is willing to accept their judgement over his own. This is of course a huge contradiction of the common anti-Trump narrative that he is an authoritarian and a simpleton who is going to push his own uninformed agenda no matter what. Needless to say, the contradiction has triggered cognitive dissonance in many people who are anti-Trump, so as expected, they're just resorting to saying this proves he's incompetent. :lol There is literally no way for Trump to win with these people.


----------



## Tater

CamillePunk said:


> President Donald J Trump stated that while he disagrees with the Secretary of Defense James Mattis on torture, he will allow Mattis to override Trump on the issue, trusting in his experience and knowledge.


Credit where credit is due. Even a blind nut finds a squirrel every once in a while. Of course, Trump is a troglodyte for even needing to be overridden on this issue of torture but I'll happily give him credit for letting Mattis take the lead. That's still better than the alternative.

In a related issue, TJ Kirk did a great takedown of liberals suddenly being pro-TPP since Trump was the one who killed it.


----------



## Kabraxal

RavishingRickRules said:


> Yeah I'd have voted for Willy Wonka myself (the Gene Wilder one obviously.) Imagine how amazing it'd be watching him roly-poly to the podium for public addresses. Oompa Loompa security. That'd be even more entertaining for us outsiders than the big Oompa Loompa you got now . (If anyone actually seriously takes offence to that you're a dildo.)


Depending on whose dildo... I might just take offence!

As for Trump. Still don't like the guy personally, but I am laughing at the idiots out there that are trying to make out that keeping his campaign promises is sabotaging his status with the people that voted him in. How in the hell does that work out? "We voted you in to do this and you did it! HOW DARE YOU!". Huh?


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Kabraxal said:


> Depending on whose dildo... I might just take offence!
> 
> As for Trump. Still don't like the guy personally, but I am laughing at the idiots out there that are trying to make out that keeping his campaign promises is sabotaging his status with the people that voted him in. How in the hell does that work out? "We voted you in to do this and you did it! HOW DARE YOU!". Huh?


Yeah, though I dislike a lot of what he's doing he seems to be keeping his word so his actual supporters should be mostly pleased I'd imagine. I think the wall could bite him in the arse in the long run with the tariff/Mexico situation and that could lose him a lot of support if it starts to affect people in a tangible way. Some of his supporters will believe he's the messiah no matter what though, those are the ones who justify the pure bullshit, think that Mexico exists to do everything the US tells them (and most of the world for that matter) and can't seem to find faults where there are many. Others I think are starting to dislike some of what he's doing from responses I've seen from Trump supporters in my friend group but as long as he keeps to those key running issues will let some shit slide because no politician ever does anything 100% to our liking regardless. I've yet to see anyone outright denounce him and show regret over the vote, that's a huge difference between the US and Brexit I think, here there was definitely a strong "Bregret" from a lot of camps. It's early days. I think a lot of what he's doing is pretty sketch personally, some of it feels like it's coming from the GOP old boys than Trump too, but it's going to take some serious fuck ups before he'll lose his core fanbase I think.


----------



## DGenerationMC

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/824660118193270784
:lol


----------



## glenwo2

I'm sure that when all is said and done, the Wall will be built.....


...however, I think Mexico may end up paying 80% of the cost(not all of it) while the U.S. ends up paying 20% or some kind of arrangement like that. I'm not certain on the particulars on it. There are a lot of moving parts here.

But, I truly believe the wall *WILL* be built.


----------



## DOPA

http://news.sky.com/story/theresa-may-gets-standing-ovations-at-start-of-us-visit-10744053



> *Theresa May warns US and UK cannot return to 'failed' interventions*
> 
> The Prime Minister echoes Donald Trump's criticism of the US/UK invasion of Iraq as she issues a warning on engaging with Russia.
> 
> Theresa May has warned there can be no return to Iraq-style intervention in other countries by the US and UK as she began her visit to America by heralding the ties between the two nations.
> 
> The Prime Minister evoked the relationship between Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan during a speech at the annual Congressional Republican Retreat in Philadelphia, adding that "time and again it is the relationship between us that has defined the modern world".
> 
> She signalled support for some of President Trump's key foreign policies - condemning the "malign influence" of Iran, vowing to fight Islamic State and promising to "stand up" for the security of Israel.
> 
> Mrs May said Mr Trump's victory would allow the US to be "stronger, greater, and more confident in the years ahead", as she stressed the Brexit vote would restore sovereignty and independence to Britain.
> 
> But she cautioned over foreign policy positions taken by Mr Trump during his campaign, warning that he should "engage but beware" of Vladimir Putin and Russia and underscoring the work of the UN as "in need of reform, but vital, still".
> 
> She told the audience that the US and UK had a "joint responsibility to lead, because when others step up as we step back, it is bad for America, for Britain and the world".
> 
> There must be "no return to the failed policies of the past - the days of Britain and America intervening in sovereign countries in an attempt to remake the world in our own image are over".
> 
> Sky News Diplomatic Editor Dominic Waghorn said: "It's the kind of speech you would expect from a Prime Minister hoping to make the most of what is clearly a lot of goodwill towards the UK, an administration that seems keen on pursuing the special relationship.
> 
> "In a sense it was an appeal for wiser counsels to prevail in the Republican Party and a bit of a dig if you like at some of the ideas that Donald Trump has hinted at."
> 
> Mrs May is the first foreign head of government to address the Republican Retreat.
> 
> On Friday, she will become the first foreign leader to meet with Mr Trump since his inauguration as she looks to secure the basis for a trade deal with the US after the triggering of Article 50 to leave the European Union.
> 
> During his campaign, she had described Mr Trump's policies as "divisive, stupid and wrong", but in her speech she praised his election victory even as she voiced differences to some of his agenda.
> 
> She described the Iran nuclear deal - which the US President has threatened to tear up - as "vitally important for regional security" and sought to ease fears that China will eclipse the West on the international stage.


I don't like Theresa May at all but this is pretty encouraging. I'm hoping both of them really stick to the view of no more nation building abroad because if they do we'll have a much better foreign policy overall. I even liked the suggestion of engaging Russia from a position of strength, nice little nod to Reagan there (Y).

------------------------------

Something I need to address is Trump's executive orders surrounding immigration. The increase in Border security is of course a good move and one that is much needed but some of the other propositions are rather wacky to say the least. The weekly reporting of crimes of immigrants to me is totally unnecessary and could end up being pretty divisive. Rightly or wrongly, I could imagine people conjuring up images of when Nazi Germany outted people for being Jewish and thinking of similarities when immigrants criminality are made public. Honestly I think it doesn't need to be done and could be handled a different way.

And of course the damn wall :lmao. I laughed my ass off when Trump actually took the first steps to get it built and now he's actually trying to get Mexico to pay for it. It's been pretty embarrassing, the cancellation of a planned meeting with the Mexican President looks really bad even if it was a mutual agreement. The idea of a 20% tariff to pay for the wall is even worse, essentially punishing the consumer if they want to buy Mexican goods as the prices will go up significantly. I could see Mexico responding by also raising tariff's on American goods and essentially nobody wins with those types of policies.

I've also seen that Trump has a temporary banning of immigrants from certain countries and has introduced an extreme vetting executive order....I'll have to read into those before passing judgement.






Great video with Rand on torture. I was concerned to see Trump go back to advocating for torture but I'm comforted that he's going to defer to Mattis on this one. As CP already said, it also goes against the idea of being controlling and an authoritarian in those senses. Very smart political move that is sure to confuse the hell out of people :lol.




Carte Blanche said:


> Best thing I've ever seen on the subject. Completely exposes the bigotry of low expectations and how these libtards actually view minorities. The amount of racism in this video should make one sick to the stomach, but since they're virtue signalling libs, they get a free pass.
> 
> Obviously the minorities in this are disgusted by the idea that they're too poor, ignorant or incapable of getting ID.
> 
> Here are some of the comments:
> 
> "They don't know"
> "They don't have the internet"
> "These people live in areas where they can't access services"
> "They have no idea how to get government ID"
> 
> This is nothing by a white liberal fantasy that minorities are pathetic pieces of trash that need their fucking support.



Jesus Christ, the level of ignorance displayed by these whiny self absorbed millennial liberals is insane.


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

RavishingRickRules said:


> So you think a good solution to border control issues is to authorise the population to use their much inferior weaponry taking shots at Mexicans in areas with high levels of Cartel activity? Well at least we now have definite proof that Trump isn't the "worst case scenario" I guess... kay


They would be trained and supplied with proper weapons and would be supervised by fully-trained military personnel . . . Nobody would be out their "plinking away" with a 22LR pistol !


----------



## glenwo2

L-DOPA said:


> http://news.sky.com/story/theresa-may-gets-standing-ovations-at-start-of-us-visit-10744053
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like Theresa May at all but this is pretty encouraging. I'm hoping both of them really stick to the view of no more nation building abroad because if they do we'll have a much better foreign policy overall. I even liked the suggestion of engaging Russia from a position of strength, nice little nod to Reagan there (Y).
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Something I need to address is Trump's executive orders surrounding immigration. The increase in Border security is of course a good move and one that is much needed but some of the other propositions are rather wacky to say the least. The weekly reporting of crimes of immigrants to me is totally unnecessary and could end up being pretty divisive. Rightly or wrongly, I could imagine people conjuring up images of when Nazi Germany outted people for being Jewish and thinking of similarities when immigrants criminality are made public. Honestly I think it doesn't need to be done and could be handled a different way.
> 
> And of course the damn wall :lmao. I laughed my ass off when Trump actually took the first steps to get it built and now he's actually trying to get Mexico to pay for it. It's been pretty embarrassing, the cancellation of a planned meeting with the Mexican President looks really bad even if it was a mutual agreement. The idea of a 20% tariff to pay for the wall is even worse, essentially punishing the consumer if they want to buy Mexican goods as the prices will go up significantly. I could see Mexico responding by also raising tariff's on American goods and essentially nobody wins with those types of policies.
> 
> I've also seen that Trump has a temporary banning of immigrants from certain countries and has introduced an extreme vetting executive order....I'll have to read into those before passing judgement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great video with Rand on torture. I was concerned to see Trump go back to advocating for torture but I'm comforted that he's going to defer to Mattis on this one. As CP already said, it also goes against the idea of being controlling and an authoritarian in those senses. Very smart political move that is sure to confuse the hell out of people :lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Jesus Christ, the level of ignorance displayed by these whiny self absorbed millennial liberals is insane.*


Remember the old days when these young people would concern themselves with going to school, getting good grades, going to college, getting good grades, and then getting good jobs? Now it's like "Let me get on my fucking soapbox and spout horseshit because....." 

Everyone thinks he/she is a politician these days.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Lunatic Fringe said:


> They would be trained and supplied with proper weapons and would be supervised by fully-trained military personnel . . . Nobody would be out their "plinking away" with a 22LR pistol !


Ohhh I see, you want to equip the Texan locals with military grade equipment. So on top of the $20 billion wall you're going to add significant military budget spending arming all these civilians with military grade weaponry I believe is illegal for them to own (which they'd need to face the cartels) then the cost of training, the tariffs pushing your prices up and you consider this a "good" direction to take? You may want to rethink some of your positions. Especially as a "southern baptist" Christian who believes "thou shalt not kill" and "love thy neighbour" oh and let's never forget "turn the other cheek." Don't you realise that you're going against your entire belief system here? When an illegal comes to take your food, you're supposed to forgive him and let him. That's the Christian way.


----------



## virus21

glenwo2 said:


> Everyone thinks he/she is a politician these days.


No, they think their celebrities.


----------



## Vic Capri

Speaking of celebrities, remember the child arsonist from last week?






That's Drew Carey's son! What a twist! :surprise:

- Vic


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

Carte Blanche said:


> Obviously the minorities in this are disgusted by the idea that they're too poor, ignorant or incapable of getting ID.
> 
> Here are some of the comments:
> 
> "They don't know"
> "They don't have the internet"
> "These people live in areas where they can't access services"
> "They have no idea how to get government ID"
> 
> This is nothing by a white liberal fantasy that minorities are pathetic pieces of trash that need their fucking support.


That's a load of CRAP ( them, not you ) . . . They have to have ID to get their Welfare & EBT / Food Stamps, to drive a car, open a bank account, cash a check, etc, etc, etc !!!

Having to show ID to vote should be mandatory in all 50 states . . . Nothing "Racist" about it, since EVERYONE would have to do it . . . No discrimination there !!!

They can't provide ID but they can make fake claims that there are more and more hate crimes against them!!! Fake news!!!


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

skypod said:


> I'd like to see stats on who doesn't have access to the internet in the US, and who doesn't carry the proper ID required for voting. If the majority of those are Black, then yes you could surely see how pushing the laws forces more Black people out of having their say no?


Put their name, photo and address on their Welfare / EBT / Food Stamps, etc cards . . . PRESTO, you got ID !!!


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Lunatic Fringe said:


> Put their name, photo and address on their Welfare / EBT / Food Stamps, etc cards . . . PRESTO, you got ID !!!


Are you actually under the impression that all black people are on welfare or is this just pathetic trolling attempts? Just a thought, Lebron James makes more in a year than you'll make in your entire life. Jay Z is probably worth more than your entire immediate family will earn in their lives. Actually kind of sad that you're trying to troll this way in a thread where the more rational Trump supporters (well some of them) will discuss politics with the non-Trumper. Not that good a look tbh. You're not even witty with it either, pretty lame.


----------



## FriedTofu

The way I see it, voter ID laws is racist because of how it is being implemented, not by the law itself requiring a photo ID. Areas that propose them purposefully made it more difficult for certain minorities even with the required documents that impose an added cost to their simple right to vote. Anyway, all this hoopla will be gone in the next 20-30 years when the older generation that didn't have the documents to get the IDs dies out. (unless of course you want to count the anchor babies that lack official documents :troll)

Just forget the right to not vote and make voting mandatory and be done with it. You can even raise revenues by fines to chronic non-voters to pay for the costs of providing photo IDs to the people who can't afford to get one themselves. :troll


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

RavishingRickRules said:


> Ohhh I see, you want to equip the Texan locals with military grade equipment. So on top of the $20 billion wall you're going to add significant military budget spending arming all these civilians with military grade weaponry I believe is illegal for them to own (which they'd need to face the cartels) then the cost of training, the tariffs pushing your prices up and you consider this a "good" direction to take? You may want to rethink some of your positions. Especially as a "southern baptist" Christian who believes "thou shalt not kill" and "love thy neighbour" oh and let's never forget "turn the other cheek." Don't you realise that you're going against your entire belief system here? When an illegal comes to take your food, you're supposed to forgive him and let him. That's the Christian way.


Military-grade equipment = Powerful Rifles with scopes, not necessarily full-auto ( This is not "warfare" ) . . . Superior optics and links to satellite and drone imagery ( see them coming a long time before they arrive ). I'm not talking about producing "combat troops" here, just the equivalent of a well-armed Militia / Police force, with a few SWAT elements and excellent intel. Believe me, after a few "examples" are made, word would spread quickly among the Mexicans and the numbers trying to sneak into the USA would drop considerably. Once the Wall is complete, standard personnel would guard and man it.

You make it sound like the Cartels are an invading army . . . The liaison with the Military, coupled with precision Drone strikes as needed. Infrared and satellite technology is mighty impressive, nowadays. . .

You misunderstand my "belief system" . . . Christianity is NOT about being the "Doormats" of the World !

Yes, I'm a Southern Baptist . . . However, the correct translation of the 6th Commandment is "Thou shall not Murder" . . . Enforcing the Law is not Murder and, if killing is necessary, then "Murder" does not apply. "Love thy neighbor", does not mean "lay down and let them do whatever they want" . . . Neither does "turn the other cheek" !

*http://forward.com/articles/6091/on-language/*

If that were true, then our entire Legal System should be abolished and let people do whatever they want, without intervention or punishment by Man, leaving God to handle all punishment, without anyone lifting a finger . . . 

Do you favor that kind of world ???


----------



## RavishingRickRules

No, you misunderstand your belief system. If you kill people just for "going north" and then kill those "going south so they don't come back" (your idea not mine) that isn't a combat situation, that's cold blooded murder. Ergo, your gimmick doesn't work. You're a christian advocating mass murder you numpty.


----------



## Reaper




----------



## FriedTofu

I await the deficit hawks opposing this increase in spending. /s


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

RavishingRickRules said:


> No, you misunderstand your belief system. If you kill people just for "going north" and then kill those "going south so they don't come back" (your idea not mine) that isn't a combat situation, that's cold blooded murder. Ergo, your gimmick doesn't work. You're a christian advocating mass murder you numpty.


If people are in a zone that states it is illegal for them to be in it, and deadly force is authorized for use against those who break the law by entering that area, they get what they deserve ! 

It's not "mass murder" . . . It is meting out a legally-authorized punishment for those who break the Law. Don't break that Law, live a live a long, happy life . . . 

People would not be able to "accidentally wander into" the Restricted Area and would have several warnings to leave, safely, before coming under fire . . . Ignore the Warnings and pay the price !

Those people would not be "hunted down" . . . Action would be taken "during the commission of a crime" !


----------



## RavishingRickRules

I'd be interested in seeing the projected earnings from the revenue streams to see how much that reduces costs but I dunno, building infrastructure isn't necessarily a bad thing (and is usually a good thing if the infrastructure is out of date or unfit for purpose) if it means a sudden influx of jobs. You have to look at a project like that a little deeper I think, compare the projected revenue streams and do projections on potential stimuli on the economy with the wealth of new jobs created. In some ways you can say that some of the "cost" is being distributed back to the populace in wages and the revenue streams from the projects offsetting some of the costs. So you have 50% of that bill knocked off in the first instance so you're down to $69 billion approx already, then revenue streams and employment..I dunno, that could be a good deal that one depending on those revenue streams. Though in the immediate "need" for people at the bottom of the pile right now might be a steady job over where the tax dollars they're not earning without said job are being spent. :shrug


----------



## Beatles123

You know, I would definately give kudos to those on the left who are sane seeing their ideology ruined by idiots. Sargon of Akkad used to be hardcore liberal and now is being pushed center right in all of the BS. :lol


----------



## Miss Sally

Carte Blanche said:


> There was another video recently posted of some antifa assholes calling an Ethiopian migrant and a jew fascists simply because they were trying to tell them about how privileged they are
> 
> I'm really not concerned by the people on the fringe left that I mock tbh. For me mocking the liberal term is essentially for reactionary reasons because I'm well aware that what's really happening is that the liberals are being held hostage by their ideological extremists.
> 
> I liken this to how well meaning liberal Muslim reformers are held hostage by their extremists. However I'm of the view that tolerating any form of extremism based on a shared label prevents the extremist arguments from dying the death they deserve to die. Even many on the left are too slow to disavow the hard liners in their movement. And yes I see this on the right too all the time.
> 
> The reason why America continues to function is on the back of its constitution which prevents massive shifts in governance.
> 
> For example Pence can try as hard as he might but there is no way he can introduce creationism in school. [not saying that this is what he wants to do but using it as an example of how he can't.] Same with taking away guns. Making hate speech a crime etc etc. Plenty of extreme ideologies are walled out by the Constitution.


Don't forget the protesters in the Library that told the asian guy who reminded them that it was a Library to go back to China, what's funny is most of them were black, you'd think that none of those protesters would make such a remark.


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> Don't forget the protesters in the Library that told the asian guy who reminded them that it was a Library to go back to China, what's funny is most of them were black, you'd think that none of those protesters would make such a remark.


We're both minorities so we know exactly how much disdain and mistrust exists between minorities for each other.

I'd say a minority is more likely to hate another minority than the majority group.


----------



## Beatles123

Miss Sally said:


> Don't forget the protesters in the Library that told the asian guy who reminded them that it was a Library to go back to China, what's funny is most of them were black, you'd think that none of those protesters would make such a remark.


Im just gonna say it...

Im proud to be white, from the west, and part of a race of people that produced some of the greatest inventions, societies and historical milestones mankind has ever seen.

Now. Say I told a BLM guy that....would I come away unharmed? :hmm:


----------



## Miss Sally

Carte Blanche said:


> We're both minorities so we know exactly how much disdain and mistrust exists between minorities for each other.
> 
> I'd say a minority is more likely to hate another minority than the majority group.


I believe from a hate crime report that the most violent hate crimes are done by hispanics against blacks, I'd have to check and a lot of it is tied to gang violence. Though it's funny how "leftists" try to pretend racism is exclusively a white problem, if it was it would be simple to fix but it's not so the problem is awful.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Beatles123 said:


> Im just gonna say it...
> 
> Im proud to be white, from the west, and part of a race of people that made some of the greatest inventions man has produced.
> 
> Now. Say I told a BLM guy that....https://images.moviepilot.com/image/upload/c_fill,h_470,q_auto:good,w_620/ldcs9phnsqrzgppah6ru.jpgI come away unharmed? :hmm:



I know plenty of people who support BLM who wouldn't give a flying fuck if you said that to them. Though they'd all find it pretty hilarious if they read your comments like these where you almost seem desperate for everyone who remotely sits on the "left" to respond aggressively to you. It's kind of weird to see sometimes, it's like you have your own personal echo chamber going on. Regardless, most races can say that they "made some of the greatest inventions, Arabs were responsible for a whole mess of developments, including pubic hospitals which I'm sure we can agree are pretty awesome. Like contemporary music? Thank African-Americans, without Blues you get no rock and roll, jazz or country and by extension literally every genre of contemporary music around today barring neo-classical music. Pretty impressive I think. Funny thing really, no race can really claim actual dominance in innovation as many ideas are developed over centuries between multiple cultures. The biggest reason that Europe developed so quickly compared to many of the struggling areas in the world (apart from the fact that we Europeans raped and pillaged our way around the place, stole all the wealth and destroyed any semblance of local infrastructure under our dominance which further hindered the development of said countries) is the far more temperate climate and abundance of natural resources and arable land available to the communities. It's a really simple formula:more food, faster growth, more worker, faster development, better health etc etc. Has it never dawned on you that the majority of 3rd world countries are in places with little water, food and super hot temperatures? There's a reason for that. Essentially, you're celebrating the sheer luck that your ancestors happened to migrate to lands with better farming when other people's didn't. Not that impressive when you actually think about it. I do wonder though, do you know anything of your culture pre-America? I do feel that many Americans like to claim this powerful ancestry yet have very little knowledge of it beyond "my family came from Ireland" (even though half of those are Scottish judging by how US tv tries to portray the irish lol.) Still you should be proud of who you are, it's part of having healthy self-worth. Sadly many people don't have that option because their ancestors weren't lucky enough to wander into places with good soil and irrigation.


----------



## virus21




----------



## RavishingRickRules

Carte Blanche said:


> We're both minorities so we know exactly how much disdain and mistrust exists between minorities for each other.
> 
> I'd say a minority is more likely to hate another minority than the majority group.


That's very common here too actually. Especially within the Southern Asian community. Having grown up in an area with predominantly Asian and Black families the most common "prejudice" I always saw was with Asian lads drawing lines based on religion. Muslims vs Hindus vs Sikhs. And then the India vs Pakistan which has produced some of the nastier street fights I've ever witnessed for kids in their teens. Similarly my Italian grandfather was pretty racist towards Blacks, though he was fine with everyone else. I think a lot of cultural racism exists especially in the older generations of settled immigrants and the younger immigrants from more fundamentalist/underdeveloped countries.

edit: Does anyone else find it a little funny that the right-wing establishment party in the USA of all places uses the colour most commonly associated globally with Communism, the big demon of America? "The Red Flag" is one of the most enduring socialist/communist/leftist symbols,= dating back to the French Revolution haha.


----------



## Goku

RavishingRickRules said:


> edit: Does anyone else find it a little funny that the right-wing establishment party in the USA of all places uses the colour most commonly associated globally with Communism, the big demon of America? "The Red Flag" is one of the most enduring socialist/communist/leftist symbols,= dating back to the French Revolution haha.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states#Origins_of_the_color_scheme


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Goku said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states#Origins_of_the_color_scheme


Interesting way that developed. I guess I always just found it weird when Red is just so heavily associated with Communism and Socialism globally, just makes me a chuckle a little all the "anti-leftists" repping Red when it's the opposite of what they identify it with everywhere else.


----------



## Beatles123

RavishingRickRules said:


> I know plenty of people who support BLM who wouldn't give a flying fuck if you said that to them.


They'd be the first in a very long line now of people i've said it to. :shrug

I am also not against Leftists in general. The modern left has chased actual moderates away from the left.


----------



## Beatles123




----------



## RavishingRickRules

Beatles123 said:


> They'd be the first in a very long line now of people i've said it to. :shrug
> 
> I am also not against Leftists in general. The modern left has chased actual moderates away from the left.


Maybe in America. Here in the UK the centre-left party is the fastest growing party in our political system with by far the largest number of registered members of any European party by quite some distance. The problem a lot of you have is the projection of the way a lot of your "leftists" over there onto the rest of us when frankly most of us don't even consider your Democrat party left of centre in the first place. Always be aware that politics outside of your country are usually vastly different from the ones within. Don't be fooled by the rhetoric either, Nigel Farage isn't some hero, he's a man who's never been democratically elected to office in the UK because he's mostly useless and a bit of a joke if we're being totally blunt about it. Our "right wing" party align a lot closer with your Democrats than they do your Republicans as an example of another difference and by our political spectrum your entire political system is shifted way to the right in comparison. Similarly the far-right in the UK is a mostly laughable bunch. I don't think they've managed to cotton on to the rebranding nonsense of "alt-right" yet but they usually manage to get around 30-40 members marching drunk surrounded by a few hundred police to protect them from the local communities who don't want them in their towns and just cause trouble, getting themselves arrested and costing us millions in policing every year for their protection. Oh, one of them did murder a politician though so they aren't without their dangers. It's interesting, but refugees are causing far less problems in our country than the far-right, often Hitler worshipping (I shit you not) thugs who like to dub themselves patriots are. We've recently had a Hitler worshipping youth arrested on terrorism charges for making a pipe bomb, more in the long line of far-right paedophiles and sex offenders and hate crimes both islamaphobic and anti-semitic in nature. And yet the majority of the US is under some weird impression that the UK and all of Europe is being overrun by refugees and Muslims and it's just not even remotely the case. Sometimes, the "mainstream media" isn't the only media you shouldn't be trusting I guess.


----------



## Beatles123

RavishingRickRules said:


> Maybe in America. Here in the UK the centre-left party is the fastest growing party in our political system with by far the largest number of registered members of any European party by quite some distance. The problem a lot of you have is the projection of the way a lot of your "leftists" over there onto the rest of us when frankly most of us don't even consider your Democrat party left of centre in the first place. Always be aware that politics outside of your country are usually vastly different from the ones within. Don't be fooled by the rhetoric either, Nigel Farage isn't some hero, he's a man who's never been democratically elected to office in the UK because he's mostly useless and a bit of a joke if we're being totally blunt about it. Our "right wing" party align a lot closer with your Democrats than they do your Republicans as an example of another difference and by our political spectrum your entire political system is shifted way to the right in comparison. Similarly the far-right in the UK is a mostly laughable bunch. I don't think they've managed to cotton on to the rebranding nonsense of "alt-right" yet but they usually manage to get around 30-40 members marching drunk surrounded by a few hundred police to protect them from the local communities who don't want them in their towns and just cause trouble, getting themselves arrested and costing us millions in policing every year for their protection. Oh, one of them did murder a politician though so they aren't without their dangers. It's interesting, but refugees are causing far less problems in our country than the far-right, often Hitler worshipping (I shit you not) thugs who like to dub themselves patriots are. We've recently had a Hitler worshipping youth arrested on terrorism charges for making a pipe bomb, more in the long line of far-right paedophiles and sex offenders and hate crimes both islamaphobic and anti-semitic in nature. And yet the majority of the US is under some weird impression that the UK and all of Europe is being overrun by refugees and Muslims and it's just not even remotely the case. Sometimes, the "mainstream media" isn't the only media you shouldn't be trusting I guess.


I can only trust my own experiences. Im not saying every lefty is white hating. Far from it. Im saying its a narrative they're pushing in the mainstream. I'll leave the refugee stuff to @Carte Blanche


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Beatles123 said:


> I can only trust my own experiences. Im not saying every lefty is white hating. Far from it. Im saying its a narrative they're pushing in the mainstream. I'll leave the refugee stuff to @Carte Blanche


Like I say, your mainstream and our mainstream whilst overlapping are far from the same thing. We don't have your media for a start which is a big factor. Our media doesn't need to push agendas in the US either, they have no bearing there just as the US has no real bearing here on the media front. Totally different political landscapes, total different media, entirely different historical views on certain political leanings (for example, you guys are heavily "anti communist" because of the Cold War. Here we're far more anti far-right/nazis as our last big nemesis until ISIS was Nazi Germany.) That "SJW narrative" really isn't being pushed here like it is there. In fact the only side making villains of themselves right now are our right-wing government for the draconian cuts they're making, their directly being responsible for the deaths of thousands of vulnerable British citizens (many of them physically disabled - this led to us being investigated by the UN Human Rights Commission who found us to be in serious breach of human rights responsibilities.) They ran on a platform of "we will not privatise the NHS" then proceeded to do so the day after they were elected. The cronyism is ridiculous, our Prime Minister's husband just happens to head a private security firm who are taking over policing duties in many areas because the government would rather pay less-able security guards than actual police to do the job. It's a bit of a shit-storm here right now if I'm being honest. We recently had the Brexit vote ostensibly to control borders and "restore sovereignty to Parliament" which the government then actively campaigned to BYPASS the sovereignty of Parliament and act against the laws of our country. As I'm sure you can see, the differences between here and there, despite sharing a lot of popular culture are quite significant. That's the point I'm trying to iterate: Don't demonise all left-leaning people by the actions of your "leftists" out there, they aren't remotely representative of the rest of the world, and in terms of Political parties, your "left" party would be considered right-wing in most other countries in the world.


----------



## Beatles123

RavishingRickRules said:


> Like I say, your mainstream and our mainstream whilst overlapping are far from the same thing. We don't have your media for a start which is a big factor. Our media doesn't need to push agendas in the US either, they have no bearing there just as the US has no real bearing here on the media front. Totally different political landscapes, total different media, entirely different historical views on certain political leanings (for example, you guys are heavily "anti communist" because of the Cold War. Here we're far more anti far-right/nazis as our last big nemesis until ISIS was Nazi Germany.) That "SJW narrative" really isn't being pushed here like it is there. In fact the only side making villains of themselves right now are our right-wing government for the draconian cuts they're making, their directly being responsible for the deaths of thousands of vulnerable British citizens (many of them physically disabled - this led to us being investigated by the UN Human Rights Commission who found us to be in serious breach of human rights responsibilities.) They ran on a platform of "we will not privatise the NHS" then proceeded to do so the day after they were elected. The cronyism is ridiculous, our Prime Minister's husband just happens to head a private security firm who are taking over policing duties in many areas because the government would rather pay less-able security guards than actual police to do the job. It's a bit of a shit-storm here right now if I'm being honest. We recently had the Brexit vote ostensibly to control borders and "restore sovereignty to Parliament" which the government then actively campaigned to BYPASS the sovereignty of Parliament and act against the laws of our country. As I'm sure you can see, the differences between here and there, despite sharing a lot of popular culture are quite significant. That's the point I'm trying to iterate: Don't demonise all left-leaning people by the actions of your "leftists" out there, they aren't remotely representative of the rest of the world, and in terms of Political parties, your "left" party would be considered right-wing in most other countries in the world.


Again, the affairs of my own coyntry are all im worried about. However I will say Im glad you guys left the EU.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Beatles123 said:


> Again, the affairs of my own coyntry are all im worried about. However I will say Im glad you guys left the EU.


Which is fine, until you start trying to project the actions of those "leftists" in America on to everybody with a remotely left-leaning alignment outside of the USA. It's firstly misplaced because as nations and people we're rather different despite our shared cultural roots and two it's actually kind of offensive. Believing in some form of social responsibility and being a batshit crazy SJW who's so far removed from the world they make racist statements thinking they're defending people of colour are worlds apart. You know how right-wingers got sick of people tarred with "racist," "sexist," "homophobe" etc? Do you not find it a little ironic/silly that you're doing the exact same shit with a different set of buzzwords? I mean, how can you remotely complain about something and then do nothing but the exact same shit?


----------



## Beatles123

RavishingRickRules said:


> Which is fine, until you start trying to project the actions of those "leftists" in America on to everybody with a remotely left-leaning alignment outside of the USA. It's firstly misplaced because as nations and people we're rather different despite our shared cultural roots and two it's actually kind of offensive. Believing in some form of social responsibility and being a batshit crazy SJW who's so far removed from the world they make racist statements thinking they're defending people of colour are worlds apart. You know how right-wingers got sick of people tarred with "racist," "sexist," "homophobe" etc? Do you not find it a little ironic/silly that you're doing the exact same shit with a different set of buzzwords? I mean, how can you remotely complain about something and then do nothing but the exact same shit?


Im not trying to do that. Not at all. However I think you are understating the sojourn away from the far left that's happening. In london there are many of those in the religiously skeptic community that are standing up and calling the regressive left out. Specifically over the growing attitudes to sharia law. This is a GOOD thing. I WANT the left to reform itself and kudos to you in the UK NOT falling for the culture war. I WANT the left to reform itself so that discussion may be had without identity politics. Understand that my "Buzzwords" are only applying to the current left climate in the USA, and even so, it's never to shun anyone who isn't already trying to be a dick.


----------



## DoolieNoted

When did illegal immigrants get sugar coated to 'undocumented immigrants'?

It's kinda like calling a serial killer an 'undocumented executioner'.


----------



## Beatles123

Gainn_Damage said:


> When did illegal immigrants get sugar coated to 'undocumented immigrants'?
> 
> It's kinda like calling a serial killer an 'undocumented executioner'.


It's all part of making it sound less nasty in an attempt to normalize it. It's quite startling, honestly.


----------



## Genking48

Gainn_Damage said:


> When did illegal immigrants get sugar coated to 'undocumented immigrants'?
> 
> It's kinda like calling a serial killer an 'undocumented executioner'.


It's the soft language


----------



## Beatles123

*WELL!!! LOOK WHO I FOUND!!!* :lmao










:lmao

I guess he can start by banning himself then! :trump3


----------



## Miss Sally

Gainn_Damage said:


> When did illegal immigrants get sugar coated to 'undocumented immigrants'?
> 
> It's kinda like calling a serial killer an 'undocumented executioner'.


They call economic migrants, "refugees", rape, sexual emergencies and men in their 30's, children.

Shaun King must not realize that several of the mass shootings done in recent years have been done by non-whites. That trend doesn't seem to be ending.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Beatles123 said:


> Im not trying to do that. Not at all. However I think you are understating the sojourn away from the far left that's happening. In london there are many of those in the religiously skeptic community that are standing up and calling the regressive left out. Specifically over the growing attitudes to sharia law. This is a GOOD thing. I WANT the left to reform itself and kudos to you in the UK NOT falling for the culture war. I WANT the left to reform itself so that discussion may be had without identity politics. Understand that my "Buzzwords" are only applying to the current left climate in the USA, and even so, it's never to shun anyone who isn't already trying to be a dick.


Sharia Law? Seriously, believe me when I tell you those "groups" you're talking about like the EDL, Britain First, The Infidels, National Action (now actually an illegal terrorist group in the UK) they're the ACTUAL nazis. They're all interlinked, including with Combat 18 (1 = A 8 = H - Adolf Hitler) these aren't the rational right. These are groups who inspired a far-right nutjob to murder one of our politicians. There is no sharia law in the UK, there will never be Sharia Law as a official practise in the UK. To actually think there is just means you've been duped by some of the worst parts of our society. If you'd like proof these far-right people are actual nazis, violent criminals, paedophiles and rapists Ill happily dig out the masses of newspaper articles reporting the convictions. As a culture we're a lot less religious than the US in general tbh, it's not a "religiously skeptic community" when it applies to most of the nation. I grew up in an area where white people are the minority and there are proportionally high numbers of Pakistani, Indian, Bangladeshi and Sri Lankan people many of whom identify as "Muslims." However these aren't your super devout Wahabbists, these are very liberal, loose practising Muslims, especially in the younger generations. Don't be duped, Sharia Law has about as much chance of becoming a driving force in the UK as The Galactic Empire showing up and sending us all to Hoth.

Edit: Also, when was the last time you actually went to London? Please don't try to lecture me on a place I actually visit 2-4 times a week unless you've actually been there and aren't just parroting the outspoken minority online.


----------



## BruiserKC

Like what I see so far, but now is the time to follow up with laws passed to get this stuff rolling. The executive orders are OK, but I remember cringing when Obama stated that all he needed was a phone and pen if Congress wouldn't work with him. President Trump said he was giving power back to the people, now he can push for Congress to pass laws to go along with this and give the power of legislating back to them. I'm not going to go along with the echo chamber who bashed Obama ruling by executive fiat and now is cheering Trump is doing the same thing. 

So far, though...liking what I see...I am pleased so far.


----------



## Reaper

RavishingRickRules said:


> Edit: Also, when was the last time you actually went to London? Please don't try to lecture me on a place I actually visit 2-4 times a week unless you've actually been there and aren't just parroting the outspoken minority online.


I think you need to be less defencive on the subject. Sure, there is some ignorance on part of some people but at the same time when we hear things about muslim pedophile gangs, and religiously motivated crime what we see is part and parcel of a global rise in terrorism all of which is linked back to one religion and one religion only. 

Even in shitholes like Afghanistan there are still huge areas of land and communities that don't have the impact of terrorism and are largely peaceful .. this doesn't mean that all of afghanistan is safe, or that will remain safe until and unless steps against terrorism are taken. You can go to certain parts in North Korea and come away believing that it is a paradise. You could spend years in Pakistan and not realize that you are under threat. That really doesn't take away from the problems citizens face on a regular basis. 

While I agree that shariah is never going to actually be implemented in European countries, the fact of the matter is that we've got several stories of victim blaming, downplaying of rape and calls for cultural acceptance with regards to immigrant and refugee crime from politicians and pro-multiculturalism groups which are incredibly alarming to outsiders. 

What we want is that admittance that multi-culturalism is a failed concept and should not be allowed exist within the same society, but that multi-ethnicism is ok. Britain has more assimilated and an older generation of immigrants. They don't have a refugee problem. Germany, Sweden and France do for example. We need to look at each country individually instead of talking in blanket terms in order to have a proper conversation on the subject.


----------



## Seb

Beatles123 said:


> Im not trying to do that. Not at all. However I think you are understating the sojourn away from the far left that's happening. In london there are many of those in the religiously skeptic community that are standing up and calling the regressive left out. Specifically over the growing attitudes to sharia law. This is a GOOD thing. I WANT the left to reform itself and kudos to you in the UK NOT falling for the culture war. I WANT the left to reform itself so that discussion may be had without identity politics. Understand that my "Buzzwords" are only applying to the current left climate in the USA, and even so, it's never to shun anyone who isn't already trying to be a dick.


There's no "culture war" here but there's plenty of tension in certain areas. In some parts of London there were/are "Sharia Patrols", which were then countered by "Christian Patrols". The irony being Britain really isn't religious at all, especially people under 30.


----------



## DoolieNoted

Seb said:


> There's no "culture war" here but there's plenty of tension in certain areas. In some parts of London there were/are "Sharia Patrols", which were then countered by "Christian Patrols". The irony being Britain really isn't religious at all, especially people under 30.


The aggressive back-and-forth between certain groups (amongst many other things) is one of the reasons Luton regularly gets voted as one of the worst towns in the UK.


----------



## Reaper

Seb said:


> There's no "culture war" here but there's plenty of tension in certain areas. In some parts of London there were/are "Sharia Patrols", which were then countered by "Christian Patrols". The irony being Britain really isn't religious at all, especially people under 30.


It's coming though. 

You guys have a BLM now and I've never heard about police brutality in the UK.


----------



## glenwo2

Beatles123 said:


>


That's it?


If that's a ONE-TIME payment, then I would have no problem paying that if it helps get the wall up. :shrug


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

Miss Sally said:


> I believe from a hate crime report that the most violent hate crimes are done by hispanics against blacks, I'd have to check and a lot of it is tied to gang violence. Though it's funny how "leftists" try to pretend racism is exclusively a white problem, if it was it would be simple to fix but it's not so the problem is awful.


Yep, violent MEXICANS attacking or killing violent BLACKS . . . Probably Gangs fighting over "Drug Turf" in the HOOD !

The problem is that the Left NEEDS all those "Minority Votes", so they won't do anything about the problem and keep claiming that "******" is the problem !!!


----------



## virus21

Lunatic Fringe said:


> Yep, violent MEXICANS attacking or killing violent BLACKS . . . Probably Gangs fighting over "Drug Turf" in the HOOD !
> 
> The problem is that the Left NEEDS all those "Minority Votes", so they won't do anything about the problem and keep claiming that "******" is the problem !!!


And is it any wonder that more minorities seem to be rejecting the left and Democrats.


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

RavishingRickRules said:


> (1) I know plenty of people who support BLM who wouldn't give a flying fuck if you said that to them.
> 
> (2) Thank African-Americans, without Blues you get no rock and roll, jazz or country and by extension literally every genre of contemporary music around today barring neo-classical music.
> 
> (3) (apart from the fact that we Europeans raped and pillaged our way around the place, stole all the wealth and destroyed any semblance of local infrastructure under our dominance which further hindered the development of said countries)


(1) Uh-huh . . . Try doing that with a BLM group, during a BLM protest, and not just with some "armchair supporters" sitting down calmly at home !

(2) Yeah . . . No RAP, Gangsta Rap, or Hip-Hop, or BOOMING "Bass" music, either . . . The world would have been a much better place, IMHO !

(3) Wow . . . That sure sounds like LIBERAL PROGRESSIVES, here in the USA, to me !


----------



## DoolieNoted

Beatles123 said:


>


If you pay up front do you get your name inscribed on a brick?


Cos that would be freaking awesome.. :grin2:


----------



## samizayn

Trump bans Muslim immigration b/c terrorism, leaves entry for Saudis wide open. Everybody is beholden to somebody in this life, lol


----------



## stevefox1200

> multi-quoting





> is





> a





> thing


really


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

*http://rebrn.com/re/two-different-tones-same-date-wall-street-journal-got-caught-lyi-2799908/*


----------



## The Absolute

Hollywood's about to lose their shit over this:

http://variety.com/2017/film/news/trump-muslim-ban-director-asghar-farhadi-2017-oscars-1201972194/



> Two-time Oscar nominee and Iranian filmmaker Asghar Farhadi, who wrote and directed the Oscar-nominated foreign language film “The Salesman,” would not be able to enter the U.S. for the 2017 Academy Awards under President Donald Trump’s recently enacted travel ban, according to reports on Saturday.




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/825230165932400640


----------



## Tater

RavishingRickRules said:


> in terms of Political parties, your "left" party would be considered right-wing in most other countries in the world.


I feel like I've tried explaining this a few hundred times around these parts. The fact that most Americans believe that a center right party like the Democrats are anything remotely resembling a leftist party just proves that most Americans are a bunch of dumbass brainwashed sheep. That's what decades of corporate right wing MSM propaganda will do to a population full of gullible morons. They don't want a well educated population who understands what the left-right spectrum actually represents. What they want is a population who believes that glorified centrists like Bernie Sanders are "far left", so that no one ever questions their corporate overlords. The last thing the owners of the USA would ever want is a population breaking free from the chains of mental slavery and waking up to the fact that they don't have to continue being mindless automatons in servitude to corporate greed.


----------



## stevefox1200

Tater said:


> I feel like I've tried explaining this a few hundred times around these parts. The fact that most Americans believe that a center right party like the Democrats are anything remotely resembling a leftist party just proves that most Americans are a bunch of dumbass brainwashed sheep. That's what decades of corporate right wing MSM propaganda will do to a population full of gullible morons. They don't want a well educated population who understands what the left-right spectrum actually represents. What they want is a population who believes that glorified centrists like Bernie Sanders are "far left", so that no one ever questions their corporate overlords. The last thing the owners of the USA would ever want is a population breaking free from the chains of mental slavery and waking up to the fact that they don't have to continue being mindless automatons in servitude to corporate greed.


Or the US is just more conserative in general

but whatever makes you feel more like a BADASS REBEL FIGHTIN THA SHEEP


----------



## Beatles123

RavishingRickRules said:


> Sharia Law? Seriously, believe me when I tell you those "groups" you're talking about like the EDL, Britain First, The Infidels, National Action (now actually an illegal terrorist group in the UK) they're the ACTUAL nazis. They're all interlinked, including with Combat 18 (1 = A 8 = H - Adolf Hitler) these aren't the rational right. These are groups who inspired a far-right nutjob to murder one of our politicians. There is no sharia law in the UK, there will never be Sharia Law as a official practise in the UK. To actually think there is just means you've been duped by some of the worst parts of our society. If you'd like proof these far-right people are actual nazis, violent criminals, paedophiles and rapists Ill happily dig out the masses of newspaper articles reporting the convictions. As a culture we're a lot less religious than the US in general tbh, it's not a "religiously skeptic community" when it applies to most of the nation. I grew up in an area where white people are the minority and there are proportionally high numbers of Pakistani, Indian, Bangladeshi and Sri Lankan people many of whom identify as "Muslims." However these aren't your super devout Wahabbists, these are very liberal, loose practising Muslims, especially in the younger generations. Don't be duped, Sharia Law has about as much chance of becoming a driving force in the UK as The Galactic Empire showing up and sending us all to Hoth.
> 
> Edit: Also, when was the last time you actually went to London? Please don't try to lecture me on a place I actually visit 2-4 times a week unless you've actually been there and aren't just parroting the outspoken minority online.


i really don't think you understood what i meant. i dob't know how much more clear i could have made it that i was talking about the rational left, rebelling against islam.

You mean to tell me there are no neighborhoods in London in danger of being controlled under Sharia law?






not putting your assertion down. Please, educate me.


----------



## stevefox1200

The Absolute said:


> Hollywood's about to lose their shit over this:
> 
> http://variety.com/2017/film/news/trump-muslim-ban-director-asghar-farhadi-2017-oscars-1201972194/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/825230165932400640


yeah, probably should have put a bit more thought into that 

He will win just for that when someone has to make his speech via proxy its gonna look mighty bad for Trump


----------



## Beatles123

Tater said:


> I feel like I've tried explaining this a few hundred times around these parts. The fact that most Americans believe that a center right party like the Democrats are anything remotely resembling a leftist party just proves that most Americans are a bunch of dumbass brainwashed sheep. That's what decades of corporate right wing MSM propaganda will do to a population full of gullible morons. They don't want a well educated population who understands what the left-right spectrum actually represents. What they want is a population who believes that glorified centrists like Bernie Sanders are "far left", so that no one ever questions their corporate overlords. The last thing the owners of the USA would ever want is a population breaking free from the chains of mental slavery and waking up to the fact that they don't have to continue being mindless automatons in servitude to corporate greed.


Or, Tater? Or? it could be that thats just, like, your opinion. :nerd: some of us don't want what you think we should want.


----------



## lbm

Beatles123 said:


> i really don't think you understood what i meant. i dob't know how much more clear i could have made it that i was talking about the rational left, rebelling against islam.
> 
> You mean to tell me there are no neighborhoods in london controlled under Sharia law?


Are you trying to imply there ARE sharia controlled neighbourhoods in Europe. Because Ive only heard THE most ignorant, ill informed people actually think this. This level of fear mongering ignorance blows my mind


----------



## Beatles123

lbm said:


> Are you trying to imply there ARE sharia controlled neighbourhoods in Europe. Because Ive only heard THE most ignorant, ill informed people actually think this. This level of fear mongering ignorance blows my mind


not necessarily, though your response is a bit condescending. 

There ARE stories like these, though: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Muslim-areas-officers-claim-tycoon-RIGHT.html


----------



## 2 Ton 21

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-greencard-idUSKBN15C0KX



> *Green card holders included in Trump ban: Homeland Security*
> 
> People holding so-called green cards, making them legal permanent U.S. residents, are included in President Donald Trump's executive action temporarily barring people from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States, a Department of Homeland security spokeswoman said on Saturday.
> 
> *"It will bar green card holders," Gillian Christensen, acting Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman, said in an email.*


I guess if you originally from those place and were on vacation last week or were planning to take one, you're fucked.


----------



## MrMister

Beatles123 said:


> not necessarily, though your response is a bit condescending.
> 
> There ARE stories like this, though: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Muslim-areas-officers-claim-tycoon-RIGHT.html


i have no idea as to the veracity of this story but it's the daily mail. it's a shitrag tabloid. 

actually never mind everything is a shitrag tabloid these days, carry on.


----------



## Beatles123

MrMister said:


> i have no idea as to the veracity of this story but it's the daily mail. it's a shitrag tabloid.
> 
> actually never mind everything is a shitrag tabloid these days, carry on.


Realizing this I added a video as well.


----------



## stevefox1200

I cannot say this ban is a good idea, blanket bans tend to be poorly thought out 

it was also signed on Holocaust Remembrance Day, it cannot be THIS hard


----------



## lbm

Beatles123 said:


> not necessarily, though your response is a bit condescending.
> 
> There ARE stories like these, though: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Muslim-areas-officers-claim-tycoon-RIGHT.html


Apologies for sounding condescending. I just think the spread of this kind of wildly inaccurate stuff is just dangerous in this day and age and benefits no one.

Dude, I cant speak for some random unrelated incident, just confidently tell you that there are no sharia areas in the entirety of europe, and no muslim out of the many many ive ever met even want it.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

stevefox1200 said:


> I cannot say this ban is a good idea, blanket bans tend to be poorly thought out
> 
> it was also signed on Holocaust Remembrance Day, it cannot be THIS hard


The timing of this ban couldn't have been any more perfect (for the wrong reasons).

This ban also seems incredibly slap-dashed without much thought put into it. I know it was one of his policies, but it doesn't seem like any calculated effort and planning was put into it.


----------



## MrMister

I lost my shit when that guy said that the Western ways are backwards and barbaric.

This is just after he said that he wanted to cut off the hands of thieves and cover women from head to toe.


----------



## Beatles123

lbm said:


> Apologies for sounding condescending. I just think the spread of this kind of wildly inaccurate stuff is just dangerous in this day and age and benefits no one.
> 
> Dude, I cant speak for some random unrelated incident, just confidently tell you that there are no sharia areas in the entirety of europe, and no muslim out of the many many ive ever met even want it.


Again, though: This is why we have this discussion and I thank you for your response. As to the validity, it probably varies from case to case the same as anything...I imagine there are worse places than others.



Oda Nobunaga said:


> The timing of this ban couldn't have been any more perfect (for the wrong reasons).
> 
> This ban also seems incredibly slap-dashed without much thought put into it. I know it was one of his policies, but it doesn't seem like any calculated effort and planning was put into it.


it upsets sjw's, that one win.


----------



## TheAverageMuta

Does Sami Zayn have dual-nationality? Because if he does then this fuckheaded dumbshit bill will affect him.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

Beatles123 said:


> Again, though: This is why we have this discussion and I thank you for your response. As to the validity, it probably varies from case to case the same as anything...I imagine there are worse places than others.
> 
> it upsets sjw's, that one win.


I don't care who it upsets. Something like this shouldn't be half-assed. Either do it right or don't do it at all. I'm not criticizing his policies, merely the execution.


----------



## CamillePunk

What's the relation between Holocaust Remembrance Day and banning immigration from terror-compromised regions of the world? Sounds like a reach to me. 

Still waiting for more details about the ban to trickle past the fog of fake news from the globalist fake news organizations. As it stands I'm not sure it goes far enough. People calling it the "Muslim Ban" are being disingenuous.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

TheAverageMuta said:


> Does Sami Zayn have dual-nationality? Because if he does then this fuckheaded dumbshit bill will affect him.





> Syrian nationality law is the law governing the acquisition, transmission and loss of Syrian citizenship. Syrian citizenship is the status of being a citizen of the Republic of Syria and it can be obtained by birth or naturalisation. The Syrian nationality is transmitted by paternity. Therefore, Syrian nationality is determined solely by the father's nationality, while the place of birth is irrelevant. In other words, birthright citizenship is not recognized since being born in Syria does not grant an automatic right to become a national. In most cases, individuals are deemed to be Syrian nationals regardless of whether they are born inside or outside Syria as long as their father holds Syrian nationality.


So, he's definitely eligible for Syrian citizenship. I guess it depends on if he ever bothered to get it. The ban is so broad, I think the government is still trying to figure out who it applies to. DHS said a couple of hours ago those with green cards count and now a senior administration official told reporters it's case-by-case. I think they're all making this shit up as they go along.


----------



## Miss Sally

Should have been thought out better but I support the idea.


----------



## stevefox1200

Beatles123 said:


> it upsets sjw's, that one win.


I am anti-SJW as anyone but this ban is a fantastabad idea

During the cold war one of the biggest wins of the US was always that the US accepted everyone and made efforts to bring refugees from communist nations while the USSR was a locked down bubble where it could be hard to go from allied country to allied country

it made the west really look like the land of the free where you could go to escape tyranny and as long as your little toe hit US controlled soil you were an American and the US would fight to the death to protect you 

It made people feel like they were powerful and not just cogs in a machine or a statistic

The most patriotic people I know in the US are the who came from war torn places and went to the US and were allowed to rebuild their lives the way they wanted (of course I have also met many "This country sucks and I wish I could go home and be surrounded by people who look and think just like me" assholes as well) 

The greatest international conflicts and devastators happen when the US locks down as it leads to areas just getting hotter and hotter and boiling over into its neighbors

I think a grandfathered, "if you already have a green card or someone to vouch for you you are good" would have worked 50 times better


----------



## glenwo2

Lunatic Fringe said:


> *http://rebrn.com/re/two-different-tones-same-date-wall-street-journal-got-caught-lyi-2799908/*


Man...Loafers are becoming popular, aren't they? :grin2:



The Absolute said:


> Hollywood's about to lose their shit over this:
> 
> http://variety.com/2017/film/news/trump-muslim-ban-director-asghar-farhadi-2017-oscars-1201972194/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/825230165932400640


Sucks to be him. :shrug

Send the award to him via Air-mail and have him accept it via satellite.


----------



## Beatles123

stevefox1200 said:


> I am anti-SJW as anyone but this ban is a fantastabad idea
> 
> During the cold war one of the biggest wins of the US was always that the US accepted everyone and made efforts to bring refugees from communist nations while the USSR was a locked down bubble where it could be hard to go from allied country to allied country
> 
> it made the west really look like the land of the free where you could go to escape tyranny and as long as your little toe hit US controlled soil you were an American and the US would fight to the death to protect you
> 
> It made people feel like they were powerful and not just cogs in a machine or a statistic
> 
> The most patriotic people I know in the US are the who came from war torn places and went to the US and were allowed to rebuild their lives the way they wanted (of course I have also met many "This country sucks and I wish I could go home and be surrounded by people who look and think just like me" assholes as well)
> 
> The greatest international conflicts and devastators happen when the US locks down as it leads to areas just getting hotter and hotter and boiling over into its neighbors
> 
> I think a grandfathered, "if you already have a green card or someone to vouch for you you are good" would have worked 50 times better


Green card gets obtained

guy goes to the middle east to train with ISIS

Re enters US via greencard...

hmm, I dunno...


----------



## Reaper

You guys do realize that people from other countries are denied VISAs all the fucking time right? 

My ex sister in law didn't get an american visit visa for herself and her kids because she was traveling without her husband to see her parents because they told her that she might over-stay her visa. They told her that she could go to America IF she left her children behind so that she'd have a reason to go back. This was during the OBABA administration.

My brother's father in law didn't get a VISA because he refused to shave his beard. 

A colleague of mine at work didn't get a work visa for training in the US because her company accidentally sent an old picture of her in the application and she wasn't as fat anymore. 

The American immigration system is already "extreme" and refuses people for a wide variety of reasons. Refusing someone entry into your country isn't discrimination. It took me a long ass time to figure this out myself because just a year ago I was on the other side of this argument.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Beatles123 said:


> Green card gets obtained
> 
> guy goes to the middle east to train with ISIS
> 
> Re enters US via greencard...
> 
> hmm, I dunno...


Green card is obtained.

Guy lives here for ten years with no problems. Builds a life and a family.

Guy goes to Jamaica for vacation.

Tries to re-enter the U.S. May well be fucked.

hmm, I dunno...


----------



## SovereignVA

Sounds like Trump is isolating America.

I'm not sure how to feel about it, but it has a recipe for disaster.


----------



## Reaper

2 Ton 21 said:


> Green card is obtained.
> 
> Guy lives here for ten years with no problems. Builds a life and a family.
> 
> Guy goes to Jamaica for vacation.
> 
> Tries to re-enter the U.S. May well be fucked.
> 
> hmm, I dunno...


^That doesn't and cannot happen. 

Every legal immigrant is completely immune from any new laws and their legal immigration/status cannot be revoked by any incoming president. 

The people who end up not being able to re-enter always turn out to have either expired paper-work or some other damned issue that they didn't clear up before they left the country.

If the guy's been here for 10 years, then he's a retard for not obtaining citizenship and getting an American passport.


----------



## Beatles123

2 Ton 21 said:


> Green card is obtained.
> 
> Guy lives here for ten years with no problems. Builds a life and a family.
> 
> Guy goes to Jamaica for vacation.
> 
> Tries to re-enter the U.S. May well be fucked.
> 
> hmm, I dunno...


He'll be vetted and passed like everyone else.


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

The Absolute said:


> Hollywood's about to lose their shit over this:
> 
> http://variety.com/2017/film/news/trump-muslim-ban-director-asghar-farhadi-2017-oscars-1201972194/
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/825230165932400640


Oh well . . . You have to break a few eggs to bake a cake !!!


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Carte Blanche said:


> ^That doesn't and cannot happen.
> 
> Every legal immigrant is completely immune from any new laws and their legal immigration/status cannot be revoked by any incoming president.
> 
> The people who end up not being able to re-enter always turn out to have either expired paper-work or some other damned issue that they didn't clear up before they left the country.
> 
> If the guy's been here for 10 years, then he's a retard for not obtaining citizenship and getting an American passport.


I'm sorry then. I was going by the DHS saying it applied to green card holders. I should've researched further what that means . My bad.


----------



## glenwo2

SovereignVA said:


> Sounds like Trump is isolating America.
> 
> I'm not sure how to feel about it, but it has a recipe for disaster.


Or it could turn out(like I think it will) to be a recipe for success. 

America first, and all that.


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

Carte Blanche said:


> It's coming though.
> 
> You guys have a BLM now and I've never heard about police brutality in the UK.


The people of the UK were stupid enough to give up their guns . . . In the USA, there is a "rifle behind every blade of grass" and the people are willing to use them, if necessary !!!


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

Anyway, regardless of how rushed it may seem, I'll wait and see how this goes. Could turn out well (for a few months). Could turn out horribly. 

In some areas, it doesn't seem to be doing enough (why is Saudi Arabia not on the list?







) In other areas, it may seem to be doing too much in a broad sense.


----------



## Reaper

2 Ton 21 said:


> I'm sorry then. I was going by the DHS saying it applied to green card holders. I should've researched further what that means . My bad.


No need to apologise. I would categorize this as fake news until we learn more because when I got my immigration I saw this on this site. About halfway down it says that green card holders are immune from any future changes by future governments. 

The DHS isn't devoid of making mistakes regarding the law. Government agencies exploit people's ignorance of the law all the time. 

http://www.immihelp.com/greencard/benefits-of-permanent-resident-card.html


----------



## Sensei Utero

Absolutely horrible. So hundreds of thousands of Americans kill one another over the last few decades, compared to refugees who've killed 5, yet Americans ban refugees? :ha It's like a Nazi parade.

Now is more important than ever for the UK to say 'refugees welcome'.


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

Beatles123 said:


> You mean to tell me there are no neighborhoods in London in danger of being controlled under Sharia law?


The Brits should have kept their guns !!!


----------



## glenwo2

Oda Nobunaga said:


> Anyway, regardless of how rushed it may seem, I'll wait and see how this goes. *Could turn out well (for a few months).* Could turn out horribly.
> 
> In some areas, it doesn't seem to be doing enough (why is Saudi Arabia not on the list?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) In other areas, it may seem to be doing too much in a broad sense.


Way to be optimistic. :lol :lol :lol


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Carte Blanche said:


> No need to apologise. I would categorize this as fake news until we learn more because when I got my immigration I saw this on this site. About halfway down it says that green card holders are immune from any future changes by future governments.
> 
> The DHS isn't devoid of making mistakes regarding the law. Government agencies exploit people's ignorance of the law all the time.
> 
> http://www.immihelp.com/greencard/benefits-of-permanent-resident-card.html


Thanks for the info. I think this all happened so fast the government, or at least parts of it, aren't for sure on who it all applies to yet. Also, while everything at the link may be legally true, the government can, unfortunately, do what it wants until a court or someone else stops them.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

glenwo2 said:


> Way to be optimistic. :lol :lol :lol


I'll try to be. Pakistan (no offense, Reaper), Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia being omitted? I understand "extreme" vetting (at least the language that is given to us), but if one is going to do something like this, go all the way (at least as it pertains to the countries). :shrug


----------



## Reaper

2 Ton 21 said:


> Thanks for the info. I think this all happened so fast the government, or at least parts of it, aren't for sure on who it all applies to yet. Also, while everything at the link may be legally true, the government can, unfortunately, do what it wants until a court or someone else stops them.


Yeah I agree with that. But I've also noticed that the government does not push its boundaries into legal immigration and does not hassle people whose documents are in order. 

I find it pretty much unlikely that anyone is going to be prevented based on this policy. We'll see a spurt of fake claims, but no actual case will come up because the government wouldn't want too much attention especially if it can be challenged in court. 

It's not like these are poor helpless creatures who can't hire immigration lawyers to start class action suits you know. Lawyers are probably salivating at the prospect of potential government over-reach

Checks and balances :draper2


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

Beatles123 said:


> not necessarily, though your response is a bit condescending.
> 
> There ARE stories like these, though: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Muslim-areas-officers-claim-tycoon-RIGHT.html


I'd like to see if the Hell's Angels "motorcycle club" and a few other "clubs" might like a nice, little paid-for UK vacation . . . Let them "clean out" London's problems areas !!!


----------



## Sensei Utero

The racism in parts of this thread is unreal.


----------



## Beatles123

InUtero said:


> Absolutely horrible. So hundreds of thousands of Americans kill one another over the last few decades, compared to refugees who've killed 5, yet Americans ban refugees? :ha It's like a Nazi parade.
> 
> Now is more important than ever for the UK to say 'refugees welcome'.


This post has to be satire.


----------



## CamillePunk

http://www.wrestlingforum.com/anyth...e-connections-thread-all-discussion-here.html

A reminder for people spouting the "Refugees welcome" bullshit that we have a thread full of articles about how that is working out for central Europe. 

Thank Donald J Trump for taking important and necessary steps to protect our country from the uncivilized Islamic world. I hope he does more. I hope European countries take note and follow suit for their own sake.

Regardless of your political ideology (unless it happens to be Islam :lol), I hope we can all agree that we won't reach a better future in this country by having the government import uncivilized people who subscribe to superstitious death cults and have a several centuries-old view of human rights. 

:trump3


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

MrMister said:


> i have no idea as to the veracity of this story but it's the daily mail. it's a shitrag tabloid.
> 
> actually never mind everything is a shitrag tabloid these days, carry on.


Perhaps, BREITBART might be more creditable . ..
*
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/12/09/exclusive-london-cop-confirms-donald-trump-uk-radicalisation-claims-bbc-cameron-boris-johnson-sneer/*


----------



## Sensei Utero

Beatles123 said:


> This post has to be satire.


How so?


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

TheAverageMuta said:


> Does Sami Zayn have dual-nationality? Because if he does then this fuckheaded dumbshit bill will affect him.


Chris Jericho and Kevin Owens, too . . . LOL !!!


----------



## Sensei Utero

If folk on here were in Syria, I'd love to see how you'd cope. Images like this just really open your eyes. My heart goes out to the Syrian people, and I hope they can find a route to a better life. This evilness today is just a further attack on innocent Muslim people. Of course, Theresa May stood by and refused to condemn the attacks on Refugees. Shameful.


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

InUtero said:


> The racism in parts of this thread is unreal.


No, it's very real . . . Decades of Political Correctness have merely "swept it under the rug" . . . Nothing has "gone away" !



InUtero said:


> If folk on here were in Syria, I'd love to see how you'd cope. Images like this just really open your eyes. My heart goes out to the Syrian people, and I hope they can find a route to a better life. This evilness today is just a further attack on innocent Muslim people. Of course, Theresa May stood by and refused to condemn the attacks on Refugees. Shameful.


Nice make-up work in that fake photo . . . LOL !


----------



## glenwo2

InUtero said:


> If folk on here were in Syria, I'd love to see how you'd cope. Images like this just really open your eyes. My heart goes out to the Syrian people, and I hope they can find a route to a better life. This evilness today is just a further attack on innocent Muslim people. Of course, Theresa May stood by and refused to condemn the attacks on Refugees. Shameful.


My heart goes out to the child and his family. However, it's still America First, pal. 

We can't fight FOR THEM. They need to fight for THEMSELVES for a change.


----------



## Sensei Utero

glenwo2 said:


> My heart goes out to the child and his family. However, it's still America First, pal.
> 
> We can't fight FOR THEM. They need to fight for THEMSELVES for a change.


But how can they fight for themselves considering what's occurring to the country? I'd love to see how we'd all cope in their shoes. We'd be in search of a better life, too.


----------



## glenwo2

^ I'm sure they are searching for a better life but unless they apply for U.S. Citizenship, it won't be here.


----------



## Beatles123

InUtero said:


> But how can they fight for themselves considering what's occurring to the country? I'd love to see how we'd all cope in their shoes. We'd be in search of a better life, too.


If they want a better life they should send all the strong, able bodied men they consist mostly of to fight for it.


----------



## Sensei Utero

Beatles123 said:


> If they want a better life they should send all the strong, able bodied men they consist mostly of to fight for it.


L O L. Clearly satire.

Anyone who defends Trump at this point is just proving how idiotic they are.



glenwo2 said:


> ^ I'm sure they are searching for a better life but unless they apply for U.S. Citizenship, it won't be here.


Which is an utter disgrace. They're people, just like you and me.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

So much irony in this thread right now. It's beautiful.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

Enough of the goading, prodding, and personal jabs.


----------



## virus21

Oda Nobunaga said:


> Enough of the goading, prodding, and personal jabs.


Thank you.

As much as I feel for the people of Syria, we cannot keep letting a unending flow of refugees come into the our country without straining resources to the maximum. I hear that the US is planning on setting up refugee camps in Syria itself, which would be a better option.


----------



## Sensei Utero

Oda Nobunaga said:


> Enough of the goading, prodding, and personal jabs.


I don't think I've had jabs at folk. Though if the jabs at me either on here or within the chatbox could stop, that'd be appreciative. @CamillePunk especially.



virus21 said:


> Thank you.
> 
> As much as I feel for the people of Syria, we cannot keep letting a unending flow of refugees come into the our country without straining resources to the maximum. *I hear that the US is planning on setting up refugee camps in Syria itself, which would be a better option.*


The thing is, within all the turmoil and such, would that really work? I don't know. Dark day for the World today.


----------



## CamillePunk

InUtero said:


> I don't think I've had jabs at folk. Though if the jabs at me either on here or within the chatbox could stop, that'd be appreciative. @CamillePunk especially.


You called me a racist when I told you to cite racism in this thread. :lol Then you said I was calling YOU a racist by telling you to cite it. If you don't want to get called out, don't say ridiculous bullshit. Also telling me to stop with jabs after calling me a racist is just delicious, frankly.


----------



## virus21

InUtero said:


> I don't think I've had jabs at folk. Though if the jabs at me either on here or within the chatbox could stop, that'd be appreciative. @CamillePunk especially.
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is, within all the turmoil and such, would that really work? I don't know. Dark day for the World today.


If they can stabilize the region, which I believe parts of Syria have been stabilized or in the process of such. Its not in the best shape as you can imagine, but its getting a little better.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

InUtero said:


> I don't think I've had jabs at folk. Though if the jabs at me either on here or within the chatbox could stop, that'd be appreciative. @CamillePunk especially.


Jabs by everyone and in general, not to specific members. Keep on topic and don't veer off into insulting mass groups of people within the thread (that goes for everyone). That's all I ask.


----------



## stevefox1200

Oda Nobunaga said:


> Anyway, regardless of how rushed it may seem, I'll wait and see how this goes. Could turn out well (for a few months). Could turn out horribly.
> 
> In some areas, it doesn't seem to be doing enough (why is Saudi Arabia not on the list?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) In other areas, it may seem to be doing too much in a broad sense.


Saudi is on the "traveling on business only" list 

Egypt, Saudi and a few others have less harsh restrictions but are still limited


----------



## Beatles123

the people who should get through, will get through after due process.


----------



## stevefox1200

Really at the end of the day I just wish less people would blow themselves up so this would not even be an issue

The refugee camps in Syria better really have a safe zone with consequences and not a 90s UN "its ok to kill anyone who is not wearing a blue helmet" style camp


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

stevefox1200 said:


> Really at the end of the day I just wish less people would blow themselves up so this would not even be an issue


Don't we all...


----------



## Beatles123

Soros now plans to file a lawsuit:

http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/...eme-stop-trumps-temporary-refugee-halt-order/

Messing up his world should count as a win.


----------



## Reaper

Beatles123 said:


> the people who should get through, will get through after due process.


This. What I think is really happening is that Trump's administration is trying to end paranoia as well because America's vetting has never been that weak. A lot of steps he's taking already exist and at most there will be a few more tweaks and that's about it. The way it's worded makes it clear it's not a blanket ban at all. 

Even I've been flagged a couple of times and I'm a Canadian who traveled frequently between Pakistan and Canada. Wasn't much of an inconvenience just something I too felt was reasonable.

The other thing he needs to crack down on is the FBI lack of power to detain and prevent localized radical youth.


----------



## Cliffy

Trump needs to do something about soros

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


----------



## yeahbaby!

Considering Saudi Arabia basically owns America, it's no surprise they're not on the list. I can't imagine many of the Oil Barons or royal family members who swim in oil getting detained for too long when coming in on 'business trips'. Of course you won't hear about this on the news, of if you do it will be dismissed by the Alt-Right as fake.

Trump knows what side his bread is buttered on, he's done this extreme move to please his extreme voter base, but it still runs second to the almighty dollar.


Also, this is the kind of move that simply plays into ISIS' hands. They'll jump all over this, paint up the US as more evil than ever, and gain more followers. In the long run, this will make the US less safe from attacks - probably from citizens born here who are social pariahs already (as most of them usually are) who are waiting for this kind of thing to push them over the edge.

Just you wait.


----------



## virus21

Nigel Farage said:


> Trump needs to do something about soros
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


Just let on of the governments that has a beef with him take a shot at him.


----------



## KingCosmos

This American elitism, America First, no outsiders mentality boggles my mind when the thing that makes America a wonderful place is it's diversity. Trump's ban also applying to people with dual nationality is completely ridiculous


----------



## Reaper

KingCosmos said:


> This American elitism, America First, no outsiders mentality boggles my mind when the thing that makes America a wonderful place is it's diversity. Trump's ban also applying to people with dual nationality is completely ridiculous



The thing that makes America great is ethic and intellectual diversity but also cultural homogeneity and assimilation over multiculturalism. 

Multiethnicism is too often confused with multiculturalism and they're not the same things.

Multiculturalism is too often simplified into clothing and cuisine when culture also includes things like attitudes towards homosexuality, sex, contraception, religion etc. 

America was always about immigrants coming in and assimilating into the local culture and not the rest of society simply accepting the culture people bring with them. It's not a 2way Street. Be one with us or stay the fuck away.


----------



## Stinger Fan

I was told Saudi Arabia was a feminist liberal safe haven, why are people upset that they weren't banned?


----------



## Hencheman_21

Does anyone know what Trump is doing with the Emma Lazarus poem quote plaque at the Statue of Liberty? I mean is he having it removed or just covering it up for now or maybe having lines edited to it. That is the quote that goes "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breath free".


----------



## Stinger Fan

KingCosmos said:


> This American elitism, America First, no outsiders mentality boggles my mind when the thing that makes America a wonderful place is it's diversity. Trump's ban also applying to people with dual nationality is completely ridiculous


They're not stopping legal immigration though, they're putting a halt on refugees temporarily, which should be the case. Have you not seen how things went to shit in Germany, France , Sweden etc etc? What's wrong with trying to prevent illegal immigration as much as possible? Why should those people be given a free pass to join a country however and whenever they want? It's not even remotely fair to the people who do immigrate legally to a country. These people spend years and thousands of dollars to do it the right way. It's a slap in the face to those people and it sets a bad example at the same time. It's funny how people in the USA want to adopt a more similar policy to Canada because they seem to think you just walk into Canada and you're a Canadian, but its very strict to come in. The moment they try to implement something even remotely similar, those same people end up whining about it. I don't necessarily agree with some of the new policies , but you can't ignore the persecution that Yazidis and Christians are experiencing over there. Obama underrepresented both groups when taking in refugees but people seem to ignore that because they only want Muslims coming in

And before I get labelled a racist bigot or whatever, I am an Immigrant myself becoming a Canadian citizen at age 16. I've lived in 3 different countries, had to learn 3 different languages(at once). I've seen family members get detained at the airport, handcuffed throw in jail and interrogated with no lawyer present or a translator either and you know what? They aren't Arab. It's about time immigration is being taken more seriously even if I disagree with some of the things being implemented


----------



## DesolationRow

So many overreactions based on a rather brief freezing. 

Jimmy Carter placed a "ban" on Iranian immigration; Barack Obama's administration rightly imposed a six-month "ban" on Iraqi refugees in 2011 due to very real security concerns. 

Donald Trump ran on freezing the refugee program from certain countries until "we can figure out what the hell is going on." Four months is probably nowhere near so long a timeframe as necessary to make this happen but at least it is a start. 


As an aside, only tangentially related to Trump, the Muslim immigrant who owned the limousine set afire by the riotous thugs during the inauguration last week was on television a little while ago talking about how his son approached him, saying, "It will be okay," a few times, but insurance will not cover the damages. Quite upsetting. Hope Muhammad Ashraf has a contributions page set up for help as he now faces up to $70,000 in the cost of damages.


----------



## DoolieNoted

Carte Blanche said:


> The thing that makes America great is ethic and intellectual diversity but also cultural homogeneity and assimilation over multiculturalism.
> 
> Multiethnicism is too often confused with multiculturalism and they're not the same things.
> 
> Multiculturalism is too often simplified into clothing and cuisine when culture also includes things like attitudes towards homosexuality, sex, contraception, religion etc.
> 
> America was always about immigrants coming in and assimilating into the local culture and not the rest of society simply accepting the culture people bring with them. It's not a 2way Street. Be one with us or stay the fuck away.


Yes, and despite it being a simple concept, some people just don't seem to understand the difference no matter how hard you try to explain it.


Immigration without assimilation is nothing less than an invasion.


----------



## yeahbaby!

DesolationRow said:


> So many overreactions based on a rather brief freezing.
> 
> Jimmy Carter placed a "ban" on Iranian immigration; Barack Obama's administration rightly imposed a six-month "ban" on Iraqi refugees in 2011 due to very real security concerns.
> 
> Donald Trump ran on freezing the refugee program from certain countries until "we can figure out what the hell is going on." Four months is probably nowhere near so long a timeframe as necessary to make this happen but at least it is a start.
> 
> 
> As an aside, only tangentially related to Trump, the Muslim immigrant who owned the limousine set afire by the riotous thugs during the inauguration last week was on television a little while ago talking about how his son approached him, saying, "It will be okay," a few times, but insurance will not cover the damages. Quite upsetting. Hope Muhammad Ashraf has a contributions page set up for help as he now faces up to $70,000 in the cost of damages.


Interested to know why you think Saudia Arabia is exempted, especially since the 9/11 pilots where Saudis.


----------



## QWERTYOP

Batshit fucking crazy. You've given IS an AQ their propaganda material for a generation. This will NOT make the US safer - exactly the opposite in the long run. Furthermore - I'm a British born Christian that has never been to any of the nations on the list, and this ban is likely to include me. Think about that for a bit.


----------



## Neuron

yeahbaby! said:


> Interested to know why you think Saudia Arabia is exempted, especially since the 9/11 pilots where Saudis.


So you're saying we should be adding Saudi Arabia to the list too?


----------



## Reaper

Stinger Fan said:


> It's funny how people in the USA want to adopt a more similar policy to Canada because they seem to think you just walk into Canada and you're a Canadian, but its very strict to come in. The moment they try to implement something even remotely similar, those same people end up whining about it.
> 
> And before I get labelled a racist bigot or whatever, I am an Immigrant myself becoming a Canadian citizen at age 16. I've lived in 3 different countries, had to learn 3 different languages(at once). I've seen family members get detained at the airport, handcuffed throw in jail and interrogated with no lawyer present or a translator either and you know what? They aren't Arab. It's about time immigration is being taken more seriously even if I disagree with some of the things being implemented


Same here. I am a Pakistan immigrant to Canada in the 90's (through my dad) and then a Canadian Citizen to American Immigrant in 2014. 

Did both of them the right way and I can claim through experience that the Canadian immigration policy is stricter than the American one. In America, I landed as a visitor from Canada with only the intention of experiencing 4 months living with my then fiance. I told them at the border that I may go back to Canada and they let me cross the border (btw, if you're trying to do that from America to Canada, they can and have told people to turn back). I traveled on a 1-way ticket. They did however, recommend that I buy some sort of a ticket back to Canada in case the immigration officer was in a bad mood or something so in advance I bought a train ticket home. 

That said, legally I was given right to change my mind about leaving by getting married and staying. So when everything worked out, I decided to get married. We had a wedding and then I filed papers before my visa expired. From that point, I was explicitly told not to leave the country because I no longer had any status in America. They have this period where you're a void (not legal, nor illegal) when you're in the system being processed - but during that time, they give you a worker's permit in case you want to work. 

Canada has no such rule. They make you leave Canada and then your spouse has to sponsor you while you're abroad. They don't have a way to process your application if you stay there and get married and want to stay. Hence the American immigration was easier for me to get than if I had had a life in Canada and wanted my wife to join me. Canada does not have this "void" time period where they allow you to stay while your papers are being processed which is really stupid because it keeps a lot of couples apart and on Immigration forums it's one of the main reasons why Canadians prefer to move to the states than americans going the other way.

Anyways, Canada only has this image of being more welcoming and more humanitarian. It's nothing but a false identity created through some very dystopian and North Korean style propaganda. They're fucking strict. :draper2


----------



## DesolationRow

yeahbaby! said:


> Interested to know why you think Saudia Arabia is exempted, especially since the 9/11 pilots where Saudis.


Looking over the list of countries impacted by this, it is based chiefly on which countries are providing the greatest streams of refugees at this point in time whose populations are also honeycombed with potential terrorists. Iran admittedly does stand out as a slightly curious country compared to the other ones but it is probably because of the present hostilities between the U.S. Navy and the Islamic Republic of Iran Navy, coupled with the efforts to deprive the Iranians of the ability to build a nuclear bomb (and while most of the Islamist scourge has been exemplified by Wahhabist Sunnis, there are Shia Muslim terrorists, too, such as the Munich massacre perpetrator a few months ago). 

Now, Saudi Arabia is definitely one of the great troublemakers on earth, and the Saudis, Kuwaitis, and Qataris have all been, to one degree or another, responsible for the spreading of Wahhabism. If those and other countries like Pakistan were included I would have no complaints, and I agree with those who suggest that they probably should have been included. So in that way I do concur that this does not go far enough (and again, a mere four months is almost surely not enough time to make sense out of the U.S. immigration/refugee program but at least it hits the pause button for a moment). 

The _Washington Post_ is suggesting that Trump and his administration kept countries out of this loop which had business ties to Trump. Reading over the story I remain unconvinced that the correlation is meaningful. 

A "ban" on Saudi immigration sounds like a solid move for at least a little while. Beyond Trump specifically there are long-running U.S. government and U.S. corporate ties running through Riyadh that are going to need to be addressed, however. I hope Trump does address these in the near future.


----------



## Sensei Utero

CamillePunk said:


> You called me a racist when I told you to cite racism in this thread. :lol Then you said I was calling YOU a racist by telling you to cite it. If you don't want to get called out, don't say ridiculous bullshit. Also telling me to stop with jabs after calling me a racist is just delicious, frankly.


Then you must have written it incorrectly on the red rep comment. The amount of racism in this thread is just ridiculous. Constant jabbing on Muslims is just hard to read. Stating in the chatbox that you hoped I didn't knock up some girl to avoid someone like me being born too is also uncalled for. Sure, we have a difference in views/opinion (hell, why you have the word 'Punk' in your username confuses me as a punk scene would be against Trump confuses me), but there's no need for a comment like that. I retaliated with the 'racist' comment because based on the comments some here after written, what else am I to assume? Anyone agreeing with Trump at this point is just idiotic, quite frankly.


----------



## Reaper

InUtero said:


> Then you must have written it incorrectly on the red rep comment. The amount of racism in this thread is just ridiculous. Constant jabbing on Muslims is just hard to read. Stating in the chatbox that you hoped I didn't knock up some girl to avoid someone like me being born too is also uncalled for. Sure, we have a difference in views/opinion (hell, why you have the word 'Punk' in your username confuses me as a punk scene would be against Trump confuses me), but there's no need for a comment like that. I retaliated with the 'racist' comment because based on the comments some here after written, what else am I to assume? Anyone agreeing with Trump at this point is just idiotic, quite frankly.


If you can't take it, don't dish it.


----------



## Sensei Utero

Carte Blanche said:


> If you can't take it, don't dish it.


You could argue that I was merely stating a fact, but okay.

*EDIT:* Also a grammar mistake in the original post. Shake my head.


----------



## Reaper

InUtero said:


> You could argue that I was merely stating a fact, but okay.


cbox is pretty much entirely banter. 

You've been trolling Americans and Trump supporters in there for more than a week and we don't give a fuck and have largely ignored you because that's what we do in cbox. However, what it seems like to me is that someone finally responded to you and you got your man panties in a bunch - and that's a fact too.


----------



## Sensei Utero

Carte Blanche said:


> cbox is pretty much entirely banter.
> 
> You've been trolling Americans and Trump supporters in there for more than a week and we don't give a fuck and have largely ignored you because that's what we do in cbox. However, what it seems like to me is that someone finally responded to you and you got your man panties in a bunch - and that's a fact too.


Not at times. There can be a huge gang mentality in there at times.

I wouldn't say 'trolling'. Debating and arguing, yes. Have I received comments and jabs because of that? Of course. I wouldn't call that 'largely ignoring' me. Not a fact at all. Folk respond to me all the time on this, it seems. Including the chatbox.


----------



## Vic Capri

> *rac·ist*
> 
> noun
> 
> 1. a person who wins an argument with a liberal.


- Vic


----------



## Sensei Utero

Credit to Canada.


----------



## Hencheman_21

Gainn_Damage said:


> Immigration without assimilation is nothing less than an invasion.


----------



## DoolieNoted

InUtero said:


> Then you must have written it incorrectly on the red rep comment. The amount of racism in this thread is just ridiculous. Constant jabbing on Muslims is just hard to read. Stating in the chatbox that you hoped I didn't knock up some girl to avoid someone like me being born too is also uncalled for. Sure, we have a difference in views/opinion (hell, why you have the word 'Punk' in your username confuses me as a punk scene would be against Trump confuses me), but there's no need for a comment like that. I retaliated with the 'racist' comment because based on the comments some here after written, what else am I to assume? Anyone agreeing with Trump at this point is just idiotic, quite frankly.


Calling everyone that disagrees with your point of view idiots isn't going to win you any battles.. Attitudes like that are what put :Trump in the hotseat in the first place..


----------



## Sensei Utero

Vic Capri said:


> - Vic


Ha, I'm not a 'liberal'. Living in a corrupt backwards country like Northern Ireland looking over at America and Americans, it's a different World. I get that. Many different issues and the like. However, when it comes to the Yanks, I'm not a 'liberal'. Socialist. There's a difference.

Also, the meaning of 'racist'. (copied from google).

1. a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another.

2. showing or feeling discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or believing that a particular race is superior to another.

Certainly seen a bit of that in here throughout different pages.


----------



## DesolationRow

Neuron said:


> So you're saying we should be adding Saudi Arabia to the list too?


At this point I just want Donald Trump to approach the presidential podium later this year and say, 

"And Saudi Arabia... YOU ARE NOW ON THE LIST!"


----------



## Sensei Utero

Gainn_Damage said:


> Calling everyone that disagrees with your point of view idiots isn't going to win you any battles.. Attitudes like that are what put :Trump in the hotseat in the first place..


I'm calling anyone that supports Trump an idiot because at this point, that's basically what they are. It's incredible, really. Then again, anyone who supported Hilary was an idiot too...


----------



## DoolieNoted

InUtero said:


> Ha, I'm not a 'liberal'. Living in a corrupt backwards country like Northern Ireland looking over at America and Americans, it's a different World. I get that. Many different issues and the like. However, when it comes to the Yanks, I'm not a 'liberal'. Socialist. There's a difference.
> 
> Also, the meaning of 'racist'. (copied from google).
> 
> 1. a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another.
> 
> 2. showing or feeling discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or believing that a particular race is superior to another.
> 
> Certainly seen a bit of that in here throughout different pages.


You're mistaking something called 'Protective Nationalism' for racism.

It's an easy mistake to make when the MSM keeps telling you it's the same.


----------



## Sensei Utero

Gainn_Damage said:


> You're mistaking something called 'Protective Nationalism' for racism.
> 
> It's an easy mistake to make when the MSM keeps telling you it's the same.


Mainstream media lol. To think it's my own motto to question everything. 'Protective Nationalism'. Is that what they're calling it now?


----------



## Pratchett

InUtero said:


> I'm calling anyone that supports Trump an idiot because at this point, that's basically what they are. It's incredible, really. Then again, anyone who supported Hilary was an idiot too...


I am not going to disagree with this post because there is an element of truth to it.

I was wondering though if the "racism" you are lamenting in this thread are due to the posts disparaging Islam and it's radical adherents. Do you believe muslim is a race, or am I interpreting your meaning wrong?


----------



## Sensei Utero

Pratchett said:


> I am not going to disagree with this post because there is an element of truth to it.
> 
> I was wondering though if the "racism" you are lamenting in this thread are due to the posts disparaging Islam and it's radical adherents. Do you believe muslim is a race, or am I interpreting your meaning wrong?


Not every post is considered racism by me. I've just seen selective posts on here at different times, thinking that it's just wrong to see that. The World doesn't need more hate like that in it. To answer your question, Muslim is obviously a religion. However, some may classify themselves as a 'Muslim race'. Being a bigot towards those of a certain nationality or race is racism, in my mind. It certainly fits the definition. The majority of certain people under a certain nationality or race seem to be those who identify with the Muslim religion.


----------



## Beatles123

im sorry you feel that way if its me. cant say it matters though with all due respect.


----------



## Lady Eastwood

Laughing at people posting their comments on facebook under the articles about Trudeau's tweet.

CLEARLY these people have no idea how much of a fucking douchenozzle Trudeau is. 

The best article I read included how 'hot' Trudeau was and how 'great his hair is'. Nothing like writing an article about immigration and throwing in how OMG DREAMY!!!!11!!!1 Trudeau is. Fucking professional journalism right there, amirite. 

Fuck Trudeau, he's a goddamn clown, and people need to stop acting like he's awesome in any fucking way. Our pockets are getting more and more empty because of this bitch and his cabinet. Wynne is a fucking disgusting horse.


----------



## Reaper

DesolationRow said:


> At this point I just want Donald Trump to approach the presidential podium later this year and say,
> 
> "And Saudi Arabia... YOU ARE NOW ON THE LIST!"


TBH, who's on the list and who isn't on these lists is just lip service imo to pander to the people who were misled into believing that our vetting wasn't already "Extreme".

I've already pointed out several times in this thread and in the past that UCIS vetting is very strict. I, as a _Canadian_ was asked sex questions in my interview. They wanted to know which side of the bed I slept on and wondered how often we had sex. He even got upset when I hesitated before answering a single question because my mind wandered for a second (as a result of my ADD). He grilled me for 5 minutes for hesitating. 

Our LEGAL immigration system is very well done and it's very hard for someone to slip through the cracks already. 

The problem is that our refugee vetting system isn't as up to standard mainly because of the involvement of outside agencies as well ease with which a refugee can lie about their background and getting through without having documentation (they simply claim that they lost it all and can still get through).


----------



## Lady Eastwood

InUtero said:


> Then you must have written it incorrectly on the red rep comment. The amount of racism in this thread is just ridiculous. Constant jabbing on Muslims is just hard to read. Stating in the chatbox that you hoped I didn't knock up some girl to avoid someone like me being born too is also uncalled for. Sure, we have a difference in views/opinion (hell, why you have the word 'Punk' in your username confuses me as a punk scene would be against Trump confuses me), but there's no need for a comment like that. I retaliated with the 'racist' comment because based on the comments some here after written, what else am I to assume? Anyone agreeing with Trump at this point is just idiotic, quite frankly.



Racism has to do with hating on people because of their skin color, not what religion they believe in.

Anyone who considers themselves a 'Muslim race' is just making shit up. Muslim isn't a race, no matter what some clown wants to classify themselves as.

Terrorists can be of any race or religion, however, the majority causing shit in the world right now happen to be Muslims. I get why people are flipping a tit over the ban, calling out a specific group of people, but, it's a step in the right direction in (hopefully) at least putting a dent in terrorism. It's a shame there are innocent people who have to suffer, though.

On the subject of immigrants, I have to say, if you are going to go build a life in a new country, you need to fucking conform to that countries culture. I don't give a shit where you are from, if you want to settle somewhere else, but, try to change the country to be like the country you LEFT, you need to kindly fuck off. There are far too many people here who bitch and moan about the culture and want the country to change for THEM. Fuck you, you came here, if you don't like the way this country is, go the fuck back.


----------



## DesolationRow

Carte Blanche said:


> TBH, who's on the list and who isn't on these lists is just lip service imo to pander to the people who were misled into believing that our vetting wasn't already "Extreme".
> 
> I've already pointed out several times in this thread and in the past that UCIS vetting is very strict. I, as a _Canadian_ was asked sex questions in my interview. They wanted to know which side of the bed I slept on and wondered how often we had sex. He even got upset when I hesitated before answering a single question because my mind wandered for a second (as a result of my ADD). He grilled me for 5 minutes for hesitating.
> 
> Our LEGAL immigration system is very well done and it's very hard for someone to slip through the cracks already.
> 
> The problem is that our refugee vetting system isn't as up to standard mainly because of the involvement of outside agencies as well ease with which a refugee can lie about their background and getting through without having documentation (they simply claim that they lost it all and can still get through).


Ah, yes, no, you have synthesized the points which I had yet to touch upon, that being that the processing for legal immigration and the refugee-vetting program are two entirely different matters. Actually meant to at least mention this in one of the previous posts today but did not. 

In the case of the Saudi 9/11 terrorists, the process was fine but there were numerous visa overstays. Greater scrutiny and "vetting" afforded to Saudi nationals makes sense but I agree with you that the refugee situation, which from what I have gathered myself from several different customs officials here on the west coast and once back in New York City over a year ago, is practically in chaotic shambles, needs to be reined in and reworked before the simple and largely well-run-for-government-work legal immigration system is touched.


----------



## Reaper

DesolationRow said:


> Ah, yes, no, you have synthesized the points which I had yet to touch upon, that being that the processing for legal immigration and the refugee-vetting program are two entirely different matters. Actually meant to at least mention this in one of the previous posts today but did not.
> 
> In the case of the Saudi 9/11 terrorists, the process was fine but there were numerous visa overstays. Greater scrutiny and "vetting" afforded to Saudi nationals makes sense but I agree with you that the refugee situation, which from what I have gathered myself from several different customs officials here on the west coast and once back in New York City over a year ago, is practically in chaotic shambles.


Overstaying is something they try to preempt through visa interviews and setting certain conditions... But that system isn't perfect because it isn't handled by the UCIS.. That's down to local embassies and security is watered down because of locals who work in those embassies. 

So we have several agencies that need to be working in tandem that don't and you can't place people everywhere that'll be completely competent... 

I don't really think it's all just lipservice obviously. I do think that underneath the press releases and public record there is hopefully some real action being done to improve how all these agencies come together under a united goal.


----------



## Vic Capri

> Also, the meaning of 'racist'. (copied from google).


fpalm








> Fuck Trudeau, he's a goddamn clown, and people need to stop acting like he's awesome in any fucking way. Our pockets are getting more and more empty because of this bitch and his cabinet. Wynne is a fucking disgusting horse.












His town hall tour has backfired on him. :lol

He also got a lot of shit for answering French questions in English in Quebec. What a fucking tool. Hopefully, Canada will wake up and vote his ass out soon.

- Vic


----------



## DesolationRow

Carte Blanche said:


> Overstaying is something they try to preempt through visa interviews and setting certain conditions... But that system isn't perfect because it isn't handled by the UCIS.. That's down to local embassies and security is watered down because of locals who work in those embassies.
> 
> So we have several agencies that need to be working in tandem that don't and you can't place people everywhere that'll be completely competent...
> 
> I don't really think it's all just lipservice obviously. I do think that underneath the press releases and public record there is hopefully some real action being done to improve how all these agencies come together under a united goal.


Right, terrific points. Evidently myriad resignations are being sent in and some of them are, from what I have gathered, based on the discomfort many of these bureaucrats have at the idea of working with other agencies. Streamlining it as much as possible would be tremendously beneficial.


----------



## MrMister

InUtero said:


> Anyone agreeing with Trump at this point is just idiotic, quite frankly.


A moderator just requested everyone to stop insults and bickering. You post this after that. why?


----------



## Reaper

InUtero said:


> Not every post is considered racism by me. I've just seen selective posts on here at different times, thinking that it's just wrong to see that. The World doesn't need more hate like that in it. To answer your question, Muslim is obviously a religion. However, some may classify themselves as a 'Muslim race'. Being a bigot towards those of a certain nationality or race is racism, in my mind. It certainly fits the definition. The majority of certain people under a certain nationality or race seem to be those who identify with the Muslim religion.


Religion is a choice. It is never a race. You don't become indoctrinated to be black but you do get indoctrinated to be Muslim. 

Also Muslim isn't a religion. It's called Islam.


----------



## MrMister

He might be banned before he can answer:brady6


----------



## Sensei Utero

MrMister said:


> A moderator just requested everyone to stop insults and bickering. You post this after that. why?


It was a general overview. Alongside that, in the chatbox and such, I was insulted with specific hurtful comments. Although, from a moderator's stance, I can see why you'd be taking that seriously. I apologise for that, though it was just a general statement. However, I shouldn't have posted that I realize after Oda made the post, and I apologise. Sorry. My bad.



Catalanotto said:


> Racism has to do with hating on people because of their skin color, not what religion they believe in.
> 
> Anyone who considers themselves a 'Muslim race' is just making shit up. Muslim isn't a race, no matter what some clown wants to classify themselves as.
> 
> Terrorists can be of any race or religion, however, the majority causing shit in the world right now happen to be Muslims. I get why people are flipping a tit over the ban, calling out a specific group of people, but, it's a step in the right direction in (hopefully) at least putting a dent in terrorism. It's a shame there are innocent people who have to suffer, though.
> 
> On the subject of immigrants, I have to say, if you are going to go build a life in a new country, you need to fucking conform to that countries culture. I don't give a shit where you are from, if you want to settle somewhere else, but, try to change the country to be like the country you LEFT, you need to kindly fuck off. There are far too many people here who bitch and moan about the culture and want the country to change for THEM. Fuck you, you came here, if you don't like the way this country is, go the fuck back.


Yet folk who identify themselves as a 'Muslim' all seem to get hate at the colour of their skin too, not just their culture. When I was down 60+ miles in Belfast one day shopping with my brother, I was just disgusted at some of the language being thrown at a muslim child, not only about his religion but the colour of his skin too.

Well, if you're basing that on Muslims, I guess you could argue a load of things about other topics, such as every member of the KKK being a 'Christian'. Then again, that is nothing to do with this topic, so I won't go further into that :lol. I disagree with it being a step in the right direction. The only people suffering from this is the innocent people, whether it's those attempting to find a better life, or just an average person. Reading accounts online from the latter is very sad to read, being banned from a country due to their religion. It's a disgrace. Basically, a load of Yanks seem to be divided, and Trump is only making that worse.

Last paragraph though, totally agree.



Carte Blanche said:


> Religion is a choice. It is never a race. You don't become indoctrinated to be black but you do get indoctrinated to be Muslim.
> 
> Also Muslim isn't a religion. It's called Islam.


I'd agree with you, I was just trying to be a bit respectful to those who may see it otherwise. People under the Islamic religion identify themselves as a 'Muslim'. Would I personally say it's a race? No. However, it seems pretty acceptable by some to race themselves as 'Muslim', whether I personally see that point or not.

Also Carte, not trying to personally fall out with you (even if you dislike me) or anything, even we disagree on certain things (I doubt anyone agrees on totally everything). On the chatbox, you seem like a decent guy. Apologies if I've come off as a dick at times (it's just who I am) - but then again, I am a bit of a twat.


----------



## virus21

DesolationRow said:


> So many overreactions based on a rather brief freezing.
> 
> Jimmy Carter placed a "ban" on Iranian immigration; Barack Obama's administration rightly imposed a six-month "ban" on Iraqi refugees in 2011 due to very real security concerns.
> 
> Donald Trump ran on freezing the refugee program from certain countries until "we can figure out what the hell is going on." Four months is probably nowhere near so long a timeframe as necessary to make this happen but at least it is a start.


Its only right if a Democrat does it. 



Vic Capri said:


> fpalm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His town hall tour has backfired on him. :lol
> 
> He also got a lot of shit for answering French questions in English in Quebec. What a fucking tool. Hopefully, Canada will wake up and vote his ass out soon.
> 
> - Vic


They seems to be a growing movement to elected him out come election time. People complain that Trump is unqualified and at some level they're right, but at least as a business man he has some leadership skills. What does Trudeau have?


----------



## Reaper

InUtero said:


> It was a general overview. Alongside that, in the chatbox and such, I was insulted with specific hurtful comments. Although, from a moderator's stance, I can see why you'd be taking that seriously. I apologise for that, though it was just a general statement. However, I shouldn't have posted that I realize after Oda made the post, and I apologise. Sorry. My bad.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet folk who identify themselves as a 'Muslim' all seem to get hate at the colour of their skin too, not just their culture. When I was down 60+ miles in Belfast one day shopping with my brother, I was just disgusted at some of the language being thrown at a muslim child, not only about his religion but the colour of his skin too.
> 
> Well, if you're basing that on Muslims, I guess you could argue a load of things about other topics, such as every member of the KKK being a 'Christian'. Then again, that is nothing to do with this topic, so I won't go further into that . I disagree with it being a step in the right direction. The only people suffering from this is the innocent people, whether it's those attempting to find a better life, or just an average person. Reading accounts online from the latter is very sad to read, being banned from a country due to their religion. It's a disgrace. Basically, a load of Yanks seem to be divided, and Trump is only making that worse.
> 
> Last paragraph though, totally agree.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd agree with you, I was just trying to be a bit respectful to those who may see it otherwise. People under the Islamic religion identify themselves as a 'Muslim'. Would I personally say it's a race? No. However, it seems pretty acceptable by some to race themselves as 'Muslim', whether I personally see that point or not.
> 
> Also Carte, not trying to personally fall out with you (even if you dislike me) or anything, even we disagree on certain things (I doubt anyone agrees on totally everything). On the chatbox, you seem like a decent guy. Apologies if I've come off as a dick at times (it's just who I am) - but then again, I am a bit of a twat.


No worries. I know that your cbox banter is just banter. And you mean nothing by it. 

It's just that this thread doesn't have the same culture as cbox or rants. We try to engage in as much civil discussion here as is virtually possible on the Internet and personally I compartmentalize but sometimes I just wanna get away from the jabs and shitposting and engage in quality discussion. I'm cool with you. And thanks for that last post. Nice of you to say it.

I understand that Muslims like to see themselves as a race but to me that's a delusion. I've said this straight to my dad's face who's a Muslim and pretty much all intelligent Muslims actually agree with secularism and the need for someone to crack down on terrorism. Many Muslims that came to America did so to get away from the rise in radicalization in their countries. A lot of ex-Muslims came to America for the same reason. We simply do not like the culture of the Muslim countries. Hence why we're appreciative of the efforts of Trump and his government and the reduction in foreign imports.

All of us are for immigration. We just want less of it and we don't want our government to make a mistake in letting terrorists in. It's not about not letting anyone in. It's about making sure that 1 terrorist who can kill 50 people doesn't get in. We've got plenty of local hazards to deal with. The goal of any society however is to create the safest possible conditions for its citizens.


----------



## Tater

Shame on people for discriminating against Islam. All religions from that region should be treated equally. Just to be fair, we should extend the ban to _all _believers of ancient Middle Eastern mythological bullshit. 

:trumpout


----------



## virus21

Can't say I don't disagree. I've been saying for years that Hollywood is the new Aristocracy and Democrats being so buddy buddy with them makes them part of it


----------



## Phaedra

An old colleague of mine just lost his research post at an ivy league university because his visa was revoked. He's one of the most incredible people i have ever had the pleasure of meeting and now he doesn't have the chance to share his knowledge and experience, just because he was born in Iran. congrats.


----------



## Lady Eastwood

InUtero said:


> Yet folk who identify themselves as a 'Muslim' all seem to get hate at the colour of their skin too, not just their culture. When I was down 60+ miles in Belfast one day shopping with my brother, I was just disgusted at some of the language being thrown at a muslim child, not only about his religion but the colour of his skin too.


I haven't read enough of your posts in the forum to determine if this is just a silly slip or not, but, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume you made a mistake thinking Muslim was a race. Just because you read people's comments and take it personally as racism due to it being about Muslims doesn't make it racist. You can't make up your own definition of a group of people or racism lol. I have hardly seen people insult a Muslim because of skin color, but, rather because they are Muslim in general, and people ignorantly assume all things Muslim - terrorism. It may be the dominant source of people right now, but, looking at every Muslim and thinking they are a terrorist is stupid, just like not every white person is a racist.



> Well, if you're basing that on Muslims, I guess you could argue a load of things about other topics, such as every member of the KKK being a 'Christian'. Then again, that is nothing to do with this topic, so I won't go further into that :lol. I disagree with it being a step in the right direction. The only people suffering from this is the innocent people, whether it's those attempting to find a better life, or just an average person. Reading accounts online from the latter is very sad to read, being banned from a country due to their religion. It's a disgrace. Basically, a load of Yanks seem to be divided, and Trump is only making that worse.


I am not saying every Muslim is a terrorist, I am just saying that the majority these days are Muslims (at least what is reported). Again, as I said, it's sad that innocent people have to suffer, but, regardless, it's a temporary ban to better the US system so ISIS fucks have a harder time getting in. People are acting like the ban is forever. Trump doesn't have an issue with Muslims in general, he has a problem with ISIS, who happen to throw their shit to the US from Muslim countries. Sometimes, you just have to take measures people wont be happy about to try to get an end result. Will it work? Who knows, but, at least someone is trying to do something about it. The problem is that anyone can slip by with no prior links, anyway. Crazy people looking up shit on ISIS on their computers at home, who is monitoring this? People can come in without a shady past and end up being a terrorist.


Trump is at least sticking to what his campaign was about all along. He said things he was going to do, and he is doing them. Not many politicians can say that about themselves. People may not like what he is doing, but, can't say he didn't keep his promises so far. Maybe that whore, Trudeau, can learn a thing or two. I knew from day one that piece of shit was going to get voted in for two main reasons: LOL HE'S SO HOT and legalizing weed, both of which are horseshit reasons to vote a person in.


----------



## Reaper

Phaedra said:


> An old colleague of mine just lost his research post at an ivy league university because his visa was revoked. He's one of the most incredible people i have ever had the pleasure of meeting and now he doesn't have the chance to share his knowledge and experience, just because he was born in Iran. congrats.


Man, if this is how efficient our government has suddenly become that a man from Iran would get a letter in the mail or a phone call only 2 days after the EO revoking his visa, just for that I'm fucking impressed with Trump and the Republicans. 

I've never seen such efficiency before in my life. Some would say it's almost unbelievable.


----------



## virus21

Also, you how Trudeau and other hard libs keep saying Diversity is Strength? It reminds me of this


> War is Peace
> Freedom is Slavery
> Ignorance is Strength


----------



## BruiserKC

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ump-s-halt-on-immigration-from-muslim-nations

Before everyone starts going crazy one way or the other...what this stay does is permit people that have valid visas to remain in the US. The number is looking at being approximately 200 people. I have no problem with this...if they have valid documentation to come to the US they should not be prevented from entering (or re-entering in some cases). Then, next week they can sort through and make sure that others that have the proper paperwork can be here but keep out those that don't.


----------



## Beatles123

Phaedra said:


> An old colleague of mine just lost his research post at an ivy league university because his visa was revoked. He's one of the most incredible people i have ever had the pleasure of meeting and now he doesn't have the chance to share his knowledge and experience, just because he was born in Iran. congrats.


he'll be back if he has nothing to hide.


----------



## Phaedra

Carte Blanche said:


> Man, if this is how efficient our government has suddenly become that a man from Iran would get a letter in the mail or a phone call only 2 days after the EO revoking his visa, just for that I'm fucking impressed with Trump and the Republicans.
> 
> I've never seen such efficiency before in my life. Some would say it's almost unbelievable.


I spoke too broadly because I was upset. it hasn't been revoked yet but he knows and the institution knows it will be. He was informed from the university and we've been speaking for the past half hour actually. They informed him they can't be certain his visa will be valid by the time he takes his post and therefore they cannot secure it for him. It's nothing about the efficiency of your government and perhaps more about the panicked reaction from the institution, as we've been discussing. It's late here, the email came in two hours ago but my phone was off. 

I'm gutted for him, I'm gutted for america. But he'll easily get a position at a european university it just sucks, because it makes him feel unwelcome. 

When such broad stroke policies are implemented you end up with a punitive measure that ends in a lack of freedom. There are people being detained in airports for having the audacity to pursue a free life in the so called land of the free. 

I come from the UK, we were brutalised in the 70's and 80's by irish terrorism, but we didn't ban irish people from coming to the country because that way lies signs on hotels and guest houses that say 'no dogs, no irish'. And yes those signs used to exist in this country, and many people certainly held those beliefs, before we saw and experienced where singling people out because of their race, religion or creed got you. 

Just saying. it's an example of where this broad stroke ban on people entering the United States will hurt their academic, economic and cultural development. You're entitled to your opinion but people are hurting.


----------



## Reaper

Ok. Did some checking. A bunch of people had their Visas revoked that incidentally were from the countries that were "banned" BEFORE Trump got into office and now they're claiming that it was because of Trump while FAKE NEWS is making claims like "we're not sure if it has anything to do with Trump's ban, but it might have something to do with Trump's ban where officials banned people before the ban even took place" .. Oh and then they add that there were also some people who had their visas revoked that weren't on the list - and that almost all cases were legit problems with something or the other ... Trying to make up whatever bullshit they can hoping to see if something might stick :lmao


----------



## 307858

Tater said:


> Shame on people for discriminating against Islam. All religions from that region should be treated equally. Just to be fair, we should extend the ban to _all _believers of ancient Middle Eastern mythological bullshit.
> 
> :trumpout


Then you would be banning Christians themselves. Which I believe is a good thing. Their religion is batshit crazy about some middle eastern virgin telling them to eat at arby's and molest children.


----------



## Beatles123

BruiserKC said:


> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ump-s-halt-on-immigration-from-muslim-nations
> 
> Before everyone starts going crazy one way or the other...what this stay does is permit people that have valid visas to remain in the US. The number is looking at being approximately 200 people. I have no problem with this...if they have valid documentation to come to the US they should not be prevented from entering (or re-entering in some cases). Then, next week they can sort through and make sure that others that have the proper paperwork can be here but keep out those that don't.


----------



## 307858

Phaedra said:


> An old colleague of mine just lost his research post at an ivy league university because his visa was revoked. He's one of the most incredible people i have ever had the pleasure of meeting and now he doesn't have the chance to share his knowledge and experience, just because he was born in Iran. congrats.


There is a lot of Dumpster Trumpster trash ITT. I would not seek understanding here. No shit since WWE demographics are correlated with uneducated neanderthals.


----------



## Reaper

Phaedra said:


> He was informed from the university and we've been speaking for the past half hour actually. They informed him they can't be certain his visa will be valid by the time he takes his post and therefore they cannot secure it for him. It's nothing about the efficiency of your government and perhaps more about the panicked reaction from the institution, as we've been discussing. It's late here, the email came in two hours ago but my phone was off.


So you're trying to blame the fact that the university "fired" him based on _*their *_lack of knowledge of what *might *happen *assuming *that *something **might *happen on Trump? 

The university getting spooked and giving into mass hysteria is a result of anti-Trump hysteria. It has nothing to do with the policy because the policy does not state that people's visas will be revoked. It simply puts a stop on immigration applications and refugee admissions. 

That's it. There's nothing about stopping people from traveling on regular visas. The people who call themselves university administrators betraying their ignorance on the policy. It's 100% on them. Not on Trump.


----------



## Phaedra

Carte Blanche said:


> So you're trying to blame the fact that the university "fired" him based on _*their *_lack of knowledge of what might happen assuming that something might happen on Trump? The university getting spooked and giving into mass hysteria is a result of anti-Trump hysteria. It has nothing to do with the policy because the policy does not state that people's visas will be revoked. It simply puts a stop on immigration applications and refugee admissions.
> 
> That's it. There's nothing about stopping people from traveling on regular visas. The people who call themselves university administrators betraying their ignorance on the policy. It's 100% on them. Not on Trump.


No he didn't get fired, he's never been fucking fired in his life. They might be getting spooked but it doesn't change the fact of why they got spooked. 

i shouldn't have said anything. I just saw posts saying how it's okay and i was feeling like shit for all the people it's not okay for. I keep saying i'm giving up these politics threads and i always give in. 

anyway bobby roode just won the nxt championship and i've spent the match trying to explain why such a broad measure is bad for your country, and trying to console my old friend that he isn't a dog and anyone who treats him like one is the dog. never mind. 

peace. going back to replay this match.


----------



## CamillePunk

InUtero said:


> Then you must have written it incorrectly on the red rep comment. The amount of racism in this thread is just ridiculous. Constant jabbing on Muslims is just hard to read. Stating in the chatbox that you hoped I didn't knock up some girl to avoid someone like me being born too is also uncalled for. Sure, we have a difference in views/opinion (hell, why you have the word 'Punk' in your username confuses me as a punk scene would be against Trump confuses me), but there's no need for a comment like that. I retaliated with the 'racist' comment because based on the comments some here after written, what else am I to assume? Anyone agreeing with Trump at this point is just idiotic, quite frankly.


Nothing was written incorrectly. My rep comment was "Cite the racism or sod off". You still have yet to cite a single racist post. My username pertains to my favorite wrestler CM Punk, and is irrelevant to the discussion. 

Islam is not a race, nor would I consider it accurate to call it merely a religion. It's an ideology which prescribes how an entire society should be ruled. It's fundamentally incompatible with the classical liberal ideals of the civilized, superior, western world.

On the grounds of Islam being much more than a religion, and necessarily opposed to western values, I would consider it not only constitutional for the US but also necessary for the survival of the west that western countries do everything they can to limit Muslim immigration, indefinitely.


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

glenwo2 said:


> My heart goes out to the child and his family. However, it's still America First, pal.
> 
> We can't fight FOR THEM. They need to fight for THEMSELVES for a change.


That photo looks faked . . . Notice there's no blood on his clothing ?


----------



## Reaper

Simply don't enter this thread if you don't want your world view challenged because the differences in opinions have sent far too many people into a fit of rage. 

We have some very civil discussions here too and many of us don't agree on a lot of issues but every now and then this thread attracts a ton of people who simply don't want to even remotely exist with others and pretty much all of them fall on the center left or far left. 

I mean, I hate to preach, and I don't do it often but some of you guys really aren't doing your opinions and your political leaning (and others who fall in that spectrum) any favor at all by coming in here and insulting everyone who disagrees with you :draper2


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

KingCosmos said:


> This American elitism, America First, no outsiders mentality boggles my mind when the thing that makes America a wonderful place is it's diversity. Trump's ban also applying to people with dual nationality is completely ridiculous


That American attitude is the way we were before the "Progressive Hive Mind" starting trying to make us the "doormat of the world" and the "piggy-bank of the world' . . . Now things are changing and we are going back to that long-lost strength and pride !!!


----------



## wwe9391

So far Trump has done everything he has promised us he would do. Sounds like a good President to me.


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

Gainn_Damage said:


> Immigration without assimilation is nothing less than an invasion.


Absolutely correct . . . And an invasion is an act of war . . . People die in wars !


----------



## CamillePunk

Trump delivering on yet more promises, including one of his #DrainTheSwamp promises:

https://theconservativetreehouse.co...estructure-of-nsc-joint-chiefs-isis-strategy/



> President Donald Trump initiates three more campaign promises today via executive action:
> 
> ♦ A five year ban on lobbying for all White House officials. An order banning administration officials from ever lobbying the U.S. on behalf of a foreign government and imposing a separate five-year ban on other lobbying.
> 
> ♦ An order to begin restructuring the White House National Security Council. Aides said the changes would help the council better adapt to cyber, digital, terrorist and other modern-day threats.
> 
> ♦ A request for the Department of Defense, via the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to deliver a preliminary strategy to defeat ISIS within 30 days to the President.


:trump


----------



## Headliner

So, has anyone discussed the unfortunate harassment that muslims/brown people have faced since this Executive Order or nah? 










Let me go. I'm sorry for posting "fake news".


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

Gainn_Damage said:


> Calling everyone that disagrees with your point of view idiots isn't going to win you any battles.


Yes, and you sound like Chris Jericho, while you're doing it . . . LOL !!!


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

InUtero said:


> lso, the meaning of 'racist'. (copied from google).
> 
> 1. a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another.
> 
> 2. showing or feeling discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or believing that a particular race is superior to another.
> 
> Certainly seen a bit of that in here throughout different pages.


Welcome to the real USA . . . Drink it in, mmmmaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnn !!!


----------



## Lady Eastwood

Where did you see racism?

I haven't read all pages, but, from the ones I have read, I didn't see any racism. I just saw you confusing a following with a race of people.


----------



## Headliner

Lunatic Fringe said:


> Welcome to the real USA . . . Drink it in, maaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnn !!!


You seem content with that?


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

Gainn_Damage said:


> You're mistaking something called 'Protective Nationalism' for racism.
> 
> It's an easy mistake to make when the MSM keeps telling you it's the same.


WOW . . . That was a BULLS-EYE !!!

*http://www.globalethicsnetwork.org/profiles/blogs/is-nationalism-an-asset-or-hindrance-in-today-s-globalized-wor-16*


----------



## Reaper

Headliner said:


> So, has anyone discussed the unfortunate harassment that muslims/brown people have faced since this Executive Order or nah?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me go. I'm sorry for posting "fake news".


I agree that this should not happen and it's part of a growing problem of police entitlement and power abuse. A citizen should not have to carry their ID in public and I believe they have a right to refuse to show their ID to cops until and unless they can reasonably see that they're up to no good. But at the same time, given that a lot of claims about harassment have been proven fake I would encourage that people show some sort of skepticism regarding certain claims at least till they are determined to be true. 

However, as an immigrant who's brown, I carry my ID at all times and I would be more than happy to present it to police at all times. Personal choice. I don't have to agree with it, but doesn't mean that I should create a situation where things can get escalated knowing that that is the climate we live in. I would love to have this climate of police over-reach changed --- but as an individual facing someone with power, I would behave the same as I would in front of a mugger. And yes, I agree that that says a lot about how I view police. TBH, I would actually act friendly towards the police instead of fearful ... but having been mugged 5 times, I would act cordially towards a mugger as well. Fear when dealing with a cop puts the cop at unease as much as it does a mugger :draper2


----------



## TomahawkJock

Maybe I've been reading "fake news" but from what I knew, there was nothing wrong with our current refugee vetting system? Trump saying he's going to overhaul it and make it better when it's already doing its job quite well (from what I know) seems like he's just appealing to his political base. 

Probably been reading too much fake news though. I don't know which news is fucking real anymore.


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

Phaedra said:


> I come from the UK, we were brutalised in the 70's and 80's by irish terrorism, but we didn't ban irish people from coming to the country because that way lies signs on hotels and guest houses that say 'no dogs, no irish'. And yes those signs used to exist in this country, and many people certainly held those beliefs, before we saw and experienced where singling people out because of their race, religion or creed got you.


Let me ask you this . . . After being victims of that for so long, why did the British people voluntarily give up their guns ? That make no sense to me, at all !


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

heel_turn said:


> Then you would be banning Christians themselves. Which I believe is a good thing. Their religion is batshit crazy about some middle eastern virgin telling them to eat at arby's and molest children.


That level of ignorance is astounding . . . Seriously !


----------



## Reaper

TomahawkJock said:


> Maybe I've been reading "fake news" but from what I knew, there was nothing wrong with our current refugee vetting system? Trump saying he's going to overhaul it and make it better when it's already doing its job quite well (from what I know) seems like he's just appealing to his political base.
> 
> Probably been reading too much fake news though. I don't know which news is fucking real anymore.


There was a pew research last year that detailed it. Im on my phone right now otherwise I'd post it for you. Look up Pew Research on Refugee Admittance to America. The ways the refugee vetting is broken in briefly mentioned in that paper.


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

Headliner said:


> You seem content with that?


Yep . . . It's the way I was raised, during the Cold War. Lines were drawn and actions would have been swift, in those days !


----------



## Art Vandaley

Apparently Trump's agreed to take all the people we're keeping camps in return for us taking a bunch of central americans in camps on the US border. 

This is still the funniest political deal I've ever come across. We'll give you a bunch of people all the racists in our country are having a cry about but the racists in your country don't care about, and in return we'll take a bunch of people off you that your racists are having a cry about but our racists don't care about.


----------



## MrMister

@Lunatic Fringe can you start using the edit button instead of double posting? Normally I don't care that much, but I think you busted out a quintuple post at one point in the past.


----------



## Lunatic Fringe

MrMister said:


> @Lunatic Fringe can you start using the edit button instead of double posting? Normally I don't care that much, but I think you busted out a quintuple post at one point in the past.


I don't think that was me . . . A "quintuple post" (simultaneous posts) is not my style .

*Now that he’s president, Donald Trump admits he needs God more than ever*

*http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/01/28/watch-now-that-hes-president-donald-trump-admits-he-needs-god-more-than-ever/*


----------



## Headliner

Carte Blanche said:


> *I agree that this should not happen and it's part of a growing problem of police entitlement and power abuse.* A citizen should not have to carry their ID in public and I believe they have a right to refuse to show their ID to cops until and unless they can reasonably see that they're up to no good. But at the same time, given that a lot of claims about harassment have been proven fake I would encourage that people show some sort of skepticism regarding certain claims at least till they are determined to be true.
> 
> However, as an immigrant who's brown, I carry my ID at all times and I would be more than happy to present it to police at all times. Personal choice. I don't have to agree with it, but doesn't mean that I should create a situation where things can get escalated knowing that that is the climate we live in. I would love to have this climate of police over-reach changed --- but as an individual facing someone with power, I would behave the same as I would in front of a mugger. And yes, I agree that that says a lot about how I view police. TBH, I would actually act friendly towards the police instead of fearful ... but having been mugged 5 times, I would act cordially towards a mugger as well. Fear when dealing with a cop puts the cop at unease as much as it does a mugger :draper2


That's all I needed to hear. Now, what are your thoughts on all the airport protests in the major cities due to legal people being detained? Your thoughts on the NYC judge ruling a couple hours ago in Brooklyn? Apparently a bunch of lawyers ran to the Brooklyn airport at the request of people to defend them. I like to hear from you.


----------



## MrMister

Oh so now you're just trolling by immediately double posting.


----------



## Headliner

Lunatic Fringe said:


> Yep . . . It's the way I was raised, during the Cold War. Lines were drawn and actions would have been swift, in those days !


So you're content with racism?


----------



## TomahawkJock

MrMister said:


> Oh so now you're just trolling by immediately double posting.


He's a Lunatic....


----------



## Reaper

Headliner said:


> That's all I needed to hear. Now, what are your thoughts on all the airport protests in the major cities due to legal people being detained? Your thoughts on the NYC judge ruling a couple hours ago in Brooklyn? Apparently a bunch of lawyers ran to the Brooklyn airport at the request of people to defend them. I like to hear from you.


I consider it to be a result of several things: 

I consider it a teething crisis of a hastily put together EO (While I support the idea, I'm pretty sure our government agencies are not at all well oiled and competent enough to make sure they don't do stupid and unreasonable things .. as I stated earlier too, I would never put it past our government employees and agents to exploit people's ignorance) and it seems like a move that's based on incompetence and poor communication for those people who have been detained who have no issues with their visa papers and nothing else. 

I also think that there's a mix of things happening where some people are being detained based on various things as people are detained, or turned away routinely due to not having visas, fake paperwork, issues with passports etc. I mean, I've seen hysterical muslims on my facebook claim that people are being detained and refused boarding at Dubai which is not on the list too. But then, I'm also aware that there are people detained all the time. I've traveled enough to know that. We have to remember as well that 30k people or more are held in detention centers (including airports) country-wide on any given day regularly .. and some for something as insignificant as looking slightly different in their passport photo. 

There might be some overlapping here and there might be some people detained in error and some people being detained for missing/shoddy paper-work. Some routine, and some not routine, but those that are routine causing more of an uproar than usual and getting lumped into the overall panic. 

I'm gonna wait for the facts to come out (if they ever do) before making up my mind that all of the people stopped were stopped illegally or not. The government loves to over-reach and that's up to the courts to determine. If the detainment is termed illegal by the courts, then I'll stand by that decision. If they aren't illegal than I'll stand by that too. 

It's a complex situation. As I've been repeatedly saying, we should be patient .. have trust, but if there's valid reason to lose that trust, break away from the support of a policy that is deemed unconstitutional.


----------



## yeahbaby!

How strange the perfectly legitimate point of Trump happening to omit terror hotbed countries like Saudi, Pakistan, UAE etc, has just blown through without any uptake from Team Trump.

Is the money, oil and business deals struck with the likes of Saudi and UAE etc more important than your own safety?

:trump


----------



## Headliner

Sounds like this whole thing is going to continue in court for months to come.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/825532347839836161


----------



## Ace

Trump is ISIS's best recruiter, I can't believe people think this is a good idea. 

It is only going to increase the chances of a terrorist attack in America.

The country is going to hell, I cannot for the life of me believe the level of discrimination that is going on in 2017.

But is that a surprise, this is the country that elected an idiotic racist as their commander in chief.

I can guarantee you that this is only going to lead to more attempted terrorist attacks.

Discrimination breeds hate, that hate leads to events like 9/11.


----------



## Ace

del


----------



## Miss Sally

Pretty sure Trump's ban isn't unconstitutional. This whole thing needs some oversight and more clear wording and exceptions though I doubt it will matter to those who want to oppose Trump. 

The Syrian safe zones are a good idea, a few of us here mentioned this should have been done from the beginning. It would have spared Europe the migrant issue.


----------



## samizayn

DesolationRow said:


> Hope Muhammad Ashraf has a contributions page set up for help as he now faces up to $70,000 in the cost of damages.


The only contribution that GoFundMe page would ever see is xenophobic insults tbh

Does anyone know why Trump didn't ban the Saudis? I feel like I asked this.


----------



## Ace

I thought Trump was all talk trying to get the racist white vote but damn, he's following through with his moronic ideas.

Gotta give him credit for following through with his promises though, even though America may further isolate themselves from the rest of the world and bring ire of Muslim states.


----------



## virus21

samizayn said:


> The only contribution that GoFundMe page would ever see is xenophobic insults tbh
> 
> Does anyone know why Trump didn't ban the Saudis? I feel like I asked this.


Money


----------



## yeahbaby!

Miss Sally said:


> Pretty sure Trump's ban isn't unconstitutional. This whole thing needs some oversight and more clear wording and exceptions *though I doubt it will matter to those who want to oppose Trump. *
> 
> The Syrian safe zones are a good idea, a few of us here mentioned this should have been done from the beginning. It would have spared Europe the migrant issue.


Nice try at twisting this around to make it about Anti-Trumpers. Why don't you try and defend all the TERRORible countries that were left off the list?


----------



## samizayn

virus21 said:


> Money


Okay yeah, I should rephrase:

Does anyone know the ostensible reasoning for excluding the Saudis that isn't entirely fucking outrageous considering he campaigned on not having 'special foreign interests' like Hilary? And that he's promised to end Islamic terrorism and apparently intending on doing that by green lighting one of the biggest terrorist hotbeds in the world?


----------



## yeahbaby!

samizayn said:


> Okay yeah, I should rephrase:
> 
> Does anyone know the ostensible reasoning for excluding the Saudis that isn't entirely fucking outrageous considering he campaigned on not having 'special foreign interests' like Hilary? And that he's promised to end Islamic terrorism and apparently intending on doing that by green lighting one of the biggest terrorist hotbeds in the world?


Uh... um..... The fake media misquoted Trump!


----------



## Rick Sanchez

I read David Duke was proud of Trump at least.

Trump is so close to getting that Grand Wizard hat that he's always wanted.


----------



## yeahbaby!




----------



## virus21

yeahbaby! said:


>


Title kind of explains it.


----------



## Vic Capri

> Where did you see racism?
> 
> I haven't read all pages, but, from the ones I have read, I didn't see any racism. I just saw you confusing a following with a race of people.


Contrary to popular liberal belief, Muslim isn't a race.

- Vic


----------



## Ace

When was the last time there was a terrorist attack in the States anyway?

This seems like a silly idea which is encouraging it....


----------



## samizayn

yeahbaby! said:


> Uh... um..... The fake media misquoted Trump!


Nah, I'm past the point of joking. Beyond baffled that anyone that voted for him is fine with this. His only redeeming point was his supposed anti-establishment stance and even that turned out to be a lie. Scumbag.

Meanwhile in airports, since clarity or instruction don't seem to be a priority, chaos is ensuing pretty much everywhere.* A Christian family has been turned away in Philadelphia*, LOL, first of many we have to assume. That they have the means to fly back or will be alive to see the flight at all is up in the air at this point. Who knows?


----------



## ecclesiastes10

yeahbaby! said:


> Nice try at twisting this around to make it about Anti-Trumpers. Why don't you try and defend all the TERRORible countries that were left off the list?


your welcome
http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...-order-no-muslim-ban-separating-fact-hysteria

also did a lil reading around and it appears that not only did Obama do something similar with Iraq refugees for 6 months unlike the 90 days of trump he also formulated the list, aka OBAMA and his TEAM picked those countries, President Trump just implemented it...
also read this guy timeline, really informative, its public n u don't have to sign up to c 
https://twitter.com/seanmdav
those countries are terror plague with isis fighters who threaten to infilitrate refuge program to infilict harm on the west... plus this isn't permerant. Smart if u ask me.


----------



## Miss Sally

yeahbaby! said:


> Nice try at twisting this around to make it about Anti-Trumpers. Why don't you try and defend all the TERRORible countries that were left off the list?



I don't recall dismissing the lack of some countries on the list. Saudi Arabia should be on it, among other countries. 

I'm saying that no matter what people will complain. Also pretty sure I was clear that this whole thing needed better wording and to be thought through better.


----------



## Reaper

Nah. Wouldn't worry about all these cases at all because people are detained at the airports every single day and cases are tried every single day. It's not news. It's not fake news. It's just being reported as news for the first time. 

I also don't know why anti-Trumpers come in here expecting a response from Trump supporters about every little thing. Even though I consider it childish and disingenuine - because the questioners aren't actually looking for discussion or debate. But just another one of the dozens of places where they virtue signal and look for that GOTCHA! moment. Serious people ask questions and try to find the answers for it themselves. 

I mean, how many Trump supporters have asked you liberals to explain why Obama decided to send 221 million to Palestinians literally hours before he left office? Would you have an answer to that question? Like a serious one that actually tells us exactly why Obama made that decision. 

I'll say what I think and I'm pretty most people in here will actually not read what I've said because a lot of Trump supporters have spent nearly 2 years explaining the polices, their impact and the reasoning behind them for nearly 2 years and they haven't been read. 

While I don't see any reason at all why my opinion is important to you guys (until and unless you're all looking for that GOTCHA moment), I will still answer despite the fact that I know full well the outrage is completely disingenuous. 

I think and this is my opinion is that the main reason why Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Afghanistan have been excluded from this list is that there are thousands of people - american and non-american working in these three countries that are american citizens and non-american citizens. Ultimately, I can bet that this decision was taken to help American citizens instead of hurt non-citizens. There was already an explanation given that these countries have "business interests". And who are those involved in the business interests: American Citizens and possibly even immigrants. 

None of the countries that were on the list have significant ties with America in such a way that would impact thousands of American citizens and American businesses and contractors - but at the same time those countries are and have always been high risk areas. Also, it's not a permanent ban. It's a 3 month ban on non-citizens and 120 day ban on NEW refugee applications. 

These are all things that other countries have done to others and continue to do to each other. I mean ffs Canada a few years ago ended VISA ties with Dubai over a spat between Airlines that lasted months. Not a single muslim country allows its citzens to travel to Israel and definitely do not want any Jews visiting their shitholes. Pakistan and India do not allow leisurely travel. The list is pretty huge and yet here we are acting like it's America's moral obligation to allow everyone from everywhere all the damn time. 

We have no such moral obligation and Americans will and should not be guilted into it by a bunch of Non Americans who are not effected by this decision. Like are you fucking kidding me? You have not spent a single penny of your money on the people you're crying for and you will not do it. You just want to give the impression that you care, when you do not. 

Much more so than in any other muslim countries. This has been a pragmatic decision in the end and I'm guessing that an EO can be passed without the president's agreement or consent ---- which in other words would be a compromise. He did the same thing with regards to torture - and that is a GOOD thing. Compromises are good. Nuanced strategies are good. We don't live in a black and white world. If he'd blanket banned from all countries he'd be a fascist dictator. He made a nuanced decision keeping in mind the thousands of Americans in some Muslim countries working on projects, he's a hypocrite. You guys have already made up your mind - why are you even bothering pretending to look like you're looking to get an explanation at all? Why keep up the pretense? What does it matter? 

Anyways, it's not like most of you would actually read or agree with this, but since you all can't sleep now because of those poor detainees at airports (people are detained at airports every single day), and must, absolutely must have an answer to your questions. I've given you guys the answer. And I don't give a shit if it's satisfactory or not or if you've skimmed through my post for that one GOTCHA moment that you came in here looking for. Whatever the outcome, I hope this feeds your narcissism. 

Also, for the Aussies and Canadians in here. Did you guys know that the Aussies have been trying to send BOATLOADS of refugees to Canada and have kept them outside their country in BOATS and haven't even given them permission to land, and that Canada has been selling billions of dollars of arms to Saudi Arabia who are at war with Yemen? Enough with this virtue signalling already. 

Why don't you guys spend more time worrying about the shit your countries are up to and spend less time on social media getting riled up about America and its president. It really is now disingenuous and just a whole lot of misdirected anger and mob mentality.


----------



## samizayn

Carte Blanche said:


> Nah. Wouldn't worry about all these cases at all because people are detained at the airports every single day and cases are tried every single day. It's not news. It's not fake news. It's just being reported as news for the first time.


If you're talking about the article I shared then the point was not to illustrate that "people are being turned away" since as you said that happens every day. It's to illustrate how poorly this is being handled on the ground because of how this has been put through, with nary a thought to the actual customs employees and airline staff that are going to have to handle the logistics of this. Religious minorities (namely Christians) are allegedly the ones Trump wants to protect most, if they're being turned away then there is some kind of disconnect going on between what he means and what's actually going on. That's the cost of this lazy EO. You really can't - I mean you can afford to fuck with people's lives because who gives a shit I guess lol, right? But these people are the ones that can't afford to be fucked with at this point. If it's intentional then fair enough, but the point of this should also have been to eliminate instances of "oh lol sry we meant to let you in actually."

I'm not sure if your take on it makes it better or worse. Toothless is just as bad as pro-establishment. 

It's not virtue signaling and it's not trying to catch anyone in an a-ha moment, though. This is actually the only place I can go to see intelligent Trump supporters say their piece, and up to now I've been able to put myself in those shoes. He's shucked away all redeemable qualities for me at this point, but despite myself I am still looking for, and open to hearing, more. Dead serious.


----------



## Reaper

samizayn said:


> If you're talking about the article I shared then the point was not to illustrate that "people are being turned away" since as you said that happens every day. It's to illustrate how poorly this is being handled on the ground because of how this has been put through, with nary a thought to the actual customs employees and airline staff that are going to have to handle the logistics of this. Religious minorities (namely Christians) are allegedly the ones Trump wants to protect most, if they're being turned away then there is some kind of disconnect going on between what he means and what's actually going on. That's the cost of this lazy EO. You really can't - I mean you can afford to fuck with people's lives because who gives a shit I guess lol, right? But these people are the ones that can't afford to be fucked with at this point. If it's intentional then fair enough, but the point of this should also have been to eliminate instances of "oh lol sry we meant to let you in actually."
> 
> I'm not sure if your take on it makes it better or worse. Toothless is just as bad as pro-establishment.
> 
> It's not virtue signaling and it's not trying to catch anyone in an a-ha moment, though. This is actually the only place I can go to see intelligent Trump supporters say their piece, and up to now I've been able to put myself in those shoes. He's shucked away all redeemable qualities for me at this point, but despite myself I am still looking for, and open to hearing, more. Dead serious.


Yeah I read the article. There's holes in their story. 1) They claim they had both Green Cards and Visas. This is absolutely untrue because if you have green cards then you don't need visas because your green card replaces and nullifies the visa requirement. As a legal immigrant you'd have to be an absolute mental retard to make that kind of a mix up in telling ur story to someone. 2) They were detained and out back on a flight which is something even in the highest of chaos just seems unbelievable. 

Even if their story is true and while I have acknowledged that in an earlier post that this might be a poorly executed order I fail to see why this family's story is the final nail on the coffin with regards to Trump. It could have been a genuine mistake that may not even have anything to do with the EO at all. I fail to see how a signed EO would enable immigration officials to implement it in such a haphazard manner at all until and unless you have a flight of fantasy and believe that everything just went to chaos because of the EO. 

I find it odd mainly because the shit happening at the airports was unpredictable. The EO logically should not have resulted in the kind of implementation. 

I've gone through several stories and they all seem to have holes. So yes I am deviating towards most of these being fake at this point. They might be real and actually happened but may not have anything to do with the EO at all.


----------



## Headliner

ecclesiastes10 said:


> your welcome
> http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...-order-no-muslim-ban-separating-fact-hysteria
> 
> also did a lil reading around and it appears that not only did Obama do something similar with Iraq refugees for 6 months unlike the 72 days of trump he also formulated the list, aka OBAMA and his TEAM picked those countries, President Trump just implemented it...
> also read this guy timeline, really informative, its public n u don't have to sign up to c
> https://twitter.com/seanmdav
> those countries are terror plague with isis fighters who threaten to infilitrate refuge program to infilict harm on the west... plus this isn't permerant. Smart if u ask me.





> *Several dozen suspected terrorist bombmakers, including some believed to have targeted American troops, may have mistakenly been allowed to move to the United States as war refugees, according to FBI agents investigating the remnants of roadside bombs recovered from Iraq and Afghanistan.*
> 
> The discovery in 2009 of two al Qaeda-Iraq terrorists living as refugees in Bowling Green, Kentucky -- who later admitted in court that they'd attacked U.S. soldiers in Iraq -- prompted the bureau to assign hundreds of specialists to an around-the-clock effort aimed at checking its archive of 100,000 improvised explosive devices collected in the war zones, known as IEDs, for other suspected terrorists' fingerprints.
> 
> "We are currently supporting dozens of current counter-terrorism investigations like that," FBI Agent Gregory Carl, director of the Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical Center (TEDAC), said in an ABC News interview to be broadcast tonight on ABC News' "World News with Diane Sawyer" and "Nightline".
> 
> "I wouldn't be surprised if there were many more than that," said House Committee on Homeland Security Chairman Michael McCaul. "And these are trained terrorists in the art of bombmaking that are inside the United States; and quite frankly, from a homeland security perspective, that really concerns me."
> 
> As a result of the Kentucky case, the State Department stopped processing Iraq refugees for six months in 2011, federal officials told ABC News – even for many who had heroically helped U.S. forces as interpreters and intelligence assets. One Iraqi who had aided American troops was assassinated before his refugee application could be processed, because of the immigration delays, two U.S. officials said. In 2011, fewer than 10,000 Iraqis were resettled as refugees in the U.S., half the number from the year before, State Department statistics show.


The difference between the Obama ban and Trump's ban is that Obama's was based on FBI intelligence which just happened to be during the middle of the Iraq war. I'm not supporting the Obama ban, but at least he had intelligence support for his reasoning. 

If Trump is going to ban 7 countries then he should have announced FBI or CIA intelligence to go with it. Instead he just flew off the handle and people, especially Muslims/brown people are taking it as discrimination. 


Carte Blanche said:


> I mean, how many Trump supporters have asked you liberals to explain why Obama decided to send 221 million to Palestinians literally hours before he left office? Would you have an answer to that question? Like a serious one that actually tells us exactly why Obama made that decision.


My guess would be political reasons and a move done on purpose to piss off his opponents on the way out. Politics is a dirty game. That money was part of their regularly scheduled aid anyway that was originally approved by Congress before getting put on hold.


----------



## Miss Sally

Carte Blanche said:


> Nah. Wouldn't worry about all these cases at all because people are detained at the airports every single day and cases are tried every single day. It's not news. It's not fake news. It's just being reported as news for the first time.
> 
> I also don't know why anti-Trumpers come in here expecting a response from Trump supporters about every little thing. Even though I consider it childish and disingenuine - because the questioners aren't actually looking for discussion or debate. But just another one of the dozens of places where they virtue signal and look for that GOTCHA! moment. Serious people ask questions and try to find the answers for it themselves.
> 
> I mean, how many Trump supporters have asked you liberals to explain why Obama decided to send 221 million to Palestinians literally hours before he left office? Would you have an answer to that question? Like a serious one that actually tells us exactly why Obama made that decision.
> 
> I'll say what I think and I'm pretty most people in here will actually not read what I've said because a lot of Trump supporters have spent nearly 2 years explaining the polices, their impact and the reasoning behind them for nearly 2 years and they haven't been read.
> 
> While I don't see any reason at all why my opinion is important to you guys (until and unless you're all looking for that GOTCHA moment), I will still answer despite the fact that I know full well the outrage is completely disingenuous.
> 
> I think and this is my opinion is that the main reason why Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Afghanistan have been excluded from this list is that there are thousands of people - american and non-american working in these three countries that are american citizens and non-american citizens. Ultimately, I can bet that this decision was taken to help American citizens instead of hurt non-citizens. There was already an explanation given that these countries have "business interests". And who are those involved in the business interests: American Citizens and possibly even immigrants.
> 
> None of the countries that were on the list have significant ties with America in such a way that would impact thousands of American citizens and American businesses and contractors - but at the same time those countries are and have always been high risk areas. Also, it's not a permanent ban. It's a 3 month ban on non-citizens and 120 day ban on NEW refugee applications.
> 
> These are all things that other countries have done to others and continue to do to each other. I mean ffs Canada a few years ago ended VISA ties with Dubai over a spat between Airlines that lasted months. Not a single muslim country allows its citzens to travel to Israel and definitely do not want any Jews visiting their shitholes. Pakistan and India do not allow leisurely travel. The list is pretty huge and yet here we are acting like it's America's moral obligation to allow everyone from everywhere all the damn time.
> 
> We have no such moral obligation and Americans will and should not be guilted into it by a bunch of Non Americans who are not effected by this decision. Like are you fucking kidding me? You have not spent a single penny of your money on the people you're crying for and you will not do it. You just want to give the impression that you care, when you do not.
> 
> Much more so than in any other muslim countries. This has been a pragmatic decision in the end and I'm guessing that an EO can be passed without the president's agreement or consent ---- which in other words would be a compromise. He did the same thing with regards to torture - and that is a GOOD thing. Compromises are good. Nuanced strategies are good. We don't live in a black and white world. If he'd blanket banned from all countries he'd be a fascist dictator. He made a nuanced decision keeping in mind the thousands of Americans in some Muslim countries working on projects, he's a hypocrite. You guys have already made up your mind - why are you even bothering pretending to look like you're looking to get an explanation at all? Why keep up the pretense? What does it matter?
> 
> Anyways, it's not like most of you would actually read or agree with this, but since you all can't sleep now because of those poor detainees at airports (people are detained at airports every single day), and must, absolutely must have an answer to your questions. I've given you guys the answer. And I don't give a shit if it's satisfactory or not or if you've skimmed through my post for that one GOTCHA moment that you came in here looking for. Whatever the outcome, I hope this feeds your narcissism.
> 
> Also, for the Aussies and Canadians in here. Did you guys know that the Aussies have been trying to send BOATLOADS of refugees to Canada and have kept them outside their country in BOATS and haven't even given them permission to land, and that Canada has been selling billions of dollars of arms to Saudi Arabia who are at war with Yemen? Enough with this virtue signalling already.
> 
> Why don't you guys spend more time worrying about the shit your countries are up to and spend less time on social media getting riled up about America and its president. It really is now disingenuous and just a whole lot of misdirected anger and mob mentality.


Great post, this needed to be said. So much talk and no walk from these people.


----------



## Reaper

Headliner said:


> The difference between the Obama ban and Trump's ban is that Obama's was based on FBI intelligence which just happened to be during the middle of the Iraq war. I'm not supporting the Obama ban, but at least he had intelligence support for his reasoning.
> 
> If Trump is going to ban 7 countries then he should have announced FBI or CIA intelligence to go with it. Instead he just flew off the handle and people, especially Muslims/brown people are taking it as discrimination.
> 
> My guess would be political reasons and a move done on purpose to piss off his opponents on the way out. Politics is a dirty game. That money was part of their regularly scheduled aid anyway that was originally approved by Congress before getting put on hold.


The thing is that while it could be a routine payment, and I'm OK with that, there were a few other orders that Obama tried to get through knowing full well that all it would do would increase the workload of the next government of they decided to go against those orders.

I'm not gonna comment on whether or not that's typical or even bad because I don't know... It's just that the level of scrutiny of the two leaders is very partisan. 

While I can easily sit here and claim that I dislike several of Trump's policies [such as tariffs and economic regulations on free trade and continued bombing without at least taking a small break] I've seen nothing but support for Obama from foreigners in this thread who I don't mind but I've just noticed camp out waiting for the next thing to virtue signal about. 

I don't mind answering questions or engaging in lengthy back and forth. I really don't. But the thing is if you're neutral or want to appear as neutral you can do your own research and see what the other side is saying. There are better commentators out there than us in this thread. We shouldn't be the primary source of information on Trump's policies and actions. Maybe it's time people actually did start watching Fox news for a bit. I used to think it was the racist network and wouldn't be caught dead watching it but now I've realized that just like everyone else there are some good opinions on there and some bad. My point is... Get news from multiple sources on the same subject. 

It's what I used to tell people about the Quran when I was still Muslim. Read the 14 translations and make the decision. We are living in a climate where we have to now do the same for every single piece of news out there. :draper2


----------



## stevefox1200

I feel bad for the DHS 

Those fuckers have zero clue on how to actually follow this order and trying to find a way to do it without being buried in paper work till the next election


----------



## yeahbaby!

Hey if Trumpsters in here just want to spruik him and worship his every move go for it. Don't blame others for wanting answers for questionable moves - if you can't take the heat, ignore it or get out of the kitchen. Don't pretend like if it wasn't Hillary doing all this you'd be all over her like flies on shit.


----------



## Tater

Tater said:


> Shame on people for discriminating against Islam. All religions from that region should be treated equally. Just to be fair, we should extend the ban to _all _believers of ancient Middle Eastern mythological bullshit.
> 
> :trumpout





heel_turn said:


> *Then you would be banning Christians themselves.* Which I believe is a good thing. Their religion is batshit crazy about some middle eastern virgin telling them to eat at arby's and molest children.


----------



## yeahbaby!

ecclesiastes10 said:


> your welcome
> http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...-order-no-muslim-ban-separating-fact-hysteria
> 
> also did a lil reading around and it appears that not only did Obama do something similar with Iraq refugees for 6 months unlike the 72 days of trump he also formulated the list, aka OBAMA and his TEAM picked those countries, President Trump just implemented it...
> also read this guy timeline, really informative, its public n u don't have to sign up to c
> https://twitter.com/seanmdav
> those countries are terror plague with isis fighters who threaten to infilitrate refuge program to infilict harm on the west... plus this isn't permerant. Smart if u ask me.


None of that seems to explain why all those other TERROR-laden countries were left off the list. I don't care if Obama picked the countries, if that's the case he made a mistake by missing of them as well. Trump compounded it.


----------



## Seb

InUtero said:


> Now is more important than ever for the UK to say 'refugees welcome'.


Do you live in the real world? You sound like an extreme version Jeremy Corbyn. We are not a country with unlimited land mass and funds. 

We are already over-populated - which is why it can be very difficult to get a GP appointment, the NHS is massively over-strained despite the enormous money thrown at it. More demand for housing now means it's extremely difficult for any young person to buy their first home, schools are becoming more and more crowded and parents aren't always putting their kids where they want, our welfare bill is going up and up - not just due to people being lazy but there are not enough jobs for the amount of people there are. This has a knock on effect which also means wages have stagnated for the working class (minimum wage jobs in particular - employers can easily replace anyone, which also means they get away with treating people like crap) - all this while the cost of living is rising and we are still paying off a huge deficit. Cost of living goes up? Means less people can afford to go to Uni. Means even more people go for those low paying/minimum wage jobs. The deficit itself also leading to cuts in public service funding, such as the emergency services, who are having to deal with more people now, not less - despite all these cuts. It's all a trickle down effect and a lot of it is due to us being over-populated.

These are just some issues but there's plenty more. I suspect you're young and possibly not all of the above affect you yet. 

These are the issues that actually affect voters and their day-to-day lives - it's what's on their minds when go to the polling stations, and that is why Brexit happened and it's partly why Trump happened (I say partly as America has their own/different issues).

Notice how I didn't bring up anything to do with Radical Islam/ fear of terrorism - which is also an issue on a lot of people's minds when it comes to immigration. We already have a sensible policy on places like Syria in going in directly and taking the most vulnerable, and thankfully with Brexit we will have our own say over our borders again rather than being an open door to the EU, which just leads to far more people coming in to the UK from the EU than vice versa, despite us only being a small part of the EU.

There are plenty of other safe/prosperous places for refugees to go that aren't the UK or the US - like nearby Asian/Middle Eastern countries.


----------



## themuel1

Seb said:


> Do you live in the real world? You sound like an extreme version Jeremy Corbyn. We are not a country with unlimited land mass and funds.
> 
> We are already over-populated - which is why it can be very difficult to get a GP appointment, the NHS is massively over-strained despite the enormous money thrown at it. More demand for housing now means it's extremely difficult for any young person to buy their first home, schools are becoming more and more crowded and parents aren't always putting their kids where they want, our welfare bill is going up and up - not just due to people being lazy but there are not enough jobs for the amount of people there are. This has a knock on effect which also means wages have stagnated for the working class (minimum wage jobs in particular - employers can easily replace anyone, which also means they get away with treating people like crap) - all this while the cost of living is rising and we are still paying off a huge deficit. Cost of living goes up? Means less people can afford to go to Uni. Means even more people go for those low paying/minimum wage jobs. The deficit itself also leading to cuts in public service funding, such as the emergency services, who are having to deal with more people now, not less - despite all these cuts. It's all a trickle down effect and a lot of it is due to us being over-populated.
> 
> These are just some issues but there's plenty more. I suspect you're young and possibly not all of the above affect you yet.
> 
> These are the issues that actually affect voters and their day-to-day lives - it's what's on their minds when go to the polling stations, and that is why Brexit happened and it's partly why Trump happened (I say partly as America has their own/different issues).
> 
> Notice how I didn't bring up anything to do with Radical Islam/ fear of terrorism - which is also an issue on a lot of people's minds when it comes to immigration. We already have a sensible policy on places like Syria in going in directly and taking the most vulnerable, and thankfully with Brexit we will have our own say over our borders again rather than being an open door to the EU, which just leads to far more people coming in to the UK from the EU than vice versa, despite us only being a small part of the EU.
> 
> There are plenty of other safe/prosperous places for refugees to go that aren't the UK or the US - like nearby Asian/Middle Eastern countries.


No space; overpopulated; services overstretched as it is; housing shortage; wage structure fucked up; Not anything to do with religion, ethnicity etc. 

You nailed it dude.


----------



## DesolationRow

It would certainly appear that the Donald Trump administration sought to adopt the Barack Obama administration's list of seven nations on the "countries of concern" and simply take the preexisting situation as the rationale for targeting these seven countries' respective flows of immigration.

Apparent sins of omission are generally more difficult to properly judge than sins of commission. While expanding the list of "countries of concern" to include the Saudi Arabias of the world makes a great deal of sense, due to the earlier point the single most bothersome and unfortunate move the nascent Trump administration has made was directly aiding and continuing to finance Saudi Arabia's barbaric war on the Yemeni people. 

For the sake of consistency, I personally never attacked Obama for leaving Iraq when he did. For one thing, that date was established by George W. Bush and the Bush administration long before Obama became president, and secondly, it does not matter what date the mass U.S. force left Iraq, whether it was in 2008 or 2009 or 2011 or 2025. When the mass U.S. force leaves Iraq, Iraq will become a cauldron of sectarian conflict and pervasive persecution and turmoil. The Saddam Hussein genie is not coming back to the proverbial bottle and the best "Iraq" as a country can expect is probably about 15,000 combatant-and-civilian deaths in the carnage unleashed there every year and a half or so, almost like clockwork, going forward, for the foreseeable future. In that same vein, Trump's rhetoric about Obama being the father of ISIS was a major misdiagnosis, though it was fair to lambaste Obama for following policies which enriched and expanded ISIS and the influence thereof. 

On the plus side of the ledger, good to see Trump have what were evidently solid phone calls with the likes of Francois Hollande and Vladimir Putin. In the case of the latter particularly it sounded like both men want to see U.S./Russian relations to finally thaw out again, which is genuinely encouraging. 

Lockheed Martin, according to the rumor mill to which I have been listening over the past hour or two, is probably going to save U.S. taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars after some major arm-twisting by The Donald, so, again, kudos to The Donald on that front.

This is also quite good:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-ethics-idUSKBN15C0VX



> Trump puts five-year lobbying ban on his political appointees


In spite of enjoying Trump's frown-heavy verbal barrages against corrupt media and political institutions and still feeling elated that he defeated the Cruella de Vil of American politics, if he is a failure as president, if he goes back on his plainspoken words concerning how the American empire is run around the world, for instance, or if he actually does institute policies which are truly nightmarish expansions of American deep state surveillance on citizens here (an actual possibility since even his best-sounding rhetoric on that issue was largely unenticing at best, and his worst rhetoric genuinely terrible), etcetera, I will say so. The worst presidents ever generally did a few things right, and the best presidents were far from infallible. Only a week in, and Trump's run has been dizzying in a mostly positive way thus far. We should all write in to the White House and demand that these immigration freezes are applied to Saudi Arabia. Will pen a letter Monday and send it to The Donald on Tuesday! They expect one of us in the presidential mailbox, right, @Neuron? The fire rises! 

Think I'll also mail The Donald a new comb. 

One last thing before I take the cursor and click over "POST QUCK REPLY": Victoria Nuland is GOOONE! :mark: Even if The Donald accomplishes nothing else, seeing her run away like a scalded dog (/Jim Ross) is a wonderful sight to see. Obama's top neocon is now neogone! :mark: Time to make the U.S. State Department great again. :lol


----------



## Marv95

The issue with Saudi Arabia is twofold:
1)They don't have refugees.
2)We do business with them. Trump wants this country to eventually become self dependent on energy and right now we are still relying on the Middle East for oil.

Oh and Trump: No more EOs until you get a cabinet. Especially an AG.


----------



## amhlilhaus

Carte Blanche said:


> The thing is that while it could be a routine payment, and I'm OK with that, there were a few other orders that Obama tried to get through knowing full well that all it would do would increase the workload of the next government of they decided to go against those orders.
> 
> I'm not gonna comment on whether or not that's typical or even bad because I don't know... It's just that the level of scrutiny of the two leaders is very partisan.
> 
> While I can easily sit here and claim that I dislike several of Trump's policies [such as tariffs and economic regulations on free trade and continued bombing without at least taking a small break] I've seen nothing but support for Obama from foreigners in this thread who I don't mind but I've just noticed camp out waiting for the next thing to virtue signal about.
> 
> I don't mind answering questions or engaging in lengthy back and forth. I really don't. But the thing is if you're neutral or want to appear as neutral you can do your own research and see what the other side is saying. There are better commentators out there than us in this thread. We shouldn't be the primary source of information on Trump's policies and actions. Maybe it's time people actually did start watching Fox news for a bit. I used to think it was the racist network and wouldn't be caught dead watching it but now I've realized that just like everyone else there are some good opinions on there and some bad. My point is... Get news from multiple sources on the same subject.
> 
> It's what I used to tell people about the Quran when I was still Muslim. Read the 14 translations and make the decision. We are living in a climate where we have to now do the same for every single piece of news out there. :draper2


What obama did is unprecedented. He did everything possible to make things more difficult for the new president. Previous administrations basically laid low going out, except for their pardons.

Obama? Nah, he did everything from hampering energy production to aggravating russia.

Just reinforced the fact he was a horrible president, and a worse human being.


----------



## BruiserKC

Courtesy of the Department of Homeland Security...their response in regards to the temporary stay presented by Judge Ann Donnelly in regards to Trump's EO on the temporary ban. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*The Department of Homeland Security will continue to enforce all of President Trump’s Executive Orders in a manner that ensures the safety and security of the American people. President Trump’s Executive Orders remain in place—prohibited travel will remain prohibited, and the U.S. government retains its right to revoke visas at any time if required for national security or public safety. President Trump’s Executive Order affects a minor portion of international travelers, and is a first step towards reestablishing control over America's borders and national security.

Approximately 80 million international travelers enter the United States every year. Yesterday, less than one percent of the more than 325,000 international air travelers who arrive every day were inconvenienced while enhanced security measures were implemented. These individuals went through enhanced security screenings and are being processed for entry to the United States, consistent with our immigration laws and judicial orders.

The Department of Homeland Security will faithfully execute the immigration laws, and we will treat all of those we encounter humanely and with professionalism. No foreign national in a foreign land, without ties to the United States, has any unfettered right to demand entry into the United States or to demand immigration benefits in the United States. 

The Department of Homeland Security will comply with judicial orders; faithfully enforce our immigration laws, and implement President Trump’s Executive Orders to ensure that those entering the United States do not pose a threat to our country or the American people.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## Miss Sally

Seb said:


> Do you live in the real world? You sound like an extreme version Jeremy Corbyn. We are not a country with unlimited land mass and funds.
> 
> We are already over-populated - which is why it can be very difficult to get a GP appointment, the NHS is massively over-strained despite the enormous money thrown at it. More demand for housing now means it's extremely difficult for any young person to buy their first home, schools are becoming more and more crowded and parents aren't always putting their kids where they want, our welfare bill is going up and up - not just due to people being lazy but there are not enough jobs for the amount of people there are. This has a knock on effect which also means wages have stagnated for the working class (minimum wage jobs in particular - employers can easily replace anyone, which also means they get away with treating people like crap) - all this while the cost of living is rising and we are still paying off a huge deficit. Cost of living goes up? Means less people can afford to go to Uni. Means even more people go for those low paying/minimum wage jobs. The deficit itself also leading to cuts in public service funding, such as the emergency services, who are having to deal with more people now, not less - despite all these cuts. It's all a trickle down effect and a lot of it is due to us being over-populated.
> 
> These are just some issues but there's plenty more. I suspect you're young and possibly not all of the above affect you yet.
> 
> These are the issues that actually affect voters and their day-to-day lives - it's what's on their minds when go to the polling stations, and that is why Brexit happened and it's partly why Trump happened (I say partly as America has their own/different issues).
> 
> Notice how I didn't bring up anything to do with Radical Islam/ fear of terrorism - which is also an issue on a lot of people's minds when it comes to immigration. We already have a sensible policy on places like Syria in going in directly and taking the most vulnerable, and thankfully with Brexit we will have our own say over our borders again rather than being an open door to the EU, which just leads to far more people coming in to the UK from the EU than vice versa, despite us only being a small part of the EU.
> 
> There are plenty of other safe/prosperous places for refugees to go that aren't the UK or the US - like nearby Asian/Middle Eastern countries.


Seb there is an easy fix to this, Brits pay more taxes and stop having kids, build more houses on your farmland, can import food you know! now you can keep bringing in more and more refugees to replace yourselves! 

Besides where would the refugees go? The rich gulf states that are Islam and have similar culture and language? No way! they already took in sooooo many refugees, besides incompatible cultures is our strength!

(Anyone wondering, not actually serious.) >


----------



## Stinger Fan

heel_turn said:


> Then you would be banning Christians themselves. Which I believe is a good thing. Their religion is batshit crazy about some middle eastern virgin telling them to eat at arby's and molest children.


Christians were the most persecuted group in all of 2016 with Muslims being the main perpetrator behind it. Over 1 million Christians no longer exist in Syria alone be it from killings or fleeing. Christians and the Yazidis are getting extinct in the middle east based on their religion and its only getting worse each year. If you can find Christian terrorist organizations and show me what they've done, I'll be gladly behind you on that topic but it isn't the Christians who are constantly starting fights with everyone in the middle east, nor are they the ones sending people to commit crimes in France and Germany. Which btw, saw the worst casualties among terrorist attacks this past couple years than the previous 80 combined. 

Also , notice how you want people to be people to be accepting and respectful towards Muslims while at the same time going out of your way to attack Christians. It's quite hypocritical , it's also quite hilarious how no one seemed to bat an eye when Obama banned Iraqis from coming into the USA and purposely underrepresented Christians when taking in refugees. But that's none of my business


----------



## Tater

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/674249808610066433
unk2


----------



## Reaper

yeahbaby! said:


> Hey if Trumpsters in here just want to spruik him and worship his every move go for it. Don't blame others for wanting answers for questionable moves - if you can't take the heat, ignore it or get out of the kitchen. Don't pretend like if it wasn't Hillary doing all this you'd be all over her like flies on shit.


You're a non serious troll. No one has ignored more serious posts and answers to all questions than you in this thread and your lack of ability to grasp even the simplest of concepts betrays that all you have left is an agenda to remain steadfast in your religious-like, child-like understanding of global politics.

Soon ...


----------



## KingCosmos

Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/674249808610066433
> unk2


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/825687233340522496


----------



## TomahawkJock

Carte, in regards to your first screenshot, I think liberals are implying that if you are going to do the Muslim ban, you might as well be consistent with it and go the whole way with other countries, especially Saudi Arabia. But that topic has been discussed in detail here so I won't go further into that.


----------



## Reaper

TomahawkJock said:


> Carte, in regards to your first screenshot, I think liberals are implying that if you are going to do the Muslim ban, you might as well be consistent with it and go the whole way with other countries, especially Saudi Arabia. But that topic has been discussed in detail here so I won't go further into that.


I've addressed this too in my long rant I posted last night. 

Implementing a blanket banning is actually counter-productive to American interests. It's also not how civilized nations capable of making nuanced decisions should act. To go for that kind of "consistency" is essentially admitting that the government has some sort of Borderline Personality Disorder where they see every decision as black or white. Seeing the world that way is essentially a mental disorder. 

The fact that it isn't a blanket ban on all muslim countries and muslims means that factors other than religion were considered which makes this constitutional. If you go "all the way" then you're doing exactly what the liberals thought you'd do and that would be unconstitutional. The thing is that it's the liberals that are believing this to be a blanket *muslim *ban and therefore cannot accept that there are perhaps, other and more legit reasons for the *temporary halt*, which isn't even a ban. For 90 days, some travelers from some countries will be inconvenienced. 

It's not like anyone came in here other than us Trump supporters talking about the fact that Australia has been turning away boatloads of refugees and begging Canadians and Americans to take them off their hands which interestingly Canada also refused to do. 

These countries and its politicians need to stop virtue signalling and guilting Americans into having some sort of moral obligation that they themselves don't really feel imo.


----------



## Stinger Fan

Apparently the countries who got banned were Obama's idea . 


> *Friendly Reminder: Obama Selected The List Of Muslim Countries in Trump’s Executive Order*
> 
> According to the draft copy of Trump's executive order, the countries whose citizens are barred entirely from entering the United States is based on a bill that Obama signed into law in December 2015.
> Obama signed the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act as part of an omnibus spending bill. The legislation restricted access to the Visa Waiver Program, which allows citizens from 38 countries who are visiting the United States for less than 90 days to enter without a visa.
> Though outside groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and NIAC Action — the sister organization of the National Iranian American Council — opposed the act, the bipartisan bill passed through Congress with little pushback.
> At the initial signing of the restrictions, foreigners who would normally be deemed eligible for a visa waiver were denied if they had visited Iran, Syria, Sudan or Iraq in the past five years or held dual citizenship from one of those countries.
> In February 2016, the Obama administration added Libya, Somali and Yemen to the list of countries one could not have visited — but allowed dual citizens of those countries who had not traveled there access to the Visa Waiver Program. Dual citizens of Syria, Sudan, Iraq and Iran are still ineligible, however.
> So, in a nutshell, Obama restricted visa waivers for those seven Muslim-majority countries — Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya and Yemen — and now, Trump is looking to bar immigration and visitors from the same list of countries.


www.townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa...led-muslim-ban-are-ones-obama-choose-n2278021


----------



## TomahawkJock

Carte Blanche said:


> I've addressed this too in my long rant I posted last night.
> 
> Implementing a blanket banning is actually counter-productive to American interests. It's also not how civilized nations capable of making nuanced decisions should act. To go for that kind of "consistency" is essentially admitting that the government has some sort of Borderline Personality Disorder where they see every decision as black or white. Seeing the world that way is essentially a mental disorder.
> 
> The fact that it isn't a blanket ban on all muslim countries and muslims means that factors other than religion were considered which makes this constitutional. If you go "all the way" then you're doing exactly what the liberals thought you'd do and that would be unconstitutional. The thing is that it's the liberals that are believing this to be a blanket *muslim *ban and therefore cannot accept that there are perhaps, other and more legit reasons for the *temporary halt*, which isn't even a ban. For 30 days, some travelers from some countries will be inconvenienced.
> 
> It's not like anyone came in here other than us Trump supporters talking about the fact that Australia has been turning away boatloads of refugees and begging Canadians and Americans to take them off their hands which interestingly Canada also refused to do.
> 
> These countries and its citizens need to stop virtue signalling and guilting Americans into having some sort of moral obligation that they themselves don't really feel imo.


That's fair. I was just playing devil's advocate. I was just mostly pointing out why some might want Trump to go all the way. I certainly wouldn't agree with that stance though. I personally think Saudi Arabia should be part of it due to the type of rule they have in that country.

In general, am I for the ban? Not really but it's not because I just wholeheartedly support letting everyone in this country and this ban stops that from doing so. I just don't support it because I don't think it was needed with the current system in place. (Note that I couldn't find your article about our vetting system. I tried.) Also as you say its a temporary halt, but is everything going to suddenly be fixed during that time and when its over everything will be a-okay and our vetting system is going to be completely and drastically overhauled? Just seems to be causing a lot of bureaucratic problems and political divisiveness right now when it isn't needed. 

I will let you all know that am I an International Relations major and Spanish minor. I've worked with Mexican students at my university to help them adjust to American culture. I've also worked a little bit with refugees in my city. I do have some bias here when it comes to all of this. Granted, the middle east is in no way my expertise. I know far more about Latin America (been to Costa Rica and going to Mexico for all of this summer). What do I think we should do with the Middle Eastern refugee crisis? Cooperate with other countries to (for a short time) house the refugees in countries near the problem. However, by doing that, we are financially burdening those countries and putting them at risk (if you believe that many of the refugees are extremists that is) and if we don't find a long term answer to the crisis quickly enough, those countries will expect us to take on more and more refugees since they can no longer handle it. So we eventually do take on more refugees or we let the people in the area die... And that's a hard pill to swallow for me. But again, I'm biased.


----------



## Reaper

Pre-amble: I enjoy talking to you 



TomahawkJock said:


> That's fair. I was just playing devil's advocate. I was just mostly pointing out why some might want Trump to go all the way. I certainly wouldn't agree with that stance though. I personally think Saudi Arabia should be part of it due to the type of rule they have in that country.


I can't force myself to agree with the banning of people from Saudi Arabia. I will however agree that picking on the smaller muslim states (outside of Iran) can reasonably be justified as partly disingenuous. I also think that there might be something to do with Trump being limited by not being able to ban people from countries that weren't already on some sort of intelligence report potentially because of not wanting to get into an area of stepping on congress's toes. Someone with better knowledge about this could intercede and give me an education here (Looking at you @BruiserKC) 



> In general, am I for the ban? Not really but it's not because I just wholeheartedly support letting everyone in this country and this ban stops that from doing so. *I just don't support it because I don't think it was needed with the current system in place. (Note that I couldn't find your article about our vetting system. I tried.) *Also as you say its a temporary halt, but is everything going to suddenly be fixed during that time and when its over everything will be a-okay and our vetting system is going to be completely and drastically overhauled? Just seems to be causing a lot of bureaucratic problems and political divisiveness right now when it isn't needed.


It's need is something that people will disagree on and they don't need to agree imo ... it really depends on who you ask. There are people who are rightly justified in asking for a ban from countries which have citizens with values that are as far away from American values as possible. The other side to this is that Trump is establishing an early legacy of letting his supporters know that he meant every word of his promises. SO from a need point of view, there's multiple things here at stake. We can accept the need if we acknowledge that there is a problem. The liberal difficulty strives from the fact that they refuse to accept that there is a problem in the first place. Most outright reject that there is a problem with multi-culturalism and others have even come out in support of outright Islamist Radicals like Linda Sarsour. We're living in a climate where certain people are pushing a very dangerous agenda and even if a ban on a few countries doesn't achieve anything practical in terms of terrorism curtailment, I think it sends a strong message that the current government is aware of the fact that Islam is a dangerous ideology and people supporting it are reckless. There's many ways to ascertain the need of this halt. 

At the same time, can they establish a stronger vetting process in 90 days? Yes, they absolutely can. The government is capable of getting things done in that amount of time. Immigration being one of America's oldest institutions is also one of its most well run institutions, so all that needs to be done is a few small tweaks anyways. 



> I will let you all know that am I an International Relations major and Spanish minor. I've worked with Mexican students at my university to help them adjust to American culture. I've also worked a little bit with refugees in my city. I do have some bias here when it comes to all of this. Granted, the middle east is in no way my expertise. I know far more about Latin America (been to Costa Rica and going to Mexico for all of this summer). What do I think we should do with the Middle Eastern refugee crisis? Cooperate with other countries to (for a short time) house the refugees in countries near the problem. However, by doing that, we are financially burdening those countries and putting them at risk (if you believe that many of the refugees are extremists that is) and if we don't find a long term answer to the crisis quickly enough, those countries will expect us to take on more and more refugees since they can no longer handle it. So we eventually do take on more refugees or we let the people in the area die... And that's a hard pill to swallow for me. But again, I'm biased.


And I'm a minority in the middle of gaining my permanent residency. I still have to file my final paperwork and tbh I am somewhat apprehensive too. However, I will file my paperwork and prove to them that I'm no one they should be concerned about. Nothing that has come out of the government has indicated to me that I'll be denied my permanent residency simply because I have Mohammad in my name and I've combed it with a fine-tooth comb :draper2 

TBH, you actually seem a lot less biased than the people who come in here and actually claim to be unbiased. Kudos.


----------



## Beatles123

HAPPENING!


----------



## 2 Ton 21

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-steve-bannon-national-security-council-2017-1

The joint chiefs of staff and the national intelligence director no longer have permanent seats on the National Security Council. They will attend by invitation only. Steve Bannon now has a permanent seat.


----------



## BruiserKC

Carte Blanche said:


> Pre-amble: I enjoy talking to you
> 
> 
> 
> I can't force myself to agree with the banning of people from Saudi Arabia. I will however agree that picking on the smaller muslim states (outside of Iran) can reasonably be justified as partly disingenuous. I also think that there might be something to do with Trump being limited by not being able to ban people from countries that weren't already on some sort of intelligence report potentially because of not wanting to get into an area of stepping on congress's toes. Someone with better knowledge about this could intercede and give me an education here (Looking at you @BruiserKC)
> 
> 
> 
> It's need is something that people will disagree on and they don't need to agree imo ... it really depends on who you ask. There are people who are rightly justified in asking for a ban from countries which have citizens with values that are as far away from American values as possible. The other side to this is that Trump is establishing an early legacy of letting his supporters know that he meant every word of his promises. SO from a need point of view, there's multiple things here at stake. We can accept the need if we acknowledge that there is a problem. The liberal difficulty strives from the fact that they refuse to accept that there is a problem in the first place. Most outright reject that there is a problem with multi-culturalism and others have even come out in support of outright Islamist Radicals like Linda Sarsour. We're living in a climate where certain people are pushing a very dangerous agenda and even if a ban on a few countries doesn't achieve anything practical in terms of terrorism curtailment, I think it sends a strong message that the current government is aware of the fact that Islam is a dangerous ideology and people supporting it are reckless. There's many ways to ascertain the need of this halt.
> 
> At the same time, can they establish a stronger vetting process in 90 days? Yes, they absolutely can. The government is capable of getting things done in that amount of time. Immigration being one of America's oldest institutions is also one of its most well run institutions, so all that needs to be done is a few small tweaks anyways.
> 
> 
> 
> And I'm a minority in the middle of gaining my permanent residency. I still have to file my final paperwork and tbh I am somewhat apprehensive too. However, I will file my paperwork and prove to them that I'm no one they should be concerned about. Nothing that has come out of the government has indicated to me that I'll be denied my permanent residency simply because I have Mohammad in my name and I've combed it with a fine-tooth comb :draper2
> 
> TBH, you actually seem a lot less biased than the people who come in here and actually claim to be unbiased. Kudos.


Trump doesn't care one bit about stepping on anyone's toes regardless of the situation where he deems it necessary. Saudi Arabia's government doesn't openly endorse terror like the nations on the ban list. Money might end up with some groups (same with the UAE) but the government itself is not embracing terrorism. That is why they are not on the list. 

Personally I think we should shut down ALL immigration temporarily across the board so we aren't perceived to be discriminatory but that's just my opinion.


----------



## virus21




----------



## TomahawkJock

I suppose "officially" Saudi Arabia haven't embraced terrorism but they are certainly one of the worst governments in the world in terms of political rights and freedoms. Maybe outside forces aren't causing harm to the citizens but the government itself is. Fundamentalist Islam is fucked.

Also, I believe Afghanistan has a lot of terrorist organizations located there now? I was pretty surprised it wasn't on the list.


----------



## Vic Capri

> Phoenix, Arizona - April 12, 2009
> 
> Little Rock, Arkansas - June 1, 2009
> 
> Fort Hood, Texas - November 5, 2009
> 
> Boston, Massachusetts - April 15, 2013
> 
> Moore, Oklahoma - September 24, 2014
> 
> New York, New York - October 23, 2014
> 
> Brooklyn, New York - December 20, 2014
> 
> Chattanooga, Tennessee - July 16, 2015
> 
> San Bernardino, California- December 14, 2015
> 
> Orlando, Florida - June 12, 2016
> 
> New York, New York - September 17, 2016
> 
> Saint Cloud, Minnesota - September 17, 2016
> 
> Columbus, Ohio - November 28, 2016
> 
> Ft. Lauderdale, Florida - January 6, 2017


Religion of "peace".

- Vic


----------



## Lady Eastwood

I haven't read any of the previous posts, so, if this has been mentioned already, oh well, but, where was the fucking outrage when Obama put a ban in 2011? It was a 6 month ban on Iraqis, if I remember correctly (my memory blows, so, feel free to correct). No one seemed to give a shit when Obama did it, and I also believe these 7 countries listed were already put together by the Obama administration (again, correct me if I am wrong).

Whenever Trump does something, people lose their shit because they don't like him. President Clinton got a standing ovation when he gave a speech on this topic. I get it, people think Trump is a dickhead in general, but, really, if we are going to be up in arms like tender snowflakes when he does something, we better have been the same when others did it. Otherwise, shut the fuck up.

A little fact, in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, non-Muslims are banned from entering the city. There are other countries who have strict rules on religious backgrounds as well.

It's only a problem when the US does it, though, right?


----------



## Sensei Utero

Seb said:


> Do you live in the real world? You sound like an extreme version Jeremy Corbyn. We are not a country with unlimited land mass and funds.
> 
> We are already over-populated - which is why it can be very difficult to get a GP appointment, the NHS is massively over-strained despite the enormous money thrown at it. More demand for housing now means it's extremely difficult for any young person to buy their first home, schools are becoming more and more crowded and parents aren't always putting their kids where they want, our welfare bill is going up and up - not just due to people being lazy but there are not enough jobs for the amount of people there are. This has a knock on effect which also means wages have stagnated for the working class (minimum wage jobs in particular - employers can easily replace anyone, which also means they get away with treating people like crap) - all this while the cost of living is rising and we are still paying off a huge deficit. Cost of living goes up? Means less people can afford to go to Uni. Means even more people go for those low paying/minimum wage jobs. The deficit itself also leading to cuts in public service funding, such as the emergency services, who are having to deal with more people now, not less - despite all these cuts. It's all a trickle down effect and a lot of it is due to us being over-populated.
> 
> These are just some issues but there's plenty more. I suspect you're young and possibly not all of the above affect you yet.
> 
> These are the issues that actually affect voters and their day-to-day lives - it's what's on their minds when go to the polling stations, and that is why Brexit happened and it's partly why Trump happened (I say partly as America has their own/different issues).
> 
> Notice how I didn't bring up anything to do with Radical Islam/ fear of terrorism - which is also an issue on a lot of people's minds when it comes to immigration. We already have a sensible policy on places like Syria in going in directly and taking the most vulnerable, and thankfully with Brexit we will have our own say over our borders again rather than being an open door to the EU, which just leads to far more people coming in to the UK from the EU than vice versa, despite us only being a small part of the EU.
> 
> There are plenty of other safe/prosperous places for refugees to go that aren't the UK or the US - like nearby Asian/Middle Eastern countries.


Do you? Seems like UKIP, or mainstream media and the like have worked their magic on some. It may not come as any surprise that I am registered with the Labour Party / LabourNI (in Northern Ireland), and I very much support Jeremy Corbyn. Especially due to being a socialist.

Whilst the UK is in dire straits at the moment, it’s important that in times like this, we welcome refugees. The rise of bigotry and racism in the whole of the UK also doesn’t help the cause of people (Britain First, ‘the alt-right’ etc.). Hell, as someone who got a circumcision recently (with my operation being put back twice in the space of five months), I know very well as difficult it is to get a GP appointment. My mother, who works as a nurse for the NHS in Northern Ireland, also knows far too well how much in ruins the NHS is. Not everything you mentioned is down to over-population. That’s just a usual typical comment. It’s nice to see how caring you are of people though when you mention the EU borders (sarcasm). Dark, dark day when the vote came in of the UK leaving the EU. Parts of me can’t wait until it backfires. Thank goodness for Irish passports. Loads of these problems are simply down to the Tory government. Privatisation of the NHS also hasn’t helped.

Voters are also victims of mainstream media. Should’ve seen in Northern Ireland. Absolutely ridiculous some of the propaganda that goes on today, especially from Murdoch-related press. That’s my two cents. Not everything is on foreign people. That’s just an excuse.



CamillePunk said:


> Nothing was written incorrectly. My rep comment was "Cite the racism or sod off". You still have yet to cite a single racist post. My username pertains to my favorite wrestler CM Punk, and is irrelevant to the discussion.
> 
> Islam is not a race, nor would I consider it accurate to call it merely a religion. It's an ideology which prescribes how an entire society should be ruled. It's fundamentally incompatible with the classical liberal ideals of the civilized, superior, western world.
> 
> On the grounds of Islam being much more than a religion, and necessarily opposed to western values, I would consider it not only constitutional for the US but also necessary for the survival of the west that western countries do everything they can to limit Muslim immigration, indefinitely.


Well on my phone here, it appears as 'racism or sod off', so it was written incorrectly. Throughout different pages I've viewed on here, there are parts of racism. Especially from that user 'Lunatic Fringe', as well as other different users. This has been throughout the course of a few weeks here. I could be going through pages. Still, having the word 'Punk' in your name and supporting Trump is just...wrong. Especially when the punk scene is very much against Trump, and anything remotely 'right-wing'. Shame. As a huge music fan, punk truly is dead.

It is a religion. Some may argue that it's a race. I suppose Christianity and the like is an ideology as well?

Also to your last comment. This picture says it all.












Catalanotto said:


> I am not saying every Muslim is a terrorist, I am just saying that the majority these days are Muslims (at least what is reported). Again, as I said, it's sad that innocent people have to suffer, but, regardless, it's a temporary ban to better the US system so ISIS fucks have a harder time getting in. People are acting like the ban is forever. Trump doesn't have an issue with Muslims in general, he has a problem with ISIS, who happen to throw their shit to the US from Muslim countries. Sometimes, you just have to take measures people wont be happy about to try to get an end result. Will it work? Who knows, but, at least someone is trying to do something about it. The problem is that anyone can slip by with no prior links, anyway. Crazy people looking up shit on ISIS on their computers at home, who is monitoring this? People can come in without a shady past and end up being a terrorist.
> 
> 
> Trump is at least sticking to what his campaign was about all along. *He said things he was going to do, and he is doing them. Not many politicians can say that about themselves. People may not like what he is doing, but, can't say he didn't keep his promises so far.* Maybe that whore, Trudeau, can learn a thing or two. I knew from day one that piece of shit was going to get voted in for two main reasons: LOL HE'S SO HOT and legalizing weed, both of which are horseshit reasons to vote a person in.


Yet all that suffer is the innocent. We really do live in troubled times.






*Funny, I haven't seen Mexico pay for that wall yet...*

The amount of right-wing folk in this thread lol. There does seem to be a gang mentality against the left. The amount of green rep (as well as red rep lolz) I've got from people shows that some are afraid to speak their minds on here without being ganged up on. Shame, really. Fuck what folk think. BE THE VOICE OF THE VOICELESS.


----------



## Reaper

TomahawkJock said:


> Also, I believe Afghanistan has a lot of terrorist organizations located there now? I was pretty surprised it wasn't on the list.


Afghanistan only has the one major one and mostly small warring tribes: Taliban has been badly decimated. 

There are some fears of an ISIS and Taliban alliance Afghani Taliban and ISIS have a fundamental disagreement in that Taliban want to be exclusive rulers of Afghanistan the the world and ISIS wants the same thing. Major conflict. 

At the same time, Pakistan has been the single most successful nation in fighting terrorism at this point where they've been able to help decimate the Afghani Taliban and bring the Pakistani Taliban under relative control. 

The war hasn't been won yet, but they're much closer to winning than other Muslim countries because at least they're trying to secularize. Out of all Muslim states, Pakistan is one of the few that despite being right in the heart of the whole terrorism affair has still manage to maintain as much of a secularized government it can.


----------



## Beatles123

InUtero said:


> Do you? Seems like UKIP, or mainstream media and the like have worked their magic on some. It may not come as any surprise that I am registered with the Labour Party / LabourNI (in Northern Ireland), and I very much support Jeremy Corbyn. Especially due to being a socialist.
> 
> Whilst the UK is in dire straits at the moment, it’s important that in times like this, we welcome refugees. The rise of bigotry and racism in the whole of the UK also doesn’t help the cause of people (Britain First, ‘the alt-right’ etc.). Hell, as someone who got a circumcision recently (with my operation being put back twice in the space of five months), I know very well as difficult it is to get a GP appointment. My mother, who works as a nurse for the NHS in Northern Ireland, also knows far too well how much in ruins the NHS is. Not everything you mentioned is down to over-population. That’s just a usual typical comment. It’s nice to see how caring you are of people though when you mention the EU borders (sarcasm). Dark, dark day when the vote came in of the UK leaving the EU. Parts of me can’t wait until it backfires. Thank goodness for Irish passports. Loads of these problems are simply down to the Tory government. Privatisation of the NHS also hasn’t helped.
> 
> Voters are also victims of mainstream media. Should’ve seen in Northern Ireland. Absolutely ridiculous some of the propaganda that goes on today, especially from Murdoch-related press. That’s my two cents. Not everything is on foreign people. That’s just an excuse.
> 
> 
> 
> Well on my phone here, it appears as 'racism or sod off', so it was written incorrectly. Throughout different pages I've viewed on here, there are parts of racism. Especially from that user 'Lunatic Fringe', as well as other different users. This has been throughout the course of a few weeks here. I could be going through pages. Still, having the word 'Punk' in your name and supporting Trump is just...wrong. Especially when the punk scene is very much against Trump, and anything remotely 'right-wing'. Shame. As a huge music fan, punk truly is dead.
> 
> It is a religion. Some may argue that it's a race. I suppose Christianity and the like is an ideology as well?
> 
> Also to your last comment. This picture says it all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet all that suffer is the innocent. We really do live in troubled times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Funny, I haven't seen Mexico pay for that wall yet...*
> 
> The amount of right-wing folk in this thread lol. There does seem to be a gang mentality against the left. The amount of green rep (as well as red rep lolz) I've got from people shows that some are afraid to speak their minds on here without being ganged up on. Shame, really. Fuck what folk think. BE THE VOICE OF VOICELESS.


I've received more red rep in this thread by the same SINGLE lefty than I have in any other thread lol. It goes both ways as far as fear goes.


----------



## TomahawkJock

@InUtero: I like how you just assume @CamillePunk is some Punk rocker. You're probably not In the Utero. Beatles probably isnt a member of the Beatles. I'm not a Jock. Or a Tomahawk. Stop assuming how someone acts simply on their username on a WrestlingForum.


----------



## Sensei Utero

Beatles123 said:


> I've recieved more red rep in this thread by the same SINGLE lefty than I have in any other thread lol


Who's that? Also, John Lennon weeps. Would hate the state of all this.


----------



## Sensei Utero

TomahawkJock said:


> @InUtero: I like how you just assume @CamillePunk is some Punk rocker. You're probably not In the Utero. Beatles probably isnt a member of the Beatles. I'm not a Jock. Or a Tomahawk. Stop assuming how someone acts simply on their username on a WrestlingForum.


I'm probably just stating that being a former punk haha. That word is sensitive to me! To me, you don't use the word 'Punk' when supporting right-wing views.

Unless, I am in the utero...


----------



## Lady Eastwood

He just has it in his name because of CM Punk, cuz, you know, this is a wrestling forum, it's not weird to have wrestling related names incorporated in to your username. Pretty sure he couldn't care less about the music itself, nor is he an actual punk, so, really, grasping at straws, it gets rather boring.


----------



## Beatles123

InUtero said:


> Who's that? Also, John Lennon weeps. Would hate the state of all this.


Funny, you're not the first to claim that.

You will also not be the first to be told by me that I know very much about John Winston Ono-Lennon and I know for a fact he, while perhaps not a Trump style republican, still became a conservative by 1980. (not officially though.)


----------



## TomahawkJock

Carte Blanche said:


> Afghanistan only has the one major one and mostly small warring tribes: Taliban has been badly decimated.
> 
> There are some fears of an ISIS and Taliban alliance Afghani Taliban and ISIS have a fundamental disagreement in that Taliban want to be exclusive rulers of Afghanistan the the world and ISIS wants the same thing. Major conflict.
> 
> At the same time, Pakistan has been the single most successful nation in fighting terrorism at this point where they've been able to help decimate the Afghani Taliban and bring the Pakistani Taliban under relative control.
> 
> The war hasn't been won yet, but they're much closer to winning than other Muslim countries because at least they're trying to secularize. Out of all Muslim states, Pakistan is one of the few that despite being right in the heart of the whole terrorism affair has still manage to maintain as much of a secularized government it can.


Thanks for giving me more information. Speaking of another country in the Middle East, I know Turkey has done a lot in terms of housing refugees. I'll need to do more research on if they have been helping combat the terrorist groups though. Turkey has always amazed me. Every country south of them have been in so much turmoil yet overall, they have been a pretty solid country since their constitution was adopted in 1982 from what I know at least. Obviously they have some poverty concerns but every major country does. Turkey just gives me hope that the countries south of them can succeed.


----------



## Sensei Utero

Beatles123 said:


> Funny, you're not the first to claim that.
> 
> You will also not be the first to be told by me that I know very much about John Winston Ono-Lennon and I know for a fact he, while perhaps not a Trump style republican, still became a conservative by 1980. (not officially though.)


Which also confuses me, as well as him supporting the IRA. Still class to see a Beatles fan on here though. No hate. In fact, the Beatles calendar in my room is of Lennon this month haha.

Thoughts on Paul supporting Hilary?


----------



## wwe9391

These protesters are just like anti Reigns marks. No matter how much you complain nothing will change.


----------



## Sensei Utero

Catalanotto said:


> He just has it in his name because of CM Punk, cuz, you know, this is a wrestling forum, it's not weird to have wrestling related names incorporated in to your username. Pretty sure he couldn't care less about the music itself, nor is he an actual punk, so, really, grasping at straws, it gets rather boring.


The punk rocker in me weeps :mj2

Still...nothing in reply to me, which I'm shocked at.


----------



## Seb

InUtero said:


> Do you? Seems like UKIP, or mainstream media and the like have worked their magic on some. It may not come as any surprise that I am registered with the Labour Party / LabourNI (in Northern Ireland), and I very much support Jeremy Corbyn. Especially due to being a socialist.


No it doesn't surprise me at all. Labour themselves are a total shambles at the moment as i'm sure you're aware, their leader doesn't even have the backing of his MP's and they've lost the white working class voter (their core demographic) as well as Scotland to the SNP. Half the Shadow Cabinet is about to rebel against the Brexit legislation and be sacked by Corbyn.



> Whilst the UK is in dire straits at the moment, it’s important that in times like this, we welcome refugees. The rise of bigotry and racism in the whole of the UK also doesn’t help the cause of people (Britain First, ‘the alt-right’ etc.).


Very small minority of people and has nothing to do with any of the arguments I made. It doesn't surprise me that after I post a list of valid reasons as to why we can't afford a large influx of refugees, your first retort is to bring up racism and bigotry. I'm not a racist or a bigot just because I don't agree with an open door immigration policy.

We already welcome refugees as I mentioned - we go to Syria and take the most vulnerable. Sensible imo.



> Hell, as someone who got a circumcision recently (with my operation being put back twice in the space of five months), I know very well as difficult it is to get a GP appointment. My mother, who works as a nurse for the NHS in Northern Ireland, also knows far too well how much in ruins the NHS is.


Glad you see the obvious and agree with my point.



> Not everything you mentioned is down to over-population. That’s just a usual typical comment.


Compelling argument.



> It’s nice to see how caring you are of people though when you mention the EU borders (sarcasm).


I have no problem with people from the EU coming here, I have a problem with triple the number of people coming in to the country than those going out. It isn't sustainable.

The EU is not Syria, there are plenty of peaceful places to settle.



> Dark, dark day when the vote came in of the UK leaving the EU. Parts of me can’t wait until it backfires.


We left a failed political project with a failing currency, under the control of un-elected officials and Angela Merkel. We won't be the last country to leave.



> Thank goodness for Irish passports. Loads of these problems are simply down to the Tory government. Privatisation of the NHS also hasn’t helped.


All the problems I listed are mostly down to the deficit and overpopulation, both of which are down to Labour's immigration policies and lack of bank regulations under Brown and Blair in the mid 2000's. Pig fucker Cameron obviously didn't do much better though.



> Voters are also victims of mainstream media. Should’ve seen in Northern Ireland. Absolutely ridiculous some of the propaganda that goes on today, especially from Murdoch-related press. That’s my two cents. Not everything is on foreign people. That’s just an excuse.


Not everything is on foreign people, but there are very real concerns that people have and a lot of it can be tied down to the rapidly increasing population due to large net migration into the UK. Whilst we have a moral duty to help those in need, so do other countries that are not pulling their weight, and our primary focus should also be on the well-being of our own.


----------



## DOPA

@DesolationRow @CamillePunk @Miss Sally @Pratchett @Tater @Carte Blanche

I'm not going to lie to you guys...This new immigration executive order and the reaction to it has me utterly bemused. It's like the entire world has gone absolutely insane over an action that quite frankly isn't much different than what has been done in the past. But due to the MSM essentially whipping up a frenzy and due to how uneducated people are on politics in general (I know that sounds elitist, I'm sorry), people are under the impression this is a completely new development in US politics due to Trump and Trump alone. It also reveals really how much people do their own reading and own research versus those who just take what the media say at face value and just parrot back whatever has been reported. People can learn through the annuals of history about propaganda in WW1 and WW2, through Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union but fail to recognize when they themselves are falling for quite dishonest propaganda in my opinion. Maybe it's just because I am naturally a historian and look into these things? I really don't know but I really shouldn't be shocked at the amount of people who have lost their god damn minds over this.

Now I have gotten that out of the way, here are my thoughts:

The developments that have happened in Europe with the attacks and problems in France, Belgium, Germany and Sweden as well as the San Bernadino shooting really has set the precedent for this move. No one should be surprised considering that this was one of Trump's biggest campaign promises. Trump has if nothing else thus far been delivering on what he platformed on which is a rare sight. How long he keeps this up remains to be seen.

As everyone knows who has read my posts in the past, I am a big critic of the way the European Migrant Crisis has been handled. The lack of a proper vetting process in certain European countries really is what has caused the multiple terrorist attacks as well as the violence the Middle Eastern migrants have done over the last 18 months. When the EU proclaimed that all refugees were welcome in Europe and essentially extended the free movement of people to the Middle East and North Africa, it essentially brought with it a wave of economic migrants....mostly who were male that took advantage of the EU's generous offer. With Merkel and the EU pressing forward with this policy without the consent of sovereign European countries as well as the people themselves, it caused a mess of a situation as poorer Eastern European countries rebelled and rejected the common asylum policy, knowing full well they could not cope with thousands of Middle Eastern migrants on their door step. Eventually a deal was made to allow the migrants to pass through the Eastern European block and thus we are in the situation we are in today. I cannot stress enough that the problem is all down to the EU and European Countries in general not having a proper vetting system in place. Had we done so, 80% of the people who came over would be sent back.

I saw that one fellow British user on this site has stated that Theresa May should be doing more and that now is the best time to allow more refugees. I am for refugees being able to have a safe space if you will here in the UK but probably not in the way this user wants it, which is essentially an open border to everyone. This is what the problem is with the pro-refugee/left wing crowd: they simply do not understand the complications and problems this potentially causes as we have seen with other European Countries. Other than the brilliant post @Seb made, the last time we decided to be more open to refugees the child/teenage refugees from Calais that were allowed to cross the border into the UK turned out to adults and economic migrants. Again because they were not properly vetted.

The Calais jungle is the greatest example of where economic migrants, who are taking advantage of the West's generosity (and I don't blame them by the way, everyone wants a better life for themselves) are posing as Syrian Refugees. The fact is, most of the occupants in the Calais jungle were not refugees from war torn countries at all:











If we are going to deal with Islamic Terrorism and it's threats, we need to actually identify the problem first and attempt to do something about it. Many on the left simply fail to do this and this is what I think is fueling some of the backlash.

In terms of vetting or "extreme vetting" if you will: if we are talking about having an extensive background check and questioning to make sure that the people immigrating to the US are safe and in the case of refugees that they are safe too then I am all for it. But as some people in this thread have already said, the US already has an extensive vetting system in place. I have heard that the refugee vetting process is broken and that it needs some adjustment itself so if that is the case I of course support this notion.

Where I disagree and may end up being on a different side to some people on this issue is with the idea of putting entire countries on ban lists for immigration even that may be a temporary measure. Let me make something clear, I have been against a complete Muslim ban on immigration from the very beginning and still am. *This is not a complete Muslim banning.* The MSM have once again twisted this into a story to bash Trump with. Now we may debate and argue over why certain countries were left off the list whilst others were on and I'd might end up agreeing with you, but the very fact there are specific countries on this list and that some *100 million Muslims could travel to the US through the same visa method as before* should tell you that this is targeted at specific countries and not targeted indiscriminately against Muslims. Of course this isn't a good story or a good enough way to bash Trump so nuance is left completely out of the story.

So why am I against it? Well there are number of different problems with this bill:

- 80% of domestic terrorist attacks since 9/11 have been committed by homegrown citizens.
- Many suspicious countries were not included in the ban, such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia (the country of which the fiancé of the San Bernardino shooter was from).
- This negatively impacts current visa holders who help aid military operations. There are reports of these people stranded in airports, unsure of their status.

Saudi Arabia is the number one state sponser of terrorist groups. Saying that the Saudi government "doesn't openly support terrorism" isn't a good enough reason in my mind to not want them on the list. They have been dodgy as fuck for a long time and more action needs to be taken against them. Meanwhile, Yemen is on the list, the same country the Saudi government has been indiscriminately bombing against killing masses of civilians......with US arms no less.

And fuck the business ties, we aren't government officials and I'm British, why would I care about that? :lol.

Iraqi military personnel currently cannot travel to the US because of this ban. Yes it is a 4 months ban, I get it. But these are soldiers that openly helped the US during the failed intervention in Iraq and were promised if things got really bad they could always come over to the US. That isn't the same as for example: the Obama administration arming Al Qaeda and Al Nusra and then potentially allowing those terrorists into the United States. Should the Iraqi personnel go through the same vetting procedure or harder procedures? Sure, I don't see why not. But banning them even if it is temporary sends the wrong message.

And that is the biggest fall back from this, as well intentioned as this EO may have been, it sends a message that the US is unwilling to accept refugees from war torn countries and even worse than that now due to the slimy nature of the MSM. In all honesty, all that really needed to be done is to make a few tweaks to the vetting system, perhaps some major changes to the refugee process and to put in a cap on the number of immigrants and refugees allowed into the US. Those methods by themselves I feel would do a lot to solve the issue or problem....if there is one. I do not think a temporary ban was needed, once again much like the outing of criminal immigrants, I just feel this was all so unnecessary.

But again, going back to my first point, the mainstream media needs to take a huge fucking L for this as well. This measure is nowhere near as dramatic as people are making it out to be and this is coming from someone who is against the more extreme parts of the legislation. No doubt some people are going to be temporarily negatively effected by this and I feel for them, but this is nothing new. If you just do a little bit of research you will see people are blowing this way out of proportion:

http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/16/t...power-to-block-certain-classes-of-immigrants/



> Donald Trump has received much flak from Democrats and Republicans alike for his proposal to ban Muslims from entering the U.S through executive authority. However, the past six presidents have all used the executive power to bar different classes of immigrants.
> 
> Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 states: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”
> 
> President Barack Obama has used the authority this statute provides six times in his tenure. In July 2011, Obama barred the entry of “anyone under a UN travel ban; anyone who violates any of 29 executive orders regarding transactions with terrorists, those who undermine the democratic process in specific countries, or transnational criminal organizations.”
> In April of 2012, he barred the entry of anyone “facilitating computer or network disruption that could assist in or enable serious human rights abuses by or on behalf of the government of Iran and Syria; anyone who have sold or provided goods, services, or technology to Iran or Syria likely to be used for such purposes; or to have materially assisted anyone whose property or interests are described.”
> 
> Former President George W.Bush used this authority six times as well during his tenure, typically on government officials. In January 2004, he signed an order “barring entry for public officials who solicit or accept bribes in exchange for any act or omission in their public duties that has serious adverse effects on the national interests of the U.S.; anyone who provides or offers to provide such a bribe; any current or former public official whose misappropriation of public funds or interference with public processes has had serious adverse effects on the national interests of the U.S.; or the immediate families.”
> 
> The groups Bush barred for entry included members of the Mugabe government in Zimbabwe and the Lukashenka government in Belarus.
> 
> The authority of the president to bar certain classes of aliens was used six times by former President Bill Clinton. For example, in May of 1994 Clinton signed an order “barring entry for members of the Haitian military, their immediate families, any major participants in the coup d’état of 1991.”
> 
> Then in January of 1998, Clinton signed an order “barring entry for members of the military junta in Sierra Leone, and their families.”
> 
> Former President George H.W Bush only used this executive authority once in his four years of office. When he did use it, it was actually to undo a previous executive order by President Ronald Reagan that suspended entry of officers and employees of the Nicaraguan government.
> 
> Former President Ronald Reagan used this executive authority five times while in office. In September of 1981, he barred the entry of “any undocumented aliens arriving at the borders of the United States from the high seas.” In August of 1986, Reagan signed an order “barring entry for any Cuban nationals or immigrants except in certain cases.” These “certain cases” included Cuban nationals who had applied for entry into the U.S as immediate family members and those who under law were “special immigrants.”
> 
> Former President Jimmy Carter used this executive power only once and in a way quite similar to what Trump has proposed. In April 1980, as the U.S embassy in Tehran was under terrorist control, Carter signed an order invalidating “all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States.” The order said that the U.S “will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires.”
> 
> Law Professor Jan Ting of Temple University told The Daily Caller that “absolutely and without any doubt” does existing law allow Trump to restrict immigration of certain nationalities or religious groups.


Obama 6 times, G.W Bush 6 times, Clinton 6 times, H.W Bush once, Reagan 5 times, Carter once....

Yet none of these presidents were ever called out for it to my knowledge.

The hysteria surrounding Trump is utterly cancerous.


----------



## Tater

Beatles123 said:


> I've received more red rep in this thread by the same SINGLE lefty than I have in any other thread lol.


Not from me. :Frankie :wink



TomahawkJock said:


> @InUtero: I like how you just assume @CamillePunk is some Punk rocker. You're probably not In the Utero. Beatles probably isnt a member of the Beatles. I'm not a Jock. Or a Tomahawk. Stop assuming how someone acts simply on their username on a WrestlingForum.


I, on the other hand, am most definitely a tater.


----------



## MrMister

Now secession talk in California? Stay safe @CamillePunk and @DesolationRow.


Texas did this same grandstanding under Obama.


----------



## Miss Sally

L-DOPA said:


> @DesolationRow @CamillePunk @Miss Sally @Pratchett @Tater @Carte Blanche
> 
> I'm not going to lie to you guys...This new immigration executive order and the reaction to it has me utterly bemused. It's like the entire world has gone absolutely insane over an action that quite frankly isn't much different than what has been done in the past. But due to the MSM essentially whipping up a frenzy and due to how uneducated people are on politics in general (I know that sounds elitist, I'm sorry), people are under the impression this is a completely new development in US politics due to Trump and Trump alone. It also reveals really how much people do their own reading and own research versus those who just take what the media say at face value and just parrot back whatever has been reported. People can learn through the annuals of history about propaganda in WW1 and WW2, through Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union but fail to recognize when they themselves are falling for quite dishonest propaganda in my opinion. Maybe it's just because I am naturally a historian and look into these things? I really don't know but I really shouldn't be shocked at the amount of people who have lost their god damn minds over this.
> 
> Now I have gotten that out of the way, here are my thoughts:
> 
> The developments that have happened in Europe with the attacks and problems in France, Belgium, Germany and Sweden as well as the San Bernadino shooting really has set the precedent for this move. No one should be surprised considering that this was one of Trump's biggest campaign promises. Trump has if nothing else thus far been delivering on what he platformed on which is a rare sight. How long he keeps this up remains to be seen.
> 
> As everyone knows who has read my posts in the past, I am a big critic of the way the European Migrant Crisis has been handled. The lack of a proper vetting process in certain European countries really is what has caused the multiple terrorist attacks as well as the violence the Middle Eastern migrants have done over the last 18 months. When the EU proclaimed that all refugees were welcome in Europe and essentially extended the free movement of people to the Middle East and North Africa, it essentially brought with it a wave of economic migrants....mostly who were male that took advantage of the EU's generous offer. With Merkel and the EU pressing forward with this policy without the consent of sovereign European countries as well as the people themselves, it caused a mess of a situation as poorer Eastern European countries rebelled and rejected the common asylum policy, knowing full well they could not cope with thousands of Middle Eastern migrants on their door step. Eventually a deal was made to allow the migrants to pass through the Eastern European block and thus we are in the situation we are in today. I cannot stress enough that the problem is all down to the EU and European Countries in general not having a proper vetting system in place. Had we done so, 80% of the people who came over would be sent back.
> 
> I saw that one fellow British user on this site has stated that Theresa May should be doing more and that now is the best time to allow more refugees. I am for refugees being able to have a safe space if you will here in the UK but probably not in the way this user wants it, which is essentially an open border to everyone. This is what the problem is with the pro-refugee/left wing crowd: they simply do not understand the complications and problems this potentially causes as we have seen with other European Countries. Other than the brilliant post @Seb made, the last time we decided to be more open to refugees the child/teenage refugees from Calais that were allowed to cross the border into the UK turned out to adults and economic migrants. Again because they were not properly vetted.
> 
> The Calais jungle is the greatest example of where economic migrants, who are taking advantage of the West's generosity (and I don't blame them by the way, everyone wants a better life for themselves) are posing as Syrian Refugees. The fact is, most of the occupants in the Calais jungle were not refugees from war torn countries at all:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we are going to deal with Islamic Terrorism and it's threats, we need to actually identify the problem first and attempt to do something about it. Many on the left simply fail to do this and this is what I think is fueling some of the backlash.
> 
> In terms of vetting or "extreme vetting" if you will: if we are talking about having an extensive background check and questioning to make sure that the people immigrating to the US are safe and in the case of refugees that they are safe too then I am all for it. But as some people in this thread have already said, the US already has an extensive vetting system in place. I have heard that the refugee vetting process is broken and that it needs some adjustment itself so if that is the case I of course support this notion.
> 
> Where I disagree and may end up being on a different side to some people on this issue is with the idea of putting entire countries on ban lists for immigration even that may be a temporary measure. Let me make something clear, I have been against a complete Muslim ban on immigration from the very beginning and still am. *This is not a complete Muslim banning.* The MSM have once again twisted this into a story to bash Trump with. Now we may debate and argue over why certain countries were left off the list whilst others were on and I'd might end up agreeing with you, but the very fact there are specific countries on this list and that some *100 million Muslims could travel to the US through the same visa method as before* should tell you that this is targeted at specific countries and not targeted indiscriminately against Muslims. Of course this isn't a good story or a good enough way to bash Trump so nuance is left completely out of the story.
> 
> So why am I against it? Well there are number of different problems with this bill:
> 
> - 80% of domestic terrorist attacks since 9/11 have been committed by homegrown citizens.
> - Many suspicious countries were not included in the ban, such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia (the country of which the fiancé of the San Bernardino shooter was from).
> - This negatively impacts current visa holders who help aid military operations. There are reports of these people stranded in airports, unsure of their status.
> 
> Saudi Arabia is the number one state sponser of terrorist groups. Saying that the Saudi government "doesn't openly support terrorism" isn't a good enough reason in my mind to not want them on the list. They have been dodgy as fuck for a long time and more action needs to be taken against them. Meanwhile, Yemen is on the list, the same country the Saudi government has been indiscriminately bombing against killing masses of civilians......with US arms no less.
> 
> And fuck the business ties, we aren't government officials and I'm British, why would I care about that? :lol.
> 
> Iraqi military personnel currently cannot travel to the US because of this ban. Yes it is a 4 months ban, I get it. But these are soldiers that openly helped the US during the failed intervention in Iraq and were promised if things got really bad they could always come over to the US. That isn't the same as bad as it is that the Obama administration armed Al Qaeda and Al Nusra: allowing terrorists into the United States. Should the Iraqi personnel go through the same vetting procedure or harder procedures? Sure, I don't see why not. But banning them even if it is temporary sends the wrong message.
> 
> And that is the biggest fall back from this, as well intentioned as this EO may have been, it sends a message that the US is unwilling to accept refugees from war torn countries and even worse than that now due to the slimy nature of the MSM. In all honesty, all that really needed to be done as to make a few tweaks to the vetting system, perhaps some major changes to the refugee process and to put in a cap on the number of immigrants and refugees allowed into the US. Those methods by themselves I feel would do a lot to solve the issue or problem....if there is one. I do not think a temporary ban was needed, once again much like the outing of criminal immigrants, I just feel this was all so unnecessary.
> 
> But again, going back to my first point, the mainstream media needs to take a huge fucking L for this as well. This measure is nowhere near as dramatic as people are making it out to be and this is coming from someone who is against the more extreme parts of the legislation. No doubt some people are going to be temporarily negatively effected by this and I feel for them, but this is nothing new. If you just do a little bit of research you will see people are blowing this way out of proportion:
> 
> http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/16/t...power-to-block-certain-classes-of-immigrants/
> 
> 
> 
> Obama 6 times, G.W Bush 6 times, Clinton 6 times, H.W Bush once, Reagan 5 times, Carter once....
> 
> Yet none of these presidents were ever called out for it to my knowledge.
> 
> The hysteria surrounding Trump is utterly cancerous.



When 72%+ of the "refugees" turned out to be males under 35 that should have raised some alarms. 

When people who were obviously from Africa and parts of north Africa showed up, that should have raised some alarms. 

When none of the rich Arab states took in a single refugee but offering to build mosques known for extremist views, that should have set off alarms.

When only about half of the people that came in were actually Syrian and it was known that Syrian documents had been compromised, that should have set off alarms.

Either European leaders like Merkel who admitted "multi-culturalism" doesn't work just 5 years earlier became stupid overnight or they thought that they could virtue signal and only a few thousand would show up. When people of the same race and religion don't want these people in their areas despite having resources and places for them to go, that should have set off European nations condemning them but nope, not a peep. No word from the "Left" nor the Political leaders about this. 

As i said before, the anti-Trump stuff is funny, he's keeping his promises so far and he's being attacked for it by the very people who said he wouldn't. They just don't care, they have an image of what trump is in their minds and any little action they don't like he takes, they'll pounce. Any good action that benefits all will be shrugged off. That's our world today.


----------



## Beatles123

InUtero said:


> Which also confuses me, as well as him supporting the IRA. Still class to see a Beatles fan on here though. No hate. In fact, the Beatles calendar in my room is of Lennon this month haha.
> 
> Thoughts on Paul supporting Hilary?


William Campbe--I mean, um, Sir Paul D) can do whatever he wants. Though I don't know if his opinion on US politics should matter TBH :shrug


----------



## virus21

MrMister said:


> Now secession talk in California? Stay safe @CamillePunk and @DesolationRow.
> 
> 
> Texas did this same grandstanding under Obama.


----------



## MrMister

:lmao @virus21

LEARN TO SWIM


----------



## Miss Sally

virus21 said:


>


The first time I heard this song i was laughing so hard at the lyrics, now i can't think of California or hollywood without thinking about this song.

Arizona could use a bay, it gets hot there!


----------



## Tater

L-DOPA said:


> due to the MSM essentially whipping up a frenzy and due to how uneducated people are on politics in general


You mean to tell me that there are panicked sheep riled up by propaganda?! I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell ya!


----------



## Vic Capri

> Now secession talk in California? Stay safe @CamillePunk and @DesolationRow .


Another FAIL in the making. Liberals are addicted to them. :lol

- Vic


----------



## DOPA

Worth watching considering the immigration Executive Order.


----------



## Reaper

I say we let California secede and shrink our national debt by charging them a 100% tariff on water imports :draper2


----------



## ElTerrible

L-DOPA said:


> Worth watching considering the immigration Executive Order.


I assume this touches on the fact that Saudi-Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, Afghanistan, Pakistan and all these other beautfiul places are not part of the Executive order. 

If I had already booked my flight and had valid papers like the people in Egypt, I´d sue the shit out of the US government. :grin2:


----------



## CamillePunk

_The Canada Option_, by Scott Adams

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/156544714786/the-canadian-option



> My most agitated liberal friend sent me a link today about Justin Trudeau announcing Canada would take all of the Trump-banned immigrants because diversity is their strength. My friend said that was an example of real leadership.
> 
> His conclusion is debatable, but didn’t Canada just solve all of Trump’s problems? If humane treatment of immigrants is the goal, Canada is the right place. They have polite behavior, free healthcare, and lots of space. That’s a win-win-win.
> 
> Or am I missing something?
> 
> Canada also gives us a test case to compare to America’s plan. In five years we can check back and see how it turned out for them. If it worked, we can reassess. Until then we obviously need to wall-off Canada. But that’s another topic.
> 
> Now that I think about it, the Middle East has a lot of space too. Remind me again why Muslim countries are banning Muslim immigrants. Is it because they are Hitler?


:lol Hilarious and on-point as usual.


----------



## Reaper

Don't mock people who refuse to accept news from the MSM anymore. We have perfectly valid reasons for being hyper skeptical now. 

:draper2


----------



## DesolationRow

Fantastic posts, @L-DOPA! :clap
@CamillePunk and I may instigate false flag operations on behalf of the California secessionists' movement, *MrMr*. :side:

:lmao :lmao @virus21... perfect song choice. :sodone :dance :dance @AryaDark

As @Carte Blanche notes above, most of the "mainstream media" is built upon a foundation of duplicity and mendacity. One of these days Donald Trump is going to take a ten-minute breather from the whirlwind instituting of what Alexander Hamilton in _Federalist No. 70_ noted as "the leading character in the definition of good government" ("energy in the executive is the leading character in the definition of good government...") and circle back around to all of the craven characters like John Harwood and all of the non-Donna Brazile figures who were never even nominally punished for their abusing the trust of the American people by serving as complicit surrogates and sounding boards and moles for one political party.


----------



## MrMister

Doomsday Clock at 2 and 1/2 minutes to midnight. We're in Cuban Missile Crisis territory again. Yay.

Arizona Bay might be a reality we're not around to witness.

We probably never should have left Cuban Missile Crisis territory. The nukes didn't magically go away. They actually increased.


----------



## DesolationRow

Time for the U.S. to finally leave Iraq once and for all:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/825725205041573889


----------



## CamillePunk

FUCK NOW I CAN'T GO TO IRAQ 

At least I can still go to Chi-Raq. :mj


----------



## Lady Eastwood

:lmao

If people like a country that bends over backwards to conform to the immigrants, Canada is definitely the place for you.

If you as a Canadian want to be thrown on the backburner while these immigrants get handed everything you have had to bust your ass for the whole time you were in Canada paying your taxes, Canada is definitely the place for you.

Free healthcare ain't totally free. Nothing is ever free. Money is covering it in other ways. Just because you can freely walk in to a doctor's office without physically dropping a dime doesn't mean the money isn't entering the government's pockets by other means.

Housing prices are fucking bullshit, hydro increase is bullshit, gas prices are bullshit, people think Canada is the fucking greatest place on the planet to live comfortably and it's only comfortable if you're an immigrant who just escaped the clutches of a war torn country. 

I don't give a fuck who comes here, but, as I was touching on earlier, you come to a country, you become that country. You escaped your country for freedom and happiness, don't take another country and start making a replica of yours. Love and embrace the culture, as you would want people to do in your country.

I have nothing against multi-culturalism, but, when you start to lose your country's own culture, that's pretty fucking terrible. Have your parades, have your sections of downtown, but, don't forget where you actually are.

There are plenty of angry Canadians, don't think for a second everyone is cartwheeling over Trudeau and his dumbass plans. Canada is just typically left alone in conversations because they don't participate in wars and other dumb shit like the US does. If anyone watched the town hall Trudeau had a little while ago, he got a little bitch slapping over his stupid actions, and he of course sat there with his smug grin, lying to the people, again. THERE THERE, WE WILL HELP YOU, as he puts more money in his pocket.

I don't hate Canada, people just need to understand that, yes, it is one of the better countries in the world, but, it's not all rainbows and shit. If you want to buy a house here, good fucking luck. The money you pay for your 4 bedroom house there will barely get you a condo here. The Canadian dollar is also shit. It's not easy living in Canada when it comes to money, and, jobs? LOL WHAT'S THAT? I am happy I have a job because those people who don't will be sitting around at home for a long time. I don't have the worst job in the world, but, even if I did, I still wouldn't quit just for fear that I wont get another full time job for ages.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*Trump supporters tell us it's ridiculous to compare him to Hitler, then his dumbass administration claimed "All Lives Matter" when confronted about not acknowledging Jews on International Holocaust Remembrance Day :lmao https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...87d6e6a3e7c_story.html?utm_term=.7896ad47867c. 

This would be funnier if the rest of us didn't have to suffer for his repeated idiotic decisions.*


----------



## stevefox1200

MrMister said:


> Doomsday Clock at 2 and 1/2 minutes to midnight. We're in Cuban Missile Crisis territory again. Yay.
> 
> Arizona Bay might be a reality we're not around to witness.
> 
> We probably never should have left Cuban Missile Crisis territory. The nukes didn't magically go away. They actually increased.


I am starting to think this watch dog group is a little over dramatic or didn't live through the cold war

How are we at Cuban Missile crisis level, where both nations had active pre-strike and reactive paperwork on their desks? 

After the Trump election the two most nuclear armed nations are on better terms than before 

A nuclear missile is as dangerous as dishwater if you don't use the damn thing


----------



## KingCosmos

Legit BOSS said:


> *Trump supporters tell us it's ridiculous to compare him to Hitler, then his dumbass administration claimed "All Lives Matter" when confronted about not acknowledging Jews on International Holocaust Remembrance Day :lmao https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...87d6e6a3e7c_story.html?utm_term=.7896ad47867c.
> 
> This would be funnier if the rest of us didn't have to suffer for his repeated idiotic decisions.*


This is obviously fake newz!!!!! The liberal media is trying to conspire against Trump. We all know the holocaust is a hoax just like global warming. Trump has JEWISH FAMILY MEMBERS. 


#BLUELIVESMATTER 
#MAGA 
#BUILDTHEWALL


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

KingCosmos said:


> This is obviously fake newz!!!!! The liberal media is trying to conspire against Trump. We all know the holocaust is a hoax just like global warming. Trump has JEWISH FAMILY MEMBERS.
> 
> 
> #BLUELIVESMATTER
> #MAGA
> #BUILDTHEWALL


*Yeah man, these are just "alternative facts" that came straight from the mouths of the Trump administration . Hopefully he keeps doing stupid shit like this on a daily basis and continues to make unconstitutional laws so he gets impeached.*


----------



## MrMister

Impeachment and removal of Trump means Pence is the president. Have you heard this guy talk?


----------



## CamillePunk

Legit BOSS said:


> *Trump supporters tell us it's ridiculous to compare him to Hitler, then his dumbass administration claimed "All Lives Matter" when confronted about not acknowledging Jews on International Holocaust Remembrance Day :lmao https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...87d6e6a3e7c_story.html?utm_term=.7896ad47867c.
> 
> This would be funnier if the rest of us didn't have to suffer for his repeated idiotic decisions.*


What is Hitler-esque about this?

Incredible that someone was able to take a statement acknowledging and mourning the tragedy of the holocaust and portray it as holocaust denial. :lol


----------



## jayman321

MrMister said:


> Impeachment and removal of Trump means Pence is the president. Have you heard this guy talk?


Yes he's a great man. But either Trump or Pence are fine.

Silence the crybabies! lol, people _really _wanted Clinton in office?


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

MrMister said:


> Impeachment and removal of Trump means Pence is the president. Have you heard this guy talk?


*You mean the guy who said this? 

 https://twitter.com/i/web/status/674249808610066433What's so bad about a boldface liar who hates gays? He's making America great again. If he goes too, then we've got another hypocritical moron to take his place:

 https://twitter.com/i/web/status/759845524132524032*



CamillePunk said:


> What is Hitler-esque about this?


*
Did you seriously ask what's Hitler-esque about disregarding the biggest massacre of Jews in history? :wow. Trump's constituency, ladies and gentlemen.*


----------



## CamillePunk

Legit BOSS said:


> *
> Did you seriously ask what's Hitler-esque about disregarding the biggest massacre of Jews in history? :wow. Trump's constituency, ladies and gentlemen.*


When did he do that? In the statement where he acknowledged and mourned the biggest massacre of Jews in history?


----------



## MrMister

The Jews weren't the only people that the Nazis murdered. I say this because people seriously might not know this. Look it up.


----------



## Tater

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/825747937066115072

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/825825196678459399


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

MrMister said:


> The Jews weren't the only people that the Nazis murdered. I say this because people seriously might not know this. Look it up.


*That's not the point. It's ridiculous to ignore the fact that Jews were targeted because other people died too. Trump's statement is as idiotic as saying "white guys get shot by cops too" in a topic mourning an innocent Black man.*


----------



## CamillePunk

Legit BOSS said:


> *That's not the point. It's ridiculous to ignore the fact that Jews were targeted because other people died too. This is as idiotic as saying "white guys get shot by cops too" in a topic mourning an innocent Black man.*


You realize other types of people were targeted as well, right? :lol It's not like the Nazis just randomly decided to kill a bunch of non-jews indiscriminately. 

The statement acknowledges all of the victims and does nothing to minimize or reject the Jewish suffering during the holocaust. You're participating in anti-reality based manufactured outrage. Stop. We're trying to have a civilization here. 

Full transcript of the statement:



> “It is with a heavy heart and somber mind that we recollect and honor the victims, survivors, heroes of the Holocaust. It's impossible to fully fathom the depravity and horror inflicted on innocent people by Nazi terror. Yet, we know that in the darkest hours of humanity, light shines the brightest. As we recollect those who died, we're deeply grateful to those who risked their lives to rescue the innocent. In the title of the perished, I pledge to do everything in my power throughout my Presidency, and my life, to ensure that the forces of evil never again beat the powers of good. Together, we'll create like and tolerance prevalent throughout the world.”


So Hitler.


----------



## Lady Eastwood

Legit BOSS said:


> *Yeah man, these are just "alternative facts" that came straight from the mouths of the Trump administration . Hopefully he keeps doing stupid shit like this on a daily basis and continues to make unconstitutional laws so he gets impeached.*


Were you this angry when Obama did the same thing, or is it just a problem now because Trump is an orange guy with terrible hair who is blunt?

Were you this angry when Bill Clinton gave his speech about immigrants, that was basically the same shit?

If not, you really shouldn't be crying about it now just because a guy a lot of people generally don't like is doing it.


----------



## MrMister

A person murdered is a person murdered. It doesn't matter if most were this or that. They're all murdered.

Yes, they killed mostly Jews. This is known. Not mentioning Jews when talking about the holocaust is not denying the holocaust nor denying that Jews were killed.


----------



## DOPA

Legit BOSS said:


> *That's not the point. It's ridiculous to ignore the fact that Jews were targeted because other people died too. Trump's statement is as idiotic as saying "white guys get shot by cops too" in a topic mourning an innocent Black man.*


The comparison you are stating is not the same as the Holocaust. The Holocaust was a genocide of many different groups of people, homosexuals and disabled people for example were also victims of the Holocaust. It is not stupid to mention the fact they were targets of genocide as well in this instance. It is not the same as proclaiming white people get shot too on the case of an individual black man getting shot. You are trying to compare one person getting killed compared to millions. In this case, the millions had different sub groups within them.

I agree that it was stupid that Jews were not specifically mentioned in the speech, considering that the emotional and historical connection to the event is based on those people. But your comparison holds no weight.


----------



## CamillePunk

How dare Obama draw up a list of terror-compromised Islamic countries 6 years ago THAT HAPPENS TO ALIGN PERFECTLY WITH TRUMP'S BUSINESS INTERESTS. Clearly Obama and Trump have been in cahoots from the beginning. The wool has been pulled over ALL of our eyes.

Meanwhile Legit BOSS negged me "How expected" for asking him to explain his Hitler comparison. :lol Not a serious thinker, not a serious person.


----------



## MrMister

Just so it's clear we're talking about *millions* of non-Jews there were systematically murdered.


----------



## GothicBohemian

MrMister said:


> Impeachment and removal of Trump means Pence is the president. Have you heard this guy talk?


Yeah, Pence comes with lots of negative baggage and a very, er, interesting viewpoint on divisive issues such as women's reproductive rights and LGBT rights. I'm not sure most "anyone but Trump" folks would like him any better. 

Leaving Pence aside, I don't approve of the way certain countries are being singled out in these latest orders while others with equal or worse track records are conveniently ignored. It's hypocritical and screams of people in power who underestimate their nations collective intelligence. To me, it all looks like half-measures designed to convince a voting demographic that their will is being enacted without endangering financial connections with economies and influential cronies who matter for various reasons. This sort of business isn't a Trump thing, it's a political thing. 

- Moving off topic - 

Scanning a page or two, I see Canada bashing is all the rage itt lately. :lol No, I'm not going to engage in debates with you lot trying to convince me I live in a horrid place. My mind isn't going to change based on a handful of internet folks going on about a country few of them have ever lived in - I like it here. However, I'd like to share my experience with a handful of the topics raised:

My country isn't any more perfect than yours but I have few major complaints about our foreign and domestic policies as they stand today. There are bits I'd change but overall I'm glad I live in a society that supports the needy and that leaves my personal business, such as religion and sexuality, to me.

I pay my taxes and get things I appreciate in return. There are lots of good jobs where I live (I'm just not qualified for many of them. My problem, not the country's.) and our cost of living in this province is cheap - a nice house costs a fraction of what it would in most international cities. I've never waited longer than two weeks for semi-elective surgery (as in, not essential to survive without misery) under our medicare system. Some places wait lists are longer, some shorter, but most procedures are free of charge or very nearly so. 

My community is multicultural and bilingual (almost 50/50 French/English as first language, so both Canada's official languages are used everywhere - schools, municipal and provincial offices, hospitals, stores, etc) with people from around the globe attending university or relocating permanently here, among them refugee immigrants from Syria - muslim, christian and of no religion whatsoever - and they love it because our province is peaceful, safe and friendly; several of them have started businesses and their kids are getting involved in local sports. 

As others have mentioned, the American left is closer to our right of centre. Most Democrats could run as Conservatives in Canada. We mostly really liked Obama though; our politicians even gave him a standing ovation in the House of Commons. That probably tells those of you who aren't very familiar with Canada something about this country. Of course we have many people, as in millions, who align more with your right wing - no nation is homogeneous in its political leanings - but the majority of Canadians are what Americans would consider "leftists". We're more or less ok with that. Don't expect us to change too much, Trump to the south or not.


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> You realize other types of people were targeted as well, right? :lol It's not like the Nazis just randomly decided to kill a bunch of non-jews indiscriminately.
> 
> The statement acknowledges all of the victims and does nothing to minimize or reject the Jewish suffering during the holocaust. You're participating in anti-reality based manufactured outrage. Stop. We're trying to have a civilization here.
> 
> Full transcript of the statement:
> 
> So Hitler.


Trump was overly pro Jewish and Israel, now he suddenly hates them? Oh boy.


----------



## virus21

GothicBohemian said:


> Scanning a page or two, I see Canada bashing is all the rage itt lately. :lol







I don't know what you mean


----------



## jayman321

MrMister said:


> A person murdered is a person murdered. It doesn't matter if most were this or that. They're all murdered.


Thank you, I've been saying this to pro-choice people all along.


----------



## CamillePunk

Trump defends his immigration executive order: 



> "America is a proud nation of immigrants and we will continue to show compassion to those fleeing oppression, but we will do so while protecting our own citizens and border. America has always been the land of the free and home of the brave. We will keep it free and keep it safe, as the media knows, but refuses to say. My policy is similar to what President Obama did in 2011 when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months. The seven countries named in the Executive Order are the same countries previously identified by the Obama administration as sources of terror. To be clear, this is not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting. This is not about religion — this is about terror and keeping our country safe. There are over 40 different countries worldwide that are majority Muslim that are not affected by this order. We will again be issuing visas to all countries once we are sure we have reviewed and implemented the most secure policies over the next 90 days. I have tremendous feeling for the people involved in this horrific humanitarian crisis in Syria. My first priority will always be to protect and serve our country, but as President I will find ways to help all those who are suffering."


Again, I don't think he's going far enough (there should be more countries on the list and the bans shouldn't be for such a short time, although they could be extended), but this is a good statement that effectively addresses people's concerns and dispels various false narratives about the order. It won't matter to his critics, because as shown with the "holocaust denial" charge, Trump can be accused of saying literally the opposite of what he actually said and the accusation will be treated credibly.


----------



## glenwo2

InUtero said:


> L O L. Clearly satire.
> 
> Anyone who defends Trump at this point is just proving how idiotic they are.
> 
> 
> 
> *Which is an utter disgrace.* They're people, just like you and me.


No. It's actually a fact. An unfortunate one but a fact nonetheless. 

If a person doesn't apply, then no U.S. citizenship. 

The U.S. has to stop giving hand-out Citizenships like candy without having those receive them follow proper protocol/procedure like anyone else trying to become U.S. citizens.


----------



## virus21




----------



## DOPA

I will always be grateful to Canada for producing this wonderful intellectual .


----------



## Miss Sally

GothicBohemian said:


> We mostly really liked Obama though; our politicians even gave him a standing ovation in the House of Commons. That probably tells those of you who aren't very familiar with Canada something about this country.


No offense but your country would give an ovation to a non-white getting a job because it seems the expectations of non-whites is so low that anything accomplished is worth celebrating. I'd probably be considered a national hero to you all. I'm surprised Justin hasn't dropped money on a group of people to cheer and clap for women and non-whites whenever something as simple as a jar of pickles is opened or someone pays their phone bill.

Another reason why Canada gets laughed at because your country virtue signals as hard as Germany while selling arms to people like Saudi Arabia, your country is surrounded by the US so you don't even need an army because nobody can actually fuck with your country, what worries does your country have when big brother is always around? So it's given your country this sense it's so superior. If our countries ever reversed locations your country would look like third world country by now. 

I think Canada is neat but the holy than thou nonsense from your country is laughable so it gets made fun of.


----------



## Beatles123

GothicBohemian said:


> No, I'm not going to engage in debates with you lot trying to convince me I live in a horrid place. My mind isn't going to change based on a handful of internet folks going on about a country few of them have ever lived in


I don't believe this thinking is right. Throughout the thread I have seen others shake their heads at the US and laugh, yet we can't do the same for you or any other country? Hell, I get bashed for defending my own South ITT and i STILL can respect that it's their right.


----------



## Reaper

In my defense I'm Canadian so I can shit on Canada as much as I want and can easily justify it. 

Point by point. I just like Gothic as a person so I refuse to engage her in this thread the way I have others :draper2


----------



## Beatles123

Carte Blanche said:


> In my defense I'm Canadian so I can shit on Canada as much as I want and can easily justify it.
> 
> Point by point. I just like Gothic as a person so I refuse to engage her in this thread the way I have others :draper2


Then tell it to ME...is she correct? In fairness, her depiction seemed a little TOO rosy to be realistic. :sk


----------



## glenwo2

Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/674249808610066433
> unk2


What did you expect him to say back then? The opposite?

I'm sure THAT would've served him well while campaigning.


----------



## Vic Capri

Gov. Inslee defying The President. What a fucking tool.

- Vic


----------



## Tater

glenwo2 said:


> What did you expect him to say back then? The opposite?
> 
> I'm sure THAT would've served him well while campaigning.


I don't expect much of anything out of a delusional asshole like Mike Pence. It's just amusing to me to point out his hypocrisy.


----------



## virus21

Im beginning to wonder if we should


----------



## glenwo2

Tater said:


> I don't expect much of anything out of a delusional asshole like Mike Pence. It's just amusing to me to point out* his hypocrisy.*


But aren't all politicians hypocrites anyway? It's old hat. :shrug

Democrats...Republicans....Either side have flip-flopped so much they resemble fish at an open market. So you shouldn't be surprised that Pence isn't any different.

The only one "different" is our President. :lol :trump


----------



## Sensei Utero

Seb said:


> No it doesn't surprise me at all. Labour themselves are a total shambles at the moment as i'm sure you're aware, their leader doesn't even have the backing of his MP's and they've lost the white working class voter (their core demographic) as well as Scotland to the SNP. Half the Shadow Cabinet is about to rebel against the Brexit legislation and be sacked by Corbyn.


Yet member numbers are higher than ever. Labour is still technically a Blair-ite central-right party. Given time, Jeremy can turn that around. It's amazing how far he's come despite the backlash of right-wing media.



> Very small minority of people and has nothing to do with any of the arguments I made. It doesn't surprise me that after I post a list of valid reasons as to why we can't afford a large influx of refugees, your first retort is to bring up racism and bigotry. I'm not a racist or a bigot just because I don't agree with an open door immigration policy.


I wouldn't call it a small minority, personally. You should see Northern Ireland. Due to how it is and how backwards the country is, basically everyone here is a bigot. Can't fully speak for the likes of Belfast though. The reason I bring up racism and bigotry is simply due to the fact that it's a huge complex issue in the world right now.



> I have no problem with people from the EU coming here, I have a problem with triple the number of people coming in to the country than those going out. It isn't sustainable.


Other countries have to do their bit too. We can't turn down people in need. As you've stated though, taking in the most vulnerable is a good move. Would rescue camps in Syria work? Possibly. I don't know however, considering the amount of stuff still occurring there.



> We left a failed political project with a failing currency, under the control of un-elected officials and Angela Merkel. We won't be the last country to leave.


Still, it was still a dark day. Democracy has really failed us. We shall see about the other countries, but it's a damn shame what occurred, especially this hard brexit approach. Not staying within the single market is a huge blow, for example.



> Not everything is on foreign people, but there are very real concerns that people have and a lot of it can be tied down to the rapidly increasing population due to large net migration into the UK. Whilst we have a moral duty to help those in need, so do other countries that are not pulling their weight, and our primary focus should also be on the well-being of our own.


Good point there.



Beatles123 said:


> William Campbe--I mean, um, Sir Paul D) can do whatever he wants. Though I don't know if his opinion on US politics should matter TBH :shrug


I was just asking you as a fellow Beatles fan. Probably my second favourite band of all time. Have paintings and posters of them in my room. As a vinyl record listener, I love 'Abbey Road'. Though I suppose you could bring up that due to Paul being a huge figure in the world, his views kinda will be highlighted no matter what. *Fist bump* to a fellow Beatles fan though. Would love to visit Liverpool. Okay, I'm getting way off-topic :lol.



Miss Sally said:


> As i said before, the anti-Trump stuff is funny,* he's keeping his promises so far *and he's being attacked for it by the very people who said he wouldn't. They just don't care, they have an image of what trump is in their minds and any little action they don't like he takes, they'll pounce. Any good action that benefits all will be shrugged off. That's our world today.


Yet Mexico ain't gonna pay for that ridiculous wall. Can't wait for all this to backfire. I guarantee I'll die laughing when the reign of Trump fails. Also, Trump benefiting the World? :lol....Right, okayyy :lol


----------



## Miss Sally

InUtero said:


> Yet Mexico ain't gonna pay for that ridiculous wall. Can't wait for all this to backfire. I guarantee I'll die laughing when the reign of Trump fails. Also, Trump benefiting the World? :lol....Right, okayyy :lol


Gawd you're boring. Wait all you want, it seems to be the only thing you got going for you. I don't expect Trump to keep every promise but out of most of the leaders of the past 20 years he's starting off to a good start. Agree with him or not, he's doing what he said he would. So far so good, TPP is dead, stocks are rising. Not a bad start. Someone you don't like is in charge of the US, get over it.


----------



## Reaper

Beatles123 said:


> Then tell it to ME...is she correct? In fairness, her depiction seemed a little TOO rosy to be realistic. :sk


1. Canadian Healthcare actually costs canadians more than it should. They don't have drug coverage and no such thing as pyschiatric care. All electives are self-pay and the costs are as high as American costs. Each Canadian pays about $4000 a year for this so called medical benefit. Also, immigrants and refugees are pretty much immediately granted healthcare without ever having paid a single dime in tax. 

Basically people who are working middle class folks pay for those who aren't able to work, find work (again they'd have more jobs if their society wasn't a social welfare state that basically crushes the middle and upper classes because they have to pay for the lower class and stunt growth blah blah blah). People like Gothic continue to support socialist policies without realizing that their country has much more potential for her but it has destroyed itself and failed its people through its continued reliance on socialism. So it's a vicious cycle. The state has a climate that is terrible for job creation, therefore people end up jobless or working shit-tier jobs and then the government takes from everyone else and distributes it amongst everyone so they have the impression that they're better off than they really are, but ultimately, they're worse off because they can't get jobs as the job market can't grow because there's horrible taxation policies. 

2. The Canadian Refugee and Immigration system is a complete and utter failure where keeping in mind that they don't actually have jobs, they have an immigration system that attracts the best and brightest, but also over-qualified members of the rest of the world. But they don't have jobs for those immigrants therefore engineers, lawyers and doctors end up becoming truck drivers and janitors and garbage collectors. But then, they're also led to believe that they're getting all this fucking FREE motherfucking shit because OMG, LOOK HOW BENEVOLENT WE ARE .. meanwhile everyone simply refuses to acknowledge that it's this ridiculous taxation and immigration policy that's created a failed state with no jobs for qualified people who can't earn a living without being forced to mooch off of the work of others. 

3. There is no such thing as multi-culturalism in Canada. What we have is a very hushed climate where there's a lot of passive aggressive resentment towards refugees and immigrants and both have created highly insular communities where there's hardly any _real and meaningful _interaction between white Canadians and non-white Canadians. There are growing brown towns in various parts of the country which while extremely cordial and outwardly friendly with one another have a deep under-current of resentment towards white canadians for not giving them jobs they were actually qualified to do because they don't have "Canadian Experience". 

4. Then you have consistently growing crime rate in many of the major metropolitan cities where Toronto has not become worse than some American cities. This is very neatly kept under wraps by a very pro-establishment media that prefers to report on a dog taking a bath in the sunshine than the crime happening in the streets. This has created a society that has for years done absolutely NOTHING to find out who the fuck is killing all those indegenous peoples. Nothing. 

5. Canadians are very nice and humble people. That is true. But there's also this strong under-current of passive aggressiveness where there is a lot of hidden anger and resentment at each other over small and big things. It was like living in a bit of a volcano that's ever-ready to erupt. 

6. You have colleges and institutions that have gone so far left that they are now charging professors with human rights violations simply for being anti-feminist. You have a government that has punished a pastor for being anti-gay. You have a government that considers questioning the holocaust hate-speech. You have conservatives living in constant fear of being charged with some trumped up bullshit. You have media (Rebel Media especially) that has its reporters consistently attacked by violent leftits, banned from official government symposiums. 

7. You have more Canadians in larger debt than Americans as a percentage of the population because there the parents are taxed so high that they can't even dream about having something called a college fund for their kids. It's literally unthinkable and getting OSAP and CSL are pretty much a fact of life meaning that practically every single Canadian comes out of university in debt and cannot pay it because then there are no jobs. 

Out of a dozen Canadian immigrants I know are making ends meet by at least one member of each family working in the States. It's really that bad. 

Over this calm and cool exterior, there is a broken, hollow mess of a country. I sometimes feel like Canadians are more blindly patriotic than even we are because they haven't fixed one of the biggest issues in their country which is their healthcare and education system.

I've given you some of the worst. Gothic gave you some of the best. The truth may or may not be somewhere in the middle so I'll leave it up to you to decide, or look further if you want to. I've mentioned issues that not a lot of Canadians like to talk about, but my experience comes from being an immigrant who has a sister in Canada that has struggled 20 times as much as I have and I have a better living standard in America than she does in Canada despite having 8 years on me.


----------



## Sensei Utero

Miss Sally said:


> Gawd you're boring. Wait all you want, it seems to be the only thing you got going for you. I don't expect Trump to keep every promise but out of most of the leaders of the past 20 years he's starting off to a good start. Agree with him or not, he's doing what he said he would. So far so good, TPP is dead, stocks are rising. Not a bad start. Someone you don't like is in charge of the US, get over it.


Coming from you and the crew. Pretty shite, really. In all honesty, I'm glad I've got a few riled up on here with 'boring' comments. It's cool. Good things come for those who wait. I'll be laughing at the end. I can't wait to laugh at the Trump crew when it occurs. He hasn't done everything as of yet. Look at how divided everything is. I may be from Northern Ireland, but he has certainly killed the ideology of the 'American dream'. Reckless, awful, disgusting decisions on the likes of healthcare, the muslim ban, immigration, environmental protection, freedom of speech, women's rights (choosing what to do with their bodies), amongst other things are common signs that this is a man attempting to redefine people and a common union. It's amazing how divided America is right now. It's awful to see him taking out revenge on anyone who speaks against him, or have protested against him. (before anyone starts, I didn't like the violent protests. I don't stand for that. Peaceful protests however, I do). What'll also matter, is what/how he does within the long term. We'll see.

'Get over it'. I'm sure you say that for everything you've ever argued or protested against, aye?


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/825876333355999232

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/825873684858560514


----------



## nucklehead88

Carte Blanche said:


> Bunch of long winded horseshit


Go somewhere else then. I'm pretty damn happy to be Canadian and am more than happy with my healthcare. You clearly haven't got a clue what you're talking about. Canada only ranks near the top or at the top of every positive livability index on the planet. But yea one Trump loving guy on the internet knows more. :bryanlol :Rollins

I'm also more than happy to welcome any and all refugees into my country. I have donated to the refugees program many times and am looking to sponsor a family.


----------



## Reaper

nucklehead88 said:


> Go somewhere else then. I'm pretty damn happy to be Canadian and am more than happy with my healthcare. You clearly haven't got a clue what you're talking about. Canada only ranks near the top or at the top of every positive livability index on the planet. But yea one Trump loving guy on the internet knows more. :bryanlol :Rollins
> 
> I'm also more than happy to welcome any and all refugees into my country. I have donated to the refugees program many times and am looking to sponsor a family.


I already left that shithole several years ago. Have no intention of going back. 

@Beatles123 . This is what Canadian brainwashing looks like ^ and I'd say at this point more than half of the population is this badly indoctrinated into worshiping their own self-created dystopia because "muh free stuff".


----------



## nucklehead88

Carte Blanche said:


> I already left that shithole several years ago. Have no intention of going back.
> @Beatles123. This is what Canadian brainwashing looks like ^ and I'd say at this point more than half of the population is this badly indoctrinated into worshiping their own self-created dystopia because "muh free stuff".


:reneelel:reneelel:reneelel:reneelel:reneelel:reneelel:reneelel:reneelel:reneelel

I'll have some of whatever you're smoking there, champ. And this is what American brainwashing looks like.


----------



## Reaper

nucklehead88 said:


> I'll have some of whatever you're smoking there, champ. And this is what American brainwashing looks like.


Whatever works man, even some North Koreans think that they're living in a paradise.


----------



## nucklehead88

Carte Blanche said:


> Whatever works man, even some North Koreans think that they're living in a paradise.


So do some Americans for some reason.


----------



## Beatles123

nucklehead88 said:


> So do some Americans for some reason.


Its ok. Every nation should think they are superior. :quite


----------



## Sensei Utero

Has Trump ever spoken of North Korea? Have never seen anything in the past. Perhaps a Trump guy in here could provide info.


----------



## Reaper

nucklehead88 said:


> So do some Americans for some reason.


Some do yes. But I don't. I'm working towards making America a better country and I'm not even a full citizen yet but at least I'm aware of the flaws here. I just know that it's a much better country than Canada in many respects as an immigrant and I've lived in both countries as an immigrant. My experience is superior to yours and I have a solid point of reference as I've experienced life in both countries as an immigrant. 

I don't already believe that America is a paradise. If I thought it did, I would not be supporting the change candidate of this election. 

You do as evidenced by your refusal to actually engage in a conversation about the country's flaws and just went outright "OMGZ CANDALAND IS AWESOMES YOU SUCKZ LOLS". 

You absolutely refused to think critically or respond seriously to any issue I brought up. So, we're not the same here.


----------



## Beatles123

InUtero said:


> Has Trump ever spoken of North Korea? Have never seen anything in the past. Perhaps a Trump guy in here could provide info.


He has, Called Kim jong a maniac.


----------



## Sensei Utero

Beatles123 said:


> He has, Called Kim jong a maniac.


Well, he ain't wrong there.


----------



## Miss Sally

InUtero said:


> Coming from you and the crew. Pretty shite, really. In all honesty, I'm glad I've got a few riled up on here with 'boring' comments. It's cool. Good things come for those who wait. I'll be laughing at the end. I can't wait to laugh at the Trump crew when it occurs. He hasn't done everything as of yet. Look at how divided everything is. I may be from Northern Ireland, but he has certainly killed the ideology of the 'American dream'. Reckless, awful, disgusting decisions on the likes of healthcare, the muslim ban, immigration, environmental protection, freedom of speech, women's rights (choosing what to do with their bodies), amongst other things are common signs that this is a man attempting to redefine people and a common union. It's amazing how divided America is right now. It's awful to see him taking out revenge on anyone who speaks against him, or have protested against him. (before anyone starts, I didn't like the violent protests. I don't stand for that. Peaceful protests however, I do). What'll also matter, is what/how he does within the long term. We'll see.
> 
> 'Get over it'. I'm sure you say that for everything you've ever argued or protested against, aye?


You're boring because you repeat yourself over and over, you have nothing new to say and the only opinion that matters to you is your own. You live in your own world, discussing anything with you is pointless because you only see what you want to. You've not riled me up, you just waste posting space. ]

No rights have been taken away, what are you talking about? A temporary ban on Muslims, something Obama did himself with Iraq? Obamacare was failing, it wasn't working. TPP is dead I'm pretty sure that's something. There's no indication that anyone's rights will be taken away. I also don't agree with everything Trump proposes, the ban should have been worded and thought out better, there would be less hyperbole and nonsense about it. 

America has been divided since 2012, if Clinton won there would be the same shit going on. If bernie won there would be protests still. You have to wait to laugh, i don't because I'm laughing at you having no idea about what you're talking about.


----------



## DOPA

http://rare.us/story/where-was-the-...i&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=Influencer



> *Where was the outrage when Obama was hurting innocent foreigners?*
> 
> 
> There were many troubling stories over the weekend about foreign travelers being abused and even endangered because of President Donald Trump’s new travel restrictions. One story, that of heroic Iraqi translator Hameed Khalid Darweesh, who was detained for 18 hours at JFK airport, captured the world’s attention.
> 
> Trump’s executive order continues to provoke global protest. But spending the weekend reading about similar stories, I must ask — why is this kind of outrage seemingly now just limited to Donald Trump?
> 
> The Los Angeles Times featured a story on Sunday about Alexander Gutierrez Garcia, who fled an oppressive dictatorship to seek refugee status in the United States, but unfortunately for him America’s president issued an executive order that denied him entry.
> 
> 
> That order came from President Barack Obama.
> 
> Garcia wanted a green card so he could rescue his wife and daughters from Cuba, but earlier this month President Obama rescinded the decades old “wet foot, dry foot” immigration policy, leaving U.S.-bound Cubans in limbo. “What can we do?” Gutierrez asked in a telephone interview from Costa Rica, his voice shaking. “Obama has killed our dream of living in freedom.”
> 
> A 2011 New York Times story featured Iraqis who had helped America’s war effort fearing for their lives and seeking U.S. visas, but President Obama halted their plans through an executive order.
> 
> A man referred to only as Abu Hassan, for security reasons, said when he received a phone call to inform him of Obama’s new visa restrictions that would directly affected his family, it “[hurt him] even more than all the threats [he and his family had] received.” Among those threats: his brother was kidnapped and tortured, and their family dog was killed, left with a note attached that said, “Leave, traitors. You are spies for the Americans.”
> 
> “I feel sick,” said the mother of her family’s dim prospects due to Obama’s policy shift.
> 
> This Iraqi family’s pro-American war efforts were similar to those of Hameed Khalid Darweesh, who saw millions rally to him on Saturday. But no one rallied for Abu Hassan’s family or those like him, even though his story was in the New York Times. “This is not a priority right now for anyone in the government,” said Becca Heller, who runs the Iraqi Refugee Assistance Project at the Urban Justice Center in New York, the Times noted. “Not enough people in the Obama administration care about this topic.”
> 
> Obama’s Iraq “Muslim ban” lasted six months, but how many Iraqis suffered due to his actions? We know there are thousands of suffering Cubans right now due to Obama’s policy change.
> 
> As of this writing, 109 travelers have been denied entry to the U.S. due to Trump’s action. Yet his policy could affect millions, and particularly scores of Syrian refugees who have been banned indefinitely. Trump applying restrictions to green card holders and other legal U.S. residents makes his directive uniquely oppressive. It’s tragic.
> 
> But what truly captures our attention and raises our consciences are rarely necessarily policy particulars, but human stories. Why did personal tales of fear and desperation not capture our attention when Obama was the cause? If CNN had blasted them for 24 hours, might they have?
> 
> And why didn’t CNN do that?
> 
> Throughout the weekend, many passed around an instructive Cato Institute study that showed only three deaths in the last 40 years have been committed on U.S. soil by those who entered the country as refugees. But this was also true when President Obama cited two Iraqi immigrants arrested in Bowling Green, Ky., as his reason for clamping down on Iraqi visas. Trump now cites the 2015 San Bernardino, Calif., terrorist attack, which the president’s new executive order would not have prevented.
> 
> Many now point out the illogical nature of Trump’s policy, but I don’t recall the same people criticizing Obama’s similar logic or policies.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because most did not pay attention to Obama’s anti-immigrant policies. There was no 24-hour, days long cable news barrage about. There were no hashtags, social media campaigns or protests. The pain was just as real for those suffering, but the coverage and popular reaction were almost nonexistent.
> 
> So many of those outraged right now — and rightly — generally liked Obama. They trusted him. Now, similarly, Trump supporters will defend this president’s actions, no matter how much harm he causes, because they like and trust him too.
> 
> But shouldn’t other people’s pain come before partisanship? Should Alexander Gutierrez Garcia and Abu Hassan matter less than Hameed Khalid Darweesh?
> 
> Shouldn’t lending our moral support or outrage be based on something more than merely what presidents we like?


Once again, Anti-Trump protestors, the left and the media are utter hypocrites. Again to reiterate, I'm not fully on board with what Trump is proposing but at least have some fucking principles and consistency when arguing your points.


----------



## yeahbaby!

L-DOPA said:


> http://rare.us/story/where-was-the-...i&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=Influencer
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, Anti-Trump protestors, the left and the media are utter hypocrites. Again to reiterate, I'm not fully on board with what Trump is proposing but at least have some fucking principles and consistency when arguing your points.


You're saying there was no criticism of Obama out there during this? It was ignored? (I know you're not going that far, I'm more addressing the point of it seeming like no criticism was directed at Obama) I was well aware of the horrific drone campaigns for example from several sources and I certainly didn't support it one bit.

This is the Trump thread for pete's sake because there's so many rightie supporters on here who love him. That's why it's a big deal. If someone wants to make a 'Obama's Presidential Failings' thread I'm sure we'll hear all about it.

The media isn't blameless in all of this, they've all fallen 'victim' if you will to the 24hr cycle that gobbles up and spits out any soundbite or click bait article it can. This culture of outrage over people's decisions and even tweets FFS knows no political side, it's media itself that has mutated far beyond any control.

There is more exposure on Trump, because he fits like a glove into the soundbite, click-bait, YTube commentator era we find ourselves in.



Edit: That said, I see the point the article is making. Obama IMO presented as more trustworthy, more likeable and doesn't have the negative background that Trump has. That certainly factors into things.


----------



## Lady Eastwood

InUtero said:


> Yet Mexico ain't gonna pay for that ridiculous wall. Can't wait for all this to backfire. I guarantee I'll die laughing when the reign of Trump fails. Also, Trump benefiting the World? :lol....Right, okayyy :lol


Did you know that Mexico wants the US to accept millions of illegal Mexican immigrants and give them legal status, yet, Mexico themselves has only allowed less than 20 thousand illegal immigrants to have legal status?

Also, this is happening right now:

http://www.cp24.com/news/police-responding-to-mosque-shooting-in-quebec-city-1.3262500

YAY FOR CANADA, RIGHT?

So it begins.


----------



## Reaper

Catalanotto said:


> Did you know that Mexico wants the US to accept millions of illegal Mexican immigrants and give them legal status, yet, Mexico themselves has only allowed less than 20 thousand illegal immigrants to have legal status?
> 
> Also, this is happening right now:
> 
> http://www.cp24.com/news/police-responding-to-mosque-shooting-in-quebec-city-1.3262500
> 
> YAY FOR CANADA, RIGHT?
> 
> So it begins.


Makes me feel kinda bad this happening right after I made a long post about how there's a deep under-current of resentment amongst Canadians that they've just buried and is simmering ...


----------



## glenwo2

yeahbaby! said:


> Considering Saudi Arabia basically owns America, it's no surprise they're not on the list. I can't imagine many of the Oil Barons or royal family members who swim in oil getting detained for too long when coming in on 'business trips'. Of course you won't hear about this on the news, of if you do it will be dismissed by the Alt-Right as fake.
> 
> Trump knows what side his bread is buttered on, he's done this extreme move to please his extreme voter base, but it still runs second to the almighty dollar.
> 
> 
> Also, this is the kind of move that simply plays into ISIS' hands. They'll jump all over this, paint up the US as more evil than ever, and gain more followers. In the long run, this will make the US less safe from attacks - probably from citizens born here who are social pariahs already (as most of them usually are) who are waiting for this kind of thing to push them over the edge.
> 
> *Just you wait.*


For what? It almost sounds like you want to be proven right. fpalm



BTW : http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-statement-idUSKBN15D151

So business as usual after 90 days.


----------



## Tater

glenwo2 said:


> But aren't all politicians hypocrites anyway? It's old hat. :shrug
> 
> Democrats...Republicans....Either side have flip-flopped so much they resemble fish at an open market. So you shouldn't be surprised that Pence isn't any different.


At no point did I say I was _surprised_ that Mike Pence is a hypocritical sack of shit. Just because the vast majority of politicians are liars doesn't mean we should stop calling them out for it.



glenwo2 said:


> The only one "different" is our President. :lol :trump


"different" :ha


----------



## Miss Sally

Catalanotto said:


> Did you know that Mexico wants the US to accept millions of illegal Mexican immigrants and give them legal status, yet, Mexico themselves has only allowed less than 20 thousand illegal immigrants to have legal status?
> 
> Also, this is happening right now:
> 
> http://www.cp24.com/news/police-responding-to-mosque-shooting-in-quebec-city-1.3262500
> 
> YAY FOR CANADA, RIGHT?
> 
> So it begins.


I mentioned this before, Mexico doesn't accept many immigrants, doesn't let foreigners own land or have much rights. You're one of the only few people to realize this but yet America is bad for not wanting to support millions of illegals. Low expectations for these countries for sure.

I say instead of deporting back to Mexico we send them to Canada.


----------



## MrMister

Trump skewered McCain and Graham for wanting to start WWIII. It's times like this that I really like Donald J. Trump.


----------



## glenwo2

Tater said:


> At no point did I say I was _surprised_ that Mike Pence is a hypocritical sack of shit. Just because the vast majority of politicians are liars doesn't mean we should stop calling them out for it.
> 
> 
> 
> *"different"* :ha


That's why I said it. >


----------



## Sensei Utero

Catalanotto said:


> Did you know that Mexico wants the US to accept millions of illegal Mexican immigrants and give them legal status, yet, Mexico themselves has only allowed less than 20 thousand illegal immigrants to have legal status?
> 
> Also, this is happening right now:
> 
> http://www.cp24.com/news/police-responding-to-mosque-shooting-in-quebec-city-1.3262500
> 
> YAY FOR CANADA, RIGHT?
> 
> So it begins.


I'm not arguing that. I'm just sayin' good luck on gettin' them to pay for that wall.

Also, it didn't state who it was in that shooting. Unless I've missed a few posts.



Miss Sally said:


> You're boring because you repeat yourself over and over, you have nothing new to say and the only opinion that matters to you is your own. You live in your own world, discussing anything with you is pointless because you only see what you want to. You've not riled me up, you just waste posting space. ]
> 
> No rights have been taken away, what are you talking about? A temporary ban on Muslims, something Obama did himself with Iraq? Obamacare was failing, it wasn't working. TPP is dead I'm pretty sure that's something. There's no indication that anyone's rights will be taken away. I also don't agree with everything Trump proposes, the ban should have been worded and thought out better, there would be less hyperbole and nonsense about it.
> 
> America has been divided since 2012, if Clinton won there would be the same shit going on. If bernie won there would be protests still. You have to wait to laugh, i don't because I'm laughing at you having no idea about what you're talking about.


The Trump supporter, right-wing guys and such all seem to repeat, repeat, and repeat themselves over and over. If I lived in my own universe, believe me - none of this would be occurring. I clearly have riled you, if you find the time to respond and seem to take it personally.

Rights have been taken away. America is being even more divided by the day. Of course it'd still be divided if Clinton won. Of course it'd still be divided if Bernie had somehow got in (Bernie :mj2). Ha, it's funny, I'm already laughing at Trump guys :ha :HA folk who know me in the past to troll Americans probably know that though. It's funny how folk who argue back or debate back or whatever are accused of not knowing what they're talking about. Typical.


----------



## Miss Sally

InUtero said:


> I'm not arguing that. I'm just sayin' good luck on gettin' them to pay for that wall.
> 
> Also, it didn't state who it was in that shooting. Unless I've missed a few posts.
> 
> 
> 
> The Trump supporter, right-wing guys and such all seem to repeat, repeat, and repeat themselves over and over. If I lived in my own universe, believe me - none of this would be occurring. I clearly have riled you, if you find the time to respond and seem to take it personally.
> 
> Rights have been taken away. America is being even more divided by the day. Of course it'd still be divided if Clinton won. Of course it'd still be divided if Bernie had somehow got in (Bernie :mj2). Ha, it's funny, I'm already laughing at Trump guys :ha :HA folk who know me in the past to troll Americans probably know that though. It's funny how folk who argue back or debate back or whatever are accused of not knowing what they're talking about. Typical.


What rights were taken away? 

Great to know what you're all about. At least you're honest.


----------



## Sensei Utero

Miss Sally said:


> What rights were taken away?
> 
> Great to know what you're all about. At least you're honest.


The right to freedom. Innocent Muslims are having their rights taken away.

Huh? Most of it is banter, to be fair. Nothing compared to some of the stuff in this thread, or what I've been called. (yet nothing seems to get done about that, but that's another matter. Especially things stated by a certain member on here).

Also, women's rights. Pretty obvious that one. I shouldn't need to explain. **Blame my tiredness for the late comment. Was typing in another tab about the Rumble on another website and realised I had two different tabs open for this thread, hence the tag. My bad, man.** @Miss Sally


---------------------------------

Separate comment.

http://twitter.com/WajahatAli/status/825246651010924544

Speaks volumes.


----------



## Miss Sally

InUtero said:


> The right to freedom. Innocent Muslims are having their rights taken away.
> 
> Huh? Most of it is banter, to be fair. Nothing compared to some of the stuff in this thread, or what I've been called. (yet nothing seems to get done about that, but that's another matter. Especially things stated by a certain member on here).
> 
> Also, women's rights. Pretty obvious that one. I shouldn't need to explain. **Blame my tiredness for the late comment. Was typing in another tab about the Rumble on another website and realised I had two different tabs open for this thread, hence the tag. My bad, man.** @Miss Sally


Nobody has a right to migrate, it never was a right and Trump isn't the first to halt immigration from certain countries. No woman's rights have been taken away. People still have all their freedoms.


----------



## Sensei Utero

Miss Sally said:


> Nobody has a right to migrate, it never was a right and Trump isn't the first to halt immigration from certain countries. No woman's rights have been taken away. People still have all their freedoms.


Yet America was built by immigrants.

If woman's rights also weren't being threatened, then women's marches wouldn't be occurring at all. I don't think anyone can stick up or justify what Mr. Trump stated about woman ('grab her by the pussy' comes to mind, amongst other things). Attempting to control what women can do with their own bodies (abortion etc.) is just wrong.


----------



## TheMenace

InUtero said:


> Yet America was built by immigrants.
> 
> If woman's rights also weren't being threatened, then women's marches wouldn't be occurring at all. I don't think anyone can stick up or justify what Mr. Trump stated about woman *('grab her by the pussy'* comes to mind, amongst other things). Attempting to control what women can do with their own bodies (abortion etc.) is just wrong.


That was a tape from more than a decade ago where he was probably being sarcastic. He has since apologized for it and admitted that he was wrong for saying it.


----------



## TomahawkJock

@InUtero: I'm probably one of the more liberal people in this thread. Although, I see you @tater. I was a Bernie supporter. I'm one of those people that's fine with taxes going to the poor. I'm decently well off (will have hardly any college debt) and I'm not a materialistic person. 

But you can't just blindly say things without researching. Women rights haven't been taken away in America. Are they somewhat at risk? Maybe. But Planned Parenthood isn't really a right to begin with. Would I find it unfortunate if Planned Parenthood was defunded? Fuck yeah. But it hasn't happened yet. There's a lot of things that bother me about Trump but I'm trying to keep a level head and I'm researching all of his executive orders and listening to other posters on here and the info they provide. The problem with society today is that we can't see past our own viewpoints. Hell, that's why the government cannot get shit done. Be tolerant of all views. You probably think you're tolerant, but right now you seem like a person who thinks they are above everyone else because "my moral compass is better than yours."


----------



## Mra22

I can't believe the NFL would invite the cast of Hamilton to the Super Bowl....Tired of liberal trash


----------



## TomahawkJock

Mra22 said:


> I can't believe the NFL would invite the cast of Hamilton to the Super Bowl....Tired of liberal trash


You're grasping at straws. They just asked Pence to make sure all people were treated well in the administration and now they are suddenly liberal "trash?" Regardless of their politics, they are talented as fuck.


----------



## stevefox1200

I have come down from the hills to give the one commandment that god has given to me on a stone tablet

"THOU SHALL NOT BE A DICK"

really, don't even think "does this guy "deserve it"

Just think "Am I being a dick?" and if the answer is "yes" than don't do it


----------



## Beatles123

WELP.


----------



## Goku

so much illegal immigration into this thread.

we need a wall :trump


----------



## Miss Sally

InUtero said:


> Yet America was built by immigrants.


Immigrants that assimilated and worked hard, they weren't given handouts or freebies. Some came from worse hardships than the current refugees and they did fine. Again immigration isn't a right.


----------



## DesolationRow

MrMister said:


> Trump skewered McCain and Graham for wanting to start WWIII. It's times like this that I really like Donald J. Trump.


Wish those two would get shipped to the front lines of Ukraine. 

Also, going back to shortly after I last left the thread, if you have an anti-Semitic bone in your body you don't have as many friends as Donald Trump does in New York City, no matter how rich and powerful you are. 

Poor Canada.  The familiar refrain of "Allahu Akbar" has found them. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-city-mosque-gun-shots-1.3957686


----------



## TheMenace




----------



## TomahawkJock

TheMenace said:


>


Nah man the problem is we have too many skittles in our bowl currently. There's only so many more skittles we can take on.


----------



## stevefox1200

I saw a few Milo Impossaibletospellmadeuplastname videos

I can see why he is very popular

He is very charismatic and he is able to smug asshole with a causal and friendly vibe that even if you were to out debate him you would be the one who looked bad

He is a master at one of the most underrated debate skills where you so causal and unaffected that your opposition gets more and more pissed that you aren't taking them seriously until they boil over and say something stupid and you move in and end it with a quick swing

Politically I wouldn't elect him to shit but entertainment wise he is pretty good

dangerous ****** indeed


----------



## Beatles123

Uh oh.


----------



## Joshuaitas

TheMenace said:


>


There is far more chance of you being killed by a black,white,Hispanic,etc person (or even falling out of bed) than a syrian refugee. Black people in particular will have to be careful of cops moreso than refugees.. Lets just kick everyone out the country or put everyone in jail.


----------



## Beatles123

@yeahbaby! EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEY WAY TO SEE THE LIGHT, BRO!!! :trump2


----------



## ecclesiastes10

Headliner said:


> The difference between the Obama ban and Trump's ban is that Obama's was based on FBI intelligence which just happened to be during the middle of the Iraq war. I'm not supporting the Obama ban, but at least he had intelligence support for his reasoning.
> 
> If Trump is going to ban 7 countries then he should have announced FBI or CIA intelligence to go with it. .


these countries were put on list in late 2015...


----------



## ecclesiastes10

yeahbaby! said:


> None of that seems to explain why all those other TERROR-laden countries were left off the list. I don't care if Obama picked the countries, if that's the case he made a mistake by missing of them as well. Trump compounded it.


reince preibus, chief of staff, stated on meet the press that they are looking to possibly add more countries, but that these 7 were pick because they are current hot beds where isis is strongly present and have declared their goals to infiltrate refuge program, don't forget that its been reported that isis have blank green cards n visa printing machines.. as to why they didn't add more countries 1) Obama already settled precedent with those seven making it easier for this administration to implement this pause on these countries knowing if that taken to court they can prove not only was it allowed under Obama, and vetted with cia and dhs, it also passed legal muster, making their job easier and not having to worry about it being deem unconstitutional. don't take my word for it, look around, and not at obviously biases msm pages.


----------



## Headliner

ecclesiastes10 said:


> these countries were put on list in late 2015...


I am well aware of what you're talking about. My answer is: And? Trump is the one who signed this.


----------



## ecclesiastes10

Carte Blanche said:


> It's what I used to tell people about the Quran when I was still Muslim. Read the 14 translations and make the decision. We are living in a climate where we have to now do the same for every single piece of news out there. :draper2


as a former muslim if u don't mind can u answer a couple ? is it true muhamad raped a 9 year old, and does the quran really state if someone doesn't convert or pay taxes u gotta kill them?


----------



## ecclesiastes10

Headliner said:


> I am well aware of what you're talking about. My answer is: And? Trump is the one who signed this.


im not catching your point, I like president trump, and if i were president I would deport muslims enmasse.


----------



## BruiserKC

ecclesiastes10 said:


> these countries were put on list in late 2015...


As part of a bill called the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act which received bipartisan support and was signed into law by our previous POTUS Obama. Those seven nations that are part of this EO were the ones on the list back then.


----------



## Cliffy

May cant win

She gets shit on for not cancelling trumps visit but would get shit on aswell if she failed to get a good trade deal with the US.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


----------



## Tater

TomahawkJock said:


> @InUtero: I'm probably one of the more liberal people in this thread. Although, I see you @tater.


I've given up this particular battle. Liberal don't mean what it used to mean. Liberal nowadays means SJW and I can't fucking stand the snowflake crowd.


----------



## Beatles123

UH OH.

https://twitter.com/RT_com/status/825914857857880065


----------



## Tater

virus21 said:


>


More people need to be paying attention to this. At least Tulsi has the balls to tell the truth about what's going on over there.


----------



## Miss Sally

Tater said:


> I've given up this particular battle. Liberal don't mean what it used to mean. Liberal nowadays means SJW and I can't fucking stand the snowflake crowd.


Liberals were hijacked by the far, far, far "left", pretty much all the intellectuals have been silenced in place of SJWs, Hollywood and "Leftist" comedians. It's sad, they turned on the people in favor of a whining minority, a hateful Religion and the sisterhood of perpetual victimhood. This should be the time Liberals flourish with Social Media and more TV coverage and open mindedness but nope. Instead you have indoctrination of "Leftist" ideology and not freethinking, cancerous third wave feminism infecting areas of free speech, free thinking and science and trying to police it. 

Liberals have always proposed ideas and then ways to make it work, this new "Left" demands ideas be implemented with no thought to the future nor if it will even work. These people cannot agree on anything either, take a look at identity politics, one side believes in a million and one genders and the other side believes there is no gender. It's complete insanity.

Conservative/Liberal is yin and yang, both need each other, both take turns depending on the era. At some points in time Liberal ideology works wonders and then there comes a time when it's losing focus or the climate and world changes and Conservatives take over. Then times change again and it reverts to Liberal thinking once again and so forth and so on, ebb and flow. Now there is no balance, there is no debate, just chaos! 

:crying:

The internet and open world of social media was supposed to bring balance to academia and politics, not leave it in darkness!


----------



## DOPA

yeahbaby! said:


> You're saying there was no criticism of Obama out there during this? It was ignored? (I know you're not going that far, I'm more addressing the point of it seeming like no criticism was directed at Obama) I was well aware of the horrific drone campaigns for example from several sources and I certainly didn't support it one bit.
> 
> This is the Trump thread for pete's sake because there's so many rightie supporters on here who love him. That's why it's a big deal. If someone wants to make a 'Obama's Presidential Failings' thread I'm sure we'll hear all about it.
> 
> The media isn't blameless in all of this, they've all fallen 'victim' if you will to the 24hr cycle that gobbles up and spits out any soundbite or click bait article it can. This culture of outrage over people's decisions and even tweets FFS knows no political side, it's media itself that has mutated far beyond any control.
> 
> There is more exposure on Trump, because he fits like a glove into the soundbite, click-bait, YTube commentator era we find ourselves in.
> 
> 
> 
> Edit: That said, I see the point the article is making. Obama IMO presented as more trustworthy, more likeable and doesn't have the negative background that Trump has. That certainly factors into things.



There was nowhere near this level of mass hysteria when Obama was committing these drone strikes killing thousands of innocent civilians compared Trump putting forward a bill that Obama himself had put forward. That is the entire point. The media is complicit in whipping up this frenzy surrounding a bill which is not much different than bills written and legislated by 6 previous presidents. It is dishonest propaganda at this point.

And I am fully aware that there are partisan Trump supporters who will praise him at every turn but compared to the MSM and the virtual signalling of the left they are honestly harmless. Will that change in future? Perhaps, probably I'd even say but the level of hypocrisy by Obama supporters, the MSM and the left astounds me.

Trump isn't immune to criticism and I have criticized the more extreme elements of this bill and other provisions in his immigration bills such as making the crimes of immigrants public (which is unhelpful and unfortunately brings up memories of Nazi Germany outting the Jewish population), but there is a level of dishonesty and hypocrisy that cannot be ignored or tolerated. And right now, the vast majority of it is coming from the left.






Even Jimmy Dore is calling this bullshit out.


----------



## virus21




----------



## Reaper

InUtero said:


> The right to freedom. Innocent Muslims are having their rights taken away.


Being able to enter a country isn't a right, it's a privilege.


----------



## glenwo2

Miss Sally said:


> Liberals were hijacked by the far, far, far "left", pretty much all the intellectuals have been silenced in place of SJWs, Hollywood and "Leftist" comedians. It's sad, they turned on the people in favor of a whining minority, a hateful Religion and the sisterhood of perpetual victimhood. This should be the time Liberals flourish with Social Media and more TV coverage and open mindedness but nope. Instead you have indoctrination of "Leftist" ideology and not freethinking, cancerous third wave feminism infecting areas of free speech, free thinking and science and trying to police it.
> 
> Liberals have always proposed ideas and then ways to make it work, this new "Left" demands ideas be implemented with no thought to the future nor if it will even work. These people cannot agree on anything either, take a look at identity politics, one side believes in a million and one genders and the other side believes there is no gender. It's complete insanity.
> 
> Conservative/Liberal is yin and yang, both need each other, both take turns depending on the era. At some points in time Liberal ideology works wonders and then there comes a time when it's losing focus or the climate and world changes and Conservatives take over. Then times change again and it reverts to Liberal thinking once again and so forth and so on, ebb and flow. Now there is no balance, there is no debate, just chaos!
> 
> :crying:
> 
> *The internet and open world of social media was supposed to bring balance to academia and politics, not leave it in darkness!*


*OBI-TRUMP KENOBI, YOU ARE OUR ONLY HOPE!!!*


----------



## Reaper

Joshuaitas said:


> There is far more chance of you being killed by a black,white,Hispanic,etc person (or even falling out of bed) than a syrian refugee. Black people in particular will have to be careful of cops moreso than refugees.. Lets just kick everyone out the country or put everyone in jail.


You deal with local citizens in different ways. Just because there's local crime doesn't mean you add to the problem by importing more potential criminals - even if you let in a few. The right to exist within a nation is your birth-right by virtue of being born within. The right to immigrate to a country is not a right but rather conflated into a right by virtue of a twisted narrative and lack of ability to make this distinction between rights and privileges. Those people who want to come here have a right to exist in their own countries, but they don't have a right to exist in any other country until and unless they prove themselves worthy. 



ecclesiastes10 said:


> as a former muslim if u don't mind can u answer a couple ? is it true muhamad raped a 9 year old, and does the quran really state if someone doesn't convert or pay taxes u gotta kill them?


Yes. Mohammad was aware that Aisha was too young to penetrate (and he still married her), so before he actually raped her he committed the act of thighing (which is basically rubbing one's dick on a girl's thighs till there's ejculation). Aisha is reported to have been lost and dazed by what was happening around her as there is a famous hadith of her playing with her dolls while they were preparing her room for the night of consumation. The child rape had a massive impact on Aisha obviously as she had consistent problems (accusation of adultery), becoming the cause of the Perda order (where Mohamamd's wives were ordered to withdraw from almost all interaction with other men), having consistent problems with his other wives, being jealous and squabbling, and eventually becoming the leader of the anti-Ali movement and even led an army against other Muslims. Aisha and Abu Baker hated Fatima (mohammad's daughter) and suppressed her to the point where Fatima lost her will to live - they even stole her inheritance from Mohammad). She could have led the first muslim civil war. She was a highly damaged woman and it was because of the rape and oppression she endured as a child. 

At the same time, we always focus on the girl herself, but what about her father? He was the first caliph of Islam and another warrior who literally usurped leadership in what other muslims consider a coup. Would he have have been as close to mohammad if he hadn't given him his child to rape? So basically, the leadership of Islam went from Mohammad to Abu Bakr (father-in-law) who continued mohammad's violent expansion plan. 

And yes, it is true that Mohammad started the practice of sending letters to arab leaders telling them to submit, pay tax or be invaded. 

As an aside, even my 8 year old mind couldn't accept this twisted logic where they tried to claim that Islam spread organically because it was a great religion and yet here we have a contradiction where muslims always invaded first and then occupied the land for centuries. There was no organic spreading of Islam. It came at the hilt of the sword and took mass genocide and destruction of local culture, religion and texts in order to maintain. Take Mohammad's own successful conquest of Mecca for example. The first thing he did was destroy all the local gods in the Ka'aba - another practice that the vast majority of Muslim invaders including the ISIS and Taliban have continued to do to this day.


----------



## glenwo2

HEADLINER, I am curious as to know what your overall position on this is.


----------



## Sensei Utero

TomahawkJock said:


> @InUtero: I'm probably one of the more liberal people in this thread. Although, I see you @tater. I was a Bernie supporter. I'm one of those people that's fine with taxes going to the poor. I'm decently well off (will have hardly any college debt) and I'm not a materialistic person.
> 
> But you can't just blindly say things without researching. Women rights haven't been taken away in America. Are they somewhat at risk? Maybe. But Planned Parenthood isn't really a right to begin with. Would I find it unfortunate if Planned Parenthood was defunded? Fuck yeah. But it hasn't happened yet. There's a lot of things that bother me about Trump but I'm trying to keep a level head and I'm researching all of his executive orders and listening to other posters on here and the info they provide. The problem with society today is that we can't see past our own viewpoints. Hell, that's why the government cannot get shit done. Be tolerant of all views. You probably think you're tolerant, but right now you seem like a person who thinks they are above everyone else because *"my moral compass is better than yours."*


Didn't mean to come off that way but can see if I have. However, some of the insults I've received (esp. from people in here - one user in particular) have given off that vibe to me too. Women's rights are slowly being taken away. It's scary. I've done my research on that too. Hearing how some women I follow on twitter are being treated at the moment by bigots is pretty damn wrong.

Also, AGAIN - I AM NOT A LIBERAL. Being here from Northern Ireland, when it comes to American politics - I know of the Republican Party, Liberal, Democratic, Greens etc. In Northern Ireland, as I'm signed up to Labour NI, I guess I'd be a supporter of them despite the fact they're a small party over here with not much influence (although the party has grown over the years, and I believe it will continue to, but it'll be years before it's even at the forefront). I vote for SDLP, Alliance (though they kinda lost my vote a while back - but Naomi Long seems to be steering the party forward, and I like her), and the Greens too. I am a *socialist*. When it comes to the Yanks, everyone in Northern Ireland (as much as a shitehole as it is, the mentality of all of the people here, corrupt as it is - you should read up on the 'RHI Scandal' to get your eyes opened and have a laugh at the biggest political botch in Northern Irish political history if you have time/want a laugh) basically thinks America is crazy. Do I? Of course. I mean, the gun laws alone ha! But I have to respect that that's how it is. Sorry, I've kinda yapped on there.



TheMenace said:


> That was a tape from more than a decade ago where he was probably being sarcastic. He has since apologized for it and admitted that he was wrong for saying it.


Yet I bet if that was Hilary or Bernie or whoever else when it comes to American politics, Trump supporters would still be all over that. You know rightly the guy's a tramp.



Miss Sally said:


> Immigrants that assimilated and worked hard, they weren't given handouts or freebies. Some came from worse hardships than the current refugees and they did fine. Again immigration isn't a right.


Nice to see the sympathy you have for people in need. Think of how difficult and hard it must be, especially in today's World (which is a lot different from back then). Of course it's a right. What's funny about the ban is a picture in here I posted earlier a few days back. It's countries banned full of folk that haven't even attacked or killed Americans.



Carte Blanche said:


> Being able to enter a country isn't a right, it's a privilege.


I'd say in some cases, it's both. I'm also talking about normal, average Muslims in other countries not being able to enter America for a vacation or whatever. Awful.


----------



## Reaper

InUtero said:


> I'd say in some cases, it's both. I'm also talking about normal, average Muslims in other countries not being able to enter America for a vacation or whatever. Awful.


Still not a right.


----------



## Sensei Utero

Carte Blanche said:


> Still not a right.


So they don't have a right to visit the country?


----------



## Reaper

InUtero said:


> So they don't have a right to visit the country?


No they absolutely do not. What makes it a right?


----------



## Sensei Utero

Carte Blanche said:


> No they absolutely do not. What makes it a right?


Well, anyone can visit near enough anywhere these days (hell, even North Korea). We live in a free World, which is probably one of the only positives of the World right now when you look past bans such as this.


----------



## Stinger Fan

InUtero said:


> Well, anyone can visit near enough anywhere these days (hell, even North Korea). We live in a free World, which is probably one of the only positives of the World right now when you look past bans such as this.


There are laws in place for those countries. They have the *right* to turn you away from entering the country. People take these privileges for granted and confuse them with "rights".


----------



## Sensei Utero

Stinger Fan said:


> There are laws in place for those countries. They have the *right* to turn you away from entering the country. People take these privileges for granted and confuse them with "rights".


Yeah, if you've done wrong in the past or whatever, or are currently doing so. However, the average person who hasn't been convicted or whatever or been in any trouble is going to be affected, and have that right taken away from them despite doing no wrong.


----------



## Goku

InUtero said:


> Well, anyone can visit near enough anywhere these days (hell, even North Korea). We live in a free World, which is probably one of the only positives of the World right now when you look past bans such as this.


you show an incredible lack of understanding of reality.


----------



## Stinger Fan

InUtero said:


> Yeah, if you've done wrong in the past or whatever, or are currently doing so. However, the average person who hasn't been convicted or whatever or been in any trouble is going to be affected, and have that right taken away from them despite doing no wrong.


It applies to everyone. Every country has a right to deny entry if they don't want you, no matter how much you want to believe that entry is a right, it isn't. You're a guest in another country, not a citizen. You've been conditioned into believing the idea that a privilege is a right because they've always been there


----------



## Sensei Utero

Goku said:


> you show an incredible lack of understanding of reality.


How so? I could say the same for folk in here. Especially Trump voters. I'm not the only one thinking all this. Over a million people in the UK have now signed a petition to block Trump visiting the region. No matter what occurs now, it ain't 'gonna end well.



Stinger Fan said:


> It applies to everyone. Every country has a right to deny entry if they don't want you, no matter how much you want to believe that entry is a right, it isn't. You're a guest in another country, not a citizen. You've been conditioned into believing the idea that a privilege is a right because they've always been there


So much for the 'Free World' America promote.


----------



## TomahawkJock

I know many people in here have called this immigration policy a "temporary halt" and in theory that's what it is, but it amused me this morning when the President referred to it as a ban. No idea if he slipped up or if that's what he himself truly believes it to be.


----------



## Seb

InUtero said:


> How so? I could say the same for folk in here. Especially Trump voters. I'm not the only one thinking all this. Over a million people in the UK have now signed a petition to block Trump visiting the region. No matter what occurs now, it ain't 'gonna end well.


The petition is to stop Trump from meeting the Queen, not to stop him "visiting the region".

We also had a petition 4.5 million people signed because they didn't get the result they wanted in a democratic referendum approved by parliament. They mean nothing.

Ironic you reference the Trump petition when the last few pages have been you staunchly defending the 'right' of anyone visiting anywhere:



InUtero said:


> Well, anyone can visit near enough anywhere these days (hell, even North Korea). We live in a free World, which is probably one of the only positives of the World right now when you look past bans such as this.


If you sign or supported the petition that you believed was "to block Trump visiting the region", does that not make you a massive hypocrite? :hmm:


----------



## Sensei Utero

Seb said:


> The petition is to stop Trump from meeting the Queen, not to stop him "visiting the region".
> 
> We also had a petition 4.5 million people signed because they didn't get the result they wanted in a democratic referendum approved by parliament. They mean nothing.
> 
> Ironic you reference the Trump petition when the last few pages have been you staunchly defending the 'right' of anyone visiting anywhere.


Ahhhhh. Was told by my brother there over dinner. I just said 'oh'. Never read into it. I should google this :lol.

I haven't signed the petition, and won't be. What I said was that no matter what occurs, it won't end well (whether he meets the Queen or not, now that I realise it's about that).


----------



## Reaper

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...porary_ban_on_newcomers_from_terrorist_havens



> *Most Support Temporary Ban on Newcomers from Terrorist Havens*
> 
> 
> 
> Monday, January 30, 2017
> Most voters approve of President Trump’s temporary halt to refugees and visitors from several Middle Eastern and African countries until the government can do a better job of keeping out individuals who are terrorist threats.
> A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 57% of Likely U.S. Voters favor a temporary ban on refugees from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen until the federal government approves its ability to screen out potential terrorists form coming here. Thirty-three percent (33%) are opposed, while 10% are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
> Similarly, 56% favor a temporary block on visas prohibiting residents of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen from entering the United States until the government approves its ability to screen for likely terrorists. Thirty-two percent (32%) oppose this temporary ban, and 11% are undecided.
> This survey was taken late last week prior to the weekend protests against Trump’s executive orders imposing a four-month ban on all refugees and a temporary visa ban on visitors from these seven countries.
> These findings have changed little from August when 59% of voters agreed with Trump’s call for a temporary ban on immigration into the United States from "the most dangerous and volatile regions of the world that have a history of exporting terrorism” until the federal government improves its ability to screen out potential terrorists.
> (Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.
> The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on January 25-26, 2017 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
> Only 16% of Americans think this country can ever be made completely safe from terrorist attacks in general, although 52% of voters say the federal government does not focus enough on the threat of domestic Islamic terrorism.
> The refugee ban is supported by 82% of Republicans and 59% of voters not affiliated with either major party. Democrats are opposed by a 53% to 34% margin. The numbers are nearly identical for the temporary ban on visas from these seven terrorist-plagued nations.
> Men and women are in general agreement on both measures. Younger voters are slightly less supportive than their elders are.
> Blacks oppose both bans more than whites and other majority voters do.
> Among voters who Strongly Approve of the job Trump is doing, over 70% support both bans. Similar numbers of those who Strongly Disapprove of his job performance are opposed.
> Most voters opposed former President Obama’s plan to bring tens of thousands of Middle Eastern and African refugees here this year. Sixty-two percent (62%) said Obama’s plan posed an increased national security risk to the United States.
> Obama and Hillary Clinton wouldn’t say it for fear of offending Muslims worldwide, but most voters continue to believe the United States is at war with radical Islamic terrorism. Trump declared war on radical Islamic terrorists in his inaugural speech.
> During the campaign, voters felt Trump would do a better job than Clinton protecting them from terrorists.
> Just 32% think the United States is safer now after eight years of the Obama presidency. In late December, 34% of voters said the United States will be safer from domestic terror attacks five years from now. Twenty-seven percent (27%) believe it will be less safe, while 32% expect the level of danger to be about the same.
> Last January, 72% of voters said the federal government is not aggressive enough in finding those who have overstayed their visas and sending them home. Sixty-eight percent (68%) considered those who overstay their visas in this country to be a serious national security risk.
> Additional information from this survey and a full demographic breakdown are available to Platinum Members only.
> Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it’s free) or follow us on Twitter or Facebook. Let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.


----------



## Headliner

glenwo2 said:


> HEADLINER, I am curious as to know what your overall position on this is.


I don't think it's right. 

Aren't there holes in the government right now? Trump got rid of a lot of US ambassadors at a moment's notice instead of honoring the traditional grace period from President to President that ensures a smooth transition and allows the ambassadors to finish up international business and make sure their personal family/living situations are fine. Once the grace period is over, new people are in those spots to ensure smooth transition. There wasn't any mention of replacements when they suddenly got fired. Senior Management at the State Department gets the boot. Very experienced people tasked with protecting the United States so you have holes in the state department that are not easy to fill. And the Secretary of State isn't confirmed yet. In theory the US is vulnerable right now with those holes in key positions. So perhaps it wasn't a good time to implement such an order with the US in this vulnerable state right now?


----------



## ShiningStar

Try to guess which countries on the list own Trump hotels and which don't.:wink2:

I know people like to call Liberals "snowflakes" but who is the one that wants people banned and walls to be built to make them feel better even though the practical effects are minimal.


----------



## BEE

Any chance Trump will be removed from power due to all this fuckery?


----------



## Seb

Isn't the point of the ban to stop people coming in from active conflict/terrorist zones? Why does where their country of origin matter?

Pretty sure the majority of the 9/11 attackers didn't train and embrace terrorism in the UAE and Egypt. It was in places like Yemen and Afghanistan. Places that at the time are similar to how places like Libya and Syria are now (and Yemen is even worse than it was). It's all very well cherry-picking facts to suit your agenda whilst ignoring the actual reason for this - whether you agree with the ban or not.

Also wasn't the list drawn up by Obama and Homeland Security in 2015? Seems disingenuous to bring up Trump's hotels as dictating who is and isn't on that list.


----------



## CamillePunk




----------



## ShiningStar

Seb said:


> Isn't the point of the ban to stop people coming in from active conflict/terrorist zones? Why does where they come from matter?


The Us can ban people from all 200+ countries and regions if they want it's within their rights. But banning people from specific countries where citizens have NEVER attacked American's because they are a certain religion makes the President and those who support it look like bigots.


----------



## CamillePunk

Being called a bigot is a small price to pay to save the west.


----------



## Seb

ShiningStar said:


> The Us can ban people from all 200+ countries and regions if they want it's within their rights. But banning people from specific countries where citizens have NEVER attacked American's because they are a certain religion makes the President and those who support it look like bigots.


I don't agree with the way the ban has been handled, but the idea that Egypt and the UAE should be treated the same as Libya and Syria when considering national security and issuing visa's in 2017 is absolutely delusional - as is the idea that where Trump has hotels had any bearing on anything.


----------



## samizayn

I liked watching this lady's interview:






Because it nicely emphasises what a shit show the border has become on top of the usual shit show that any government agency will naturally be! Why inject order into a situation when you can instead make it more complicated and difficult for all involved! Haha, fuck me right?




Seb said:


> Isn't the point of the ban to stop people coming in from active conflict/terrorist zones? Why does where their country of origin matter?
> 
> Pretty sure the majority of the 9/11 attackers didn't train and embrace terrorism in the UAE and Egypt. It was in places like Yemen and Afghanistan.


More Saudi Arabia than Yemen, lol. Country of origin matters because the aim is to prevent Islamic terrorism, and some certain countries have historically been the seat of that more than others. Fortunately they are largely unaffected by the ban, and are free to go about their business with a renewed sense of urgency.


----------



## infidel

[Q


So much for the 'Free World' America promote.[/QUOTE]

never heard any american say such a thing. sounds more like some euro globalist nonsense, that they really dont follow anyway.
but if it were the case, all these 'im moving to canada' people would be gone now. but oh wait, they probably ran into some of the most stringent immigration policies in the western world (stringent if you arent a 'refugee', that is)

'refugee': please come in! take all this government aid thats paid for by our citizens!

'immigrant': pfff, spend the next two years proving your worth, find a sponsor, while we meticulously search your personal records...oh, minor offense 15 years ago? sorry, denied.


----------



## MrMister

ShiningStar said:


> The Us can ban people from all 200+ countries and regions if they want it's within their rights. But banning people from specific countries where citizens have NEVER attacked American's because they are a certain religion makes the President and those who support it look like bigots.


There are actually a lot of nations that have large Muslim populations that aren't on this list. If you notice, most of these nations are relatively stable compared to the unfortunate current state of Syria, Iraq, and Libya.


----------



## TomahawkJock

MrMister said:


> There are actually a lot of nations that have large Muslim populations that aren't on this list. If you notice, most of these nations are relatively stable compared to the unfortunate current state of Syria, Iraq, and Libya.


Hell, Turkey is one of them and they are just north of that mess.


----------



## Reaper

>


 :kobelol 

These stats are completely bullshit lol. 

I'm just going to debunk this for Iran only. Don't care about the rest because bullshit like this spreads like wildfire amongst liberals without anyone bothering google even a single statistic fpalm 


> 1979 - 52 American citizens working in the U.S. embassy in Tehran were taken hostage for 444 days following a revolution which deposed Shah Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi. President Jimmy Carter authorized a secret mission, codenamed Desert One, to free the hostages. During the course of that mission, one of the helicopters collided with a refueling plane and resulted in the deaths of eight U.S. servicemen.
> 
> 1983 - In 1983, a truck packed with explosives and driven by a suicide bomber rammed into the U.S. Embassy in Lebanon, killing 63 people including 17 Americans. The attack was planned and executed by Hezbollah operatives, an organization funded by the Iranian government and listed as an official terrorist group by the State Department. The planning for that attack was later revealed to have taken place in Iran and Syria.
> 
> 1983 - A suicide bomber exploded a truck full of explosives at a U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut International Airport in 1983, killing 241 American Marines and wounding 100 more. Those Marines were in Lebanon as part of a multinational mission tasked with separating warring factions in that country – one of which was armed and trained by Hezbollah militants funded by Iran. Hezbollah initially denied its involvement in the attack, a federal judge finally ruled in 2003 that Hezbollah carried out the attack and allowed the families of the victims of that attack to sue Iran.
> 
> 1983 - The French and American embassies in Kuwait were targeted by the now familiar suicide attacks in 1983 as well. The Iranian-backed group Al Dawa, a militant Shiite group funded by Iran and working to destabilize Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, was blamed for the attack which killed six and wounded more than 80.
> 
> 1985 - In 1985, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad hijacked a Trans World Airlines and held many of the passengers hostage for two weeks, some of whom were beaten. U.S. Navy Diver Robert Dean Stethem was killed by the hijackers. While Iranian forces participated in the resolution of that hostage crisis, officials have never been able to disprove that some of the planning for that event involved Iranian officials. Scholars point to the Iran-Contra affair and Tehran’s desire to extract more weapons from the American government as a possible motive for the attack and Iran’s response. [Photo via AP ]
> 
> From Wikipedia:
> 
> The 1982-1983 Tyre headquarters bombings
> The blowing up of a van filled with explosives in front of the U.S. embassy in Beirut killing 58 Americans and Lebanese in 1983.
> The 1983 Beirut barracks bombing of the U.S. Marine and French 'Drakkar' barracks which killed 241 American and 58 French peacekeepers. On May 30, 2003, a U.S. federal judge ruled that Hezbollah carried out the attack at the direction of the Iranian government.[26]
> The 1983 Kuwait bombings in collaboration with the Iraqi Dawa Party.[27]
> The 1984 United States embassy annex bombing, killing 24 people.[28]
> The hijacking of TWA flight 847 holding the 39 Americans on board hostage for weeks in 1985 and murder of one U.S. Navy sailor
> The Lebanon hostage crisis from 1982 to 1992.[29]
> According to Middle East analyst James Philips, an August 1989 bombing in London was a failed Hezbollah assassination attempt on Indian-born British author Salman Rushdie, after the Iranian government put a $2.5 million bounty on his head over the novel The Satanic Verses.[30][31] Iranian officials have repeatedly called for Rushdie's death as recently as 2005.[32]
> The bombing of the Israeli Embassy in Argentina killing twenty-nine people in 1992. Hezbollah operatives boasted of involvement.[33]
> The bombing of a Jewish community center in Argentina killing 85 people in 1994. Hezbollah claimed responsibility.[34] Argentine justice accused Iran of being behind the attacks because of Buenos Aires' decision to suspend a nuclear material delivery and technology transfer.[35]
> The 1994 AC Flight 901 attack, killing 21 people, in Panama. Hezbollah claimed responsibility.[36]
> The 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, killing 19 US servicemen. On December 22, 2006, federal judge Royce C. Lamberth ruled that Iran was responsible for the attack, stating "The totality of the evidence at trial...firmly establishes that the Khobar Towers bombing was planned, funded, and sponsored by senior leadership in the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The defendants' conduct in facilitating, financing, and providing material support to bring about this attack was intentional, extreme, and outrageous."[37]
> The 2012 Burgas bus bombing, killing 6, in Bulgaria.[38]
> 
> - Iranian proxies killed an estimated 1,100 US troops in Iraq.[45] In addition, insurgents supported by Iran reportedly committed acts of terrorism.[44][46][47] The United States State Department states that weapons are smuggled into Iraq and used to arm Iran's allies among the Shiite militias, including those of the anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi army.[48]


So @ShiningStar - please next time please at least fact check your friend's facebook post that you stole to gleefully post in here so you don't embarrass yourself on his/her account.


----------



## virus21




----------



## TheMenace

Beatles123 said:


> @yeahbaby! EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEY WAY TO SEE THE LIGHT, BRO!!! :trump2


The Donald looks like he has aged 10 years in the past 2 weeks.


----------



## virus21

Given what has been happening, this seemed relevant


----------



## samizayn

RipNTear said:


> I'm just going to debunk this for Iran only. Don't care about the rest because bullshit like this spreads like wildfire amongst liberals


lol stop acting like shitty memes with fake stats isn't a favourite past time of the right.


----------



## glenwo2

Headliner said:


> I don't think it's right.
> 
> Aren't there holes in the government right now? Trump got rid of a lot of US ambassadors at a moment's notice instead of honoring the traditional grace period from President to President that ensures a smooth transition and allows the ambassadors to finish up international business and make sure their personal family/living situations are fine. Once the grace period is over, new people are in those spots to ensure smooth transition. There wasn't any mention of replacements when they suddenly got fired. Senior Management at the State Department gets the boot. Very experienced people tasked with protecting the United States so you have holes in the state department that are not easy to fill. And the Secretary of State isn't confirmed yet. In theory the US is vulnerable right now with those holes in key positions. So perhaps it wasn't a good time to implement such an order with the US in this vulnerable state right now?


I think Trump is also going to name his Supreme Court judge tomorrow as well.

Definitely not a smooth transition but more of a "fly from the seat of your pants"(or whatever that cliche saying is) transition. 

The thing is, though, as far as the "bans" go, if he decided to give time to those to complete their business(let's say he gives a month before instituting the travel ban), it would give those that mean to attack our country a chance to make sure their secret terror cells are in our country while the ban is in effect. What Trump's out-of-nowhere(like an RKO) ban does is that while it inconveniences(understatement) a good many, it also catches those other "groups" with their proverbial pants down and find themselves stuck back in their country getting whatever "orders" they're receiving before heading back here where they'll be properly vetted and hopefully caught(and arrested). 

Of course I am most likely wrong and just paranoid but we live in paranoid times(and dangerous times). Chances cannot be taken these days. Once the 90 days is done, it will be business as usual(but much more secure).


----------



## Reaper

samizayn said:


> lol stop acting like shitty memes with fake stats isn't a favourite past time of the right.


Saying that liberals spread bullshit isn't the same as saying that the right doesn't. Why would you think that I'd defend rightist memes and fake stats. When have I ever posted crap and then refused to change my mind if proven outright wrong?


----------



## glenwo2

BEE said:


> Any chance Trump will be removed from power due to all this fuckery?


Well let's put it this way :


The Earth has a better chance of blowing up into asteroids ala Alderaan(Star Wars). :sleep


----------



## Vic Capri

Twitter has become the unofficial news outlet of the 45th President of the United States and is of course the outlet for his protesters to speak against his policies.

The only problem? Folks tweeting in uproar over his newly implemented immigration travel ban are using the hashtag #RiseUp and getting a completely unrelated Atlanta Falcons emoji, :lol.





>


Liberalism is a mental disorder.

- Vic


----------



## Headliner

glenwo2 said:


> I think Trump is also going to name his Supreme Court judge tomorrow as well.
> 
> Definitely not a smooth transition but more of a "fly from the seat of your pants"(or whatever that cliche saying is) transition.
> 
> The thing is, though, as far as the "bans" go, if he decided to give time to those to complete their business(let's say he gives a month before instituting the travel ban), it would give those that mean to attack our country a chance to make sure their secret terror cells are in our country while the ban is in effect. What Trump's out-of-nowhere(like an RKO) ban does is that while it inconveniences(understatement) a good many, it also catches those other "groups" with their proverbial pants down and find themselves stuck back in their country getting whatever "orders" they're receiving before heading back here.
> 
> Of course I am most likely wrong and just paranoid but we live in paranoid times(and dangerous times). Chances cannot be taken these days. Once the 90 days is done, it will be business as usual(but much more secure).


Maybe. Yeah he's announcing his pick at 8pm EST tomorrow. I think this may motivate a few select people to want to attack the United States more. Also, I don't know what the global ramifications would be in terms of how the US is viewed? 

He's going to have to fix his relationship with the State Department. Unless he's just going to fire these people too. Apparently they and/or people affiliated with the department released a 5 page statement condemning the ban.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/826078625908846593https://lawfareblog.com/breaking-ne...ent-channel-memo-trump-refugee-and-visa-order


----------



## Arya Dark

*This may have already been posted but why the fuck would I go through any more of this thread than I'd have to? So yeah I'm not going to search through it. :maisiehi

Great video though and he brings up great points. 





*


----------



## glenwo2

^ Don't need to look at the vid(only the screencap) to see that it's more of Anti-Trump drivel.

I mean "Refugees make America Great"? In what dimension?

*Immigrants*(legal ones) and *Refugees* are two totally different things that many out there are mistaking for each other.

If one was to say Legal Immigrants, then there would be a valid argument. But Refugees? Nah.


----------



## El Dandy

glenwo2 said:


> ^ Don't need to look at the vid(only the screencap) to see that it's more of Anti-Trump drivel.
> 
> I mean "Refugees make America Great"? In what dimension?
> 
> *Immigrants*(legal ones) and *Refugees* are two totally different things that many out there are mistaking for each other.
> 
> If one was to say Legal Immigrants, then there would be a valid argument. But Refugees? Nah.


Don't judge a book by its cover

:sundin


----------



## Slickback

Cuck Schumer is a fuckin piece of shit. That is all


----------



## virus21

glenwo2 said:


> ^ Don't need to look at the vid(only the screencap) to see that it's more of Anti-Trump drivel.


Then you need to watch it, because its anything but


----------



## Slickback

glenwo2 said:


> ^ Don't need to look at the vid(only the screencap) to see that it's more of Anti-Trump drivel.
> 
> I mean "Refugees make America Great"? In what dimension?
> 
> *Immigrants*(legal ones) and *Refugees* are two totally different things that many out there are mistaking for each other.
> 
> If one was to say Legal Immigrants, then there would be a valid argument. But Refugees? Nah.


So your not going to even watch the video yet you make judgments about it? The video is the exact opposite of what your saying it is lol. Classic.


----------



## Reaper

@DesolationRow; @Miss Sally; @CamillePunk; @L-DOPA; 

Kyle has the pulse on the left's tactic of specifically creating their own sample sizes to argue against Trump's ban. Probably the first person I've noticed doing this so far and he does a great job in debunking these artfully created samples that are purposefully designed to allay the very real fear and prospect of growing international terrorism. As many are already aware, we have several new growing narratives and one of the way those narratives are spun is by limiting the number of attacks to make sure people remain myopic about how expansive Islamist terrorism really is. 

They make you think in terms of how "few" attacks happen by excluding attacks on American citizens abroad. But ignoring terrorist attacks in other Western countries with open borders. 
They make you think in terms of "there are almost no attacks on American soil" since 9/11 deluding themselves into believing that part of the reason for that is extreme vigilance and the successes of that increased security. They want you to believe that it's because there aren't that many terrorists at all. 
They exclude all attacks on nonlocals in nonwestern countries. They never talk about the contractors that are killed regularly inside muslim countries. 

Anyways, this is a decent article on the subject. It doesn't cover everything I'd like extensively enough, but at least it's talking about the issue of statistic manipulation: 


> Here’s A Short List Of Foreign-Born Terrorists Reporters Can’t Believe Exist
> The executive order by the Trump administration on immigration led to an urgent desire to proclaim there is no terrorism threat from immigrants. False.
> 
> When arguing with the Left about matters of national security and terrorism, one becomes accustomed to their habitual moving of goal posts and artificial construction of sample sizes that deliberately exclude relevant cases.
> 
> The most notorious example, of course, is the beloved “since 9/11…” canard, such as the oft-repeated although false claim that since 9/11 right-wing terrorists have killed more Americans than Islamic terrorists.
> 
> The recent executive order by the Trump administration on immigration led to an urgent desire to proclaim that there is no terrorism threat from immigrants. The most egregious example: A tweet from The New York Times’ White House correspondent Maggie Haberman, who is also a CNN analyst. She posed the question, “Other than San Bernardino shootings, has there been a terrorist attack involving a non-US-born attacker since 9/11?”
> 
> Of course, there is no sensible reason for excluding San Bernardino shooter Tasheen Malik, who was born in Pakistan, from a list of terror attacks. The attack killed 14 and took place only last year.
> 
> But even within the confines of such a ludicrously constructed sample, the question surprised more up-to-speed denizens of Twitter, who quickly bombarded Haberman with lists of successful and unsuccessful attacks carried out by non-U.S.-born individuals, including some of the most notorious recent terror attacks.
> 
> Yes, Foreign-Born Immigrants Have Committed Terrorism
> Among such individuals: the Tsarnaev brothers of the Boston Marathon bombing, who were both born abroad. Tamerlan was born in Kyrgyzstan in 1986, and Dzhokhar was reportedly born in Dagestan.
> 
> The 2015 Chattanooga Recruiting Center shooter, Mohammad Youssuf Abdulazeez, was born in Kuwait and lived in Jordan before migrating to the United States at the age of six. He killed five people.
> 
> Ohio State University attacker Abdul Razak Artan, who ran over several fellow students with a car before attacking them with a butcher knife, was a refugee born in Somalia who had only been in the United States for two years.
> 
> Ahmad Khan Rahimi, born in Afghanistan, detonated a bomb near a 5K run event, then another in downtown Manhattan in October of last year.
> 
> Dahir Adan, a Somali born in Kenya who immigrated to the United States as a child, launched a mass stabbing attack at a St. Cloud Minnesota mall in 2016. And these are only a few recent examples.
> 
> Let’s Just Define Away Counterexamples
> While it might be amusing to imagine that a mainstream media figure of some note is totally oblivious to any of the details of recent terror attacks, it’s almost beside the point. Had Haberman known better, perhaps she’d have simply constructed a question that did meet what appears to be her preformed opinion that foreign-born individuals are nearly incapable of representing a threat.
> 
> That was the position CNN took in its piece on the Trump administration’s executive order. The piece moved the goal posts yet again, insisting that no refugee had carried out a fatal terror attack in the United States. That’s surely cold comfort to the families of those killed by Waad Ramadan Alwan and Mohanad Shareef Hammadi, two Iraqi refugees settled in Bowling Green, Kentucky.
> 
> After their fingerprints were discovered on Iraqi IEDs, the two Iraqi refugees were caught in an FBI counterterrorism investigation, where Alwan bragged about using a sniper rifle to kill American troops abroad. The two plotted to kill returning U.S. troops as well. An IED constructed by Alwan is believed to have killed four Pennsylvania National Guardsmen in 2005.
> 
> That case resulted in a six-month freeze on Iraqi refugee resettlement in 2011 as U.S. authorities attempted to clamp down on serious screening problems. But, according to CNN’s twisted logic, these Iraqi refugees were never a threat. Ironically, the more attacks American law enforcement successfully prevent or mitigate, the less of a threat there is, according to the CNN model.
> 
> If one were truly interested in whether there is a terror threat from individuals born abroad, one would examine the totality of activity, not a narrowly constructed definition aimed to minimize it. That’s what senators Ted Cruz and Jeff Sessions did last June when they examined 580 individuals successfully prosecuted on terrorism offenses from September 2001 until 2014. According to the senators, 380 were foreign-born and at least 40 were refugees. While not all of those cases involved successful or attempted terror attacks, all involved cases that were terrorism-related.
> 
> Haberman’s offhand tweet is a snapshot of the willingness of the mainstream media to engage in reflective self-censoring, a kind of doublethink, where reporters seem to remain proudly unaware of key evidence that would contradict their pre-established conclusions. Unfortunately for The New York Times correspondent, not everyone on social media was inclined to play along.
> 
> Kyle Shideler is the director of the Threat Information Office at the Center for Security Policy. Kyle has worked for several organizations involved with Middle East and terrorism policy since 2006. He is a contributing author to “Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamic Terrorist Network: America and the West’s Fatal Embrace,” and has written for numerous publications and briefed legislative aides, intelligence, and law enforcement officials and the general public on national security issues.


The fact is that there are kids now that are about 14-16 who have no clue about Islamist terrorism prior to 9/11 and sincerely believing that 9/11 was a beginning and that it wasn't the result of decades of believing that same thing they wants us to believe now. That these are just random isolated incidents and they'll stop. No they won't. They've been happening since the creation of Israel and they won't end till Islam has spread throughout the world as the dominant religion.

The threat isn't from enraged/angry isolated lone-wolf bad-asses. The threat is from an ideology that sincerely believes that it exists only to have dominion over the earth.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/trump-calls-putin-world-leaders/










:trump3


----------



## Beatles123

Trump is my president. Fight me. :trump2


----------



## glenwo2

Here's something amusing :


----------



## Reaper

I remember another very popular American president that sought peace with Russia. I don't know but almost everyone, especially on the left really, really love him. But then he had his brains blown out. 

Then there was this moment in history ... I REALLY am having a very hard time remembering it. I don't know. I think it has a W and 2 in it where America worked together with Russia and stopped a major global threat. Or it was just Americans who did that. Or maybe Russia and America weren't even working together and didn't even have the same goals at all. They just happened to be fighting against the same rising threat to human civilization. 

I dunno, it seems like these really, really bad guys that Trump isn't supposed to be friendly with must be really, really bad people because this political party in America told me so when they wanted to win an election.

I guess Russians must be really, really bad guys after all and Trump being in bed with them is a terrible idea.

We should just keep our thousands of nuclear war heads pointed at each other and this will be better for humanity because ya know .. who doesn't wanna live in a bunker!


----------



## DoolieNoted

Vic Capri said:


> Twitter has become the unofficial news outlet of the 45th President of the United States and is of course the outlet for his protesters to speak against his policies.
> - Vic



It's also a fantastic way for Trump to start building a list of subversives that can be quietly rounded up and.. um.. 'talked to' at a later date..

People say such fucking dumb things on Twitter and for some reason think it's never gonna come back on them..


----------



## glenwo2

^ I know. These clowns think Twitter is anonymous.....but it really isn't. The NSA makes sure of that.


----------



## skypod

Trying to find someone to watch that isn't either a) mocking someone on the other side and picking out the worst examples to use and b) so emotional about every argument but also not completely lacking in morals to say "fuck other people" is really hard these days. Defranco's slightly left leaning but he'll use update or correct a story if some fact finding has gone awry. 


Currently correcting people calling it a Muslim ban but I just get that "you must love and support Trump" response. Seems no-one can be in the centre anymore and point out inaccurate information on both sides.


----------



## stevefox1200

Replace "Bond" with Trump and the "ass-covering prigs" with the media and mainstream-hysteria


----------



## Arya Dark

*For those not wanting to watch the video... this is a basic summary.









*


----------



## DOPA

This is such a good video from Molyneux. Really worth a watch.

Also the DeFranco video @skypod linked is a good watch too. Both very different points of view though.


Also for those still thinking this is a Muslim ban: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4169296/Syrian-Christian-family-turned-away-airport.html



> *Syrian Orthodox Christian family turned away at Pennsylvania airport following Trump's immigration ban after they waited nearly 15 years to enter the US*
> 
> A Syrian Orthodox Christian family was turned away at a Pennsylvania airport after they tried for nearly 15 years to enter the United States, following Trump's immigration ban.
> Six family members were traveling to be reunited with relatives when their journey was cut short by customs at Philadelphia International Airport on Saturday.
> 
> The two brothers, their wives and children were turned away at the border after Trump signed an executive order that banned people from Syria and six other countries from entering the United States on Friday.
> Despite waiting nearly 15 years to move to Pennsylvania to be with family members Sarmad and Sarah Assali, they were sent back on an 18-hour flight to Doha, Qatar.
> 
> The Assalis of Allentown, Pennsylvania, were some of the family's relatives awaiting their arrival, CNN reported.
> The mother and daughter did not wish to reveal the names of the six family members for their protection, due to their Orthodox Christian religion, a heavily persecuted group in Syria.
> 
> Sarmad said her Damascus-based relatives were coming to the country on a F-4 visa for siblings of US citizens, and she had secured a house for them prior to their arrival.
> She said to CNN: 'We bought them a house, we furnished it for them, to help them start a new life.'
> 
> The Assalis were only alerted that the two families were denied entry after they were already on a flight back to Doha.
> Sarah, 25, said to Newsworks: 'We weren't expecting this because we paid everything.
> 
> 'The green cards have been paid for, the visas have been paid for, everything has been approved.
> 
> 'To suddenly be told, "no, you no longer qualify to enter the country," it kind of comes as a slap in the face.'
> Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney has spoke out against Trump's ban, which has sparked protests at the city's airport and across the country.
> He said in a statement: 'Banning immigrants and refugees is not only unjustifiably cruel, it also puts Americans at home and serving abroad at great risk.
> 
> 'The Trump administration very well may have just given these families a death sentence.'
> Trump's executive order includes 'extreme vetting' of immigrants and it outright banned people from seven countries from entering the US.
> 
> The decision was met with waves of protests at airports in the country where people were being detained for hours on end.
> 
> Trump said that Syrian Christians will be given priority when it comes to applying for refugee status in the United States, on Friday.
> Sarah told Newsworks that the family began the process of applying for a visa before the civil war broke out in Syria, something that she thought would be an advantage.
> She said to the news outlet: 'We thought we lucked out.
> 
> 'We didn't have to apply for asylum, or refugee status, we already have the paperwork in the works.'


So yeah, if you believe the MSM that this is a Muslim ban after reading this then I have no idea what to tell you.

On another note related to this story, it highlights another real problem in the opposite direction. 15 fucking years to even get into the US? I knew the vetting was strict but if that is true that is utterly asinine. It seems as though the US immigration system may be unnecessarily difficult to navigate. Can someone please explain this to me?

Anyway I feel bad for the family to be turned away because of this but to pin this all on Trump when during both the Bush and Obama administrations they couldn't get in either to me is pretty short sighted and harsh.

Anyway to reiterate, I am against the temporary banning from the countries listed for reasons I've explained in previous posts but once again, this is hardly a new thing if you read up on the history of these types of executive orders.


----------



## DesolationRow

Looks like the initial stories from the Quebec City mosque attack were wrong so let the record show that this has been acknowledged. Terrible event.



RipNTear said:


> The threat isn't from enraged/angry isolated lone-wolf bad-asses. The threat is from an ideology that sincerely believes that it exists only to have dominion over the earth.


A most piquant post, *Reaper*. 

Thank you for the informative and entertaining video, @AryaDark.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/826148816252497920
The Iranians are altering the terms of the John Kerry-authored deal.

Pray that they alter it no further...?


----------



## MrMister

I always had a feeling Kerry's impression of Neville Chamberlain was pretty legit.


----------



## 3ku1

America must of known electing Trump, he was not the half measures kinda guy :lol. But man I am so damn sick of hearing Actors and Celebs talk about it. Like the female actress from the Stranger is encouraging people to punch Trump in the face. Yeah that's helpful. Like Mark Whalberg said, most working people, or every day ppl. Coulden't give a damn about what Celebs think. It's out of control. If Trump is going to put a ban on Muslims, he is going to have to ban all of them. Alot of them are bringing drugs into your country, and crime. Not all of them of course. But Trumps ban is a hardline. That is clearly controversial, as is everything he does.


----------



## The Absolute

> Former President Barack Obama, in his first statement since leaving office, issued a statement through his spokesman expressing support for protesters as “exactly what we expect to see when American values are at stake.”
> 
> His spokesman, Kevin Lewis, said that Obama “is heartened by the level of engagement taking place in communities around the country. In his final official speech as President, he spoke about the important role of citizen and how all Americans have a responsibility to be guardians of our democracy — not just during an election but every day.
> 
> “Citizens exercising their Constitutional right to assemble, organize, and have their voices heard by their elected officials is exactly what we expect to see when American values are at stake.”


Correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Obama, but wasn't this whole thing technically _your_ idea? :heyman6


----------



## Miss Sally

3ku1 said:


> America must of known electing Trump, he was not the half measures kinda guy :lol. But man I am so damn sick of hearing Actors and Celebs talk about it. Like the female actress from the Stranger is encouraging people to punch Trump in the face. Yeah that's helpful. Like Mark Whalberg said, most working people, or every day ppl. Coulden't give a damn about what Celebs think. It's out of control. If Trump is going to put a ban on Muslims, he is going to have to ban all of them. Alot of them are bringing drugs into your country, and crime. Not all of them of course. But Trumps ban is a hardline. That is clearly controversial, as is everything he does.


I was going to bring this up but glad you did. David Harbour has had some okay roles but really nothing that impressive, in fact on the show it was the kids that were the best part, he was decent but nothing fantastic. He was in the voting commercial (The not so subtle Hillary one) and people were probably wondering who he was. So he's been speaking out and kind of acting like a tool. Got to get in that credit to try and snatch up other roles.


----------



## glenwo2

^ I'm sure looting and destroying public property wasn't what you had in mind with the "exercising their Constitutional right to assemble, organize, and have their voices heard" rhetoric, eh Obama?


----------



## Sensei Utero

You guys would probably hate WrestleClique's opinion and views on Trump.

#WFvWC lolz.
*
EDIT:* Funny though how I get attacked for posting 'personal attacks' yet have been thrusted with insults from one particular user and have been accused of being an idiot too. Just thought I'd put that out there. It's not nice when it's one thing against the other. I do apologise for any personal attacks I've posted in the past. No hate on any users here who clearly have different opinions than me, and I truly mean that - even if you dislike me more than when Warrior disliked Hogan or something.


----------



## virus21

Edit: Wrong thread


----------



## Lady Eastwood

InUtero said:


> I'm not arguing that. I'm just sayin' good luck on gettin' them to pay for that wall.
> 
> Also, it didn't state who it was in that shooting. Unless I've missed a few posts.


haha, I know, I was just quoting you to throw out that information since the US-Mexican border stuff came up.

The shooter ended up being a white 27 year old dumbass who spewed hate. 

Anyway, a few things I want to mention here....I don't disagree with the ban in general, however, there are some things about it I DO disagree with:

1. Out of all the Muslim countries in the world, the 7 chosen ones haven't carried out terrorist attacks in like 20 years, yet, the countries who have are not banned. I get that Trump has business in those places, it's a conflict of interest....and the information given (I mentioned it before) is that the Obama administration already had those countries chosen....even if that is true, I am pretty sure Trump could have either changed the countries or just added all Muslim countries.


2. I think it is garbage that it is also for people with green cards. Those people already went through the legal process that they needed to do, there is no reason for these people to be included.


3. Some of the terrorist attacks were carried out by American born citizens with middle eastern backgrounds.....these people can easily go undetected, as they go to work or school like any other American, pay their taxes, all the while, going home and looking up extremist shit and even finding ways to communicate with Jihad motherfuckers. They don't have anything in place to monitor this....


There needs to be a number set for the amount of immigrants that come to a country. My boss showed me stats today regarding pension plans. Refugees get $28,000 while your average citizen, who has paid their way for years, busted their balls off to just get by, gets $12,000. We joked we were going to leave the country and come back as refugees to get more money (it really is fucking sad, though).

Vets need jobs, yet, lets pass it out to immigrants.....

Also, one last thing, there are rich Muslim countries who refuse to take refugees because they fear terrorist attacks....so lets take them in the US and Canada? Go fuck a bag of dicks. Those rich bastards should be helping their neighbours, their own people.


----------



## TheMenace

Those who have been calling for a values test for all immigrants and refugees may have been on to something this whole time. If you believe in an ideology which is intolerant toward all other ideologies, maybe you shouldn't be allowed entry into another country?


----------



## Miss Sally

The Absolute said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Obama, but wasn't this whole thing technically _your_ idea? :heyman6


Nothing he does is ever wrong, look at Fast and furious or the IRS scandals as two examples. Had Bush done this there would have been riots. President Peace Prize has got away with a bunch of shit.


----------



## Vic Capri

> Correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Obama, but wasn't this whole thing technically your idea?


Liberals are masters at playing the victim card.

- Vic


----------



## Stinger Fan

The Absolute said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Obama, but wasn't this whole thing technically _your_ idea? :heyman6


He's a democrat, they don't get held accountable for anything they do.


----------



## Lady Eastwood

TheMenace said:


> Those who have been calling for a values test for all immigrants and refugees may have been on to something this whole time. If you believe in an ideology which is intolerant toward all other ideologies, maybe you shouldn't be allowed entry into another country?



I may need to be corrected on this, but, I believe Muslim dominant countries treat Christians like shit.

Or anyone with a non-Muslim faith, for that matter.

To them, Islam is the ruler of religion and they want to take over the world with it.


----------



## virus21

> US President Donald Trump and Saudi Arabia’s King Salman have come to conclusions on future strategies in the wars in both Syria and Yemen as well as how to deal with Iran, the White House has said.
> 
> King Salman spoke with the new US president in a phone call on Sunday in which he agreed that Mr Trump’s proposed safe zone plan for Syria was the best way forward in the six-year-long conflict.
> 
> The countries were agreed on the need to address “Iran’s destabilising regional activities,” the White House said.
> 
> A Saudi write up of the call said that both countries “share views about Iranian policies in the region”, or what Riyadh believes are attempts from arch-enemy Iran to step up its involvement in Arab affairs.
> 
> The two also agreed in the hour-long conversation that fighting Isis must be a priority for both countries, and needed closer counter-terrorism and military co-operation. Neither source mentioned whether Mr Trump’s travel ban for citizens of seven Muslim countries was discussed.
> 
> Donald Trump ordered the Pentagon and Department of Defence to come up with a plan in the next three months on how to set up safe zones in Syria last week.
> 
> President Trump’s predecessor Barack Obama resisted Republican calls to set up safe zones on the grounds that such a move – which could involve ground troops and extra US aircraft if a “no fly zone” is created – would draw the country deeper into Syria’s complex civil war.
> 
> An increased US military presence in the country could also cause clashes with Russian forces, which operate in the country at the request of ally Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
> 
> Activists protest Donald Trump's proposed Muslim ban
> 11
> show all
> Speaking to reporters last week, a Kremlin spokesperson urged caution on the part of the US, adding that Russia had not yet been consulted on any safe zone plans.
> 
> On Monday, Syria's state news agency said that any attempt to establish safe zones in the country without coordination with Damascus would be a violation of Syria's sovereignty.
> 
> On the campaign trail last year, Mr Trump had said that he would get the Gulf states to pay to establish safe zones in Syria for refugees, as “they have money like hardly anyone else has.”
> 
> King Salman also gave his support to the creation of safe zones in Yemen, where a Saudi-led Arab coalition is currently bombing Houthi rebels at the request of the exiled Yemeni government.
> 
> 
> 0:00
> /
> 0:30
> 
> Yemen's prime minister accuses UK of war crimes
> The almost two-year-old campaign has been criticised for causing heavy civilian casualties.
> 
> The Saudi Press Agency, in its readout of the call, made no specific mention of safe zones. It said the two leaders had affirmed the “depth and durability of the strategic relationship” between the two countries.
> 
> Also on Sunday, the US carried out its first military operation authorised by Mr Trump in central Yemen.
> 
> The US commando raid on an al-Qaeda site killed one US soldier and injured three others. The US said that 14 militants were killed, but did not confirm reports from medics on the ground that 30 people, including 10 women and children, had died.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/donald-trump-saudi-arabia-king-salman-abdulaziz-al-saud-agree-safe-zones-syria-yemen-a7553341.html



> President Donald Trump said last week that he would "absolutely do safe zones in Syria" to stem the flow of refugees into other countries.
> 
> Trump is expected to ask the Pentagon and State Department to draft a plan for establishing the safe zones, so it's unclear which specific measures he would authorize.
> 
> But experts warn that creating and defending safe zones inside Syria could lead to escalation — and potentially drag the US into a global conflict.
> 
> In the Syrian civil war, which is almost in its sixth year, the Obama administration supported Syrian rebels who opposed the regime of President Bashar Assad. But the primary US goal in Syria has been to eradicate terrorist groups like the Islamic State and Al Qaeda-affiliated factions.
> 
> Then, in 2015, Russia entered the conflict to help the Assad regime. Iran, a major Assad ally, is also involved in the conflict. Establishing safe zones inside the country could therefore provoke those countries — the US would need to defend the zone from external bombardment from both terrorist groups and a governing regime that has been known to indiscriminately bomb civilians.
> 
> "I do think that it presents escalation risks," Melissa Dalton, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies who was formerly a country director for Syria at the Department of Defense, told Business Insider.
> 
> "If the US decides to pursue a safe zone, it needs to do so in the broader framework that looks at what sort of levers, what sort of coercive measures can the US bring to bear on Russia, Assad, and Iran to ensure that the safe zone is not violated and to mitigate the risks of military confrontation."
> 
> It's unclear whether a safe zone would mean imposing no-fly restrictions above the territory, but protecting the airspace would most likely be necessary. And if that is the case, the US would need to be prepared to shoot down any aircraft that violates the no-fly zone — a move that could lead to war.
> 
> "I don't think my country is willing to risk World War III over Syria," Robert Ford, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute who was the US ambassador to Syria from 2011 to 2014, told Business Insider in June.
> 
> A Syrian refugee woman walks between tents in Nizip refugee camp, near the Turkish-Syrian border in Gaziantep province, Turkey, November 30, 2016.
> A Syrian refugee woman in the Nizip refugee camp, near the Turkish-Syrian border in Gaziantep province, Turkey, on November 30. REUTERS/Umit Bektas
> 
> Trump himself said in October that his then-political rival's plan for resolving the Syrian conflict, which included establishing no-fly zones and safe zones, would "lead to World War III." He used the same logic many experts are now using to express skepticism about his own plan.
> 
> "What we should do is focus on ISIS. We should not be focusing on Syria," Trump told The Guardian. "You're going to end up in World War III over Syria if we listen to Hillary Clinton."
> 
> He continued: "You're not fighting Syria anymore, you're fighting Syria, Russia, and Iran, all right? Russia is a nuclear country, but a country where the nukes work as opposed to other countries that talk."
> 
> Russia also issued a veiled warning to the Trump administration.
> 
> Dmitry Peskov, a spokesman for Russian President Vladimir Putin, said in a conference call with reporters Thursday that it was important for the US to "think about the potential consequences of establishing safe zones" in Syria.
> 
> Dalton explained that with Russia's involvement in the Syrian civil war, "any sort of military intervention by the US whether it's a no-fly zone or a safe zone would have to be coordinated with the Russians." Assad may also need to be involved in negotiations about a no-fly zone so that all parties in the conflict are in agreement about which areas are off-limits.
> 
> "If there were terms struck with Russia and Assad such that they were supportive of the creation of this safe zone and it was far enough distance away from where extremist groups are operating such that Assad and the Russians are not going to strike in that area, perhaps the requirements for a complete no-fly zone might not be as strong," Dalton said.
> 
> putin assad AP
> 
> But the problem with this strategy is that the Assad regime considers his opposition to be entirely made up of terrorists, meaning he'd be unlikely to support a safe zone that included rebels who oppose him.
> 
> "Given the marbled nature of the different groups that are present in northern Syria, it's very difficult to separate the interlaced communities that the US may deem as civilians versus what Assad and the Russians deem as a threat or extremists," Dalton said.
> 
> "That then leads to the potential of escalation, whether or not the US has a strong no-fly zone in place or not."
> 
> Negotiating with Assad would also most likely require concessions for his regime, which Syrians would not be happy with.
> 
> Additionally, protecting the safe zone would most likely require an increased presence of US troops on the ground, and that also carries potential for escalation.
> 
> "A safe zone is more than a no-fly zone," Ford, the former ambassador to Syria, said in an email Friday. "It presumably means that not only do enemy airplanes [not] drop bombs on civilians, but there is no tank/artillery shelling into the safe zone either. That means, of course, the possibility of [the US Air Force] attacking Syria/Iran-backed forces on the ground if they fire into the zone."
> 
> Jim Phillips, a Middle East expert at the Heritage Foundation, told Reuters that "this essentially boils down to a willingness to go to war to protect refugees."


http://www.businessinsider.com/trumps-safe-zones-syria-refugees-world-war-2017-1


----------



## TheMenace

Catalanotto said:


> I may need to be corrected on this, but, I believe Muslim dominant countries treat Christians like shit.
> 
> Or anyone with a non-Muslim faith, for that matter.
> 
> To them, Islam is the ruler of religion and they want to take over the world with it.


I don't think all Muslims should be painted with a broad brush, however, those who want Islamic culture to take over the world shouldn't be allowed into western countries IMO.


----------



## Vic Capri

Sally Yates, you're fired! :lol

- Vic


----------



## stevefox1200

The only way to make a safe zone really work is use a neutral nations troops as guards that way if you bomb the shit out of it you are declaring war or at least looking like an asshole

I personally recommend Luxembourg's military, they could use the attention


----------



## Lady Eastwood

TheMenace said:


> I don't think all Muslims should be painted with a broad brush, however, those who want Islamic culture to take over the world shouldn't be allowed into western countries IMO.


I agree!

I have a few Muslim friends who are really friendly and cool! They are embarrassed by the actions of their people, and it makes me feel sad for them because their people in general are being thrown in the same boat....There are always good people in every group. During this entire ordeal, I feel terrible for the good ones.....


----------



## skypod

Was Obama in the stages of starting this ban or was it going to be an extreme vetting process? Since it was his idea apparently?


----------



## The Absolute

Dear Sally Yates...


----------



## samizayn

RipNTear said:


> Saying that liberals spread bullshit isn't the same as saying that the right doesn't. Why would you think that I'd defend rightist memes and fake stats. When have I ever posted crap and then refused to change my mind if proven outright wrong?


Well it pretty much is tbh. "Bullshit like this spreads like wildfire" true! People love to share easy little infographics, especially when they suit their worldview. Adding "among liberals" implies it is only a problem somewhere, as opposed to anywhere and with anybody. That's just my opinion tho


Catalanotto said:


> I may need to be corrected on this, but, I believe Muslim dominant countries treat Christians like shit.
> 
> Or anyone with a non-Muslim faith, for that matter.
> 
> To them, Islam is the ruler of religion and they want to take over the world with it.


Yep, my Egyptian friend jokes about it so I never get the full impression, but it's definitely a significant factor in Christians' lives.


----------



## Art Vandaley

skypod said:


> Was Obama in the stages of starting this ban or was it going to be an extreme vetting process? Since it was his idea apparently?


It was a list of countries put together for a different reason. It was never going to be used for a travel ban. It was a list of countries that support terror, not a list of countries that contain terrorists. 

This was Trump's idea 100%, unsurprising the right are trying to blame Obama for something his replacement campaigned on doing and then did though.


----------



## Mra22

Trump is a savage he just fired the attorney general :lol


----------



## El Dandy

I can't handle the memes tonight


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*He just fired the acting Head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.*


----------



## Reaper

samizayn said:


> Well it pretty much is tbh. "Bullshit like this spreads like wildfire" true! People love to share easy little infographics, especially when they suit their worldview. Adding "among liberals" implies it is only a problem somewhere, as opposed to anywhere and with anybody.


Aah. So this is exactly what I thought it was. An attempt to police what someone else is saying so in your mind you can continue to pretend that everyone is the same and that everyone is equally bad because simply pretending that right now is easier despite the fact that over the last few months there has been a significant disproportionate amount of conspiracy theories and simply wrong things being put out by leftists. It's not even close at this point.

So even though at that point I was not making that statement thanks for making me take a closer look and realize that liberals are really the ones out numbering conservatives with regards to lying to everyone and each other.


----------



## samizayn

RipNTear said:


> Aah. So this is exactly what I thought it was. An attempt to police what someone else is saying so in your mind you can continue to pretend that everyone is the same and that everyone is equally bad because simply pretending that right now is easier despite the fact that over the last few months there has been a significant disproportionate amount of conspiracy theories and simply wrong things being put out by leftists. It's not even close at this point.
> 
> So even though at that point I was not making that statement thanks for making me take a closer look and realize that liberals are really the ones out numbering conservatives with regards to lying to everyone and each other.


It's not pretense. I wasn't making a comment about "the last few months" so you can make of that what you will. If you don't think media controversies bring those silly, usually inaccurate images out from all sides then I don't think you're being very honest with yourself.


----------



## Reaper

samizayn said:


> It's not pretense. I wasn't making a comment about "the last few months" so you can make of that what you will. If you don't think media controversies bring those silly, usually inaccurate images out from all sides then I don't think you're being very honest with yourself.


I never said that it doesn't come from all sides. I didn't even say that it doesn't come from all sides even in the last few months. I said that it has been coming more and more from the left in the last few months and it's not even close at this point. 

So yeah, it is a pretense and it does help people who like to believe they're in some magical fairy land called "the middle" sleep better at night by believing that there is some sort of equality in everything. Good, bad and otherwise. 

Well, the real world really doesn't work this way.


----------



## Neuron

Can we just agree that everyone has blinders on when it comes to their personal agendas? You have a better chance at finding a unicorn than you do a truly objective thinker.



DesolationRow said:


> In spite of enjoying Trump's frown-heavy verbal barrages against corrupt media and political institutions and still feeling elated that he defeated the Cruella de Vil of American politics, if he is a failure as president,* if he goes back on his plainspoken words concerning how the American empire is run around the world*, for instance, or if he actually does institute policies which are truly nightmarish expansions of American deep state surveillance on citizens here (an actual possibility since even his best-sounding rhetoric on that issue was largely unenticing at best, and his worst rhetoric genuinely terrible), etcetera, I will say so. The worst presidents ever generally did a few things right, and the best presidents were far from infallible. Only a week in, and Trump's run has been dizzying in a mostly positive way thus far. We should all write in to the White House and demand that these immigration freezes are applied to Saudi Arabia. Will pen a letter Monday and send it to The Donald on Tuesday! They expect one of us in the presidential mailbox, right, @Neuron? The fire rises!
> 
> Think I'll also mail The Donald a new comb.
> 
> One last thing before I take the cursor and click over "POST QUCK REPLY": Victoria Nuland is GOOONE! :mark: Even if The Donald accomplishes nothing else, seeing her run away like a scalded dog (/Jim Ross) is a wonderful sight to see. Obama's top neocon is now neogone! :mark: Time to make the U.S. State Department great again. :lol


Of Courshhh!










I'm very apprehensive at turning to the government to solve problems that they created in the first place, but I do believe action to remove ISIS must be swift. I'm a strong non-interventionist, and I detest the military-industrial complex that has manipulated our foreign policy since the start of the cold war. I will consider the Trump presidency a success if he can lessen their grip on the world stage. I don't agree with all of his actions (who does agree with anyone 100% on anything, really?) and I know he won't be able to solve all of our problems, but we must hold him accountable to this.


----------



## Reaper

Neuron said:


> You have a better chance at finding a unicorn than you do a truly objective thinker.


There is no objectivity outside the realm of pure mathematics. But that also does not mean that all opinions are equal or that they are equally right.


----------



## samizayn

RipNTear said:


> I never said that it doesn't come from all sides. I didn't even say that it doesn't come from all sides even in the last few months. I said that it has been coming more and more from the left in the last few months and it's not even close at this point.
> 
> So yeah, it is a pretense and it does help people who like to believe they're in some magical fairy land called "the middle" sleep better at night by believing that there is some sort of equality in everything. Good, bad and otherwise.
> 
> Well, the real world really doesn't work this way.


Okay I see. You've made it clearer what you meant to say, but even so I don't think it was best represented by what you did say, which is why I had to comment. Just because the right has nothing to fabricate outrage over this time around doesn't mean it hasn't in the past and won't do so in the future. I'm not sure what point there is to be made over that not being right now of this very instant, but this really isn't as outlandish as you are making out


----------



## glenwo2

Mra22 said:


> Trump is a savage he just fired the attorney general :lol





2 Ton 21 said:


> *He just fired the acting Head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.*


Trump to the Attorney General and Head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement :


----------



## Neuron

RipNTear said:


> There is no objectivity outside the realm of pure mathematics.


True.



RipNTear said:


> But that also does not mean that all opinions are equal or that they are equally right.


Also true. I also think the whole "le rational centrist skeptic" meme you seemed to be hinting at in your earlier post is a bit cancer myself. You can't get anything done when you try to entertain every opinion in existence. The Telegraphs and Huffing Paints of the world have nothing better to do than constantly make a fuss about every minor thing Trump does now. Why would I bother reading them?


----------



## FriedTofu

And people complain about Obama's executive orders. :lol

At least Obama's team goes through the legal ramification before signing stuff. Steve Bannon seems to not give a damn about whether any legal backlash before whispering into Trump's ears to sign these things. It almost seem like they feel that they won the election so they are the law.


----------



## nucklehead88

Quebec shooter a Trump supporter

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/quebec-terror-suspect-alexandre-bissonnette-charged-with-six-counts-of-murder?utm_content=inf_11_3687_2&utm_source=wildhair&utm_campaign=fijifrost&tse_id=INF_ca2b16c0e74511e6a03c354c456e1db2



> One, Éric Debroise, said he informed police Bissonnette is an "ultra nationalist white supremacist," while one of Bissonnette's classmates, Jean-Michel Allard-Prus, said "he has right-wing political ideas, pro-Israel, anti-immigration. I had many debates with him about Trump. He was obviously pro-Trump."


----------



## nucklehead88

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/825781634330980352


----------



## Miss Sally

nucklehead88 said:


> Quebec shooter a Trump supporter
> 
> https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/quebec-terror-suspect-alexandre-bissonnette-charged-with-six-counts-of-murder?utm_content=inf_11_3687_2&utm_source=wildhair&utm_campaign=fijifrost&tse_id=INF_ca2b16c0e74511e6a03c354c456e1db2


And all the Islamic terrorists who committed attacks were pro Islam. :reigns2


----------



## KingCosmos

Miss Sally said:


> And all the *Islamic terrorists *who committed attacks were *pro Islam*. :reigns2


Of course a ISLAMIC terrorist is Pro Islam


----------



## Miss Sally

KingCosmos said:


> Of course a ISLAMIC terrorist is Pro Islam


No shit Sherlock, I said this because we had people constantly defending Islam during Islamic attacks but now that this happened will use it.


----------



## glenwo2

FriedTofu said:


> And people complain about Obama's executive orders. :lol
> 
> At least Obama's team goes through the legal ramification before signing stuff. Steve Bannon seems to not give a damn about whether any legal backlash before whispering into Trump's ears to sign these things. *It almost seem like they feel that they won the election so they are the law.*


Well...they DID win the election so in some respects, they really are the Law. At least Trump is. :draper2


(and if his firing of the "Attorney General" and the "Head of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement" is any indication, he's not taking any shit from anyone)


----------



## nucklehead88

Miss Sally said:


> No shit Sherlock, I said what I said because he jumped into this thread quick to point out the shooter is a possible Trump supporter. Meanwhile whenever Islamic terror happens he's one of the first to dismiss it. I just find the hypocrisy funny.


I don't dismiss anything. You're making shit up. If an Islamic terrorist commits an act of terror against an establishment, to support Islam/is motivated by Islam, then thats a shit thing to do and should be seen as such. As should a Trump supporter/right wing nutcase shooting up a mosque. Considering the current situation in the U.S. and the way Trump has done things in his first 2 weeks, clearly the 2 are connected. If this had been a Muslim shooting up a church, I'd say the same damn thing. If Hillary was President and a left wing nutjob shot up a church, I'd post that too. Motivated by bullshit. Racism is racism. And Trump has allowed hatred and racism to come back to the surface.


----------



## Vic Capri

When a white guy shoots up a mosque, its white supremacy, but when a Muslim commits mass murder, you never hear the liberal media calling it Islam supremacy.

- Vic


----------



## Miss Sally

nucklehead88 said:


> I don't dismiss anything. You're making shit up. If an Islamic terrorist commits an act of terror against an establishment, to support Islam/is motivated by Islam, then thats a shit thing to do and should be seen as such. As should a Trump supporter/right wing nutcase shooting up a mosque. Considering the current situation in the U.S. and the way Trump has done things in his first 2 weeks, clearly the 2 are connected. If this had been a Muslim shooting up a church, I'd say the same damn thing. If Hillary was President and a left wing nutjob shot up a church, I'd post that too. Motivated by bullshit. Racism is racism. And Trump has allowed hatred and racism to come back to the surface.


Redacted!


----------



## nucklehead88

Miss Sally said:


> I honestly doubt this. I'm pretty sure you were one of the people constantly arguing with Reaper and others on how Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam or whenever an attack happened in the name of Islam you were quick to dismiss it. If not then I'm wrong but pretty sure it's you. Frankly what this guy did was stupid and wrong and an attack of terror. Unsure if he is a trump supporter as the only indication of this is based off what someone else said but I'm not going to dismiss it. Though it is funny it happened in Canada and not America, takes the wind out of some sails considering this guy isn't American. Also pretty sure Islam is not a race so therefore not racism.


It wasn't me. If an attack is motivated by Islam, then it is Islamic terrorism. You're right though that racism isn't the right word. Islam isn't a race. I misspoke. Bigotry. It taking place in Canada (Calling it "funny" is a bit messed up) doesn't diminish the connection because he clearly supported the same ideology that Trump represents. Obviously, to an extreme measure. I don't in any way think that this man represents Trump supporters as a whole. Clearly most of you are level headed people that know not to go shoot up your local mosque. But it's an ideology that can easily be taken to the extreme.


----------



## Alco

Of course Islamic terrorism has everything to do with the religion. The terrorists use the religion to legitimize their actions. Whomever disputes this is just silly.

The notion of "Islamic supremacy" however, is very outdated. ISIS, Al Quaeda and others commit terrorist acts in Western countries to legitimize their claims to domestic power. Does anyone really believe ISIS thinks they can impose Shariah law by sending an odd 20 guys into France to blow shit up? C'mon now, be reasonable. 

In my heart of hearts though, I completely oppose this travel ban on people from seven countries, especially Syria. The majority of the people fleeing Syria do so because they want to get out of one of the worst possible situations a human being can find himself in. The country is basically blown to smithereens and the world is just standing by and letting it happen. There are few other places, perhaps bar Lybia and other (mostly Northern)African countries where the situation is as dire as it is in Syria. And it has been for years. Millions are on the run and who can blame them? Religion shouldn't even be a factor in this regard. These people need help. Food, medical attention, a roof over their heads, clean water. Is it the US' responsibility only to take all these people in? Of course not. This is a burden that should be shared. And it is shared, mind you, because it's still Europe, and Germany in particular, which carries the heaviest load (relative to other European countries). 

And don't give me the "flood of refugees" argument, please. Out of all of the 4 million+ Syrian refugees, 2.1 million are being received in Turkey. 1.1 million in Lebanon and over half a million in Jordan. A majority of what's left, goes to Europe. Those numbers deserve to be named a "flood". Which brings me to believe this measure is as much symbolic as it is pragmatic. But as a symbol, I completely disagree with it. 

Also, for anyone considering, I will not react to "Saint Alco" allegations :side:

Oh and let me add that it is absolutely laughable that Saudi Arabia is not on Trump's list of countries. They may not "sponsor" terrorism, but they sure house a boatload of 'em. Oh well.


----------



## Miss Sally

nucklehead88 said:


> It wasn't me. If an attack is motivated by Islam, then it is Islamic terrorism. You're right though that racism isn't the right word. Islam isn't a race. I misspoke. Bigotry. It taking place in Canada (Calling it "funny" is a bit messed up) doesn't diminish the connection because he clearly supported the same ideology that Trump represents. Obviously, to an extreme measure. I don't in any way think that this man represents Trump supporters as a whole. Clearly most of you are level headed people that know not to go shoot up your local mosque. But it's an ideology that can easily be taken to the extreme.


Oh if it wasn't you then it must have been someone with a similar name. Sorry! I'll change up my posts. But i was 100% sure it was you so I was like a wolf! Agreed on everything you said.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*This dumbfuck just fired the Attorney General for not defending his UNCONSTITUTIONAL law :lmao. We have a fucking tyrant as president and morons who actually defend this shit. Citizens from the 7 countries he banned haven't even committed any acts of terror on US soil. Every act of terror SINCE 9/11 has been committed by US citizens, so who the fuck is he protecting with this illegal Muslim ban? I also find it amusing that the Middle Eastern countries he does business with remain unbanned. How shocking .


 https://twitter.com/i/web/status/826350565533814784
Talk about irony.*


----------



## Miss Sally

Alco said:


> Of course Islamic terrorism has everything to do with the religion. The terrorists use the religion to legitimize their actions. Whomever disputes this is just silly.
> 
> The notion of "Islamic supremacy" however, is very outdated. ISIS, Al Quaeda and others commit terrorist acts in Western countries to legitimize their claims to domestic power. Does anyone really believe ISIS thinks they can impose Shariah law by sending an odd 20 guys into France to blow shit up? C'mon now, be reasonable.
> 
> In my heart of hearts though, I completely oppose this travel ban on people from seven countries, especially Syria. The majority of the people fleeing Syria do so because they want to get out of one of the worst possible situations a human being can find himself in. The country is basically blown to smithereens and the world is just standing by and letting it happen. There are few other places, perhaps bar Lybia and other (mostly Northern)African countries where the situation is as dire as it is in Syria. And it has been for years. Millions are on the run and who can blame them? Religion shouldn't even be a factor in this regard. These people need help. Food, medical attention, a roof over their heads, clean water. Is it the US' responsibility only to take all these people in? Of course not. This is a burden that should be shared. And it is shared, mind you, because it's still Europe, and Germany in particular, which carries the heaviest load (relative to other European countries).
> 
> And don't give me the "flood of refugees" argument, please. Out of all of the 4 million+ Syrian refugees, 2.1 million are being received in Turkey. 1.1 million in Lebanon and over half a million in Jordan. A majority of what's left, goes to Europe. Those numbers deserve to be named a "flood". Which brings me to believe this measure is as much symbolic as it is pragmatic. But as a symbol, I completely disagree with it.
> 
> Also, for anyone considering, I will not react to "Saint Alco" allegations :side:
> 
> Oh and let me add that it is absolutely laughable that Saudi Arabia is not on Trump's list of countries. They may not "sponsor" terrorism, but they sure house a boatload of 'em. Oh well.


Germany received 1.5-2 million "refugees" Italy is currently getting boatloads everyday. I'd say that constitutes a near flood, even more so since the ones that reached Europe are mostly male and if family reunion happens, that number could double, possibly triple. Setting up safe zones within Libya, jordan and Lebanon would have been better than Germany's virtue signaling bullshit. Sending money to those countries for aid would have helped 10 times as many people. 

Over a million people isn't a flood? What would you call it?

The ban on muslims isn't unconstitutional, Obama's done it, lots of Presidents have done it.


----------



## Alco

Miss Sally said:


> Germany received 1.5-2 million "refugees" Italy is currently getting boatloads everyday. I'd say that constitutes a near flood, even more so since the ones that reached Europe are mostly male and if family reunion happens, that number could double, possibly triple. Setting up safe zones within Libya, jordan and Lebanon would have been better than Germany's virtue signaling bullshit. Sending money to those countries for aid would have helped 10 times as many people.
> 
> Over a million people isn't a flood? What would you call it?
> 
> The ban on muslims isn't unconstitutional, Obama's done it, lots of Presidents have done it.


I must've not been entirely clear because I never claimed Germany (or Lampedusa or the Greek islands) don't get a "flood" of refugees. I was talking about the US in particular. Relative to the size of the country, the heaviest burden is clearly carried by Syria's direct neihbours, I don't think anyone can deny that.

Also aid and money don't help when convoys get blown up or are not allowed in the most stricken areas. Which is what happens on a daily basis in Syria. 

Also I never claimed the ban is unconstitutional :hmm: . I have too little knowledge of the US constitution to make such a claim.


----------



## Mra22

I am ashamed that my favorite teams reside in a city that is considering itself a sanctuary city now. The mayor of Cincinnati is an absolute idiot, hope he enjoys losing federal funding.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Miss Sally said:


> The ban on muslims isn't unconstitutional, Obama's done it, lots of Presidents have done it.


*Obviously, you and many other blind Trump supporters don't even understand the difference between requiring dual citizens of those countries to apply for a visa to enter the country, and straight up BANNING ALL IMMIGRANTS from Muslim countries. You just heard the Obama administration cited those countries as countries of concern and used it as justification for straight up racism and xenophobia. They were never banned. Meanwhile, Trump is banning legally documented people from those countries BECAUSE they're Muslim, which makes his law unconstitutional. The fact that this has to be explained is extremely disturbing.*


----------



## Miss Sally

Alco said:


> I must've not been entirely clear because I never claimed Germany (or Lampedusa or the Greek islands) don't get a "flood" of refugees. I was talking about the US in particular. Relative to the size of the country, the heaviest burden is clearly carried by Syria's direct neihbours, I don't think anyone can deny that.
> 
> Also aid and money don't help when convoys get blown up or are not allowed in the most stricken areas. Which is what happens on a daily basis in Syria.
> 
> Also I never claimed the ban is unconstitutional :hmm: . I have too little knowledge of the US constitution to make such a claim.


Last part wasn't at you and my mistake i thought you were saying Europe wasn't flooded. I was like Whuuuut?

When this whole thing happened Lebanon and jordan were asking for help/money over this whole migration thing. As we seen from Germany only about half are actual Syrian refugees with many being from north africa and or parts of the mid east. What should happened instead of President Peace Prize aiding ISIS with a billion dollars worth or weapons and supplies, that money and man power should have been used to set up safe zones within Jordan/Lebanon and aid could come from Europe/America without much problems. 

Schools, Hospitals, Shelters and staging facilities could have been a big help. The entire Syrian civil war has been handled poorly from pissing contests between turkey/Russia/US to European virtue signaling which didn't even help as much people as it should have.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Alco said:


> Also I never claimed the ban is unconstitutional :hmm: . I have too little knowledge of the US constitution to make such a claim.


*The 1st amendment allows free expression of religion. The 14th amendment protects religious civil rights. Banning Muslims violates both of them. Lawyers are offering to fight this for free because it literally goes against the foundation of our country.*
*
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction there of, are citizens of the United States and of the State where in they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."*


----------



## Death Rider

Alco said:


> Of course Islamic terrorism has everything to do with the religion. The terrorists use the religion to legitimize their actions. Whomever disputes this is just silly.
> 
> The notion of "Islamic supremacy" however, is very outdated. ISIS, Al Quaeda and others commit terrorist acts in Western countries to legitimize their claims to domestic power. Does anyone really believe ISIS thinks they can impose Shariah law by sending an odd 20 guys into France to blow shit up? C'mon now, be reasonable.
> 
> In my heart of hearts though, I completely oppose this travel ban on people from seven countries, especially Syria. The majority of the people fleeing Syria do so because they want to get out of one of the worst possible situations a human being can find himself in. The country is basically blown to smithereens and the world is just standing by and letting it happen. There are few other places, perhaps bar Lybia and other (mostly Northern)African countries where the situation is as dire as it is in Syria. And it has been for years. Millions are on the run and who can blame them? Religion shouldn't even be a factor in this regard. These people need help. Food, medical attention, a roof over their heads, clean water. Is it the US' responsibility only to take all these people in? Of course not. This is a burden that should be shared. And it is shared, mind you, because it's still Europe, and Germany in particular, which carries the heaviest load (relative to other European countries).
> 
> And don't give me the "flood of refugees" argument, please. Out of all of the 4 million+ Syrian refugees, 2.1 million are being received in Turkey. 1.1 million in Lebanon and over half a million in Jordan. A majority of what's left, goes to Europe. Those numbers deserve to be named a "flood". Which brings me to believe this measure is as much symbolic as it is pragmatic. But as a symbol, I completely disagree with it.
> 
> Also, for anyone considering, I will not react to "Saint Alco" allegations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Oh and let me add that it is absolutely laughable that Saudi Arabia is not on Trump's list of countries. They may not "sponsor" terrorism, but they sure house a boatload of 'em. Oh well.*



Got to protect those business intrests would be my guess


----------



## Stephen90

Trump supporters are literally as blind as people that follow Scientology. Or any radical religious group.


----------



## Beatles123

Stephen90 said:


> Trump supporters are literally as blind as people that follow Scientology. Or any radical religious group.


Like Islam? :nerd:


----------



## Beatles123

Roy Mustang said:


> Got to protect those business intrests would be my guess


No. The immigration for SA is tighter than a virgin asshole and we just gave it extreme vetting.

For you lefties here, which one of you would fancy a voice debate?

Also:



> without due process of law;


Check. Pass. Debunked. Trump wins.

LB, You have some required reading:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pres...-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states

No mention of islam in the order.

AND:Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182


----------



## Goku

so nice being a blind trump supporter :trump


----------



## Stephen90

Beatles123 said:


> Like Islam? :nerd:


Nice to admit you are one of them. But unlike you and most Trump supporters I'm a realist.


----------



## Beatles123

Stephen90 said:


> Nice to admit you are one of them. But unlike you and most Trump supporters I'm a realist.


As an atheist you more than anyone should understand why it were done IF that were the reason, so you being against it on that basis is hypocritical.


----------



## DOPA

People still claiming that this is a Muslim ban when Christian Syrians are being turned away :lol.

Still claiming it's a Muslim ban when at least 5 of the most populated Muslim countries aren't even on the list. I don't even agree with the executive order but there is literally no reasoning with some people. They already had their mind made up about this from the moment they heard about it through CNN.

Here are some reminders:

Christian Syrians being turned away: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4169296/Syrian-Christian-family-turned-away-airport.html

Jimmy Dore telling the truth about Obama's role in this (and he's a liberal): 




The six previous presidents restricting immigration from certain countries: http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/16/t...urce=Facebook&utm_medium=Social#ixzz4XAheklIy

These people who are complaining about Trump's immigration order literally a) Have no idea about the history surrounding immigration halts that the previous presidents have done in the past, Obama and Bush doing it *SIX TIMES* in their presidency and for longer periods and b) Weren't nearly this critical when Obama was dropping thousands of drones on some of these countries namely Libya and Syria which is what has partly caused the need for taking in refugees and what has caused the migrant crisis which is effecting my continent as we speak. Seriously, where were you all when that was happening? Where were you to criticize that? You remained awfully silent during those times. Highly convenient for you all now to come out and say you now care. It's little wonder @Tater has given up on you people.

http://rare.us/story/where-was-the-...i&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=Influencer

There are definitely grounds to criticize this bill on, it can be argued that it was too hastily put together and wasn't thought through very well. You could question as some have already including myself why certain countries have been left off. All reasonable criticism. But when you fall for the propaganda of it being a Muslim ban when all the evidence clearly points to it not being so and you get on your high horse criticizing Trump when you didn't show nearly a 5th of this amount of passion criticizing some of the egregious things the Obama administration has done then your hypocrisy shows and I do not consider you a serious person. Honestly, to the kiddies table with some of you.






Another great video on this subject.


----------



## krtgolfing

What is going to be the next hashtag of that day?? Saw like 5 yesterday.... Saw hashtags for both the left and right sides of the political fence.. Bunch of whiny fuckers in American nowadays.


----------



## Irish Jet

The ban is simply the same US foreign policy taken to another extreme. Trump is selling this as a national security issue when it clearly isn’t. The 9/11 hijackers wouldn’t have been affected under these conditions, it’s purely political. A show for the crowds.

It’s no coincidence that of the seven countries listed, five were bombed under the Obama administration and the other 2 faced sanctions. It’s basically punishing those nations who the US themselves have destabilised. The Saudi Arabian overlords escape as always despite being the number one state sponsor of terrorism in the world and despite being the primary source of regressive laws and Western resentment in the middle east. Trump had promised to stand up to the oil monarchies and yet it’s more of the same bullshit – Appeasing Isreali and Saudi interests at any human cost. 

The United States sponsored a war against a secular Syrian regime that outlawed the very Islamic extremism that’s now torn apart the country. Those being punished are running from the same evil the US is now trying to contain, the same evil they initially cultivated in the region. You seriously couldn’t make this shit up. It’s purely evil – The same shit you’d have associated with the worst regimes in history. 

This isn’t to excuse the likes of Gaddafi or Assad or even some of the very real issues with Islam itself but there’s basically been a dehumanization policy from the West for 15 years towards the middle east. It’s the reason people can turn a blind eye to what’s essentially been a manufactured genocide since 2003, all in the guise of “spreading democracy”. I didn’t expect a lot more from Trump, he’s an atrocious human being. Still somewhat hopeful he follows up on his pledge to stop these wars but the early signs aren’t good with Yemeni civilians being massacred already under his presidency. Picking up where Obama left off – At this rate he’s a lock for a peace prize.


----------



## Stephen90

Beatles123 said:


> As an atheist you more than anyone should understand why it were done IF that were the reason, so you being against it on that basis is hypocritical.


I'm against it because it's unconstitutional.


----------



## Beatles123

Stephen90 said:


> I'm against it because it's unconstitutional.


Wrong.

No, it isn't.


----------



## virus21

Looks like the rebels are coming for Palpatine


----------



## FriedTofu

glenwo2 said:


> Well...they DID win the election so in some respects, they really are the Law. At least Trump is. :draper2
> 
> 
> (and if his firing of the "Attorney General" and the "Head of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement" is any indication, he's not taking any shit from anyone)


You work around the law, not go above the law, to implement your agenda after you win. The law and order candidate indeed.

:ha

Anyway this is all smoke to distract the people. This isn't a Muslim ban as the left is claiming, nor will it make America safer like the Trump supporters believe. This is similar to their campaign. Flood the media with too many 'scandals' and 'outrage' that the masses just grew numb to all the negative news and people are just left with 'eh he isn't so bad' and let things slide. This is a distraction from the various appointments he is going to make this week. Starting with Steve Bannon's elevation into a prominent role in the national security council.


----------



## Beatles123

Yawn. Still winning, still not racist. :trump2


----------



## glenwo2

Legit BOSS said:


> *This dumbfuck just fired the Attorney General for not defending his UNCONSTITUTIONAL law :lmao. We have a fucking tyrant as president and morons who actually defend this shit. Citizens from the 7 countries he banned haven't even committed any acts of terror on US soil. Every act of terror SINCE 9/11 has been committed by US citizens, so who the fuck is he protecting with this illegal Muslim ban? I also find it amusing that the Middle Eastern countries he does business with remain unbanned. How shocking .
> 
> 
> https://twitter.com/i/web/status/826350565533814784
> Talk about irony.*


Can you elaborate how this law(which is not even a law but an executive order) is unconstitutional(when it really isn't)? Just curious...


----------



## DELETE

Beatles123 said:


> Wrong.
> 
> No, it isn't.


I guess you have never read the first amendment.


----------



## Beatles123

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZr-GvAlO2Y

Sessions confirmation stream


----------



## DELETE

any trump dicksuckers wanna comment on this? http://www.wrestlingforum.com/rants/2112650-so-my-mom-detained-jfk.html


----------



## Beatles123

DELETE said:


> any trump dicksuckers wanna comment on this? http://www.wrestlingforum.com/rants/2112650-so-my-mom-detained-jfk.html


Note the language of the left.


----------



## DELETE

Beatles123 said:


> Note the language of the left.


didnt think so.


----------



## Beatles123

DELETE said:


> didnt think so.


thank you for participating.


----------



## skypod

Good luck getting anything out of Trump supporters. Having any compassion is seen as a libtard pussy trait. Wasn't this campaign about helping people being fucked over by government? Seems like a lot of that has been happening this week...


----------



## Beatles123

skypod said:


> Good luck getting anything out of Trump supporters. Having any compassion is seen as a libtard pussy trait. Wasn't this campaign about helping people being fucked over by government? Seems like a lot of that has been happening this week...


Hey, IM tryint to comfort OP in that link. He'll see things will work out, unlike the others there who can only fear monger. They're giving him REASON to fear!


----------



## DELETE

skypod said:


> Good luck getting anything out of Trump supporters. *Having any compassion is seen as a libtard pussy trait.* Wasn't this campaign about helping people being fucked over by government? Seems like a lot of that has been happening this week...


thats one of my main things i hate about trump supporters.


----------



## Death Rider

The ban is not racist or anti mulsim however not banning countries like saudi arbia who have fund terroism and where most of it come from is flawed. Also innocent people struggling to get back into the country is also a key issue. Hardly the first presdient to do a ban like this but does not make it right either


----------



## glenwo2

FriedTofu said:


> *You work around the law, not go above the law, to implement your agenda after you win.* The law and order candidate indeed.
> 
> :ha


A President has power so he CAN go above, around, through, and even moonwalk past the law if he so chooses to get shit done. :shrug

Of course, an executive order is not a law. It's just an order. 



> Anyway this is all smoke to distract the people. This isn't a Muslim ban as the left is claiming, nor will it make America safer like the Trump supporters believe. This is similar to their campaign. Flood the media with too many 'scandals' and 'outrage' that the masses just grew numb to all the negative news and people are just left with 'eh he isn't so bad' and let things slide. This is a distraction from the various appointments he is going to make this week. Starting with Steve Bannon's elevation into a prominent role in the national security council.


So what's the endgame here then? 

And the Democrats are not as "distracted" as they vowed just now to boycott the HHS and Treasury nominees.


----------



## glenwo2

DELETE said:


> any trump dicksuckers wanna comment on this? http://www.wrestlingforum.com/rants/2112650-so-my-mom-detained-jfk.html


Notice no one gives a fuck? 

yeah. Thought so.


EDIT : besides, it's the RANTS section. Hardly a place for actual debate. :lol :lol


----------



## Stinger Fan

skypod said:


> Good luck getting anything out of Trump supporters. Having any compassion is seen as a libtard pussy trait. Wasn't this campaign about helping people being fucked over by government? Seems like a lot of that has been happening this week...


You can go back and fourth with this all day with the right vs the left. The left doesn't care for religious freedoms when it comes to Christians but will do anything to defend Islam. The left has nothing to say about Christian persecution world wide which has been increasing every year with Muslims being the #1 perpetrators. Nobody was protesting Obama bombing the shit out of those countries that are "banned". You can go on all day about both sides and its quite pointless to do so because it'll accomplish nothing in the grand scheme of things


----------



## Miss Sally

Stinger Fan said:


> You can go back and fourth with this all day with the right vs the left. The left doesn't care for religious freedoms when it comes to Christians but will do anything to defend Islam. The left has nothing to say about Christian persecution world wide which has been increasing every year with Muslims being the #1 perpetrators. Nobody was protesting Obama bombing the shit out of those countries that are "banned". You can go on all day about both sides and its quite pointless to do so because it'll accomplish nothing in the grand scheme of things


Hey they talk about open borders and caring for illegals and Mexicans, bring up Fast and furious to an Obama supporter and they have no idea what it even is. Explain it and they make up excuses, the hypocrisy is rather hilarious. They don't care about the evil anyone of their side commits, just what anyone else does. Then they get all upset and start tossing around racism, xenophobia and sexist around when they support such things themselves.


----------



## glenwo2

Stephen90 said:


> Nice to admit you are one of them. But unlike you and most Trump supporters I'm a realist.


I don't think "realist" is the word I'M thinking of but I digress.... :Brock

I'm a "Let's-Get-Shit-Done-"'LIST like many others.


----------



## DELETE

glenwo2 said:


> Notice no one gives a fuck?
> 
> yeah. Thought so.
> 
> 
> EDIT : besides, it's the RANTS section. Hardly a place for actual debate. :lol :lol


no one "gives a fuck" because no one can defend what he is doing and explain why it is right. This man is ruining familys and you fucks are defending him (despite not coming up with actual information why it is right).


----------



## Miss Sally

DELETE said:


> no one "gives a fuck" because no one can defend what he is doing and explain why it is right. This man is ruining familys and you fucks are defending him (despite not coming up with actual information why it is right).


Temper temper, watch those general insults!

Frankly as i said before I thought this temporary halt should have been done better. I support better vetting from people coming from iffy countries, there is nothing bad about it. Immigration is a right not a privilege but I will say it fucking with people who already have established themselves here is pretty terrible. Though our Welfare system, poorly run public schooling, open borders and lack of attention to gang violence has fucked over more people than this "ban" has.


----------



## Vic Capri

President Trump agrees to keep Barack Obama's executive order on LGBT worker protections. Many liberals are still going to whine & complain about it.

- Vic


----------



## glenwo2

Here's a little something for DELETE and the others who are crying foul over Trump and this "ban" : 





> Remember earlier this month when Lily Tomlin compared America to Nazi Germany, Senator Chuck Schumer cried, and mobs chanted “No hate, no fear/Everyone is welcome here” at airports because the president blocked Cuban refugees from entering the country?
> 
> No, you don’t recall that happening? Well, me neither.
> 
> The federal government’s crackdown on immigrants, at least ones from a single country, certainly happened. But the protests didn’t. That fact that President Obama rather than President Trump issued the order surely muted the response. So, too, in a no-enemies-to-the-left manner, did the fact that the order helped a Communist prison-state tighten its grip on the inmates.
> 
> “More than 1,000 Cuban migrants who endured monthslong treks across as many as 10 countries to reach the United States are marooned in Mexico, halted by the Obama administration’s decision this month to end special immigration privileges for Cubans who make it to the American border,” Frances Robles reported last week of Obama’s executive order in the New York Times.
> 
> Peter Baker reported of Trump’s executive order in the Times yesterday, “Only about 109 travelers were detained in the first 24 hours, out of the 325,000 who typically enter the United States in a day, they said. As of Sunday evening, the Department of Homeland Security said 392 green card holders had been granted waivers to enter.”
> 
> In other words, *Trump’s policy affected about one-tenth the number of people that Obama’s harmed, yet the media coverage of the former appears exponentially greater than the latter.* Getting delayed at the airport is a total drag but it’s not as though the detainees waded through crocodile-infested waters, as the Times reports the Cubans did, to get here. And stopping travelers from visiting ranks as an inconvenience not on par with blocking the oppressed from living freely.
> 
> If journalists can forget the executive order on Cuba issued earlier this month as they highlight the one that pertains to travelers from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, then one begins to understand their amnesia over Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter, and Franklin Roosevelt all singling out foreigners from specific countries for travel bans in the past.
> 
> This isn’t unprecedented. The reaction to it is.
> 
> If your people gave America the fastest pitch in baseball history, Bacardi, and the green-haired, white-faced Joker, then adios. If your people took U.S. embassy workers hostage, killed GIs in a discothèque, and occasionally chant “death to America,” then as-salaam alaikum.
> 
> Some foreigners are more equal than others.


www.breitbart.com/national-security/2017/01/30/when-obama-blocked-cubans/


----------



## Goku

Miss Sally said:


> Temper temper, watch those general insults!


would you prefer fake outrage instead? :trump


----------



## Tater

Miss Sally said:


> Liberals were hijacked by the far, far, far "left", pretty much all the intellectuals have been silenced in place of SJWs, Hollywood and "Leftist" comedians. It's sad, they turned on the people in favor of a whining minority, a hateful Religion and the sisterhood of perpetual victimhood. This should be the time Liberals flourish with Social Media and more TV coverage and open mindedness but nope. Instead you have indoctrination of "Leftist" ideology and not freethinking, cancerous third wave feminism infecting areas of free speech, free thinking and science and trying to police it.
> 
> Liberals have always proposed ideas and then ways to make it work, this new "Left" demands ideas be implemented with no thought to the future nor if it will even work. These people cannot agree on anything either, take a look at identity politics, one side believes in a million and one genders and the other side believes there is no gender. It's complete insanity.
> 
> Conservative/Liberal is yin and yang, both need each other, both take turns depending on the era. At some points in time Liberal ideology works wonders and then there comes a time when it's losing focus or the climate and world changes and Conservatives take over. Then times change again and it reverts to Liberal thinking once again and so forth and so on, ebb and flow. Now there is no balance, there is no debate, just chaos!
> 
> :crying:
> 
> The internet and open world of social media was supposed to bring balance to academia and politics, not leave it in darkness!





L-DOPA said:


> People still claiming that this is a Muslim ban when Christian Syrians are being turned away :lol.
> 
> Still claiming it's a Muslim ban when at least 5 of the most populated Muslim countries aren't even on the list. I don't even agree with the executive order but there is literally no reasoning with some people. They already had their mind made up about this from the moment they heard about it through CNN.
> 
> Here are some reminders:
> 
> Christian Syrians being turned away: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4169296/Syrian-Christian-family-turned-away-airport.html
> 
> Jimmy Dore telling the truth about Obama's role in this (and he's a liberal):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The six previous presidents restricting immigration from certain countries: http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/16/t...urce=Facebook&utm_medium=Social#ixzz4XAheklIy
> 
> These people who are complaining about Trump's immigration order literally a) Have no idea about the history surrounding immigration halts that the previous presidents have done in the past, Obama and Bush doing it *SIX TIMES* in their presidency and for longer periods and b) Weren't nearly this critical when Obama was dropping thousands of drones on some of these countries namely Libya and Syria which is what has partly caused the need for taking in refugees and what has caused the migrant crisis which is effecting my continent as we speak. Seriously, where were you all when that was happening? Where were you to criticize that? You remained awfully silent during those times. Highly convenient for you all now to come out and say you now care. It's little wonder @Tater has given up on you people.


Long time posters in the politics threads here know how much I have ranted and raved about liberal not meaning liberal anymore. I'm 37 and for most of my life, liberal meant standing up for the little guy and being anti-establishment. Now that the SJW crowd has hijacked the liberal movement, I want nothing to do with these steaming shitpiles. The problem with SJWs is that stopping discrimination isn't good enough for them. They want to force their beliefs on everyone. Well, fighting against people who want to force their beliefs on everyone was supposed to be the whole fucking point of being liberal. If you then become the person forcing your beliefs on people, you are no better than the people you were fighting against in the first place. 

I know a lot of you struggle with the concept of me being a leftist libertarian. I'm anti-government but also anti-corporation. If you take power away from a centralized government but then put power in a centralized corporation, how does that actually solve our problems? It's just replacing one group of centralized power with another. What I've always advocated for is people being in charge of their own fates. The libertarian in me says we should all be working for ourselves. The leftist in me says we need to work together as a society, so that we CAN work for ourselves. We should ALL be owner-operators. No man should be owned by another man. Our worth as humans shouldn't be decided by how much we can produce for another. Our worth should be decided by how much we can work together to create a better society for all of us.

Once upon a time, the USA's motto was E pluribus unum. Out of many, one. Somewhere along the way people forgot that. What I see in the USA today is people fighting against each other. It's all about enforcing your worldview upon everyone else. Identity politics needs to fucking die. We're all Americans and what we all should want is a good life for all Americans. Just because I am a far leftist doesn't mean I hate righties. Hell, my parents are far right wing Christian nut jobs. I still love them though. I have a lot of love for guys like @L-DOPA and @BruiserKC and even you ya shitheel @Beatles123, even when you're all acting like retards and spewing stupid right wing bullshit. What I actually hate is how divided America is right now. I understand having differences of opinion on how we accomplish goals but our goals should be the same; mainly, life, liberty and prosperity.

The sooner Americans stop seeing their fellow Americans as their enemy, the better.

Also, a fun new vid from Trae for @AryaDark.


----------



## Irish Jet

Obama wrong, therefore Trump right.

Get that Breitbart logic the fuck out of here.


----------



## Tater

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/824617379464441858
:ha


----------



## Vic Capri

> they make up excuses, the hypocrisy is rather hilarious. They don't care about the evil anyone of their side commits, just what anyone else does. Then they get all upset and start tossing around racism, xenophobia and sexist around when they support such things themselves.


This is why I'm never voting Democrat again.

- Vic


----------



## Miss Sally

Irish Jet said:


> Obama wrong, therefore Trump right.
> 
> Get that Breitbart logic the fuck out of here.


I think the real question is why is it when Obama has been dead wrong nobody called him out, yet Trump does something and everyone loses their mind? Get that hypocrisy out of here.


----------



## Irish Jet

Miss Sally said:


> I think the real question is why is it when Obama has been dead wrong nobody called him out, yet Trump does something and everyone loses their mind? Get that hypocrisy out of here.


Because the corporate media is bought and paid for. I don't think anyone's defending their garbage. They're as responsible for Trump as anyone and one of the few highlights of his presidency is watching them all freak out.

How this somehow can be used to justify the travel ban is another matter. It's just one side pointing out that they're actually as fucked up as we are. That's not a valid defence when your selling yourself as some sort of anti-establishment saviour. Obama being wrong doesn't make Trump right. The mainstream media being trash doesn't make Breitbart any less of a fucking disgrace to journalism.


----------



## Miss Sally

Irish Jet said:


> Because the corporate media is bought and paid for. I don't think anyone's defending their garbage. They're as responsible for Trump as anyone and one of the few highlights of his presidency is watching them all freak out.
> 
> How this somehow can be used to justify the travel ban is another matter. It's just one side pointing out that they're actually as fucked up as we are. That's not a valid defence when your selling yourself as some sort of anti-establishment saviour. Obama being wrong doesn't make Trump right. The mainstream media being trash doesn't make Breitbart any less of a fucking disgrace to journalism.


I'm not using it as a defense just wondering why now suddenly all the bad that has been going on was ignored when it was one guy (A guy who the media/celebs loved) did bad things and another guy who is doing something not everyone agrees suddenly is pure Hitler? It's rather funny. 

That being said I don't see anything wrong with a better more vigorous vetting system in place. I don't see anything wrong with double checking on people coming from places that have high amounts of jihadists. Immigration isn't a right, vetting is something good. Though I do believe the wording and implementing of this whole thing has been too vague and not done very well.


----------



## glenwo2

Irish Jet said:


> *Because the corporate media is bought and paid for.* I don't think anyone's defending their garbage. They're as responsible for Trump as anyone and one of the few highlights of his presidency is watching them all freak out.
> 
> How this somehow can be used to justify the travel ban is another matter. It's just one side pointing out that they're actually as fucked up as we are. That's not a valid defence when your selling yourself as some sort of anti-establishment saviour. Obama being wrong doesn't make Trump right. The mainstream media being trash doesn't make Breitbart any less of a fucking disgrace to journalism.


And the corporate media wasn't bought and paid for when Obama was president?

It was all fucking roses and chocolates when he was president and none of the horseshit that he did ever did make it to the news(only the good shit that the far-left devour like starving homeless people). 

Yes. Obama being wrong doesn't make Trump right but I am just annoyed at the HYPOCRISY of the Media and of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY for doing the same thing in the past and not getting called out for it.

The only reason Trump is being called out is because people dislike Trump. That's all.


----------



## Irish Jet

Miss Sally said:


> I'm not using it as a defense just wondering why now suddenly all the bad that has been going on was ignored when it was one guy (A guy who the media/celebs loved) did bad things and another guy who is doing something not everyone agrees suddenly is pure Hitler? It's rather funny.
> 
> That being said I don't see anything wrong with a better more vigorous vetting system in place. I don't see anything wrong with double checking on people coming from places that have high amounts of jihadists. Immigration isn't a right, vetting is something good. Though I do believe the wording and implementing of this whole thing has been too vague and not done very well.


It's beyond funny. It's actually hilarious. 

The UK petition to stop Trump was amazing - Let's prevent the democratically elected President from meeting with the unelected head of state as it would be contrary to "British values" and "because it would cause embarrassment to Her Majesty the Queen” - Embarrassing. Let's just forget all about the countless human rights abusing leaders she's welcomed in the past. There's a crazy double standard on both sides but the issue is now that Trump fans are pointing that out and using it to justify *everything*. It's especially fucked up when Trump is selling himself as something positively different.

There's nothing wrong with implementing stricter control of immigration - But there's a lot wrong with this. He's essentially singled out the most vulnerable people to be turned away, blatantly ignoring the states the US corporations are in bed with (who have proven even more culpable in exporting terrorism) and extended it far beyond reason by including legal residents of the US.


----------



## Irish Jet

glenwo2 said:


> And the corporate media wasn't bought and paid for when Obama was president?


That's literally the point I'm making. The media are shills. The Democrats are shills. 

Your directed the post at those "crying foul over Trump" which you can do without being sympathetic towards Obama, the Democratic Party or the media.


----------



## Reaper

The only thing I'll give on this "ban" is that the processes can easily be tweaked without enacting a ban. There were other ways to do this that wouldn't be as public, nor as disruptive. 

I think this is simply a way of Trump to fulfill his campaign promise and show that he meant it and it was definitely very hastily done. There were better ways to do it and from that perspective I disagree with it. 

However, there's nothing illegal, immoral or unconstitutional about it. That kind of argument is completely bunk.

Also, some stats:



> (K.R.) According to information released at a press conference by Secretary of Homeland Security Kelly and officials at Immigration, in the first 72 hours since the executive order on travel was signed:
> • 1,000,000 travelers came to the U.S. via air.
> • 500,000 of those travelers were foreign nationals.
> • 721 travelers from the affected countries were stopped from boarding flights to the U.S.
> *• 1,060 travelers who would otherwise have been denied entry were given waivers because they were lawful permanent residents of the U.S.
> *• 75 immigrant and non-immigrant visa holders were given waivers.
> 
> Going forward:
> *• Lawful permanent residents and special immigrant visa holders from the affected countries WILL being allowed to board flights to the U.S., where they will be processed for waivers upon arrival.
> *• Immigrant visa holders and non-immigrant visa holders from the 7 affected countries will continue to be denied travel to the U.S.
> • Dual citizens WILL be allowed entry as long as they have a valid passport from an unaffected country.
> • Refugees who were in transit or had been planning to travel here, or who face undue hardships will be considered for waivers. 872 such refugees will be allowed entry this week.
> • The DHS is abiding by every court order.


The amount of hysteria is absolutely ridiculous but I'm not surprised. Outrage and moral virtue signalling is the only thing that defines people these days. Looking up facts is too hard. Reading the counter-point is too hard. Getting outraged is easier.


----------



## Arya Dark

:hglol


----------



## Vic Capri

God bless Rebel Media.

- Vic


----------



## virus21




----------



## deepelemblues

has there ever been a president so adept at forcing his enemies to prominently take positions that keep his base clinging tightly to him


----------



## virus21

How tolerant


----------



## Reaper




----------



## glenwo2

Irish Jet said:


> That's literally the point I'm making. The media are shills. The Democrats are shills.
> 
> *Your directed the post at those "crying foul over Trump"* which you can do without being sympathetic towards Obama, the Democratic Party or the media.



No. I directed the post that had an article regarding cuban refugees to those "crying foul over Trump". 

The post you're replying to is only in response to your recent comment. 

So do you deny that the only reason Trump is being called out is because he's Trump?






RipNTear said:


>


^ Well whaddaya know? Looks like Trump's no-bullshit attitude is making other countries get their shit in gear and do their fucking jobs of taking care of their own shit in their own country.


----------



## glenwo2

double post.


----------



## Reaper

glenwo2 said:


> ^ Well whaddaya know? Looks like Trump's no-bullshit attitude is making other countries get their shit in gear and do their fucking jobs of taking care of their own shit in their own country.


Yup. Pakistan has been doing very well in the war. The terrorist attacks are consistently declining and this just gives them another incentive. 

Personally, I'm proud of how much Pakistanis have achieved in the last 2 years. There's still more to be done, but there's been something like a 70-80% decline in terrorist attacks and it's largely because we have one of the best armies in the world who went on a full out war path after Taliban attacked an army school where they killed over a hundred children of our military.

No assistance from America required. They just had had enough and decided that it's time to destroy the motherfuckers.

It's like so simple that you'd think everyone will be able to do it. You kill and arrest terrorists and lo and behold, terrorism goes down. America makes it seem so complicated that it's comedic.


----------



## Vic Capri

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard recently met with President Trump, drafted the Stop Arming Terrorists Act, led a fact finding mission to Syria and met with Syria's president Bashir Al Assad. She is a Democrat who turned on Obama for his policy of arming ISIS.

- Vic


----------



## glenwo2

This is a response to *RipNTear*, NOT Vic who decided to post above me. Damn it, Vic! :lol :


^ They make it so complicated because the Far Left WANTS to make it complicated so NOTHING GETS THE FUCK DONE!! 

So glad Trump's firing people left and....well...left('cause he's got no complaints from the right. :lol ) and just doing what NEEDS(and has needed) to be done for a long time here.:clap :clap :clap


----------



## Marv95

This Supreme Court stuff feels like a reality show(not gonna spoil it, but liberals will whine about it).

Oh and like @RipNTear said there is nothing illegal about it. Look up US Code 1182. It was just a sloppy EO that was written up too quickly. Trump needs his cabinet esp. Sessions.


----------



## FriedTofu

glenwo2 said:


> A President has power so he CAN go above, around, through, and even moonwalk past the law if he so chooses to get shit done. :shrug
> 
> Of course, an executive order is not a law. It's just an order.


Tell that to your fellow Trumpster who seem to think it is the law. 





> So what's the endgame here then?
> 
> And the Democrats are not as "distracted" as they vowed just now to boycott the HHS and Treasury nominees.


The end game is the public become fatigue over all the outrage over all the 'crisis' that they just give in to whatever the white house wants. Democrats are already 'distracted' by asking all nominees their positions on immigration, pushing questions about the roles the nominees will play in their potential new job into the background.


----------



## Reaper

http://freebeacon.com/national-secu...si-encouraging-congressman-tell-youre-muslim/


> BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff
> January 31, 2017 1:18 pm
> House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) was heard on a hot mic at a protest Monday night encouraging a fellow congressman to tell the crowd he is a Muslim.
> Congressional Democrats spoke in front of the Supreme Court building in protest of President Trump's executive order that temporarily halted immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries, including an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees entering the county.
> Among the speakers was Rep. Andre Carson (D., Ind.), who Pelosi introduced as a "Muslim member of Congress."
> "Greetings from the great state of Indiana. I'm Congressman Andre Carson!" he said to cheers.
> "Tell them you're a Muslim," Pelosi muttered to him from his right. "Tell them you're a Muslim."
> "Not only do I represent Indiana's seventh congressional district very proudly, but I happen to be a Muslim and a former police officer," Carson said.


Dems still not realizing that they need to get away from identity politics and talk about actual policy.


----------



## Vic Capri

*BREAKING NEWS*: President Trump picks Neil Gorsuch to be next Supreme Court Justice!










- Vic


----------



## deepelemblues

Millions of people who have never heard Neil gorsuchs name before ten minutes ago are now experts on him and how he's a faaaaaaaascist


----------



## DesolationRow

RipNTear said:


>


:banderas :clap


*Reaper*, I was thinking of trying to bring that hilarious Nancy Pelosi-starring video to this thread! Thank you for doing so! :lmao


Also, as someone who has met Neil Gorsuch at a dinner party/fundraiser in Denver a few years ago, and having studied the records of the respective judges under the spotlight for this Supreme Court nomination (therefore divorcing the warm personal feelings accrued from meeting him), Gorsuch stands as the best possible all-around pick to restore the Supreme Court to nine Justices. A fantastic mind wedded to preserving the United States Constitution to the best of his considerable abilities.


----------



## Reaper

I have no real clue about him obviously so I'm going by what others are reporting. Some of my favourite sites and commentators are lauding him for being a constitutionalist and someone that's skeptical of giving too much power over to the state so on those two counts he seems like a more than acceptable pick. 

Funny, a fascist dictator would pick a supreme court judge that people are calling anti-statist. 

I guess Trump is really incompetent at being a dictator. Hitler would be disappointed.


----------



## DesolationRow

RipNTear said:


> I have no real clue about him obviously so I'm going by what others are reporting. Some of my favourite sites and commentators are lauding him for being a constitutionalist and someone that's skeptical of giving too much power over to the state so on those two counts he seems like a more than acceptable pick.
> 
> Funny, a fascist dictator would pick a supreme court judge that people are calling anti-statist.
> 
> I guess Trump is really incompetent at being a dictator. Hitler would be disappointed.


----------



## DOPA

:lmao :lmao :lmao.


----------



## CamillePunk

Rand Paul weighs in on the Gorsuch pick:



> I congratulate President Trump for nominating a conservative jurist with outstanding credentials and experience to the Supreme Court. Judge Gorsuch is a worthy successor to Justice Scalia, a committed originalist, a strong defender of religious liberty and states’ rights, and a bulwark against the administrative state. I look forward to working with my colleagues for a speedy confirmation and to having another Justice who will defend the constitution.


Quite a bit of optimism there about a "speedy confirmation". :mj Pretty sure this is going to be long and tedious, much like a Bernie Sanders campaign speech.

Should be interesting to see how the left approaches demonizing this man in the coming weeks.


----------



## FriedTofu

At least it wasn't Pryor. Gorsuch seems like someone who the middle can work with even though he is a staunch conservative.


----------



## Reaper

CamillePunk said:


> Should be interesting to see how the left approaches demonizing this man in the coming weeks.


They've started with his Hobby Lobby vote.

Yup. He's a sexist who hates gays.


----------



## virus21




----------



## DesolationRow

@AryaDark @The Absolute @CamillePunk @Goku @Pratchett @RipNTear @Vic Capri @virus21


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/826606204768153600
:chlol :banderas :done


----------



## yeahbaby!

Gorsuch is in trouble already because it's a requirement of the position he needs to finish Scalia's prosciutto reserves before he starts.

Poor man has to get through 20lbs of the stuff.


----------



## The Absolute

DesolationRow said:


> @AryaDark @The Absolute @CamillePunk @Goku @Pratchett @RipNTear @Vic Capri @virus21
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/826606204768153600
> :chlol :banderas :done


:tysonlol

The left will no doubt find some way to protest the shit out of this pick. Seems like they're gonna wear themselves out with all the bitching and whining they'll be doing for the next four years.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/232856168-story



> *Detroit family caught in Iraq travel ban, mom dies waiting to come home*
> 
> DETROIT (WJBK) - A local business owner flies to Iraq to bring his mother back home to the US for medical treatment. But under President Trump's ban on immigration and travel from seven predominately Muslim nations, he was forced to leave his family behind.
> 
> His mother died just one day after being told she couldn't return to the United States.
> 
> Mike Hager fled Iraq with his family during the Gulf War, returned during the Iraq war and worked alongside United States Marines and Army forces. He now owns a business in Metro Detroit and said his mom would still be alive today if President Donald Trump had not instituted his travel ban on Muslim countries.
> 
> Mike Hager said he was returning home with his family that included his sick mom. They were returning home to the United States where his mother has lived since 1995. As they were waiting in line at the airport in Iraq on Friday, he was told that he could pass through because he was a U.S. citizen. But his family members - including his mom - weren't allowed, despite holding green cards.
> 
> "They destroyed us. I went with my family, I came back by myself. They destroyed our family," Hager said.
> 
> Hager was born in Iraq and fled during the Gulf War. He lived in a refugee camp with his family for four years before settling in the United States. In the 2000s, he returned to Iraq where he worked as a contractor for the United States Special forces between 2003 and 2008 as an interpreter and cultural advisor. He even survived being shot in the back while serving.
> 
> He's a proud American citizen whose family has now been torn apart.
> 
> "The immigration told us that the President of the United States put an order right now - you guys cannot go," he told FOX 2's Amy Lange.
> 
> Hager, his niece, and two nephews were traveling with his 75-year-old mother, Naimma, home to Michigan. They traveled to Iraq to visit family and when she fell ill. Hager said he didn't expect it to be a problem for the family to travel since they all had green cards and had lived in the United States for 20 years.
> 
> "I was just shocked. I had to put my mom back on the wheelchair and take her back and call the ambulance and she was very very upset. She knew right there if we send her back to the hospital she's going to pass away - she's not going to make it," Hager said.
> 
> Sadly, he was right. Naimma, lived in the United States since 1995, wasn't allowed to come home. She died in her native country. Hager said if it weren't for the order, his mom would still be alive today.
> 
> He blames her death on President Trump.
> 
> I really believe this in my heart: if they would have let us in, my mom - she would have made it and she would have been sitting right here next to me," Hager said. "She's gone because of him."
> 
> Just as the family was traveling, President Trump signed an executive order banning travelers from seven majority-Muslim countries.
> 
> Travelers from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Yemen and Somalia are banned from traveling to the United States for 90 days so the country can detect "individuals with terrorist ties and stopping them from entering the United States."
> 
> Hager says he has no idea when his nephews and niece will be able to return to the United States and he's worried about his own status - even though he is an American citizen.
> 
> "This is our home. We've been here for too long, we've been here since we were kids," Hager said. "If I'm not wanted overseas in Iraq and I'm not wanted here, then where do I go? What am I supposed to do with my family?"
> 
> Hager is mourning more than his mother; he's also mourning the way of life he believes that makes America great. He also has this message for the Commander in Chief:
> 
> "You have to understand you have a daughter - you have family - imagine if somebody does that to your mom. You put the terrorists on this side - the bad people - but don't mix everyone together," Hager said.


Poor family. Look, his mom might have died anyway. In her mid 70s and not well. Who knows? But she at least would have died at home (or hospital adjacent to her home) near the rest of her family.

This thing has been a cluster fuck.


----------



## yeahbaby!

2 Ton 21 said:


> http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/232856168-story
> 
> 
> 
> Poor family. Look, his mom might have died anyway. In her mid 70s and not well. Who knows? But she at least would have died at home (or hospital adjacent to her home) near the rest of her family.
> 
> This thing has been a cluster fuck.


It seems this was inevitable when you create this order seemingly out of nowhere without considering the nuts and bolts, and the practicalities of everything. Poor timing, poor form from Trump - thumbs down.


----------



## FriedTofu

2 Ton 21 said:


> http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/232856168-story
> 
> 
> 
> Poor family. Look, his mom might have died anyway. In her mid 70s and not well. Who knows? But she at least would have died at home (or hospital adjacent to her home) near the rest of her family.
> 
> This thing has been a cluster fuck.


This freaking sucks. I hope nobody politicise this incident. She might have died anyway due to her age but the 'what ifs' will haunt the family for the rest of their life.


----------



## CamillePunk

@DesolationRow @L-DOPA @RipNTear @AryaDark 

A couple of great articles from the man with indisputably the most credibility over the last year+ regarding matters concerning Donald Trump, _Dilbert_ creator Scott Adams. :aryep

Be Careful What You Wish For (especially if it is Hitler)

A fascinating excerpt: 



> To be fair, Trump made it easy this week with his temporary immigration ban. If you assume Trump is Hitler, that fits with your hypothesis. But of course it also fits the hypothesis that he’s just doing his job. We’re all seeing what we expect to see.
> 
> *But lately I get the feeling that Trump’s critics have evolved from expecting Trump to be Hitler to preferring it. Obviously they don’t prefer it in a conscious way. But the alternative to Trump becoming Hitler is that they have to live out the rest of their lives as confirmed morons.* No one wants to be a confirmed moron. And certainly not after announcing their Trump opinions in public and demonstrating in the streets. It would be a total embarrassment for the anti-Trumpers to learn that Trump is just trying to do a good job for America. It’s a threat to their egos. A big one.


The bolded is devastatingly true and hilarious at the same time, in true Adams fashion. :lmao 

Is President Trump Doing Management Wrong?

Here's a great tweet I saw on Reddit:


----------



## wwe9391

Great choice for the supreme court. President Trump just keeps delivering on those promises.


----------



## yeahbaby!

CamillePunk said:


> Here's a great tweet I saw on Reddit:


'Believing what our Grandparents believed'

How cute, quaint and old-fashioned. I don't think I've ever heard anything more 'conservative'.


----------



## TheMenace

I wouldn't compare Trump to Hitler, but I would compare a portion of Trump's support base with Hitler's support base. I mean the ones who scoff at anything they view as antagonizing to Trump such as:

- pointing out that the overhead picture of the inauguration crowd was in fact legitimate
- showing concern about the environmental ramifications of his deregulations 
- suggesting that he could have used a better, less heavy-handed approach to keeping the homeland safe from terrorists

and just respond with things like:

"Perfect, explode more leftist heads. Christmas every day, exploding leftist head every day!﻿"
"hahahahaha love it, I've been saying that trump is liberal kryptonite...just look at em squirm...it's ridiculous﻿"
"count 3 more exploding leftist heads on this post alone! Just trying to do my part to assist Trump every day﻿"
"I hope there were a lot of busy signals on the suicide hotlines."

etc. etc.

That type of brainwashed cultist dogmatic allegiance to a person that they view to be their hero is very worrying as it is the main ingredient of any dictatorship.


----------



## Art Vandaley

FriedTofu said:


> I hope nobody politicise this incident.


God forbid the fascists be made aware of the human cost of their policies. 

Let's just all pretend this never happened and argue the policy as if it hasn't already killed people.


----------



## CamillePunk

TheMenace said:


> I wouldn't compare Trump to Hitler, but I would compare a portion of Trump's support base with Hitler's support base. I mean the ones who scoff at anything they view as antagonizing to Trump such as:
> 
> - pointing out that the overhead picture of the inauguration crowd was in fact legitimate
> - showing concern about the environmental ramifications of his deregulations
> - suggesting that he could have used a better, less heavy-handed approach to keeping the homeland safe from terrorists
> 
> and just respond with things like:
> 
> "Perfect, explode more leftist heads. Christmas every day, exploding leftist head every day!﻿"
> "hahahahaha love it, I've been saying that trump is liberal kryptonite...just look at em squirm...it's ridiculous﻿"
> "count 3 more exploding leftist heads on this post alone! Just trying to do my part to assist Trump every day﻿"
> "I hope there were a lot of busy signals on the suicide hotlines."
> 
> etc. etc.
> 
> That type of brainwashed cultist dogmatic allegiance to a person that they view to be their hero is very worrying as it is the main ingredient of any dictatorship.


Seems more like partisan politics as usual to me. :draper2


----------



## Reaper

TheMenace said:


> "Perfect, explode more leftist heads. Christmas every day, exploding leftist head every day!﻿"
> "hahahahaha love it, I've been saying that trump is liberal kryptonite...just look at em squirm...it's ridiculous﻿"
> "count 3 more exploding leftist heads on this post alone! Just trying to do my part to assist Trump every day﻿"
> "I hope there were a lot of busy signals on the suicide hotlines."


Yeah man. I'm so totes with ya. 

The Nazi Trump supporters came for me yesterday and I hid in my cellar. They killed my wife tho. 

Please save me because the death squads are marching. I live in a totally nazi town like 70% of dem are evilz nazi supporters ya and I fear for my life ya and I'm like a immigrant ya and dey wanna kill me and ya I'm gonna die die die. Save me!

Sure, you can get annoyed a little with annoying people saying annoying things, but the minute you compare Trump supporters to Nazis you've lost all credibility to be taken seriously whatsoever and you deserve the ridicule you earn.


----------



## Miss Sally

TheMenace said:


> I wouldn't compare Trump to Hitler, but I would compare a portion of Trump's support base with Hitler's support base. I mean the ones who scoff at anything they view as antagonizing to Trump such as:
> 
> - pointing out that the overhead picture of the inauguration crowd was in fact legitimate
> - showing concern about the environmental ramifications of his deregulations
> - suggesting that he could have used a better, less heavy-handed approach to keeping the homeland safe from terrorists
> 
> and just respond with things like:
> 
> "Perfect, explode more leftist heads. Christmas every day, exploding leftist head every day!﻿"
> "hahahahaha love it, I've been saying that trump is liberal kryptonite...just look at em squirm...it's ridiculous﻿"
> "count 3 more exploding leftist heads on this post alone! Just trying to do my part to assist Trump every day﻿"
> "I hope there were a lot of busy signals on the suicide hotlines."
> 
> etc. etc.
> 
> That type of brainwashed cultist dogmatic allegiance to a person that they view to be their hero is very worrying as it is the main ingredient of any dictatorship.


While i don't deny there are some cultist like Trump supporters, what about the psychotic protesters who don't know what they're protesting, certain media groups putting out untrue facts on Trump and people who dislike Trump so much they don't care what his policies are and won't listen, they just don't accept it?

Seems there are far more of these types.


----------



## samizayn

2 Ton 21 said:


> http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/232856168-story
> 
> 
> 
> Poor family. Look, his mom might have died anyway. In her mid 70s and not well. Who knows? But she at least would have died at home (or hospital adjacent to her home) near the rest of her family.
> 
> This thing has been a cluster fuck.


They shouldn't have allowed this to happen to an American citizen period. But the fact that he was also a war interpreter makes this all the more wrong. Someone that got shot in the spine helping your soldiers navigate a warzone is exactly the kind of person you need to roll the red carpet out for. Especially a country that places as much pride in its military as America does.



CamillePunk said:


> Seems more like partisan politics as usual to me. :draper2


I don't know, this definitely feels different. Like I would never see guys talking about "kissing the ring" and "bending the knee" with other politicians. I think the criticisms about this generation are mostly BS but I feel (and old people/historians correct me if I am wrong) that hero worshipping of certain politicians has become more of a thing very recently. And I find it highly unnerving.


----------



## CamillePunk

samizayn said:


> I don't know, this definitely feels different. Like I would never see guys talking about "kissing the ring" and "bending the knee" with other politicians. I think the criticisms about this generation are mostly BS but I feel (and old people/historians correct me if I am wrong) that hero worshipping of certain politicians has become more of a thing very recently. And I find it highly unnerving.


You can't mention that stuff as if its occurring in a vacuum. Trump has been routinely criticized and had his words and actions wildly distorted every single day since announcing his campaign, and people who have defended him have been called exactly what you're accusing them of being here. Considering how ridiculous his critics look, is it so surprising his defenders are having fun with it? I often call him God Emperor or talk about a Thousand-Year Trumpenreich. Is this because I desire an authoritarian regime or worship the man? 


...

:mj

...

Well, no. It's not. But it is fun to play the role others cast me in their hallucinations where Trump is Hitler and I'm enabling his rise to power. Being rational or publicly showing your principles all the time doesn't matter to these people, who are not rational and have no apparent principles, so I may as well have some fun.

As for hero worshiping, people wanted Obama to disqualify Trump and impose martial law. :lol I have plenty of liberal friends and see their shit all the time on facebook. I'm quite sure they were more serious than most of the Trump meme people are.


----------



## deepelemblues

samizayn said:


> I don't know, this definitely feels different. Like I would never see guys talking about "kissing the ring" and "bending the knee" with other politicians. I think the criticisms about this generation are mostly BS but I feel (and old people/historians correct me if I am wrong) that hero worshipping of certain politicians has become more of a thing very recently. And I find it highly unnerving.


they're memes for gawd's sake

if :trump ever pissed off the people talking about bending the knee and GOD-EMPEROR they'd start negatively memeing him so hard in precisely the same hyperbolic fashion


----------



## glenwo2

Vic Capri said:


> *BREAKING NEWS*: President Trump picks Neil Gorsuch to be next Supreme Court Justice!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Vic


I know why he was selected :


HE'S GOT THE SAME HAIRCUT!! :lmao :lmao :lmao


----------



## glenwo2

DesolationRow said:


> @AryaDark @The Absolute @CamillePunk @Goku @Pratchett @RipNTear @Vic Capri @virus21
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/826606204768153600
> :chlol :banderas :done




Sean Davis &#8207 @seanmdav 4h4 hours ago

@RonWyden *Since you personally supported Gorsuch's nomination in 2006, does that mean you believe all rights belong to government?*


SuzanneElizabeth ‏@Suz_Eliz69 4h4 hours ago
@seanmdav @RonWyden *I swear to God I will stop drinking for a month if he answers you.*


Sean Davis &#8207 @seanmdav 3h3 hours ago

@Suz_Eliz69 @RonWyden *i mean let's not do anything rash*


SuzanneElizabeth ‏@Suz_Eliz69 3h3 hours ago
@seanmdav @RonWyden *It's all good, I didn't actually mean it. This is Twitter, not Betty Ford.*


----------



## glenwo2

2 Ton 21 said:


> http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/232856168-story
> 
> 
> 
> Poor family. Look, his mom might have died anyway. In her mid 70s and not well. Who knows? But she at least would have died at home (or hospital adjacent to her home) near the rest of her family.
> 
> This thing has been a cluster fuck.


That was just AWFUL timing. 

There's nothing else I can say here except just plain bad luck. 

I feel for the family.


----------



## Goku

i would gladly bend the knee to our dark overlord, Don the Trump. :trump


----------



## glenwo2

What about the the recent protest here that had a woman say "We must kill people"? 



> www.dailycaller.com/2017/01/30/blm-anti-trump-protest-in-seattle-we-need-to-start-killing-people/
> 
> 
> BLM Anti-Trump Protest In Seattle: ‘We Need To Start Killing People’
> 
> 
> 
> Photo of Justin Caruso
> 
> JUSTIN CARUSO
> 
> Contributor
> 
> 3:32 PM 01/30/2017
> 
> 21680 21680 Share
> 
> During an anti-Trump protest in Seattle this weekend, an activist associated with the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement took to the megaphone to voice her support for, among other things, “killing people,” and “killing the White House.”
> 
> 
> 
> While she said that, another protester can be heard saying, “Burn it!”
> 
> 
> 
> She also says, “White people, give your fucking money, your fucking house, your fucking property, we need it fucking all,” as another protester responds “reparations!”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “Fuck white supremacy, fuck the U.S. empire, fuck your imperialist ass lives. That shit gotta go.”
> 
> 
> 
> At 1:50 in the video clip, she goes, “And we need to start killing people. First off, we need to start killing the White House. The White House must die. The White House, your fucking White House, your fucking Presidents, they must go! Fuck the White House.”
> 
> 
> 
> “Pay the fuck up, pay the fuck up. It ain’t just your fucking time, its your fucking money, and now your fucking life is devoted to social change,” she said.
> 
> 
> 
> While speaking, she was wearing a jacket that said “Black Lives Matter” on the back.
> 
> 
> 
> According to the channel that uploaded the clip to YouTube, the activist saying these things is a teacher.





This is what is leading the protesters around the country? 

I mean...if one is going to compare a portion of Trump's "fanbase" as Nazis, then I guess we should compare the Anti-trump people(like the ones above here) as Charles Manson-lovers then. :shrug


Each side has its warts. No one side of this is devoid of craziness.


----------



## yeahbaby!

glenwo2 said:


> What about the the recent protest here that had a woman say "We must kill people"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what is leading the protesters around the country?
> 
> I mean...if one is going to compare a portion of Trump's "fanbase" as Nazis, then I guess we should compare the Anti-trump people(like the ones above here) as Charles Manson-lovers then. :shrug
> 
> 
> Each side has its warts. No one side of this is devoid of craziness.





> She also says, “White people, give your fucking money, your fucking house, your fucking property, we need it fucking all,” as another protester responds “reparations!”


Seems fair.


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> You can't mention that stuff as if its occurring in a vacuum. Trump has been routinely criticized and had his words and actions wildly distorted every single day since announcing his campaign, and people who have defended him have been called exactly what you're accusing them of being here. Considering how ridiculous his critics look, is it so surprising his defenders are having fun with it? I often call him God Emperor or talk about a Thousand-Year Trumpenreich. Is this because I desire an authoritarian regime or worship the man?
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> :mj
> 
> ...
> 
> Well, no. It's not. But it is fun to play the role others cast me in their hallucinations where Trump is Hitler and I'm enabling his rise to power. Being rational or publicly showing your principles all the time doesn't matter to these people, who are not rational and have no apparent principles, so I may as well have some fun.
> 
> As for hero worshiping, people wanted Obama to disqualify Trump and impose martial law. :lol I have plenty of liberal friends and see their shit all the time on facebook. I'm quite sure they were more serious than most of the Trump meme people are.


http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/...imaginary-animals-from-plastic-space-marines/

You mention this then came across this article of peta attacking warhammer or whatever for having fur on their gear. Human sacrifice is okay but not fur. LOL okay peta.


----------



## glenwo2

Another pic for the scrapbook :











:lmao :lmao :lmao


----------



## Miss Sally

yeahbaby! said:


> Seems fair.


Frankly I do believe people who are white who support BLM, "refugees" and reparations should give up their stuff. I never understood why people who believe so strongly in this sort of thing, especially celebs and rich people like Zuckerberg don't give up anything of their own but demand everyone else does. They should lead by example.


----------



## Art Vandaley

http://usuncut.com/politics/syrian-family-voted-trump/

I have zero sympathy for these people. If you vote for a fascist you should reap the consequences. 

And Hitler and Trump ran on identical campaigns "make the country great again, let's get rid of all the jews/muslims". 

I get why pretending those parallels don't exist if it makes you feel like better people though.


----------



## samizayn

Miss Sally said:


> Frankly I do believe people who are white who support BLM, "refugees" and reparations should give up their stuff. I never understood why people who believe so strongly in this sort of thing, especially celebs and rich people like Zuckerberg don't give up anything of their own but demand everyone else does. They should lead by example.


Don't give to BLM? Generally?




Alkomesh2 said:


> http://usuncut.com/politics/syrian-family-voted-trump/
> 
> I have zero sympathy for these people. If you vote for a fascist you should reap the consequences.
> 
> And Hitler and Trump ran on identical campaigns "make the country great again, let's get rid of all the jews/muslims".
> 
> I get why pretending those parallels don't exist if it makes you feel like better people though.





> Assali said her vote for Donald Trump was done out of a desire to see secure borders, though she didn’t expect one of her candidate’s chief campaign promises to be applied to her relatives, who are all Orthodox Christians with green cards. Even though White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus recently stated that Trump’s order wouldn’t apply to green card holders,


When the Arab Trump supporters start asking about their green cards and their Christian priority :lol

S(he) be(lie)ve(d)


----------



## stevefox1200

I have a copy Mein Kampf

Trump has as much in common with Hitler as any world leader in the last 10,000 years

The "its X's fault" and "lets improve our land" is as old as fuck, Hitler even noted he was saying nothing new and based his ideas off old ass German rulers like Fredrick the Great

The flamboyant leader who listens to no one is as old as fuck, you can trace it back to the first kings 

WW2 and Cold War history is my hobby, I have shelves of books on eras

I wish the Nazis were still around so people could see what a REAL Nazi looks like, they are a very unique group that combine many aspects of different political systems from Monarchy to communism 

Fascism is so misunderstood and has become the "party of the guy who I don't like"


----------



## Miss Sally

stevefox1200 said:


> I have a copy Mein Kampf
> 
> Trump has as much in common with Hitler as any world leader in the last 10,000 years
> 
> The "its X's fault" and "lets improve our land" is as old as fuck, Hitler even noted he was saying nothing new and based his ideas off old ass German rulers like Fredrick the Great
> 
> The flamboyant leader who listens to no one is as old as fuck, you can trace it back to the first kings
> 
> WW2 and Cold War history is my hobby, I have shelves of books on eras


to be honest, how many of these people do you think who spout hitler nonsense actually even know history 10 years back let alone taking the time to study leaders in history?


----------



## Art Vandaley

Nah scapegoating a race/ethnicity/religion by a Western Politician leading a mainstream party?

There's Hitler and since then Trump, no one did it in between. (With the possible exception of La Penne in France, but he never denied being a fascist and I'm not sure how "mainstream" he was, and certainly unheard of in any english speaking country.)

And yeah people were terrible in the middle ages, hardly relevant though.

Also fascism is radical authoritarian nationalism, how does that not describe Trump perfectly?

Do you think he isn't radical?

Do you think he isn't authoritarian?

Or do you think he isn't a nationalist? 

I'd love to know why you all consider him not a fascist.

I mean words have definitions, and the definition of fascist describes Trump perfectly.


----------



## CamillePunk

Alkomesh2 said:


> http://usuncut.com/politics/syrian-family-voted-trump/
> 
> I have zero sympathy for these people. If you vote for a fascist you should reap the consequences.
> 
> And Hitler and Trump ran on identical campaigns "make the country great again, let's get rid of all the jews/muslims".
> 
> I get why pretending those parallels don't exist if it makes you feel like better people though.


Trump has proposed "getting rid of" zero American Muslims from the US at any point during his campaign. Temporarily suspending Muslim immigration (a proposal he backed off of many moons ago, and now only wants to focus on certain countries) is not "get rid of all the Muslims". You are suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome if you're seriously equating the two.



Alkomesh2 said:


> Nah scapegoating a race/ethnicity/religion by a Western Politician leading a mainstream party?


No race/ethnicity has been scapegoated by Trump. Illegal immigrant is not a race or ethnicity. Ignoring the problems caused by radical Islam in the world is just being obtuse. 



> Also fascism is radical authoritarian nationalism, how does that not describe Trump perfectly?


No, fascism is not just a collection of unrelated labels. Labels are not arguments. Trump isn't trying to overthrow our democracy or create a one-party state. He's not proposing a martial government or isolating the US economically from other countries. No, wanting better trade deals is not equivalent to isolationism. He's also spoken against American imperialism, advocating that we stop getting involved in other countries' affairs all the time and instead be a "shining example" for other countries to follow if they so desire. This is not the rhetoric of a fascist.


----------



## Art Vandaley

CamillePunk said:


> Trump has proposed "getting rid of" zero American Muslims from the US at any point during his campaign. Temporarily suspending Muslim immigration (a proposal he backed off of many moons ago, and now only wants to focus on certain countries) is not "get rid of all the Muslims". You are suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome if you're seriously equating the two.


They still intend on adding every muslim majority country, that list was just the starting point. 



> No race/ethnicity has been scapegoated by Trump. Illegal immigrant is not a race or ethnicity. Ignoring the problems caused by radical Islam in the world is just being obtuse.


This would be a decent point if he hadn't equated illegal immigration with Mexicans.



> No, fascism is not just a collection of unrelated labels. Labels are not arguments. Trump isn't trying to overthrow our democracy or create a one-party state. He's not proposing a martial government or isolating the US economically from other countries. No, wanting better trade deals is not equivalent to isolationism. He's also spoken against American imperialism, advocating that we stop getting involved in other countries' affairs all the time and instead be a "shining example" for other countries to follow if they so desire. This is not the rhetoric of a fascist.


Fascism is not a collection of unrelated labels, its a political ideology with a firm and widely accepted definition of radical authoritarian nationalism. 

And again I'd ask, which of those three are you seriously suggesting Trump isn't?

Trump isn't renegotiating the TPP btw, he is just leaving it. Also putting Tariffs on Mexican imports is directly isolating America economically, he says he wants better deals, but his "better deals" are all just isolating America economically, so that is a false distinction. 

Trump says he wants to end US imperialism, but anytime any actual discussion of it came up he was also one of the most hawkish people to respond. He literally said he would "bomb the shit out of ISIS". 

"Bomb the shit out of them" - your pacifist hero, come on.

At the end of the day you're going to deny that fascism has a definition so you'll never have to actually respond to any actual arguments or points, so whatever.


----------



## MrMister

Dems gonna attempt to be just like the GOP and obstruct Gorsuch. I'll probably disagree with Gorsuch on a lot of stuff like I disagreed with Scalia, but the guy is qualified obviously. He's a solid conservative pick. Dems you should've had a fucking clue during the presidential campaign this is your own fault ya morons. So more hypocrisy and more grandstanding by Congress. At 49 he's also going to be on the court forever (he's 100% being confirmed).

At this point, I'm actually rooting for Gorsuch to be confirmed just so Dems can gnash their teeth some more.


----------



## Miss Sally

MrMister said:


> Dems gonna attempt to be just like the GOP and obstruct Gorsuch. I'll probably disagree with Gorsuch on a lot of stuff like I disagreed with Scalia, but the guy is qualified obviously. He's a solid conservative pick. Dems you should've had a fucking clue during the presidential campaign this is your own fault ya morons. So more hypocrisy and more grandstanding by Congress. At 49 he's also going to be on the court forever (he's 100% being confirmed).
> 
> At this point, I'm actually rooting for Gorsuch to be confirmed just so Dems can gnash their teeth some more.


Dems doing exactly what they bitched about the GOP doing is rather funny. Don't they see how it makes them look?


----------



## Beatles123

Irish Jet said:


> Because the corporate media is bought and paid for. I don't think anyone's defending their garbage. They're as responsible for Trump as anyone and one of the few highlights of his presidency is watching them all freak out.
> 
> How this somehow can be used to justify the travel ban is another matter. It's just one side pointing out that they're actually as fucked up as we are. That's not a valid defence when your selling yourself as some sort of anti-establishment saviour. Obama being wrong doesn't make Trump right. The mainstream media being trash doesn't make Breitbart any less of a fucking disgrace to journalism.


He has done nothing unconstitutional and Breitbart is no disgrace for being on the opposite side of the political compass as you.


----------



## Irish Jet

The Trump/Hitler comparisons are seriously fucked up and really discredit any sort of rational debate. Hitler wrote a book where he essentially outlined his intention to commit genocide on Jews, Communists and about 75% of Eastern Europe. He didn’t explicitly say it but rather indicated that it probably should happen. 

Comparing Trump to presidents who refused entry to Jewish people/detained Japanese during the war is closer to home. In fact I’d argue it’s significantly worse because unlike in WW2 the mass displacement is actually a result of US foreign policy. I find it pretty concerning that people find it morally acceptable to destroy a nation state, based on nothing more than self-interest only to then deny refuge to those running from the chaos and destruction you left in your wake. The media has dehumanised the middle east to the extent where people associate the victims with the evil they’re running from. It’s so fucked up. 

The comparisons between supporters is a bit more reasonable, at least certain elements of it. There’s a serious cult of personality being built around Trump. You go on place like r/thedonald and its fucking horrifying. They will literally swing to any position based on Trump’s current view. I’ve seen them go from fanatically anti-Isreal to pro-Isreal in the space of about two weeks.

The really worrying aspect of Trump’s presidency is the scrutiny has been justifiably discredited. The media have been so blatantly biased towards Clinton/Obama that now Trump’s supporters will always have a reason to deflect or ridicule criticism, whether it’s deserved or not.


----------



## Beatles123

Irish Jet said:


> The comparisons between supporters is a bit more reasonable, at least certain elements of it. There’s a serious cult of personality being built around Trump. You go on place like r/thedonald and its fucking horrifying. They will literally swing to any position based on Trump’s current view. I’ve seen them go from fanatically anti-Isreal to pro-Isreal in the space of about two weeks.
> 
> The really worrying aspect of Trump’s presidency is the scrutiny has been justifiably discredited. The media have been so blatantly biased towards Clinton/Obama that now Trump’s supporters will always have a reason to deflect or ridicule criticism, whether it’s deserved or not.


Interesting that you have that opinion. Do you post there? We have had many decent conversations with those on opposing sides. You are just as welcome as anyone to debate your views.

As for the second part, you can say the same about the HATE for Trump. It's going to be there even if he gave everyone in the world free puppies.


----------



## Irish Jet

Beatles123 said:


> He has done nothing unconstitutional and Breitbart is no disgrace for being on the opposite side of the political compass as you.


Please don't assume you know my political position sunshine. Breitbart isn't garbage because it's right wing, it's garbage because it's reactionary gutter journalism appealing to the very worst of society.


----------



## Irish Jet

Beatles123 said:


> Interesting that you have that opinion. Do you post there? We have had many decent conversations with those on opposing sides. You are just as welcome as anyone to debate your views.
> 
> As for the second part, you can say the same about the HATE for Trump.


Got banned for saying Pence was an opportunist.

I know you can. But there's mass hypocrisy on both sides.


----------



## Beatles123

Irish Jet said:


> Got banned for saying Pence was an opportunist.
> 
> I know you can. But there's mass hypocrisy on both sides.


That's unfortunate. We get brigades of people (especially now that the Reddit admins have came out as actively anti-Trump) who spam the (Dom)reddit with left-centric trollposts. Perhaps you were mistaken as one.

Considering the higher-up's have conspired against them for quite a while and have a slanted leftist view, you can see why the mix-up may happen.

Rgardless, I still invite you to join our Discord voicechat. Yeah you'll get a few shitposters here and there and some ironic 4chanisms but after you settle in, you can have a debate if you wish. We're quite friendly underneath the satire.

As for Breitbart, they usually cite other sources. you are free to agree or disagree the same as i would reading from that shithole Politico. Or, to show you i'm not biased, TheRightScoop. :shrug


----------



## nucklehead88

Miss Sally said:


> to be honest, how many of these people do you think who spout hitler nonsense actually even know history 10 years back let alone taking the time to study leaders in history?


Well there are similarities. Problem is, you think people are comparing Trump to Hitler of 1939 and on. Look to when he first became Chancellor in 33. Before he was a dictator. When he was the "man of the people" that was bringing Germany "back to it's former glory"/ Hell even the "icing out" of certain media by telling their supporters it's "fake news" is how Joseph Goebbels started out his work as the "Minister of Propaganda". I'm not saying that Trump will go full Hitler here. I'm just playing devils advocate and saying there are SOME striking similarities. The idea of having Muslims register and have a database was what Hitler did with the Jews way before he invaded anyone. 

And just to clarify, if you're wondering how much I know about WW2, this is coming from the grandchild of a man that spent 2 years in Auschwitz before the Russians liberated the camp. And to quote my Opa from 3 days ago..."I've seen this before. It doesn't end well."

Miss Sally we recently cleared up a misunderstanding between us, for which you retracted you're statements and apologized. I commend you for that and am glad it was cleared up. I like being able to have a rational discussion with people on the other side of the political spectrum without vitriol. Clearly you are very capable of rational thought. You will see that I'm not even suggesting that Trump is Hitler/ will be Hitler/ is really like Hitler. All I'm saying is Trumps first 2 weeks have had some eerie similarities to Hitlers. Hopefully those that are suggesting Trump will become Hitler 2.0 are wrong. For everyones sake.


----------



## Beatles123

nucklehead88 said:


> Well there are similarities. Problem is, you think people are comparing Trump to Hitler of 1939 and on. Look to when he first became Chancellor in 33. Before he was a dictator. When he was the "man of the people" that was bringing Germany "back to it's former glory"/ Hell even the "icing out" of certain media by telling their supporters it's "fake news" is how Joseph Goebbels started out his work as the "Minister of Propaganda". I'm not saying that Trump will go full Hitler here. I'm just playing devils advocate and saying there are SOME striking similarities. The idea of having Muslims register and have a database was what Hitler did with the Jews way before he invaded anyone.
> 
> And just to clarify, if you're wondering how much I know about WW2, this is coming from the grandchild of a man that spent 2 years in Auschwitz before the Russians liberated the camp. And to quote my Opa from 3 days ago..."I've seen this before. It doesn't end well."
> 
> Miss Sally we recently cleared up a misunderstanding between us, for which you retracted you're statements and apologized. I commend you for that and am glad it was cleared up. I like being able to have a rational discussion with people on the other side of the political spectrum without vitriol. Clearly you are very capable of rational thought. You will see that I'm not even suggesting that Trump is Hitler/ will be Hitler/ is really like Hitler. All I'm saying is Trumps first 2 weeks have had some eerie similarities to Hitlers. Hopefully those that are suggesting Trump will become Hitler 2.0 are wrong. For everyones sake.


While i can see your opinion, the nerd in me has to point out that even though appealing to authority is a commonly used way to show proof, your grandfather does not exactly qualify you as being well versed in WW2, despite the fact that he may well be a source of factual (or even non-factual, depending on various factors) information or opinion. 

Not trying to debunk you here or say you're wrong. You might know a lot and i do see your honest post and have no qualms with it. Just pointing out a common debate tip. :nerd: (Note: Im not blaming you. I do it too.)


----------



## RavishingRickRules

http://trumpdonald.org/ lol...


----------



## amhlilhaus

TheMenace said:


> I wouldn't compare Trump to Hitler, but I would compare a portion of Trump's support base with Hitler's support base. I mean the ones who scoff at anything they view as antagonizing to Trump such as:
> 
> - pointing out that the overhead picture of the inauguration crowd was in fact legitimate
> - showing concern about the environmental ramifications of his deregulations
> - suggesting that he could have used a better, less heavy-handed approach to keeping the homeland safe from terrorists
> 
> and just respond with things like:
> 
> "Perfect, explode more leftist heads. Christmas every day, exploding leftist head every day!﻿"
> "hahahahaha love it, I've been saying that trump is liberal kryptonite...just look at em squirm...it's ridiculous﻿"
> "count 3 more exploding leftist heads on this post alone! Just trying to do my part to assist Trump every day﻿"
> "I hope there were a lot of busy signals on the suicide hotlines."
> 
> etc. etc.
> 
> That type of brainwashed cultist dogmatic allegiance to a person that they view to be their hero is very worrying as it is the main ingredient of any dictatorship.


How very smug, perfectly illustrates the left. Trump supporters are robotic idiots who think he can do no wrong. They fail to realize we are on to them. The media bias, 90 plus % of reporters vote democrat. We see dems claim to be for women and gays, now embracing muslims who kill gays and treat women like slaves. We see them claim to be for minorities, yet every major city has been run by dem city councils for 50 plus years, and theyre all drowning in debt snd the minorities all suffer poor educational oppurtunities and crime. We know dems hate america that values good behavior, hard work and being responsible for yourself. Their america is one where sloth, envy and mindless worship of centralized government can not work, and we want no part of it. No, we arent mindless minions, and will turn on him if he betrays too many campaign promises. Hes broken one, not prosecuting hillary. We will let that slide, shes already suffered the greatest failure of her life. But trumps fulfilling his promises. Hes not a conservative. Definitely not a republican. Trumps a hybrid. He has definite liberal leanings, his support for lgbtq rights for instance. This may turn some of his supporters eventually. For now, hes doing what he said he would do. Hes plucked the low hanging fruit, the tough part of getting laws through begins soon. Either way, liberals will bitch about everything he does. I see liberals on message boards screaming how theyre ready for 2018. Well, so are we, and if trump keeps moving on his campaign promises, 2018 will be a slaughter. Democrats will be crushed, and then republicans will ram everything up that azz.


----------



## glenwo2

Alkomesh2 said:


> http://usuncut.com/politics/syrian-family-voted-trump/
> 
> I have zero sympathy for these people. If you vote for a fascist you should reap the consequences.
> 
> And Hitler and Trump ran on identical campaigns "make the country great again, let's get rid of all the jews/muslims".
> 
> I get why pretending those parallels don't exist if it makes you feel like better people though.


Sorry but that's insane to continue to say there's any parallel.

*Did Trump order the EXECUTION of Muslims here in the states? NO.


Did he have them rounded up and put into concentration camps here in the states? NO.

*

If all you're using to compare both is what they say in their "campaign", then you should find someone different to compare.

So stop this shit comparison 'cause it's far from the truth. fpalm


----------



## Beatles123

:lmao


----------



## Stinger Fan

Alkomesh2 said:


> http://usuncut.com/politics/syrian-family-voted-trump/
> 
> I have zero sympathy for these people. If you vote for a fascist you should reap the consequences.
> 
> And Hitler and Trump ran on identical campaigns "make the country great again, let's get rid of all the jews/muslims".
> 
> I get why pretending those parallels don't exist if it makes you feel like better people though.


Oh for christ sakes, stop with the bullshit comparisons to Hitler. It's incredibly insulting and offensive to Jewish people(including myself). It disgusts me how low leftists will go just to make someone look bad. I'm no Trump supporter(I will defend if necessary), but these comparisons have to stop. They trivialize the real genocide that happened. *Deportation does not mean extermination*, you cannot compare the two when its the Muslims who have been persecuting Jews, Yazidis and Christians in the middle east for years. And I'm sure you'll ignore stuff like the Armenian Genocide where the Muslims exterminated Armenians who were Christian or the fact that Christian persecution have been increasing every year . We can go on about this all day long, so please stop this crap.

If you're so interested in Hitler comparisons, why ignore stuff like Hiter was a 

-Socialist
-Pro government control
-Anti-Capitalist
-Pro choice

etc etc . Now you tell me, who does that sound more like? Left wing or right wing? This comparison stuff is so stupid and immature, stop trivializing the extermination of millions of Jews to make a half assed point


----------



## Goku

In my opinion, Trump is more like Gandhi than Hitler, a peaceful, non-violent hindu guy that grabs girls by the pussy.

enguin


----------



## Miss Sally

Stinger Fan said:


> Oh for christ sakes, stop with the bullshit comparisons to Hitler. It's incredibly insulting and offensive to Jewish people(including myself). It disgusts me how low leftists will go just to make someone look bad. I'm no Trump supporter(I will defend if necessary), but these comparisons have to stop. They trivialize the real genocide that happened. *Deportation does not mean extermination*, you cannot compare the two when its the Muslims who have been persecuting Jews, Yazidis and Christians in the middle east for years. And I'm sure you'll ignore stuff like the Armenian Genocide where the Muslims exterminated Armenians who were Christian or the fact that Christian persecution have been increasing every year . We can go on about this all day long, so please stop this crap.
> 
> If you're so interested in Hitler comparisons, why ignore stuff like Hiter was a
> 
> -Socialist
> -Pro government control
> -Anti-Capitalist
> -Pro choice
> 
> etc etc . Now you tell me, who does that sound more like? Left wing or right wing? This comparison stuff is so stupid and immature, stop trivializing the extermination of millions of Jews to make a half assed point



Don't forget gun control!:grin2:


----------



## Reaper

I avoided another death squad today by hiding under my bed.

They took all my valuables though to redistribute to white people because my parents are muslim. They also froze my bank account and now I can't access my own wealth.

--


----------



## Reaper

@FriedTofu - Your thoughts on this: 

http://www.dawn.com/news/1311478/i-hope-trump-bans-pakistani-visas-imran-khan



> *I hope Trump bans Pakistani visas: Imran Khan*
> 
> Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan on Sunday, while condemning the plight of Muslims prevented from entering the United States (US) under US President Donald Trump's immigration ban, expressed hope that the ban is extended to Pakistanis.
> 
> "I want to tell all Pakistanis today, I pray that Trump bans Pakistani visas so that we can focus on fixing our country," Khan told a rally in Sahiwal.
> 
> Trump's sweeping executive order, signed Friday, suspends the arrival of refugees in the US for at least 120 days and bars visas for travellers from seven Muslim majority countries ─ including Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen ─ for the next three months.
> 
> The PTI chief said most educated Pakistanis want to leave this country because they think they can only acquire gainful employment if they have a "powerful source", and said he believes that things in Pakistan can only improve if people work for progress.
> 
> "The day we bring back the merit system back to Pakistan, all our best citizens will return and work for the betterment of this country," Khan said.
> 
> "We will have to fix Pakistan and stand on our own two feet. And the day that we decide this is our home and we have to fix it, we won't beg for loans from the US and the International Monetary Fund (IMF)."
> 
> Khan said the day there is a government that decides it has to live and die in Pakistan, it will fix this country.
> 
> "The biggest issue here," he said, "is the corruption of bigwigs who... become ministers and loot this country, taking the money abroad."
> 
> "They may have elected Trump, but we have elected Nawaz Sharif."
> 
> Lambasting Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, Khan alleged, the PM had taken money from Pakistan and spent it abroad. "His businesses are abroad, his children are abroad, but he is the prime minister of Pakistan. He even goes abroad for checkups," he said.
> 
> Khan lauded Iran's tit-for-tat move in response to Trump's immigration ban, which restricted US nationals travelling to Iran until the ban was lifted.
> 
> "Iran is an independent nation and we need to become like them," Khan asserted.
> 
> The PTI chief, directly addressing Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, urged the premier not to tamper with Pakistan's water supplies.
> 
> Recounting Modi's speech in poll-bound Indian Punjab Friday in which he promised to abrogate the Indus Waters Treaty, Khan said, "If you shut our water, what will our people do?"
> 
> "I know that the people in India don't want war. They want peace," Khan said. "The people want both countries to cooperate and end poverty across the subcontinent."


Personally I think it's one of the most reasonable things Imran has said because while he's admonishing a nationalist in Trump, he's still acknowledging that nationalism is what's required to fix Pakistan at the same time. It's one of his typical paradoxical opinions, but a paradoxical opinion doesn't mean that it's necessarily the wrong opinion.


----------



## glenwo2

RipNTear said:


> @FriedTofu - Your thoughts on this:
> 
> http://www.dawn.com/news/1311478/i-hope-trump-bans-pakistani-visas-imran-khan
> 
> 
> 
> Personally I think it's one of the most reasonable things Imran has said because while he's admonishing a nationalist in Trump, he's still acknowledging that nationalism is what's required to fix Pakistan at the same time. It's one of his typical paradoxical opinions, but a paradoxical opinion doesn't mean that it's necessarily the wrong opinion.





> *"We will have to fix Pakistan and stand on our own two feet. *And the day that we decide this is our home and we have to fix it, we won't beg for loans from the US and the International Monetary Fund (IMF)."


THIS is what every country should be doing for itself instead of waiting for fucking handouts from the U.S.






Stinger Fan said:


> Oh for christ sakes, stop with the bullshit comparisons to Hitler. It's incredibly insulting and offensive to Jewish people(including myself). It disgusts me how low leftists will go just to make someone look bad. I'm no Trump supporter(I will defend if necessary), but these comparisons have to stop. They trivialize the real genocide that happened. *Deportation does not mean extermination*, you cannot compare the two when its the Muslims who have been persecuting Jews, Yazidis and Christians in the middle east for years. And I'm sure you'll ignore stuff like the Armenian Genocide where the Muslims exterminated Armenians who were Christian or the fact that Christian persecution have been increasing every year . We can go on about this all day long, so please stop this crap.
> 
> If you're so interested in Hitler comparisons, why ignore stuff like Hiter was a
> 
> -Socialist
> -Pro government control
> -Anti-Capitalist
> *-Pro choice*
> 
> etc etc . Now you tell me, who does that sound more like? Left wing or right wing? This comparison stuff is so stupid and immature, stop trivializing the extermination of millions of Jews to make a half assed point



I'm Pro-choice so I'm Hitler now? :shrug

Didn't know that Pro-choice/Pro-Life was a thing back then.


----------



## CamillePunk

Alkomesh2 said:


> They still intend on adding every muslim majority country, that list was just the starting point.


Lie. 



> This would be a decent point if he hadn't equated illegal immigration with Mexicans.


Lie. 



> Fascism is not a collection of unrelated labels, its a political ideology with a firm and widely accepted definition of radical authoritarian nationalism.
> 
> And again I'd ask, which of those three are you seriously suggesting Trump isn't?


You literally just restated the same non-argument. Not going in circles with you. 



> Trump isn't renegotiating the TPP btw, he is just leaving it. Also putting Tariffs on Mexican imports is directly isolating America economically, he says he wants better deals, but his "better deals" are all just isolating America economically, so that is a false distinction.


The TPP wasn't what I was talking about. Strawman. He hasn't made any trade deals yet so you can't say they're isolating us economically. So another lie. 



> Trump says he wants to end US imperialism, but anytime any actual discussion of it came up he was also one of the most hawkish people to respond. He literally said he would "bomb the shit out of ISIS".
> 
> "Bomb the shit out of them" - your pacifist hero, come on.


Not being imperialist =/= pacifism, and not being pacifist is not equivalent to fascism. Strawman. 



> At the end of the day you're going to deny that fascism has a definition so you'll never have to actually respond to any actual arguments or points, so whatever.


I stated several key characteristics of fascism that Trump has never discussed implementing and never will barring a total collapse of the legislative and judicial branches. Given the hardline constitutionalist justice he just appointed, this seems extremely unlikely. 

Every statement in your post was either a lie (claiming to have psychic powers/the ability to predict the future is a lie) or a strawman. Very poor. Lacking in seriousness.


----------



## Stinger Fan

glenwo2 said:


> I'm Pro-choice so I'm Hitler now? :shrug
> 
> Didn't know that Pro-choice/Pro-Life was a thing back then.


No, I'm merely pointing out saying that because Hitler was in favor of one thing, doesn't immediately make people Nazi's. Going out on a limb here but I assume Hitler believed the sky was blue so does that mean anyone who thinks the sky is blue is a Nazi? Margaret Sanger was the one who started the planned parenthood organization. She spoke at KKK rallies, wanted to abort as many black babies as possible. Not to mention that they target black neighborhoods more often and some how all that gets left out and ignored when talking about it. The same people who readily accuse anyone of being racist or a bigot of some kind simply for not agreeing with them


----------



## Beatles123

Tillerson about to be confirmed on the Senate floor. :trump2


----------



## Stinger Fan




----------



## MrMister

When his presidency is over and he wasn't Hitler will people admit they were literally Chicken Little?


----------



## glenwo2

MrMister said:


> When his presidency is over and he wasn't Hitler will people admit they were literally Chicken Little?


We'd have a better shot at winning the PowerBall jackpot(or whatever lottery).


----------



## CamillePunk

MrMister said:


> When his presidency is over and he wasn't Hitler will people admit they were literally Chicken Little?


Doubtful. They'll just pat themselves on the back for stopping Hitler. They're too committed to the illusion at this point. Read the first Adams article I posted yesterday.

Speaking of Scott Adams (the man with the most credibility regarding all matters Trump), another great article on him about the odds of being killed by an immigrant:

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/156672488391/the-odds-of-being-killed-by-an-immigrant


----------



## DesolationRow

_"Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers--already, you see, the world had already fallen into the hands of the Jews, so gutless a thing Christianity!--then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies the heroism and which opens up the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world. Christianity alone prevented us from doing so."_

--An idle quote from Adolf Hitler, dated August 28, 1942 [page 667 of _Hitler's Table Talk; 1941-1944_ translated by N. Cameron and R.H. Stevens, Enigma Books (1953)]

Hitler found himself tremendously impressed by a tale of history fraught with indisputably colossal ramifications that had been disseminated from the large delegation of distinguished Arabs visiting him. As Hitler retold it, when the Mohammedans had endeavored to penetrate and conquer Europe beyond France in the eighth century, as they had overtaken North Africa and much of the Mediterranean ring in the one hundred years following the prophet's death in 632, his visitors told him of how they had been driven back at the Battle of Tours. Had the Mohammedan Arabs won this crucial battle, the Arabs informed the German chancellor, the Western world would have been entirely Mohammedan. 

An alternate world history could have unfurled, one in which the Mohammedan world order would have fallen into place and the Christians of Europe devoured by fire, enslaved as they had been in North Africa, women raped, institutions reshaped. No Norman conquest of England in 1066; no British Empire; no United States of America. Just a Western world remade, irrevocably, blanketed in the darkness of militant Islam. 

Hitler's reaction? Giddiness as the thought. For, as Hitler interpreted and fetishized Islam, the religion was glorious for its steeliness, for constantly spreading the faith by the sword and subjugating the people of nations who had to be introduced, however forcefully, to that faith. Hitler rhapsodized about how wonderful it would have been for the German people to have been inculcated in this faith, to have become heirs to that religion. As Hitler remarked to several diplomats in 1943, the creed of Islam was practically perfectly suited to the temperament of the Germanic people. Hitler's racism was on display in his remarks, too, for, from his perspective, the "inferior" Arabs would have ultimately been ill-suited to keeping that which they conquered in Central Europe, for the brutally cold winters and harsh terrains were unlike what they knew back home. After a generation or two, the restless natives would have rebelled against their new masters, but that would have been as Islamized Germans. And so it would have been, in Hitler's feverish conception of this alternative timeline, "Mohammedanized Germanic people" conquering all of Europe with the industry, intelligence and might of Germany, with the relentless, mass-baby-producing, strictly hyper-masculine warrior ingredients owed from Islam. The Mohammedan Empire would have seen the Germans sitting upon its throne. 

"You see," Hitler would say, almost panting, to delegates in 1943, "it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion, too, would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?" 


In April 1945 as wave after wave of the Red Army viciously came down upon the German Reich while the British Army speedily raced across the German low country and the American Army brutally plowed through Bavaria, spilling into Austria with great alacrity and the Czech Protectorate with crushing power, Hitler rested, ensconced in his bunker under the smoldering ruins of the Reichskanzlei. Hitler's prized French SS Division Charlemagne was above him, fighting his last, final, bitter battle: the French SS Division Charlemagne behaved like possessed monsters, as though the lunatic who misled the Third Reich into rubble had had his anger, scorn and wrath poured into their very being... Not against the rapacious Red Army, nor the blistering British Army, nor the atavistic American Army... But against Hitler's own people, the Germans, the people in whose name he had unleashed war on one nation after another. Almost like a petulant teenager he raged that ultimately the German people had proven unfit for his particular genius and heroism, and that a cosmic mistake must have occurred for he in all of his glory was unquestionably worthy of a better people. Again and again Hitler railed in his final days that if only the German people had been Muslims rather than Christians, as he doted on his merciless, unyielding Muslim SS Divisions from Bosnia, from among Arabs and even from among Indians. Cynical, Hitler informed his Minister of Propaganda, Josef Goebbels, to play on loud speakers all over Berlin, as tens of thousands of civilians and German soldiers perished, Wagner's _Götterdämmerung_ (Twilight of the Gods) as way to herald a fiery apocalyptic denouement. 

The regime responsible for the murder of close to six million Jews, approximately six million Soviet citizens (non-Jewish; about one million, possibly 1.3 million Soviet Jewish civilians were murdered by Hitler's state), more than three million Soviet prisoners of war, approximately 1.8-million non-Jewish Polish civilians, almost 320,000 Serbian civilians, in excess of 200,000 Roma Gypsies, approximately 250,000 people burdened by disabilities living in institutions, a little over 2,000 Jehovah's Witnesses, 70,000 repeat criminals and those deemed to be "asocials," including at least approximately one thousand or so homosexuals, was a burned out, desiccated husk, its final hours perversely serenaded by Wagner.


----------



## deepelemblues

MrMister said:


> When his presidency is over and he wasn't Hitler will people admit they were literally Chicken Little?


it's a scientific law post 1960s that as soon as election season rolls around the last republican president who was definitely hitler is no longer hitler but was actually not so bad, and the new republican nominee for president becomes hitler. the only one to avoid this was daddy bush, somehow he avoided being called hitler very much his entire 4 years. 

nixon was hitler until reagan ran for president then it turned out nixon wasn't really so bad compared to this hitler reagan

reagan was hitler until george w bush ran for president then it turned out reagan wasn't really so bad compared to his hitler dubya

dubya was hitler until :trump ran for president then it turned out dubya wasn't really so bad compared to this hitler :trump

the next republican president will be hitler and :trump will turn out to have not been so bad compared to him or her

they even tried to say john fucking mccain and mitt milquetoast romney were hitler but as soon as it was obvious they werent going to win they werent hitler anymore. whats the point of them being hitler if they arent gonna be president naturally.


----------



## Miss Sally

DesolationRow said:


> _"Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers--already, you see, the world had already fallen into the hands of the Jews, so gutless a thing Christianity!--then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies the heroism and which opens up the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world. Christianity alone prevented us from doing so."_
> 
> --An idle quote from Adolf Hitler, dated August 28, 1942 [page 667 of _Hitler's Table Talk; 1941-1944_ translated by N. Cameron and R.H. Stevens, Enigma Books (1953)]
> 
> Hitler found himself tremendously impressed by a tale of history fraught with indisputably colossal ramifications that had been disseminated from the large delegation of distinguished Arabs visiting him. As Hitler retold it, when the Mohammedans had endeavored to penetrate and conquer Europe beyond France in the eighth century, as they had overtaken North Africa and much of the Mediterranean ring in the one hundred years following the prophet's death in 632, his visitors told him of how they had been driven back at the Battle of Tours. Had the Mohammedan Arabs won this crucial battle, the Arabs informed the German chancellor, the Western world would have been entirely Mohammedan.
> 
> An alternate world history could have unfurled, one in which the Mohammedan world order would have fallen into place and the Christians of Europe devoured by fire, enslaved as they had been in North Africa, women raped, institutions reshaped. No Norman conquest of England in 1066; no British Empire; no United States of America. Just a Western world remade, irrevocably, blanketed in the darkness of militant Islam.
> 
> Hitler's reaction? Giddiness as the thought. For, as Hitler interpreted and fetishized Islam, the religion was glorious for its steeliness, for constantly spreading the faith by the sword and subjugating the people of nations who had to be introduced, however forcefully, to that faith. Hitler rhapsodized about how wonderful it would have been for the German people to have been inculcated in this faith, to have become heirs to that religion. As Hitler remarked to several diplomats in 1943, the creed of Islam was practically perfectly suited to the temperament of the Germanic people. Hitler's racism was on display in his remarks, too, for, from his perspective, the "inferior" Arabs would have ultimately been ill-suited to keeping that which they conquered in Central Europe, for the brutally cold winters and harsh terrains were unlike what they knew back home. After a generation or two, the restless natives would have rebelled against their new masters, but that would have been as Islamized Germans. And so it would have been, in Hitler's feverish conception of this alternative timeline, "Mohammedanized Germanic people" conquering all of Europe with the industry, intelligence and might of Germany, with the relentless, mass-baby-producing, strictly hyper-masculine warrior ingredients owed from Islam. The Mohammedan Empire would have seen the Germans sitting upon its throne.
> 
> "You see," Hitler would say, almost panting, to delegates in 1943, "it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion, too, would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"
> 
> 
> In April 1945 as wave after wave of the Red Army viciously came down upon the German Reich while the British Army speedily raced across the German low country and the American Army brutally plowed through Bavaria, spilling into Austria with great alacrity and the Czech Protectorate with crushing power, Hitler rested, ensconced in his bunker under the smoldering ruins of the Reichskanzlei. Hitler's prized French SS Division Charlemagne was above him, fighting his last, final, bitter battle: the French SS Division Charlemagne behaved like possessed monsters, as though the lunatic who misled the Third Reich into rubble had had his anger, scorn and wrath poured into their very being... Not against the rapacious Red Army, nor the blistering British Army, nor the atavistic American Army... But against Hitler's own people, the Germans, the people in whose name he had unleashed war on one nation after another. Almost like a petulant teenager he raged that ultimately the German people had proven unfit for his particular genius and heroism, and that a cosmic mistake must have occurred for he in all of his glory was unquestionably worthy of a better people. Again and again Hitler railed in his final days that if only the German people had been Muslims rather than Christians, as he doted on his merciless, unyielding Muslim SS Divisions from Bosnia, from among Arabs and even from among Indians. Cynical, Hitler informed his Minister of Propaganda, Josef Goebbels, to play on loud speakers all over Berlin, as tens of thousands of civilians and German soldiers perished, Wagner's _Götterdämmerung_ (Twilight of the Gods) as way to herald a fiery apocalyptic denouement.
> 
> The regime responsible for the murder of close to six million Jews, approximately six million Soviet citizens (non-Jewish; about one million, possibly 1.3 million Soviet Jewish civilians were murdered by Hitler's state), more than three million Soviet prisoners of war, approximately 1.8-million non-Jewish Polish civilians, almost 320,000 Serbian civilians, in excess of 200,000 Roma Gypsies, approximately 250,000 people burdened by disabilities living in institutions, a little over 2,000 Jehovah's Witnesses, 70,000 repeat criminals and those deemed to be "asocials," including at least approximately one thousand or so homosexuals, was a burned out, desiccated husk, its final hours perversely serenaded by Wagner.


For some reason most people tend to ignore this part about Hitler. Or his Bosnian SS and his liking of Islam, it's like some hushed secret not to be told. He is right, Christianity became weak centuries ago while Islam a Religion more a military ideology remained strong. It might be interesting to see what Islam does to Germany in the long run as Christianity continues to falter and Islam is protected and preached.


----------



## Beatles123

SANCTION THE FUCK OUT OF IRAN!


----------



## yeahbaby!

Beatles123 said:


> SANCTION THE FUCK OUT OF IRAN!


The Donald just finalised a new hotel opening 2020 in the hills there so that will have to wait :trump


----------



## deepelemblues

http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/233053942-story

Saw this shit all over twitter and facebook and various lefty rag sites omg :trump 's executive order kept this poor boy from being with his mother on her deathbed and she 100% would be alive anyway if she had been allowed to get back into America :trump killed this woman. Oh wait nope.

There hasn't been this much fake news since the days of yellow journalism.


----------



## Miss Sally

http://reason.com/blog/2017/02/01/trumps-travel-ban-elderly-woman-dies


:LOL


It was a lie.

Haha was beat! What's with all the lies and fake stuff going on now? It don't help anyone.


----------



## virus21

deepelemblues said:


> http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/233053942-story
> 
> Saw this shit all over twitter and facebook and various lefty rag sites omg :trump 's executive order kept this poor boy from being with his mother on her deathbed and she 100% would be alive anyway if she had been allowed to get back into America :trump killed this woman. Oh wait nope.
> 
> There hasn't been this much fake news since the days of yellow journalism.


----------



## FatherJackHackett

I'm just thinking about how much money I could have made at work if I'd actually put bets on Trump-related things with my colleagues. I told them that Trump had a really good chance of winning and got laughed at repeatedly, then they said that we wouldn't even hear about The Wall again after he got in whereas I said otherwise - I could have taken them to the cleaners.

As far as this week is concerned, it's been ridiculous the way people have been losing their minds over this whole 'Muslim ban' (factually incorrect of course) thing, although I guess I shouldn't really be surprised. I just find the irony that large groups of people protesting because a Western political leader is actually fulfilling his campaign promises pretty amusing.

At the end of the day, Donald Trump's primary responsibility as President of the United States of America is to protect the American people. This temporary measure has been taken until they figure out a better vetting process in order to be sure that threats to the citizenry are not being admitted into the country. What we often forget is that the infrastructure in a lot of these countries is so shitty that a lot of the people who are travelling we have literally almost no way of identifying who they are or what they're about. If there is any doubt whatsoever as to the intentions of a would-be immigrant then it should be no admittance in my opinion, simple as that.

Loved that Trump unceremoniously fired that Obama toady who was digging her heels in over the Executive Order. She knew exactly what she was doing and knew what was coming. This was transparent political grandstanding and insubordination to gain a reputation as a heroic martyr within Dem ranks. Her job is to view the bill from a legal standpoint and she failed to do that and went with her personal opinion instead. A sovereign state has the right to control its borders, and the right to turn away whoever it wants for whatever reason it wants. Such an act is a passive one, and cannot reasonably be described as any kind of persecution, and can't be described as unconstitutional due to the terms of that not applying to people outside of the USA.

One thing I will say though is that the implementation of this bill was a shit show. Not so bothered about the lack of any real PR effort behind it because PR is a lost cause at this point given that bed wetters will freak the fuck out about everything at this point no matter what. The whole Green Card fiasco was handled terribly but thankfully common sense has prevailed where that's concerned. Hopefully this will be a lesson for them going forward, and shit like this won't happen again now that Sessions has finally been confirmed.

Overall I applaud Trump for carrying out his campaign promises and looking after the safety and interests of American citizens.


----------



## Miss Sally

FatherJackHackett said:


> I'm just thinking about how much money I could have made at work if I'd actually put bets on Trump-related things with my colleagues. I told them that Trump had a really good chance of winning and got laughed at repeatedly, then they said that we wouldn't even hear about The Wall again after he got in whereas I said otherwise - I could have taken them to the cleaners.
> 
> As far as this week is concerned, it's been ridiculous the way people have been losing their minds over this whole 'Muslim ban' (factually incorrect of course) thing, although I guess I shouldn't really be surprised. I just find the irony that large groups of people protesting because a Western political leader is actually fulfilling his campaign promises pretty amusing.
> 
> At the end of the day, Donald Trump's primary responsibility as President of the United States of America is to protect the American people. This temporary measure has been taken until they figure out a better vetting process in order to be sure that threats to the citizenry are not being admitted into the country. What we often forget is that the infrastructure in a lot of these countries is so shitty that a lot of the people who are travelling we have literally almost no way of identifying who they are or what they're about. If there is any doubt whatsoever as to the intentions of a would-be immigrant then it should be no admittance in my opinion, simple as that.
> 
> Loved that Trump unceremoniously fired that Obama toady who was digging her heels in over the Executive Order. She knew exactly what she was doing and knew what was coming. This was transparent political grandstanding and insubordination to gain a reputation as a heroic martyr within Dem ranks. Her job is to view the bill from a legal standpoint and she failed to do that and went with her personal opinion instead. A sovereign state has the right to control its borders, and the right to turn away whoever it wants for whatever reason it wants. Such an act is a passive one, and cannot reasonably be described as any kind of persecution, and can't be described as unconstitutional due to the terms of that not applying to people outside of the USA.
> 
> One thing I will say though is that the implementation of this bill was a shit show. Not so bothered about the lack of any real PR effort behind it because PR is a lost cause at this point given that bed wetters will freak the fuck out about everything at this point no matter what. The whole Green Card fiasco was handled terribly but thankfully common sense has prevailed where that's concerned. Hopefully this will be a lesson for them going forward, and shit like this won't happen again now that Sessions has finally been confirmed.
> 
> Overall I applaud Trump for carrying out his campaign promises and looking after the safety and interests of American citizens.


I wish I would have bet on Trump winning, I would have made a killing!


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> http://reason.com/blog/2017/02/01/trumps-travel-ban-elderly-woman-dies
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was a lie.
> 
> Haha was beat! What's with all the lies and fake stuff going on now? It don't help anyone.


I'm not even remotely surprised.


----------



## CamillePunk

RipNTear said:


> I'm not even remotely surprised.


Just an innocent misunderstanding, I'm sure. Perhaps according to the clock Mike Hager received from Ahmed Mohamed, his mom died after the ban.


----------



## stevefox1200

CamillePunk said:


> Just an innocent misunderstanding, I'm sure. Perhaps according to the clock Mike Hager received from Ahmed Mohamed, his mom died after the ban.


Mike is one G and a A away from being the man


----------



## CamillePunk

@L-DOPA @DesolationRow 

Not really a thread for this and I'd rather not make one so here:

Brexit: MPs overwhelmingly back Article 50 bill

I guess it's on topic since Trump is after all "Mr. Brexit".


----------



## glenwo2

stevefox1200 said:


> Mike is one G and a A away from being the man



^Aah...Final Fight. A true SNES Classic.


----------



## FriedTofu

RipNTear said:


> @FriedTofu - Your thoughts on this:
> 
> http://www.dawn.com/news/1311478/i-hope-trump-bans-pakistani-visas-imran-khan
> 
> 
> 
> Personally I think it's one of the most reasonable things Imran has said because while he's admonishing a nationalist in Trump, he's still acknowledging that nationalism is what's required to fix Pakistan at the same time. It's one of his typical paradoxical opinions, but a paradoxical opinion doesn't mean that it's necessarily the wrong opinion.


I believe you should heed his calling and go back to help contribute to building up Pakistan instead of relying on the privilege afforded to you by your background to enjoy the perks of golobalism to enjoy the life of living in America. Maybe you can if Trump adds Pakistan to the lists of nations banned. :troll

So you are telling me there are different types of nationalism?


----------



## deepelemblues

:trump just talking mad shit in his calls with foreign leaders allegedly lol

Which I don't approve of there's little to be gained by making the president of Mexico shit his pants or grousing like a harpy wife to the PM of australia over the phone. If these leaks are true.


----------



## virus21




----------



## CamillePunk

Irish Jet said:


> Got banned for saying Pence was an opportunist.
> 
> I know you can. But there's mass hypocrisy on both sides.


Hey! I'm banned from /r/The_Donald too! :lol I've messaged the mod staff a couple times about it and get no reply. 



RipNTear said:


> I avoided another death squad today by hiding under my bed.
> 
> They took all my valuables though to redistribute to white people because my parents are muslim. They also froze my bank account and now I can't access my own wealth.
> 
> --














Irish Jet said:


> Comparing Trump to presidents who refused entry to Jewish people/detained Japanese during the war is closer to home. In fact I’d argue it’s significantly worse because unlike in WW2 the mass displacement is actually a result of US foreign policy. I find it pretty concerning that people find it morally acceptable to destroy a nation state, based on nothing more than self-interest only to then deny refuge to those running from the chaos and destruction you left in your wake. The media has dehumanised the middle east to the extent where people associate the victims with the evil they’re running from. It’s so fucked up.


It's unfortunate that Bush and Obama did so much to destabilize the Middle East. Trump and many of his supporters were against those interventions. It's not fair to hang that albatross on anyone who doesn't want to let in refugees. I don't want to have to bear the consequences of what a bunch of evil warhawks did. I'm glad to see Trump actively working with middle eastern governments to set up safe zones and help resettle those refugees in the Middle East where they can actually be successful and not be a drain on society indefinitely, as they would be here given their low level of education and literacy, not to mention the fact most of them don't speak English. 



> The comparisons between supporters is a bit more reasonable, at least certain elements of it. There’s a serious cult of personality being built around Trump. You go on place like r/thedonald and its fucking horrifying. They will literally swing to any position based on Trump’s current view. I’ve seen them go from fanatically anti-Isreal to pro-Isreal in the space of about two weeks.
> 
> The really worrying aspect of Trump’s presidency is the scrutiny has been justifiably discredited. The media have been so blatantly biased towards Clinton/Obama that now Trump’s supporters will always have a reason to deflect or ridicule criticism, whether it’s deserved or not.


/r/The_Donald is good for funny memes but it's a true criticism that they just blindly support whatever position Trump takes. To their credit, they don't support the anti-Semitic or white supremacist aspects of the alt right, or any racism at all really. Of course, neither does Trump, despite what the media says, so perhaps that's why. :trump


----------



## deepelemblues

The US isn't responsible for the assad family fucking over enough people (sunnis) for 50 years in syria that a significant proportion of the population rebelled 5 years ago - well they did twice, but the first time bashars daddy massacred the rebels in hama before it could spread to the entire country. The assad family and its allies in tehran and moscow are. How many Syrians has Iran taken in again? How about russia?

Oh.


----------



## glenwo2

virus21 said:


>


As R-Truth once said : "THE TRUTH...SHALL SET ME FREE!" :sleep


edit : BTW, that woman at the very end of the vid looked like she just got out of bed with her hair out of control like that. :lmao :lmao :lmao


----------



## Art Vandaley

Miss Sally said:


> I wish I would have bet on Trump winning, I would have made a killing!


I made $100 bucks on a bet Trump would win the Presidency I made with a friend who lives in NY, and I made the bet before he won the primaries but was already the favourite. 

It was obvious to anyone who follows politics closely that he had a very real shot.


----------



## FriedTofu

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/826990079738540033
And so it begins...


----------



## Miss Sally

Alkomesh2 said:


> I made $100 bucks on a bet Trump would win the Presidency I made with a friend who lives in NY, and I made the bet before he won the primaries but was already the favourite.
> 
> It was obvious to anyone who follows politics closely that he had a very real shot.


Oh really? Because everyone and their mom and people using "science" said he wasn't going to win at all. Thing was i was in Vegas a week before it all happened, i should have put money on it.


----------



## FriedTofu

Miss Sally said:


> Oh really? Because everyone and their mom and people using "science" said he wasn't going to win at all. Thing was i was in Vegas a week before it all happened, i should have put money on it.


I think you meant people were using analytics or 'numbers'. Nobody had a model that predicted Trump breaking the blue wall states. They still got it right with Hilary winning more votes but got the outcome wrong because of the wrong assumption that the firewall couldn't be broken.

For what's its worth, the more accurate predictors hedged their bets giving Trump a much higher shot of winning than the numbers from their models suggest.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

My bad on posting the dead mom story ITT. Shouldn't have assumed that at least one of the media outlets reporting the story did check to see that she died and when. fpalm


----------



## deepelemblues

Fascists at UC Berkeley mobbing people and beating them with flagpoles, setting fires, ambush pepper spraying people, generally being fascists.

There's no difference between these people and SA stormtroopers beating up people in the streets in Germany in the 1920s.

But no it's :trump and his supporters who are the fascists. The next time hundreds of :trump supporters start a riot and beat up multiple people will be the first. It's only a matter of time before the fascist "resistance" kills someone.


----------



## FriedTofu

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/317379-gop-senator-to-vote-no-on-betsy-devos



> Sens. Susan Collins (Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) in dramatic back-to-back speeches Wednesday said they would oppose confirming Betsy DeVos as Education secretary.
> 
> The two became the first Republican senators to break with any of President Trump’s Cabinet picks.
> 
> The defections set up a potential 51-50 vote in the Senate to confirm DeVos, with Vice President Pence breaking the tie.
> 
> It would be the first time a vice president has been the deciding vote on a nomination, and the first time a vice president has had to break a Senate tie since March 2008, when Vice President Dick Cheney cast a deciding vote on a package of tax cuts.


Not that it will help as Pence is still the tie breaker but it is comforting to know there are Republicans not drinking the kool-aid. Still hilarious though as she is an establishment pick due to her campaing donations but is the weakest and most controversial of Trump's nominees. :lol


----------



## samizayn

> Report: In a 'humiliating' and 'threatening' tone, Trump lambasted Mexico's president during a phone call


http://www.businessinsider.com/trum...ico-phone-call-humiliating-threatening-2017-2

:maury


----------



## CamillePunk

samizayn said:


> http://www.businessinsider.com/trum...ico-phone-call-humiliating-threatening-2017-2
> 
> :maury


I'd like to believe Trump was dressing down the corrupt and ineffectual Mexican government like this, but those quotes sound like complete and utter horseshit to me. :lol They fit the left's narrative too perfectly.


----------



## Beatles123

CamillePunk said:


> I'd like to believe Trump was dressing down the corrupt and ineffectual Mexican government like this, but those quotes sound like complete and utter horseshit to me. :lol They fit the left's narrative too perfectly.


Not that the quotes are incorrect either. :lol


----------



## ecclesiastes10

it is fake news mexico state department denied that ever happen, I don't even bother nowasdays reading news articles, or even believe anything out off cnn msnbc, they are jokes
https://twitter.com/Max_Fisher/status/826941813219008514
https://twitter.com/SalHernandez/status/826942675978899456


----------



## Pratchett

CamillePunk said:


> samizayn said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.businessinsider.com/trum...ico-phone-call-humiliating-threatening-2017-2
> 
> :maury
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to believe Trump was dressing down the corrupt and ineffectual Mexican government like this, but those quotes sound like complete and utter horseshit to me. :lol They fit the left's narrative too perfectly.
Click to expand...

From the article:


> Estevez said that while both the White House and the Mexican president have released information about the call, both sides characterized it as a "friendly" conversation and *neither disclosed what was said*.


Oh, those pesky "confidential (and unverifiable) sources". :mj


----------



## TomahawkJock

I'm asking this question for my own further research and news app decision making:

Which fucking news sources can be trusted? In today's world, I'm not sure any can and that's a major problem. All the ones I thought were good have now lost credibility and I don't know what to believe.


----------



## deepelemblues

:trump needs to announce that the minute Jeff Sessions is confirmed he will be creating a special unit at the DOJ to bring the hammer down on these fascists.

You start a riot, set fires, attack police, mob and beat people, you'll catch enough charges that you're facing a minimum of 20 years. In a federal prison. We'll see how tough these fascists are when they're faced with a nice long stretch in solitary at a supermax, instead of facing a few people they outnumber 30 to 1 or more they feel like it's okay to assault. Political violence and especially mob street political violence has no place in a free, democratic, liberal society.


----------



## glenwo2

TomahawkJock said:


> I'm asking this question for my own further research and news app decision making:
> 
> *Which fucking news sources can be trusted?* In today's world, I'm not sure any can and that's a major problem. All the ones I thought were good have now lost credibility and I don't know what to believe.


wrestlingforum.com :lol


----------



## deepelemblues

glenwo2 said:


> wrestlingforum.com :lol


sounds reasonable


----------



## ecclesiastes10

deepelemblues said:


> :trump needs to announce that the minute Jeff Sessions is confirmed he will be creating a special unit at the DOJ to bring the hammer down on these fascists.
> 
> You start a riot, set fires, attack police, mob and beat people, you'll catch enough charges that you're facing a minimum of 20 years. In a federal prison. We'll see how tough these fascists are when they're faced with a nice long stretch in solitary at a supermax, instead of facing a few people they outnumber 30 to 1 or more they feel like it's okay to assault. Political violence and especially mob street political violence has no place in a free, democratic, liberal society.


I agree they should b punished but if u locked them up, citizens will be paying for them in prison through taxes...


----------



## stevefox1200

The burned down another college to stop a Milo event

Milo himself has said that riots and bannings are the main reasons he is popular AND THEY KEEP DOING IT!!!!!!!!!

Also for you anarchists, anarchists has basically become the official scapegoat for anti-right riots now

Hit twitter after someone burns down a Starbucks to show their hatred for capitalism and you will see tons of students with "the protest was peaceful till anarchists showed up and burned things"

You have become the evil twin of college socialists 

congratulations


----------



## ecclesiastes10

TomahawkJock said:


> I'm asking this question for my own further research and news app decision making:
> 
> Which fucking news sources can be trusted? In today's world, I'm not sure any can and that's a major problem. All the ones I thought were good have now lost credibility and I don't know what to believe.


what I do is check the twitter feed of journalist, anchors, and see what they post, their tone, how slanted their coverage is and if I pick up on bias I know not to trust them, or be vary wary of what they write, also just waiting helps, if uve notice they put out a lot of fack shit, so wait a couple days, see if they retract or see different takes or if the piece has been rebutted by anyone... just now that alotta journalist are democrats who wanted and believed that Hillary was gonna win, and that it was her throne to sit on, once u are aware of that, u r good...also I don't really believe news inform anyone, u gotta read between the lines, think about what they aren't saying n u prob got the real story there


----------



## CamillePunk

stevefox1200 said:


> Also for you anarchists, anarchists has basically become the official scapegoat for anti-right riots now
> 
> Hit twitter after someone burns down a Starbucks to show their hatred for capitalism and you will see tons of students with "the protest was peaceful till anarchists showed up and burned things"


Yeah, the idea that these people are for limited/no government in any way is laughably absurd. They wouldn't be doing this if Hillary had won, and she wants an even bigger state than Trump does.


----------



## Miss Sally

stevefox1200 said:


> The burned down another college to stop a Milo event
> 
> Milo himself has said that riots and bannings are the main reasons he is popular AND THEY KEEP DOING IT!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Also for you anarchists, anarchists has basically become the official scapegoat for anti-right riots now
> 
> Hit twitter after someone burns down a Starbucks to show their hatred for capitalism and you will see tons of students with "the protest was peaceful till anarchists showed up and burned things"
> 
> You have become the evil twin of college socialists
> 
> congratulations


It was these morons who burnt up that muslim guy's car. It ended up being Trump supporters that gave the guy money to pay for it.

I'm sure the college socialists and communists would have helped but they need their apple products and Starbucks and nice clothing. Also many don't have jobs. 

But in a way they did help, other people's money got used to fix a problem they created! Yay socialism!


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*I have NO sympathy for dumbasses like this who voted for Trump and will be getting deported. They knew he planned to deport immigrants during his campaign, ESPECIALLY Middle Easterners.*

*In other news, the dollar has had its worst January in 30 years: http://fortune.com/2017/02/01/us-dollar-january-forex-foreign-exchange/

So much for the "smart businessman" improving the economy. Whoops.*


----------



## Art Vandaley

Miss Sally said:


> Oh really? Because everyone and their mom and people using "science" said he wasn't going to win at all. Thing was i was in Vegas a week before it all happened, i should have put money on it.


Yeah, I haven't got to collect yet cause she's still in New York though.

TBH I still thought Hilary would win, but she was insisting Trump stood 0% chance, and that annoyed me, because it was clearly not true, hence made the bet haha

Also re Trump's call to the Mexican President and him acting like a dick on the phone, it's now come out that he did the exact same thing to the Aussie primeminister http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ll-with-malcolm-turnbull-20170202-gu3r6u.html (who I hate and this makes me like Trump more for the record), so Trumpmaniacs might want to stop arguing that this didn't happen because its simply unbelievable Trump would do something so bad and leap straight to "but its the right thing to do to behave like that".


----------



## KingofKings1524

How legitimate is the report that a Trump blew a fuse earlier and hung up on the Prime Minister of Australia? Not that I agree with the agreement Obama made with them, but it seems a little rash to be hanging up on one of our allies and dropping rhetoric like "You're trying to send us the next Boston bomber".


----------



## Reaper

TomahawkJock said:


> I'm asking this question for my own further research and news app decision making:
> 
> Which fucking news sources can be trusted? In today's world, I'm not sure any can and that's a major problem. All the ones I thought were good have now lost credibility and I don't know what to believe.


No one. You don't trust an outlet, but you trust aggregated news from multiple sources. 

You also shouldn't trust something for at least 3-4 days after it breaks. However, you're never going to get the real story because everyone has an agenda so at this point instead of being *told *what is true, you have to smarten up and *determine *what is true.

Take that Florida shooter for example. Until the end no major outlet plastered the fact that he admitted he was an ISIS recruit. 



KingofKings1524 said:


> How legitimate is the report that a Trump blew a fuse earlier and hung up on the Prime Minister of Australia? Not that I agree with the agreement Obama made with them, but it seems a little rash to be hanging up on one of our allies and dropping rhetoric like "You're trying to send us the next Boston bomber".


Australia is as much an ally of the US as a minnow is an ally of a shark. We'll be fine without their support because at this point their media is nothing short of cancerous in their portrayal of Trump and if it gets them off our backs, then so be it. 

With their failing economy and lack of jobs for their youth, they have bigger things to worry about then if a despot has taken over America.


----------



## Art Vandaley

RipNTear said:


> With their failing economy and lack of jobs for their youth, they have bigger things to worry about then if a despot has taken over America.


Still a higher GDP per capita than the US


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> Still a higher GDP per capita than the US


Yeah, I can cherry pick specific data too, but I won't. 

You guys are a near failed state at this point that is barely hanging on to the "first world" moniker by a thread. 

Just ask the guys in certain states whose entire STATE doesn't have jobs for them and they have to travel hundreds of miles just to get near a place which might give them a shit job which they're over-qualified to do. But then many end up on the streets too.


----------



## Art Vandaley

RipNTear said:


> You guys are a near failed state at this point that is barely hanging on to the "first world" moniker by a thread.


Congrats on reaching new heights of delusion.

And for the record unemployment in Australia is 5.8% compared to America's 4.7%.

Also the state in Australia with the worst unemployment is 6.8% (South Australia) and on mainland America it's 6.9% (Alaska). (11.4% if you count Puerto Rico, but that doesn't seem fair).

Literally the only thing you're basing your beliefs of is the anecdotal story of one person.


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> Congrats on reaching new heights of delusion.
> 
> And for the record unemployment in Australia is 5.8% compared to America's 4.7%.


I guess you don't even realize that you guys have youth unemployment rates the 14%-15% range (Youth is made up of 25 and under) - while the US youth unemployment rate is actually lower than the 4.7% overall national figure indicating a very healthy economy for the future generation. 

And also, if you actually understood unemployment, you'd realize that a figure of 4-5% is largely made up of individuals who are taking career breaks, switching careers and simply don't want to participate in the job market. 

Yeah, Australia is failing to provide jobs for its youth and that's the sign of a failed policies.

Edit: American's youth unemployment is around 10%, not 4%. I was wrong.


----------



## Art Vandaley

RipNTear said:


> I guess you don't even realize that you guys have youth unemployment rates the 14%-15% range (Youth is made up of 25 and under) - while the US youth unemployment rate is actually lower than the 4.7% overall national figure indicating a very healthy economy for the future generation.
> 
> And also, if you actually understood unemployment, you'd realize that a figure of 4-5% is largely made up of individuals who are taking career breaks, switching careers and simply don't want to participate in the job market.
> 
> Yeah, Australia is failing to provide jobs for its youth and that's the sign of a failed policies.


Youth Unemployment in America is actually 11.6% and in Australia it's actually 13.1% (http://lmip.gov.au/default.aspx?LMIP/LFR_SAFOUR/LFR_UnemploymentRate). Not a huge difference.

But fuck reality right? It makes you happy to believe what you do, so continue and don't let reality get in your way! #alternatefacts


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> Youth Unemployment in America is actually 11.6% and in Australia it's actually 13.1% (http://lmip.gov.au/default.aspx?LMIP/LFR_SAFOUR/LFR_UnemploymentRate). Not a huge difference.
> 
> But fuck reality right? It makes you happy to believe what you do, so continue and don't let reality get in your way! #alternatefacts


It's 10 and 14. And that 14% figure looks better when you ignore the huge pockets of unemployment in certain areas. None of what you've said contradicts my original claim of huge youth unemployment and the fact that there are certain states that are forcing people to move to other states to find jobs where they find work that is less than they're qualified to do. 










That 4% in terms of real numbers is a *huge *difference when you take the population into account and therefore get that difference in terms of total jobs available in the two markets. 

You also need to look at the trend: 



















One is a declining trend meaning more jobs are being created, the other is going in the wrong direction meaning that the society is failing to create new jobs for its younger population. 

This one's not even debatable at this point.


----------



## Figure4Leglock

Hypocrites, but when Trump makes the necessary hard actions thats required to get the results......


----------



## Art Vandaley

RipNTear said:


> It's 10 and 14.


Yeah I'm going with the OECD over you, and the OECD says 11.6 for the US and 13.1 for Australia. 



> And that 14% figure looks better when you ignore the huge pockets of unemployment in certain areas. None of what you've said contradicts my original claim of huge youth unemployment and the fact that there are certain states that are forcing people to move to other states to find jobs where they find work that is less than they're qualified to do.
> 
> That 4% in terms of real numbers is a *huge *difference when you take the population into account and therefore get that difference in terms of total jobs available in the two markets.


Its actually a 1.5% difference, as again, I'm going with the OECD not you. And no, that isn't significant. 

You have a point re the trends, somewhat, but you'll notice that the US one started going down around 2012 when Obama's economic policies started kicking in, lets see if that continues under Trump. And considering Trump's economic politics is the polar opposite of Obama's it seems unlikely and certainly highly unreasonable to assume that trend will continue.

And ours has actually been pretty wavy than any set trend up or down if you look at the graph you posted.


Also: I actually have an american friend who had to move states to get jobs, and she was qualified as a nurse, but just had a nightmare of a time getting her first job.


----------



## nucklehead88

Beatles123 said:


> While i can see your opinion, the nerd in me has to point out that even though appealing to authority is a commonly used way to show proof, your grandfather does not exactly qualify you as being well versed in WW2, despite the fact that he may well be a source of factual (or even non-factual, depending on various factors) information or opinion.
> 
> Not trying to debunk you here or say you're wrong. You might know a lot and i do see your honest post and have no qualms with it. Just pointing out a common debate tip. :nerd: (Note: Im not blaming you. I do it too.)


I know and appreciate your answer. I also agree with your points. After I found out about my grandfathers time spent in the camp, I did spend a lot time learning and researching WW2 and its history. I'm no expert by any stretch. But I can hold a factual conversation with almost anyone. Like I said though. I know I'm no expert.


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> Yeah I'm going with the OECD over you.
> 
> 
> 
> Its actually a 1.5% difference, as again, I'm going with the OECD not you. And no, that isn't significant.
> 
> You have a point re the trends, somewhat, but you'll notice that the US one started going down around 2012 when Obama's economic policies started kicking in, lets see if that continues under Trump.
> 
> And ours has actually been pretty wavy than any set trend up or down if you look at the graph you posted.


I had a feeling you'd bring Obaba into this and stick to your guns that the situation isn't that bad when it literally is. Obaba's policies have actually shrunk employment and is one of the reasons why the number is sitting at 10% and not even lower. Raising minimum wage, mandated healthcare are anti-employment policies which means that without these kinds of policies we'd have even better youth employment rates because much of that youth ends up in small businesses in their areas before moving on. While I'm going to acknowledge that the death of retail has something to do with this also, but that's something that the government simply cannot control even if they tried because retail (where the majority of youth end up) is dying because of stiff competition from e-business. 

If Trump continues the kinds of policies Obama has, then our unemployment decline while continuing to happen will also be slower. 

You ignored that america's huge population is sustained by the thriving job market. The total number of people 25 and under in America are 31 million and 90% (27.9 million) of those have jobs. . The total number of same age group in Australia are around 3.25 million people and I have a hard time believing that an economy would be so weak that it can't absorb just 3.2 million people. 

Ugh, I can't even imagine what America would have been like had it followed the same economic policies of its social welfare counterparts.


----------



## stevefox1200

CamillePunk said:


> Yeah, the idea that these people are for limited/no government in any way is laughably absurd. They wouldn't be doing this if Hillary had won, and she wants an even bigger state than Trump does.


This will piss you off but "official anarchy" internet groups are praising the shit out of violent riots

They believe the path to "anarchy" is to make society so violent and uncontrollable that the government wont be able to handle it

A "burn everything down and rule over the ruins with TEH FREEDOM" approach 

You have to keep in mind that most anarchists today are college kids who think anarchy is doing whatever the laws tells you not to do

for the lols or the anger search for "black block" social media and see what mainstream anarchy has become


----------



## Art Vandaley

RipNTear said:


> I had a feeling you'd bring Obaba into this and stick to your guns that the situation isn't that bad when it literally is. Obaba's policies have actually shrunk employment and is one of the reasons why the number is sitting at 10% and not even lower. Raising minimum wage, mandated healthcare are anti-employment policies which means that without these kinds of policies we'd have even better youth employment rates because much of that youth ends up in small businesses in their areas before moving on. If Trump continues the kinds of policies Obama has, then our unemployment decline while continuing to happen will also be slower.


Wait, so even though you just posted a graph of youth unemployment starting to go down literally at the half way point of Obama's time in office you're still going to now say that he shrunk employment?



> You ignored that america's huge population is sustained by the thriving job market. The total number of people 25 and under in America are 75 million and 90% (66.5 million) of those have jobs. . The total number of same age group in Australia are around 3.25 million people. Australia's unemployment for that age group should have been minuscule if the economy was really doing well.


Why should our smaller population mean we should have a better jobs per person ratio? 

Surely it is the ratio per capita of economic statistics that matters not absolutes when making a comparison between economies?


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> Wait, so even though you just posted a graph of youth unemployment starting to go down literally at the half way point of Obama's time in office you're still going to now say that he shrunk employment?


Yeah. I don't think you got what I was saying. I said that unemployment would have gotten lower at a faster rate without policies that hinder job creation. 



> Why should our smaller population mean we should have a better jobs per person ratio?


How can you not understand this very simple concept? 



> Surely it is the ratio per capita of economic statistics that matters not absolutes when making a comparison between economies?


It only does to people who can't fathom what it takes to *create *29 million real jobs. When you have that level of job creation, it becomes very hard to understand why a society can't create just 3.5 million jobs. 

---

Also, $57k in Australia doesn't get you the same lifestyle as the same amount would in America. 



> For the average Australian buying a home in Sydney, which has a median home price of $840,000, according to CoreLogic RP Data, they need to be earning approximately $154,482 before tax a year. This is providing these house hunters are seeking to buy outside of the CBD. If theyre seeking to buy in an inner city location, then the median price jumps to $1 million. Therefore, these buyers will need a higher average income to cover their costs. For those who are seeking to buy a unit in Sydney, the average earnings per year will still need to be $115,000.


With 57k, most australians would be hard pressed to afford a car payment let alone a car and a mortgage. If my wife and I made the same amount here, we'd have both easily and still have money left over at the end of the month as both payments combined would be doable within $2,000.

---



stevefox1200 said:


> This will piss you off but "official anarchy" internet groups are praising the shit out of violent riots
> 
> They believe the path to "anarchy" is to make society so violent and uncontrollable that the government wont be able to handle it
> 
> A "burn everything down and rule over the ruins with TEH FREEDOM" approach
> 
> You have to keep in mind that most anarchists today are college kids who think anarchy is doing whatever the laws tells you not to do
> 
> for the lols or the anger search for "black block" social media and see what mainstream anarchy has become


Modern antifa has nothing to do with actual anarchy. For them anarchy literally means rioting and rebelling and refusing to grow up. Basically, they think that if their parents told them to not smoke, that smoking against their will and punching a hole in a wall is anarchy.


----------



## Art Vandaley

RipNTear said:


> How can you not understand this very simple concept?


I'm happy to accept I'm an idiot, but I don't get it, and I would appreciate an explanation as to why a smaller country would be expected to have a better employment rate than a larger country?



> It only does to people who can't fathom what it takes to *create *29 million real jobs. When you have that level of job creation, it becomes very hard to understand why a society can't create just 3.5 million jobs.


Ok.



> Also, 57k in Australia doesn't get you the same lifestyle as the same amount would in America. With 57k, most australians would be hard pressed to afford a car payment let alone a car and a mortgage. If my wife and I made the same amount here, we'd have both, extremely easily.


$US 57k is equal to $AUD 74k and you could afford a car and mortgage on that, extremely easily if you're a couple both earning that.

Also Sydney is like Manhattan in terms of real estate. Nothing else in the country compares. Could you afford a mortgage and a car in Manhattan on $US 57K?

I mean as someone who aims to live in Sydney I'm not gonna pretend the housing crisis isn't a real problem, but its more a sign of the strength of the economy/poor economic policy/interest from foreign buyers, our economy is so good we're seen as a safe investment. And the economic policy problem is that we currently have incentives for people to buy second or third homes and then rent them out to people, making it harder for people to buy their own home. Our left wing party wants to change law so the incentive only applies to new buildings (currently foreigners can only buy new houses, at least in theory) but the right wing party who are in power are opposing that change. They also insist there is no housing crisis and people "just need a good job".

When I say Sydney house prices are like Manhattan I'm not kidding, price per square meter is $US10,258.93 in Sydney, compared to $US12,951.03 in New York and $US3,952.54 in Denver and $US3,673.65 on the Gold Coast, which is a lovely place to live, its where our version of spring break takes place for example.

Btw are you still trying to argue that Australia is a failed economy and nearly a third world nation? Cause your arguments aren't really making that out, at best your argument is that the US economy is marginally stronger than Australia's atm.

And btw as someone who has lived in both countries, the only noticable difference in terms of economics is that the US has WAY WAY WAY more homeless people. I mean all this stuff you're saying about the US economy I would love to watch you say to some of the people in the suburb of Denver I lived in.


----------



## FatherJackHackett

Miss Sally said:


> I wish I would have bet on Trump winning, I would have made a killing!


The sites I saw I remember the odds just on the Presidency not being too great, probably due to it being a binary choice and all. Imagine betting on him winning the Presidency, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin though!

I could have fleeced the fuck out of my mates who were sure Clinton was getting the W though. Pretty sure they'd have put at least a hundred quid down on it.


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> I'm happy to accept I'm an idiot, but I don't get it, and I would appreciate an explanation as to why a smaller country would be expected to have a better employment rate than a larger country?


Ok. It's more relevant to Australia than other countries because you guys are sitting on some of the biggest mineable resources in the world and yet the mining industry is in a decline. Explain. Why can't more Aussies be employed in natural resource farming, Oil and Gas r&d? Didn't your carbon tax essentially destroy the mining industry? For a country that size, you guys really shouldn't have any problems sustaining a very healthy GDP under some friendlier policies, no? 



> $US 57k is equal to $AUD 74k and you could afford a car and mortgage on that, extremely easily if you're a couple both earning that.


Well, I'm pretty sure if you're earning 150k, you SHOULD be able to get a home and a car. You should be able to get a mansion and a top tier car for that amount :lmao 

A home and a car are just a small example. Overall, Aussies have a lower purchasing power so that bit about having a higher GDP/capita is essentially null. That combined with less job creation, over-dependence on welfare and government handouts and you've got yourself the perfect storm for a future collapse. 

https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-livi...jsp?country1=United+States&country2=Australia



> Btw are you still trying to argue that Australia is a failed economy and nearly a third world nation? Cause your arguments aren't really making that out, at best your argument is that the US economy is marginally stronger than Australia's atm.


How many first world countries ended 2016 with a negative GDP growth? 

Of course, they'll recover but at this point there really is plenty of reasons to worry about the australian situation getting worse. The thing is if your government doesn't correct your shit, every indicator is suggesting a continued decline. 

You can defend what you have, but what you have needs to be sustained. Do you feel confident that your government is capable of even sustaining what you have?


----------



## Art Vandaley

RipNTear said:


> Ok. It's more relevant to Australia than other countries because you guys are sitting on some of the biggest mineable resources in the world and yet the mining industry is in a decline. Explain. Why can't more Aussies be employed in natural resource farming, Oil and Gas r&d? Didn't your carbon tax essentially destroy the mining industry? For a country that size, you guys really shouldn't have any problems sustaining a very healthy GDP under some friendlier policies, no?


Problem with the Mining Industry is that it's cyclical and makes our economy too dependent on China's. 

Basically we were the only western nation to avoid the GFC because we just sold an absolute shit tonne of coal/iron etc to China, but now China's economy is not doing so good they're buying less coal/steel etc, and it is the adjustment from a more resources based economy back to a more modern service based economy that is hurting us more than anything.

The mining boom was ridiculous, people were paid 80k a year to clean Macdonalds in the mining towns. To clean Macdonolds. People driving trucks were on like 200k. 

But the problem is that its cyclical, we're too reliant on resources already and it'd be a mistake to go further down that path. But yeah, look at our economic figures during the mining boom, things were nuts.



> Well, I'm pretty sure if you're earning 150k, you SHOULD be able to get a home and a car. You should be able to get a mansion and a top tier car for that amount :lmao
> 
> A home and a car are just a small example. Overall, Aussies have a lower purchasing power so that bit about having a higher GDP/capita is essentially null. That combined with less job creation, over-dependence on welfare and government handouts and you've got yourself the perfect storm for a future collapse.
> 
> https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-livi...jsp?country1=United+States&country2=Australia


Job figures really aren't all that different from America's in the bigger picture.



> How many first world countries ended 2016 with a negative GDP growth?
> 
> Of course, they'll recover but at this point there really is plenty of reasons to worry about the australian situation getting worse. The thing is if your government doesn't correct your shit, every indicator is suggesting a continued decline.
> 
> You can defend what you have, but what you have needs to be sustained. Do you feel confident that your government is capable of even sustaining what you have?


Did you know that prior to that Australia had actually gone longer than any other country in history without suffering from an economic depression? We had almost 25 years uninterrupted growth. http://fortune.com/2016/03/02/australia-recession/

During the GFC we were the only first world nation with GDP growth and now we're suffering. Both due to our economies reliance on China buying our shit. 

Personally I think the closeness with China is a mistake, one of the reasons I'm sad the TPP didn't go through, would have been very good for diversifying the Aus economy.

And certainly not this current gov, but if the opposition gets in they have real policies in place that will help address the bigger issues.


----------



## Rowdy Yates

Nigel Farage dropping truth bombs and shitting all over the cunts at the E.U






:banderas

It is really is a beautiful thing watching the left totally implode around the world over Don Juan. Never have i seen so many babies throw tantrums over shit not going how they would like. These cretins comparing Trump to Hitler really are desperate at this stage and obviously know very little about the way Hitler went about things

How refreshing it is to see a politician actually act on his policy's and crack on with what he promised to do


----------



## DOPA

@DesolationRow @CamillePunk @RipNTear @Tater @Pratchett @Miss Sally @Alkomesh2 @Goku @Beatles123 @Vic Capri @Alco

So I saw a very interesting story considering the fact that the "Muslim Ban" is in place last night and I wanted to share this with you guys because it even surprised me a bit. I can imagine some hardcore Trump supporters being upset by this maybe and some anti-Trump liberals being bemused:

http://rare.us/story/the-trump-admi...&utm_campaign=Influencers_Rare_Julia_Borowski




> *Report: Trump administration already granted almost 900 refugees waivers to enter the country, despite ban*
> 
> According to the Associated Press, the Trump administration will admit nearly 900 refugees to enter the United States this week, despite the president’s recent executive order on immigration.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/826479139850969088
> Reuters allegedly gained access to an internal Department of Homeland Security document, which explained that the department, along with the State Department, has granted waivers to 872 refugees who were considered “in transit” and had been previously cleared to enter the country at the time Trump signed his executive order on Friday. The waivers follow a wave of protests over the weekend in regard to the order, which temporarily blocks travelers from seven Muslim-majority countries.
> 
> 
> “The internal DHS document said that between late Friday and early Monday 348 visa holders were prevented from boarding U.S.-bound flights. In addition, more than 200 people landed in the United States but were denied entry, the document showed,” Reuters reported. “More than 735 people were pulled aside for questioning by U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers in airports, including 394 legal permanent U.S. residents holding green cards, over the same time period.”
> 
> The 872 refugees to be admitted were screened using the Obama administration’s procedures, which can take two years and require several interviews and a background check. The document did not provide the nationalities of the refugees, and it is unknown if additional waivers will be given.


If this story is to be believed and the AP is a pretty solid source compared to a lot other news sources, then it really to me highlights a few things:

* This immigration halt isn't being implemented as harshly as some people may think. That does not mean that the stories coming out about people being stopped at the border, including the Christian Syrian family who tried to immigrate for 15 years isn't valid but it does give us a wider picture of the executive order. There are exceptions.

* Once again, not a Muslim ban, further evidence against the MSM narrative.

* Trump may not be as heartless as his detractors claim he is but that is yet to be seen .

But yes, this is yet another story that somewhat goes against the CNN narrative. It really shows you that looking into the story from a wider range of sources does give you a wider picture of what is actually going on if you are prepared to look into it with an open mind without preconceived biases.

What are my overall thoughts now that it's been a number of days? Well to bullet point:

* The MSM account of the executive order clearly was twisted in a way in which the legislation was not intended, there is too much evidence to show that it is not a Muslim ban: Multiple Muslim countries left off the list, Christians being turned away and now this story. They should take a huge chunk of the blame surrounding the hysteria that is going on.

* Whether you believe the legislation was well intentioned or not and the jury is out on that one, the legislation was very hastily put together and was very sloppy overall. Too many problems and not enough foresight put into the bill which has caused chaos. Particularly surrounding the issues of green card holders and dual citizenship. For example, a Conservative MP in my country by the name of Nadhim Zahawi cannot enter the country even though he is British citizen because he was born in Baghdad. Any level of common sense can tell you that he is not a danger to the US' security interests. So some clear lack of judgement and thinking in this legislation.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...from-us-under-trumps-muslim-ban-a7551511.html



> *Conservative MP says he is banned from US under Donald Trump's immigration ban*
> 
> A Conservative MP has revealed that he faces being banned from the US under Donald Trump’s executive order, as he was born in Baghdad.
> 
> Nadhim Zahawi, who fled Iraq as a Kurdish refugee with his parents in the 1970s, confirmed he had been told by a US immigration lawyer that he and his wife would be barred from entering the US under the new order which temporarily halts all immigration from seven Muslim-dominated countries.
> 
> The order, which was signed by Mr Trump on Friday, blocks entry to people who were born or have citizenship of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen even if they have citizenship of another country, such as Britain, or have a green card entitling them to work and live in the US.
> 
> The order also bans the acceptance of refugees from Syria indefinitely – though the White House has indicated it will consider applications from Syrian Christians.
> 
> This means the Stratford-upon-Avon MP, who has lived in the UK since he was nine and is a British citizen, will not be able to go to the US while the order is in place, despite not holding Iraqi citizenship.
> 
> The order also applies to Mr Zahawi’s wife who was born in Iraq.


There's two really concerning things to me to learn from this whole ordeal:

* The MSM is going to continue to muddy and drag Trump's name under the water to fit their narrative even if they do not have all the facts presented or revealed. This to me is extremely infuriating and dangerous. It's really up to us now to keep calling out the BS and hold them accountable. I certainly will continue to do my part because it's been unacceptable for a very long time.

* Again, the lack of foresight and thinking behind this legislation concerns me more so than what the intention was. It's caused a heck of a lot of problems. What is also worrying is that it's rumored that key Trump staff were not notified or told about this legislation going forward such as James Mattis (Defence), John Kelly (Homeland Security) and Rex Tillerson (Secretary of State). Now this may or not be true, so I'm not going to put that forward as fact but if it is true then I personally find that worrying. Not only as someone who is skeptical of executive power but also because of the fact that if he isn't notifying key personnel who have some interest in an executive order like this then it is little wonder that pieces of the legislation which haven't been thought through are causing so much chaos. Hopefully that is a lesson to be learned going forward.


Rand Paul makes some excellent points on global entry and how legitimate businessman, doctors, students etc. from the countries on the ban list could have been put on global entry so that they are not effected by the ban. I would assume that would people either on green cards or have visas. The whole interview actually is excellent, typical Rand Paul .







I'm going to anger Trump supporters but the more I look into the EO, the more I believe it's a complete mess. But considering the fact that I've been so annoyed myself with the way the MSM has been covering this, I can only now come to that conclusion pretty decisively now things are calming down a little bit.

This post is already rather long and I was going to comment on the strength of the dollar coming down again but I'll post about it on a separate post and look into it myself.


----------



## Goku

For some of you that may be concerned or even confused by recent events, this may shed some light on what is actually at play here and why we can't fully comprehend the situation entirely.






"BURN THE BOOKS" says the detractor. Seemingly a lot of burning going on.


----------



## amhlilhaus

Goku said:


> For some of you that may be concerned or even confused by recent events, this may shed some light on what is actually at play here and why we can't fully comprehend the situation entirely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "BURN THE BOOKS" says the detractor. Seemingly a lot of burning going on.


That guys got a nice smile

Raise thul!


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Just heard Tillerson's intro to the state department and he sounded like a pretty okay guy. :bjpenn He's actually a bit personable, which is always a plus, so I'm willing to give him a chance.



And :evans at this:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/827181998141800448
The shit-for-brains gave up on their sit-in over gun control after only a day, so to the surprise of no one, they failed spectacularly at this too.


----------



## Vic Capri

Mark Dice is a great American.

- Vic


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/827002559122567168


----------



## glenwo2

L-DOPA said:


> *Report: Trump administration already granted almost 900 refugees waivers to enter the country, despite ban*


I'm not too annoyed by this because I know these refugees under Trump's watch will be EXTREMELY VETTED to prevent any potential threat from entering the country.


----------



## Beatles123

It just...it feels so good. :vince5


----------



## Reaper

glenwo2 said:


> I'm not too annoyed by this because I know these refugees under Trump's watch will be EXTREMELY VETTED to prevent any potential threat from entering the country.


This. The fact that there's some nuance makes it acceptable to me.

--
@CamillePunk, @L-DOPA, @DesolationRow - Interesting discussion about what Gorsuch means in terms of potentially having a libertarian in the Supreme Court.


----------



## glenwo2

Found this but I think it's a bit old since a couple at the bottom have already been done :


----------



## glenwo2

Some more goodies : 










http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-uc-berkeley-milo-yiannopoulos-234530



Oh and the resemblance is incredible :


----------



## virus21




----------



## yeahbaby!

glenwo2 said:


> Found this but I think it's a bit old since a couple at the bottom have already been done :


HAsn't he already done away with O'Care?


----------



## virus21

yeahbaby! said:


> HAsn't he already done away with O'Care?


Not yet


----------



## Vic Capri

I wish this was fake news, but sadly, its not.

#LiberalismIsAMentalDisorder 

- Vic


----------



## virus21




----------



## stevefox1200

Yesterday on Twitter Sara Silvermen said that it is only a matter of time before the military will help the people with a coup

The military...

a group who is mainly right wing and whose president she expects them to over throw just put more military than ever in his cabinet 

I am shocked by the echo chamber that left wing and right wing media has become, they honestly think that the vast majority of people are on their side because they just block anyone who is not


----------



## virus21

stevefox1200 said:


> Yesterday on Twitter Sara Silvermen said that it is only a matter of time before the military will help the people with a coup
> 
> The military...
> 
> a group who is mainly right wing and whose president she expects them to over throw just put more military than ever in his cabinet
> 
> I am shocked by the echo chamber that left wing and right wing media has become, they honestly think that the vast majority of people are on their side because they just block anyone who is not


And a military that the majority of which support Trump. Your right, these fuckers are so sheltered from any form of reality that they think the majority if the country wants what they want.


----------



## glenwo2

stevefox1200 said:


> Yesterday on Twitter Sara Silvermen said that it is only a matter of time before the military will help the people with a coup
> 
> *The military...
> 
> a group who is mainly right wing and whose president she expects them to over throw just put more military than ever in his cabinet*
> 
> I am shocked by the echo chamber that left wing and right wing media has become, they honestly think that the vast majority of people are on their side because they just block anyone who is not


The military would nod "yes, let's get him!", the lefties would then turn their backs to head toward the Whitehouse, and then the military would open fire on their asses. 

These loonies are something else. :lol


----------



## MrMister

Why would anyone want a coup? What if the military decides they like being in power? What if they don't relinquish that power? Rest in peace The Constitution.

Also how are people seeing these fascists at Berkeley (lmfao antifa) as liberal?


----------



## amhlilhaus

stevefox1200 said:


> Yesterday on Twitter Sara Silvermen said that it is only a matter of time before the military will help the people with a coup
> 
> The military...
> 
> a group who is mainly right wing and whose president she expects them to over throw just put more military than ever in his cabinet
> 
> I am shocked by the echo chamber that left wing and right wing media has become, they honestly think that the vast majority of people are on their side because they just block anyone who is not


Yeah, this isnt happening.

Liberals, know what else wouldnt happen?

You getting a clue. The military knows what the left thinks of them


----------



## virus21

MrMister said:


> Why would anyone want a coup? What if the military decides they like being in power? What if they don't relinquish that power? Rest in peace The Constitution.
> 
> Also how are people seeing these fascists at Berkeley (lmfao antifa) as liberal?


Mostly because thats the side that the fascists claim they are and so called liberals are siding with


----------



## dashing_man

I wanted to attend Wrestlemania one day. I guess its only going to be a dream now :mj2


----------



## Reaper

dashing_man said:


> I wanted to attend Wrestlemania one day. I guess its only going to be a dream now :mj2


Why? Are you admitting that you're a terrorist?


----------



## glenwo2

Maybe he's admitting he's really Michael Jordan? :shrug


----------



## dashing_man

RipNTear said:


> Why? Are you admitting that you're a terrorist?


no, Im from the religion that's going to be banned to visit US


----------



## yeahbaby!

Vic Capri said:


> I wish this was fake news, but sadly, its not.
> 
> #LiberalismIsAMentalDisorder
> 
> - Vic


So good to know we can reduce liberalism to people acting out in mob mentality and vandalising and being violent - that's liberalism full stop? How simple. THE LIBERALS ARE COMING TO KILL US ALL


----------



## virus21

yeahbaby! said:


> So good to know we can reduce liberalism to people acting out in mob mentality and vandalising and being violent - that's liberalism full stop? How simple. THE LIBERALS ARE COMING TO KILL US ALL


Thats what mainstream liberalism has become. Classic style liberals are generally not these assholes.


----------



## DOPA

dashing_man said:


> no, Im from the religion that's going to be banned to visit US


Okay dude, relax a second :lol.

First of all, are you from one of the countries selected on the immigration halt? If the answer is no then you are completely unaffected. If the answer is yes then it is a 90 day halt, not indefinitely.

Secondly, if it does end up being _an actual_ complete Muslim ban on a permanent level then of course someone like me would oppose it.

But as it stands right now, that's very unlikely to happen. So don't panic too much yet :lol .

Jesus Christ this is why I hate the god damn MSM....


----------



## King-of-the-World

So tired of the Liberal vs Conservative / Democrat vs Republican argument whenever somebody questions Trump's actions. Trump has always been and will continue to be *UN-AMERICAN*. I'm sure for many, Trump himself is a bipartisan problem.


----------



## Headliner

yeahbaby! said:


> So good to know we can reduce liberalism to people acting out in mob mentality and vandalising and being violent - that's liberalism full stop? How simple. THE LIBERALS ARE COMING TO KILL US ALL


You have to understand that the entire premise of this thread is to either blame everything on Obama, or blame everything on liberals like Super Trump supporters and alt-righters (which are basically PG versions of white supremacists) haven't been out here doing craziness since the election.

There's not much accountability.


----------



## DOPA

MrMister said:


> Why would anyone want a coup? What if the military decides they like being in power? What if they don't relinquish that power? Rest in peace The Constitution.
> 
> Also how are people seeing these fascists at Berkeley (lmfao antifa) as liberal?


They clearly haven't thought this through :lol.

I mean all they would have to do is see how Egypt is being run with their military in charge to know that that is not a good idea.

Or I don't know, pick up a history book and read about Pinochet, guy was free market as anyone when it came to economics but there was very little civil or social rights in Chile at that point, horrible authoritarian regime.


----------



## stevefox1200

Headliner said:


> You have to understand that the entire premise of this thread is to either blame everything on Obama, or blame everything on liberals like Super Trump supporters and alt-righters (which are basically PG versions of white supremacists) haven't been out here doing craziness since the election.
> 
> There's not much accountability.


When I am done retaking the fascist party, turning it in a party of good, and building my Reich of love I will do the same to the "alt-right"



L-DOPA said:


> They clearly haven't thought this through :lol.
> 
> I mean all they would have to do is see how Egypt is being run with their military in charge to know that that is not a good idea.
> 
> Or I don't know, pick up a history book and read about Pinochet, guy was free market as anyone when it came to economics but there was very little civil or social rights in Chile at that point, horrible authoritarian regime.


Augusto still has a pretty big following in Chile among the older generation and me in Tropico because I like the boosts he gives


----------



## Marv95

Tell you what Headliner, while there probably have been minor instances where anyone on the "alt-right" or crazy Trump supporters doing stuff(some random Trump supporter yelling at passengers for voting for Billary and calling ladies "bitches" on a flight, Nazi symbols in schools, etc.), let me know when a group of right wing nuts have rioted while publicly demanding the death of Obama for reasons while bulling his family. Let me know when a Neo-Nazi group has assaulted minorities while wrecking shit up since the election.

The left is gonna piss off the wrong President. Anyone who follows Trump closely is aware of how petty and vindictive he can be. He's held grudges for less.


----------



## Oxidamus

http://www.facebook.com/BuzzFeedNews/videos/1396760440344970/ LIVE PROTESTS OF (MY MAN) GAVIN MCINNES. :mj2

Just as I link it here, some dude is yelling at cops, telling them to "get rid of [a guy]" for calling a woman a retard, while these guys are SCREAMING obscenities at ANYONE who doesn't agree with them. :Jim


----------



## stevefox1200

Oxi X.O. said:


> http://www.facebook.com/BuzzFeedNews/videos/1396760440344970/ LIVE PROTESTS OF (MY MAN) GAVIN MCINNES. :mj2
> 
> Just as I link it here, some dude is yelling at cops, telling them to "get rid of [a guy]" for calling a woman a retard, while these guys are SCREAMING obscenities at ANYONE who doesn't agree with them. :Jim


best quote in the chat

"the term snowflake when calling people this stands for the ashes that fell to earth after the Germans burned the bodies of the Jews that they gassed during the Holocaust"

DAMN IT HITLER, THIS IS YOUR FUCKING FAULT! If you hadn't done that killing shit we would not be swallowed in the land of bad metaphors and would have to compare people to the Khmer Rouge which would not be nearly as annoying 

The amount of things I have to "make great again" is getting longer and longer every hour


----------



## DOPA

Headliner said:


> You have to understand that the entire premise of this thread is to either blame everything on Obama, or blame everything on liberals like Super Trump supporters and alt-righters (which are basically PG versions of white supremacists) haven't been out here doing craziness since the election.
> 
> There's not much accountability.


The problem with this argument and this isn't to say that the alt-right for example haven't done some deplorable (yes said on purpose :lol) stuff like the Conference we saw with Richard Spencer and Nazi salutes is that most of the violence, the smashing up of property, the censorship of free speech and stopping people from expressing their political and social points of view have come from the left.

Now are all liberals like this? Of course not, you have a range of liberals who are denouncing the actions of the so called "anti-fascist" group anti-fa, the black block and it's affiliates. However, what you have to recognize which actually many liberals have realized themselves and have called out the left on is that the ones with the loudest voices and most influence right now on the left are these insane far left "anarchist" groups.

And it's not even just them and you are going to hate me for saying this but it's also the radical feminists, SJW's and BLM who have essentially hiijacked what it means to be liberal. To say that nowadays as far as the modern left wing movement goes that they are no longer for the principles that have made America great: freedom of speech, thought and expression would not be unwarranted. There is reason why people on the left, dare I say your side (you can correct me if I am wrong but I would assume you are at least a democrat; if not left wing) are also speaking out against this and have either abandoned ship or are trying to get these people to come to their senses and bring the American left back under the principles they used to be. Many left wingers and liberals (who have now hiijacked the term Classical Liberal.....*sigh* ) are moving away from associating from these groups and this fringe element of the left who now have the loudest voice for a reason.

That does not mean ALL liberals are to blame but certainly, there is reason, VERY GOOD reason why the left right now is getting a bashing and not even from just super Trump supporters or the alt-right: but from Conservatives, Libertarians, Centrists and even disillusioned Liberals and that is because they have completely lost their shit and are no longer expressing Western Liberal values. When you can't even allow a gay jewish Conservative like Milo Yiannopoulous to come to a University and JUST SPEAK and then debate him on his arguments, character and merit and instead resort to not even peaceful protests but violence: smashing up property, throwing rocks at people and assaulting people simply on the basis of even turning up to hear him then you know that not only have they lost the argument but they have lost any moral high ground. And so has anyone who justifies their actions or any action resulting in physical coercion or violence towards someone because you find their world view to be horrible. And yes this includes the alt-right and neo-nazis.

I wanted to really focus mostly on the left/liberals but to touch on Obama: Yes he did some things that even I think were good especially in relation to releasing non-violent drug detainees setting the record and beating every president on that issue. Personally I think he did more wrong than right but that's just how I view his presidency. Doesn't mean I hate the guy but I and others are critical for a reason. I'm not even a Trump supporter and have criticized him already for a number of things, so don't worry I'm sure he'll do something I'll really have to lambast him on rather than how the media has been covering his presidency so far :lol.


----------



## DoolieNoted

Oxi X.O. said:


> http://www.facebook.com/BuzzFeedNews/videos/1396760440344970/ LIVE PROTESTS OF (MY MAN) GAVIN MCINNES. :mj2
> 
> Just as I link it here, some dude is yelling at cops, telling them to "get rid of [a guy]" for calling a woman a retard, while these guys are SCREAMING obscenities at ANYONE who doesn't agree with them. :Jim


Hypocrisy seems to be the only common trait all these 'protesters' share..


----------



## dashing_man

L-DOPA said:


> Okay dude, relax a second :lol.
> 
> First of all, are you from one of the countries selected on the immigration halt? If the answer is no then you are completely unaffected. If the answer is yes then it is a 90 day halt, not indefinitely.
> 
> Secondly, if it does end up being _an actual_ complete Muslim ban on a permanent level then of course someone like me would oppose it.
> 
> But as it stands right now, that's very unlikely to happen. So don't panic too much yet :lol .
> 
> Jesus Christ this is why I hate the god damn MSM....


I did not know that, thanks for the info. And no my country isn't on the ban list, so all good :eva2


----------



## glenwo2

King-of-the-World said:


> So tired of the Liberal vs Conservative / Democrat vs Republican argument whenever somebody questions Trump's actions. *Trump has always been and will continue to be UN-AMERICAN*. I'm sure for many, Trump himself is a bipartisan problem.


Wow..I just...I....wow. fpalm fpalm fpalm fpalm


----------



## Headliner

Marv95 said:


> Tell you what Headliner, while there probably have been minor instances where anyone on the "alt-right" or crazy Trump supporters doing stuff(some random Trump supporter yelling at passengers for voting for Billary and calling ladies "bitches" on a flight, Nazi symbols in schools, etc.), let me know when a group of right wing nuts have rioted while publicly demanding the death of Obama for reasons while bulling his family. Let me know when a Neo-Nazi group has assaulted minorities while wrecking shit up since the election.
> 
> The left is gonna piss off the wrong President. Anyone who follows Trump closely is aware of how petty and vindictive he can be. He's held grudges for less.


Teachers telling Mexican students that they are all getting deported because Trump is now President isn't minor. White nationalist and supremacist groups telling black people that their lives don't matter after Trump's election isn't minor. Other similar racist activity that was recorded isn't minor. No need to downplay it. 

Obama faced racism for 8 years in office.





The thing is, they don't have to go in large groups to find and attack minorities. They can just do it themselves in random places. Hate crimes toward minorities increased after the election, but that's alternative facts. 




L-DOPA said:


> The problem with this argument and this isn't to say that the alt-right for example haven't done some deplorable (yes said on purpose :lol) stuff like the Conference we saw with Richard Spencer and Nazi salutes is that most of the violence, the smashing up of property, the censorship of free speech and stopping people from expressing their political and social points of view have come from the left.
> 
> Now are all liberals like this? Of course not, you have a range of liberals who are denouncing the actions of the so called "anti-fascist" group anti-fa, the black block and it's affiliates. However, what you have to recognize which actually many liberals have realized themselves and have called out the left on is that the ones with the loudest voices and most influence right now on the left are these insane far left "anarchist" groups.
> 
> And it's not even just them and you are going to hate me for saying this but it's also the radical feminists, SJW's and BLM who have essentially hiijacked what it means to be liberal. To say that nowadays as far as the modern left wing movement goes that they are no longer for the principles that have made America great: freedom of speech, thought and expression would not be unwarranted. There is reason why people on the left, dare I say your side (you can correct me if I am wrong but I would assume you are at least a democrat; if not left wing) are also speaking out against this and have either abandoned ship or are trying to get these people to come to their senses and bring the American left back under the principles they used to be. Many left wingers and liberals (who have now hiijacked the term Classical Liberal.....*sigh* ) are moving away from associating from these groups and this fringe element of the left who now have the loudest voice for a reason.
> 
> That does not mean ALL liberals are to blame but certainly, there is reason, VERY GOOD reason why the left right now is getting a bashing and not even from just super Trump supporters or the alt-right: but from Conservatives, Libertarians, Centrists and even disillusioned Liberals and that is because they have completely lost their shit and are no longer expressing Western Liberal values. When you can't even allow a gay jewish Conservative like Milo Yiannopoulous to come to a University and JUST SPEAK and then debate him on his arguments, character and merit and instead resort to not even peaceful protests but violence: smashing up property, throwing rocks at people and assaulting people simply on the basis of even turning up to hear him then you know that not only have they lost the argument but they have lost any moral high ground. And so has anyone who justifies their actions or any action resulting in physical coercion or violence towards someone because you find their world view to be horrible. And yes this includes the alt-right and neo-nazis.
> 
> I wanted to really focus mostly on the left/liberals but to touch on Obama: Yes he did some things that even I think were good especially in relation to releasing non-violent drug detainees setting the record and beating every president on that issue. Personally I think he did more wrong than right but that's just how I view his presidency. Doesn't mean I hate the guy but I and others are critical for a reason. I'm not even a Trump supporter and have criticized him already for a number of things, so don't worry I'm sure he'll do something I'll really have to lambast him on rather than how the media has been covering his presidency so far :lol.


There needs to be a level of accountability taken on both sides instead of playing the blame game on the other to deter from the issue at hand. Some liberals overdo it and accountability should be taken for that. Alt-right/Breitbart rhetoric and delusional bullshit needs to be addressed and held accountable. It's poison. 

Everyone has the right to have an opinion whether it's popular or not popular, but when that opinion is clearly based on a distorted view of reality then yes they need to be checked for it. 

As far as riots, I _understand_ why violence occurs but I wouldn't condone it. Emotions toward hate can be overbearing and frustrating. Sometimes people feel like peaceful protesting doesn't accomplish anything and I think they are right to a certain extent.


----------



## stevefox1200

Translation

Von Zimmel: I’d rather die first. By the way, in case you haven’t noticed, behind the Nazi there’s also a man. A man like any other. Hath not a Nazi eyes? Hath not a Nazi hands?

OSS 117: You’re right. I think he’s sincere. He’s desperate.

Von Zimmel: If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? And if you poison us, do we not die? 

OSS 117: Magnificent. Beautiful words. Beautiful and overwhelming.

one of the greatest films of our generation

also in the film 

"If you help us, I’ll serve as a mediator with the Prime Minister, Mr Pompidou. You’ll be pardoned. An international coalition will be immediately organized to create a Nazi country. Like Israel."


----------



## yeahbaby!

Haha so apparently Trump gave my useless PM Malcolm Turnbull a total dressing down in what was meant to be a fluffy congenial call.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ll-with-malcolm-turnbull-20170202-gu3r6u.html



> President Donald Trump blasted Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull over a refu.gee agreement and *boasted about the magnitude of his electoral college win,* according to senior US officials briefed on the Saturday exchange. Then, 25 minutes into what was expected to be an hour-long call, Mr Trump abruptly ended it. Mr Turnbull has denied the President hung up.





> At one point, *Mr Trump informed Mr Turnbull that he had spoken with four other world leaders that day — including Russian President Vladi.mir Putin — and that "this was the worst call by far*".





> "This is the worst deal ever," Mr Trump fumed as Mr Turnbull attempted to confirm that the United States would honour its pledge to take in 1250 refugees from an Australian detention centre.
> 
> Mr Trump, who one day earlier had signed an executive order temporarily barring the admissions of refugees, complained that he was "going to get killed" politically and accused Australia of seeking to export the "next Boston bombers".


Who knows if it's true, but so lol-worthy. Who says this stuff? It's like what a four year old says when they're playing on a toy phone with a globe in their hand. 'Yes it's the President speaking.... I've already spoken to Russia today and they were much better than you Australia!'.

But Turnbull is an toothless turtle - he deserves it!


----------



## Vic Capri

> You have to understand that the entire premise of this thread is to either blame everything on Obama, or blame everything on liberals like Super Trump supporters and alt-righters (which are basically PG versions of white supremacists) haven't been out here doing craziness since the election.
> 
> There's not much accountability.


Obama was just as bad of a President as Bush Jr. He deserves all the flack he gets. Liberals, however, believe he is GOAT because nothing was ever his fault!



> Teachers telling Mexican students that they are all getting deported because Trump is now President isn't minor.


Please. Barack Obama deported more people than any other President, but Trump is the racist? :lol



> Yesterday on Twitter Sara Silvermen said that it is only a matter of time before the military will help the people with a coup
> 
> The military...


Keep in mind, the people calling for this are the same ones that keep calling The President a "fascist".









- Vic


----------



## glenwo2

yeahbaby! said:


> Haha so apparently Trump gave my useless PM Malcolm Turnbull a total dressing down in what was meant to be a fluffy congenial call.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ll-with-malcolm-turnbull-20170202-gu3r6u.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who knows if it's true, but so lol-worthy. Who says this stuff? It's like what a four year old says when they're playing on a toy phone with a globe in their hand. 'Yes it's the President speaking.... I've already spoken to Russia today and they were much better than you Australia!'.
> 
> But Turnbull is an toothless turtle - he deserves it!



His name is so appropriate. At least the "bull" part of it. :lol


----------



## The Absolute

@CamillePunk @RipNTear @Miss Sally @DesolationRow @Pratchett @Goku @L-DOPA @virus21 @Teh Kok @Simply Flawless @Neuron @glenwo2

Only 2 weeks into the Trump administration and the left is ready to show him the door!

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/317627-poll-4-in-10-back-impeaching-trump



> Forty percent of registered voters support impeaching President Trump, according to a poll released Thursday from the left-leaning Public Policy Polling (PPP).
> 
> Nearly half of voters, 48 percent, are opposed to impeaching Trump, and 12 percent remain unsure, according to the poll.
> 
> Pollsters also found that a majority of voters, 52 percent, would prefer former President Obama in his old role rather than Trump; 43 percent prefer Trump, and 5 percent are uncertain.
> 
> “Usually a newly elected president is at the peak of their popularity and enjoying their honeymoon after taking office,” PPP President Dean Debnam said in a statement.
> 
> “But Donald Trump’s making history once again with a sizeable share of voters already wanting to impeach him, and a majority of voters wishing they could have Barack Obama back.”


:booklel :booklel :booklel


----------



## TheMenace

Vic Capri said:


> Mark Dice is a great American.
> 
> - Vic


An equally fallacious argument would be "Adam Lanza shot up a school, therefore conservatism is terrorism".


----------



## stevefox1200

yeahbaby! said:


> Haha so apparently Trump gave my useless PM Malcolm Turnbull a total dressing down in what was meant to be a fluffy congenial call.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ll-with-malcolm-turnbull-20170202-gu3r6u.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who knows if it's true, but so lol-worthy. Who says this stuff? It's like what a four year old says when they're playing on a toy phone with a globe in their hand. 'Yes it's the President speaking.... I've already spoken to Russia today and they were much better than you Australia!'.
> 
> But Turnbull is an toothless turtle - he deserves it!


Turtles don't have teeth


----------



## Miss Sally

The Absolute said:


> @CamillePunk @RipNTear @Miss Sally @DesolationRow @Pratchett @Goku @L-DOPA @virus21 @Teh Kok @Simply Flawless @Neuron @glenwo2
> 
> Only 2 weeks into the Trump administration and the left is ready to show him the door!
> 
> http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/317627-poll-4-in-10-back-impeaching-trump
> 
> 
> 
> :booklel :booklel :booklel


In what way is this surprising? The majority of those voters who want to impeach Trump are the very same people who were never going to give him a chance. They probably think Hillary wasn't elected due to "sexism".

Having Obama back means we'd get someone with no bite who tows the line of Neoconservatives and "Liberals". It goes to show you people think change is scary.

I'm sure quite a few of those people think gay rights are going to be taken away, black helicopters overhead and believe in the validity of many of these fake hate crimes. They'll never be convinced otherwise, just like the anti-facists rioters acting like what they oppose. They don't see the true reflection of their inane biased actions or thoughts.

Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees, Trump's presidency isn't like any in history so any comparisons to such are faulty.


----------



## FriedTofu

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/317640-dems-ask-for-briefing-on-deadly-yemen-raid

I hope Yemen isn't going to turn out to be another Benghazi the next 4-8 years. ugh.


----------



## Art Vandaley

The real test will come when he gets an adverse Supreme Court decision. Never forget the last pres to do so got away with it. He said he was gonna invade mexico and take some land and the Supreme Court said he couldn't and he just ignored them and did it and the land he took is still part of America and he never faced any adverse consequences. 

As Mao said political power comes from the barrel of a gun and Trump will control all the guns and the Supreme Court will have none.

Btw this is not a prediction that he will ignore the Supreme Court, just pointing out history would suggest he could and get away with it.


----------



## FriedTofu

Alkomesh2 said:


> The real test will come when he gets an adverse Supreme Court decision. Never forget the last pres to do so got away with it. He said he was gonna invade mexico and take some land and the Supreme Court said he couldn't and he just ignored them and did it and the land he took is still part of America and he never faced any adverse consequences.
> 
> As Mao said political power comes from the barrel of a gun and Trump will control all the guns and the Supreme Court will have none.


That's what is so worrying with the make up of his National Defence Council at the moment. It's being filled with people that believe US armed conflict with Islam and China within the next decade is inevitable and also people that believe in 'surprise attacks' such as how the immigration orders were sprung so suddenly on everyone. Hopefully it is all just bluster and they are just led by simple greed when making those comments about Islam and China and not their true beliefs.


----------



## TheMenace

RipNTear said:


> Yeah man. I'm so totes with ya.
> 
> The Nazi Trump supporters came for me yesterday and I hid in my cellar. They killed my wife tho.
> 
> Please save me because the death squads are marching. I live in a totally nazi town like 70% of dem are evilz nazi supporters ya and I fear for my life ya and I'm like a immigrant ya and dey wanna kill me and ya I'm gonna die die die. Save me!
> 
> Sure, you can get annoyed a little with annoying people saying annoying things, but the minute you compare Trump supporters to Nazis you've lost all credibility to be taken seriously whatsoever and you deserve the ridicule you earn.


Actually no, I did not compare Trump's presidency to Hitler's regime. What I did say is that there is a disturbing similarity between Hitler's supporters and a _portion_ of Trump's support base. Key word: _portion_. I am not painting all Trump supporters with the same brush. There are plenty of Trump supporters who are reasonable and do have regard for facts, logic, and reason. However, there are also a lot of Trump supporters who are so blinded by their hero that they completely dismiss any and all criticisms of Trump, screaming "fake news!" no matter how valid the criticisms actually are, and aren't willing to have any level headed discussions. They demand that any news outlet that has any criticism of Trump be shut down. They don't want anyone to say anything critical of Trump. They want the press to be an echo chamber of pro-Trump narratives and nothing else.

What else do they do? Let's see...
- they claim that the overhead inauguration picture was taken way before Trump's speech (even though it was actually taken during his speech),
- they don't have any regard for the actual definition of fake news; they spew the term in a cavalier manner any time someone has something to say that they don't like,
- they claim that the reporter who mistakenly reported the MLK bust was missing did it on purpose rather than being an honest mistake that he apologized for,
- they seem to think that most of the media is in on some sort of a conspiracy against Trump,
- they claim that millions of illegal votes were cast in the election despite the fact that there is no credible evidence to support such a claim,
- they refuse to acknowledge the toll that Trump's immigration ban is taking on America's reputation around the world, not to mention the toll it is taking on the innocent people who have already gone through an extensive vetting process and were looking forward to finally starting a new life in America,
- they don't acknowledge that building an expensive border wall will do nothing to prevent visitors who arrive by plane from overstaying their visas,
- they have absolutely no regard for the environmental damage that will occur as a result of Trump's deregulation; to them, anyone who believes that clean air and clean water are more important that profit is a tree-hugging America-hating hippie
- they deny climate change because they believe online blogs are a more reliable source of information than peer-reviewed scientific literature,
- they believed that Obama was not born in the US when Trump said so, then they believed that Obama was born in the US when Trump said so,
- they believed that Mexico would pay for the border wall because Trump said so, but now they don't really know who is actually going to pay for the wall they just want it built anyway,
- they take exception to being compared to Hitler supporters, yet turn around and claim that the violent hooligans/terrorists from the past two weeks are an accurate representation of social liberalism.

If anyone has "lost all credibility to be taken seriously whatsoever and deserves the ridicule they earn", it is the portion of Trump supporters I have described above. At some point, those who reject facts and religiously cling to whatever they want to believe, should called out.

One question for you though, just how widespread throughout the internet do those "annoying" comments have to be before it's ok to begin thinking that those comments are an accurate reflection of what some Trump supporters actually believe? Those comments that I quoted verbatim in my last post were just a tiny sample of the comments I've seen in various places throughout the internet. At what point is it reasonable to speculate that these people _actually do believe_ that anyone who doesn't share their views deserves to be ridiculed and killed? If you ask me, these fact-denying Trump-worshiping cultists aren't annoying... they're dangerous.


----------



## glenwo2

The Absolute said:


> @CamillePunk @RipNTear @Miss Sally @DesolationRow @Pratchett @Goku @L-DOPA @virus21 @Teh Kok @Simply Flawless @Neuron @glenwo2
> 
> Only 2 weeks into the Trump administration and the left is ready to show him the door!
> 
> http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/317627-poll-4-in-10-back-impeaching-trump
> 
> 
> 
> :booklel :booklel :booklel



Polls right now are about as relevant as the popular vote in the elections. :sleep


----------



## TheMenace

Miss Sally said:


> While i don't deny there are some cultist like Trump supporters, what about the psychotic protesters who don't know what they're protesting, certain media groups putting out untrue facts on Trump and people who dislike Trump so much they don't care what his policies are and won't listen, they just don't accept it?
> 
> Seems there are far more of these types.


The violent hooligans should be rounded up and tried for their crimes. I'm sick and tired of seeing them get away with that stuff. When they get caught they should face swift penalties, not slaps on the wrist.

Media making untrue statements about Trump... specific examples please?


----------



## Rowdy Yates

Headliner said:


> *Teachers telling Mexican students that they are all getting deported*


Them teachers should not be giving out false information



> *White nationalist and supremacist groups telling black people that their lives don't matter*


White nationalist and supremacist groups have been telling black people their lives dont matter for centuries. How you have managed to throw that in with regards to Trump i do not know




> *Obama faced racism for 8 years in office.*







:lmao Is that really the only evidence you can offer to the so called racism Obama faced in 8 years?. A still photograph of a few guys setting fire to a Obama sign. No video footage, No evidence of damage to public property. No nothing other than a couple of geeks sat there telling us that all these bad things were happening. You really are scraping the barrel with that one




> The thing is, they don't have to go in large groups to find and attack minorities. They can just do it themselves in random places.


The thing is your comparison in a word is pathetic. We have hundreds of thousands of people taking to the streets protesting. Buildings ,Cars and property being vandalised and set on fire. Young women being physically assaulted and Trump supporters being attacked all over the place and all this taking place in front of T.V cameras for everybody to see yet you are just passing all this off as fine simply because you agree with the gripe of the many sad feeble anti Trump goons who are running amok simply because they have not got their own way.

There is a massive difference between a protest where people are attacking innocent civilians and causing millions of pounds worth of damage in the heart of local towns and citys compared to a group of people gathering on a college campus and probably singing a few songs at worst




> *Alt-right/Breitbart rhetoric and delusional bullshit needs to be addressed and held accountable. It's poison.*


This is where the problem is. As it not occurred to you that a very large amount of people (about 59.4 million) in this case possibly do not see the Alt-right/Breitbart rhetoric as delusional bullshit and poison?. Just because you and many others see it as that does not mean that your opinion is correct. I personally thought the whole BLM rhetoric was pathetic delusional bullshit but if groups with opposing opinions started smashing things up and attacking the BLM protesters i would call it as it is and say them people were wankers and they need to be brought to justice



> *Everyone has the right to have an opinion whether it's popular or not popular, but when that opinion is clearly based on a distorted view of reality then yes they need to be checked for it.*


The only group of people whos opinions are based on a distorted view of reality are them clowns who are unwilling to accept the results of a democratic election and have now decided to go on the rampage to vent their frustration.


----------



## ManiacMichaelMyers

fpalm 

The back and forth is pointless. 
Let's just watch things disintegrate day by day.


----------



## Vic Capri

> Media making untrue statements about Trump... specific examples please?


The dead horse narrative from the liberal media for the past 17 months that he's sexist, racist, homophobic, xenophobic Hitler incarnate, who likes to get peed on, that won the election because of a bunch of KKK ******** AND Russian hackers!

Tell lies enough times and people will believe them.



> Trump opponents who don't listen to arguments... very bad, but I think the difference is that they don't call for the media to be shut down and they don't cling to conspiracy theories such as Obama not being born in the states or the 3 million illegal votes canard


Except Obama's birth certificate was forged and there were numerous counts of voter fraud on the Democratic side. Of course, liberals claim no wrong doing on their part at all even after Bernie Sanders got fucked over!

- Vc


----------



## Headliner

Rowdy Yates said:


> Them teachers should not be giving out false information


That's not the point. They were doing it in the name of Trump.



> White nationalist and supremacist groups have been telling black people their lives dont matter for centuries. How you have managed to throw that in with regards to Trump i do not know


Because the hate increased after he won the election. Common knowledge. 



> :lmao Is that really the only evidence you can offer to the so called racism Obama faced in 8 years?. A still photograph of a few guys setting fire to a Obama sign. No video footage, No evidence of damage to public property. No nothing other than a couple of geeks sat there telling us that all these bad things were happening. You really are scraping the barrel with that one


Right. Because Obama hasn't faced racism for 8 years in office. Are you really going to do this? Are you *really* going to do this? 

















And of course a dude gets laid out. Now why the fuck would they be protesting in front of the white house? That's right, because it was against Obama. They wouldn't be doing it toward Trump. 

Or wat


> In all, the Southern Poverty Law Center counted more than 200 “hate-related” incidents around the election and inauguration of Barack Obama as the nation’s first African-American president.


http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2016/11/when-obama-was-elected-outpouring-of.html
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/9-most-racist-moments-2012-election

I'm sorry that's just alternate facts. 

This is common knowledge but people like you always try to downplay or dismiss basic facts for some bullshit conservative narrative. 


> The thing is your comparison in a word is pathetic. We have hundreds of thousands of people taking to the streets protesting. Buildings ,Cars and property being vandalised and set on fire. Young women being physically assaulted and Trump supporters being attacked all over the place and all this taking place in front of T.V cameras for everybody to see yet you are just passing all this off as fine simply because you agree with the gripe of the many sad feeble anti Trump goons who are running amok simply because they have not got their own way


Was Trump rallies not full of people getting attacked by angry white men? Don't do this. 



> There is a massive difference between a protest where people are attacking innocent civilians and causing millions of pounds worth of damage in the heart of local towns and citys compared to a group of people gathering on a college campus and probably singing a few songs at worst





Headliner said:


> Was Trump rallies not full of people getting attacked by angry white men? Don't do this.





> This is where the problem is. As it not occurred to you that a very large amount of people (about 59.4 million) in this case possibly do not see the Alt-right/Breitbart rhetoric as delusional bullshit and poison?. Just because you and many others see it as that does not mean that your opinion is correct. I personally thought the whole BLM rhetoric was pathetic delusional bullshit but if groups with opposing opinions started smashing things up and attacking the BLM protesters i would call it as it is and say them people were wankers and they need to be brought to justice


I mean, there's a bunch of white nationalist and hidden white nationalist in this world so of course there's a bunch of people that don't see it as poison. Yes, fighting for equality (BLM) is delusional bullshit. Typical white supremacist point. 



> The only group of people whos opinions are based on a distorted view of reality are them clowns who are unwilling to accept the results of a democratic election and have now decided to go on the rampage to vent their frustration.


Or the super Trump supporters like Richard Spencer (glad he got punched in the face twice) or others that are more excited to spread their white nationalism bullshit around now that Trump is President.


----------



## stevefox1200

I don't like Obama and was one of the lead supporters of McCain in highschool and Romeny in college and even I will admit that there were people who didn't like Obama because he was a "black Muslim" and were sure the KKK would murder him 

I fucking hated it because they would always push that shit when I was trying to talk about economics and foreign policy. I was one of the "smart kids" in high-school (looking back we were all dumb as fuck) and most of my friends were liberal and telling me to tell "my people" that "Obama is not Muslim"

White racists and survivalists are the black sheep of the right like Radical communists and ethnic racists are on the left and the always pop up when you don't want them to (when you are not in power or when you are trying to get into power). Radicals honestly believe that they are right and everyone else is wrong and that they have to make things "right" even if they have to "force" you to be right


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

stevefox1200 said:


> Yesterday on Twitter Sara Silvermen said that it is only a matter of time before the military will help the people with a coup
> 
> The military...
> 
> a group who is mainly right wing and whose president she expects them to over throw just put more military than ever in his cabinet
> 
> I am shocked by the echo chamber that left wing and right wing media has become, they honestly think that the vast majority of people are on their side because they just block anyone who is not


Survey says:












Beatles123 said:


> It just...it feels so good. :vince5


----------



## Art Vandaley




----------



## CamillePunk

Nice to see that family of scammers get slapped down by the courts for going after Ben Shapiro's money because he successfully exposed their fraud. Even the joke that was our previous president was fooled and publicly embarrassed himself by rolling out the red carpet for the scammers. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/827251896222175233
:lol


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> Nice to see that family of scammers get slapped down by the courts for going after Ben Shapiro's money because he successfully exposed their fraud. Even the joke that was our previous president was fooled and publicly embarrassed himself by rolling out the red carpet for the scammers.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/827251896222175233
> :lol


With the fake hijab pulling, fake hate crimes and the latest "Trump killed muh sick mommy" scams, people shouldn't feel bad. Loads of people have been getting scammed.


----------



## DOPA

Headliner said:


> There needs to be a level of accountability taken on both sides instead of playing the blame game on the other to deter from the issue at hand. Some liberals overdo it and accountability should be taken for that. Alt-right/Breitbart rhetoric and delusional bullshit needs to be addressed and held accountable. It's poison.
> 
> Everyone has the right to have an opinion whether it's popular or not popular, but when that opinion is clearly based on a distorted view of reality then yes they need to be checked for it.
> 
> As far as riots, I _understand_ why violence occurs but I wouldn't condone it. Emotions toward hate can be overbearing and frustrating. Sometimes people feel like peaceful protesting doesn't accomplish anything and I think they are right to a certain extent.


Oh no I agree on the first part, if anyone from the right does something egregious I'll condone it and I've tried to hold Trump accountable, hence why I've called him out on a number of things including the idea of announcing the crimes of immigrants publicly, the hilariously awful way he's handled preparations for the Border Wall and for how sloppy this latest immigration executive order has been legislated.

One thing that needs to be said though and I'm not sure if you agree or disagree with me at this point but universally accepted bad speech shall we say like racism is not the same as violence and coercion. Bad speech can always be countered by more speech, so if for example Milo Yiannopolous' views and opinions are so egregious and wrong he could always be called out and made an example out of.

A good example of this is when the leader of the BNP Nick Griffin in my country was invited on to BBC question time. This guy was a legit neo-nazi and just a vile human being overall and unfortunately it was at a time when BNP were gaining some popularity. There were protests on how dare you let this fascist be broadcast on national TV etc. but they completely missed the point: just letting this guy have a national platform exposed himself and his party for just who they really were. The BNP plummeted after that programme and are now completely obselete:






It is broken up into 6 parts but it's well worth watching how just giving this guy a national platform did more to undermine him in one night then all the years they tried to suppress the BNP. Sunlight is often the best disinfectant.

On the other hand you look what happened at MILO's event, had there has just been peaceful protests and they allowed him to speak, it would have only been seen live by a few hundred students and later a few hundred thousand at most on Youtube, the vast majority being his own fanbase. By rioting, smashing up property and beating people up not only did the protestors lose any sort of moral high ground *regardless of the reasons they committed those actions* because innocent bystanders were assaulted but they just legitimized Milo's platform even more.

MILO was on Fox News right after the riots took place, a much larger platform which reaches millions of people and over night he got over 80,000 new Facebook followers. He was essentially made more popular because of the violent riots.

The moment you turn violent unless of course it's because of self defence is the moment you lose all credibility in terms of being a legitimate voice against the ideas being portrayed or the ideas in which are being expressed by a certain group. This is why for example Black Lives Matter despite voicing some very credible concerns such as about police brutality have had such a large backlash, because of actions such as this:


----------



## FriedTofu

Blast from the past when Conway was working for Ted Cruz. How much has she aged in just one year!?!?


----------



## MrMister

Conway is the ultimate mercenary. If she's on your side you have one of the best spin doctors of all time. Another reason why she's great is she knows when to concede. Her concessions are always minimized by her tenacity when spinning and legitimately defending everything else.


----------



## FriedTofu

I agree she is damn good at her job. She managed to turn the perception that Breitbart wasn't a credible media outlet in the eyes of the general public into painting the MSM as fake news. She has a knack of spinning the best attacks on her candidate and project them onto the opposition without sounding forced compared to less capable spin doctors. She deserves every penny Trump or the Mercers paid for her.


----------



## Reaper

TheMenace said:


> Actually no, I did not compare Trump's presidency to Hitler's regime. What I did say is that there is a disturbing similarity between Hitler's supporters and a _portion_ of Trump's support base. Key word: _portion_. I am not painting all Trump supporters with the same brush. There are plenty of Trump supporters who are reasonable and do have regard for facts, logic, and reason. However, there are also a lot of Trump supporters who are so blinded by their hero that they completely dismiss any and all criticisms of Trump, screaming "fake news!" no matter how valid the criticisms actually are, and aren't willing to have any level headed discussions. They demand that any news outlet that has any criticism of Trump be shut down. They don't want anyone to say anything critical of Trump. They want the press to be an echo chamber of pro-Trump narratives and nothing else.
> 
> What else do they do? Let's see...
> - they claim that the overhead inauguration picture was taken way before Trump's speech (even though it was actually taken during his speech),
> - they don't have any regard for the actual definition of fake news; they spew the term in a cavalier manner any time someone has something to say that they don't like,
> - they claim that the reporter who mistakenly reported the MLK bust was missing did it on purpose rather than being an honest mistake that he apologized for,
> - they seem to think that most of the media is in on some sort of a conspiracy against Trump,
> - they claim that millions of illegal votes were cast in the election despite the fact that there is no credible evidence to support such a claim,
> - they refuse to acknowledge the toll that Trump's immigration ban is taking on America's reputation around the world, not to mention the toll it is taking on the innocent people who have already gone through an extensive vetting process and were looking forward to finally starting a new life in America,
> - they don't acknowledge that building an expensive border wall will do nothing to prevent visitors who arrive by plane from overstaying their visas,
> - they have absolutely no regard for the environmental damage that will occur as a result of Trump's deregulation; to them, anyone who believes that clean air and clean water are more important that profit is a tree-hugging America-hating hippie
> - they deny climate change because they believe online blogs are a more reliable source of information than peer-reviewed scientific literature,
> - they believed that Obama was not born in the US when Trump said so, then they believed that Obama was born in the US when Trump said so,
> - they believed that Mexico would pay for the border wall because Trump said so, but now they don't really know who is actually going to pay for the wall they just want it built anyway,
> - they take exception to being compared to Hitler supporters, yet turn around and claim that the violent hooligans/terrorists from the past two weeks are an accurate representation of social liberalism.
> 
> If anyone has "lost all credibility to be taken seriously whatsoever and deserves the ridicule they earn", it is the portion of Trump supporters I have described above. At some point, those who reject facts and religiously cling to whatever they want to believe, should called out.
> 
> One question for you though, just how widespread throughout the internet do those "annoying" comments have to be before it's ok to begin thinking that those comments are an accurate reflection of what some Trump supporters actually believe? Those comments that I quoted verbatim in my last post were just a tiny sample of the comments I've seen in various places throughout the internet. At what point is it reasonable to speculate that these people _actually do believe_ that anyone who doesn't share their views deserves to be ridiculed and killed? If you ask me, these fact-denying Trump-worshiping cultists aren't annoying... they're dangerous.


Even the most extreme of Trump's supporters as per your own description are nothing like Nazis. Even your most vile description up there still does not even reach the level of the horrendous that Nazism was. In fact, I'm going to turn around and start calling these comparisons insanely insensitive to the Jews who had their wealth stolen, teeth pulled, experimented on, butchered, raped, murdered, starved, left in the streets to die, put in camps, gassed. Way to diminish the crimes against humanity just so you can feel like you're fighting against the same horrible enemy. How intellectually dishonest of you. 

Ur comparison is bullshit and so is your ability to think critically. The fact that you and others are so he'll bent in making this comparison means you've already lost the argument and at this point simply want to create an enemy where an enemy does not exist, but in your mass superhero delusion need the worst possible human being to prop up against these very normal non-violent folk because how else will you convert yourself into some sort of a brave revolutionary superhero. 

Wake up from your delusion. There are no nazis. And you're not a superhero. Until and unless you like to put on heels and prance around in a wonder woman costume once in a while and that's ok as long as you keep popping your happy pills.



FriedTofu said:


> I agree she is damn good at her job. She managed to turn the perception that Breitbart wasn't a credible media outlet in the eyes of the general public *into painting the MSM as fake news. *She has a knack of spinning the best attacks on her candidate and project them onto the opposition without sounding forced compared to less capable spin doctors. She deserves every penny Trump or the Mercers paid for her.


I still read some of the MSM news, but by and large, they did it to themselves.


----------



## QWERTYOP

God bless the poor, innocent victims of the bowling green massacre. All 0 of them. May they fictitiously rest in peace.


----------



## Kenny

Great video:

https://www.facebook.com/myiannopoulos/videos/828052167332680/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED

The guy seems to know his stuff, laying down some truths while she's shouting at him calling him ignorant, even commenting on his bike :lmao


----------



## Reaper




----------



## Miss Sally

RipNTear said:


>


Pfft this is nothing, it's a-okay! After all Trump supporters have done so much worse and done riots and pulled people out of cars for voting hillary and beating them.. but it's not on the MSM because even though the MSM despises Trump and hates his followers it's just a giant white supremacy conspiracy! >


----------



## Headliner

L-DOPA said:


> Oh no I agree on the first part, if anyone from the right does something egregious I'll condone it and I've tried to hold Trump accountable, hence why I've called him out on a number of things including the idea of announcing the crimes of immigrants publicly, the hilariously awful way he's handled preparations for the Border Wall and for how sloppy this latest immigration executive order has been legislated.
> 
> One thing that needs to be said though and I'm not sure if you agree or disagree with me at this point but universally accepted bad speech shall we say like racism is not the same as violence and coercion. Bad speech can always be countered by more speech, so if for example Milo Yiannopolous' views and opinions are so egregious and wrong he could always be called out and made an example out of.
> 
> A good example of this is when the leader of the BNP Nick Griffin in my country was invited on to BBC question time. This guy was a legit neo-nazi and just a vile human being overall and unfortunately it was at a time when BNP were gaining some popularity. There were protests on how dare you let this fascist be broadcast on national TV etc. but they completely missed the point: just letting this guy have a national platform exposed himself and his party for just who they really were. The BNP plummeted after that programme and are now completely obselete:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is broken up into 6 parts but it's well worth watching how just giving this guy a national platform did more to undermine him in one night then all the years they tried to suppress the BNP. Sunlight is often the best disinfectant.
> 
> On the other hand you look what happened at MILO's event, had there has just been peaceful protests and they allowed him to speak, it would have only been seen live by a few hundred students and later a few hundred thousand at most on Youtube, the vast majority being his own fanbase. By rioting, smashing up property and beating people up not only did the protestors lose any sort of moral high ground *regardless of the reasons they committed those actions* because innocent bystanders were assaulted but they just legitimized Milo's platform even more.
> 
> MILO was on Fox News right after the riots took place, a much larger platform which reaches millions of people and over night he got over 80,000 new Facebook followers. He was essentially made more popular because of the violent riots.
> 
> The moment you turn violent unless of course it's because of self defence is the moment you lose all credibility in terms of being a legitimate voice against the ideas being portrayed or the ideas in which are being expressed by a certain group. This is why for example Black Lives Matter despite voicing some very credible concerns such as about police brutality have had such a large backlash, because of actions such as this:


I think the issue people have is that it's 2017 and people are still trying to make racist speeches like it's the 1950's. Racism and hate hurts. Take it from someone who has experienced it in my lifetime. Feelings boil over and people feel like they need to use their rage to make a statement. Others feel like fighting speech with speech doesn't accomplish anything. There's some truth to that, but it's still an avenue that should be pursued. 

The Black Lives Matter people that do the things in your videos are actually condemned by other blacks. You just don't hear about it much. The problem is, the negative of BLM, and the negatives of every minority social movement often gets labeled and categorized by their negatives as a whole. A move that's done to discredit the whole group. But I think it's very dangerous when we start doing those type of things because we are shunning away the actual purpose of the group and instead embracing the criminalization of the entire group. What that leads to is random people who have no affiliation with BLM being accused of being BLM (in a negative way) if they speak out against something or commit a crime. It goes beyond just BLM and carries over into the black race completely. 

Is the police as a whole racist? Nah. So it wouldn't be fair if people said the police are racist. Even though there are racist police officers and the FBI has a report on legit racism and white supremacist infiltration in the police force. 

The truth is, we as a nation need to do a better job of judging people as individuals. Not based on the group they belong to. It leads to way too many problems.


----------



## Miss Sally

Headliner said:


> I think the issue people have is that it's 2017 and people are still trying to make racist speeches like it's the 1950's. Racism and hate hurts. Take it from someone who has experienced it in my lifetime. Feelings boil over and people feel like they need to use their rage to make a statement. Others feel like fighting speech with speech doesn't accomplish anything. There's some truth to that, but it's still an avenue that should be pursued.
> 
> The Black Lives Matter people that do the things in your videos are actually condemned by other blacks. You just don't hear about it much. The problem is, the negative of BLM, and the negatives of every minority social movement often gets labeled and categorized by their negatives as a whole. A move that's done to discredit the whole group. But I think it's very dangerous when we start doing those type of things because we are shunning away the actual purpose of the group and instead embracing the criminalization of the entire group. What that leads to is random people who have no affiliation with BLM being accused of being BLM (in a negative way) if they speak out against something or commit a crime. It goes beyond just BLM and carries over into the black race completely.
> 
> Is the police as a whole racist? Nah. So it wouldn't be fair if people said the police are racist. Even though there are racist police officers and the FBI has a report on legit racism and white supremacist infiltration in the police force.
> 
> The truth is, we as a nation need to do a better job of judging people as individuals. Not based on the group they belong to. It leads to way too many problems.


I understand rage and all that but resorting to violence solves nothing. I'm sure some feel it's justified at times to be violent but never against people minding their own business or other peaceful protesters. The problem at this moment you're getting these violent people with no clear goal other than chaos. They're making everyone look like fucking assholes. The worse part is that they'll push too far and then there will be retaliation.

No matter what, someone will lose. Losing with words isn't exactly a loss as you can give people a chance to think things over, as for violence, people who would have listened to you are now turned off. Nobody wants to listen to a maniac who only cares about his or her own side and will violently attack anyone who isn't on their side. BLM isn't exactly bad but their leadership is a bit iffy, look at BLM Canada and the bullshit their leaders pulled, or look at this fool Talcum X and his posturing or even at some of the stuff DeRay has said. 

People need to realize facts > feelings. Usually there are many people who are stating their ideas coherently and then the violent people are all angry and spouting lies and have zero argument so they try to make everyone else angry. It's the morons of any group who are the most dangerous.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*The Trump administration has gotten Donkey of The Day every day for the last two weeks except one. I'm amazed by the blatant lying and stupidity. *


----------



## CamillePunk

Milo isn't a racist or white nationalist (let alone supremacist) advocate in any way.


----------



## blackholeson

Miss Sally said:


> I understand rage and all that but resorting to violence solves nothing. I'm sure some feel it's justified at times to be violent but never against people minding their own business or other peaceful protesters. The problem at this moment you're getting these violent people with no clear goal other than chaos. They're making everyone look like fucking assholes. The worse part is that they'll push too far and then there will be retaliation.


*You clearly don't understand rage. Anger is a gift that most of us have no clue as to how to use. Whether you agree with the course of action taken is a whole other conversation. Peace compared to physical violence falls short every time. Have you any clue what type of civilization we would live in if people didn't fight for what they believe in at some point in time in their lives? We're already a nation of "sheep", you want them to make sweaters out of us? Because they will and if you think that your freedoms can't be taken away because your white, male, middle aged, or what have you then you know very little about society. You can't ask for peace when you want a "physical change". Change happens by force.*



Miss Sally said:


> No matter what, someone will lose. Losing with words isn't exactly a loss as you can give people a chance to think things over, as for violence, people who would have listened to you are now turned off. Nobody wants to listen to a maniac who only cares about his or her own side and will violently attack anyone who isn't on their side. BLM isn't exactly bad but their leadership is a bit iffy, look at BLM Canada and the bullshit their leaders pulled, or look at this fool Talcum X and his posturing or even at some of the stuff DeRay has said.


*What are you basing this off of? Have you ever been a part of political radicalism? Do you know those crowds and how they think. The answer is likely no. Take it from someone who knows how this all works, you have no clue. Let me fill you in. Folks like you see in the BLM are not like the "Punks" you see in hipster city USA. Those folks aren't the same as the labor rights radicals either. Their views and goals may have similar constructs, or methodologies, but the people are all vastly different. Humans want to make things easy so they things on television and watch things on youtube and automatically place roles and names on folks. Titles like "Social Justice Warrior". Is that supposed to be an insult? A person may see a bunch of colored haired lesbians and assume they're all vegan and have unshaven arm pit hair. Humans make up their minds long before they care to know the truth.*

*People are too ignorant to understand who the leader is. They reject the "maniac" because that's what the news is showing them, you know the "fake" news. These same folks don't take the time to educate their own self. If these same people don't take the time to educate their selves, their families, and friends then you create a "culture". People have to stop acting like the only way they can be persuaded is unless you reason with them. That's not always how communication works. Once people are aware enough to realize why others are angry, it's then up to them to begin listening and starting to reason with the other side. I know many of you like to think that normal men and women just wake up angry one day and that's how things just are, but that's not true at all. Hate brews and so does violence. When things brew it because something created it. It's time for "something" to take a step back, close it's mouth, and start listening.*



Miss Sally said:


> People need to realize facts > feelings. Usually there are many people who are stating their ideas coherently and then the violent people are all angry and spouting lies and have zero argument so they try to make everyone else angry. It's the morons of any group who are the most dangerous.


*Feelings and facts can be one in the same. Let me explain. How many cases have there been with public schools and bullying. Apparently enough that there were plenty of anti bullying campaigns all over the United States and public schools. When someone's feelings are hurt it's a fact that they were exposed to something indecent that was likely said, or done to them physically. For example, one kid calls another kid a fat, lazy, bastard. Facts have changed over time, because according to Trump's team, there are alternative facts. In all seriousness though, how people go about receiving their facts has dramatically changed. People often see things as fact based on how their peers feel about those topics. Whether they're true, or not isn't the point because in the end people will want to believe what they want to believe. We are at a point of no return now. Once people see things as they believe they're react more violently, even the current POTUS believes what he wants to believe, according to his white house press secretary. This is creating a society that has access to more of what "people feel" than what they actually know. However, don't discredit how someone feels until you know how educated they are. We often lead ourselves to make assumptions that we ourselves have no basis of making a claim on. Violence will be societies last expression, I fear that our fate is near.*


----------



## ShiningStar

CamillePunk said:


> Milo isn't a racist or white nationalist (let alone supremacist) advocate in any way.


Milos has encouraged his supported to threaten and harass people so the issue of whether he is racist or not is irrelevent. Speech that encourages criminal behaivor and threatens people safety should not be protected.

If Tomi Lahren,Mark Furman or David Duke etc. were speaking, even though I disagree with them I would more then encourage others to let their voices be out in the open and say their toxic views have a right to be heard. Milos on the other hand needs to be deported


----------



## stevefox1200

blackholeson said:


> *You clearly don't understand rage. Anger is a gift that most of us have no clue as to how to use. Whether you agree with the course of action taken is a whole other conversation. Peace compared to physical violence falls short every time. Have you any clue what type of civilization we would live in if people didn't fight for what they believe in at some point in time in their lives? We're already a nation of "sheep", you want them to make sweaters out of us? Because they will and if you think that your freedoms can't be taken away because your white, male, middle aged, or what have you then you know very little about society. You can't ask for peace when you want a "physical change". Change happens by force.*
> 
> 
> 
> *What are you basing this off of? Have you ever been a part of political radicalism? Do you know those crowds and how they think. The answer is likely no. Take it from someone who knows how this all works, you have no clue. Let me fill you in. Folks like you see in the BLM are not like the "Punks" you see in hipster city USA. Those folks aren't the same as the labor rights radicals either. Their views and goals may have similar constructs, or methodologies, but the people are all vastly different. Humans want to make things easy so they things on television and watch things on youtube and automatically place roles and names on folks. Titles like "Social Justice Warrior". Is that supposed to be an insult? A person may see a bunch of colored haired lesbians and assume they're all vegan and have unshaven arm pit hair. Humans make up their minds long before they care to know the truth.*
> 
> *People are too ignorant to understand who the leader is. They reject the "maniac" because that's what the news is showing them, you know the "fake" news. These same folks don't take the time to educate their own self. If these same people don't take the time to educate their selves, their families, and friends then you create a "culture". People have to stop acting like the only way they can be persuaded is unless you reason with them. That's not always how communication works. Once people are aware enough to realize why others are angry, it's then up to them to begin listening and starting to reason with the other side. I know many of you like to think that normal men and women just wake up angry one day and that's how things just are, but that's not true at all. Hate brews and so does violence. When things brew it because something created it. It's time for "something" to take a step back, close it's mouth, and start listening.*
> 
> 
> 
> *Feelings and facts can be one in the same. Let me explain. How many cases have there been with public schools and bullying. Apparently enough that there were plenty of anti bullying campaigns all over the United States and public schools. When someone's feelings are hurt it's a fact that they were exposed to something indecent that was likely said, or done to them physically. For example, one kid calls another kid a fat, lazy, bastard. Facts have changed over time, because according to Trump's team, there are alternative facts. In all seriousness though, how people go about receiving their facts has dramatically changed. People often see things as fact based on how their peers feel about those topics. Whether they're true, or not isn't the point because in the end people will want to believe what they want to believe. We are at a point of no return now. Once people see things as they believe they're react more violently, even the current POTUS believes what he wants to believe, according to his white house press secretary. This is creating a society that has access to more of what "people feel" than what they actually know. However, don't discredit how someone feels until you know how educated they are. We often lead ourselves to make assumptions that we ourselves have no basis of making a claim on. Violence will be societies last expression, I fear that our fate is near.*


Three questions

Are you OK with people who have nothing to do with your "struggle" getting physically or financially hurt to "help the cause"?

Are you OK with physically or financially harming the people who's job it is to stop you from the above question? 

Are you OK with the people above siding with you only because they are afraid of you?


----------



## Vic Capri

Week 2



> Milo isn't a racist or white nationalist (let alone supremacist) advocate in any way.


Ironically, if he was a liberal, the ones protesting him would be the same people worshiping him on a pedestal.



> Milos has encouraged his supported to threaten and harass people so the issue of whether he is racist or not is irrelevent. Speech that encourages criminal behaivor and threatens people safety should not be protected.


Like Madonna and other liberal celebrities encouraging crime with their hate speeches?

- Vic


----------



## wwe9391

Liberals are straight up toxic at this point. All them will be eating their words in 4 years when Trump proves them all wrong. its gonna be a fantastic show.


----------



## CamillePunk

ShiningStar said:


> Milos has encouraged his supported to threaten and harass people so the issue of whether he is racist or not is irrelevent. Speech that encourages criminal behaivor and threatens people safety should not be protected.
> 
> If Tomi Lahren,Mark Furman or David Duke etc. were speaking, even though I disagree with them I would more then encourage others to let their voices be out in the open and say their toxic views have a right to be heard. Milos on the other hand needs to be deported


It's Milo, not Milos.

Cite where he encouraged people to threaten and perform criminal acts. This is news to me.


----------



## MrMister

I wonder what Tom Perez is going to do with the DNC. He seems like a guy that will attempt to stay the course. This means more seats lost in 2018 and possibly a Nixonian/Reaganesque landslide massacre in 2020.

edit: oh wait i'm dumb. Perez isn't the DNC head yet. i misread stuff.


----------



## Reaper

@CamillePunk: You really think that this non-serious person who doesn't even know the name of person they're smearing to actually have ever even listened to "Milos"?


----------



## King-of-the-World

glenwo2 said:


> Wow..I just...I....wow. fpalm fpalm fpalm fpalm


Draft dodging and not paying your taxes is American now? I don't care whether somebody is Republican or Democrat, I'd say the same about anybody. 

Republican or Democrat, you're not fit to be president with zero experience, an impending (at the time) lawsuit for fraud, and a history of bragging about sexual assault. Again, at its core it's not a republican/democrat issue, it's a common decency issue. I really don't see how that's hard to understand for people.


----------



## The Absolute

@AryaDark @Beatles123 @CamillePunk @deepelemblues @DesolationRow @Goku @L-DOPA @Miss Sally @Neuron @RipNTear @Rowdy Yates @Vic Capri @virus21 

Beau Willimon, the creator of Netflix's House of Cards, has released what appears to be the official manifesto of the anti-Trump movement. Hold onto your hats - it's a lot to take in:



> DECLARATION OF RESISTANCE
> 
> When in the course of American history it becomes necessary for the people to save our Nation from a Tyrant, to safeguard equality for all and their inalienable rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness from bigotry and corruption, to ensure that our Government continues [to] derive its power from the consent of the governed rather than by autocracy, that whenever any President becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to make such demands upon their Congress: Immediate impeachment of the President for crimes committed, or removal from office by way of the 25th Amendment to the Constitution.
> 
> Donald J. Trump has conducted injuries and usurpations, pursuing the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world —
> 
> He has obstructed the Laws for Naturalization of Immigrants, and illegally banned refugees in the need of safe haven.
> 
> He has continued to violate federal court orders which require the temporary cessation of this ban, thereby violating his executive oath.
> 
> He has dismissed an Attorney General for fulfilling her oath to defend the Constitution, defuing the autonomy of the Department of Justice.
> 
> He has purged the State Department of its highest level officials without any regard for a responsible continuity of State Affairs.
> 
> He has enlisted amateur ideologues — such as the white supremacist Stephen L. Bannon — to make national security decisions.
> 
> He has vowed to enact policy and legislation which clearly treat on the separation of church and state.
> 
> He has refused to remove or address conflicts of interest regarding both his own business and that of his cabinet and family.
> 
> He has hastily signed multiple Executive Orders without the advisement of Congress, policy experts, his cabinet or staff.
> 
> He has signed an Executive Order which knowingly deprives the sick of desperately needed healthcare with no concern for their lives.
> 
> He has signed an Executive Order permitting a pipeline that tramples on Native American Rights and endangers safe water supply.
> 
> He has illegally threatened to cut off funding to Sanctuary Cities which have determined their values through self-governance.
> 
> He has knowingly, repeatedly and egregiously misled the public, and directed his staff to do the same.
> 
> He has strongly advocated for the silencing and suppression of a Free Press.
> 
> He has repeatedly and consistently shown contempt for people based [on] race, ethnicity, gender, sexual identity and religion.
> 
> He has shown disdain and disregard for the judiciary, and the fundamental human rights that are the foundation of justice.
> 
> A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. We shall Resist until our Congress uses the mechanisms afforded to [it] by the Constitution to remove this Tyrant from Power. And for the support of this Declaration we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our Honor.
> 
> Signed. The Resistance


----------



## RavishingRickRules

The Absolute said:


>


Surely that can't achieve anything though even if they were to attempt to raise those points "officially" right? (Genuine question from a non-American, I have no idea how that sort of thing would work out there.) Like you can't simply raise a few points and demand that the President be removed surely?


----------



## The Absolute

RavishingRickRules said:


> Surely that can't achieve anything though even if they were to attempt to raise those points "officially" right? (Genuine question from a non-American, I have no idea how that sort of thing would work out there.) Like you can't simply raise a few points and demand that the President be removed surely?


No it doesn't work like that here. I think the "Declaration" was more about galvanizing and solidifying the anti-Trump movement. "The Resistance" could be a more unified coalition if they agreed on a list of demands worth fighting for.


----------



## Reaper

RavishingRickRules said:


> Surely that can't achieve anything though even if they were to attempt to raise those points "officially" right? (Genuine question from a non-American, I have no idea how that sort of thing would work out there.) Like you can't simply raise a few points and demand that the President be removed surely?


Senate and Congress will simply "nuke" the opposition however but if there's something unconstitutional and illegal, the Supreme Court will stop it. There were plenty of lawsuits already brought up against the travel ban and since it's not illegal or unconstitutional, the courts cannot and will not stop it. 

In any case, no matter whether Trump gets impeached or not, the government is firmly in the hands of the Republicans for the next 4 years. Dems are not getting it back. They're simply too short-sighted/ignorant to realize that if they remove Trump, they'll have to deal with at least 2 dozen republicans before a democrat can see office in the next 4 years. 

Also, the more the liberals do this, the more fence-sitters and independents they're losing. Independents are the ones that make the most well researched and well thought out decision with their vote. They're not swayed by the whinging of the left. They're the ones that see both sides and at this point, Trump has done absolutely nothing to piss them off at all. He's seen as the guy who's fulfilling his campaign promises and even they disagree with the orders, they see it as the work of an honest man. 

Trump's approval rating is in the high 50's right now. 50 of americans (including 50% of the independents) support Trump's travel ban and other policies. The stock market is booming and there were over 227k new jobs created in January (which is 50k more than expectations). 

America is in great shape right now and Trump whether deserving of the credit or not is the person who's in charge. The person in charge whether responsible or not gets the credit. America is firmly a republican country now and it's going to stay that way for at least 4 years, and very possibly more if things continue to improve. More independents are moving right than left at this point and more leftists are abandoning the democrats than republicans.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

RipNTear said:


> Senate and Congress will simply "nuke" the opposition however but if there's something unconstitutional and illegal, the Supreme Court will stop it. There were plenty of lawsuits already brought up against the travel ban and since it's not illegal or unconstitutional, the courts cannot and will not stop it.
> 
> In any case, no matter whether Trump gets impeached or not, the government is firmly in the hands of the Republicans for the next 4 years. Dems are not getting it back. They're simply too short-sighted/ignorant to realize that if they remove Trump, they'll have to deal with at least 2 dozen republicans before a democrat can see office in the next 4 years.
> 
> Also, the more the liberals do this, the more fence-sitters and independents they're losing.
> 
> Trump's approval rating is in the high 50's right now. 50 of americans (including 50% of the independents) support Trump's travel ban and other policies. The stock market is booming and there were over 227k new jobs created in January (which is 50k more than expectations).
> 
> America is in great shape right now and Trump whether deserving of the credit or not is the person who's in charge. The person in charge whether responsible or not gets the credit.


I swear the media is bonkers. I straight up read an article earlier that said around 52% of Americans wanted Obama back in power with only 43% happy with Trump so far lol. 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...cy-polling-muslim-ban-obamacare-a7560256.html


----------



## Reaper

RavishingRickRules said:


> I swear the media is bonkers. I straight up read an article earlier that said around 52% of Americans wanted Obama back in power with only 43% happy with Trump so far lol.
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...cy-polling-muslim-ban-obamacare-a7560256.html


Yeah, non-Americans right now are not getting any real news at all. I feel for you guys seriously because of how badly you were misled during the campaign and they're still not letting up. 

The approval rating I've quoted is from Rasmussen Reports. I would disregard sources like CNBC, CNN and Gallup (as they're the ones with the 40% figure) who've clearly proven throughout the Campaign Trail that their polling is completely and utterly messed up and totally unreliable. Probably something terribly wrong with their samples. 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/ <--- I pretty much pick the outlier now after the shit they pulled during 2016. 

Isn't there any alternative media in UK at this point?


----------



## RavishingRickRules

RipNTear said:


> Yeah, non-Americans right now are not getting any real news at all. I feel for you guys seriously because of how badly you were misled during the campaign and they're still not letting up.
> 
> The approval rating I've quoted is from Rasmussen Reports. I would disregard sources like CNBC, CNN and Gallup who've clearly proven throughout the Campaign Trail that their polling is completely and utterly messed up and totally unreliable. Probably something terribly wrong with their samples.
> 
> Isn't there any alternative media in UK at this point?


Tbh if you mean people like Breitbart I wouldn't read it anyway, the amount of times I've seen one of their stories be exposed as flat out falsehoods doesn't instil much confidence in them at all if I'm honest. (The bullshit report of hundreds of Muslims burning down a church in Germany comes to mind. Generally our media is fine as long as it's not reporting what's reported in your media as long as you avoid the Sun, the Daily Mail and the Express who all post as many retractions as they do articles. I tend to read across the spectrum to get a better picture, The Guardian and the Independent left of centre, Times and Telegraph right of centre, Financial Times as the more centrist viewpoint.


----------



## Reaper

RavishingRickRules said:


> Tbh if you mean people like Breitbart I wouldn't read it anyway, the amount of times I've seen one of their stories be exposed as flat out falsehoods doesn't instil much confidence in them at all if I'm honest. (The bullshit report of hundreds of Muslims burning down a church in Germany comes to mind. Generally our media is fine as long as it's not reporting what's reported in your media as long as you avoid the Sun, the Daily Mail and the Express who all post as many retractions as they do articles. I tend to read across the spectrum to get a better picture, The Guardian and the Independent left of centre, Times and Telegraph right of centre, Financial Times as the more centrist viewpoint.


Fair enough. 

I get my news mainly from the RealClear daily aggregate because they report based on issues and then pick news directly from the left-most view and right under it will have a right-most counter in order to get a clearer picture of what's going on. 

I've also got a couple of very decent FB groups now: Unbiased America and We Are Capitalists that put out news that's more about facts than commentary. 

I think we're going to have to ignore polling data for a while because it's lost its credibility over the last year though.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

RipNTear said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> I get my news mainly from the RealClear daily aggregate because they report based on issues and then pick news directly from the left-most view and right under it will have a right-most counter in order to get a clearer picture of what's going on.
> 
> I've also got a couple of very decent FB groups now: Unbiased America and We Are Capitalists that put out news that's more about facts than commentary.
> 
> I think we're going to have to ignore polling data for a while because it's lost its credibility over the last year though.


I'll have to check out RealClear that sounds like a decent resource. I can't be fucked with Facebook in general if I'm honest, just too much spam and nonsense memes for me. I'm also not THAT interested in what the people I know are doing 24/7 haha. I used it more like an SMS service for people I know in other countries. And yeah polling has definitely been off recently, especially with the obvious bias in a lot of people who even respond to polls in the first place.


----------



## glenwo2

Alkomesh2 said:


>


Is this supposed to be funny? Sarcastic? what? :aries2


----------



## glenwo2

King-of-the-World said:


> Draft dodging and not paying your taxes is American now? I don't care whether somebody is Republican or Democrat, I'd say the same about anybody.
> 
> Republican or Democrat, you're not fit to be president with zero experience, an impending (at the time) lawsuit for fraud, and a history of bragging about sexual assault. Again, at its core it's not a republican/democrat issue, it's a common decency issue. I really don't see how that's hard to understand for people.


First off, you tried speaking for EVERYONE when you said "EVERYBODY knows that Trump is UN-AMERICAN" which was wrong because you *DON'T* speak for everyone. :quite

Secondly, you didn't specify your reasons as to WHY you think Trump is Un-American(until this post you created above) so I had to respond with what anyone's reasonable reaction would be to this out-of-nowhere statement. :shrug


And finally, all of what you said is pretty bad for a President to have but in my opinion(and this is just my opinion), Hilary would of been just as bad, if not worse. But I don't want to get into that because all those issues that Trump has(according to you) don't matter at this point : He's our President, like it or not.


----------



## Unorthodox

All these Trump marks probably listened to Alex Jones on Joe rogans podcast and believed every word he was saying.


----------



## amhlilhaus

RavishingRickRules said:


> I swear the media is bonkers. I straight up read an article earlier that said around 52% of Americans wanted Obama back in power with only 43% happy with Trump so far lol.
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...cy-polling-muslim-ban-obamacare-a7560256.html


With polls its easy to mislead.

Also, its quite apparent people lie to pollsters. 

Obamas approval ratings were quite high, yet his succesor who promised to be obamas 3rd term lost.

On a personal note, one job i worked did a survey (poll) of have you been sexually harrassed at work? 80% said yes, with a group of guys who would fight at the drop of a hat if anyone made the slightest comment to them.


----------



## Marv95

King-of-the-World said:


> Republican or Democrat, you're not fit to be president with zero experience


Grant, Taylor and Eisenhower(tho he served in the military) had no experience.


> bragging about sexual assault


We've had presidents throughout history who've said and _done_ worse before and after being elected.


----------



## glenwo2

Unorthodox said:


> All these Trump marks probably listened to Alex Jones on Joe rogans podcast and believed every word he was saying.


All these Trump marks probably have no fucking clue who Alex Jones is nor do they listen to Joe Rogan's podcast. :shrug

I don't need to listen to anyone to convince me that *Trump is doing a solid job thus far as President. *


Now....commence the bashing at the bolded comment. :lol :lol :lol


----------



## amhlilhaus

Democrats are fucked. Their temper tantrums, along with trump fulfilling his campaign promises will be a double whammy. 

Even if the left is motivated to vote next time, what would that mean? Theyre clustered in urban areas, and it would be a repeat of last time: win the popular vote, lose the electoral college. 

Some adult is going to have to straighten them out, but im thinking theyre so blinded by hate nothing will help them.


----------



## ShiningStar

CamillePunk said:


> It's Milo, not Milos.
> 
> Cite where he encouraged people to threaten and perform criminal acts. This is news to me.


He encouraged his supporters to send death threats,and hack the website of Leslie Jones where his fans have stolen/posted personal info of her including ss number,phone number and nude photos. If a non famous person like us were behind something like that we would be in jail.


----------



## virus21

> Rosie O’Donnell, Amy Schumer, Miley Cyrus and George Clooney are part of a group of celebrities calling for a total Hollywood strike “until Trump resigns”.
> 
> A group of liberal Hollywood celebrities are threatening a “massive, all-round Hollywood strike” unless Donald Trump resigns. Describing Hollywood as “the base of the entire modern American culture“, the group also claims to be speaking on behalf of “all of humanity.”
> 
> “It’s about time people understood that we’re the ones with the power and that the president is there to serve us, not the other way around“, a spokesperson for the group told The New York Times.
> 
> “We’re calling for a general strike that would include every single person involved in making motion pictures in Hollywood, starting with the actors and celebrities themselves and encompassing companies in charge of making props, movie memorabilia and even souvenir shops.”
> 
> Spinzon reports: Rosie O’Donnell, Debra Messing, Ed Asner and Michael Shannon are among the dozens of artists, entertainers, and activists who have attached their names to an effort calling for a month-long protest to stop President-elect Donald Trump.
> 
> “No! In the Name of Humanity We Refuse to Accept a Fascist America!” reads a full-page ad placed in the New York Times on Wednesday by the group Refuse Racism. “Donald Trump, the President-elect, is assembling a regime of grave danger,” the ad says.
> 
> “Millions of people in the US and around the world are filled with deep anxiety, fear and disgust. Our anguish is right and just. Our anger must now become massive resistance – before Donald Trump is inaugurated and has the full reins of power in his hands.”
> 
> Other Hollywood celebrities who have also joined the campaign, however, are calling for an all-out strike that would span the entire movie industry in the hopes that such a move would urge the President-elect to resign from his position as the newly elected President of the United States.
> 
> “We’re calling for a general strike that would include every single person involved in making motion pictures in Hollywood, starting with the actors and celebrities themselves and encompassing companies in charge of making props, movie memorabilia and even souvenir shops,” a spokesperson for the Refuse Racism group told The New York Times. “It’s about time people understood that we’re the ones with the power and that the president is there to serve us, not the other way around.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asked to elaborate on why the group is targeting Hollywood out of all the industries in the country as their bargaining chip, the spokesperson argued that Hollywood “is, simply put, the base of the entire modern American culture. It is the foundation of the country, so to speak, the glue that’s holding it together. And think about what happens when you destroy the foundation of a house. It comes crashing down, right? Well, that’s exactly what’s going to happen to America unless Donald Trump realizes how real the danger of that actually is, and chooses to step down as President of his own free will. And while we’re on the subject, between you and me – nobody wants Hollywood to stop doing its thing, but this is a necessary move.”
> 
> “Besides, it’s not like the billionaire-businessman-turned-president hasn’t ventured into movies in his day, right? So, he’ll understand firsthand what’s going to happen if Hollywood goes to strike. Without the work of Hollywood and the lifestyle promoted by it, there will literally be no more America to rule for Trump. So, in effect, it’s not us that are going to force Donald Trump to resign his office; it’s the people of America who are going to make him do it, because the God’s honest truth is – without Hollywood, there is no America. It’s like trying to run Nazi Germany without Hitler at the forefront – it just becomes pointless,” the spokesperson concluded.


http://dailyeb.com/index.php/2017/01/28/celebrities-call-total-hollywood-strike-trump-resigns/


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Lol what? Is Hollywood really THAT important to the US economy that shutting it down for a month would cause huge problems? This one really stinks of famous people thinking WAY too much about themselves :lmao


----------



## MrMister

This can't be real. If it is :lmao If it's not :lmao


----------



## Kabraxal

What in the fuck? Hollywood... that is the reason America is turning on your out of touch insane asses. Grow the fuck up you deluded pieces of shit.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

http://www.snopes.com/hollywood-strike-trump-resigns/ Seems the "right" is just as guilty of "fake news"  lol (would've been hilarious if that was real though)


----------



## Pratchett

Edit: Relieved by exposure of fake news.


----------



## Reaper

The only people who watch the vast majority of these people are already in their echo chamber so even if this was true they'd only hurt their fans :lmao


----------



## virus21

Egg on my face then. Considering these people threatened to move to Canada if Trump won, it wouldn't be far fetched


----------



## RavishingRickRules

RipNTear said:


> The only people who watch the vast majority of these people are already in their echo chamber so even if this was true they'd only hurt their fans :lmao


My first thought was actually the non-celebrities in the industry. A month-long strike is fine when you're a multi-millionaire, less so if you're a minimum wage cinema or gift shop worker. I'd imagine if this had been true those celebrities wouldn't be covering the loss of a months wages...


----------



## Vic Capri

> He encouraged his supporters to send death threats,and hack the website of Leslie Jones where his fans have stolen/posted personal info of her including ss number,phone number and nude photos. If a non famous person like us were behind something like that we would be in jail.


Fake news. That's not why Milo was banned.








> Democrats are fucked. Their temper tantrums, along with trump fulfilling his campaign promises will be a double whammy.
> 
> Even if the left is motivated to vote next time, what would that mean? Theyre clustered in urban areas, and it would be a repeat of last time: win the popular vote, lose the electoral college.
> 
> Some adult is going to have to straighten them out, but im thinking *theyre so blinded by hate* nothing will help them.


That's exactly what it is. If Obama does something, he's held in high regard. If Trump does the same damn thing, he's The Devil. The hypocrisy of the left is pure insanity!



> Lol what? Is Hollywood really THAT important to the US economy that shutting it down for a month would cause huge problems? This one really stinks of famous people thinking WAY too much about themselves


Lindsay Lohan is the ONLY celebrity that was a person of their word and moved out of the country after the election.



> Signed. The Resistance












- Vic


----------



## KingCosmos

Marv95 said:


> Grant, Taylor and Eisenhower(tho he served in the military) had no experience.
> 
> 
> We've had presidents throughout history who've said and _done_ worse before and after being elected.


This is like saying "Well he beat you horribly, but at least he didn't stab you". How about not accepting either. If you like Trump cool whatever but don't look at something bad and say WELL LOOK THEY DID SOMETHING EVEN MORE WRONG.


----------



## glenwo2

KingCosmos, all I know is that Hollywood sucks. 

The End.


----------



## FriedTofu

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/827715246135574530
This dude really wants to start WW3...


----------



## deepelemblues

The Absolute said:


> @AryaDark @Beatles123 @CamillePunk @deepelemblues @DesolationRow @Goku @L-DOPA @Miss Sally @Neuron @RipNTear @Rowdy Yates @Vic Capri @virus21
> 
> Beau Willimon, the creator of Netflix's House of Cards, has released what appears to be the official manifesto of the anti-Trump movement. Hold onto your hats - it's a lot to take in:


:heston



> This dude really wants to start WW3...


nobody's going to war over having to pay more customs duties and tariffs. nobody's fucking with the US navy anyway. for all the money china has spent on its navy in the last 30 years it's still like 20% as strong as the US navy at best. and nobody else in the world even comes close to having the navy china has.


----------



## FriedTofu

deepelemblues said:


> :heston
> 
> 
> 
> nobody's going to war over having to pay more customs duties and tariffs. nobody's fucking with the US navy anyway. for all the money china has spent on its navy in the last 30 years it's still like 20% as strong as the US navy at best. and nobody else in the world even comes close to having the navy china has.


People also said nobody is going to vote for a charlatan as president over trade deals and closed factories too...


----------



## glenwo2

FriedTofu said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/827715246135574530
> This dude really wants to start WW3...


The fuck are you talking about?

If the countries are doing this, why the hell should we continue to be taken advantage of then? :shrug


And no. There's not going to be WW3 because of taxes, tariffs, and all that shit. 

Come on now. That's just silly. :lmao :lmao :lmao


----------



## King-of-the-World

glenwo2 said:


> First off, you tried speaking for EVERYONE when you said "EVERYBODY knows that Trump is UN-AMERICAN" which was wrong because you *DON'T* speak for everyone. :quite
> 
> Secondly, you didn't specify your reasons as to WHY you think Trump is Un-American(until this post you created above) so I had to respond with what anyone's reasonable reaction would be to this out-of-nowhere statement. :shrug
> 
> 
> And finally, all of what you said is pretty bad for a President to have but in my opinion(and this is just my opinion), Hilary would of been just as bad, if not worse. But I don't want to get into that because all those issues that Trump has(according to you) don't matter at this point : He's our President, like it or not.


"So tired of the Liberal vs Conservative / Democrat vs Republican argument whenever somebody questions Trump's actions. Trump has always been and will continue to be UN-AMERICAN. I'm sure for many, Trump himself is a bipartisan problem."

I didn't say that everybody thinks he's Un-American. I definitely know not everybody thinks that. He has many staunch supporters. I didn't say why he was "un-american" because I wasn't intending on getting into a debate, rather, I was making a passing statement. 

I don't disagree that he's our president, and I totally accept that, as depressing a prospect as it is. I also agree with you that Hilary was an awful candidate herself. I will personally always make my judgement on politics based on the candidates, never on the party. All I was suggesting with my post, was that regardless of which political party you favor, surely it's clear that Trump is a disgrace to the country, and every president who has dedicated their lives to serving us. Again, regardless of party I respect almost every president we've ever had, for their incredible sacrifice.


----------



## King-of-the-World

Marv95 said:


> Grant, Taylor and Eisenhower(tho he served in the military) had no experience.
> 
> 
> We've had presidents throughout history who've said and _done_ worse before and after being elected.


Grant was a general in the army, working with Lincoln. Taylor was an officer. As you mentioned, Eisenhower had a vast array of experience in the military. They all had proven backgrounds in leadership roles. I'd also argue that today, there is more of an expectation for our presidential candidates to have vast amounts of experience in politics. Look how Obama was frowned upon because of his lack of experience..

I'm not trying to argue, i genuinely don't know and i'm curious - what other presidents have done worse things than fraud and encouraging sexual assault?


----------



## stevefox1200

Mattis has quickly become Trump's fireman

Trump pisses off world leaders over the phone and Mattis flies in the next day and says "don't worry, the alliance is still on and your new jets and missile shield will be here next Monday" 

you should have ran Mattis, you would have won


----------



## glenwo2

^ It's going to come to a point where the Countries that get pissed off are going to be apathetic to Trump and say "yeah...that's nice. So when's Mattis coming by again?" :lol


But Mattis, seriously, has been pretty invaluable thus far.


----------



## Vic Capri

> And no. There's not going to be WW3 because of taxes, tariffs, and all that shit.
> 
> Come on now. That's just silly.


These are the same people that wanted Hillary, who was being hostile to Russia before the rigged election accusations, back in The White House. According to liberals, we should keep our nukes pointed at each other.

- Vic


----------



## Rick Sanchez

Rosie O'Donnell and Amy Schumer not working would be sad...said no one ever.


----------



## glenwo2

^ Didn't even know Rosie O'Donnell was still relevant.

Oh wait. She isn't.


----------



## FriedTofu

glenwo2 said:


> The fuck are you talking about?
> 
> If the countries are doing this, why the hell should we continue to be taken advantage of then? :shrug
> 
> 
> And no. There's not going to be WW3 because of taxes, tariffs, and all that shit.
> 
> Come on now. That's just silly. :lmao :lmao :lmao


It is more about it being the first domino that damages the world economy and the impact of destabilising countries that they elect their versions of Trump that could lead to wars. :shrug



Vic Capri said:


> These are the same people that wanted Hillary, who was being hostile to Russia before the rigged election accusations, back in The White House. According to liberals, we should keep our nukes pointed at each other.
> 
> - Vic


According to General Flynn China and North Korea are allies with jihadists. :shrug

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...us-president-special-counsellor-a7556546.html

Steven Bannon thinks so too.


----------



## stevefox1200

It has only been a day but I love mediabiasfactcheck.com

It used to be on this forum I would see news story and after news story but now I can just drop the source in that site and see "Oh The independent is a left leaning site that is owned by a Russian oligarch" or "Oh, the daily mail is fucking retarded"


----------



## CamillePunk

ShiningStar said:


> He encouraged his supporters to send death threats,and hack the website of Leslie Jones where his fans have stolen/posted personal info of her including ss number,phone number and nude photos. If a non famous person like us were behind something like that we would be in jail.


Why can no one ever cite anything when I ask them to back up their bullshit? :lol If you DON'T KNOW specifically what the fuck you're talking about, SAY NOTHING. How hard is it not to be a windbag?


----------



## DOPA

RipNTear said:


> Yeah, non-Americans right now are not getting any real news at all. I feel for you guys seriously because of how badly you were misled during the campaign and they're still not letting up.
> 
> The approval rating I've quoted is from Rasmussen Reports. I would disregard sources like CNBC, CNN and Gallup (as they're the ones with the 40% figure) who've clearly proven throughout the Campaign Trail that their polling is completely and utterly messed up and totally unreliable. Probably something terribly wrong with their samples.
> 
> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/ <--- I pretty much pick the outlier now after the shit they pulled during 2016.
> 
> Isn't there any alternative media in UK at this point?





RavishingRickRules said:


> Tbh if you mean people like Breitbart I wouldn't read it anyway, the amount of times I've seen one of their stories be exposed as flat out falsehoods doesn't instil much confidence in them at all if I'm honest. (The bullshit report of hundreds of Muslims burning down a church in Germany comes to mind. Generally our media is fine as long as it's not reporting what's reported in your media as long as you avoid the Sun, the Daily Mail and the Express who all post as many retractions as they do articles. I tend to read across the spectrum to get a better picture, *The Guardian* and the Independent left of centre, Times and Telegraph right of centre, Financial Times as the more centrist viewpoint.


The Guardian are the left wing version of the mail, posting sensationalist news with real social justice warrior perspectives. Avoid them like the plague. The Independent are much better if you want a left wing perspective, they've actually written many articles I agree with.

The Telegraph are also great despite what the left wingers will tell you, The Times obviously and The FT are a given because they are very much facts and data based.

The rest is accurate though, I don't think the Express are as bad as the other two but they do post some sensationalized news around the EU....and that's coming from a Brexit voter :lol.

I'd say the top three worst papers if you don't count trash like the Daily Star are The Sun, The Mail and The Guardian. I'd be even tempted to say the Guardian are worse than the Mail now, they are that bad.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

stevefox1200 said:


> "Oh, the daily mail is fucking retarded"


This one is very important to remember (also add The Daily Express and the Sun to that list) these guys are terrible with the number of flat-out bullshit stories they publish and notorious for posting grudging retractions when they get caught out. For British newspapers on the right I usually read the Times and the Telegraph. For my money probably the "best" British paper is the Financial Times which sits fairly central with I'd say a slight conservative leaning. The FT definitely seems to be a lot more unbiased than either the Guardian/Independent on the left and the Times/Telegraph on the right. Just always avoid the Mail, Express, Sun, Mirror and Daily Star which are all worthless.


----------



## BruiserKC

http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/02/trump-vetting-executive-order-immigration-000293

Interesting article...it mentions a part of the executive order that hasn't really been talked about. It refers to a “uniform screening standard and procedure” as part of the “adjudication process for immigration benefits”. Makes sense...but what this does would put EVERYONE under the exact same screening procedure whether they are looking to work here as an officer in a Fortune 500 company or they want to just visit Six Flags. This could potentially mean though a long, drawn out vetting process that has some believing it would not only curtail illegal immigration, but legal immigration and also possibly tourism. 

I have said all along our immigration system is an absolute mess and needs to be revamped. However, it turns out that this order, while put out there quickly to address the situation right away, was hastily written and just thrown out there to say that something was done without really thinking this through. I am in favor of immigration reform, I would have gone even further then most here to say that we should shut down ALL immigration temporarily to get this figured out. At least a temporary ban on all immigration would have meant that there is no interpretations of discrimination. But we need to be smart about this and really put some thought into this to make sure the process is fair and done in a timely fashion. I don't know if you need to have the same vetting process for someone who wants to visit Disney World as opposed to someone who wants to study nuclear physics. 

I am impressed that Trump did make a statement on the White House website regarding this, which to be honest he needed to do all along. It's not enough to just make these orders, you need to explain them to the American people. Will some people still not go along with it no matter what? Absolutely, but you have to put it out there and explain why you're doing it and what the benefits are. That's called being a leader.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...er-donald-trump-immigration-ban-a7562406.html

So Washington, Minnesota, New York and Virginia have apparently all taken some form of legal action against the President? Is that a "normal" thing to happen or is it pretty uncommon? Also do those lawsuits pose any real threat to the administration or is that more of a protest action? Just trying to get a bearing on the actual situation at hand and not rely on the media coverage. If a judge has the power to block executive orders, could they do this throughout the term to hinder plans? Doesn't seem like a healthy political situation from an outsider's perspective.


----------



## glenwo2

A U.S. Judge enacted a Temporary ban on the TRAVEL BAN recently citing that "no one is above the law; not even the President" 

The President was rightly pissed at this(see twitter) and the U.S. Justice Department will take this to court to get an Emergency stay on this *STUPID-AS-FUCK * decision.


The question I have to ask is if "No one is above the law", is a U.S. Judge above the PRESIDENT? 

I mean this U.S. judge isn't even in the Supreme Court. :shrug



(I foresee this fucktard to suffer the same fate as that now-EX Attorney General.)


----------



## RavishingRickRules

That was part of what I was asking I guess. Are the judges above the President? If the courts can be used to oppose the orders of the head of state with no way of stopping them is that not a position that could escalate and cause further chaos?


----------



## glenwo2

^ IMO, only the SCOTUS has just about the EQUAL AUTHORITY that the President has. So they can reject any laws/orders that POTUS puts out there.

Any Judge NOT in the SCOTUS has no such authority, imo.


So I think this crappy judge will eventually be getting the heave-ho like that Attorney General real soon(just as soon as the Emergency Stay is enacted)


----------



## TomahawkJock

Crappy judge that was appointed by Bush and approved unanimously by the Republican senate at the time.

"So-Called Judge" whatever the fuck that means. If he's a so called judge, then Trump is a so called President.


----------



## validreasoning

RavishingRickRules said:


> That was part of what I was asking I guess. Are the judges above the President? If the courts can be used to oppose the orders of the head of state with no way of stopping them is that not a position that could escalate and cause further chaos?


Executive orders are nowhere near as important as people make them out to be. Until they are signed into law they don't hold much value and can be easily challenged.

Remember Obama signed an executive order to close Gitmo on his second day in office back in 2009...


----------



## Marv95

TomahawkJock said:


> Crappy judge that was appointed by Bush and approved unanimously by the Republican senate at the time.
> 
> "So-Called Judge" whatever the fuck that means. If he's a so called judge, then Trump is a so called President.


Who cares if Dubya appointed him? He was a globalist. Don't act as if Trump is pals with the McCains, Bushes and Grahams of the world.

This "so-called judge" who sided with BLM over the police, who was just playing an activist when he wrote this order, forgot to include expiration dates. The TRO is now a preliminary injunction that can be overturned. If Trump prevails all those who boarded flights from these countries can be turned away at the airports. Oh well.


----------



## wwe9391

I really would like to know how many liberals think Trump will get impeached cause that not gonna happen lol


----------



## glenwo2

validreasoning said:


> Executive orders are nowhere near as important as people make them out to be. Until they are signed into law they don't hold much value and can be easily challenged.
> 
> Remember Obama signed an executive order to close Gitmo on his second day in office back in 2009...



But no one is answering my question :

Is a U.S. Judge above a President?

Or rather one that is NOT in the SCOTUS?


----------



## 2 Ton 21

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure what the judge did is legal. Now her ruling can be overturned or affirmed by the court of appeals. Their ruling can be overturned or affirmed by the Supreme Court, which is the end of the road.

*EDIT:*

*HIS* ruling.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

validreasoning said:


> Executive orders are nowhere near as important as people make them out to be. Until they are signed into law they don't hold much value and can be easily challenged.
> 
> Remember Obama signed an executive order to close Gitmo on his second day in office back in 2009...


I wasn't aware of Obama doing that tbh I'm not American hence all the questions on how it works out there. I dunno, I guess it just seems like a problem waiting to happen if the President is firing off orders on one side and the judges are counter-acting them on the other. Not a good situation no matter what side of the fence you're on.


----------



## Reaper

RavishingRickRules said:


> That was part of what I was asking I guess. Are the judges above the President? If the courts can be used to oppose the orders of the head of state with no way of stopping them is that not a position that could escalate and cause further chaos?


Only the Supreme Court.

It's fine. I don't mind this going all the way to the Supreme Court so that it's settled once and for all because at this point, a lot of legal experts have weighed in and haven't found anything illegal. Sometimes some judges will "over interpret" if they have a particular agenda and I'm starting to feel like this is one of those cases.


----------



## Stinger Fan

ShiningStar said:


> He encouraged his supporters to send death threats,and hack the website of Leslie Jones where his fans have stolen/posted personal info of her including ss number,phone number and nude photos. If a non famous person like us were behind something like that we would be in jail.


No he didn't lol . I don't even follow Milo but even I know he didn't encourage his fans. Was he a dick and insulting? Sure, but he didn't specifically encourage anyone to attack her. However, Leslie Jones on the other hand does have a past of encouraging her fans to send hate tweets to people but no one talks about it .Her twitter has tons of comments about white people also 










http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/07/20/double-standards-leslie-jones-racist-twitter-history/

I know how people feel about Breitbart but here's direct links to a lot of her tweets in regards to "white people". That doesn't excuse people attacking her though, but she does have a past


----------



## Reaper

Stinger Fan said:


> I know how people feel about Breitbart but here's direct links to a lot of her tweets in regards to "white people". That doesn't excuse people attacking her though, but she does have a past


But, I remember the lefties saying about "nazis" that if you talk shit, you get hit. So violence against Leslie Jones is perfectly justifiable as per their own standards.


----------



## glenwo2

2 Ton 21 said:


> I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure what the judge did is legal. Now her ruling can be overturned or affirmed by the court of appeals. Their ruling can be overturned or affirmed by the Supreme Court, which is the end of the road.


HER?

I thought the Judge that did this was male? They kept showing during the news report a male judge that I assumed was the guy.... 

(not that it makes a difference but still..)


----------



## Reaper

So this is trending on FB. 

Now while I don't always agree with Rush Limbaugh, he weighed in on this idea that The Statue of Liberty stands for freedom of immigration to America and butchers that idea pretty sweetly. 



> *The Statue of Liberty Has Nothing to Do with Immigration*
> 
> RUSH: It happens every time I reveal what to me is common information. I check the email, and there were a bunch of people that were shocked to learn the Statue of Liberty wasn’t about immigration. It shows you how successful left-wing-created narratives have been. Let me tell you the truth about this, as abbreviated as I can with the lack of time I’ve got. The Statue of Liberty represents Libertas, Roman goddess of Liberty. She bears a torch liberty. She bears a torch and a tabula ansata. It’s a tabula that evokes the law on which is inscribed the date of the American Declaration of Independence.
> 
> That’s what words are on the Statue of Liberty, words that commemorate July 4th, 1776. A broken chain lies at the feet of the Statue of Liberty. The Statue of Liberty had absolutely nothing to do with immigration. So why do people think that it does? Well, there was a socialist poet. (Are poets anything other than socialists and communists?) Her name was Emma Lazarus, and her poem was called The New Colossus, and it included the lines, “Give me your tired, give me your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”
> 
> That was not part of the creation of the Statue of Liberty. It was not delivered with the Statue of Liberty. It came later. The poem written by Emma Lazarus was written to help raise money for the statue’s pedestal. We had to build the pedestal, which is also a room underneath the statue. A bronze tablet bearing the Emma Lazarus poem was only put inside the pedestal in 1903. And yet there’s Lester Holt out there on NBC holding out the Statue of Liberty as a beacon to immigrants as so that’s what it was intended to be, fighting against Trump’s executive order of the weekend. They have nothing to do with immigration. Zilch.
> 
> BREAK TRANSCRIPT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RUSH: I don’t want to make too big a deal about this, but I’m a stickler for reality and detail, and I hate liberal rewrites of things because it’s lies and it’s designed to create emotions in people that cause actions which are not helpful to the country. And that’s essentially what liberalism has done is feed off of and promote emotions over thought and fact. Lester Holt last night on NBC Nightly News:
> 
> “Behind me, the Statue of Liberty, which for nearly 130 years has symbolized the welcome arms of a country of immigrants,” is how he opened the program. The NBC Nightly News. However, he said, “But tonight she also stands as a symbolic flash point in a country in the midst of soul-searching over the limits of its generosity in an age of international terrorism. It’s total BS, folks. The Statue of Liberty was given to America by the French. Even now, I run into people that didn’t know that. It was donated by the French as a tribute to liberty and freedom and independence in 1886.
> 
> It was originally intended to be delivered to celebrate the centennial of the Declaration, the American Revolution. It was supposed to arrive in 1876, but it didn’t make it. It was 10 years late, or eight years late, depending on how you look at it. It was not until 1903 that they decided they needed to build the pedestal. They needed money for it, and they commissioned that poet, Emma Lazarus, to write what she wrote, and that line, of course is, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,” and that’s all it’s taken.
> 
> That was not part of the gift.
> 
> The statue was not intended to recognize immigration. It was intended to recognize liberty and freedom. If you think they’re intertwined, don’t be misled. Here’s Madeleine Albright, the former secretary of state during the Clinton years — who stood by Bill Clinton during all of his womanizing, during all of his misogyny, during all of his reprobate behavior. Here’s Madeleine Albright standing by the guy. She was on CNN this morning. Chris Cuomo, who probably doesn’t know anything I just told you about the Statue of Liberty, said, “You’ve got the Statue of Liberty on your lapel this morning. What is the concern about the ban that you have, Madam Albright?”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ALBRIGHT: Every part of it, Chris, because what it is is… In many ways it’s anti-American and what this country stands for. It is we are a country that has been, uh, created and, uhh, populated by people from other countries, and so, uhh, the Statue of Liberty’s message is, in fact, one of which open arms and welcoming people. And, umm, I, uh, do think that there are tears in the eyes of the statue at the moment.
> 
> RUSH: No. The statue doesn’t cry. The statue is a statue. It’s made out of bronze. It doesn’t cry. There aren’t any tears coming from the eyes of the Statue of Liberty ’cause there aren’t any eyes, and the Statue of Liberty is not welcoming immigrants. What it represents is the beacon of liberty and freedom! It doesn’t say, “If you’re from a war-torn area, come on in.” We have laws that deal with that! The Statue of Liberty does not grant anybody entry into the United States of America. The Statue of Liberty does not say, “You want in? This is the way! Come right over here to Ellis Island, and we’ll send you through there.”
> 
> It’s not what it means. Now, I imagine some of you are saying, “Rush, did you get a little overboard on this?” No, folks. It may sound like I’m going a little overboard, but I’m a stickler for truth and fact here, and this is all being used to work up what is already deranged lunacy on the left. It’s fanning the flames of this stuff by furthering the misinformation and the lies that people are getting to keep that emotional flame supposedly burning in the minds and the hearts of these leftists who, in truth, are miserably unhappy.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

glenwo2 said:


> HER?
> 
> I thought the Judge that did this was male? They kept showing during the news report a male judge that I assumed was the guy....
> 
> (not that it makes a difference but still..)


Why the fuck did I write her?


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Wow, I must admit to being a little shocked that there are US citizens who thought the statue stood for immigration in the first place. I learned in primary school that the Statue was a gift from the French to symbolise the kindred spirit both nations shared in revolution on the side of freedom/liberty. I always saw it as symbol of Liberty and Democracy myself. (Fun fact: I own 2 statues of liberty, a small one I got sent by relatives in NYC and a 14" bronze replica I actually requested for my 6th birthday present  )


----------



## 2 Ton 21

RavishingRickRules said:


> Wow, I must admit to being a little shocked that there are US citizens who thought the statue stood for immigration in the first place. I learned in primary school that the Statue was a gift from the French to symbolise the kindred spirit both nations shared in revolution on the side of freedom/liberty. I always saw it as symbol of Liberty and Democracy myself. (Fun fact: I own 2 statues of liberty, a small one I got sent by relatives in NYC and a 14" bronze replica I actually requested for my 6th birthday present  )


Statue sits on Ellis island where from 1892-1954 immigrants arrived and were inspected. It was the first thing most immigrants saw when they came to America.

Then there's the bronze plaque on the inside lower level that has the Emma Lazarus poem 'The New Colossus' engraved.










These particular lines from it have become synonymous with the statue.



> Give me your tired, your poor,
> 
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> 
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> 
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
> 
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!


So those things led to the statue becoming conflated with immigration.


----------



## Reaper

2 Ton 21 said:


> So those things led to the statue becoming conflated with immigration.


If the Southerners aren't allowed to try to change what the Confederate Flag means, then Northerners should not be allowed to change what the Statue of Liberty means :draper2 

Personally, I think that the meaning of all symbols should be allowed to evolve over time, but at the same time, we should always recognize and acknowledge their original meaning.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

RipNTear said:


> If the Southerners aren't allowed to try to change what the Confederate Flag means, then Northerners should not be allowed to change what the Statue of Liberty means :draper2
> 
> Personally, I think that the meaning of all symbols should be allowed to evolve over time, but at the same time, we should always recognize and acknowledge their original meaning.


I don't think it was an intentional thing. Just over time the two got conflated, though now some are doing it in an overt way. And yes the original meaning of it needs to be preserved.

As to the confederate flag. As someone who was born, raised, and lives in Georgia, there are four different kinds of of Confederate flag supporters. People outside the south don't seem to understand that. They just jump straight to racism for all.

1. Racists who openly support the Confederacy or at least it's ideals.
2. Racists who secretly support the Confederacy, but when called on it say it's about history, legacy, and southern pride.
3. Not racist people who honestly see it as about legacy, history, and southern pride.
4. People who don't like being told what to do by outsiders. "Take down the flag!" "Fuck you! You ain't telling me to do shit!"

Of course there is overlap between those four.


----------



## Stinger Fan

RipNTear said:


> But, I remember the lefties saying about "nazis" that if you talk shit, you get hit. So violence against Leslie Jones is perfectly justifiable as per their own standards.


Leftists are the very definition of "Do as I say, not as I do"


----------



## Vic Capri

> This "so-called judge" who sided with BLM over the police, who was just playing an activist when he wrote this order, forgot to include expiration dates. The TRO is now a preliminary injunction that can be overturned. If Trump prevails all those who boarded flights from these countries can be turned away at the airports. Oh well.


I didn't know 1 federal judge had so much power to be able to affect the whole country with a decision.

- Vic


----------



## virus21




----------



## stevefox1200

RavishingRickRules said:


> This one is very important to remember (also add The Daily Express and the Sun to that list) these guys are terrible with the number of flat-out bullshit stories they publish and notorious for posting grudging retractions when they get caught out. For British newspapers on the right I usually read the Times and the Telegraph. For my money probably the "best" British paper is the Financial Times which sits fairly central with I'd say a slight conservative leaning. The FT definitely seems to be a lot more unbiased than either the Guardian/Independent on the left and the Times/Telegraph on the right. Just always avoid the Mail, Express, Sun, Mirror and Daily Star which are all worthless.


When it comes to British News there is only one source

The Sunday Sport


----------



## DesolationRow

Judge James Robart is a vile villain, yet another enduring legacy of a particularly calamitous president, George W. Bush. 

Meanwhile, cartoonists are celebrating that _Der Spiegel_ cover everywhere, except, in all likelihood, at _Charlie Hebdo._


----------



## RavishingRickRules

stevefox1200 said:


> When it comes to British News there is only one source
> 
> The Sunday Sport


Why just the Sunday edition? it's a daily newspaper lol. Some of the shit in there is HILARIOUS though, I do wonder if anyone's actually stupid enough to buy it as a regular news source. If you want ridiculous comedy and lots of breasts the Sport's your rag I guess loll

Edit: Apparently no longer daily, just mid-week, weekend and Sunday editions. Maybe we're getting smarter as a nation...loll


----------



## Reaper

DesolationRow said:


> Judge James Robart is a vile villain, yet another enduring legacy of a particularly calamitous president, George W. Bush.
> 
> Meanwhile, cartoonists are celebrating that _Der Spiegel_ cover everywhere, except, in all likelihood, at _Charlie Hebdo._


Meanwhile, I'm enjoying the irony of the Germans calling Trump a fascist where Merkel forcing down the migrant crime crisis upon germans is one of the reasons if not the primary reason why Americans support the immigration ban in the first place.

I hate to say this because this will get me accused of being an elitest. But anyone in Germany currently still being for immigration has to be declared mentally unfit and incapable of taking care of himself.



stevefox1200 said:


> When it comes to British News there is only one source
> 
> The Sunday Sport


I thought these were from Huffpo and CNN :draper2


----------



## virus21

RipNTear said:


> Meanwhile, I'm enjoying the irony of the Germans calling Trump a fascist where Merkel forcing down the migrant crime crisis upon germans is one of the reasons if not the primary reason why Americans support the immigration ban in the first place.
> 
> I hate to say this because this will get me accused of being an elitest. But anyone in Germany currently still being for immigration has to be declared mentally unfit and incapable of taking care of himself.


And she has a 66% approval rating, at least last I checked. What the actual fuck?


----------



## Reaper

virus21 said:


> And she has a 66% approval rating, at least last I checked. What the actual fuck?


It's because American alternative media and conservative media around the world has done a better job of covering German crimes than German media so much of the population of Germany remains ignorant of the crimes happening in their own country. 

Many of the rapes only got national attention after being posted directly by the victims and their families on their own social media before the german media even acknowledged that they happened.


----------



## virus21

RipNTear said:


> It's because American alternative media and conservative media around the world has done a better job of covering German crimes than German media so much of the population of Germany remains ignorant of the crimes happening in their own country.
> 
> Many of the rapes only got national attention after being posted directly by the victims and their families on their own social media before the german media even acknowledged that they happened.


Not to mention German Media and Government covering it up.


----------



## stevefox1200

RavishingRickRules said:


> Why just the Sunday edition? it's a daily newspaper lol. Some of the shit in there is HILARIOUS though, I do wonder if anyone's actually stupid enough to buy it as a regular news source. If you want ridiculous comedy and lots of breasts the Sport's your rag I guess loll
> 
> Edit: Apparently no longer daily, just mid-week, weekend and Sunday editions. Maybe we're getting smarter as a nation...loll


Best thing they ever did was writing a story about ww2 bombers on the moon and when an astronomer wrote in to say that there were no bombers on the moon they wrote a story about how the bombers disappeared and used the astronomer as a source 

real journalists, take notes


----------



## glenwo2

virus21 said:


> And she has a 66% approval rating, at least last I checked. What the actual fuck?


It's Europe. What did you expect?


----------



## Reaper

stevefox1200 said:


> Best thing they ever did was writing a story about ww2 bombers on the moon and when an astronomer wrote in to say that there were no bombers on the moon they wrote a story about how the bombers disappeared and used the astronomer as a source
> 
> real journalists, take notes


That is pure genius :ha


----------



## glenwo2

BOOM = DYNAMITE :










So someone explain to me how Trump is "above the law" like that moronic Judge(who overstepped his authority, imo) claimed.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

RipNTear said:


> It's because American alternative media and conservative media around the world has done a better job of covering German crimes than German media so much of the population of Germany remains ignorant of the crimes happening in their own country.
> 
> Many of the rapes only got national attention after being posted directly by the victims and their families on their own social media before the german media even acknowledged that they happened.


Some of it. Some of it like that Breitbart article about a huge gang of Muslims burning down a church is pure sensationalist nonsense. The problem for me is when an outlet posts such obvious falsehoods it becomes VERY hard to believe anything else they post (see your earlier comment about Huffpost for reference lol.)


----------



## Reaper

RavishingRickRules said:


> Some of it. Some of it like that Breitbart article about a huge gang of Muslims burning down a church is pure sensationalist nonsense. The problem for me is when an outlet posts such obvious falsehoods it becomes VERY hard to believe anything else they post (see your earlier comment about Huffpost for reference lol.)


Fair enough. I have Brietbart at an arm's length personally but at the same time after a while of outright denials as well as many confirmed reports of media suppression and liberals refusing to cooperate with regards to the ethnicities of their own assailants you start wondering what's true from the other side too and at that point have to decide how many reports are enough before you realize it is an epidemic. Based on everything I've read so far to me it does indicate one but I can give a little to people who havent reached that conclusion yet. However those who outright deny at this point really are on the verge of being delusional and need help.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

RipNTear said:


> Fair enough. I have Brietbart at an arm's length personally but at the same time after a while of outright denials as well as many confirmed reports of media suppression and liberals refusing to cooperate with regards to the ethnicities of their own assailants you start wondering what's true from the other side too and at that point have to decide how many reports are enough before you realize it is an epidemic. Based on everything I've read so far to me it does indicate one but I can give a little to people who havent reached that conclusion yet. However those who outright deny at this point really are on the verge of being delusional and need help.


I think for me another issue going on is that because of the sketchiness of some of the mainstream media (especially in the US - crazy) people are instantly believing the alternative press, much of which is peddling nonsense themselves. I know for a fact that Breitbart article was bullshit as I've seen the photographs of the church 100% sound and had friends in Dortmund confirm it also. So who do we believe? The outright liars or the outright liars? I dunno, I think it's very easy to be jaded by the press but I also believe that the press is an important part of democracy - it's no coincidence that the majority of dictators have either shut down the media or outright manipulated/controlled it. The problem everywhere is that much of the mainstream press (and a significant portion of the alternative press too if we're being honest) is so ridiculously biased that they resort to base sensationalism (HuffPost, Daily Mail, Breitbart, The Mirror, Daily Express etc) and people are still being lead around by the nose. It troubles me that so many people seem to run away from one set of biased press right across the fence to the biased crap being pedalled by the opposite side. It troubles me how many Americans are under the impression the whole of Europe is under-siege by Muslims (to the point some Americans tried telling me London is on it's way to Sharia Law earlier - more laughable than Trump being "literally Hitler" to anyone who's ever been to the UK) because they've read a whole mess of nonsense articles from Breitbart and co. Whereas some countries like Germany and Sweden especially are having very bad issues with the migrant crisis, those are disproportionate to the rest of EU, especially comparing to the UK. I think as faith in the press is degrading, people are also allowing themselves to be easily fooled by the alternative press simply because they're the alternative press. There are issues, of course there are, but sometimes reading the thoughts of people over there is actually hilarious with how wrong they are about the EU based on the nonsense they're reading. It makes one feel like they've stumbled on an alternate dimension sometimes with how different the reality is to the impression a lot of people in North America seem to have. I'd liken it to the way a lot of Europe right now is getting it's view on the US from regurgitated nonsense in your mainsteam media. A lot of the US citizens right now seem to be getting regurgitated nonsense from groups similar to the EDL, Britain First and other far-right muppets in the UK who claim absolute falsehoods about the state of the country (most of these peddled by trash peddlers like Breitbart.)


----------



## Beatles123

glenwo2 said:


> BOOM = DYNAMITE :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So someone explain to me how Trump is "above the law" like that moronic Judge(who overstepped his authority, imo) claimed.


was just gonna post this, beat me to it!

The judge was appointed by Dubya, so it makes sense thy'd try Cucky things to stop Trump while not knowing the law.

Let them have their fun. Gorsuch is about to make them want to kill themselves for the next thirty-odd years. They might as well have a few laughs now while they still can. :trump


----------



## MrMister

I read the judge was a Bush appointee. Pretty sure that's real life.


----------



## glenwo2

^ Reality is stranger than fiction, that's for sure. :lol


----------



## amhlilhaus

stevefox1200 said:


> When it comes to British News there is only one source
> 
> The Sunday Sport


Thank you so much for posting this! I was just about to pour popping candy under my foreskin


----------



## DOPA

BruiserKC said:


> http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/02/trump-vetting-executive-order-immigration-000293
> 
> Interesting article...it mentions a part of the executive order that hasn't really been talked about. It refers to a “uniform screening standard and procedure” as part of the “adjudication process for immigration benefits”. Makes sense...but what this does would put EVERYONE under the exact same screening procedure whether they are looking to work here as an officer in a Fortune 500 company or they want to just visit Six Flags. This could potentially mean though a long, drawn out vetting process that has some believing it would not only curtail illegal immigration, but legal immigration and also possibly tourism.
> 
> I have said all along our immigration system is an absolute mess and needs to be revamped. However, it turns out that this order, while put out there quickly to address the situation right away, was hastily written and just thrown out there to say that something was done without really thinking this through. I am in favor of immigration reform, I would have gone even further then most here to say that we should shut down ALL immigration temporarily to get this figured out. At least a temporary ban on all immigration would have meant that there is no interpretations of discrimination. But we need to be smart about this and really put some thought into this to make sure the process is fair and done in a timely fashion. I don't know if you need to have the same vetting process for someone who wants to visit Disney World as opposed to someone who wants to study nuclear physics.
> 
> I am impressed that Trump did make a statement on the White House website regarding this, which to be honest he needed to do all along. It's not enough to just make these orders, you need to explain them to the American people. Will some people still not go along with it no matter what? Absolutely, but you have to put it out there and explain why you're doing it and what the benefits are. That's called being a leader.


This is a fantastic post and once again highlights how sloppy this legislation has been written. I did not even know the implications of this provision until you shared the link provided. If it were to be applied universally in the way that the legislation has been written out, it would cause all sorts of complications and mess. It would essentially turn the US immigration system into something completely unworkable. That is why I think they wouldn't go that far at all but again, it shows how careful you have to be when writing legislation out so that there is no confusion.

As far as the temporary block by this judge is concerned, I'll have to look into it tomorrow and come to a conclusion but I do find the fact that he was appointed by Bush to be pretty hilarious :aryalol


----------



## yeahbaby!

Beatles123 said:


> was just gonna post this, beat me to it!
> 
> The judge was appointed by Dubya, so it makes sense thy'd try Cucky things to stop Trump while not knowing the law.


Cucky things?

He *legally *stop your moronic leader's hastily released, poorly drawn up rag of an EO and all of a sudden he's a cuck now?

And, pray tell? How does he 'not know the law'? He sounds a hell of a lot smarter than you or I considering his credentials.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-05/donald-trump-travel-ban-who-is-james-l-robart/8242190



> The 69-year-old judge was appointed to the bench by then-president George W Bush in 2004, *following a distinguished 30-year career in private practice that included his selection to the American College of Trial Lawyers, an honour bestowed on less than 1 per cent of lawyers.*
> 
> He is described as holding conservative legal views, has a record of helping disadvantaged children that includes fostering six of them, and dramatically declared "black lives matter" during a hearing on police reform in 2015.


Take out the part about BLM, and he sounds exactly like the sort of judge Alt Right Neo-Cons would normally love. But now that he's given Trump a slap in the face, he's 'a villain', and he doesn't know what he's doing.

This is not about Trump, it's about the law. Trump obviously didn't know what he was doing with this EO and now he's getting rightly slapped down by his own legislators. How embarrassing. But please, keep on deflecting and finding excuses.


----------



## Art Vandaley

glenwo2 said:


> ^ IMO, only the SCOTUS has just about the EQUAL AUTHORITY that the President has. So they can reject any laws/orders that POTUS puts out there.
> 
> Any Judge NOT in the SCOTUS has no such authority, imo.
> 
> 
> So I think this crappy judge will eventually be getting the heave-ho like that Attorney General real soon(just as soon as the Emergency Stay is enacted)


It was a district court appeal at first instance, the Supreme Court are too busy and don't take any cases on at first instance anymore, they effectively only have an appellate jurisdiction these days (quite different from our version which still does cases like this at first instance, but we have 7 of them for 22 Mil people and you have 9 for 300 Mil....).

As has been pointed out it can be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.

Also Judges are appointed for life, Trump can't do anything against this dude, ever.



2 Ton 21 said:


> I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure what the judge did is legal. Now her ruling can be overturned or affirmed by the court of appeals. Their ruling can be overturned or affirmed by the Supreme Court, which is the end of the road.
> 
> *EDIT:*
> 
> *HIS* ruling.


Unless the Supreme Court go 4-4 in which case the Fed Court decision will stand. Now that would be funny.



Vic Capri said:


> I didn't know 1 federal judge had so much power to be able to affect the whole country with a decision.
> 
> - Vic


District, the level below federal, and yes, that is very much how the system is designed to work.



glenwo2 said:


> BOOM = DYNAMITE :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So someone explain to me how Trump is "above the law" like that moronic Judge(who overstepped his authority, imo) claimed.


Because that's legislation, it was found "unconstitutional" on the basis of the "constitution", the constitution overrules legislation. 



yeahbaby! said:


> Cucky things?
> 
> He *legally *stop your moronic leader's hastily released, poorly drawn up rag of an EO and all of a sudden he's a cuck now?.


Aye this was Trump getting massively cucked.

.......










This list of the people Trump spoke with is hilarious for 3 reasons:
1. The Australian leader is the only one not named.
2. He is titled as President when he is actually the Prime Minister
3. 2 was almost certainly done on purpose to troll him, as he lead the Republican movement back when we last had a referendum on if we should become a republic and managed to get smashed, so you know the fact that he isn't a President must get to him.


----------



## stevefox1200

I am a Republican so don't think I am some kind of "hater" but this is exactly how checks and balances work

Trump made an order and the DOJ reviewed it and found it didn't hold up and reversed it, the judge was a republican so its not like it was some partisanship conspiracy

My main hope is that this give some comfort to all the people who are freaking out and show "hey our system does work" and not "we should shoot each other in the head and set the nearest coffee shop on fire"


----------



## BruiserKC

MrMister said:


> I read the judge was a Bush appointee. Pretty sure that's real life.





stevefox1200 said:


> I am a Republican so don't think I am some kind of "hater" but this is exactly how checks and balances work
> 
> Trump made an order and the DOJ reviewed it and found it didn't hold up and reversed it, the judge was a republican so its not like it was some partisanship conspiracy
> 
> My main hope is that this give some comfort to all the people who are freaking out and show "hey our system does work" and not "we should shoot each other in the head and set the nearest coffee shop on fire"


However, with the way things are going these days, anytime we disagree with Trump we are now seen as liberal, globalist, leftist, etc...even in the case of someone like me who is WAY further to the right then even our POTUS himself.


----------



## amhlilhaus

stevefox1200 said:


> I am a Republican so don't think I am some kind of "hater" but this is exactly how checks and balances work
> 
> Trump made an order and the DOJ reviewed it and found it didn't hold up and reversed it, the judge was a republican so its not like it was some partisanship conspiracy
> 
> My main hope is that this give some comfort to all the people who are freaking out and show "hey our system does work" and not "we should shoot each other in the head and set the nearest coffee shop on fire"


Nothing will appease them.

Anything trump does is gonna set them off.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*Another day, another L for the Trump administration. How shocking that the dumbass Fuhrer doesn't even understand the concept of checks and balances :lmao*

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/827867311054974976


----------



## FITZ

I haven't read the opinion but unless the judge that overturned is saying that the law that lets the president do this us Unconstitutional then I think Trump has a point. And off the top of my head I don't know why the statute would be unconstitutional.


----------



## DesolationRow

FITZ said:


> I haven't read the opinion but unless the judge that overturned is saying that the law that lets the president do this us Unconstitutional then I think Trump has a point. And off the top of my head I don't know why the statute would be unconstitutional.


Understatement of the CURRENT YEAR.

:trump needs to go Jacksonian on this judge! :trump


----------



## CamillePunk

Trump And The Other Countries, by Scott Adams



> Today’s news will be all about President Trump’s tense phone calls with the leaders of Australia and Mexico. The popular spin is that the president was rude and aggressive with both of them. Very unpresidential, say the critics. Maybe he is crazy! And orange! Chaos! Chaos! Chaos!
> 
> Another spin on the same observations is that both Australia and Mexico required their leaders to “stand up” to President Trump in a more aggressive way than you would expect with a normal president. I didn’t hear the details of the calls, but I have to think they were lecturing him, or talking down to him, or generally being dicks because that’s what their countries required of them in this situation. Trump just showed them what that strategy buys them.
> 
> If you see one phone call as an event that stands alone, you’re missing the story arc. Everything is an ongoing negotiation with Trump. Australia and Mexico just had to sleep on the idea that their relationship with the United States is worse today than yesterday. And it sends a signal to other leaders that lecturing President Trump with an eye toward grandstanding or embarrassing him isn’t the strongest strategy. He probably needed to make that point one way or another. That’s done. Now let’s see if the next foreign leader decides to lecture him or not. I’m thinking no.
> 
> There will be plenty of breathless commentary today about the end of civil diplomacy. What we don’t know is how it all turns out. Don’t judge a book by the first sentence. The fun is just starting.
> 
> Just to be clear, I’m sure the new administration is making plenty of rookie errors. It’s not all brilliant persuasion. But don’t assume you can tell them apart with limited information.


----------



## Goku

merkel has been plummeting in polls for a while, unfortunately the surge seems to be going to the SDP.

http://www.tagesschau.de/inland/deutschlandtrend-723.html


----------



## deepelemblues

Legit BOSS said:


> *Another day, another L for the Trump administration. How shocking that the dumbass Fuhrer doesn't even understand the concept of checks and balances :lmao*
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/827867311054974976


How shocking that the only one who doesn't understand checks and balances is you :lmao

There is nothing in the concept that says it is uncouth or taboo to disagree with a judicial order or ruling. That's why appeals exist.


----------



## FriedTofu

FITZ said:


> I haven't read the opinion but unless the judge that overturned is saying that the law that lets the president do this us Unconstitutional then I think Trump has a point. And off the top of my head I don't know why the statute would be unconstitutional.


I don't know law as much as you but I also don't see how what Trump did was unconstitutional. Would they have a better shot sticking to unreasonable harm done to citizens for going against it? But I fear after the kinks are fixed after the inital mix up with green card holders then the there is nothing to legally stop Trump's ban on immigrants from those 7 countries in the future if they use that position. :shrug


----------



## Miss Sally

This is probably the first time the "Left" are happy with a Bush appointed person.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

FITZ said:


> I haven't read the opinion but unless the judge that overturned is saying that the law that lets the president do this us Unconstitutional then I think Trump has a point. And off the top of my head I don't know why the statute would be unconstitutional.


*Because it IS unconstitutional, illegal, and baseless. NONE of the banned countries have conducted an attack on American soil between 1975 and 2015. IF American safety is the issue, then why isn't Saudi Arabia apart of the ban, considering Saudis have killed thousands of American citizens during that time period? This is straight racism and religious discrimination. It's also a strong coincidence that Middle Eastern countries linked to Trump's businesses aren't banned in spite of conducting terrorist activities: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...countries-linked-businesses-article-1.2957956 *



> President Trump’s most recent executive order effectively bans citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the U.S. for at least 90 days — *but some Muslim countries were spared from the order's blacklist, even though they have deep-seated ties to terrorism.*
> *
> Conspicuously, Trump doesn't hold any business interests in any of the countries on the list, but holds major stakes in several of those excluded from it, records show.*
> 
> Friday’s executive order, signed at the Pentagon, suspends the issuing of U.S. visas or travel permits to people from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
> *
> Not a single American was killed on U.S. soil by citizens from any of those countries between 1975 and 2015, according to statistics tallied by the conservative-leaning Cato Institute.*
> 
> 
> SAUDI ARABIA
> 
> Not much is known about Trump’s connection to the Saudis. Yet, the little bit of information that is available raises a number of questions.
> 
> Trump registered eight companies tied to hotel interests in the country shortly after launching his campaign in August 2015, according to The Washington Post. The companies were registered under such names as THC Jeddah Hotel and DT Jeddah Technical Services; company names The Post reported bore striking resemblance to ones Trump has registered in other foreign countries.
> 
> During a campaign rally in Alabama last year, Trump expressed his admiration for the Saudis.
> 
> “They buy apartment from me,” he said. “They spend $40 million, $50 million. Am I supposed to dislike them? I like them very much.”
> 
> Those comments could cock a few eyebrows, since most of the 9/11 attackers were from Saudi Arabia.
> 
> Further, a declassified U.S. intelligence report known as the “28 pages” claims the Saudi government and its wealthy citizens actively funded Muslim radicalism through mosques and charities in the U.S. around the time of 9/11 attacks. The 19 hijackers were in close contact with Saudi nationals before carrying out the terror attack, which became the worst one in U.S. history. In total, Saudi citizens killed 2,369 Americans between 1975 and 2015, according to CATO.
> 
> EGYPT
> 
> In Egypt, Trump’s business holdings are characteristically vague. His latest Federal Election Commission filing lists two companies in the country, Trump Marks Egypt and Trump Marks Egypt LLC, both of which are most likely connected to a development venture.
> 
> The State Department, meanwhile, strongly discourages Americans from traveling to Egypt since “terrorist attacks can occur anywhere” due to the presence of ISIS-affiliated groups.
> 
> *Egyptian citizens killed a total of 162 Americans between 1975 and 2015.*
> 
> UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
> 
> The Trump Organization has a licensing and management deal in Dubai for two golf courses and a whole neighborhood of luxury villas currently under construction. The second golf course was designed by Tiger Woods.
> 
> Trump has traveled frequently to the Middle Eastern nation with his daughter, Ivanka, and the two have been seen in numerous photographs over the years, playing golf and shaking hands with affluent sheiks.
> *
> While the UAE ranks as the sixth richest country in the world, a widespread presence of ISIS- and Al Qaeda- affiliated groups persists in the area and poses a serious threat to American citizens, according to the State Department.*
> 
> *“Both historical and current information suggest that the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), al-Qaida, and affiliated organizations continue to plan attacks against Western targets,”* states a safety notice on the department’s website, using alternate spellings for the groups. *A total of 314 Americans were killed by UAE citizens between 1975 and 2015, according to CATO.*
> 
> TURKEY
> 
> *Trump also currently licenses his name to two luxury towers in the Turkish metropolis of Istanbul. He received as much as $5 million from the deals last year, according to his latest financial disclosures. *Furthermore, since the election, Trump’s development partner, Dogan Sirketler Grubu Holding, has seen its shares surge by nearly 11%.
> 
> *Meanwhile, Turkey is a hotbed for terrorist activities, with the State Department issuing a travel alert advising U.S. citizens not to travel to the country because of “increased threats from terrorist groups” just this Wednesday. “An increase in anti-American rhetoric has the potential to inspire independent actors to carry out acts of violence against U.S. citizens,” the alert states.*
> 
> In addition to Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, President Trump holds extensive business interests in the Muslim majority nations of Indonesia and Azerbaijan. *Both have documented ties to Islamic terrorism — yet neither is included on the executive order's blacklist.*


*
So again, if American safety is the issue, and there's documented evidence of terrorism from these countries, then why weren't they banned? *


----------



## FriedTofu

Legit BOSS said:


> *Because it IS unconstitutional, illegal, and baseless. NONE of the banned countries have conducted an attack on American soil between 1975 and 2015. IF American safety is the issue, then why isn't Saudi Arabia apart of the ban, considering Saudis have killed thousands of American citizens during that time period? This is straight racism and religious discrimination. It's also a strong coincidence that Middle Eastern countries linked to Trump's businesses aren't banned in spite of conducting terrorist activities: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...countries-linked-businesses-article-1.2957956 *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> So again, if American safety is the issue, and there's documented evidence of terrorism from these countries, then why weren't they banned? *


I feel like taking this position is playing into Bannon's trap, taking the opposition out of context and present it to their core supporters that more needs to be done and more countries need to be added to the ban.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

FriedTofu said:


> I feel like taking this position is playing into Bannon's trap, taking the opposition out of context and present it to their core supporters that more needs to be done and more countries need to be added to the ban.


*
I can see why you'd say that, but I'm pointing this out not to encourage the other countries to be banned, but to highlight the straight lies and hypocrisy coming from this retarded administration. Thankfully, checks and balances are in place to prevent them from going full retard. Trump conspicuously excluded legitimately dangerous Middle Eastern countries from the ban because they make him money. *


----------



## FITZ

Legit BOSS said:


> *Because it IS unconstitutional, illegal, and baseless. NONE of the banned countries have conducted an attack on American soil between 1975 and 2015. IF American safety is the issue, then why isn't Saudi Arabia apart of the ban, considering Saudis have killed thousands of American citizens during that time period? This is straight racism and religious discrimination. It's also a strong coincidence that Middle Eastern countries linked to Trump's businesses aren't banned in spite of conducting terrorist activities: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...countries-linked-businesses-article-1.2957956 *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> So again, if American safety is the issue, and there's documented evidence of terrorism from these countries, then why weren't they banned? *


But what part of the Constitution does it violate? 

This is a real law. 



> Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the


What Trump did looks to be in accordance with this law. If the law is Constitutional then what he did was legal. 

And I'm not entirely sure what would be unconstitutional about this law.

Being racist doesn't make something illegal.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...t-trump-oreilly-interview-20170204-story.html










:trump2


----------



## Art Vandaley

FITZ said:


> What Trump did looks to be in accordance with this law. If the law is Constitutional then what he did was legal.
> 
> And I'm not entirely sure what would be unconstitutional about this law.
> 
> Being racist doesn't make something illegal.


For example if the class of aliens was found to be based upon religion, ie if it was a list of entirely countries with an Islamic minority and you could point to some evidence to suggest that is in fact the reason the list was picked, and that countries with say a Christian majority were to be preferred, in which case the law would be unconstitutional to the extent it allowed the President to conduct a ban such as he has on the basis of the first amendment.

Basically you can't use an otherwise constitutional law to do something unconstitutional. 

It's interesting, because the Australian constitution has basically an entirely identical freedom of religion clause, yet our High Court has read that part of our constitution into meaninglessness, whereas the American Supreme Court has been quite active in enforcing it in the past.

The classic example being the funding of Catholic schools, in the US the gov can't do it because of how the freedom of religion clause has been interpreted, yet in Australia the government can even though the words in our constitutions are basically identical.


----------



## Post-Modern Devil

glenwo2 said:


> BOOM = DYNAMITE :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So someone explain to me how Trump is "above the law" like that moronic Judge(who overstepped his authority, imo) claimed.


It needs to be emphasized that this Judges temporary order against the Trump ban can only applies to the portion of the ban that applied to the selected foreign nationals who hold visas and green card holders i.e. _those who were already vetted_. I believe that Trump's EO is fully constitutional but the idea that people who were already vetted by the US should have rights to legal representation and entry into the US is a valid issue unlike most of the idiotic entitled crap liberals whine about. 

The good news for those of us on the right is that no judiciary or legislative body including the Supreme Court and Congress can actually force the Executive Branch to hand out visas or let in refugees of any nationality the President deems too unsafe to let into the US. There's actually a very good chance that Donald Trump had quietly backlisted any of the seven countries mentioned in his EO (possibly even more Muslim countries) from receiving visas while everyone was distracted over dudes with visas and green cards being detained at airports. Its pretty funny to see liberals all hyped up over their miniscule "victory" over the Donald as if preventing something like 20 thousand guys being banned from the US would even so much as slow down his broader immigration agenda.


----------



## FITZ

Alkomesh2 said:


> For example if the class of aliens was found to be based upon religion, ie if it was a list of entirely countries with an Islamic minority and you could point to some evidence to suggest that is in fact the reason the list was picked, and that countries with say a Christian majority were to be preferred, in which case the law would be unconstitutional to the extent it allowed the President to conduct a ban such as he has on the basis of the first amendment.
> 
> Basically you can't use an otherwise constitutional law to do something unconstitutional.
> 
> It's interesting, because the Australian constitution has basically an entirely identical freedom of religion clause, yet our High Court has read that part of our constitution into meaninglessness, whereas the American Supreme Court has been quite active in enforcing it in the past.
> 
> The classic example being the funding of Catholic schools, in the US the gov can't do it because of how the freedom of religion clause has been interpreted, yet in Australia the government can even though the words in our constitutions are basically identical.


How can the president violate the 1st Amendment?



> *Congress shall make no law* respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


----------



## glenwo2

Miss Sally said:


> This is probably the first time the "Left" are happy with a Bush appointed person.


Now THIS Is funny because it's true. :lol


----------



## yeahbaby!

Miss Sally said:


> This is probably the first time the "Left" are happy with a Bush appointed person.


The first time the right have been _unhappy _with one too.


----------



## DesolationRow

yeahbaby! said:


> The first time the right have been _unhappy _with one too.


Haha, well, not quite.


----------



## Art Vandaley

FITZ said:


> How can the president violate the 1st Amendment?


Because the basis for the President making this order was an act of Congress.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

FITZ said:


> But what part of the Constitution does it violate


*The first amendment. If Congress can't make laws that encourage religious discrimination, then the courts are going to shut down executive orders that do the same. *



> This is a real law.
> 
> What Trump did looks to be in accordance with this law. If the law is Constitutional then what he did was legal.


*No, it's not. It explicitly says "detrimental to the interests of the United States." The chosen countries aren't. He exposed himself when he claimed the ban was in the interest of American safety, and that directly conflicts with the Muslim countries he left out that HAVE been a threat to American safety, simply because his businesses are linked to them, which is a conflict of interest. Since the basis of this ban is entirely racist, religiously discriminatory, there's been no precedent to suggest citizens of these countries are dangerous to American soil, and he left out citizens from countries that have committed murders on American soil, then he has no legitimate reason to enforce an executive order that directly conflicts with the Constitutional rights granted by the first amendment.*


----------



## CamillePunk

I agree. He should add every Muslim majority country to the list.


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> I agree. He should add every Muslim majority country to the list.


And Germany


----------



## yeahbaby!

And Mexicans, Latinos, anyone south of Texas you cain't trust. Pretty much anyone that isn't fair skinned and constantly kissing the American Flag.

It's the only way to be sure.


----------



## Art Vandaley

http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-...peal-filed-over-trump-s-travel-ban-block.html

So Trump's lost his interlocutory motion to have the District Court decision put on hold until the Court of Appeal have made a final decision. 

Basically it'll come down to:

1. Can Trump declare something a security threat and then do anything he feels like?

or 

2. Must he have to actually show that there was an actual security threat and it isn't enough for him to merely declare that there is such a threat?

I know in Australia the answer would definitely be 2, the gov here isn't allowed to just declare stuff and move on, they have to actually be able to prove what they are saying is true too.


----------



## amhlilhaus

Legit BOSS said:


> *The first amendment. If Congress can't make laws that encourage religious discrimination, then the courts are going to shut down executive orders that do the same. *
> 
> 
> 
> *No, it's not. It explicitly says "detrimental to the interests of the United States." The chosen countries aren't. He exposed himself when he claimed the ban was in the interest of American safety, and that directly conflicts with the Muslim countries he left out that HAVE been a threat to American safety, simply because his businesses are linked to them, which is a conflict of interest. Since the basis of this ban is entirely racist, religiously discriminatory, there's been no precedent to suggest citizens of these countries are dangerous to American soil, and he left out citizens from countries that have committed murders on American soil, then he has no legitimate reason to enforce an executive order that directly conflicts with the Constitutional rights granted by the first amendment.*


Youre forgetting one importan5 fact.

Those people ARE NOT US CITIZENS. Therefore they have no protection under the constitution.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

amhlilhaus said:


> Youre forgetting one importan5 fact.
> 
> Those people ARE NOT US CITIZENS. Therefore they have no protection under the constitution.


*And you're forgetting that 60,000 people with visas were affected by this, along with legalized citizens with green cards.*


----------



## Headliner

I think this is going to the Supreme Court. Trump's going to wait until his Supreme Court pick get confirmed. That way he will have a 5-4 conservative advantage on the Supreme Court bench in hopes of getting the victory. I'm not so sure it will happen that way though. I see all four liberals voting against Trump, and after that judge appointed by George W. Bush went against Trump, it makes me wonder if one of the five conservatives will vote against Trump which would ultimate cause a 5-4 outcome against Trump.


----------



## Miss Sally

Headliner said:


> I think this is going to the Supreme Court. Trump's going to wait until his Supreme Court pick get confirmed. That way he will have a 5-4 conservative advantage on the Supreme Court bench in hopes of getting the victory. I'm not so sure it will happen that way though. I see all four liberals voting against Trump, and after that judge appointed by George W. Bush went against Trump, it makes me wonder if one of the five conservatives will vote against Trump which would ultimate cause a 5-4 outcome against Trump.


Quite possible, if Trump wants to avoid that then this "ban" needs to be retooled, better worded and presented. At the moment both sides are scrambling over what is what when it comes to this. it may as well be fog on a battlefield.


----------



## Art Vandaley

amhlilhaus said:


> Youre forgetting one importan5 fact.
> 
> Those people ARE NOT US CITIZENS. Therefore they have no protection under the constitution.


And what about the right of the US citizens to freedom from a state religion?


----------



## BruiserKC

Legit BOSS said:


> *Because it IS unconstitutional, illegal, and baseless. NONE of the banned countries have conducted an attack on American soil between 1975 and 2015. IF American safety is the issue, then why isn't Saudi Arabia apart of the ban, considering Saudis have killed thousands of American citizens during that time period? This is straight racism and religious discrimination. It's also a strong coincidence that Middle Eastern countries linked to Trump's businesses aren't banned in spite of conducting terrorist activities: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...countries-linked-businesses-article-1.2957956 *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> So again, if American safety is the issue, and there's documented evidence of terrorism from these countries, then why weren't they banned? *


The Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act was signed into law by Obama in December of 2015. It restricted people that had visited Iran, Sudan, Iraq, or Syria within the last five years or held dual citizenship in those nations from receiving a visa. A few months later, foreign nationals that had visited Somalia, Libya and Yemen were added to the list. So the precedent is there and Trump took the ball and ran with it. With the exception of Iran, these nations on the list do not have stable governments running the show so it is extremely difficult to be able to screen these people for entry right now with no way to corroborate who is OK and who isn't. Meanwhile, Iran's government is openly hostile towards us. 

Now...the Constitution does give our government the right to restrict people from entering the country if it is deemed necessary for our protection, security, etc. However, this is where Trump's words are coming back to bite him. One of the biggest promises Trump made during his campaign is that there would be a complete ban of Muslims entering the United States until we can find a process to thoroughly vet them. So, while this falls short of that (there are plenty of other nations that could have been added to make that happen), people remember what he said and are acting accordingly. It's a double-edged sword...Trump wants to say, "Hey, I kept my promise from the campaign!" Meanwhile, people are remembering that and are up in arms, and people like Giuliani (who basically said it was a Muslim ban) and Bannon (who firmly believes Islam is not a religion but an evil cult that should be exterminated) don't help the cause of getting TRUE immigration reform resolved.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Is it just me who finds this whole issue a bit over-blown? Like from everything I've read, if they'd just taken the time to better define the EO instead of hastily rushing it out (which never makes for effective laws/orders etc) there would have been a lot less chaos and issues. I dunno, I guess for me it seems more like a learning moment of "take your damn time next time you write one of these and get it right in the first place."


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

BruiserKC said:


> The Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act was signed into law by Obama in December of 2015. It restricted people that had visited Iran, Sudan, Iraq, or Syria within the last five years or held dual citizenship in those nations from receiving a visa. A few months later, foreign nationals that had visited Somalia, Libya and Yemen were added to the list. So the precedent is there and Trump took the ball and ran with it. With the exception of Iran, these nations on the list do not have stable governments running the show so it is extremely difficult to be able to screen these people for entry right now with no way to corroborate who is OK and who isn't. Meanwhile, Iran's government is openly hostile towards us.


*I already mentioned earlier in this thread that Obama's law targeted DUAL citizens as a response to a SPECIFIC threat. 

1. It wasn't an outright ban. 
2. There's emphasis on DUAL citizenry.

Regular citizens of those countries were still allowed in America. Blaming Obama;s law, which is completely different, is a weak cop out that Trump supporters use to justify blatant racism. Also, Iran's government is only being openly hostile towards us right now as a result of Trump's idiotic actions. They will discontinue the use of our dollar when the fiscal year begins in March, and they're banning our citizens in response to his Executive Order. The irresponsible actions that Trump commits literally every day could lead to a war. He is the one endangering America and our interests by pissing off other nations.*



> Now...the Constitution does give our government the right to restrict people from entering the country if it is deemed necessary for our protection, security, etc. However, this is where Trump's words are coming back to bite him. One of the biggest promises Trump made during his campaign is that there would be a complete ban of Muslims entering the United States until we can find a process to thoroughly vet them. So, while this falls short of that (there are plenty of other nations that could have been added to make that happen), people remember what he said and are acting accordingly. It's a double-edged sword...Trump wants to say, "Hey, I kept my promise from the campaign!" Meanwhile, people are remembering that and are up in arms, and people like Giuliani (who basically said it was a Muslim ban) and Bannon (who firmly believes Islam is not a religion but an evil cult that should be exterminated) don't help the cause of getting TRUE immigration reform resolved.


*No one who defends this crap has yet acknowledged that Trump is blatantly ignoring countries who HAVE attacked American citizens because he has business ties to them. This has nothing to do with our safety. He doesn't give a fuck about immigration reform if it's making his pockets fatter.*


----------



## Stinger Fan

Legit BOSS said:


> *I already mentioned earlier in this thread that Obama's law targeted DUAL citizens as a response to a SPECIFIC threat.
> 
> 1. It wasn't an outright ban.
> 2. There's emphasis on DUAL citizenry.
> 
> Regular citizens of those countries were still allowed in America. Blaming Obama;s law, which is completely different, is a weak cop out that Trump supporters use to justify blatant racism. Also, Iran's government is only being openly hostile towards us right now as a result of Trump's idiotic actions. They will discontinue the use of our dollar when the fiscal year begins in March, and they're banning our citizens in response to his Executive Order. The irresponsible actions that Trump commits literally every day could lead to a war. He is the one endangering America and our interests by pissing off other nations.*


People like you are so horribly hypocritical it isn't even funny anymore, its incredibly disturbing and dangerous. 

Trump's order wasn't a ban, it was a temporary halt . No where in his order does it have the word "Muslim" in it. Muslims are not a race, they are a religion people need to stop throwing around words they clearly do not understand. You didn't care about the countless bombs Obama dropped on those very same 7 countries that you're now defending, purely because it suits a political narrative right now. Isn't it quite disturbing that its perfectly acceptable to kill Muslims but not to temporarily halt immigration from a few countries? There are 50 Muslim majority countries in the world, only 7 of them have their immigration temporarily halted . There are at least 16 Muslim countries that have banned Jews from entering their country, 6 of those are actually on the list in the executive order. Why aren't you complaining about antisemitism? Where's the outrage over Muslims persecuting religious minorities in the middle east? Christians are the most persecuted religion with Muslims being the aggressor? What about Jews and Yazidis as well being killed off? And you want to talk about bigotry?

You want to talk about being hostile? What about Hillary Clinton antagonizing Russia?Had she won, she'd be going after Russia right now. What about Obama sending American troops to the border of Russia in his final days of his presidency?That is an act of aggression which could start a war. But hey, he's a democrat and they're allowed to anything according to their supporters. 

Pointing fingers gets us no where.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Stinger Fan said:


> Trump's order wasn't a ban


*And this is exactly why I don't take you seriously:*

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/826060143825666051


Stinger Fan said:


> You didn't care about the countless bombs Obama dropped on those very same 7 countries that you're now defending, purely because it suits a political narrative right now.


*Oh look, another weak "But.. but... Obama!" argument that completely deflects from everything Trump's doing. :sip*
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/01/yemen-170129101045539.html



> Medics in al-Bayda's rural Yakla district put the death toll at around 30, including 10 women and children.
> 
> The eight-year-old daughter of Anwar al-Awlaki, a US-born Yemeni preacher who was killed in a 2011 drone attack, was also among the victims, family members said.
> 
> Her grandfather Nasser al-Awlaki, a former minister of agriculture said: "she was hit with a bullet in her neck and suffered for two hours".
> 
> "Why kill children? This is the new [US] administration - it's very sad, a big crime," he told the Reuters news agency.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...n-civilians-women-children-dead-a7553121.html



> The eight-year-old daughter of a radical preacher was among a large group of civilians reportedly killed during a US dawn raid in Yemen, the first military operation overseen by Donald Trump.
> 
> Around 30 people, including 10 women and children, are thought to have been killed by American military personnel in the rural Yakla district of al-Bayda in the south of the country, according to medical staff.


----------



## SpeedStick

F,Y,I: I still don't know if Trump is real


----------



## Stinger Fan

Legit BOSS said:


> *And this is exactly why I don't take you seriously:*
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/826060143825666051
> 
> 
> *Oh look, another weak "But.. but... Obama!" argument that completely deflects from everything Trump's doing. :sip*
> http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/01/yemen-170129101045539.html
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...n-civilians-women-children-dead-a7553121.html


And Trump is using bad terminology which he should rightfully be criticized for. The executive order however, is not a ban.When you're halting immigration for a few months, its not a ban. And not only that, the president is actually within their right to do so.

It isn't about deflection, its pointing out your blatant hypocrisy, which btw you're the one doing the deflecting . There's a reason why you didn't respond to anything else. So I'll point out more of your hypocrisy and you'll deflect more



> The Obama administration’s drone and targeted killing policy will come under scrutiny at the United Nations today with a report concluding at least 400 Pakistani civilians have been killed by drone strikes over the past decade. Another 200 victims have been deemed "probable non-combatants." The report also looks at U.S. drone attacks in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen and Somalia, as well as Israel’s use of drones in Gaza. The U.N. report comes at a time when U.S. drone policy is facing unprecedented public criticism. Earlier this week, Amnesty International said some civilian drone killings in Pakistan may amount to war crimes. Human Rights Watch criticized U.S. drone strikes in Yemen. On Wednesday, Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif urged President Obama to end drone strikes in Pakistan. Ahead of unveiling his findings today at the United Nations General Assembly, Ben Emmerson, the United Nations special rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism, joins us to discuss his probe of the U.S. drone war.


https://www.democracynow.org/2013/10/25/as_us_faces_new_scrutiny_on



> Obama’s embrace and vast expansion of drone strikes against militants and terrorists will be an enduring foreign policy legacy. Whereas President George W. Bush authorized approximately 50 drone strikes that killed 296 terrorists and 195 civilians in Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia, Obama has authorized 506 strikes that have killed 3,040 terrorists and 391 civilians. (Using the average estimates provided by three non-governmental organizations.) A technology developed and matured shortly before 9/11 to kill one individual, Osama bin Laden, became the default tactic for a range of counterinsurgency and counterterrorism missions outside of traditional battlefields.


http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebat...ace-of-drone-strikes-will-be-a-lasting-legacy


https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2011/08/10/obama-2011-strikes/

But you'll ignore it and call others racist because thats your goto.


----------



## virus21




----------



## glenwo2

Miss Sally said:


> And Germany


And California since the Appeals court denied the DOJ's request for a stay on that stupid-as-fuck decision. fpalm

Perfect opportunity for those secret terror cells with FAKE VISAS to enter the U.S. and set up shop. But of course since Cali is chock-full of illegals, I shouldn't be surprised that the appeals would obstruct this also. smh.



Legit BOSS said:


> *And this is exactly why I don't take you seriously:*
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/826060143825666051
> 
> 
> *Oh look, another weak "But.. but... Obama!" argument that completely deflects from everything Trump's doing. :sip*
> http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/01/yemen-170129101045539.html
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...n-civilians-women-children-dead-a7553121.html






LEGIT, can you please explain to me why you must continue to *BOLD* every word in every friggin' post? :shrug


----------



## RavishingRickRules

glenwo2 said:


> And California since the Appeals court denied the DOJ's request for a stay on that stupid-as-fuck decision. fpalm
> 
> Perfect opportunity for those secret terror cells with FAKE VISAS to enter the U.S. and set up shop. But of course since Cali is chock-full of illegals, I shouldn't be surprised that the appeals would obstruct this also. smh.


Honestly on this point, if your border control can't pick out a fake visa or passport then you've got far bigger troubles than who may or may not be allowed to travel. One time I was travelling I had the the unfortunate experience of the hotel flooding and damaging my passport which was in my bag on the floor (never gonna leave it there again lol) and I had to go through a pretty intense interview scrutinising it as a potential fake, and that was a real passport. If people are are getting access to the US on fake visas in any real number then that might be a great place to look at getting the border control services on par with the rest of the western world.


----------



## skypod

> Obama’s embrace and vast expansion of drone strikes against militants and terrorists will be an enduring foreign policy legacy. Whereas President George W. Bush authorized approximately 50 drone strikes that killed 296 terrorists and 195 civilians in Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia, Obama has authorized 506 strikes that have killed 3,040 terrorists and 391 civilians. (Using the average estimates provided by three non-governmental organizations.)


Does Obama's ratio not sound better? Plus less American troops on the ground surely. It's a wonder why that wouldn't be praised by the Right.


----------



## glenwo2

RavishingRickRules said:


> Honestly on this point, if your border control can't pick out a fake visa or passport then you've got far bigger troubles than who may or may not be allowed to travel. One time I was travelling I had the the unfortunate experience of the hotel flooding and damaging my passport which was in my bag on the floor (never gonna leave it there again lol) and I had to go through a pretty intense interview scrutinising it as a potential fake, and that was a real passport. If people are are getting access to the US on fake visas in any real number then that might be a great place to look at getting the border control services on par with the rest of the western world.




^ I get your point but there are such things as Visa-making machines out there and I wouldn't be surprised that those 7-banned countries(including the one that's not in Saudia Arabia) would have these types of Machines to create real official-looking Visas to get in. 

And interview or not, they can't stop every single person and interview them. There will be some that slip through the cracks in this case which is why the "Ban" is so important : It would've given time to alter/change the vetting process to make it more secure.

What this fucking idiot of a judge did was basically allow potential threats to enter the country. Whatever happens(if a terrorist attack occurs here) will be on his head.

God help us all.


----------



## DOPA

People arguing in this thread:

You cannot say the immigration executive order is based solely on it being a Muslim ban and then in the same breath ask why countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE aren't banned, that immediately contradicts the idea of it being a Muslim ban because it is one of many Muslim majority countries that are on not on the list. Believe me, I've also questioned why those countries aren't on the list because yes especially in Saudi Arabia's case they present a danger being the biggest state sponsor of terrorist groups in the world.

As said ad nauseum: Christian Syrians are being turned away as well as Muslims. In a ban basically focused solely on religious discrimination that would never happen. So stop arguing with this line of thought, it is utterly embarrassing and isn't helping your cause.

Anyway, my guess is is the bill will go to the Supreme Court much like others have said.


----------



## Vic Capri

Canada has a stricter immigration system than the US!



> What this fucking idiot of a judge did was basically allow potential threats to enter the country. Whatever happens(if a terrorist attack occurs here) will be on his head.
> 
> God help us all.


Agreed. When the next terrorist attack happens, the blood is on James Robart's hands.










- Vic


----------



## skypod

Is the same argument used when any gun control bill is blocked?


----------



## glenwo2

^ Who the fuck cares about gun control at this point, skypod?

We're talking about NATIONAL SECURITY here.


----------



## samizayn

glenwo2 said:


> And interview or not, they can't stop every single person and interview them. There will be some that slip through the cracks in this case which is why the "Ban" is so important : It would've given time to alter/change the vetting process to make it more secure.
> *
> What this fucking idiot of a judge did was basically allow potential threats to enter the country. * Whatever happens(if a terrorist attack occurs here) will be on his head.
> 
> God help us all.


At the first: yes they can. And they do. Every """alien""" coming into the country gets a "who are you what are you doing here where are you going" type interview where documents are thoroughly examined (official stuff such as visas and passports as well as the needed ancilliaries,) biometrics are taken etc. It's ten to fifteen minutes per person if you're on a non-Arab passport, god forbid you're like my family and made the mistake of previously holidaying in the Emirates though. Then you get sent to the back room - it's literally all Middle Easteners - and have to wait to be further questioned, and that will take hours.

Also, not sure why you'd consider him a fucking idiot if he's far more experienced and educated than you or I.

And at the second: Trump did that on his own lol. The ban isn't thorough at all.



L-DOPA said:


> As said ad nauseum: Christian Syrians are being turned away as well as Muslims. In a ban basically focused solely on religious discrimination that would never happen. So stop arguing with this line of thought, it is utterly embarrassing and isn't helping your cause.
> 
> Anyway, my guess is is the bill will go to the Supreme Court much like others have said.


IMO it's not a Muslim ban, but the fact that President has expressed desire to give Christians preferential treatment (idk how that's meant to work if he's banning them regardless) indicates there is some kind of religious discrimination at play here.


----------



## DOPA

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/world/middleeast/iran-missile-test-trump.html?_r=0



> *Trump Embraces Pillars of Obama’s Foreign Policy*
> 
> WASHINGTON — President Trump, after promising a radical break with the foreign policy of Barack Obama, is embracing some key pillars of the former administration’s strategy, including warning Israel to curb settlement construction, demanding that Russia withdraw from Crimea and threatening Iran with sanctions for ballistic missile tests.
> 
> In the most startling shift, the White House issued an unexpected statement appealing to the Israeli government not to expand the construction of Jewish settlements beyond their current borders in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. Such expansion, it said, “may not be helpful in achieving” the goal of peace.
> 
> At the United Nations, Ambassador Nikki R. Haley declared that the United States would not lift sanctions against Russia until it stopped destabilizing Ukraine and pulled troops out of Crimea.
> 
> On Iran, the administration is preparing economic sanctions similar to those the Obama administration imposed just over a year ago. The White House has also shown no indication that it plans to rip up Mr. Obama’s landmark nuclear deal, despite Mr. Trump’s withering criticism of it during the presidential campaign.
> 
> New administrations often fail to change the foreign policies of their predecessors as radically as they promised, in large part because statecraft is so different from campaigning. And of course, today’s positions could shift over time. There is no doubt the Trump administration has staked out new ground on trade and immigration, upending relations with Mexico and large parts of the Muslim world in the process.
> 
> But the administration’s reversals were particularly stark because they came after days of tempestuous phone calls between Mr. Trump and foreign leaders, in which he gleefully challenged diplomatic orthodoxy and appeared to jeopardize one relationship after another.
> 
> Mr. Trump made warmer relations with Russia the centerpiece of his foreign policy during the campaign, and European leaders had been steeling for him to lift sanctions they and Mr. Obama imposed on President Vladimir V. Putin after he annexed Crimea. But on Thursday, Mr. Trump’s United Nations ambassador, Ms. Haley, sounded a lot like her predecessor, Samantha Power.
> 
> “We do want to better our relations with Russia,” she said in her first remarks to an open session of the United Nations Security Council. “However, the dire situation in eastern Ukraine is one that demands clear and strong condemnation of Russian actions.”
> 
> Similarly, Mr. Trump presented himself during the campaign as a stalwart supporter of Israel and criticized the Obama administration for allowing the passage of a Security Council resolution in December that condemned Israel for its expansion of settlements.
> 
> “While we don’t believe the existence of settlements is an impediment to peace,” his press secretary, Sean Spicer, said in a statement, “the construction of new settlements or the expansion of existing settlements beyond their current borders may not be helpful in achieving that goal.”
> 
> The White House noted that the president “has not taken an official position on settlement activity.” It said he would discuss the issue with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel when they meet Feb. 15, in effect telling Mr. Netanyahu to wait until then. Emboldened by Mr. Trump’s support, Israel has announced more than 5,000 new homes in the West Bank since his inauguration.
> 
> Mr. Trump shifted his policy after he met briefly with King Abdullah II of Jordan on the sidelines of the National Prayer Breakfast — an encounter that put the king, one of the most respected leaders of the Arab world, ahead of Mr. Netanyahu in seeing the new president. Jordan, with its large Palestinian population, has been steadfastly critical of settlements.
> 
> The administration’s abrupt turnaround also coincided with Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson’s first day at the State Department and the arrival of Defense Secretary Jim Mattis in South Korea on his first official trip. Both men are viewed as potentially capable of exerting a moderating influence on the president and his cadre of White House advisers, though it was unclear how much they had to do with the shifts.
> 
> With Iran, Mr. Trump has indisputably taken a harder line than his predecessor. While the Obama administration often looked for ways to avoid confrontation with Iran in its last year, Mr. Trump seems equally eager to challenge what he has said is an Iranian expansion across the region, especially in Iraq and Yemen.
> 
> In an early morning Twitter post on Thursday, Mr. Trump was bombastic on Iran. “Iran has been formally PUT ON NOTICE for firing a ballistic missile,” he wrote. “Should have been thankful for the terrible deal the U.S. made with them!” In a second post, he said wrongly, “Iran was on its last legs and ready to collapse until the U.S. came along and gave it a life-line in the form of the Iran Deal: $150 billion.”
> 
> Still, the administration has been careful not to specify what the national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, meant when he said on Wednesday that Iran had been put “on notice” for its missile test and for its arming and training of the Houthi rebels in Yemen.
> 
> The new sanctions could be announced as soon as Friday. But most experts have said they will have little practical effect, because the companies that supply missile parts rarely have direct business with the United States, and allies have usually been reluctant to reimpose sanctions after many were lifted as part of the 2015 nuclear accord.
> 
> Ali Akbar Velayati, an adviser to Iran’s supreme leader, replied, “This is not the first time that an inexperienced person has threatened Iran,” according to the semiofficial Fars news agency. “The American government will understand that threatening Iran is useless.”
> 
> Some analysts said they worried that the administration did not have tools, short of military action, to back up its warning.
> 
> “Whether the Trump administration intended it or not, they have created their own red line,” said Aaron David Miller, a senior fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. “When Iran tests again, the administration will have no choice but to put up or shut up.”
> 
> Mr. Netanyahu will cheer Mr. Trump’s tough tone with Iran. But the statement on settlements may force him to change course on a delicate domestic issue. His coalition government seemed to take Mr. Trump’s inauguration as a starting gun in a race to increase construction in occupied territory.
> 
> After Mr. Trump was sworn in, Israel announced that it would authorize another 2,500 homes in areas already settled in the West Bank, and then followed that this week by announcing 3,000 more. On Wednesday, Mr. Netanyahu took it a step further, vowing to build the first new settlement in the West Bank in many years.
> 
> For Mr. Netanyahu, the settlement spree reflects a sense of liberation after years of constraints from Washington, especially under Mr. Obama, who, like other presidents, viewed settlement construction as an impediment to negotiating a final peace settlement. It is also an effort to deflect criticism from Israel’s political right for Mr. Netanyahu’s compliance with a court order to force several dozen families out of an illegal West Bank outpost, Amona.
> 
> The “beyond their current borders” phrase in the White House statement hinted at a return to a policy President George W. Bush outlined to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in 2004, which acknowledged that it was unrealistic to expect Israel to give up its major settlements in a final deal, although they would be offset by mutually agreed-upon land swaps.
> 
> Mr. Trump had also promised to move the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. But the White House has slowed down the move, in part out of fear of a violent response.
> 
> The policy shifts came after a turbulent week in which Mr. Trump also clashed with the leaders of Australia and Mexico over one of the most fraught issues of his new presidency: immigration. He defended the tense exchanges as an overdue display of toughness by a United States that has been exploited “by every nation in the world, virtually.”
> 
> “They’re tough; we have to be tough. It’s time we’re going to be a little tough, folks,” he said at the prayer breakfast Thursday. “It’s not going to happen anymore.”
> 
> Yet later in the day, the White House felt obliged to put a more diplomatic gloss on events. Mr. Spicer said Mr. Trump’s call with Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull of Australia had been “very cordial,” even if Mr. Trump bitterly opposed an agreement negotiated by the Obama administration for the United States to accept the transfer of 1,250 refugees from an Australian detention camp.
> 
> A senior administration official disputed a report that Mr. Trump had threatened to send troops to Mexico to deal with its “bad hombres.” The official said that the conversation with President Enrique Peña Nieto had been “actually very friendly,” and that Mr. Trump had been speaking in jest.


Some very interesting developments happening that have gone under the radar. I wonder what your thoughts on this @DesolationRow and @CamillePunk?




samizayn said:


> IMO it's not a Muslim ban, but the fact that President has expressed desire to give Christians preferential treatment (idk how that's meant to work if he's banning them regardless) indicates there is some kind of religious discrimination at play here.


Funny you should mention that, I'll be making a post soon which addresses this as I've been looking into the Seattle judges ruling .


----------



## RavishingRickRules

L-DOPA said:


> Some very interesting developments happening that have gone under the radar. I wonder what your thoughts on this .


I'd say those are VERY interesting developments. Is following a similar path to Obama something that Trump supporters will view in a negative light? I agree with a lot of these moves personally. Isreal/Palestine is a sticky situation and curbing development into contended areas has to be a good move towards potential peace (though I'm more pro-Palestine than pro-Israel personally.) The sanctions on Russia again is a better move politically than lifting them, but will that cause contention for Trump from those who're pushing for even friendlier terms with Russia? Could be a double-edged sword there. Very interesting indeed.


----------



## glenwo2

samizayn said:


> Also, not sure why you'd consider him a fucking idiot if he's far more experienced and educated than you or I.


Simple. I consider him a fucking idiot because he's a fucking idiot. :shrug



> And at the second: Trump did that on his own lol. The ban isn't thorough at all.


It's not even a ban, though....It's a temporary halt on immigration basically...FOR JUST 90 DAYS!! It's not indefinite but a certain "fucking idiot" kissing the collective asses of illegal immigrants and the Left doesn't care about that little detail; only to do whatever it took to make Trump's job and duty as difficult as possible.







L-DOPA said:


> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/world/middleeast/iran-missile-test-trump.html?_r=0
> 
> 
> 
> Some very interesting developments happening that have gone under the radar. I wonder what your thoughts on this @DesolationRow and @CamillePunk?





> In a second post, *he said wrongly*, “Iran was on its last legs and ready to collapse until the U.S. came along and gave it a life-line in the form of the Iran Deal: $150 billion.”


Aah yes. The MEDIA says he's wrong. That changes everything....NOT.


The Media has lied to us so many times, I do not believe a fucking word of it. ANY OF IT.


----------



## glenwo2

double post.


----------



## stevefox1200

L-DOPA said:


> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/world/middleeast/iran-missile-test-trump.html?_r=0
> 
> 
> 
> Some very interesting developments happening that have gone under the radar. I wonder what your thoughts on this @DesolationRow and @CamillePunk?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny you should mention that, I'll be making a post soon which addresses this as I've been looking into the Seattle judges ruling .


That is all Mattis

Mattis has said he feels Israel expansion makes the region unstable, is pro-NATO and hates Iran

Supposedly Trump made his travel bans without Mattis' or Rex's approval and both were pissed (Mattis was explicitly against travel bans)


----------



## samizayn

glenwo2 said:


> Simple. I consider him a fucking idiot because he's a fucking idiot. :shrug
> 
> It's not even a ban, though....It's a temporary halt on immigration basically...FOR JUST 90 DAYS!! It's not indefinite but a certain "fucking idiot" kissing the collective asses of illegal immigrants and the Left doesn't care about that little detail; *only to do whatever it took to make Trump's job and duty as difficult as possible.*
> 
> Aah yes. The MEDIA says he's wrong. That changes everything....NOT.
> 
> The Media has lied to us so many times, I do not believe a fucking word of it. ANY OF IT.


lol why are people even so touchy about the word ban? It's what the Trump administration uses to describe the EO, it's what Trump himself uses to describe the EO. Call a spade a spade, it's whatever. Definitely not cause to get this sensitive over. 

Regardless, your blame is misplaced. President failed to account for several countries with noted terrorist activity and very publicly put the individuals active there on alert. Consider that these groups work in cells - banning such an insignificant collective of countries only means that the would be Sudanese and Yemeni attackers (lol) only have to call up their Saudi and Egyptian friends to go in their stead. Pointless and absurd ban for that reason, Trump would be squarely to blame for any attack regardless.

The sooner you stop taking every decision made in the higher divisions of your govt as a personal slight against your hero, the easier a time you'll have of things. The judge's responsibility is to uphold your laws and your constitution as best he knows. You calling him out on it based on your high school level knowledge of both seems questionable somehow, no? If he's wrong, his superiors will tell him so. If he's right, same thing. Regardless all of these people are working to protect your laws; I don't see how insulting them for that is fair.


----------



## Sensei Utero

Everyone in this thread probably knows my thoughts on Trump and his personal political views, but that all aside - I'm just awaiting him to possibly blow a gasket over twitter about this coca cola advert that aired during this American Football final lol.


----------



## Arya Dark

*not really sure how relevant this is to Trump but I think it's very relevant to politics in general and what the PEOPLE mean to the system so I'm posting it here.





*


----------



## Reaper

samizayn said:


> IMO it's not a Muslim ban, but the fact that President has expressed desire to give Christians preferential treatment (idk how that's meant to work if he's banning them regardless) indicates there is some kind of religious discrimination at play here.


You can virtue signal when there is some sort of parity in the way muslims treat christians, jews, hindus and sikhs in their own countries. 

If you're all about protecting humanity, then you should acknowledge that muslims discriminate against these "races" more and if you want your countries to do anything about ending suffering, then you can't have "equality" and save people "equally" because not all people are discriminated against "equally" in those muslims shit holes.

I didn't see you complain when Obaba's administration discriminated against the number of christians they allowed from Syria. So this is just more leftist hypocrisy at work here in order to virtue signal and nothing more.

In actuality Trump is righting the weighing scale of your "equality" narrative by discriminating in favor of christians since it was Obaba that created the disparity in the first place.

I also don't care if you guys think that this ban is "discriminatory". If it is, then that's good. A temporary ban is still better than what the majority of Muslims deserve anyways considering that the majority of them hold some of the worst social values humanly imaginable. 

Isn't this exactly the kind of argument SJW's believe in and make all the damned time? That's it's ok for us brownies to hate on ****** just because some ****** several hundred years ago owned someone who's black? Boo hoo. It doesn't feel so good now does it when suddenly the so-called stalwarts of equality have to realize that it's ok to discriminate against some muslims because some muslims are bad people. But nope. No social justice identity politics arguments coming in now from the left. It's interesting how rationality prevails when the people under your protection are the ones being discriminated against, but you never stood up to defend the christians that Obaba's discriminatory refugee policy left behind in Syria did you?


----------



## Arya Dark

*Imagine this. I've been saying the lef has been losing the moral highground ever sense Trump was elected. What they have done is fucking EMBARRASSING to a left leaning person like me. Hey left wing can you stop being as fucking BIGOTED as you accuse the right wing of being please? How fucking hard is that? You're fucking losing us. Get you're goddamn shit together. Oh wait... that goddamn bridge has been burned you fucking idiots.





*


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/828419447698366465

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/828424859776585730


----------



## MillionDollarProns

Trump Jr using the crylaughing emoji


----------



## samizayn

RipNTear said:


> You can virtue signal when there is some sort of parity in the way muslims treat christians, jews, hindus and sikhs in their own countries.


To be honest, I'm not going to read your post. You seem obsessed with the idea of me and virtue signalling for some reason. I've pointed out what has been said as was pertinent to his post, it was nothing new, and certainly nothing warranting the essay you've written here.


----------



## El Dandy

RipNTear said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/828419447698366465
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/828424859776585730


If the NFL were like this past election, Falcon fans would take to the streets and protest that their team had the lead for 40 minutes and that the Patriots literally had the lead for 0 minutes. Therefor New England can't claim the W because really the team held the lead for nearly the entire game should be declared the winner.

#NotMySuperBowlChampions


----------



## Reaper

samizayn said:


> To be honest, I'm not going to read your post. You seem obsessed with the idea of me and virtue signalling for some reason. I've pointed out what has been said as was pertinent to his post, it was nothing new, and certainly nothing warranting the essay you've written here.


Let me give you the tl;dr version. 

It's virtue signaling when you only talk about discrimination faced by specific chosen groups and don't talk about discrimination as a whole.

Where was your outrage when it was discovered that Obama's refugee policy was being used to discriminate against Christians?

If you're not just virtue signaling then maybe you can answer my question instead of pretending to ignore my posts.

In case you guys don't have the facts, this is what I'm talking about: 



> The administration set the goal of resettling 10,000 Syrian refugees in the U.S. in the fiscal year. This goal was exceeded, and refugee status was given to 12,587 Syrians. *Nearly all of them (99%) were Muslim and less than 1% were Christian. As a point of comparison, Pew Research Center estimated Syria’s religious composition to be 93% Muslim and 5% Christian in 2010.*


http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/05/u-s-admits-record-number-of-muslim-refugees-in-2016/


----------



## Art Vandaley

L-DOPA said:


> People arguing in this thread:
> 
> You cannot say the immigration executive order is based solely on it being a Muslim ban and then in the same breath ask why countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE aren't banned, that immediately contradicts the idea of it being a Muslim ban because it is one of many Muslim majority countries that are on not on the list. Believe me, I've also questioned why those countries aren't on the list because yes especially in Saudi Arabia's case they present a danger being the biggest state sponsor of terrorist groups in the world.
> 
> As said ad nauseum: Christian Syrians are being turned away as well as Muslims. In a ban basically focused solely on religious discrimination that would never happen. So stop arguing with this line of thought, it is utterly embarrassing and isn't helping your cause.
> 
> Anyway, my guess is is the bill will go to the Supreme Court much like others have said.


I think it would be wrong ignore the fact that this policy started life with Trump declaring he was going to ban the immigration of all muslims, and then moved on to work out how to do that legally, asked people how to do it, ie Giovanni is on record that such a convo happened and that this is how Giovanni advised Trump to enact a muslim ban.



RipNTear said:


> Let me give you the tl;dr version.
> 
> It's virtue signaling when you only talk about discrimination faced by specific chosen groups and don't talk about discrimination as a whole.
> 
> Where was your outrage when it was discovered that Obama's refugee policy was being used to discriminate against Christians?
> 
> If you're not just virtue signaling then maybe you can answer my question instead of pretending to ignore my posts.
> 
> In case you guys don't have the facts, this is what I'm talking about:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me give you the tl;dr version.
> 
> It's virtue signaling when you only talk about discrimination faced by specific chosen groups and don't talk about discrimination as a whole.
> 
> Where was your outrage when it was discovered that Obama's refugee policy was being used to discriminate against Christians?
> 
> If you're not just virtue signaling then maybe you can answer my question instead of pretending to ignore my posts.
> 
> In case you guys don't have the facts, this is what I'm talking about:
> 
> 
> 
> [URL="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/05/u-s-admits-record-number-of-muslim-refugees-in-2016/"]http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/05/u-s-admits-record-number-of-muslim-refugees-in-2016/



What is your source for the claim Christians were discriminated against btw???

From the article you posted - "Almost the same number of Christian (37,521) as Muslim refugees were admitted in fiscal 2016" it really doesn't sound that way?

For the record, if true, Obama definitely deserves to be condemned for it.

"By either figure, the number of Christian Syrian refugees is underrepresented. The question is why.

Nina Shea, who heads the Center for Religious Freedom at the conservative Hudson Institute, believes it is evidence of de facto discrimination against Christians by the United Nations’ refugee program, which identifies potential candidates for resettlement. She also blames U.S. officials for its tacit acceptance of the disparity, and recommends the U.S. bypass the U.N. refugee program entirely with regard to Syrian Christians.
Chris Boian, a spokesman for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, said “UNHCR staff simply does not discriminate.” Boian said decisions about how to prioritize refugees is based on the “basic human needs” of refugees, regardless of religion, nationality or race.

The reality, he said, is that far fewer Christian Syrians have applied for resettlement." - http://www.factcheck.org/2017/01/christian-refugees-unfairly-kept-out-of-u-s/ 

As far as I can tell, literally the only source for this claim is Trump saying it.


Btw I can't seem to quote the table without destroying the dimensions, but there is an excellent table found at this link - http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...dence-trump-claim-it-was-impossible-syrian-c/ which looks at a list of countries, the percentage of the population that is Christian and percentage of the christian refugees taken from that country during the Obama years:

- 49% of refugees taken from Iran were Christian, Christians make up 0.9% of the Iranian population.

- 27% of refugees taken from Yemen were Christian, Christians make 0.2% of the Yemeni population


So yeah, the claim that Christian's were discriminated against during the Obama years is yet another fabrication by Trump.


----------



## samizayn

RipNTear said:


> Let me give you the tl;dr version.
> 
> It's virtue signaling when you only talk about discrimination faced by specific chosen groups and don't talk about discrimination as a whole.
> 
> Where was your outrage when it was discovered that Obama's refugee policy was being used to discriminate against Christians?
> 
> If you're not just virtue signaling then maybe you can answer my question instead of pretending to ignore my posts.


And here's why I don't appreciate you reading into my posts, because I feel your foregone conclusions prevents you from actually reading the words in them. Today and all other days I have spoken against this ban because it is has been sloppy, chaos inducing, and puts Americans in danger more than it protects them. It is stupid and counter to everything it purportedly stands for. 

L-DOPA separately claimed that people worried about religious discrimination have no right to be, as many Muslim countries have not been included in the ban. I pointed out that the religious aspect is not entirely baseless, as Trump himself has specified prioritising Christian refugees from Syria. This was not a lie, as far as I am aware. I am allowed to present facts to further a conversation. I'm not obliged to express outrage period, much less for the particulars deemed acceptable to you. Feel free to engage my ideas if you want but I truly feel you're past the point of reading anything I say with a level head.


----------



## Reaper

samizayn said:


> And here's why I don't appreciate you reading into my posts, because I feel your foregone conclusions prevents you from actually reading the words in them. Today and all other days I have spoken against this ban because it is has been sloppy, chaos inducing, and puts Americans in danger more than it protects them. It is stupid and counter to everything it purportedly stands for.


No. I tear into your posts because just like the above paragraph, they're almost always filled with buzzwords designed to elicit an emotional response. It's flowery language with little to know meaning behind it. I mean, I can tear this paragraph down and maybe you'll see what I'm getting at: 

1. "because it is has been sloppy, chaos inducing, and puts Americans in danger more than it protects them"

Look at the irrationality here. While it is true from your perspective that it's sloppy and chaos inducing, you've thrown in the little unjustified emotional rhetoric that "it puts Americans in danger more than it protects them". This implies the modern baseless idea that muslims can be more easily radicalized and driven to violence if they feel like there's something discriminatory. But then at the same time, this is typical leftist "soft bigotry of low expectations" where in one fail swoop you've admitted that you believe either that muslims are capable of comitting violence more readily than other groups simply because others of their kind won't be allowed to enter a country for a few months, and that there is something wrong with what muslims believe that will make them more readily capable of committing violence against Americans simply because of an unpopular decision by an American president. You don't even realize that your own emotional rhetoric is based on expecting the worst from the entire Muslim community as a whole, or even some elements of it. 

This is literally the same thinking that you want to decry from the right because while you admit that "provoking" muslims will lead to more violence against Americans, you want them to not be provoked and that is your solution to pacifying the beast which you clearly acknowledge exists. But that solution historically has not prevented attacks against Americans and American interests worldwide. Nor has trying to pacify the beast worked in Europe. You have no solution either, and all you're doing is criticizing the only attempt that is being made to try to come up with a solution simply with your own version of emotionally charged rhetoric:



> It is stupid and counter to everything it purportedly stands for.


No it is. This is again a strong emotional appeal. 



> I pointed out that the religious aspect is not entirely baseless, as Trump himself has specified prioritising Christian refugees from Syria. This was not a lie, as far as I am aware. I am allowed to present facts to further a conversation. I'm not obliged to express outrage period, much less for the particulars deemed acceptable to you. Feel free to engage my ideas if you want but I truly feel you're past the point of reading anything I say with a level head.


Claiming that this is discriminatory is not presenting a fact, but rather a manipulation. You say that Trump wants to prioritise Christians therefore that's discriminatory. However, you ignore the "fact" that the way Obama has been letting in refugees is already discriminatory therefore even IF this can be interpreted as discriminatory, in the end it's actually righting the disparity as it exists currently. 

It's clear that you're never going to actually answer my question because apparently it would result in admitting that you aren't bothered by the disparity of bringing in more muslims than christians from Syria. Just so you know, the reason why that I brought up was as a counter-point to this idea that it is discriminatory to refuse to bring in muslim refugees. Well, it's also discriminatory to have a 99:1 ratio of refugees from a country where the ratio is 93:5 and the 5 is one of the primary targets of IS. 

But that's ok, fight the good fight against discriminatory government policies ... I mean the ones where someone else told you there is discrimination and you happen to agree with them. 

All I actually want is you to admit that the refugee policy is being used to discriminate against christians. That's it. If it's so easy for you to claim that Muslims are being discriminated against based on your interpretation, then I fail to see why you're so reluctant to admit the same/similar discrimination against Christians.


----------



## glenwo2

^ RipNTear, don't bother. He said he won't read your posts. :lol


----------



## Art Vandaley

RipNTear said:


> It's clear that you're never going to actually answer my question because apparently it would result in admitting that you aren't bothered by the disparity of bringing in more muslims than christians from Syria. Just so you know, the reason why that I brought up was as a counter-point to this idea that it is discriminatory to refuse to bring in muslim refugees. Well, it's also discriminatory to have a 99:1 ratio of refugees from a country where the ratio is 93:5 and the 5 is one of the primary targets of IS.
> 
> But that's ok, fight the good fight against discriminatory government policies ... I mean the ones where someone else told you there is discrimination and you happen to agree with them.
> 
> All I actually want is you to admit that the refugee policy is being used to discriminate against christians. That's it. If it's so easy for you to claim that Muslims are being discriminated against based on your interpretation, then I fail to see why you're so reluctant to admit the same/similar discrimination against Christians.


Have you seen my long post above discussing the claims that Obama discriminated against Christians?

Because it isn't true.

I love that you've decided to double down on a proven lie by Trump, typical.


----------



## Reaper

glenwo2 said:


> ^ RipNTear, don't bother. He said he won't read your posts. :lol


I think it might have something to do with the fact that Christians aren't a marginalized group in North America so a lot of people simply don't realize that in the muslim world just how badly oppressed they truly are. Especially in those countries which are over-run by ISIS. Even in Pakistan the Taliban in almost every one of their attacks have targeted Christians, Foreigners and Shiites first before they targeted their fellow Sunnis. 

ISIS initially started off with specifically killing thousands of Christians across the middle-east - but hardly anyone knows that anymore.v



Alkomesh2 said:


> Have you seen my long post above discussing the claims that Obama discriminated against Christians?
> 
> Because it isn't true.


"It isn't true because someone else's interpretations of what I want to believe are truer than someone else I want to disagree with."

It's called confirmation bias. I've already admitted that I'm not talking about facts, but rather my interpretation but I don't think you guys ever understand why an interpretation is deliberately propped up as a counter to another interpretation because ultimately I'm playing a game with you guys to see how readily you can accept your own biases while claiming to be unbiased. 

I have no time for this because in the first article about the discrepancy between Muslim and Christians is all a game of interpretation. Why is one person's interpretation more likely to be true than someone else's? 

Fact check doesn't have facts. It has interpretations and conjectures. 

Disregarded. It's also hypocritical that you want all kinds of rational explanations to counter this Christian discrimination claim, but at the same time extremely readily accept that "oh ya, it's against muslims .. DISCRIMINATION!". 

Where is the call for evidence and rationality here? Why not hold yourself up to the same level of skepticism when making every single claim or believing every single thing instead of just picking and choosing what you want to be skeptical about at random?


----------



## Art Vandaley

RipNTear said:


> It isn't true because someone else's interpretations of what I want to believe are truer than someone else I want to disagree with.
> 
> I have no time for this because in the first article about the discrepancy between Muslim and Christians is all a game of interpretation. Why is one person's interpretation more likely to be true than someone else's?
> 
> Fact check doesn't have facts. It has interpretations and conjectures.
> 
> Disregarded.



- 49% of refugees taken from Iran were Christian, Christians make up 0.9% of the Iranian population.

- 27% of refugees taken from Yemen were Christian, Christians make 0.2% of the Yemeni population

These figures are statistics not interpretations.

That fewer Christian Syrians applied for refugee status is not an interpretation it's a fact.

The fact that the very first time anyone ever made this accusation was by Trump after he'd already done his ban is a fact.

Previously there were accusations against the UN refugee program, but none against he administration.


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> - 49% of refugees taken from Iran were Christian, Christians make up 0.9% of the Iranian population.
> 
> - 27% of refugees taken from Yemen were Christian, Christians make 0.2% of the Yemeni population
> 
> These figures are statistics not interpretations.
> 
> That fewer Christian Syrians applied for refugee status is not an interpretation it's a fact.
> 
> The fact that the very first time anyone ever made this accusation was by Trump after he'd already done his ban is a fact.
> 
> Previously there were accusations against the UN refugee program, but none against he administration.


No, these are figures in a table on a website with no clickable source. Disregarded. Till then they're simply numbers on a website without a source.

If they can't be arsed to source their data table, then I'm not stupid enough to believe it till they provide me with a legit source for each and every single one of those numbers.


----------



## Art Vandaley

RipNTear said:


> No, these are figures in a table on a website with no clickable source. Disregarded. Till then they're simply numbers on a website without a source.


"*These figures come from the Pew Research Center’s 2015 Religion and Public Life Project, given incomplete data from the CIA World Fact Book."

They actually come from the Pew Research Center, you know, the same people you posted a couple of posts up?

But I guess they're only reliable when used by you?


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> "*These figures come from the Pew Research Center’s 2015 Religion and Public Life Project, given incomplete data from the CIA World Fact Book."
> 
> They actually come from the Pew Research Center, you know, the same people you posted a couple of posts up?
> 
> But I guess they're only reliable when used by you?


OMG. You can't even understand what "*" means in a data table and you went to college? You're kidding right. 

OMG OMG OMG.

Look inside the table and you'll see little "*"s .... THOSE numbers are taken from the Pew Research Center. 

And all this time I thought I had been arguing with people who actually knew how to read data tables. Holy Shit! 

fpalm 

Just fucking shoot me.


----------



## Art Vandaley

RipNTear said:


> OMG. You can't even understand what "*" means in a data table and you went to college? You're kidding right.
> 
> OMG OMG OMG.
> 
> Look inside the table and you'll see little "*"s .... THOSE numbers are taken from the Pew Research Center.
> 
> And all this time I thought I had been arguing with people who actually knew how to read data tables. Holy Shit!
> 
> fpalm
> 
> Just fucking shoot me.


Sorry my bad, I'll give you that one to that extent. 

Regardless though, the only source you've provided for the claim there was discrimination against Christians didn't actually support that, literally the only mention of Christians in the entire article is to note that equal numbers of Christians and Muslims were admitted into the US in 2016.

The only source for any claim that Obama discriminated against Christians is still Trump saying it.

You are still basing an entire argument on nothing but Trump's word.


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> Sorry my bad, I'll give you that one to that extent.
> 
> Regardless though, the only source you've provided for the claim there was discrimination against Christians didn't actually support that.
> 
> The only source for any claim that Obama discriminated against Christians is still Trump saying it.
> 
> You are still basing an entire argument on nothing but Trump's word.


I don't know why you keep wasting my time. You clearly don't understand anything I say. You can't even read a data table. It wasn't a "mistake". It basically revealed the difference between how you consume and assimilate information and how I do the same thing. We're clearly not on the same level. Stop embarrassing yourself. 

And no, I have been talking about the religious-based discrimination of Syrian refugees every since that Pew research first came out and that was well before Trump said anything about it. It's only an issue for you guys now because this is the first time you've come across it and have quickly assimilated the left version of "facts" much after the fact. I don't care at all for anyone else's interpretation since those interpretations don't agree with my confirmation bias which I've already admitted to but you fail to understand why I'm even engaged in this back and forth with you guys. 

My main point of this discussion is lost upon you even though I've repeated myself twice.


----------



## samizayn

RipNTear said:


> No. I tear into your posts because just like the above paragraph, they're almost always filled with buzzwords designed to elicit an emotional response. It's flowery language with little to know meaning behind it. I mean, I can tear this paragraph down and maybe you'll see what I'm getting at:
> 
> 1. "because it is has been sloppy, chaos inducing, and puts Americans in danger more than it protects them"
> 
> Look at the irrationality here. While it is true from your perspective that it's sloppy and chaos inducing, you've thrown in the little unjustified emotional rhetoric that "it puts Americans in danger more than it protects them". This implies the modern baseless idea that muslims can be more easily radicalized and driven to violence if they feel like there's something discriminatory.


See? Here you start, reading into my shit. If this is what you want to understand then fine, but it's clearly not what I have been saying. Here is me not five posts before yours:


> . Consider that these groups work in cells - banning such an insignificant collective of countries only means that the would be Sudanese and Yemeni attackers (lol) only have to call up their Saudi and Egyptian friends to go in their stead.


ISIS does not solely consist of those 7 nationalities banned. Every Arab nationality is represented in their ranks, along with Asians, Africans and even a smattering from Western countries. So if I'm them, and I've been trying to work together something to attack America and this happens, am I exactly going to be discouraged? Or am I just putting it on any few of my hundreds of Saudi friends, my Kuwaitis to hurry up and get that shit going before the Americans wise up and ban them, too? 



> this is *typical leftist* "soft bigotry of low expectations"


This, and whatever you've surrounded it with, shows yet again that you're less interested in engaging with the ideas of individuals in here, and more interested in zoning in on the particular key words that can give you the excuse you need to go on about the massive, malevolent, homogeneous "left" that you have so much disdain for. 



> No it is. This is again a strong emotional appeal.


It's what I believe but OK



> But that's ok, fight the good fight against discriminatory government policies ... I mean the ones where someone else told you there is discrimination and you happen to agree with them.


By "someone else" do you mean "Donald Trump" because that's the dude I heard it from.




> All I actually want is you to admit that the refugee policy is being used to discriminate against christians. That's it. If it's so easy for you to claim that Muslims are being discriminated against based on your interpretation, then I fail to see why you're so reluctant to admit the same/similar discrimination against Christians.


Oh so that's interesting. What you wanted to say was "samizayn, Trump only wants to correct the disparity in Syrian refugees coming to the US, as there is a disproportionate representation of Muslims in the existing numbers thanks to the Obama administration." That was a sentence. You talk a lot about signaling but you're the guy that needs every point to be ten paragraphs of thinly veiled jabs so everyone knows how smart you are. 

I'll look into it because it's something that needs looking into. Trump's comments need no more than a ten second google search because he's stated his intention explicitly, of course I more readily comment on that than something Obama may or may not have done during his administration. That's something that requires further research and inquiry.


----------



## Art Vandaley

RipNTear said:


> And no, I have been talking about the religious-based discrimination of Syrian refugees every since that Pew research first came out and that was well before Trump said anything about it. It's only an issue for you guys now because this is the first time you've come across it and have quickly assimilated the left version of "facts" much after the fact. I don't care at all for anyone else's interpretation since those interpretations don't agree with my confirmation bias which I've already admitted to but you fail to understand why I'm even engaged in this back and forth with you guys.


Will you at least accept that there is literally 0 evidence to suggest a discriminatory policy against Christians by Obama?

And/or provide said evidence.

You keep saying you believe it, but you keep failing to provide a shred of evidence to back up your claims.

This is nothing more than you believing something you _want_ to believe.

Like you don't accept the facts provided because they don't fit into your confirmation bias, cool, I actually really respect you admitting that, most people wouldn't, but what is the evidence that does fit in with your confirmation bias?


----------



## Reaper

samizayn said:


> ISIS does not solely consist of those 7 nationalities banned. Every Arab nationality is represented in their ranks, along with Asians, Africans and even a smattering from Western countries. So if I'm them, and I've been trying to work together something to attack America and this happens, am I exactly going to be discouraged? Or am I just putting it on any few of my hundreds of Saudi friends, my Kuwaitis to hurry up and get that shit going before the Americans wise up and ban them, too?


Why are you assuming that just because some countries are banned and others aren't "banned" that they will also magically stop vetting people from other Muslim countries at the same time? Just because they're not on the list doesn't mean that it's suddenly a free for all and that it's suddenly made the situation "more dangerous". That is the rhetoric that you simply cannot rationalize because it's not a rational belief. 



> Oh so that's interesting. What you wanted to say was "samizayn, Trump only wants to correct the disparity in Syrian refugees coming to the US, as there is a disproportionate representation of Muslims in the existing numbers thanks to the Obama administration." That was a sentence. You talk a lot about signaling but you're the guy that needs every point to be ten paragraphs of thinly veiled jabs so everyone knows how smart you are.
> 
> I'll look into it because it's something that needs looking into. Trump's comments need no more than a ten second google search because he's stated his intention explicitly, of course I more readily comment on that than something Obama may or may not have done during his administration. That's something that requires further research and inquiry.


BTW, this is all because you got triggered by me calling one person out on their really horrible post and simply stating that copy-pasting false facts is becoming endemic amongst leftists. While I could take the high road and just continue to ignore your posts like I ignore the posts of many others, I felt that there was perhaps somehow we might be able to see a middle ground, but I can see that you take exception to my using "leftist" and therefore I'll keep doing that. We can terminate our dialogue after this and we won't converse in this thread again. 

However, at least I managed to get you to admit that you need to learn more about Obama's administration. 

One thing I've said repeatedly is that the best thing about Trump is that people who have been completely and utterly ignorant of previous administrations because of the likeability of the leader to them personally has at least forced them to start engaging with the world and learning more. Untul and unless all they learn is just one-sided "facts", then we have another problem but I suppose that's not for this particular discussion anymore.


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> Will you at least accept that there is literally 0 evidence to suggest a discriminatory policy against Christians by Obama?
> 
> And/or provide said evidence.
> 
> You keep saying you believe it, but you keep failing to provide a shred of evidence to back up your claims.
> 
> This is nothing more than you believing something you _want_ to believe.
> 
> Like you don't accept the facts provided because they don't fit into your confirmation bias, cool, I actually really respect you admitting that, most people wouldn't, but what is the evidence that does fit in with your confirmation bias?


I don't need to provide evidence when I've already admitted that this is something I believe based on my interpretation of a fact in front of me. Meanwhile, you can pretend that you have some sort of evidence to back up your claim that there isn't any discrimination. All you have is interpretations and a potentially fake internet table which hasn't even been sourced. 

We're on equal footing here in terms of the believably of both our claims. At least I'm not pretending that mine is backed up by extraordinary evidence and I've openly admitted that all I have is my interpretation of facts, not actual facts.


----------



## CamillePunk

AryaDark said:


> *Imagine this. I've been saying the lef has been losing the moral highground ever sense Trump was elected. What they have done is fucking EMBARRASSING to a left leaning person like me. Hey left wing can you stop being as fucking BIGOTED as you accuse the right wing of being please? How fucking hard is that? You're fucking losing us. Get you're goddamn shit together. Oh wait... that goddamn bridge has been burned you fucking idiots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *


I don't think the left has had any moral high ground since the Bush years, and even then that turned out just to be partisan smoke and mirrors.

Also he seems to think Trump creating chaos is a bad thing. I disagree. It means the people who used to hold all the power in this country are fighting for their survival. I'd be more worried if there was a smooth transition of power where the old guard were peachy keen with what Trump was doing. Some very rich, very powerful are and have been pouring in serious resources and directing some intense attacks toward Trump and his supporters. That's significant. I know it's cool to act like you're above it all and can see through everything like Tater and say Trump is just a puppet for all the usual masters, but that's just not a world view based in reality.


----------



## stevefox1200

HISTORY WITH STEVEFOX1200!!

Do you know one the main reasons the Nazi party got tons of support in Germany?

Well, post WW1 the communist party grew massively and preached destroying the status quo and creating a more "fair society"

They attempted to do this by rioting, destroying public, and getting into gun fights areas as they believed that old ways needed to be destroyed 

In response some of the former military and middle class formed little militia to protect their neighborhoods and although the government didn't like this they tolerated it as the police could not be everywhere at once 

Many of these little militias latter became the SA, Hitler's first troops 

Fast forward a decade and the communists, having enough with the rise of extreme right wing politics, decide to burn down the Reichstag which horrifies the average person and allows Hitler to ban all other political parties 

Hitler was able reign fairly unchecked because he could paint himself as the stable and sane alternative to his opposition who was more interested with burning down das 1930s Starbucks and using their fists to show how unheard they were

People just wanted and stable and normal life and the lefts "overthrow everything" and "fix everything NOW" wasn't offering that

The average person didn't give a fuck about the Jews, they just didn't want violent militias everywhere and when they were promised that getting rid of the Jews would do that they were all on board 

Communist rise with the right is acting retarded and fascists rise when the left is acting retarded and I don't see a fucking communist in the white house so straighten your ass up before you create some real Nazis


----------



## Art Vandaley

stevefox1200 said:


> HISTORY WITH STEVEFOX1200!!
> 
> Do you know one the main reasons the Nazi party got tons of support in Germany?
> 
> Well, post WW1 the communist party grew massively and preached destroying the status quo and creating a more "fair society"
> 
> They attempted to do this by rioting, destroying public, and getting into gun fights areas as they believed that old ways needed to be destroyed
> 
> In response some of the former military and middle class formed little militia to protect their neighborhoods and although the government didn't like this they tolerated it as the police could not be everywhere at once
> 
> Many of these little militias latter became the SA, Hitler's first troops
> 
> Fast forward a decade and the communists, having enough with the rise of extreme right wing politics, decide to burn down the Reichstag which horrifies the average person and allows Hitler to ban all other political parties
> 
> Hitler was able reign fairly unchecked because he could paint himself as the stable and sane alternative to his opposition who was more interested with burning down das 1930s Starbucks and using their fists to show how unheard they were
> 
> People just wanted and stable and normal life and the lefts "overthrow everything" and "fix everything NOW" wasn't offering that
> 
> The average person didn't give a fuck about the Jews, they just didn't want violent militias everywhere and when they were promised that getting rid of the Jews would do that they were all on board
> 
> Communist rise with the right is acting retarded and fascists rise when the left is acting retarded and I don't see a fucking communist in the white house so straighten your ass up before you create some real Nazis



1. Any attempt to explain the rise of Nazism without reference to the great depression and the terms of Versaille is by virtue of that fact bullshit, you can't ignore those 2 things.
(I mean inflation was so bad, people had to take wheelbarrows full of cash just to buy bread, you can't pretend these factors didn't exist and didn't have an effect on what happened.)
And 

2. The stuff communists were accused of which the Nazi's used to gain power largely turned out to be false flag operations ie the burning down of the Reichstag



> Shirer, William (2011). The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. Simon and Schuster. p. 192. There is enough evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that it was the Nazis who planned the arson and carried it out for their own political ends



The rise of Nazism isn't complex, the German economy was fucked, the Nazi's offered a convenient scape goat and the german people lept on board with gusto.


----------



## stevefox1200

Alkomesh2 said:


> 1. Any attempt to explain the rise of Nazism without reference to the great depression and the terms of Versaille is by virtue of that fact bullshit, you can't ignore those 2 things.
> 
> And
> 
> 2. The stuff communists were accused of which the Nazi's used to gain power largely turned out to be false flag operations ie the bombing of the Reichstag.


Modern research has proven that the communists really did burn the Reichstag, the false flag story was just so "Hitler" that no one questioned it till modern day

The argument is if the "Communist party" itself was responsible or if it was some lone communist nut who did it


----------



## samizayn

RipNTear said:


> Why are you assuming that just because some countries are banned and others aren't "banned" that they will also magically stop vetting people from other Muslim countries at the same time? Just because they're not on the list doesn't mean that it's suddenly a free for all and that it's suddenly made the situation "more dangerous". That is the rhetoric that you simply cannot rationalize because it's not a rational belief.
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, this is all because you got triggered by me calling one person out on their really horrible post and simply stating that copy-pasting false facts is becoming endemic amongst leftists. While I could take the high road and just continue to ignore your posts like I ignore the posts of many others, I felt that there was perhaps somehow we might be able to see a middle ground, but I can see that you take exception to my using "leftist" and therefore I'll keep doing that. We can terminate our dialogue after this and we won't converse in this thread again.
> 
> However, at least I managed to get you to admit that you need to learn more about Obama's administration.
> 
> One thing I've said repeatedly is that the best thing about Trump is that people who have been completely and utterly ignorant of previous administrations because of the likeability of the leader to them personally has at least forced them to start engaging with the world and learning more. Untul and unless all they learn is just one-sided "facts", then we have another problem but I suppose that's not for this particular discussion anymore.





RipNTear said:


> I don't need to provide evidence when I've already admitted that this is something I believe based on my interpretation of a fact in front of me. Meanwhile, you can pretend that you have some sort of evidence to back up your claim that there isn't any discrimination. All you have is interpretations and a potentially fake internet table which hasn't even been sourced.
> 
> We're on equal footing here in terms of the believably of both our claims. At least I'm not pretending that mine is backed up by extraordinary evidence and I've openly admitted that all I have is my interpretation of facts, not actual facts.


Oh holy shit, "this" was a thing? Call me triggered yet plainly admit you've taken to attacking me directly because of something I said offhand once? What the fuck lol? That is not normal at all. 

If it's important to you, then it's worth mentioning I said that to you for the general good. It's much easier understanding where people are coming from when you stop internally categorising that way. See how coherent you became as soon as you put that way of thinking aside, and decided to read what has been written in front of you. 

Since it turns out there was a personal vendetta then you are probably right, there's no need for us to carry on talking about this particular topic. I'll write my responses in a separate post to continue the line of thought - I am here to be proven wrong and I still hope I can find this in here with people that don't take my comments personally.


----------



## Reaper

samizayn said:


> Oh holy shit, "this" was a thing? Call me triggered yet plainly admit you've taken to attacking me directly because of something I said offhand once? What the fuck lol? That is not normal at all.


Uh. So you're turning this onto me because of the fact that I pointed out your triggering over a post where you ignored the entire content of my epic in order to focus in on the fact that I used the word leftist. You still don't realize that what you attempted was a classic discreditory tactic which made me feel somewhat insulted that here I made a well-researched post and all you're focising on is the word "leftist". That's just really annoying and flat out disingenuous. 

While I have jabs in my posts, I also have salient points which we can continue to discuss. There's also not really any ad hominems. Just snark and disdain - but the thing is that when my points are ignored in order to be cherry-picked, I consider that insulting as well. You just don't realize it because it's a classic argumentation style for some people to cherry pick specific points looking for some sort of a "gotcha" moment to distract from the context / core argument. 



> If it's important to you, then it's worth mentioning I said that to you for the general good. It's much easier understanding where people are coming from when you stop internally categorising that way. See how coherent you became as soon as you put that way of thinking aside, and decided to read what has been written in front of you.


Not really. Not when the person's narratives are specifically derived from a particular political leaning and have exhibited really no nuance outside of pushing one side's agenda ... You won't see that because most of your knowledge-base is stuffed with one-sided facts and interpretations so it's less obvious to you but more than obvious to someone else reading it. 



> Since it turns out there was a personal vendetta then you are probably right, there's no need for us to carry on talking about this particular topic. I'll write my responses in a separate post to continue the line of thought - I am here to be proven wrong and I still hope I can find this in here with people that don't take my comments personally.


It's also something to do with the fact that you have trouble disassociating yourself from criticisms of "the left" because you identity with that group and I'll keep pushing that button. If you want nuanced debate, then you're just gonna have to start making points that have obviously been thought through by yourself and not just picking up pointers straight from the left's handbook to political conversations.


----------



## glenwo2

^ so...does that mean the RipNTear/samizayn battle is over?


----------



## Miss Sally

stevefox1200 said:


> HISTORY WITH STEVEFOX1200!!
> 
> Do you know one the main reasons the Nazi party got tons of support in Germany?
> 
> Well, post WW1 the communist party grew massively and preached destroying the status quo and creating a more "fair society"
> 
> They attempted to do this by rioting, destroying public, and getting into gun fights areas as they believed that old ways needed to be destroyed
> 
> In response some of the former military and middle class formed little militia to protect their neighborhoods and although the government didn't like this they tolerated it as the police could not be everywhere at once
> 
> Many of these little militias latter became the SA, Hitler's first troops
> 
> Fast forward a decade and the communists, having enough with the rise of extreme right wing politics, decide to burn down the Reichstag which horrifies the average person and allows Hitler to ban all other political parties
> 
> Hitler was able reign fairly unchecked because he could paint himself as the stable and sane alternative to his opposition who was more interested with burning down das 1930s Starbucks and using their fists to show how unheard they were
> 
> People just wanted and stable and normal life and the lefts "overthrow everything" and "fix everything NOW" wasn't offering that
> 
> The average person didn't give a fuck about the Jews, they just didn't want violent militias everywhere and when they were promised that getting rid of the Jews would do that they were all on board
> 
> Communist rise with the right is acting retarded and fascists rise when the left is acting retarded and I don't see a fucking communist in the white house so straighten your ass up before you create some real Nazis



This sort of thing kind of happened in Spain, when the Republican party there went hog wild and started going full anti-Religion, killing priests, raping and killing nuns, attacking Religious people, stealing from them and causing chaos. It was the fascists that protected the Religious people and were trying to bring about order while the other was causing chaos. I don't know 100% about the Spanish Civil war but it was pretty crazy and it's not talked about much at all.


----------



## stevefox1200

Miss Sally said:


> This sort of thing kind of happened in Spain, when the Republican party there went hog wild and started going full anti-Religion, killing priests, raping and killing nuns, attacking Religious people, stealing from them and causing chaos. It was the fascists that protected the Religious people and were trying to bring about order while the other was causing chaos. I don't know 100% about the Spanish Civil war but it was pretty crazy and it's not talked about much at all.


That is war is a bit more complicated than that

A quick and dirty is that Republican government kept going more and more left alienating the middle and losing more and more members till the Nationalist had an army 

The party itself chipped at away at the church constantly which lead to anti and pro Catholic riots but anti were basically allowed and the pro were put down hard and violently 

Same thing with labor disputes where workers where heavily and violently favored over owners

You also had militarized anarchists doing bombings and shit which sent the message the government was not in control of anything 

You also had regions who wanted to break away, the great depression wrecking the workers who were the governments main supporters in the early days, and the government confiscating the wealth of the rich to give to poor as welfare which left the rich poor and angry 

Prime minster resigns new elections start and the nationalists win in a landslide and roll back the laws

Leftest supporters lose their minds and side with anarchists and start wrecking shit, the now conservative government says fuck that and puts them down hard

Another emergency election is called in 36, the leftest win the government back but are now infested with communists, and anarchists who hate each other. Government desperate for any united supporters choose the communists as their base who then start re-writing the Constitution and basically everyone else quits in disgust and the army takes their guns and war chest with them. The government was split between the few centralists trying to keep everyone happy and communists screaming about workers revolutions and killing the rich while taking over all business and labor groups 

and the whole time the nationalists refuse to compromise and waits for the government to implode as it alienates more and more people 

By the time the war started the Spanish government was bloated pile of middle ground liberals trying to stop all the fighting, communists trying to inspire the working man to RISE UP, and anarchists trying to limit the power of the other two against a fairly united conservative front pointing at them and saying "that's what happens when you don't have Jesus" 

Whenever you think US politics suck look at that clusterfuck

Imagine if all the people who don't like Trump formed a political party whose only policy was "we like stuff Trump doesn't" and they won the next election and Trump's republican party was left fairly intact with a major of the military support behind them


----------



## Miss Sally

stevefox1200 said:


> That is war is a bit more complicated than that
> 
> A quick and dirty is that Republican government kept going more and more left alienating the middle and losing more and more members till the Nationalist had an army
> 
> The party itself chipped at away at the church constantly which lead to anti and pro Catholic riots but anti were basically allowed and the pro were put down hard and violently
> 
> Same thing with labor disputes where workers where heavily and violently favored over owners
> 
> You also had militarized anarchists doing bombings and shit which sent the message the government was not in control of anything
> 
> You also had regions who wanted to break away, the great depression wrecking the workers who were the governments main supporters in the early days, and the government confiscating the wealth of the rich to give to poor as welfare which left the rich poor and angry
> 
> Prime minster resigns new elections start and the nationalists win in a landslide and roll back the laws
> 
> Leftest supporters lose their minds and side with anarchists and start wrecking shit, the now conservative government says fuck that and puts them down hard
> 
> Another emergency election is called in 36, the leftest win the government back but are now infested with communists, and anarchists who hate each other. Government desperate for any united supporters choose the communists as their base who then start re-writing the Constitution and basically everyone else quits in disgust and the army takes their guns and war chest with them. The government was split between the few centralists trying to keep everyone happy and communists screaming about workers revolutions and killing the rich while taking over all business and labor groups
> 
> and the whole time the nationalists refuse to compromise and waits for the government to implode as it alienates more and more people
> 
> By the time the war started the Spanish government was bloated pile of middle ground liberals trying to stop all the fighting, communists trying to inspire the working man to RISE UP, and anarchists trying to limit the power of the other two against a fairly united conservative front pointing at them and saying "that's what happens when you don't have Jesus"
> 
> Whenever you think US politics suck look at that clusterfuck
> 
> Imagine if all the people who don't like Trump formed a political party whose only policy was "we like stuff Trump doesn't" and they won the next election and Trump's republican party was left fairly intact with a major of the military support behind them


Considering the "Left" has been silent about the good Trump has done, the killing of TPP, redoing our trade agreements, keeping sanctions on Russia but keeping dialog open with them, keeping many of Obama's policies in place that there would be some leeway but nope. It's all about a "Muslim Ban".


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Miss Sally said:


> redoing our trade agreements, .


Ah I missed that one! Got a link so I can see what the renegotiated deals are in comparison? I honestly wasn't aware anything had been negotiated yet. :S


----------



## Oxidamus

Miss Sally said:


> Considering the "Left" has been silent about the good Trump has done, the killing of TPP, redoing our trade agreements, keeping sanctions on Russia but keeping dialog open with them, keeping many of Obama's policies in place that there would be some leeway but nope. It's all about a "Muslim Ban".


They're not silent, they think Trump "killed trade" by rejecting the TPP among other things. :Jim


----------



## Miss Sally

Oxi X.O. said:


> They're not silent, they think Trump "killed trade" by rejecting the TPP among other things. :Jim


That's hilarious considering much of the Left didn't like the TPP. Had Bernie or hillary killed it, songs would be sung. Though Bernie did praise the move and said he's work on it with Trump if he wished.


----------



## Oxidamus

Miss Sally said:


> That's hilarious considering much of the Left didn't like the TPP. Had Bernie or hillary killed it, songs would be sung. Though Bernie did praise the move and said he's work on it with Trump if he wished.


Hm, you're more informed than I am, so you are probably right if you say they didn't like it. But I've seen a few people complain about Trump killing trade plans because he declined TPP. Maybe because I'm Australian and the conservative bunch here love to believe our current government know how to use money and are adamant defenders of the TPP.


----------



## CamillePunk

I'm pretty sure the only ones who were ever for TPP were politicians, their sponsors, and beltway libertarians. :mj


----------



## Art Vandaley

Miss Sally said:


> That's hilarious considering much of the Left didn't like the TPP. Had Bernie or hillary killed it, songs would be sung. Though Bernie did praise the move and said he's work on it with Trump if he wished.


Tbf I'm pretty much alone on the left in supporting the TPP. 

And I'd be critisizing Hilary much more than I am Trump because I'd have higher expectations of her than I do Trump.


----------



## Goku




----------



## DOPA

@DesolationRow; @CamillePunk; @samizayn; @Alkomesh2; @Miss Sally; @Pratchett; @Goku; @Vic Capri; @RavishingRickRules; @RipNTear; @Arya Dark; @MrMister;


Hello everyone . So I have taken interest in this block which has been initiated by Seattle judge James Robart and done some research into the move itself. I understand there are people that are interested in the judge himself and his background but to the disappointment I'm sure of some, I will not be touching on that much. I'm only focusing on the decision itself, how it came about and if I agree/disagree and to what extent. I of course am not going to claim that I am a legal expert or am going to claim that my conclusion is the objective right one. I'm only going to share my conclusions using what I have found thus far.

Before I do that though, I want to share some quotes from this Forbes article because boy oh boy are there some fascinating inner politics in play here in regards to this blocking. If there is any source that is going to uncover this, it's going to be Forbes as I find their work to mostly be of top quality: http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielf...-block-trumps-immigration-order/#cfb86394d377



> *Sauce For The Goose? Judge Cites Anti-Obama Ruling To Block Trump's Immigration Order*
> 
> The federal judge who issued a nationwide injunction against President Donald Trump's executive order blocking immigration from seven primarily Muslim nations had a strong precedent to rely upon: The 2015 decision by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that halted President Barack Obama's order to grant semi-permanent residency status to millions of illegal immigrants.
> 
> That decision is still in place thanks to a 4-4 deadlock at the U.S. Supreme Court last year. And U.S. District Judge James L. Robart cited it in his own ruling Jan. 3, rejecting the Trump administration's arguments that the judge should limit the temporary restraining order to Washington and Minnesota, the two states that sued to block the immigration order.
> 
> Limiting his TRO to two states would would “undermine the constitutional imperative of `a uniform Rule of Nationalization’” that “should be enforced vigorously and uniformly,” he said, quoting Texas v. U.S, the Fifth Circuit decision.
> 
> Josh Blackman, who teaches constitutional law at the South Texas College of Law in Houston, notes on his blog the irony of Washington State arguing for a nationwide TRO. In Texas v. U.S. Washington argued the opposite, saying there was no need for a nationwide injunction against Obama's immigration order, since some states would benefit from granting residency to illegal immigrants.
> 
> There's another parallel between the two cases. Supporters of Obama's Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals ridiculed the economic theory behind the lawsuits by attorneys general of Texas and more than 20 other Republican-leaning states. Texas argued it had standing to challenge the Obama order because, among other effects, it would cost it $130.89 for every drivers' license it was required to issue to non-citizens granted residency under the plan.
> 
> Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson made similar, if more sweeping arguments to win the TRO from Judge Robart, a George W. Bush appointee. In oral arguments before the judge he said Washington and Minnesota had suffered wide economic damage from the order as its state universities "wasted money" on recruiting foreign scholars and buying airline tickets as well as other harms inflicted on their employers and family members already in the state. The judge, in his order, said the states “face immediate and irreparable injury” because “the Executive Order adversely affects the States’ residents in areas of employmernt, education, business, family relations, and freedom to travel.”
> 
> The victory by Ferguson, a Democrat, shows how tools honed by Republican opponents of President Obama's aggressive executive actions have been adopted by Democratic states that once decried their use. Oklahoma AG Scott Pruitt, a Republican now in line for chief of the Environmental Protection Agency, sued to block a number of Obama orders including the Clean Power Plan, which would have driven a large percentage of coal-fired generating plants off the electricity grid. The Supreme Court halted implementation of the plan pending resolution of a state lawsuit in federal court in the District of Columbia.


These are pretty incredible revelations to say the least and there is a lot of inner political play and looking after interests at work here. The state of Washington which was at the opposite end of the argument in regards to Obama's order to grant semi-permanent residency status to millions of illegal immigrants is now using the same Republican tactics to try and block Trump's executive order on immigration....and of course it worked. Pretty amazing that the Democrats who cried obstruction because the Republican states helped block Obama's illegal immigration bill are now using those very same tactics.

One could call that hypocrisy but you can't blame Democratic states for looking after their own interests. My own partisan view is that the bill to make illegal immigrants semi-permanent residents is one that I fundamentally disagree with as they already broke the law coming over and it would encourage more to take the risks to cross the border. You need to find ways to discourage this from happening, not prolong and further it more. But putting that aside, I understand from both cases and point of views why respective Republican and Democratic states would want those bills to be blocked in their own interests.

What this also shows once again much like Sargon of Akkad stated in his recent video on the subject is that this is nothing new. This is fine and it is politics as usual. Trump supporters will be mad, opponents will be happy and it will move along to the Supreme Court. But I will admit that these revelations and this use of political play fascinates me and I had to include this in my post.

Lastly, there will obviously be a question of whether or not the judge himself used the ruling handed down to Obama in the Texas v. U.S, the Fifth Circuit decision in order to block the bill out of pure political disagreement rather than of legal ruling by Trump supporters. I honestly would not like to question the integrity of the judge in question especially when I don't know that much about his background so for now we will assume that his ruling was found in the best interests of whether the bill itself needs to be halted for Constitutional reasons. I will leave it up for others to decide but I thought it would be worth mentioning as it is bound to come up at some point.

-------------------------------

So why did the block take place? Well, in this NPR article, it actually details the fact that the judge himself did not have rule on the legality of the executive order for it to be blocked to begin with: http://www.npr.org/2017/02/04/51344...and-why-did-he-block-trumps-immigration-order



> In granting a temporary restraining order, the judge essentially had to decide that the plaintiffs (the states of Washington and Minnesota):
> 
> * were likely to succeed at a later date
> * that people in those states could suffer irreparable harm if the ban continued
> * that blocking the President's order was in the public interest.
> 
> In other words, he decided there was more harm letting the ban continue than there was blocking it until the full case could be heard.


In other words to use NPR's description, the block itself was not based on actual legality of the executive order but whether or not the public had an interest in seeing it happen. It took into account the impacts of the bill towards Washington and Minnesota and the judge concluded because of this that it was better to block the bill unilaterally rather than just the two states who at the time filed the lawsuit in reaction to the bill. To quote Forbes once again from above:



> Limiting his TRO to two states would would “undermine the constitutional imperative of `a uniform Rule of Nationalization’” that “should be enforced vigorously and uniformly,” he said, quoting Texas v. U.S, the Fifth Circuit decision.


In other words, 2 states out of 51 complaining and filing the lawsuit against the executive order managed to get the entire bill blocked on a National level. Make that what you will but this bill was not actually blocked out of legal issues but because of the two Democratic states looking after their own interests. I'll let everyone else come to their own conclusions as to whether this is a justified conclusion or not.

The judge also did not shy away from his view on whether or not the halt in Immigration from the seven different countries was justified. Continuing on in the NPR article:



> He questioned Department of Justice lawyer Michelle Bennett, who was representing the Trump administration, asking, "How many arrests have there been of foreign nationals from those seven countries since 9/11"?
> 
> The Sept. 11 attack was one of the rationales behind the executive order, according to the Trump administration.
> 
> "I don't know the specific details of attacks or planned attacks," said Bennett, who is from the DOJ's Civil Division.
> 
> "The answer to that is none, as best I can tell," said the judge.
> 
> "The rationale was not only 9/11," Bennett said. "It was to protect the United States from the potential for terrorism."
> 
> Congress gives the president wide latitude in foreign affairs, which includes granting visas.
> 
> "The court doesn't get to look behind those determinations," she added.
> 
> But the judge answered: "I'm also asked to look and determine if the executive order is rationally based. And rationally based, to some extent, means I have to find it grounded in fact instead of fiction."


This seems to be the consensus in articles regarding the ruling, the judge essentially concluded that because the executive order was not based on the rationale used in the EO surrounding 9/11 and terrorism as a whole that the bill is to be blocked on Constitutional grounds. What are those Constitutional grounds? I'll detail more below.

Now I said I wouldn't give too much background on the judge but this is definitely interesting information so I'll link the articles conclusion as well below:



> Robart has a history of saying what he thinks. He was nominated for the federal bench by President George W. Bush in 2003. He was confirmed unanimously in a 99-0 vote by the Senate in June 2004.
> 
> Before that, he was a lawyer in private practice in Seattle. He has worked with at-risk youth in that city and, before becoming a judge, Robart represented refugees from Southeast Asia.
> 
> Last year, Robart presided over a case alleging excessive force by Seattle police brought be the Obama administration's Justice Department. During a hearing, he used FBI statistics to note that police use of deadly force in cities in the U.S. involved 41 percent of black people, despite them being only 20 percent of the population living in those cities.
> 
> Robart took a breath and said, "black lives matter."


I'm not going to post the case on BLM because that will make this post unnecessarily long, what is interesting is his background representing refugees from Southeast Asia and this being a case that has a huge precedent in terms of allowing refugees to immigrate to the US. It certainly makes this case and the blocking more interesting. Again, I'll allow everyone reading this to draw their own conclusions.

------------------------------

Now in terms of Constitutional legality, which as said before was not the actual grounds needed to block the EO but it's definitely worth looking into. Forbes detail essentially how the judge viewed the EO in terms of Constitutional law:



> During oral arguments over the Trump immigration plan, Judge Robart asked Ferguson if the Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment apply to foreign visa holders who haven't set foot on U.S. soil. Not necessarily, Ferguson acknowledged.
> 
> "Our claim is primarily focused on the people who are here or who have left" and are trying to return, Ferguson said. "We have a case involving people who have been here, and have rights to return here."
> 
> The judge also asked if a federal court had ever overturned an executive order on immigration due to equal protection concerns. No, Ferguson said.
> 
> "But there's never been an order like this one," he said, which is "utterly divorced" from the stated purpose of enhancing national security. There are 500,000 lawful residents in the U.S. from the seven targeted countries, he said, and the Trump administration repeatedly changed its mind about whether they should be included in the travel ban.
> 
> "Our claim is primarily focused on the people who are here or who have left" and are trying to return, Ferguson said. "We have a case involving people who have been here, and have rights to return here."
> 
> The judge also asked if a federal court had ever overturned an executive order on immigration due to equal protection concerns. No, Ferguson said.
> 
> "But there's never been an order like this one," he said, which is "utterly divorced" from the stated purpose of enhancing national security. There are 500,000 lawful residents in the U.S. from the seven targeted countries, he said, and the Trump administration repeatedly changed its mind about whether they should be included in the travel ban.
> 
> "Either those people are an enormous threat to our security or are not," Ferguson said. "And (Trump administration officials) changed their minds about that five times since Friday."
> 
> *Judge Robart's order blocks the Trump administration from enforcing most of the executive order, including Section 5 as it pertains to granting preferences to members of religious minorities. While the order itself doesn't mention Islam or any other religion Trump's public statements suggested he wanted to give preference to Christian minority refugees. The Washington AG argued this was an unconstitutional demonstration of animus toward Muslims.*
> 
> At the end of his ruling, the judge said "the work of the court is not to create policy or judge the wisdom of any particular policy promoted by the other two branches.”
> 
> That’s the work of the legislative and executive branches, he wrote, while it’s the work of the judiciary to ensure laws and executive orders comport with the Constitution.
> 
> “The court concludes tht the circumstances brought before it today are such that it must intervene to fulfill its constitutional role in our tripart government," he concluded.


The part I have bolded essentially is the key here, which is what @samizayn; questioned me on, it pertains to section 5 but really it pertains to a specific part of this section in regards to future omissions in terms of allowing refugees to enter the country which I will get to in a bit. I will paste the part of the legislation that he is referring to and will draw out my own conclusions but for now, I want to link to you the decision taken by Boston U.S. District Judge Nathaniel Gorton who came to an entirely different conclusion: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-...l-ban-asks-where-does-it-say-muslim-countries



> As we detailed earlier, in a blow to every mainstream media news outlet (and likely hurting a lot of feelings), President Donald Trump’s ban on immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries will take effect in Boston on Sunday after a federal judge refused to extend a temporary ruling blocking its enforcement.
> 
> As Bloomberg reports, the decision by U.S. District Judge Nathaniel Gorton on Friday dealt a setback to rights advocates who argued that blocking people from seven nations in the Middle East was unconstitutional. Gorton was weighing whether to extend a seven-day order blocking parts of Trump’s Executive Order.
> 
> As GMA News Onine reports, U.S. District Judge Nathaniel Gorton on Friday asked Matthew Segal, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) representing the plaintiffs in the Boston case.
> 
> *"Where does it say Muslim countries?"*
> 
> Segal replied...
> 
> "If your honor's question is, *'Does the word 'Muslim' make a profound presence in this executive order?,' my answer is that it doesn't,... But the president described what he was going to do as a Muslim ban and then he proceeded to carry it out."*
> 
> Gorton shot back,
> 
> *"Am I to take the words of an executive at any point before or after election as a part of that executive order?"*
> 
> Judge Gorton on Friday asked U.S. Justice Department lawyer Joshua Press how the seven countries had been selected.
> 
> 
> Press responded that the list had come from a law passed in 2015 and amended early last year requiring that citizens of the seven countries apply for visas to enter the United States, "out of concern about the refugees that were coming, mainly from Syria at that time and terrorist events that were occurring in Europe".


"Am I to take the words of an executive at any point before or after election as a part of that executive order?"

That is the important point in this judge's ruling, @Alkomesh2; responded to me saying that I have to keep in mind what Trump had said during the campaign and what Guiliani had said to the press about how the bill came about. No doubt Guiliani in my opinion was wrong to state what he did (sorry Trump supporters) and I was against Trump when he said he wanted to ban all Muslims. But from a legislative standpoint we have to look at what the bill actually *does* rather than rely on emotional arguments about statements made. The bill itself as this judge has also concluded does not indiscriminately ban Muslims but rather targets specific countries. The argument should really be whether or not this halt in immigration is justified on the basis of these countries rather than whether it is a Muslim ban. Actions are different from words and using statement of intent as evidence when the legislation does not meet those statements at all is not an argument. Nor is what Trump may or may not do in the future as in regards to extending the legislation to other countries. Those provisions themselves if made can be blocked at any due point by District judges or the supreme court....hell we're talking about a Seattle judge blocking this bill on the grounds of the issues surrounding two Democratic states which just further proves my point.

--------------------------------

So what this comes down to really is a rather specific memo in Section 5 of the bill and the two judges who came to rather different conclusions. Firstly I'll link what the Boston judge concluded in the zerohedge article as I have already shared the Seattle judges conclusion and then I'll look at what the order actually says:



> Which left the judge to decide (as the full docket explains here),
> 
> “The language in Section 5 of the EO is neutral with respect to religion,
> 
> "The provisions of Section 5, however, could be invoked to give preferred refugee status to a Muslim individual in a country that is predominately Christian. Nothing in Section 5 compels a finding that Christians are preferred to any other group.”
> 
> Gorton wrote there is a rational reason for the Trump administration’s policies. The federal Immigration and Naturalization Act gives the president broad power over immigration.
> 
> “The order provides a reasonably conceivable state of facts (which concerns national security and) that could provide a rational basis for the classification,” he wrote. “Accordingly, this Court declines to encroach upon the “delicate policy judgment” inherent in immigration decisions.”


Now here is what Section 5, b)....which is what really it really boils down to if we look at it from a legal framework says:



> (b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization.


So how can we conclude this? Well the way I look at it it could be concluded either way. On the one hand, with the seven countries that have been put on this halt and with Trump's comments on fast-tracking Christian refugees, one could argue that because the bill is directed at 7 majority Muslim countries and those countries having Christian minorities that this is as the Seattle judge concluded that the preference given to Christian minorities declared by Trump breaks the ground for the legislation to be legal under the Constitution.

On the other hand, this particular section is so broadly worded that there is no reason why as the judge from Boston concluded that this cannot be applied to other countries outside the halt whether it be done now or at a later date. It makes no mention of the seven countries in this particular section and nor does it say that the priorities of religious minorities in taking in refugees only applies to the countries that are on the list for a 90 day halt. It seems to take a broader stance in regards to the admission of refugees. It also makes clear that the priority is based on the individual's country of nationality rather than the religion itself. The claim is once again made on specifically the countries listed on the ban when there is no indication that it only applies to those said countries, plus it is based on the comments made by Trump regarding Christian priority.

Once again, this is all based on intent rather than what is actually in the order as I have mentioned to Alkomesh. The problem is once again in hindsight, Trump made a colossal mistake in suggesting that Christian refugees should take the most priority as a way to appeal to some of his base when the EO itself says it's based on the nationality of the refugee and not the religion.....good god Trump you really are something aren't you? :lol.

--------------------------

Conclusion? Well in terms of the individual section, one can make the claim that this part of legislation has grounds to be blocked in terms of future admissions to refugees should Trump follow through with his promise of giving absolute priority to Christian refugees. My guess would be that Trump did mean that in regards to the 7 countries banned *because they are religious minorities in those countries.* Like the EO itself says.

But this is really based on future decisions made rather what is being done now. In terms of @samizayn;'s objections to what I said based on Syrian Christians as it currently stands being turned away at the border, whilst I understand the question it is again being based on what action will be taken later rather what is being done now, which is the opposite.

To block the whole bill based on this one objection? Well in terms of blocking the bill temporarily until ultimately it will be up to the Supreme Court I would think to decide whether it is overturned or not, there is nothing really egregious in my mind so long as it is based on the judge's interpretation of the bill in conjunction with the rule of law....considering actions were taken on Obama's previous EO which would have given semi-permanent residence to illegal immigrants. As said previously, this is nothing new and is business as usual politics wise when anti-Trump supporters are making this out to be some momentous occasion :lol.

But in mind as I have read the full EO and re-read this particular section, aside from the issues of green card holders and visas that people who have already legally visited the country which has been a mess from a legislative standpoint, this really is the only grounds to you could possibly block the bill and it is not even being done on the basis of what is being done *now* rather than the further steps that Trump could take via executive order with the help of the Secretary of State and Homeland Security.

If we are just basing this off what the ramifications are now in terms of how the executive order effects current policy in regards to the Constitution, I personally don't see any grounds for a blocking. I tend to agree with the Boston judge rather than the Seattle one.

This doesn't mean I can't understand the conclusions made for this block to come about however.


----------



## Cashmere

Don't agree with half of the shit Trump is doing, but I'm 100% behind the travel ban. 

Enough is enough with a fucking random cocksucker just strolling into malls and etc just shooting up people.


----------



## Vic Capri

- Vic


----------



## glenwo2

^ I despise Brady but that pic is correct.


----------



## validreasoning

CamillePunk said:


> I'm pretty sure the only ones who were ever for TPP were politicians, their sponsors, and beltway libertarians. :mj


The Chinese will love it once they re-write the treaty and become the dominant country in that region


----------



## QWERTYOP

Cashmere said:


> Don't agree with half of the shit Trump is doing, but I'm 100% behind the travel ban.
> 
> Enough is enough with a fucking random cocksucker just strolling into malls and etc just shooting up people.


Which is usually Americans... But yay travel ban!


----------



## DesolationRow

For some information about the "hacking" of the DNC, a long-forgotten story for some, I recommend following this link and the links provided thereat: http://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/02/tyler-durden/meet-awan-brothers/ It's looking increasingly likely that it was the Awan Brothers who may very well have been responsible for "hacking" the DNC. (It should be noted that Barack Obama, who clearly still has little love for the Clintons, kept using the word "leak" or "leaked" rather than "hack" or "hacked" in most of his addresses of the subject. :lol)


Outstanding post, @L-DOPA. You combed over much of what I have been mulling over. Rather than write such a lengthy post now, particularly since I do not have much time to do so at the moment, I will simply say that your comprehensive piece above substantively counters many false narratives concerning Trump's halt in issuing of visas. Looking over the 1952 statute which has for sixty-five years, there is, simply put, no rational legal backing behind Judge James Robart's order, which I spent some time reading in full, scouring the document. Even taken on its own merits Judge Robart's ruling makes no sense whatsoever for he refuses to provide one iota of reason for why the petitioner will ever succeed on the merits. It's flawed conjured false legalism stacked atop flawed conjured false legalism. Was discussing this with a veteran judge this morning by phone and this is probably one of the most libertarian and civil liberties-minded judges in the U.S., who like myself knows the U.S. Constitution just about word-for-word, and he simply said to me, "There's nothing there, there's no legal basis for this ruling by Robart," which is painfully obvious but it's always good to hear from someone you greatly respect concur. Just as a federal judge attacking President Obama's order blocking the immigration of Cuban nationals with the "wet foot, dry foot" policy being shuttered approximately one week before leaving office would have no legal, constitutional basis for doing so. 

Unfortunately claims about hastiness on the ruling are proving accurate due to the peril involved in issuing major executive orders without your own Attorney General, Solicitor General or new U.S. Attorneys ensconced within the Department of Justice. Beginning from this moment forward the new president needs to explain major executive orders within minutes after signing them, frame the narrative to the best of his abilities, and most critically, with a largely hostile and activist judicial branch following eight years of Obama, have the administration lawyers ready to pounce. 

For this is not some esoteric matter that requires a series of philosopher kings holding interminable summits to determine the case law. The 1952 federal statute is crystal clear. Ever since that time, thanks to the statute, the power was especially entrusted to the sitting president with express powers to autonomously hold the power to suspend the immigration of any single person, class, or group of people for the public health, safety and national security of the U.S. This has been understood far and wide within the judicial branch for two thirds of a century. 

Obviously Donald Trump and Steve Bannon look at Islam with a justly leery eye, for it is more than a religion, it is, like communism during the Cold War, an ideology which poses a genuine threat to U.S. national security when held by fanatics. Trump and Rudy Giuliani were too open with their rhetoric as you note, *L-DOPA*, and so the "Muslim ban" phraseology has become widespread (which is hilarious for myriad reasons, namely that this halt is only for a few short months during which time vetting could actually take place in a somewhat orderly manner instead of the present refugee-fueled madness overwhelming U.S. Customs and ICE). It is easy to concur with those who argued that the halt did not go far enough, and it is plausible to suggest that it is in its way "anti-Islamic" in nature, but even with these points coupled to some of the ungainly developments tied to its issuance--which is always going to happen with government solutions, resting on violence or the threat thereof as they invariably do--Judge Robart had no legal standing by which to block Trump's order. As Trump's Supreme Court Justice nominee Neil Gorsuch noted, "A judge who likes every outcome he reaches is very likely a bad judge," and sadly the U.S. judicial branch more than its share of judges who wish to like the outcome they reach.


----------



## samizayn

L-DOPA said:


> If we are just basing this off what the ramifications are now in terms of how the executive order effects current policy in regards to the Constitution, I personally don't see any grounds for a blocking. I tend to agree with the Boston judge rather than the Seattle one.
> 
> This doesn't mean I can't understand the conclusions made for this block to come about however.


Excellent post! Even with the BOTCHED mentions (I can't figure them out myself either lol)

Let me try to get to everything. I wasn't aware that the religious aspect of the ban was what was used as grounds for the halt, actually. I thought the reasoning behind it was what held merit in the eyes of the court, and the fact of it being "utterly divorced" from its purported goal as the one guy said is what made it not viable. That's why I was against the ban and I got the impression that Robart was using the interpretation of some law to strike the EO down for that same reason.

So regarding sec 5, the argument is essentially what it could be vs what it is. I'd lean with the second judge, too. Had the current administration taken the time to make this EO more airtight, that interpretation would have been the only viable one.


DesolationRow said:


> For this is not some esoteric matter that requires a series of philosopher kings holding interminable summits to determine the case law. The 1952 federal statute is crystal clear. Ever since that time, thanks to the statute, the power was especially entrusted to the sitting president with express powers to autonomously hold the power to suspend the immigration of any single person, class, or group of people for the public health, safety and national security of the U.S. This has been understood far and wide within the judicial branch for two thirds of a century.


Yeah that's illuminating, I sadly know zero veteran judges. It's difficult to consider what has merit when who we really need to be listening to are the various professionals that have dedicated their lives to studying and enforcing the letter of the law. Can't understand how I've not been able to see any prominent legal professionals speaking on Robart's ruling one way or another.

Regarding the 1952 law, I read about a 1960s amendment that targets the ethnic provisions that were put in place. You've reminded me to look it up and I have found a pdf here.

It sas


> (a) No person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of his race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.


It then lists exceptions which are things like immediate family members of immigants getting preference and things like that. I don't know if that has since been amended or repealed or whatever though. Do you have any more info? I'd appreciate clarification on it.


----------



## virus21




----------



## DOPA

samizayn said:


> Excellent post! Even with the BOTCHED mentions (I can't figure them out myself either lol)
> 
> Let me try to get to everything. I wasn't aware that the religious aspect of the ban was what was used as grounds for the halt, actually. I thought the reasoning behind it was what held merit in the eyes of the court, and the fact of it being "utterly divorced" from its purported goal as the one guy said is what made it not viable. That's why I was against the ban and I got the impression that Robart was using the interpretation of some law to strike the EO down for that same reason.
> 
> So regarding sec 5, the argument is essentially what it could be vs what it is. I'd lean with the second judge, too. Had the current administration taken the time to make this EO more airtight, that interpretation would have been the only viable one.


That basically what it boils down to from a legal perspective. As mentioned in the post, the Seattle judge did not even have to use the issue of legality to even block the bill itself rather on the basis of the complaints and lawsuit files from the two states Washington and Minnesota. But from a legality standpoint in terms of blocking the bill, the argument is essentially over this section 5, b) which is what the two judges are mentioning.

There is mention of justifying the rationale behind the bill in regards to it's intended goal. But if you look at the constitutional legality of the EO reading both the Forbes and Zero Hedge articles detailing how each judge came to their decision, it is essentially based on section 5 and the issue of future admittance of refugees and prioritizing religious minorities.

On those grounds my conclusion is that the Seattle judge was wrong in this instance.


----------



## DesolationRow

@samizayn

Concerning your point there is certainly the 1960s amendment about which you write (though there have been varied judicial readings of the extent to which its provisions cover presidential orders, the rulings leaving the president with wide latitude in the implementations of such immigration- and naturalization-related orders). 

Something else that informs the argument against banning those of a particular religion, which is certainly grounded in reality, is the post-Cold War Immigration Act of 1990. Put simply, most provisions with which certain classes of immigrants remained excluded based on their personal political beliefs were revoked. 

Hope that helps!


----------



## DOPA

Roaming .


----------



## DesolationRow

stevefox1200 said:


> HISTORY WITH STEVEFOX1200!!
> 
> Do you know one the main reasons the Nazi party got tons of support in Germany?
> 
> Well, post WW1 the communist party grew massively and preached destroying the status quo and creating a more "fair society"
> 
> They attempted to do this by rioting, destroying public, and getting into gun fights areas as they believed that old ways needed to be destroyed
> 
> In response some of the former military and middle class formed little militia to protect their neighborhoods and although the government didn't like this they tolerated it as the police could not be everywhere at once
> 
> Many of these little militias latter became the SA, Hitler's first troops
> 
> Fast forward a decade and the communists, having enough with the rise of extreme right wing politics, decide to burn down the Reichstag which horrifies the average person and allows Hitler to ban all other political parties
> 
> Hitler was able reign fairly unchecked because he could paint himself as the stable and sane alternative to his opposition who was more interested with burning down das 1930s Starbucks and using their fists to show how unheard they were
> 
> People just wanted and stable and normal life and the lefts "overthrow everything" and "fix everything NOW" wasn't offering that
> 
> The average person didn't give a fuck about the Jews, they just didn't want violent militias everywhere and when they were promised that getting rid of the Jews would do that they were all on board
> 
> Communist rise with the right is acting retarded and fascists rise when the left is acting retarded and I don't see a fucking communist in the white house so straighten your ass up before you create some real Nazis


All quite true.

The Spartacist Uprising or January (1919) Uprising and subsequent communist and insurrectionist militia onslaughts, et. al., in Germany, remain one of my favorite subjects. Eric Waldman's book _The Spartacist Uprising of 1919 and the Crisis of the German Socialist Movement: A Study of the Relation of Political Theory and Party Practice_ is excellent, you have likely read it. Sebastian Haffner's _Failure of a Revolution: Germany, 1918-19_ is rather exhaustive, too. 

It's amusing to consider some of the parallel events closer to home with the Palmer Raids instituted by Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer in 1919-1920 to combat communist and anarchist subversion and terrorism during that "Red Scare."


----------



## FriedTofu

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/828574430800539648

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/828575949268606977
:ha


----------



## Vic Capri

Liberal UK politicians have banned President Trump from speaking at Parliament citing "racism". I guess they forgot it was because of radical Muslims why Brexit happened.

#PepperidgeFarmRemembers 

- Vic


----------



## Miss Sally

FriedTofu said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/828574430800539648
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/828575949268606977
> :ha


He's not exactly wrong, the polls were all wrong.


----------



## FriedTofu

Miss Sally said:


> He's not exactly wrong, the polls were all wrong.


The polls were within the margin of error. And predicted the winner of the popular vote.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Miss Sally said:


> He's not exactly wrong, the polls were all wrong.


You're honestly trying to defend his 'Any negativity against me is fake' narrative? I honestly still have a hard time believing a man who tweets stuff like that is President.


----------



## Miss Sally

yeahbaby! said:


> You're honestly trying to defend his 'Any negativity against me is fake' narrative? I honestly still have a hard time believing a man who tweets stuff like that is President.


Nope just agree with him about the polls. There is a massive fake narrative but not just about him. The MSM needs to get their shit together. Who is going to listen if they keep on not fact checking and going after petty shit?


----------



## Mra22

These liberals seriously need to go away. Now you have people threatening to kill Brady....

http://linkis.com/truthfeed.com/breaki/TU9Rs


----------



## CamillePunk

FriedTofu said:


> The polls were within the margin of error. And predicted the winner of the popular vote.


The Wisconsin and Michigan polls sure weren't. :mj


----------



## amhlilhaus

Miss Sally said:


> He's not exactly wrong, the polls were all wrong.


I wont agree with everything trump says or does, but this man is a revelation. Hes got everybody in the power structure tottaly pissed at him for exposing their bullshit.

Hes already a historical president on those things alone.

The establishment sucks, and hes shining a huge spotlight on it.

He better have super tight security


----------



## amhlilhaus

FriedTofu said:


> The polls were within the margin of error. And predicted the winner of the popular vote.


Name another election where the loser in the polls crushed the favored candidate in the electoral college.

Get outta here with the popular vote. 20 counties can outvote the rest of the country, and THATS WHY theres an electoral college in the first place

Heres the likely spoiler for the next election: a democrat popular vote win, lose the electoral college. It doesnt matter that democrats get 103% of the vote in big cities. They have to broaden their appeal.

Good luck with that


----------



## Art Vandaley

CamillePunk said:


> The Wisconsin and Michigan polls sure weren't. :mj


Yeah, but there were other states that went the other way just as much.

The polls were about as accurate as they've always been, the problem was people reading the polls.

You might remember the day before the election when some people were looking at the polls and saying Hilary was definitely going to win I was saying "no the polls don't say that it could go either way".


----------



## Oxidamus

Miss Sally said:


> Nope just agree with him about the polls. There is a massive fake narrative but not just about him. The MSM needs to get their shit together. Who is going to listen if they keep on not fact checking and going after petty shit?


What's Trump accusing of being fake right now? I hear it's polls, which I can understand but I don't want to make assumptions and form opinions without the right info.

Like, I can imagine Trump accusing a poll hosted by a news site to be inaccurate (ie "fake") because obviously a source that is liberal leaning or conservative leaning will have biased voters... but with the amount of drama this has stirred I doubt it's that simple.

I'm trying to use this thread to keep up to date, I fell off and so much is happening. :woah


----------



## FriedTofu

CamillePunk said:


> The Wisconsin and Michigan polls sure weren't. :mj


So you agree they were more right than wrong then? :draper2



amhlilhaus said:


> Name another election where the loser in the polls crushed the favored candidate in the electoral college.
> 
> Get outta here with the popular vote. 20 counties can outvote the rest of the country, and THATS WHY theres an electoral college in the first place
> 
> Heres the likely spoiler for the next election: a democrat popular vote win, lose the electoral college. It doesnt matter that democrats get 103% of the vote in big cities. They have to broaden their appeal.
> 
> Good luck with that


Why does losing the popular vote make Trump supporters this mad? :lol He's still your legitimate president based on the electoral votes.

I'm thinking the popular vote thing is more due to 1/8 of the American population is in California who is a 80% blue state. Maybe those people that are staying there should move inland for cheaper way of life and swing more counties blue. :troll

103% of votes? :ha


----------



## CamillePunk

FriedTofu said:


> So you agree they were more right than wrong then? :draper2


Those are two pretty big states to fuck up. :lol Clearly whatever insider polling the Trump campaign had which caused them to direct attention to those two states late in the game - at the ridicule of the over-confident pundits - was more on point.

The popular vote is irrelevant since nobody was competing for the popular vote. Pretty sure Trump supporters only get annoyed by that shit because idiot leftists bring it up as if its at all a relevant talking point and somehow delegitimizes Trump. If the popular vote mattered they would've campaigned differently etc.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Mra22 said:


> These liberals seriously need to go away. Now you have people threatening to kill Brady....
> 
> http://linkis.com/truthfeed.com/breaki/TU9Rs


Incidentally:


----------



## FriedTofu

CamillePunk said:


> Those are two pretty big states to fuck up. :lol Clearly whatever insider polling the Trump campaign had which caused them to direct attention to those two states late in the game - at the ridicule of the over-confident pundits - was more on point.
> 
> The popular vote is irrelevant since nobody was competing for the popular vote. Pretty sure Trump supporters only get annoyed by that shit because idiot leftists bring it up as if its at all a relevant talking point and somehow delegitimizes Trump. If the popular vote mattered they would've campaigned differently etc.


Oh for sure it was a pretty big screw up to miss so many swing states. I think the wide gap between the public polls and the results is the Clinton campaign overestimated the strength of their traditional hold on those states. They neglect to campaign in many of these states until the last minute. I assume Trump's team believe they can swing voters that disliked both candidates in those states into voting for him instead of third party or not voting at all with a last roll of the dice. Clinton's team failed to catch on until it was too late, especially when Trump's message is forgotten men and women will be forgotten no more. i.e don't throw that vote away. While the left had people in Sanders camp still telling them to vote third party. :lol

The popular vote isn't irrelevant if you ask Trump who has tried to force the voter fraud issue for weeks. Many of his supporters who gets annoyed are just sheeps following his lead. Just like leftists sheeps that use the popular vote to bash Trump. :shrug

If the popular vote mattered they would have campaigned differently, but that doesn't mean he would have won the popular vote either. It is just funny how much time he spends trying to discredit the results that he lost the popular vote. :shrug


----------



## DOPA

@Vic Capri @DesolationRow @AryaDark @Miss Sally @CamillePunk @Pratchett @Alkomesh2 @RipNTear @Goku @Alco @samizayn

Vic mentioned earlier about MP's blocking Trump from speaking at the British Parliament. That isn't exactly true, the decision came from one man who is the speaker of the house John Bercow, an absolutely despicable man who has shown utter hypocrisy in the past when he has gone out of his way to be political rather than moderate the debate on the floor. This situation is no different, denying the elected US President to address the UK Parliament when allowing leaders from countries like Kuwait, China and Indonesia who have horrific human rights records to address the House of Commons. Here is the evidence for his utter hypocrisy. I wouldn't be so critical if he was consistent with his principles, this is literally a publicity stunt from a man who revels in the spotlight.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/john-...isy-for-trump-parliament-ban-2017-2?r=US&IR=T



> LONDON — House of Commons Speaker John Bercow has been accused of hypocrisy for his plan to ban US President Donald Trump from addressing Parliament when he visits Britain later this year.
> 
> Bercow grabbed international headlines on Monday when he announced to MPs that he doesn't intend to allow Trump to speak to MPs when he makes a state visit.
> 
> He cited Parliament's strong opposition to "racism and to sexism" and its "support for equality before the law and an independent judiciary" as reasons why it should not play host to Trump when he visits.
> 
> However, his critics have pointed to a list of controversial world leaders that Bercow has previously welcomed to speak to Parliament.
> 
> In 2015, for example, Bercow said it was his "pleasure" to welcome Chinese President Xi Jinping, despite China being accused of a host of human rights abuses. The year before he played host to President of Singapore Tony Tan Keng Yam, even though male homosexuality is illegal in Singapore. He has also welcomed the leaders of Kuwait and Indonesia to Parliament in recent years, despite both countries having very sorry human rights records. Supporters of Bercow have pointed out that none of these were given permission to speak in Westminster Hall itself.
> 
> However, Conservative MP Nadhim Zahawi said that Bercow has opened "himself up to hypocrisy" and noted that many MPs were unhappy to see President Xi address Parliament in 2015. Conservative MP Alec Shelbrooke told the Sun: "It's outrageous and he’s brought his office into disrepute.
> 
> "He’s supposed to be a referee not a player. He introduced the Chinese President on a state visit and he rounds up political prisoners and shoots them. But he opposes the democratically elected of the United States?"
> 
> Bercow does not have the power to block Trump from making a state visit to Britain. However, as Commons Speaker, he has the authority to invite or indeed disinvite visiting leaders to address parliamentarians in Westminster Hall. The last US President to accept this invite was Barack Obama. The Speaker said yesterday that to speak in Parliament was not an "automatic right" but an "earned honour" that Trump does not deserve.
> 
> Bercow's speech came just over a week after Trump triggered global outrage by imposing a 90-day ban on people from seven majority-Muslim countries from entering the US. The executive order sparked protests both in the US and worldwide. In London, tens of thousands of people gathered outside Downing Street as part of a nationwide evening of protest.
> 
> Communities Secretary Sajid Javid said on Tuesday that the government does not share Bercow's position on Trump. Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Javid said: "The government is very clear: President Trump is the leader of our most important ally, he’s elected fairly and squarely, and it’s manifestly in our national interests that we reach out to him and we work with him, and he visits us in the UK."


So according to this moron, Trump doesn't have the privilege but these other leaders from countries whose record are far worse do. You cannot make this stuff up :lol. This is how you know the world has gone mad with hysteria surrounding Trump.


----------



## The5star_Kid

L-DOPA said:


> @Vic Capri @DesolationRow @AryaDark @Miss Sally @CamillePunk @Pratchett @Alkomesh2 @RipNTear @Goku @Alco @samizayn
> 
> Vic mentioned earlier about MP's blocking Trump from speaking at the British Parliament. That isn't exactly true, the decision came from one man who is the speaker of the house John Bercow, an absolutely despicable man who has shown utter hypocrisy in the past when he has gone out of his way to be political rather than moderate the debate on the floor. This situation is no different, denying the elected US President to address the UK Parliament when allowing leaders from countries like Kuwait, China and Indonesia who have horrific human rights records to address the House of Commons. Here is the evidence for his utter hypocrisy. I wouldn't be so critical if he was consistent with his principles, this is literally a publicity stunt from a man who revels in the spotlight.
> 
> http://uk.businessinsider.com/john-...isy-for-trump-parliament-ban-2017-2?r=US&IR=T
> 
> 
> 
> So according to this moron, Trump doesn't have the privilege but these other leaders from countries whose record are far worse do. You cannot make this stuff up :lol. This is how you know the world has gone mad with hysteria surrounding Trump.


and I thought only leftist liberals cried, smh 

get over it


----------



## DOPA

The5star_Kid said:


> and I thought only leftist liberals cried, smh
> 
> get over it


:lmao pointing out hypocrisy is crying now?

Please, spare me


----------



## Alco

L-DOPA said:


> @Vic Capri @DesolationRow @AryaDark @Miss Sally @CamillePunk @Pratchett @Alkomesh2 @RipNTear @Goku @Alco @samizayn
> 
> Vic mentioned earlier about MP's blocking Trump from speaking at the British Parliament. That isn't exactly true, the decision came from one man who is the speaker of the house John Bercow, an absolutely despicable man who has shown utter hypocrisy in the past when he has gone out of his way to be political rather than moderate the debate on the floor. This situation is no different, denying the elected US President to address the UK Parliament when allowing leaders from countries like Kuwait, China and Indonesia who have horrific human rights records to address the House of Commons. Here is the evidence for his utter hypocrisy. I wouldn't be so critical if he was consistent with his principles, this is literally a publicity stunt from a man who revels in the spotlight.
> 
> http://uk.businessinsider.com/john-...isy-for-trump-parliament-ban-2017-2?r=US&IR=T
> 
> 
> 
> So according to this moron, Trump doesn't have the privilege but these other leaders from countries whose record are far worse do. You cannot make this stuff up :lol. This is how you know the world has gone mad with hysteria surrounding Trump.


Idiots like that is what gives extra basis for populists to thrive on. 

Giving an open platform to everyone is what a) generates the most honest debate and b) usually exposes those who have no idea what they're talking about.

Not saying Trump has no idea what he's talking about, I'm talking more in a general sense. 

Trump's twitter activity needs to be limited though, it's getting thoroughly on my nerves.


----------



## Vic Capri

This is going to be a trainwreck of epic proportions tonight.

#PredatorVsAlien 

- Vic


----------



## Reaper




----------



## The Absolute

DeVos has been confirmed with Pence casting the tie-breaking vote. :bjpenn


----------



## Reaper

Cue dozens of posts from lefties all unanimously claiming that "she's incompetent" and using only the same 2 examples they all saw on imgur and twitter that completely defined how she's "incompetent" for them

And they call us the hive mind :kobelol


----------



## MrMister

Vic Capri said:


> This is going to be a trainwreck of epic proportions tonight.
> 
> #PredatorVsAlien
> 
> - Vic


:lmao is this real?

it is :lmao


----------



## Cashmere

QWERTYOP said:


> Which is usually Americans... But yay travel ban!


But he did say Americans are killers and shouldn't be innocent themselves ( which is true ).

Might not agree on everything, but at least he makes sure to cover all of the bases :draper2


----------



## RavishingRickRules

RipNTear said:


>


Yeah this is a common misconception I've seen actually. I happen to know a couple of bankers in NYC who've repeatedly had to lecture some of our other friends over the whole issue. My understanding as per their explanation is that when Dodd-Frank was enacted, the sheer level of bureaucracy and red tape involved in lending often meant that small local banks simply couldn't afford the manpower to process a large number of applications, to the point where a significant number of low-middle income families just couldn't borrow at all because it wasn't cost-effective for the banks. Compared to the muli-nationals and super banks (Citi etc) who can afford to have entire departments 100 people strong just to deal with all of the extra paper-load. Both friends agree that Dodd-Frank harmed the "common man" more than any other demographic and severely hampered smaller, local banks from functioning as effectively as their much larger competitors.


----------



## Reaper

RavishingRickRules said:


> Yeah this is a common misconception I've seen actually. I happen to know a couple of bankers in NYC who've repeatedly had to lecture some of our other friends over the whole issue. My understanding as per their explanation is that when Dodd-Frank was enacted, the sheer level of bureaucracy and red tape involved in lending often meant that small local banks simply couldn't afford the manpower to process a large number of applications, to the point where a significant number of low-middle income families just couldn't borrow at all because it wasn't cost-effective for the banks. Compared to the muli-nationals and super banks (Citi etc) who can afford to have entire departments 100 people strong just to deal with all of the extra paper-load. Both friends agree that Dodd-Frank harmed the "common man" more than any other demographic and severely hampered smaller, local banks from functioning as effectively as their much larger competitors.


The disappearance of small and medium-sized banks also hurts the small business owner and entrepreneur who is far more likely to get business loans from the smaller banks, further shifting the imbalance towards the established larger industries by continuing to stifle competition. The entire ecosystem of a healthy economy needs all of its players serving the role they're meant to serve.


----------



## wwe9391

I don't approve of Betsy of secretary of education but man it's so great watching all of Trumps cabinet picks get confirmed and seeing all the democrats eat shit. Also liberals crying over this is a bonus as well.


----------



## Reaper

wwe9391 said:


> I don't approve of Betsy of secretary of education but man it's so great watching all of Trumps cabinet picks get confirmed and seeing all the democrats eat shit. Also liberals crying over this is a bonus as well.


There should never have been anything called public schools. They've driven up costs of education by over 800% and in every single other industry where competition was allowed to thrive, costs have gone down including fooding and clothing. No one turns around and says that everyone is entitled to free food and yet food is a necessity. Therefore, feeding the world remained in the hand of capitalists who continued to drive costs down for everyone despite the fact that food is also a necessity. 

We would have seen the exact same thing happen in the Education "industry" had it allowed to remain an "industry" and not a poorly run government money-eater. It's created the least efficient and least effective method of educating our young and this problem is endemic across the western world where education remains "free". But in reality it's incredibly cost inefficient and ineffective largely because of unaccountable uncontrolled government spending. 

From that perspective, I believe that Betsy DeVos was brought in to try to convince Americans that their "free" education is costing them much, much more than private schooling would ever have. 

However, as far as what she actually does accomplish remains to be seen.


----------



## Reaper

Infowars is now _*considerably *_more reliable than CNN.


----------



## Vic Capri

Our President Trump has successfully trolled the mainstream media into extensively covering Islamic terror in order to defend itself against him. This favors his travel ban. :lol

- Vic


----------



## Cashmere

Vic Capri said:


> Our President Trump has successfully trolled the media into extensively covering Islamic terror in order to defend itself against him. This favors his travel ban. :lol
> 
> - Vic


See, he already knows they're gonna disagree with everything he does because it is him.

Has someone with a backbone and a mind of their own like Trump really doing this to others :done


----------



## wwe9391

Vic Capri said:


> Our President Trump has successfully trolled the media into extensively covering Islamic terror in order to defend itself against him. This favors his travel ban. :lol
> 
> - Vic


:lol Trump is pulling some house of cards shit. It's a shame he has to put manipulate the media in order to get the coverage he wants


----------



## Alco

Can I kindly ask some of you to stop using "liberal" as some sort of insult? It's an ideology, not a universal characteristic of the entire left. Depending on how you practice liberalism, one might not even be situated on the left at all. It's almost like someone should be ashamed to have liberal ideas. Stop it. Moreover, by using the term "liberal" to basically name call people who have different opinions, you're doing the exact thing you've been accusing the other side of doing for years. Come on now.


----------



## Miss Sally

Alco said:


> Can I kindly ask some of you to stop using "liberal" as some sort of insult? It's an ideology, not a universal characteristic of the entire left. Depending on how you practice liberalism, one might not even be situated on the left at all. It's almost like someone should be ashamed to have liberal ideas. Stop it. Moreover, by using the term "liberal" to basically name call people who have different opinions, you're doing the exact thing you've been accusing the other side of doing for years. Come on now.


In their defense they're usually not using Liberal in the classic form of the word but Liberal as in American Liberal or Democrat. Tater offers a good explanation on this. "Liberal" and Liberal are two different things.




RipNTear said:


> Infowars is now _*considerably *_more reliable than CNN.


Exactly why would CNN be worried about this? Aren't the "Leftist" msm and SJws constantly asking for safe spaces and places where only people of certain identities can go?


----------



## DOPA

:sodone

If Trump did actually think that far ahead to purposely create falsehoods so that the MSM would take the bait and cover Islamic Terrorism extensively to get support for his travel halt then he is a genius :lmao.

Plausible? Maybe.


----------



## Miss Sally

L-DOPA said:


> :sodone
> 
> If Trump did actually think that far ahead to purposely create falsehoods so that the MSM would take the bait and cover Islamic Terrorism extensively to get support for his travel halt then he is a genius :lmao.
> 
> Plausible? Maybe.


Unsure but this isn't the first time he's manipulated people just when people thought he was done or a complete moron and then WOOSH tables turned!


----------



## Reaper

Alco said:


> Can I kindly ask some of you to stop using "liberal" as some sort of insult? It's an ideology, not a universal characteristic of the entire left. Depending on how you practice liberalism, one might not even be situated on the left at all. It's almost like someone should be ashamed to have liberal ideas. Stop it. Moreover, by using the term "liberal" to basically name call people who have different opinions, you're doing the exact thing you've been accusing the other side of doing for years. Come on now.


"Not all liberals are like that". 

Making fun of liberals and even invoking the liberal name in posts and comments already implies that this is something we acknowledge and we don't need to repeat in every single post. This is basically not an argument but rather a complaint based on _pretending _to believe that the other person really believes that "all are like that" when poking fun based on a specific example. 

You see what I'm getting at? 

Obviously I know not all liberals/lefties are like that just as I know that not all feminists are like that, that not all muslims are like that. But why do I have to make sure that it's stated in every single post that includes the term liberals/leftists/feminists/muslims? This distinction obviously implied in a conversation and we shouldn't have to always make sure that we're making this distinction in every single post otherwise half the content of the post will be filled with distinctions and no actual discussion could be had. 

I'm pretty sure you don't actually honestly believe that anyone here is actually making a generalization even when they make one. It's not a discussion. It's a distraction and another attempt at a "gotcha" moment. It's still morality policing imo.


----------



## amhlilhaus

FriedTofu said:


> So you agree they were more right than wrong then? :draper2
> 
> 
> 
> Why does losing the popular vote make Trump supporters this mad? :lol He's still your legitimate president based on the electoral votes.
> 
> I'm thinking the popular vote thing is more due to 1/8 of the American population is in California who is a 80% blue state. Maybe those people that are staying there should move inland for cheaper way of life and swing more counties blue. :troll
> 
> 103% of votes? :ha


Yeah, obama polled with no votes cast for mccain.


----------



## glenwo2

FriedTofu said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/828574430800539648
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/828575949268606977
> :ha


The fuck are YOU laughing about? 

The polls were, IN FACT, wrong. :shrug


----------



## wwe9391

I hate it when democrats categorize all American people for against Trump. Pisses me the fuck off.


----------



## Alco

RipNTear said:


> "Not all liberals are like that".
> 
> Making fun of liberals and even invoking the liberal name in posts and comments already implies that this is something we acknowledge and we don't need to repeat in every single post. This is basically not an argument but rather a complaint based on _pretending _to believe that the other person really believes that "all are like that" when poking fun based on a specific example.
> 
> You see what I'm getting at?
> 
> Obviously I know not all liberals/lefties are like that just as I know that not all feminists are like that, that not all muslims are like that. But why do I have to make sure that it's stated in every single post that includes the term liberals/leftists/feminists/muslims.
> 
> I'm pretty sure you don't actually honestly believe that anyone here is actually making a generalization even when they make one. It's not a discussion. It's a distraction and another attempt at a "gotcha" moment. It's still morality policing imo.


Of course I do not believe that. The point I'm making is that Trump supporters are now using Liberals as an insult, whereas they were very vigorously getting at their opponents for name calling _them_ for a number of years during the election campaign. It comes across as hypocritical and condescending. I'm not talking about you either, btw. I can understand this is a huge victory for Trump-supporters, and maybe even conservatives in general and that there's an enormous sense of satisfaction coming with Trump winning. Still don't have to be a dick about it though (again, not talking about you personally).

I'm not looking for gotcha moments. I'm not looking to distract either. I'm just irritated that people who argue against Trump and have different opinions are insulted in the same breath as all those idiots that feel the need to protest a legitimately elected president who's not even a month in office. I guess, like @Miss Sally said, I should mentally make the distinction between "Liberal" and liberal, but it's no easy task when that is your own ideological belief . 

Oh and for the record, there have been memes posted around here and on various other places, making fun of the losers of the election, that were absolutely gold. Much fun was poked. But you know as well as I do that not every argument here is always in good spirit and good fun. 

That being said, the monkey's off my back now that I've released my verbal diarrhoea, so you can all get back to where you were. :side:


----------



## glenwo2

Mra22 said:


> These liberals seriously need to go away. Now you have people threatening to kill Brady....
> 
> http://linkis.com/truthfeed.com/breaki/TU9Rs


Are they Jets fans? >


'Cause then I can understand(me being one). Otherwise, yeah. those liberals DO need to get lost. 





L-DOPA said:


> Roaming .


She's cute. 

Sorry....what was this video about, again? :lol


----------



## Reaper

Alco said:


> Of course I do not believe that. The point I'm making is that Trump supporters are now using Liberals as an insult, whereas they were very vigorously getting at their opponents for name calling _them_ for a number of years during the election campaign. It comes across as hypocritical and condescending. I'm not talking about you either, btw. I can understand this is a huge victory for Trump-supporters, and maybe even conservatives in general and that there's an enormous sense of satisfaction coming with Trump winning. Still don't have to be a dick about it though (again, not talking about you personally).


That's ok. You don't have to be nice to me. I'm well aware that I can be and am a condescending prick at times and it's fine to call me out on it. My name-calling of liberals is reactionary because the same people that used to hang on my every word when I was self-identified as a liberal and would regurgitate their talking points have now turned their back on me (not just on this site, but within my immediate family too) - despite the fact that my actual social values regarding individual and personal liberty haven't changed at all. 

If I'm being a dick - you're better off calling me one because I certainly won't let an opportunity slip if it happens to go the other way. 



> I'm not looking for gotcha moments. I'm not looking to distract either. I'm just irritated that people who argue against Trump and have different opinions are insulted in the same breath as all those idiots that feel the need to protest a legitimately elected president who's not even a month in office. I guess, like @Miss Sally said, I should mentally make the distinction between "Liberal" and liberal, but it's no easy task when that is your own ideological belief .


Actually, that's not true. I've and many others have continued to oppose several of Trump's first few acts and I wasn't insulted by any Trump supporter. 

It's just that there's a few repeat offenders in this thread who've been peddling the same opinion for more than a year that are the brunt of the jokes within this thread. They've shown almost no capability to assimilate any point of view or opinion expressed to them despite the collective efforts of the right-wingers in this group so over time they've basically gotten to the point of becoming cheese-graters for some of us :draper2



> That being said, the monkey's off my back now that I've released my verbal diarrhoea, so you can all get back to where you were. :side:


One of the reasons why I like this thread is that this is literally the only place I've been to that's actually less of an echo chamber than many others. The liberals here are generally much more tolerable than on other sites and contrary to popular opinion, we're not an echo chamber. Buried within the walls of text is a great deal of nuance.


----------



## Alco

How can I call you a dick when you articulate your opinion so well


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

L-DOPA said:


> :sodone
> 
> If Trump did actually think that far ahead to purposely create falsehoods so that the MSM would take the bait and cover Islamic Terrorism extensively to get support for his travel halt then he is a genius :lmao.
> 
> Plausible? Maybe.












He's done masterful chess plays before, so I wouldn't be surprised if he did it again. :trump3


----------



## glenwo2

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> He's done masterful chess plays before, so I wouldn't be surprised if he did it again. :trump3


CHECKMATE!



BTW, here's a little something amusing :


----------



## Vic Capri

Betsy Devos has been confirmed as Education Secretary. Me on social media right now:














> Of course I do not believe that. The point I'm making is that Trump supporters are now using Liberals as an insult, whereas they were very vigorously getting at their opponents for name calling them for a number of years during the election campaign. It comes across as hypocritical and condescending. I'm not talking about you either, btw. I can understand this is a huge victory for Trump-supporters, and maybe even conservatives in general and that there's an enormous sense of satisfaction coming with Trump winning.


I don't give a fuck! To quote Michael Caine since it describes them best:


> Some men aren't looking for anything logical They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.


And given the non-stop violence since election night, I will keep fighting against liberalism until my final breath.

- Vic


----------



## glenwo2

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao


----------



## Reaper

glenwo2 said:


> CHECKMATE!
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, here's a little something amusing :


Brietbart and others are having a field day with a report that recently claimed that 92% of left wing protesters still live with their parents. :kobelol


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*What a surprise: Trump supporters are justifying the selection of an unqualified moron that paid their way into office :eyeroll.*


----------



## Dr. Middy

Genuinely curious, in what way is it good to have somebody with no experience in education and who basically paid her way into the position become the new Education Secretary?

I see nothing good coming out of this.


----------



## CamillePunk

They don't need to have experience in education if their job is to help facilitate the abolition of the Department of Education.  The myth is that the DOE is in any way necessary or has been a benefit to our country.


----------



## Reaper

Dr. Middy said:


> Genuinely curious, in what way is it good to have somebody with no experience in education and who basically paid her way into the position become the new Education Secretary?
> 
> I see nothing good coming out of this.


Because her charge isn't to continue to run the system, but to change it. She's _supposed _to be the agent of change, not someone who needs to continue to maintain an ailing system and let it continue to be the blood soaking sponge of a bloated government. Of course the democrats want to oppose her the most. It has nothing to do with her qualification but the fact that she represents the first time in American history someone who can make average Americans look at the public "free" education system and go "you know what, maybe we've been spending our money poorly". 

Now, I'm not saying that she will change everything for the better, I'm just saying that she's supposed to bring change. The kind of change that the vast majority of people haven't even realized exists as a potentially better system. 

This is why you see the left criticize her lack of qualifications to run the education system. That criticism however is as irrelevant as her qualifications themselves.


----------



## Dr. Middy

CamillePunk said:


> They don't need to have experience in education if their job is to help facilitate the abolition of the Department of Education.  The myth is that the DOE is in any way necessary or has been a benefit to our country.


So you'd let every state control and create their own education systems independent from each other? Wouldn't that cause a lot of issues in the long run? Instead of completely eliminate the system entirely, would it be better to maybe make a more loose set of rules that every state abides by, so there are some things that remain intact (like all schools needing kids to have a certain literacy level for a certain grade), while getting rid of programs and rules that only hinder (the common core)?

What would happen to schools who depend on federal funding from the DOE, especially in lower income area? Or the whole student loan system which a vast majority of students rely on in order to attend college. Obvious that can't just be eliminated right?

There's a lot of questions here that should be worked out before the thought is even considered. Regardless if I agree or not with the idea (which I don't), you shouldn't do stuff this drastic if there is nothing in line to fill its place and address all the issues such an act would cause.


----------



## Dr. Middy

RipNTear said:


> Because her charge isn't to continue to run the system, but to change it. She's _supposed _to be the agent of change, not someone who needs to continue to maintain an ailing system and let it continue to be the blood soaking sponge of a bloated government. Of course the democrats want to oppose her the most. It has nothing to do with her qualification but the fact that she represents the first time in American history someone who can make average Americans look at the public "free" education system and go "you know what, maybe we've been spending our money poorly".
> 
> Now, I'm not saying that she will change everything for the better, I'm just saying that she's supposed to bring change. The kind of change that the vast majority of people haven't even realized exists as a potentially better system.
> 
> This is why you see the left criticize her lack of qualifications to run the education system. That criticism however is as irrelevant as her qualifications themselves.


Would it not be wise to know the system beforehand in order to properly initiate change? 

I understand and agree that the current system is flawed in a lot of ways and I would love if there was some change that would benefit the children and students most of all, but I have a lot of questions and doubts with her there right now.


----------



## Reaper

Dr. Middy said:


> Would it not be wise to know the system beforehand in order to properly initiate change?
> 
> I understand and agree that the current system is flawed in a lot of ways and I would love if there was some change that would benefit the children and students most of all, but I have a lot of questions and doubts with her there right now.


First of all it isn't an established fact by any standard whatsoever that she doesn't know the system. She's been an education advocate for decades and has an alternative system which means that her alternative was designed as a response to the existing system implying that she's aware of the existing system and its flaws. 

Secondly she doesn't have to know the existing system and all its intricacies. All she really needs to know are its flaws and based on her speeches that I spent hours listening to, it's clear that she's fully qualified to implement what she's here to implement. 

If people agree that the system is broken then the opposition to the set of ideas that are designed to overhaul that system is contradictory. In poorly funded neighborhoods one of the main reasons why kids drop out in huge numbers is because there's just no accountability or option available to youth who didn't happen to win the lottery with regards to where their parents live or their parents' circumstances. Charter schools represent a great deal of potential success for parents and kids who end up in situations where they're trapped in areas with shit schools.


----------



## CamillePunk

Dr. Middy said:


> So you'd let every state control and create their own education systems independent from each other? Wouldn't that cause a lot of issues in the long run? Instead of completely eliminate the system entirely, would it be better to maybe make a more loose set of rules that every state abides by, so there are some things that remain intact (like all schools needing kids to have a certain literacy level for a certain grade), while getting rid of programs and rules that only hinder (the common core)?
> 
> What would happen to schools who depend on federal funding from the DOE, especially in lower income area? Or the whole student loan system which a vast majority of students rely on in order to attend college. Obvious that can't just be eliminated right?
> 
> There's a lot of questions here that should be worked out before the thought is even considered. Regardless if I agree or not with the idea (which I don't), you shouldn't do stuff this drastic if there is nothing in line to fill its place and address all the issues such an act would cause.


Ask @L-DOPA I'm more interested in doing what's right (reducing coercion, maximizing individual freedom) than doing what works best for the most people.


----------



## Vic Capri

> What a surprise: Trump supporters are justifying the selection of an unqualified moron that paid their way into office


You mean like how Obama awarded medals to celebrities who endorsed / donated to Hillary?

Should the President be required to have military service to become Commander-In-Chief?

- Vic


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

:chlol at Pence basically telling the dems to eat shit by being the tiebreaker in order to confirm DeVos.

Like with Tillerson, it should be somewhat interesting to see how she does considering she's a political rookie.



glenwo2 said:


> CHECKMATE!
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, here's a little something amusing :


----------



## Reaper

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Like with Tillerson, it should be somewhat interesting to see how she does considering she's a political rookie.


DeVos has been working with municipal and state governments for decades. She knows her way around politics. 

And Tillerson runs a mega corporation with a GDP greater than most first world countries even across international borders. 

They may be political rookies in the sense of not being career politicians, but they've been around politics and politicians throughout their careers. Tillerson much more so than most career politicians tbh. The guy runs a company that dwarfs countries in terms of its size and reach. He knows what he's doing.


----------



## virus21

RipNTear said:


> Brietbart and others are having a field day with a report that recently claimed that 92% of left wing protesters still live with their parents. :kobelol


Doesn't surprise me at all.


----------



## glenwo2

Legit BOSS said:


> *What a surprise: Trump supporters are justifying the selection of an unqualified moron that paid their way into office :eyeroll.*


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

RipNTear said:


> DeVos has been working with municipal and state governments for decades. She knows her way around politics.
> 
> And Tillerson runs a mega corporation with a GDP greater than most first world countries even across international borders.
> 
> They may be political rookies in the sense of not being career politicians, but they've been around politics and politicians throughout their careers. Tillerson much more so than most career politicians tbh. The guy runs a company that dwarfs countries in terms of its size and reach. He knows what he's doing.


:bjpenn at DeVos' track record.

However, I've already been on board with giving Tillerson a shot after how fairly personable he was during his speech to the state department.


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/828929808574849024
Seriously, that's all that Betsy represents. She's not here to destroy existing public schools at all. All she's here to do is create a system which allows normal / middle-class families the opportunity to get tax breaks for wanting to send their kids to private schools. This isn't taking your tax money and putting it in something else. It's letting parents decide how they want to spend their tax money on their kids.


----------



## Art Vandaley

Also public money shouldn't go to private schools, public money should go to public schools. 

If people want to send their kids to private school and pay for it cool, but the government should be spending every cent on education on making public schools better.

Unless there is a new tax to pay for these private school payments then the money will be taken out of something the gov already does, and/or it'll go into more debt. 

The sad reality is they'll force the education department to find the savings and it almost certainly will come out of public school funding.


----------



## glenwo2

^ I have to admit it's amazing how accurate Trump's face fits there. :lol


----------



## DOPA

@RipNTear Someone should retweet that to Elizabeth Warren while they are at it.


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> Also public money shouldn't go to private schools, public money should go to public schools.
> 
> If people want to send their kids to private school and pay for it cool, but the government should be spending every cent on education on making public schools better.


The system currently is based on uniform taxation which is then redistributed based on a lottery basis. 

For example, you pay an X amount in taxes, but happen to live in Area A which has a shitty school. Someone else lives in Area B and they pay the same taxes but their school happens to be better funded and better run for whatever reason therefore that parent who pays the same tax ends up winning a lottery so to speak. 

The charter system simply acknowledges this disparity and sets out to correct it by giving those parents who live in a shitty area a tax break so they can send their kid to a better school and isn't trapped into sending their kid to a shitty school while paying the same taxes. 

I actually personally experienced that in Canada where I ended up in a local area rich school which had much better facilities than schools around the city. We were all supposed to be in the same boat, but it was far from the truth.


----------



## CamillePunk

Alkomesh2 said:


> Also public money shouldn't go to private schools, public money should go to public schools.


Public money isn't a thing


----------



## TomahawkJock

RipNTear said:


> The system currently is based on uniform taxation which is then redistributed based on a lottery basis.
> 
> For example, you pay an X amount in taxes, but happen to live in Area A which has a shitty school. Someone else lives in Area B and they pay the same taxes but their school happens to be better funded and better run for whatever reason therefore that parent who pays the same tax ends up winning a lottery so to speak.
> 
> The charter system simply acknowledges this disparity and sets out to correct it by giving those parents who live in a shitty area a tax break so they can send their kid to a better school and isn't trapped into sending their kid to a shitty school while paying the same taxes.
> 
> I actually personally experienced that in Canada where I ended up in a local area rich school which had much better facilities than schools around the city. We were all supposed to be in the same boat, but it was far from the truth.


So does shitty school then die? Where do the kids go then? 

I'd like to think if you live in a certain area, your tax dollars will go to the school in that area but I could be wrong in that regard. I'm not expert at tax dollar distribution (Who really is?) That school would either die or poor people who cannot afford private school but do pay taxes to just get their kids into "shitty schools" would then either have a tax increase to keep that school alive or the school would die and they would have no where for the kids to go unless private schools lowered their prices. But who knows.


----------



## FriedTofu

Wouldn't there be a limit to the number of students private schools can take in? I don't think affordability is the only reason why most of American kids go to public schools. Is there really a choice in vouchers other than for the best private schools to cherry pick the best students even more?


----------



## Reaper

TomahawkJock said:


> So does shitty school then die? Where do the kids go then?
> 
> I'd like to think if you live in a certain area, your tax dollars will go to the school in that area but I could be wrong in that regard. I'm not expert at tax dollar distribution (Who really is?) That school would either die or poor people who cannot afford private school but do pay taxes to just get their kids into "shitty schools" would then either have a tax increase to keep that school alive or the school would die and they would have no where for the kids to go unless private schools lowered their prices. But who knows.


Tbh there is no such thing as not being able to afford to send your kids to school. But that's a lengthy economics debate about how people while pooling their money may actually be paying more over their lifetime. 

Also poor neighborhoods have poor schools under the current system so their kids are already not getting an education. They're just going to what I call an overpriced daycare. Their drop out rates are extremely high and knowledge rates extremely poor so those schools might as well not exist anyways.


----------



## samizayn

yeahbaby! said:


> You're honestly trying to defend his 'Any negativity against me is fake' narrative? I honestly still have a hard time believing a man who tweets stuff like that is President.


Donald Trump's twitter is honestly one of the more unsettling things you can find on the internet and that morning tweet just cemented it. Is he just a guy that enjoys employing hyperbole or does he really believe it's appropriate to say?


amhlilhaus said:


> The establishment sucks, and hes shining a huge spotlight on it.


How has he done this? I know he campaigned on "draining the swamp" but so far have read of nothing to that end.



L-DOPA said:


> So according to this moron, Trump doesn't have the privilege but these other leaders from countries whose record are far worse do. You cannot make this stuff up :lol. This is how you know the world has gone mad with hysteria surrounding Trump.


There's definitely a double standard between other Western countries and the rest of the world sadly. 



The Absolute said:


> DeVos has been confirmed with Pence casting the tie-breaking vote. :bjpenn


Shame, she sounds like a fucking idiot.

Speaking of fucking idiots, who exactly is that woman that fabricated a terrorist attack to support the ban? Is she an actual part of the administration or a notable advocate or what? Hope it's the latter because she is not well, mentally.



wwe9391 said:


> I hate it when democrats categorize all American people for against Trump. Pisses me the fuck off.


Yeah me too. It's very unfortunate because it's the kind of stuff that prevents different people from having dialogue.



CamillePunk said:


> They don't need to have experience in education if their job is to help facilitate the abolition of the Department of Education.


Oh wow, do you think that's what's happening?


----------



## CamillePunk

samizayn said:


> Oh wow, do you think that's what's happening?


Probably not, because most people are programmed to assume the only things that can happen in this country are things for which there's a government program named.

It's nice to dream though. :mj


----------



## Dr. Middy

RipNTear said:


> First of all it isn't an established fact by any standard whatsoever that she doesn't know the system. She's been an education advocate for decades and has an alternative system which means that her alternative was designed as a response to the existing system implying that she's aware of the existing system and its flaws.
> 
> Secondly she doesn't have to know the existing system and all its intricacies. All she really needs to know are its flaws and based on her speeches that I spent hours listening to, it's clear that she's fully qualified to implement what she's here to implement.
> 
> If people agree that the system is broken then the opposition to the set of ideas that are designed to overhaul that system is contradictory. In poorly funded neighborhoods one of the main reasons why kids drop out in huge numbers is because there's just no accountability or option available to youth who didn't happen to win the lottery with regards to where their parents live or their parents' circumstances. Charter schools represent a great deal of potential success for parents and kids who end up in situations where they're trapped in areas with shit schools.


Thanks for giving a video so I had some evidence to look at. Unfortunately all I got from that video other than her describing two great students, but saying nothing on what she would do to fix the current system, which I thought was the general question that she was being asked. It seems more like her filling a lot of space with a lack of substance. 

I don't agree really with the idea that all she needs to know are the flaws... and nothing else. You need to know not only the flaws, but also how each flaw effects the system as a whole, which would require actually knowing the ins and outs of how it works. What if certain flaws go deeper into sections of the current education system that she doesn't know much about? 

Charter schools are a nice idea in that they are more suited to how some children learn, and don't go with the one-size-fits-all sort of approach, which is nice especially with the bastard common core system. They tend to be more tight knit from what I've heard as well.

But I don't think that's the big fix idea, and I think that you can't have all 50 states doing their own thing. There needs to be certain aspects that remain integral to all schools, for example a generalized literacy level for all students upon graduation, or something along those lines. I know also that there's a bunch of for-profit charter schools, and I think that's sort of an issue that will increase without any oversight. There's also a lot of other varying issues like transportation being provided (especially more rural areas), some being lottery based meaning certain kids get left out in the cold, and that they are typically reliant on a lot of money provided by the community, a problem which would be evident in lower income communities.


----------



## FriedTofu

samizayn said:


> Shame, she sounds like a fucking idiot.
> 
> Speaking of fucking idiots, who exactly is that woman that fabricated a terrorist attack to support the ban? Is she an actual part of the administration or a notable advocate or what? Hope it's the latter because she is not well, mentally.


Kellyanne Conway. She was Trump's campaign manager is now counselor to the President. And she's not an idiot, she's terribly good at her job which is part of the reason why Trump won. She can defang most attacks on Trump and turn them unto those who use those attacks.

She's just a mercenary but one that is damn good at her job. Many of the attack points on Trump has been used by her when she was advocating for Ted Cruz.


----------



## Reaper

Dr. Middy said:


> Thanks for giving a video so I had some evidence to look at. Unfortunately all I got from that video other than her describing two great students, but saying nothing on what she would do to fix the current system, which I thought was the general question that she was being asked. It seems more like her filling a lot of space with a lack of substance.
> 
> I don't agree really with the idea that all she needs to know are the flaws... and nothing else. You need to know not only the flaws, but also how each flaw effects the system as a whole, which would require actually knowing the ins and outs of how it works. What if certain flaws go deeper into sections of the current education system that she doesn't know much about?
> 
> Charter schools are a nice idea in that they are more suited to how some children learn, and don't go with the one-size-fits-all sort of approach, which is nice especially with the bastard common core system. They tend to be more tight knit from what I've heard as well.
> 
> But I don't think that's the big fix idea, and I think that you can't have all 50 states doing their own thing. There needs to be certain aspects that remain integral to all schools, for example a generalized literacy level for all students upon graduation, or something along those lines. I know also that there's a bunch of for-profit charter schools, and I think that's sort of an issue that will increase without any oversight. There's also a lot of other varying issues like transportation being provided (especially more rural areas), some being lottery based meaning certain kids get left out in the cold, and that they are typically reliant on a lot of money provided by the community, a problem which would be evident in lower income communities.


For you to _truly _understand how any of this would actually work and why we support it, you'd have to dive right into first understanding how introducing competition into a broken system controlled by a monopoly (in this case, the government) works.



samizayn said:


> Shame, she sounds like a fucking idiot.
> 
> Speaking of fucking idiots, who exactly is that woman that fabricated a terrorist attack to support the ban? Is she an actual part of the administration or a notable advocate or what? Hope it's the latter because she is not well, mentally.


She's still smarter than that democrat leader who recently decided to come out against President Bush. Or maybe, she just mis-spoke. 

Anyways, it's actually a shame that a left-leaning progressive doesn't know the name of the First American Woman to ever lead a successful Presidential Campaign. I thought lefties loved to celebrate female firsts :shrug


----------



## Dr. Middy

RipNTear said:


> For you to _truly _understand how any of this would actually work and why we support it, you'd have to dive right into first understanding how introducing competition into a broken system controlled by a monopoly (in this case, the government) works.


If it would help me understand your side better, do you have anything that properly explains this I could read? I'll admit, I don't know too much about what you're describing (it's been a long time since I touched economics).


----------



## samizayn

FriedTofu said:


> Kellyanne Conway. She was Trump's campaign manager is now counselor to the President. And she's not an idiot, she's terribly good at her job which is part of the reason why Trump won. She can defang most attacks on Trump and turn them unto those who use those attacks.
> 
> She's just a mercenary but one that is damn good at her job. Many of the attack points on Trump has been used by her when she was advocating for Ted Cruz.


Oh sure. Then what on earth happened? At first I read the background on the two Iranians that were apparently thwarted in that area and thought fair enough there was a slip. But she had doubled down on there being a massacre, said that a marine died during it?... I hoped she was just some idiot because if she's a competent person than it makes this a lot more alarming than I'd like.


----------



## FriedTofu

samizayn said:


> Oh sure. Then what on earth happened? At first I read the background on the two Iranians that were apparently thwarted in that area and thought fair enough there was a slip. But she had doubled down on there being a massacre, said that a marine died during it?... I hoped she was just some idiot because if she's a competent person than it makes this a lot more alarming than I'd like.


Hmm are we talking about the same incident? The Bowling Green massacre was her saying a terrorist attack happened when it didn't. It was two Iraqis who got caught in a sting attempting to send aid to Iraqi fighters. They were not Iranians and she didn't double down on it being a massacre or a marine was killed. She doubled down on it being an 'honest mistake' of using the word massacre instead of terrorist and that's when other publications cited her using the same story and phrasing before the interview that blew up all over social media.

Her motive was probably to paint refugees as threats on American soil to justify Trump's executive order. :shrug


----------



## DOPA

I do want to write a post on the US school education system but it is getting late here and I need to sleep. What I will do is mention the fact that here in the UK, we have been marred by state education and for a long time having a one size fits all system going as far as having a national curriculum which I am absolutely opposed to. Recently, the Conservatives have introduced free schools which is essentially non-profit public schools which can be run by local communities or academies. 

To give you a personal story, round by my area there used to be a school called Hainault High School, which was without a doubt the worst school in the borough and it's OFSTED reports (which is government checks on the quality of schooling) was among the lowest in the country. Since the introduction of free schools and the option to open up academies, essentially pulling local resources together and to allow schools to work together, the school got changed to Forest Academy and has improved every single year since being re-branded and structured under an academy and away from the government national curriculum.

What's the lesson to learn here? Having government control and dictate education much like healthcare has very negative consequences for schools in poorer areas in which resources for teaching and subject matter are handled solely by the government. Competition and allowing academies to compete alongside state schools has actually helped raise the standards of schools which were once completely under government control. I've only named one example that is local to me, there are dozens more out there.

I'm certainly for school choice and wish in the UK we'd go further considering the results thus far but unfortunately, the public here are very much in the consensus that government is best to handle education which is disappointing.

I'll post about the US system soon....though I reckon @RipNTear and @DesolationRow know a tonne more than me on this subject.


----------



## Reaper

Dr. Middy said:


> If it would help me understand your side better, do you have anything that properly explains this I could read? I'll admit, I don't know too much about what you're describing (it's been a long time since I touched economics).


Oof. That's like 2 years of MBA school territory right here  

I really don't have the kind of patience that L-Dopa has when it comes to making epic posts, but I'll give you a cliff-notes version. 

1. Originally schools were basically a fully privatized / community subsidized entity. Think old western setllers in their shanty towns that had kids that needed to learn something. Think of the oil man and his community of workers. He needed workers. His workers needed happy and healthy family. He helped communities build schools and funded them. If not fully funded them, then he gave his workers enough money to be able to send his young ones to school. 
2. This kind of school system developed organically throughout the western world. Settlers would move in, farm the land, manybe strike gold or oil and the oil man would help communities set up schools. 
3. Now communities like this are developing into cities. There are still schools being built, being funded, kids being educated etc 

This is an organic setup that lasts several hundred years and education standards are Ok enough to help the local communities thrive and were still sending their kids to college. It wasn't until 1918 that the public school system even began in America. Now this doesn't mean that before 1918 there weren't public schools. There were small communities that had huddled together to create what they considered "public" schools. While many kids were still being taught by private teachers and tutors we had a small system of schools all over the country. 

In the 1950's, the government decided that all schools needed to be open to everyone. So it really wasn't until the 60's that we even had a fully federally controlled schooling system, and in all honesty we don't really have a system that's entirely funded by federal taxation as most schools remain under the control of states and municipalities. It's a convoluted system and we don't even have a common cirriculum outside of what is required to pass the SAT's. I'm sure you know that. 

Anyways, the key here is in figuring out how the schools get their funding in the first place. Only 10% of the funding for "public" schools actually comes from the Federal Government. The 90% funding of 15k American public schools is basically funded through a mixture of local state sales, corporate and property taxes. This is why we have such a huge disparity when it comes to why certain schools are better than others because the school in this sort of a funding environment is totally dependent on where the parents happen to live. 

Now, we need to compare this to the food industry for example. What you have in the food industry is a lot of price discrimination (which basically means that different levels of affordability for different levels of consumers). But at the same time, the capitalist maintains a high quality for even the lowest price food in order to stay in the market. What they basically do is target rich, middle-class and poor people with differently priced products which they achieve through making their means of production more effective. 

However, when it comes to school since it's all taken care of by the local and state funding, there is no competition for consumers (students) anymore therefore there's no real incentive to improve your school or provide a good service at a lower cost. So basically what happens is that instead of competing with each other to provide better schooling for kids, they simply don't do it and just continue to exist because they know that they'll get paid no matter what. There's no incentive to improve as there's no competition. So in the end the taxpayer doesn't get what he's paying for because he's no longer in control of the service as he can no longer speak with his wallet like he would do with regards to groceries. 

The idea behind Charter Schools is that it will introduce enough competition in these poor communities that it will get these shit schools to potentially shape up or lose their students hence lose their funding and simply die. It gives power back to the people and tells those schools that aren't doing anything to improve that either they improve or they die and in that case healthy competition for students (which is how they get their funding in the first place) will incentivise shit area schools to improve and use their funding more effectively. 

The final point is that in a system that is fully controlled by the government, the capitalist is much less likely to enter as there's no real incentive for him to do so. Most capitalists instead of starting their own schools to compete with existing public schools basically find ways to exploit the government funding because it's a guaranteed payout. There is no encouragement for the capitalist to create private schools for the middle class because the middle class has mandated taxes which will make it near impossible for the capitalist to attract consumers to his school. Betsy's system is the only way we have right now to break this government monopoly because giving a tax break will allow parents to send kids to private schools hence opening up government schools to competition. The more competition there is, the better it is for everyone because then there are no more guaranteed cheques coming in from th government. Now you have to improve your school and your standards because suddenly the tax payer has a choice.


----------



## samizayn

FriedTofu said:


> Hmm are we talking about the same incident? The Bowling Green massacre was her saying a terrorist attack happened when it didn't. It was two Iraqis who got caught in a sting attempting to send aid to Iraqi fighters. They were not Iranians and she didn't double down on it being a massacre or a marine was killed. She doubled down on it being an 'honest mistake' of using the word massacre instead of terrorist and that's when other publications cited her using the same story and phrasing before the interview that blew up all over social media.
> 
> Her motive was probably to paint refugees as threats on American soil to justify Trump's executive order. :shrug


Yeah exactly. My impression was that the most recent interview was the most public one (think it was on TV?) where people called her out on it and then she came out and chastised everyone for calling her a liar when all it was was a slip of the tongue. I call the recent interview doubling down because of the previous ones you mentioned - if it had been a mistake she would have used her intended correct phrasing, surely. 

I'm sorry for linking Cosmo lol) but they were the ones that had one of the earlier interviews. TMZ was the other. I was wrong, she did not say a marine was killed but rather:


> He did that because two Iraqi nationals came to this country, joined ISIS, traveled back to the Middle East to get trained and refine their terrorism skills, and come back here, and were the masterminds behind the Bowling Green massacre of taking innocent soldiers' lives away.


http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a8674035/kellyanne-conway-bowling-green-massacre-repeat/

So that's my worry. If she had a slip of the tongue once then sure. But no one accidentally says something like the above. For sure that was her motive but this is too big a fib for me to just mark down to classic politicians being politicians. It's huge!



L-DOPA said:


> I do want to write a post on the US school education system but it is getting late here and I need to sleep. What I will do is mention the fact that here in the UK, we have been marred by state education and for a long time having a one size fits all system going as far as having a national curriculum which I am absolutely opposed to. Recently, the Conservatives have introduced free schools which is essentially non-profit public schools which can be run by local communities or academies.
> 
> To give you a personal story, round by my area there used to be a school called Hainault High School, which was without a doubt the worst school in the borough and it's OFSTED reports (which is government checks on the quality of schooling) was among the lowest in the country. Since the introduction of free schools and the option to open up academies, essentially pulling local resources together and to allow schools to work together, the school got changed to Forest Academy and has improved every single year since being re-branded and structured under an academy and away from the government national curriculum.
> 
> What's the lesson to learn here? Having government control and dictate education much like healthcare has very negative consequences for schools in poorer areas in which resources for teaching and subject matter are handled solely by the government. Competition and allowing academies to compete alongside state schools has actually helped raise the standards of schools which were once completely under government control. I've only named one example that is local to me, there are dozens more out there.
> 
> I'm certainly for school choice and wish in the UK we'd go further considering the results thus far but unfortunately, the public here are very much in the consensus that government is best to handle education which is disappointing.
> 
> I'll post about the US system soon....though I reckon @RipNTear and @DesolationRow know a tonne more than me on this subject.


I assumed it was because no one gets any money without being a public school.


----------



## TomahawkJock

I don't like national curriculum as it I believe it stifles creativity but there should still be SOME regulation. You just can't have teachers coming in teaching whatever the fuck they want and pushing own agendas and ideologies (including religion in some cases). While some of you say it creates an open market of schools for students, the local school still has monopoly on the town especially in small communities. Kids themselves and in many cases, families don't have the means to just up and leave the town if they don't like what is being taught.


----------



## Dr. Middy

RipNTear said:


> Oof. That's like 2 years of MBA school territory right here
> 
> I really don't have the kind of patience that L-Dopa has when it comes to making epic posts, but I'll give you a cliff-notes version.
> 
> 1. Originally schools were basically a fully privatized / community subsidized entity. Think old western setllers in their shanty towns that had kids that needed to learn something. Think of the oil man and his community of workers. He needed workers. His workers needed happy and healthy family. He helped communities build schools and funded them. If not fully funded them, then he gave his workers enough money to be able to send his young ones to school.
> 2. This kind of school system developed organically throughout the western world. Settlers would move in, farm the land, manybe strike gold or oil and the oil man would help communities set up schools.
> 3. Now communities like this are developing into cities. There are still schools being built, being funded, kids being educated etc
> 
> This is an organic setup that lasts several hundred years and education standards are Ok enough to help the local communities thrive and were still sending their kids to college. It wasn't until 1918 that the public school system even began in America. Now this doesn't mean that before 1918 there weren't public schools. There were small communities that had huddled together to create what they considered "public" schools. While many kids were still being taught by private teachers and tutors we had a small system of schools all over the country.
> 
> In the 1950's, the government decided that all schools needed to be open to everyone. So it really wasn't until the 60's that we even had a fully federally controlled schooling system, and in all honesty we don't really have a system that's entirely funded by federal taxation as most schools remain under the control of states and municipalities. It's a convoluted system and we don't even have a common cirriculum outside of what is required to pass the SAT's. I'm sure you know that.
> 
> Anyways, the key here is in figuring out how the schools get their funding in the first place. Only 10% of the funding for "public" schools actually comes from the Federal Government. The 90% funding of 15k American public schools is basically funded through a mixture of local state sales, corporate and property taxes. This is why we have such a huge disparity when it comes to why certain schools are better than others because the school in this sort of a funding environment is totally dependent on where the parents happen to live.
> 
> Now, we need to compare this to the food industry for example. What you have in the food industry is a lot of price discrimination (which basically means that different levels of affordability for different levels of consumers). But at the same time, the capitalist maintains a high quality for even the lowest price food in order to stay in the market. What they basically do is target rich, middle-class and poor people with differently priced products which they achieve through making their means of production more effective.
> 
> However, when it comes to school since it's all taken care of by the local and state funding, there is no competition for consumers (students) anymore therefore there's no real incentive to improve your school or provide a good service at a lower cost. So basically what happens is that instead of competing with each other to provide better schooling for kids, they simply don't do it and just continue to exist because they know that they'll get paid no matter what. There's no incentive to improve as there's no competition. So in the end the taxpayer doesn't get what he's paying for because he's no longer in control of the service as he can no longer speak with his wallet like he would do with regards to groceries.
> 
> The idea behind Charter Schools is that it will introduce enough competition in these poor communities that it will get these shit schools to potentially shape up or lose their students hence lose their funding and simply die. It gives power back to the people and tells those schools that aren't doing anything to improve that either they improve or they die and in that case healthy competition for students (which is how they get their funding in the first place) will incentivise shit area schools to improve and use their funding more effectively.
> 
> The final point is that in a system that is fully controlled by the government, the capitalist is much less likely to enter as there's no real incentive for him to do so. Most capitalists instead of starting their own schools to compete with existing public schools basically find ways to exploit the government funding because it's a guaranteed payout. There is no encouragement for the capitalist to create private schools for the middle class because the middle class has mandated taxes which will make it near impossible for the capitalist to attract consumers to his school. Betsy's system is the only way we have right now to break this government monopoly because giving a tax break will allow parents to send kids to private schools hence opening up government schools to competition. The more competition there is, the better it is for everyone because then there are no more guaranteed cheques coming in from th government. Now you have to improve your school and your standards because suddenly the tax payer has a choice.


Don't sell yourself short, that was a pretty epic explanation there :becky2 Appreciate it!

See, I wish that this was explained more as the idea that they want to implement, because I feel like there's so much fear-mongering that people are failing to look at what they are considering. 

The idea you have here I do actually like, if it were implemented exactly like this. I still think you would need somebody to watch over all of it and make sure there isn't any underhanded tactics being done, because like I mentioned there are a lot of issues charter schools currently have, but in general this seems like it could work. So maybe retool the department of education to not be the ones who are a provider for the schools and control how the funding for the schools is collected, but instead are like the ones overseeing this new system and intervene should there be something wrong. I guess it wouldn't hurt to try out a system like this, the worst case scenario would it not working, and you end up creating a hybrid system of the old and this newer one. 

I still don't necessarily have much trust in Devos and Trump to really get this done though, but hell if I'm proven wrong I won't be mad in the slightest. :shrug


----------



## FriedTofu

I'm curious why would capitalist driven competition inspire better schools when the example of a school system from early settlers and capitalists were not profit driven nor had competition?


----------



## Reaper

Dr. Middy said:


> Don't sell yourself short, that was a pretty epic explanation there :becky2 Appreciate it!
> 
> See, I wish that this was explained more as the idea that they want to implement, because I feel like there's so much fear-mongering that people are failing to look at what they are considering.
> 
> The idea you have here I do actually like, if it were implemented exactly like this. I still think you would need somebody to watch over all of it and make sure there isn't any underhanded tactics being done, because like I mentioned there are a lot of issues charter schools currently have, but in general this seems like it could work. So maybe retool the department of education to not be the ones who are a provider for the schools and control how the funding for the schools is collected, but instead are like the ones overseeing this new system and intervene should there be something wrong. I guess it wouldn't hurt to try out a system like this, the worst case scenario would it not working, and you end up creating a hybrid system of the old and this newer one.
> 
> I still don't necessarily have much trust in Devos and Trump to really get this done though, but hell if I'm proven wrong I won't be made in the slightest. :shrug


I don't trust anyone with taxes. That's my default setting. 

However, I would be more inclined to trust the businessman with my money more than a career politician. Always. The businessman is the one bringing convenience to my life, not the government. 

In any case, Charter Schools still do fall under public schools. The only difference is that parents get tax vouchers to send their kids to a different school in their area. Florida for example currently has 270k kids in Charter Schools. So it's already happening. It's not a new idea and has been around successfully for a while. We have a few in our own city and that's where we plan on sending out kid in the future if we stay in Florida long enough. There is a significant difference in achievement between kids that go to normal public school and charter schools. Though I think much of the difference is organic as a result parents who are proactive in their kids' lives. If you're proactive enough to go through the trouble of sending your kid to a charter school, you're already a better parent than a lot of others imo. 

https://www.floridaschoolchoice.org/pdf/Charter_Student_Achievement_2012.pdf

Up until 2015, most everyone including democrats were singing praises of the charter school system btw and Betsy was one of the architects of that. 

Right now, the opposition is par for course for opposition to Trump. It's hysteria as usual.


----------



## Dr. Middy

RipNTear said:


> I don't trust anyone with taxes. That's my default setting.
> 
> However, I would be more inclined to trust the businessman with my money more than a career politician. Always. The businessman is the one bringing convenience to my life, not the government.
> 
> In any case, Charter Schools still do fall under public schools. The only difference is that parents get tax vouchers to send their kids to a different school in their area. Florida for example currently has 270k kids in Charter Schools. So it's already happening. It's not a new idea and has been around successfully for a while. We have a few in our own city and that's where we plan on sending out kid in the future if we stay in Florida long enough. There is a significant difference in achievement between kids that go to normal public school and charter schools. Though I think much of the difference is organic as a result parents who are proactive in their kids' lives. If you're proactive enough to go through the trouble of sending your kid to a charter school, you're already a better parent than a lot of others imo.
> 
> https://www.floridaschoolchoice.org/pdf/Charter_Student_Achievement_2012.pdf
> 
> Up until 2015, most everyone including democrats were singing praises of the charter school system btw and Betsy was one of the architects of that.
> 
> Right now, the opposition is par for course for opposition to Trump. It's hysteria as usual.


I just hope that if they do go along with this, that they take their time in doing so. This isn't the kind of thing you want to rush in implementing, because you want to be able to work out kinks in the armor. And you already have the mess that is this temporary immigration halt Trump did, which kinda shows that he should have been working on making plans and proving that what he was saying wasn't just smoke and mirrors, instead of just passing a ton of executive orders without much planning. 

I'm just happy to feel better about the education system, although there is a lot I still worry about in the long run.


----------



## TomahawkJock

Sending your kids to charter schools sound great... if there is one available anywhere close to you. There are not very many in rural Missouri and I assume that is such the case in many rural parts of the mid-west/south. I certainly like the idea of this but again I have qualms with it as I said in a previous post. With me not diving too deep into it, it seems to be more beneficial to people living in urban areas.


----------



## Reaper

Dr. Middy said:


> I'm just happy to feel better about the education system, although there is a lot I still worry about in the long run.


TBH, I don't even know what the lefties are whining about with regards to Betsy. The Feds only have 10% of the overal education budget of each school in the country. She'd need a lot of state/county level cooperation for her program to work. The plan isn't to use federal money to create new schools. The plan is to simply use existing private schools and let parents have their own money available to them to be able to send their kids to those schools - which have been shown to have a better track record for minority kids. 

The democrats were never the party for the minorities. They just want to tokenize minorities to keep begging for more taxation so they can siphon off funds to their programs which haven't helped minorities for decades. Charter Schools have shown to work because it puts agency back into the hands of the parents to be able to make smarter decisions for their kids. 

I'm a huge proponent of private schools since I'm a private catholic school educated man myself. I've seen the benefits with my own eyes. And my fees in Pakistan was like a measly $10 a month. School fees really isn't that high since there's so many "consumers" paying for it. The thing that makes it costly is government regulation and inefficiency :lol



TomahawkJock said:


> Sending your kids to charter schools sound great... if there is one available anywhere close to you. There are not very many in rural Missouri and I assume that is such the case in many rural parts of the mid-west/south. I certainly like the idea of this but again I have qualms with it as I said in a previous post. With me not diving too deep into it, it seems to be more beneficial to people living in urban areas.


TBH, remote towns struggle with resources and infrastructure. The choice that people there do have is to move out of their communities or improve what they do have together - which is something that happens in these rural communities anyways. That said, poor towns are actually still run based on the old system of pooled resources so their schools are not as bad as those in urban inner cities. 

So this is really ultimately needed to help inner city youth. It basically takes care of that fear of yours. 

Also, as far as curriculum is concerned, we definitely don't need an overarching government to regulate anything. The SAT's are a great tool to determine literacy as well as competence already and as long as the goal of every school is to meet the requirements for their kids to be able to go to college it's self-correcting. It's not like some schools will just randomly decide to teach whatever the fuck they want and not focus on helping kids get into college. Why would they even do that in the first place? Being able to place your kids into college is essentially enough of a check and balance to fix curricula. This is why homeschooling also works.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

RipNTear said:


> TBH, I don't even know what the lefties are whining about with regards to Betsy. The Feds only have 10% of the overal education budget of each school in the country. She'd need a lot of state/county level cooperation for her program to work. The plan isn't to use federal money to create new schools. The plan is to simply use existing private schools and let parents have their own money available to them to be able to send their kids to those schools - which have been shown to have a better track record for minority kids.
> 
> The democrats were never the party for the minorities. They just want to tokenize minorities to keep begging for more taxation so they can siphon off funds to their programs which haven't helped minorities for decades. Charter Schools have shown to work because it puts agency back into the hands of the parents to be able to make smarter decisions for their kids.
> 
> I'm a huge proponent of private schools since I'm a private catholic school educated man myself. I've seen the benefits with my own eyes. And my fees in Pakistan was like a measly $10 a month. School fees really isn't that high since there's so many "consumers" paying for it. The thing that makes it costly is government regulation and inefficiency :lol


Just out of interest, do you have any idea what an average private school in the US runs at tuition fee wise? I was very lucky to get an assisted place/scholarship at a private school here but without it being paid for me there would've been no chance in hell my parents could afford it. Annually for secondary school and 6th form it was between £6,000-8,000 per year to attend the school (it increased as I was there.) I believe it's just over £11k a year there now.


----------



## Dr. Middy

RipNTear said:


> TBH, I don't even know what the lefties are whining about with regards to Betsy. The Feds only have 10% of the overal education budget of each school in the country. She'd need a lot of state/county level cooperation for her program to work. The plan isn't to use federal money to create new schools. The plan is to simply use existing private schools and let parents have their own money available to them to be able to send their kids to those schools - which have been shown to have a better track record for minority kids.
> 
> The democrats were never the party for the minorities. They just want to tokenize minorities to keep begging for more taxation so they can siphon off funds to their programs which haven't helped minorities for decades. Charter Schools have shown to work because it puts agency back into the hands of the parents to be able to make smarter decisions for their kids.
> 
> I'm a huge proponent of private schools since I'm a private catholic school educated man myself. I've seen the benefits with my own eyes. And my fees in Pakistan was like a measly $10 a month. School fees really isn't that high since there's so many "consumers" paying for it. The thing that makes it costly is government regulation and inefficiency :lol


It sort of angers me about how liberals are being seen now, since I am one. The majority of us are willing to understand how the other side thinks and will be civil even when we don't disagree, the same as the majority of conservatives. These radicals on both sides are ruining it for everybody and it's so goddamn annoying to deal with sometimes. I wish liberals who were whining looked into it more and tried to understand it. I mean there is plenty of others issues I have serious problems with and am worried about, but this for an example isn't the "end of the world" that it is being made to be. 

I went to a public school and I felt like I got a perfectly decent education, mostly because I actually went and applied myself, and actually tried to understand what was being taught to me. Seems like a lot of the time there's also a lack of motivation from students as well, although being in Westchester, NY helped as to why I had a pretty good public school.


----------



## Reaper

RavishingRickRules said:


> Just out of interest, do you have any idea what an average private school in the US runs at tuition fee wise? I was very lucky to get an assisted place/scholarship at a private school here but without it being paid for me there would've been no chance in hell my parents could afford it. Annually for secondary school and 6th form it was between £6,000-8,000 per year to attend the school (it increased as I was there.) I believe it's just over £11k a year there now.


Let's break it down like this: 

Public school education in America ranges from $3000 / year to $13,000 depending on where you live. The average student in america costs at least $100k over a period of 12 years the way the current system is set up. The reason why only the super-rich can afford private schools for their kids is because despite their high tax burden, they can still afford to send their kids to private schools so the costs here are pretty high as a response to that. Gotta remember that everything for rich people just costs more, even if it doesn't cost more to produce it. Therefore while the average costs of private schools are about 9k - 14k / yar (which is almost the same as it is in the public school system), the only reason why middle-class families cannot send their kids to private schools is because of a lack of competition. 

We haven't even had a society where competition was allowed to dictate school prices, so talking about current prices is basically a self-damning discussion since it's oligarchical pricing.

The only way to determine how much it actually costs now would be to create a society where education is a perfectly competitive industry. Something that's likely not going to happen in our lifetime. 

I would imagine that if competition were allowed to exist we could get education costs down to a few 100 bucks a year.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

RipNTear said:


> Let's break it down like this:
> 
> Public school education in America ranges from $3000 / year to $13,000 depending on where you live. The average student in america costs at least $100k over a period of 12 years the way the current system is set up. The reason why only the super-rich can afford private schools for their kids is because despite their high tax burden, they can still afford to send their kids to private schools so the costs here are pretty high as a response to that. Gotta remember that everything for rich people just costs more, even if it doesn't cost more to produce it. Therefore while the average costs of private schools are about 9k - 14k / yar (which is almost the same as it is in the public school system), the only reason why middle-class families cannot send their kids to private schools is because of a lack of competition.
> 
> We haven't even had a society where competition was allowed to dictate school prices, so talking about current prices is basically a self-damning discussion since it's oligarchical pricing.


Makes sense. Tbh paying for my schooling just wasn't an option for my family, I come from a very poor working class background rather than a middle class one, as an idea the cost of my tuition fees would've been over half of my entire family's annual income. I was just interested in a comparison to see if it was more or less expensive there but it seems like it's around about the same price with current exchange rates (though when I was at school we were probably a lot more expensive as when I travelled with family we were getting around $1.50 on the £ compared to more like $1.20ish now.)


----------



## Reaper

Dr. Middy said:


> It sort of angers me about how liberals are being seen now, since I am one. The majority of us are willing to understand how the other side thinks and will be civil even when we don't disagree, the same as the majority of conservatives. These radicals on both sides are ruining it for everybody and it's so goddamn annoying to deal with sometimes. I wish liberals who were whining looked into it more and tried to understand it. I mean there is plenty of others issues I have serious problems with and am worried about, but this for an example isn't the "end of the world" that it is being made to be.
> 
> I went to a public school and I felt like I got a perfectly decent education, mostly because I actually went and applied myself, and actually tried to understand what was being taught to me. Seems like a lot of the time there's also a lack of motivation from students as well, although being in Westchester, NY helped as to why I had a pretty good public school.


Exactly. You won the lottery as I did when I moved to Canada. Funny thing is even there I used to be friends with a couple of guys that went to shit schools just because their parents decided to live in a particular area and they weren't _*allowed *_to go to better schools because arbitrary lines on a map fpalm

Meanwhile my parents moved to get me closer to a better school and paid more in rent then they would otherwise. I went to a public school filled with rich kids where I wouldn't have money to eat lunch meanwhile my friends would go out for lunch everyday on their fancy cars. Where the graduation trip was a week in Mexico and I saved 2 years just to get myself a computer. It wasn't something I cared for much back then but it was interesting to see how much of a difference location created. Makes me wonder what basis Canadians have of calling their social welfare system equal when the only thing that matters in giving you a great schooling and a shit schooling are some arbitrary lines on a map.


----------



## TomahawkJock

I went to a public school in Stockton, MO. A remote town of 2000 people. That's why I was talking about rural school systems. The school was not that good, the town is not that good (has a decent lake however that is pretty popular and pretty much gives it all its income in the summer) and in my 18 years of growing up there, so many businesses closed and it never really felt like the town improved.

Granted, I'm now going to a state university for free because I have a lot of scholarships. Graduated 4th in my class in high school. I applied myself and worked hard but I could have received a much better education somewhere else but obviously that wasn't up to me. My parents were not well off enough to be able to just move me to KC or something like that. 

Do I think the school would improve with no national curriculum? Potentially but I still don't think it would be the same level as a charter school but could many of the people from Stockton move to another city and go to a charter? Hell fucking no. I couldn't just do that on a whim and no one else really could. And I seriously doubt a tax break would help much. 

In my opinion, I believe that these rural communities would fall behind the urban charters. I don't know. With me coming from this type of upbringing, I'm just looking out for my town (regardless of how shit it is). We all get to college in the end if we work hard but this would put rural towns at a disadvantage I think.


----------



## Reaper

TomahawkJock said:


> In my opinion, I believe that these rural communities would fall behind the urban charters. I don't know. With me coming from this type of upbringing, I'm just looking out for my town (regardless of how shit it is). We all get to college in the end if we work hard but this would put rural towns at a disadvantage I think.


They won't Tom. Why? Because Charter Schools won't get any more funding than Public Schools. They'll actually get the same level of funding as Public Schools. It's an alternative, not an addition if you know what I mean. 

The only difference would be in how those funds are utilized by that public school.


----------



## TomahawkJock

RipNTear said:


> They won't Tom. Why? Because Charter Schools won't get any more funding than Public Schools. They'll actually get the same level of funding as Public Schools. It's an alternative, not an addition if you know what I mean.
> 
> The only difference would be in how those funds are utilized by that public school.


Thanks for this information. I didn't really know all that much about education in this country, mostly because I never really had much of a choice on where I went, but after hearing what you have to say I am by far for less governmental regulation. Do I think Betsy is the right choice to implement this? Not really. She seems like a moron to be honest just by her confirmation hearing. But regardless.

Question: Are you still for the feds handing out loans for people to go to college? Interested to hear your take on this.


----------



## Reaper

TomahawkJock said:


> Are you still for the feds handing out loans for people to go to college? Interested to hear your take on this.


This is a complex question that I haven't really thought too much about, but honestly I'm pretty sure that the same rules apply as they do to all government interference. 

It creates an ever-present pool of money that's so constant that it does nothing to help laissez faire mechanics to drive tuition costs down - therefore it creates a situation where colleges can continue to raise tuition since the market they're trying to attract can continue to afford the tuition without having to worry about their enrollment declining. Therefore there's less incentive for colleges to make sure they're charging a fair price for their tuition :draper2

---

Yo @L-DOPA -- remember that conversation we once had about the privatization of Police. There's a TV show about it now called APB. you might wanna check it out. It's not exactly a depiction of the radical pay for service concept but it's the closest we've ever come to its depiction on TV. 

The revolution is coming man. I'm all teary and shit :mj2


----------



## TomahawkJock

RipNTear said:


> This is a complex question that I haven't really thought too much about, but honestly I'm pretty sure that the same rules apply as they do to all government interference.
> 
> It creates an ever-present pool of money that's so constant that it does nothing to help laissez faire mechanics to drive tuition costs down - therefore it creates a situation where colleges can continue to raise tuition since the market they're trying to attract can continue to afford the tuition without having to worry about their enrollment declining. Therefore there's less incentive for colleges to make sure they're charging a fair price for their tuition :draper2


That's fair. Although I think _loans_ to individuals are different than pure _funding_ to universities that never have to pay back the money. 

I'm all for loans because its more of an individual decision whether to choose a state university or a community college. Am I for funding to colleges from the states? In today's society, I don't think we have much of a choice considering the size and scale of them. I think there are ways for universities to shed costs and increase efficiency to decrease costs. However, without state funding, these institutions would put all costs into the hands of the students and given what the CURRENT costs are, students could simply not afford that. 

For example, the newly elected governor of Missouri is decreasing funding to secondary education. Which honestly fucking sucks for me, because not only will I lose state grant money, but my university has announced it is going to increase tuition rates.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

I'm in favour of student loans, if they didn't exist I wouldn't have been fortunate enough to have some of the best education money can buy. I will say though that a loan system has to be properly implemented. There's been somewhat of an epidemic in the UK of students moving overseas to avoid paying their student loans back, which is definitely not cool in my book. Here your loan is taken from your wages automatically once you reach a certain pay threshold, however those who move overseas are expected to pay on faith alone. Whilst we currently have some way of recouping those debts within the EU, outside of the EU it's incredibly difficult to even begin a legal process to attempt to get those payments. I can only picture the situation getting worse post Brexit. Loans should always be loans, never hand outs.


----------



## Beatles123

Soarin' Ted killed it against Col. Sanders and his Original Recipe Socialist bullshit. :trump


----------



## glenwo2

^ So you were entertained, I take it? :lol


----------



## xio8ups

What a great time to be AMERICAN. TRUMP is the 45th us president.


----------



## TeflonDixie

Seriously, there's some GEEKS in here. Trump is where you're pinning that flag to! Lol. Beta people who need to attach themselves to a bully for some importance in life!

Don't cry when the republicans get sense and dump that tryhard.


----------



## Vic Capri

For the record, I don't like Ted Cruz at all, but he absolutely WRECKED Bernie Sanders. I didn't expect him to come prepared as he did. This debate came down to logic vs. emotion.



> They don't need to have experience in education if their job is to help facilitate the abolition of the Department of Education. The myth is that the DOE is in any way necessary or has been a benefit to our country.


I still think the DOE should be abolished. The states are supposed to have more power than the federal government anyway.

- Vic


----------



## Alco

RipNTear said:


> Yo @L-DOPA -- remember that conversation we once had about the privatization of Police. There's a TV show about it now called APB. you might wanna check it out. It's not exactly a depiction of the radical pay for service concept but it's the closest we've ever come to its depiction on TV.
> 
> The revolution is coming man. I'm all teary and shit :mj2


What's your opinion on this? Do you think the police should be privatized?


----------



## yeahbaby!

This 'privatise everything and let the free market sort itself out' is great until you realise big corporations will push their own agendas, take full advantage of legal loopholes, and not exactly play fair, and the government is basically powerless or unwilling to stop them.

If fully privatized schools are allowed to just do whatever they want can they be trusted to teach a balanced, useful curriculum?


----------



## DOPA

Alco said:


> What's your opinion on this? Do you think the police should be privatized?


Personally I don't think so.

I'll watch @RipNTear's program however.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*Multiple reminders that the Secretary of Education knows nothing about her job:*


----------



## Stephen90

Legit BOSS said:


> *Multiple reminders that the Secretary of Education knows nothing about her job:*


Neither does Kellyanne Conway.


----------



## Goku

i'm a fan of betsy. she has a nice smile.


----------



## DesolationRow

@AryaDark @CamillePunk @The Dazzler @Goku @L-DOPA @Miss Sally @RipNTear

Just close the Department of Education down. It has only existed for a few decades, no reason to consider it sacrosanct or necessary. 

In fact, the U.S. federal government's ungainly hand in shaping standards and practices in U.S. education has had a profoundly awful impact, time and time again. 

The Barack Obama administration's rule over U.S. education may, however, come in "first" in this regard, if by "first" we also mean "worst." St. Paul may have the answers for us all ahead of the curve.

Excellent article:

http://www.city-journal.org/html/no-thug-left-behind-14951.html



> No Thug Left Behind
> Obsessed with “racial equity,” St. Paul schools abandoned discipline—and unleashed mayhem.
> Katherine Kersten
> Winter 2017 Education
> Cities
> 
> In the Obama years, America’s public education system embarked on a vast social experiment that threatened to turn schools into educational free-fire zones. The campaign—carried out in the name of “racial equity”—sought to reduce dramatically the suspension rate of black students, who get referred for discipline at much higher rates than other students. From the top down, the U.S. Department of Education drove the effort; from the bottom up, local educational bureaucrats have supported and implemented it.
> 
> “Racial equity” has become the all-purpose justification for dubious educational policies. Equity proponents view “disparate impact”—when the same policies yield different outcomes among demographic groups—as conclusive proof of discrimination. On the education front, “equity” does not seek equal treatment for all students. Instead, it demands statistical equivalence in discipline referrals and suspensions for students of every racial group, regardless of those students’ actual conduct.
> 
> Equity advocates’ central premise is that teachers, not students, are to blame for the racial-equity discipline gap. They claim that teachers’ biases, cultural ignorance, or insensitivity are the gap’s primary causes. The key to eliminating disparities, they maintain, is to change not students’ but adults’ behavior. Equity supporters justify their agenda on grounds that the racial-equity discipline gap severely hampers black students’ chances of success in life. Kids who get suspended generally fail to graduate on time and are more likely to get caught up in the juvenile-justice system, they say.
> 
> President Obama’s Department of Education made racial equity in school discipline one of its top priorities. “The undeniable truth is that everyday educational experience for many students of color violates the principle of equity at the heart of the American promise,” according to Arne Duncan, who served as education secretary until early 2016. “It is adult behavior that must change,” Duncan stated repeatedly. “The school-to-prison pipeline must be challenged every day.”
> 
> Donald Trump’s Department of Education won’t have to wait to see how this project has played out in the real world. The public schools of St. Paul, Minnesota, are ahead of the curve in the racial-equity crusade. The violence and chaos that racial-equity policies have produced there should sound alarms across the nation about what can be expected by pursuing this course.
> 
> Valeria Silva, who became superintendent of the St. Paul Public Schools in December 2009, was an early and impassioned proponent of racial-equity ideology. In 2011, she made the equity agenda a centerpiece of her Strong Schools, Strong Communities initiative. The district’s website lauded the program as “the most revolutionary change in achievement, alignment, and sustainability within SPPS in the last 40 years.”
> 
> Demographically, the St. Paul schools are about 32 percent Asian, 30 percent black, 22 percent white, 14 percent Hispanic, and 2 percent Native American. In 2009–10, 15 percent of the district’s black students were suspended at least once—five times more than white students and about 15 times more than Asian students. In Silva’s view, equity required that the black student population be excluded from school at no more than twice the rate of Asian-Americans, the group with the lowest rate of suspensions.
> 
> Silva attacked the racial-equity discipline gap at its alleged root: “white privilege.” Teachers unfairly punish minority students for “largely subjective” behaviors, such as “defiance, disrespect and disruption,” she told the Minneapolis Star Tribune in 2012. To overcome their biases, teachers must learn “a true appreciation” of their students’ cultural “differences” and how these can “impact interactions in the classroom,” she said.
> 
> Silva hired a California-based diversity consultant, the Pacific Educational Group (PEG), to compel St. Paul school staff—from principals to janitors to bus drivers—to confront their own bigotry and to achieve “cultural competence” in working with “black and brown” students. In PEG-inspired “courageous conversations” about race, teachers were instructed to begin every statement with a phrase like “as a white woman, I believe,” or “as a black man, I think.” They learned that “shouting out” answers in class and lack of punctuality are black cultural traits and that what may seem to be defiant student behavior is, in fact, just a culturally conditioned expression of “enthusiasm.”
> 
> After implementing “white privilege” training, Silva moved to eliminate what she called the “punishment mentality” undergirding the district’s discipline model. In an effort to cut black discipline referrals, she lowered behavior expectations and dropped meaningful penalties for student misconduct. In 2012, the district removed “continual willful disobedience” as a suspendable offense. In addition, to close the “school-to-prison pipeline,” Silva adopted a new protocol on interactions between schools and the police. The protocol ranked student offenses on five levels and required schools to report only the worst—including arson, aggravated assault, and firearm possession—to police. School officials were strongly encouraged to handle other serious offenses—such as assault, sexual violence, and drug possession—on their own. For a time, the district administration actually tied principals’ bonuses to their track record on reducing black discipline referrals.
> 
> In 2011–12, disorderly conduct charges for district students dropped 38 percent from the previous school year. School-based offenses referred to the Ramsey County attorney’s office for charges also plunged. In 2006, school officials made 875 referrals for misdemeanor and felony offenses. In 2011, they made 538.
> 
> Silva also championed “Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports” (PBIS), an anti-suspension behavior-modification program that focuses on talking and mediation. Under PBIS, unruly students met for about ten minutes with a “behavior specialist” before returning to class or moving to another classroom or school, where they were likely to misbehave again. The “overwhelming majority” of behavior specialists are black, and “it’s not clear to me what their qualifications are,” wrote Aaron Benner—a former fourth-grade teacher who is black himself—in the St. Paul Pioneer Press in 2015. Some specialists “even reward disruptive students by taking them to the gym to play basketball,” he added. “There is no limit to the number of times a disruptive student will be returned to your class.”
> 
> PEG-trained “cultural specialists” reinforced the administration’s “blame-the-teacher” approach. They advised that if kids cussed teachers out, those teachers should investigate how their own inability to earn students’ trust had triggered the misconduct. The end result of a discipline infraction “should be more than just kids apologizing,” Kristy Pierce, a cultural specialist at Battle Creek Middle School told City Pages, which ran a series of articles on the mounting chaos in the St. Paul schools. “When you use the word ‘black’ versus ‘African American’ and the student flips out, understand where that might be coming from.”
> 
> In 2013, Silva made a final policy change. In the name of equity, she sent thousands of special-education students with “emotional and behavioral disorders”—disproportionately black—into mainstream classrooms. Teachers received no extra support to deal with this unprecedented challenge.
> 
> We have a segment of kids who consider themselves untouchable,” said one veteran teacher as the 2015–16 school year began. At the city’s high schools, teachers stood by helplessly as rowdy packs of kids—who came to school for free breakfast, lunch, and WiFi—rampaged through the hallways. “Classroom invasions” by students settling private quarrels or taking revenge for drug deals gone bad became routine. “Students who tire of lectures simply stand up and leave,” reported City Pages. “They hammer into rooms where they don’t belong, inflicting mischief and malice on their peers.” The first few months of the school year witnessed riots or brawls at Como Park, Central, Humboldt, and Harding High Schools—including six fights in three days at Como Park. Police had to use chemical irritants to disperse battling students.
> 
> “We are seeing more violence and more serious violence,” warned Steve Linders, a St. Paul police spokesman. “Fights at schools that might have been between two individuals are growing into fights between several individuals or even melees involving up to 50 people.” In September, a massive brawl erupted at Como Park High School. Police had to call for backup, as “the scene became very chaotic with many people fighting,” Linders said. “These are not . . . a couple of individuals squaring off with the intent of solving their private dispute,” teacher Roy Magnuson told the Pioneer Press. “These are kids trying to outnumber and attack.” In October 2015, 30 to 40 students clashed in a stairwell at Humboldt High School. Police tried to break up the brawl, as staff strained to hold a door closed to prevent dozens of students from forcing their way through to join the fight.
> 
> As the school year progressed, some high schools increasingly came to resemble war zones. Teachers suffered injuries while resisting classroom invasions or intervening in fights; police were compelled to Taser a disruptive student; and one teen brought a loaded gun to school, saying that he needed it to defend himself against rival gang members. At Harding High School, teacher Becky McQueen found her own solution to the chaos. McQueen—who had been threatened with death and shoved into a shelf by classroom interlopers—told City Pages that, to keep invaders out, she now asks her students to use a “secret knock” to enter her classroom.
> 
> Silva’s administration put the blame for the escalating mayhem squarely on adults. Jackie Turner, the district’s chief engagement officer, said that in response to the violence, the district would consider more training for staff and school resource officers on “how to appropriately de-escalate situations.” Fights might not have escalated, she said, “if some of the adults would have reacted differently.” Asked if students should be expelled for fighting, Turner replied: “You’re not going to hear that from me, you’re not going to hear that from the superintendent, you’re not going to hear that from any of the administrators.”
> 
> Meanwhile, at many elementary schools, anarchy reigned. Students routinely spewed obscenities, pummeled classmates, and raced screaming through the halls, Benner wrote in his 2015 Pioneer Press article. Elementary school teachers, like their high school counterparts, risked physical danger. Teacher Donna Wu was caught in a fight between two fifth-grade girls and knocked to the ground with a concussion. “I’ve been punched and kicked and spit on” and called “every cuss word you could possibly think of,” fourth-grade aide Sean Kelly told City Pages.
> 
> Parent Daeona Griffin told City Pages that a visit to her second-grader’s classroom at Battle Creek Elementary School had left her speechless:
> 
> *My second-grader’s class is the most dysfunctional classroom I have ever witnessed with my own two eyes. I have never even heard of classrooms like Ms. [Tina] Woods’. She has maybe six extreme behavior students in one class. I’ve seen them punch her. I’ve seen them walk around the halls. I’ve seen her try to read to the class and it took her an hour and a half to read two pages. It’s too much.*
> 
> David McGill, a science teacher at Capitol Hill Gifted and Talented Magnet School, told the St. Paul school board that a black fourth-grade bully had “significantly compromised an entire year of science instruction” for his fellow students. But teachers and administrators had avoided disciplining him because of the new equity policy, McGill said. Worst of all, some teachers pointed out, the policy removed teachers’ power to require offending students to apologize or to clean up the messes they made. As a result, teachers lamented, these children never had the opportunity to improve self-control and learn from their mistakes. As the first semester came to an end, teachers were in crisis over the challenges they faced. “Many of us . . . often go home in tears,” one told Pioneer Press columnist Ruben Rosario. “Please, don’t give us more staff development on racism or . . . how to de-escalate a student altercation. . . . We teachers feel as if we are drowning.”
> 
> December 4, 2015, marked a turning point. That day, at Central High School, a 16-year-old student body-slammed and choked a teacher, John Ekblad, who was attempting to defuse a cafeteria fight. Ekblad was hospitalized with a traumatic brain injury. In the same fracas, an assistant principal was punched repeatedly in the chest and left with a grapefruit-size bruise on his neck. At a press conference the next day, Ramsey County Attorney John Choi branded rising student-on-staff violence “a public health crisis.” Assaults on St. Paul school staff reported to his office tripled in 2015, compared with 2014, and were up 36 percent over the previous four-year average. Attacks on teachers continued unabated in the months that followed. In March, for example, a Como Park High teacher was assaulted during a classroom invasion over a drug deal, suffered a concussion, and required staples to close a head wound.
> 
> In 2014, Benner—a leader among teachers critical of the racial-equity policies—spoke forthrightly to the St. Paul school board. “I believe we are crippling our black children by not holding them to the same expectations as other students,” he told its members. St. Paul students, Benner wrote the following year, “are being used in some sort of social experiment where they are not being held accountable for their behavior.” Safety, not teaching, had become his “number one concern,” he said.
> 
> “There are those that believe that by suspending kids we are building a pipeline to prison,” said Harding High’s McQueen. “I think that by not [suspending], we are. I think we’re telling these kids, you don’t have to be on time for anything, we’re just going to talk to you. You can assault somebody, and we’re gonna let you come back here.” District leaders, however, adamantly denied the charge that escalating violence and disorder were connected with recent disciplinary changes. The district took steps to mask the extent of the mayhem and to intimidate and silence teachers who criticized Silva’s policies.
> 
> Teachers reported, for example, that administrators often failed to follow up when students were referred for discipline. Benner says that this is a common tactic to keep referral and suspension numbers low. Likewise, parents faulted school officials for failing to report dangerous student-on-student violence to police. One mother told the Pioneer Press that her seventh-grade son was viciously kicked in the groin. But “when I asked the principal why she had not contacted police, she told me, ‘That’s your job.’ ” Another mother told the paper that her son had been cut with an X-ACTO knife at school. When she asked why police had not been told, an administrator drew a map to the nearest station on the back of a business card, she said. After the mother contacted the police, the first assailant was charged with misdemeanor assault and the second with a felony.
> 
> Teachers who publicly questioned the new discipline policy risked serious repercussions. “There is an intense digging in of heels to say there is no mistake,” said Roy Magnuson, a social studies teacher who leads the political arm of the St. Paul teachers’ union. The common response, he said, is “that people like me have issues with racial equity and that is the reason we are challenging them. That makes for a very convenient way of barring the reality of the situation.”
> 
> Sometimes, the penalty for dissent went well beyond race-shaming. Benner says that district leaders pushed him out of his school and fired his aide. He now works at a private school. Candice Egan, a 63-year-old substitute teacher, has also accused the district of retaliation. After a student shoved her and pinned her to a wall in March 2016, she went to urgent care with shoulder and neck pain. Egan reported the assault to police after school authorities failed to do so—though the district’s handbook required them to do so. She also spoke to a reporter. Shortly afterward, she was informed that she could not work in the district again. Egan told the Star Tribune that Teachers on Call, which arranges her subbing engagements, had told her that district officials wanted “distance” from her “because of the way the incident was handled.”
> 
> Social-media comments can also endanger teachers’ jobs. On March 9, special-education teacher Theo Olson was placed on paid administrative leave after he, in two Facebook posts, criticized the administration’s lack of support for teachers. Olson made no mention of race. Nevertheless, Silva put him on leave after Black Lives Matter St. Paul threatened to “shut down” Como Park High School unless Olson was fired.
> 
> The district’s strong-arm tactics were highly effective. Most teachers kept their frustration and distress to themselves, fearing damaging entries in their personnel file or a retaliatory transfer. In a social-media post, one veteran teacher estimated the number of educators “squashed” at more than 100, those “scared and intimidated into silence” in the thousands, and the number of “parents ignored” as “too many to count.”
> 
> As 2015 drew to a close, violence and anarchy had increased so dramatically that suspensions—though a last resort—finally began to rise. In December, Silva announced that first-quarter suspensions were the highest in five years. Seventy-seven percent involved black students, who make up 30 percent of the district’s student population. As public outrage mounted, families of all races began flooding out of the St. Paul district to charters and suburban schools. Many families are saying that “their children . . . don’t feel safe even going to the bathroom,” Joe Nathan of the St. Paul–based Center for School Change told the Star Tribune in 2016. Parents were also troubled by district students’ declining reading and math scores. The district lost thousands of students, adding up to millions of dollars in lost state aid.
> 
> Asians, the St. Paul district’s largest minority, especially resented the new discipline regime. These students—primarily of Hmong and other Southeast Asian backgrounds—tend to be well-behaved and respectful of authority, though many struggle academically. Harding High School teacher Koua Yang said that he had lost about 20 Hmong students to the exodus. “All we hear is the academic disparity between the whites and the blacks,” he complained. “This racial equity policy, it’s not equitable to all races . . . . Why do we have to leave?”
> 
> In November 2015, St. Paul voters vented their frustration with Silva’s policies in a dramatic way. They overwhelmingly elected a new school board with a strong anti-Silva majority. Caucus for Change, a teachers’-union-organized group, engineered the victory.
> 
> A few weeks after the election, however, the new board faced its first crisis. The vicious assault on Ekblad occurred on December 4, and union leadership—calling the attack a “breaking point”—threatened to strike over school safety issues. In March 2016, the board averted a strike by approving a new teachers’ contract. The contract gave teachers what could be called hazard pay—the highest in the state, according to the Star Tribune. But St. Paul citizens’ confidence in Silva had evaporated. Teachers launched a petition demanding her resignation, and black, white, and Asian community leaders echoed that call in an op-ed in the Pioneer Press. At last, on June 21, 2016, the school board announced Silva’s departure after buying out her contract at a cost of almost $800,000.
> 
> In its new contract, the union also won funding for 30 new school counselors, nurses, social workers, and psychologists. But unless district leaders resolve to adopt and enforce high standards of student conduct, a significant long-term improvement in school safety appears unlikely.
> 
> At the federal level, the Obama administration also made “racial equity” in school discipline a top priority. In January 2014, the Departments of Education and Justice issued a “Dear Colleague” letter, laying out guidelines intended to compel school districts to adopt Silva-style discipline policies. Currently, federal investigations are under way in districts around the country. Some districts have entered into consent decrees; the feds threatened to sue others or withhold funds if their racial numbers didn’t pass muster. Federal officials have seemed unconcerned that violence and disorder have followed implementation of racial-equity-inspired discipline policies—not only in St. Paul but also in districts such as Oklahoma City and New York. With Donald Trump taking office in January 2017, these initiatives could be rolled back—but the incoming president has described his top priorities as immigration, health care, and jobs, and whatever changes might be in the offing will likely take time.
> 
> St. Paul’s experience makes clear that discipline policies rooted in racial-equity ideology lead to disaster. This shouldn’t be surprising, considering that the ideology’s two major premises are seriously flawed. The first premise holds that disparities in school-discipline rates are a product of teachers’ racial bias; the second maintains that teachers’ unjustified and discriminatory targeting of black students gives rise to the school-to-prison pipeline.
> 
> In 2014, a groundbreaking study in the Journal of Criminal Justice by J. P. Wright and others discredited both these claims. The study utilized the largest sample of school-aged children in the nation. Unlike almost all previous studies, it controlled for individual differences in student behavior over time. Using this rigorous methodology, the authors concluded that teacher bias plays no role in the racial-equity suspension gap, which, they determined, is “completely accounted for by a measure of the prior problem behavior of the student.” Racial differentials in suspension rates, they found, appeared to be “a function of differences in problem behaviors that emerge early in life, that remain relatively stable over time, and that materialize in the classroom.”
> 
> Why do black and white students, as groups, behave differently at school? Black students, on average, “are less academically prepared for school entrance” and bring with them deficits in many social and emotional skills, the study found, over which their parents do not exert control. The authors point out that, while a number of earlier studies have suggested pervasive teacher bias as a factor in the racial-equity discipline gap, “some scholars and activists” show “clear motivations” to present the discipline gap as a civil rights issue, “with all the corresponding threats of litigation by the federal government.”
> 
> As for the school-to-prison pipeline, the authors appear to view the concept largely as an effort to link “racial differences in suspensions to racial discrimination.” Under these circumstances, they emphasize, “where careers are advanced, where reputations are earned, and where the ‘working ideology’ of scholars is confirmed, the usual critical and cautionary sway of scholarly investigation, critique, and insight becomes marginalized or usurped.” Schools should make efforts to correct the problem behaviors of young students, the authors say. If they fail to do so, early patterns of “disruptive and unregulated behavior” can become entrenched, and lead eventually to school failure, dropping out, and potentially to encounters with the justice system. In the St. Paul schools, however, equity ideology makes such constructive correction impossible.
> 
> The deepest source of the racial-equity discipline gap is profound differences in family structure. Young people who grow up without fathers are far more likely than their peers to engage in antisocial behavior, according to voluminous social-science research. Disordered family life often promotes the lack of impulse control and socialization that can lead to school misconduct. The City of St. Paul does not make out-of-wedlock birth data public. However, Intellectual Takeout, a Minnesota-based public-policy institution, has determined through a FOIA request to the Minnesota Department of Health that 87 percent of births to black, U.S.-born mothers in St. Paul occur out of wedlock, compared with 30 percent of white births. Tragically, the problem we confront is not so much a school-to-prison pipeline as a home-to-prison pipeline.
> 
> Who pays the greatest price for misguided racial-equity discipline policies? The many poor and minority students who show up at school ready to learn. The breakdown of order that such policies promote is destined to make these children’s already-uphill struggle for a decent education even more daunting.
> 
> Katherine Kersten, a writer and attorney, is a senior fellow at the Center of the American Experiment.
> 
> Photo: Trying to break up a student fight, St. Paul Central High School teacher John Ekblad (right) was assaulted and suffered a traumatic brain injury. (SCOTT TAKUSHI/PIONEER PRESS)


----------



## Mra22

Apparently Bush is still the president according to idiotic Pelosi :lol


----------



## Reaper

Alco said:


> What's your opinion on this? Do you think the police should be privatized?


Yes. Even now it's mainly local PD's being funded mainly through local municipal taxes with almost no federal over-sight in America. Laws are highly localized and so is law-enforcement. Where is a government necessary in this? People are already paying for the service anyways. Why can't this be a normal and direct transaction between people and a company instead of involving a government - like it is between a Utility company and people? I get electricity and water and gas pumped into my home and I pay the companies who do it for me directly. If I want "additional" security, I can hire "private" security guards, get a gun, ADT --- how come when it comes to law enforcement suddenly I'm incapable or "unwilling" to pay for it directly too and need a nanny state to manage my funds - who do it in the most thugish way possible where the police is merely the goons of the government thugs? 



yeahbaby! said:


> This 'privatise everything and let the free market sort itself out' is great until you realise big corporations will push their own agendas, take full advantage of legal loopholes, and not exactly play fair, and the government is basically powerless or unwilling to stop them.
> 
> If fully privatized schools are allowed to just do whatever they want can they be trusted to teach a balanced, useful curriculum?


I'm surprised some of you can even go out in public, buy your own groceries and shove your food in your mouth without a government representative doing it for you. 



L-DOPA said:


> Personally I don't think so.
> 
> I'll watch @RipNTear 's program however.


It isn't exactly about privatization of the Police, but it's about a billionaire who "buys" a precinct and modernizes it. The first episode was great.


----------



## glenwo2

TeflonDixie said:


> Seriously, there's some GEEKS in here. Trump is where you're pinning that flag to! Lol. Beta people who need to attach themselves to a bully for some importance in life!
> 
> *Don't cry when the republicans get sense and dump that tryhard.*


Keep telling yourself that to make you feel better for the next *FOUR YEARS*, pal. :sip


----------



## Reaper

Beatles123 said:


> Soarin' Ted killed it against Col. Sanders and his Original Recipe Socialist bullshit. :trump


If Republicans were homophobes then why would they allow Ted Cruz to sodomize Bernie Sanders on live TV? 

Checkmate Democrats!


----------



## Dr. Ian Malcolm




----------



## glenwo2

This is going to be a very entertaining 4 years(probably 8) with Trump Memes galore. :lol


----------



## Reaper




----------



## stevefox1200

Trump used his twitter to attack Nordstrom for dropping his daughter's clothing line, then retweeted it on the POTUS account

I am so right wing that I jack off to Dirty Harry five or six (sometimes I get excited and lose count) times a day but COME THE FUCK ON, YOUR STILL RICH AND THE GODDAMN PRESIDENT!!

I don't hate Trump's platform or policies (although I don't care for many of them) but I am starting to reach the "salute the rank not the man" level and will pass that if he keeps using official government accounts to settle his personal disputes


----------



## 2 Ton 21

stevefox1200 said:


> Trump used his twitter to attack Nordstrom for dropping his daughter's clothing line, then retweeted it on the POTUS account
> 
> I am so right wing that I jack off to Dirty Harry five or six (sometimes I get excited and lose count) times a day but COME THE FUCK ON, YOUR STILL RICH AND THE GODDAMN PRESIDENT!!
> 
> I don't hate Trump's platform or policies (although I don't care for many of them) but I am starting to reach the "salute the rank not the man" level and will pass that if he keeps using official government accounts to settle his personal disputes


Like starting his first National Prayer Breakfast with how bad Celebrity Apprentice's ratings have gotten with Arnold?






fpalm


----------



## Stinger Fan

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/829070884606459904
If this is true, this is quite hilarious lol


----------



## Real Deal

The voucher plan will kill off public schools that cannot afford to lose any more funding...schools that absolutely have to make sacrifices and can't improve without the necessary funds. Working in the janitorial supply distribution field, and having an elementary teacher for a wife, I see and FEEL the funding issues every single day. Our line of salesmen walk into schools that can't afford to clean daily, can't afford the equipment and chemical they once used...and while I see that in sales numbers, my wife is working full days, coming home and working after dinner (lesson plans and grading papers), getting paid less than what she deserves. Schools in Kansas and Oklahoma are going four-day weeks to close the year, so they can use less electricity and not have to run the buses that Friday. There are schools in Missouri that are bidding out their consumables (paper towels, bath tissue, etc.), and janitorial supply companies are making just 5-10% margin because of how extremely competitive pricing has been the last two years.

A poor school district (talking financially) does not always signify lazy teachers, or lack of education. In some cases, those schools (like a hospital, for instance) are keeping small, struggling towns alive. I can name numerous towns here in Kansas - the state that clearly hates funding education - that are on their deathbed after losing their hospital or school.

Sometimes, it's not always as simple as eliminating government.

If I'm incorrect in any of the above, please let me know. I'm all for getting a better understanding of how DeVos' plan will actually work without ripping even more funding from public school districts, especially those in Kansas, who cling to every dollar they have.

"Survival of the fittest" is the theme, just as it may end up being with health insurance (pre-ACA). Don't get me wrong: the ACA was not perfect, and needed extensive work...but before 2009, healthy people had no idea what it was like to be turned down by multiple insurance companies because of a pre-existing condition (in my case, diabetes). Having insurance allows me to stay fairly healthy, so I don't end up with major damage to my organs, jumping on Medicaid to get it fixed/paid for. The day Trump implements policies that force insurance companies to allow pre-existing conditions, I'm on board, but until then, it's all talk.


----------



## stevefox1200

Real Deal said:


> The voucher plan will kill off public schools that cannot afford to lose any more funding...schools that absolutely have to make sacrifices and can't improve without the necessary funds. Working in the janitorial supply distribution field, and having an elementary teacher for a wife, I see and FEEL the funding issues every single day. Our line of salesmen walk into schools that can't afford to clean daily, can't afford the equipment and chemical they once used...and while I see that in sales numbers, my wife is working full days, coming home and working after dinner (lesson plans and grading papers), getting paid less than what she deserves. Schools in Kansas and Oklahoma are going four-day weeks to close the year, so they can use less electricity and not have to run the buses that Friday. There are schools in Missouri that are bidding out their consumables (paper towels, bath tissue, etc.), and janitorial supply companies are making just 5-10% margin because of how extremely competitive pricing has been the last two years.
> 
> A poor school district (talking financially) does not always signify lazy teachers, or lack of education. In some cases, those schools (like a hospital, for instance) are keeping small, struggling towns alive. I can name numerous towns here in Kansas - the state that clearly hates funding education - that are on their deathbed after losing their hospital or school.
> 
> Sometimes, it's not always as simple as eliminating government.
> 
> If I'm incorrect in any of the above, please let me know. I'm all for getting a better understanding of how DeVos' plan will actually work without ripping even more funding from public school districts, especially those in Kansas, who cling to every dollar they have.
> 
> "Survival of the fittest" is the theme, just as it may end up being with health insurance (pre-ACA). Don't get me wrong: the ACA was not perfect, and needed extensive work...but before 2009, healthy people had no idea what it was like to be turned down by multiple insurance companies because of a pre-existing condition (in my case, diabetes). Having insurance allows me to stay fairly healthy, so I don't end up with major damage to my organs, jumping on Medicaid to get it fixed/paid for. The day Trump implements policies that force insurance companies to allow pre-existing conditions, I'm on board, but until then, it's all talk.


I spent my least year of High-school in small town in MO and parts of that school would be legally condemned if the school was in an urban or suburban area and had a drug dealing teacher 

I have no clue how some of these schools even stay open with safety regulations


----------



## Vic Capri

Brian Krzanich, CEO of Intel, made a deal with President Trump to invest $7 BILLION in a new semiconductor factory in Chandler, Arizona leading to the creation of 10,000 longterm jobs!



> Apparently Bush is still the president according to idiotic Pelosi


Meanwhile, Maxine Waters thinks Putin invaded Korea :lol

- Vic


----------



## glenwo2

stevefox1200 said:


> Trump used his twitter to attack Nordstrom for dropping his daughter's clothing line, then retweeted it on the POTUS account
> 
> I am so right wing that I jack off to Dirty Harry five or six (sometimes I get excited and lose count) times a day but COME THE FUCK ON, YOUR STILL RICH AND THE GODDAMN PRESIDENT!!
> 
> I don't hate Trump's platform or policies (although I don't care for many of them) *but I am starting to reach the "salute the rank not the man" level and will pass that if he keeps using official government accounts to settle his personal disputes*


Get over it. 

Twitter is his thing. It's what he uses and will no doubt continue to use throughout his entire presidency since he doesn't trust the FAKE-NEWS Media one bit(and I can't blame him). :shrug






2 Ton 21 said:


> Like starting his first National Prayer Breakfast with how bad Celebrity Apprentice's ratings have gotten with Arnold?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fpalm


It was a bit unusual but seriously....Why do some of us care? Is this REALLY something to get upset about? 

It's not like he's breaking any laws.

Maybe Trump was attempting to bring some levity there and the attempt at humor fell flat? :shrug


(well actually....I think I heard some chuckles so at least SOME had a sense of humor there)


I swear...some people just take things a bit too seriously in today's PC world. (Massive Understatement of the Millenium here, btw)


----------



## deepelemblues

Marco Rubio rambling on on the floor of the Senate about Vladimir Putin...

Sometimes I wish the rules of decorum and such in the Senate just went out the window. Then someone could go up and smack Rubio in the face and ask him what exactly the position of Attorney General of the United States has to do with Vladimir Putin poisoning Russians in Russia or Britain (not the US), or invading the Ukraine, or bombing Syria.

Because the Department of Justice has fuck-all to do with any of those things.



> Originally Posted by stevefox1200 View Post
> Trump used his twitter to attack Nordstrom for dropping his daughter's clothing line, then retweeted it on the POTUS account
> 
> I am so right wing that I jack off to Dirty Harry five or six (sometimes I get excited and lose count) times a day but COME THE FUCK ON, YOUR STILL RICH AND THE GODDAMN PRESIDENT!!
> 
> I don't hate Trump's platform or policies (although I don't care for many of them) but I am starting to reach the "salute the rank not the man" level and will pass that if he keeps using official government accounts to settle his personal disputes


I know right, what :trump should do is hand off responsibility for getting even to flunkies in the IRS and DOJ and the Treasury so they can use the power of government to harass and repress and coerce his enemies and opponents and people he just plain doesn't like the way Obama did. 

Words in a tweet are so much worse than using the IRS to hamper the ability of citizens to assemble and peaceably petition government for redress of grievances, or using the Treasury to put pressure on banks to not do business with certain people and classes of businesses, or using the DOJ to threaten anyone who doesn't go along with the latest bend the knee and comply Obamacare regulation HHS sharted out.


----------



## DOPA

@DesolationRow @CamillePunk @AryaDark @Vic Capri @Miss Sally @RipNTear






"It makes me so mad that I introduced further legislation to make it illegal for the Federal Reserve to lobby us, we pay them! we appointed them, and we're supposed to oversee them and their lobbying against transparency?! Their lobbying against our oversight?! It's insulting! The main lobbying against auditing the FED is the FED!"

:lmao! Get them Central Bankers RAND! :mark: :mark: :mark:

#AudittheFed


----------



## 2 Ton 21

glenwo2 said:


> Get over it.
> 
> Twitter is his thing. It's what he uses and will no doubt continue to use throughout his entire presidency since he doesn't trust the FAKE-NEWS Media one bit(and I can't blame him). :shrug
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was a bit unusual but seriously....Why do some of us care? Is this REALLY something to get upset about?
> 
> It's not like he's breaking any laws.
> 
> Maybe Trump was attempting to bring some levity there and the attempt at humor fell flat? :shrug
> 
> 
> (well actually....I think I heard some chuckles so at least SOME had a sense of humor there)
> 
> 
> I swear...some people just take things a bit too seriously in today's PC world. (Massive Understatement of the Millenium here, btw)


PC?

I think you're attaching a little more outrage to me then there is. I just thought it was a vain and petty ego stroke at the wrong event, in front of people nice enough to give him polite chuckles.


----------



## Sensei Utero

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-himself-frankie-boyle?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other


----------



## yeahbaby!

glenwo2 said:


> Get over it.
> 
> Twitter is his thing. It's what he uses and will no doubt continue to use throughout his entire presidency since he doesn't trust the FAKE-NEWS Media one bit(and I can't blame him). :shrug


Youre missing the point - he's using his twitter to put in his 2c on stupid shit like what goes on with his daughter's clothing line and other stupid crap that has nothing to do with his POTUS duties.

He's got the most important job in the world, he should be so busy Making America Great Again that he doesn't have time to tweet about silly non-POTUS stuff, don't you agree?

It's immature plain and simple, and yet another example of the man's lack of character.


----------



## Art Vandaley

RipNTear said:


> Yes. Even now it's mainly local PD's being funded mainly through local municipal taxes with almost no federal over-sight in America. Laws are highly localized and so is law-enforcement. Where is a government necessary in this? People are already paying for the service anyways. Why can't this be a normal and direct transaction between people and a company instead of involving a government - like it is between a Utility company and people? I get electricity and water and gas pumped into my home and I pay the companies who do it for me directly. If I want "additional" security, I can hire "private" security guards, get a gun, ADT --- how come when it comes to law enforcement suddenly I'm incapable or "unwilling" to pay for it directly too and need a nanny state to manage my funds - who do it in the most thugish way possible where the police is merely the goons of the government thugs?


There's a bit of a leap from done by local gov to no need for a gov don't you think?

And what about poor people? 

What if you can't afford to pay for the police?

If you're poor and couldn't afford your police subscription that month, because say you lost your job and someone kills your sister is it just tough luck and the killer gets away without even an investigation?

And what happens after arrest? 

How does the court/prison system function? Who decides guilt or innocence and what an appropriate sentence would be?

If you have a bunch of people with guns how do you stop them taking over like it's 6th century england and the romano british are annoying them?

And what is to stop them being lesser levels of corrupt?


----------



## glenwo2

2 Ton 21 said:


> PC?
> 
> I think you're attaching a little more outrage to me then there is.


Probably because your post seems like you're overreacting just a bit with the facepalm thing as if Trump committed a CAPITOL OFFENSE or something.




> I just thought it was a vain and petty ego stroke at the wrong event, in front of people nice enough to give him polite chuckles.



You say it was a vain and petty ego stroke; I say it was an attempt(bad one) at humor to liven things up. 

And "people nice enough to give him polite chuckles"??? Really? So they're FAKE chuckles? Now you're assuming just a tad too much there. :lol


----------



## glenwo2

yeahbaby! said:


> Youre missing the point - he's using his twitter to put in his 2c on stupid shit like what goes on with his daughter's clothing line and other stupid crap that has nothing to do with his POTUS duties.
> 
> He's got the most important job in the world, he should be so busy Making America Great Again that he doesn't have time to tweet about silly non-POTUS stuff, don't you agree?
> 
> It's immature plain and simple, and yet another example of the man's lack of character.


So he uses twitter and posts whatever the fuck he wants. *WHO CARES?!?! *

Good lord. We have more IMPORTANT THINGS to worry about than Trump's use of social media. fpalm


I mean it's almost like you're basically implying that he is on twitter 24/7 instead of running the country or something....(hint : you know one can post on twitter and do other things, right? It's called Mult-tasking. Trump is a businessman as well as President and a human being[like you and me]. I think he can Multi-task)


----------



## Arya Dark

*I already can't stand Trump and I'm liking him less and less with each passing day. Fuck you Hillary. *


----------



## yeahbaby!

glenwo2 said:


> So he uses twitter and posts whatever the fuck he wants. *WHO CARES?!?! *
> 
> Good lord. We have more IMPORTANT THINGS to worry about than Trump's use of social media. fpalm
> 
> 
> I mean it's almost like you're basically implying that he is on twitter 24/7 instead of running the country or something....(hint : you know one can post on twitter and do other things, right? It's called Mult-tasking. Trump is a businessman as well as President and a human being[like you and me]. I think he can Multi-task)


He's a 70 year old man and POTUS. Yes there are more important things but it's worth making a point about his character.

It doesn't change the fact that him airing personal grievances on a public platform makes him look like a complete idiot, and shines a light on what sort of immature character that's in the highest platform in the land. It's not a millenial with nothing to do doing this. It's the fucking President.

That's all.


----------



## virus21




----------



## Smarkout

Real Deal said:


> The voucher plan will kill off public schools that cannot afford to lose any more funding...schools that absolutely have to make sacrifices and can't improve without the necessary funds. Working in the janitorial supply distribution field, and having an elementary teacher for a wife, I see and FEEL the funding issues every single day. Our line of salesmen walk into schools that can't afford to clean daily, can't afford the equipment and chemical they once used...and while I see that in sales numbers, my wife is working full days, coming home and working after dinner (lesson plans and grading papers), getting paid less than what she deserves. Schools in Kansas and Oklahoma are going four-day weeks to close the year, so they can use less electricity and not have to run the buses that Friday. There are schools in Missouri that are bidding out their consumables (paper towels, bath tissue, etc.), and janitorial supply companies are making just 5-10% margin because of how extremely competitive pricing has been the last two years.
> 
> A poor school district (talking financially) does not always signify lazy teachers, or lack of education. In some cases, those schools (like a hospital, for instance) are keeping small, struggling towns alive. I can name numerous towns here in Kansas - the state that clearly hates funding education - that are on their deathbed after losing their hospital or school.
> 
> Sometimes, it's not always as simple as eliminating government.
> 
> If I'm incorrect in any of the above, please let me know. I'm all for getting a better understanding of how DeVos' plan will actually work without ripping even more funding from public school districts, especially those in Kansas, who cling to every dollar they have.
> 
> "Survival of the fittest" is the theme, just as it may end up being with health insurance (pre-ACA). Don't get me wrong: the ACA was not perfect, and needed extensive work...but before 2009, healthy people had no idea what it was like to be turned down by multiple insurance companies because of a pre-existing condition (in my case, diabetes). Having insurance allows me to stay fairly healthy, so I don't end up with major damage to my organs, jumping on Medicaid to get it fixed/paid for. The day Trump implements policies that force insurance companies to allow pre-existing conditions, I'm on board, but until then, it's all talk.


I'm not sure where your wife works but it all depends on the state my man. I live on Long Island and the public schools here are great, the teachers are amazing (for the most part), and I am going to school for teaching. I currently work at a before/after care program at a public school as well. 

You make a great point when you say how it's NOT the teachers faults. I argue with my dad all the time about this, the teachers are the ones who really care about the kids. You've gotta see how many things my team and I try to do and get shot down by admins when it would be great for the kids. 9/10 times it is the fault of out of touch admins. 

That being said.... There is no excuse for the awful inner city public schools and charter schools will give parents (in most cases a parent) an option of what to do for their child. Charter schools will get much better over time, although it will be tough to do worse than those inner city public schools.


----------



## virus21




----------



## yeahbaby!

^Puttin on the Ko-Ritz!


----------



## 2 Ton 21

glenwo2 said:


> Probably because your post seems like you're overreacting just a bit with the facepalm thing as if Trump committed a CAPITOL OFFENSE or something.


You got all that from a face palm? 

kay



glenwo2 said:


> You say it was a vain and petty ego stroke; I say it was an attempt(bad one) at humor to liven things up.
> 
> And "people nice enough to give him polite chuckles"??? Really? So they're FAKE chuckles? Now you're assuming just a tad too much there. :lol


Guess we just disagree.

And yeah, in my opinion they were polite chuckles. You never been to a banquet where the person speaking goes off on an unrelated tangent? That's what the crowd sounds like when that happens.


----------



## glenwo2

yeahbaby! said:


> He's a 70 year old man and POTUS. Yes there are more important things but it's worth making a point about his character.


What does his age have to do with it? You're telling me that there's an age limit to use Twitter now? :lol

And as far as his "character" goes, that's your opinion which is not reflective of everyone else's. Just like I have the opposite opinion that is not reflective of those(like you and arya) who despise him. :shrug



> It doesn't change the fact that him airing personal grievances on a public platform makes him look like a complete idiot, and shines a light on what sort of immature character that's in the highest platform in the land. It's not a millenial with nothing to do doing this. It's the fucking President.


Actually, it doesn't change the fact that those who despise Trump will continue to despise Trump. I mean let's be honest here : If he never used Twitter, you(along with the others who dislike him) will find something ELSE to be pissed about regarding him. There's certainly plenty for the LEFT to choose from. :lol





> That's all.


Indeed.













2 Ton 21 said:


> You got all that from a face palm?
> 
> kay


Yeah I know. I suppose you're not the only one who is overreacting here. >




> Guess we just disagree.
> 
> And yeah, in my opinion they were polite chuckles. *You never been to a banquet where the person speaking goes off on an unrelated tangent? That's what the crowd sounds like when that happens.*


First off, I'd love to be invited to ANY banquet. #FREEFOOD 

Lastly, to be quite honest(and I'm sure you'd agree), we can't be 100% certain that those are fake-polite chuckles or genuine ones because we're not exactly there to look at those particular people who do so.


----------



## MillionDollarProns

"I don't understand anyone advancing into North Korea, South Korea's the problem" :lmao Based random New York Guy.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

MillionDollarProns said:


> "I don't understand anyone advancing into North Korea, South Korea's the problem" :lmao Based random New York Guy.


:lol

That guy must_ really_ hate k-pop.


----------



## FriedTofu

Dude probably lost too many starcraft games to the Koreans back in the day.


----------



## Arya Dark




----------



## Beatles123

LOL as id I give a damn if Trump defends his daughter. 'Has NO bearing on America.


----------



## Beatles123

AryaDark said:


>


The guy looks like he should be on the side of the road.


----------



## Beatles123

Oh, and @yeahbaby! 

Robart is a hack. he has always BEEN a hack, and has no business even sitting in a judges' chair. Alt right be damned, Trump be damned, he is WRONG on this and many other things. He can go dig a ditch. so your entire post means nothing. Yes. He is, even if he were to rule in Trump's favor, a CUCK.


----------



## ShiningStar

virus21 said:


>


While I do believe the establishment was behind Hilary,all these people butthurt she is the nom should be looking at those in power in the party. Elizabeth Warren was a feckless do nothing take no side coward most of the primary. And the fact no Major Senators or Governor's were running knowing what a flawed candidate Hilary was and how untested Bernie was makes it clear Dem politicians are not the ambitious risk takers they were in the past. Fact of the matter is, with the endless amount of debates,the endless length of the pirmary season and with cable news being a vacum with thousands of hours to fill every year their was always an opening for more candidates in the Democratic primary. As divided as the Usa is American's still love a good horse race.


----------



## DesolationRow

http://theweek.com/speedreads/67899...nnounces-7-billion-arizona-factory-investment



> After Trump meeting, Intel announcers $7 billion factory investment


Intel sought to create this factory in Arizona back in 2011 and it was being built through most of 2012 but the downturn in the PC market shuttered the plans for the plant being built. Intel is citing the Trump administration's taxes and regulations objectives as the greatest impetus for their decision to return to the would-be factory and invest $7 billion in Arizona.

Cool. :trump


----------



## DOPA

@DesolationRow I have just read the article surrounding the damages of the DOE racial equity program. Who could have known that one initiative set up by the Federal government could be taken so far that it breaks out at the point of anarchy. Absolutely horrific scenes at that particular school and others. I really feel for the teachers and parents.

Out of all the chaos and violence though, the one thing that stood out for me was this:



> In 2013, Silva made a final policy change. In the name of equity, she sent thousands of special-education students with “emotional and behavioral disorders”—disproportionately black—into mainstream classrooms. Teachers received no extra support to deal with this unprecedented challenge.


Now anyone reading that could see from a mile away that this was a horrific idea but until you work in a school like I have you honestly don't know how damaging it is to have special-ed students mixed in mainstream schools, particularly for those students themselves. I worked as a Teaching Assistant at a school here in the UK and every year now more and more SEN students as we call them are being mixed and sent to mainstream schools instead of special needs schools. The problem with the one size fits all system from the top down by Central government which I think the left does not understand is that many gifted students end up not being pushed enough to do well whilst those who need more support often fall behind. This is because government ran schools who have a large influx of students of extremely mixed backgrounds and skill sets simply do not have the resources or time to accommodate everyone. This is particularly a problem in the UK as the definition of what a special needs student is has been broadened.

It's a particular problem for SEN students more so than gifted ones. Gifted ones do get effected at comprehensive schools, particularly at the start of secondary school and subjects outside of English, Maths and Science which often classes are split up into sets but SEN students often need a lot of one on one or small group sessions to maximize their potential, that simply does not happen at government schools here in the UK. TA's and Teacher's word hard and try to differentiate the work to fit different ability groups but there is only so much they can do with the lack of choice for parents to send their children to school. Primary level it isn't so bad as there are more specialized schools at that level but Secondary it's a big problem, only schools for severe behavioral difficulties exist and they aren't that far reaching, so you still have those types of students slip through the cracks into mainstream schooling. These issues are beginning to be addressed with the free schools/academies initiative and now the re-introduction of nation wide grammar schools but the left and teacher's unions are fighting it at every turn for two reasons: 1) It goes against the left's state wide enforced education and instead promotes a little bit more school choice and 2) it promotes competition which effects the Teacher's Unions monopoly.

I'd go even further but there would be outcries of privatization obviously from the general public.

There was one particular student that I worked with who had a severe case of Autism, he really should have been sent to a specialized school but there is nowhere on the secondary level of education that could accommodate for him except for Rush Hall which is for students with severe behavioral difficulties which would have not suited him because he is the complete opposite. He would have had a torrid time there and so the only other option was to send him to one of the local mainstream schools. This is what the government is not providing for students like him in which the market or a more decentralized/local system could. That's only one of several examples I could tell you and others that I have seen.

I don't really have a strong opinion on the new Secretary of State and I understand the concerns surrounding her lack of experience. But I want to share a few things as sort of a devil's advocate position on her as well as a counter balance against the federal control of education and promoting school choice/voucher system/charter schools:

@CamillePunk @RipNTear @Miss Sally @Vic Capri @AryaDark @Goku @Pratchett @Alco 

http://rare.us/rare-politics/everything-they-have-been-saying-about-betsy-devos-is-false/



> Betsy DeVos has been confirmed as Secretary of Education, but just barely. In the course of the hearings, outrageous claims were made about her views. Most originated from the public school industry itself, which is clinging to old forms for dear life. The result has been nothing but confusion. Let’s look more carefully.
> 
> In an op-ed for the New York Times, U.S. Senator Maggie Hassan (D-NH) alleges that she is voting against Betsy DeVos for Secretary of Education because:
> 
> * DeVos opposes policies that allow “our young people, all of them, to participate in our democracy and compete on a fair footing in the workforce.”
> 
> * DeVos supports “voucher systems that divert taxpayer dollars to private, religious and for-profit schools without requirements for accountability.”
> 
> * “The voucher programs that Ms. DeVos advocates leave out students whose families cannot afford to pay the part of the tuition that the voucher does not cover; the programs also leave behind students with disabilities because the schools do not accommodate their complex needs.”
> 
> Each of those claims is belied by concrete facts, and Hassan is guilty of most of the charges she levels at DeVos. Also, Hassan sent her own daughter to a private school, an opportunity that she would deny to other children.
> 
> *A Fair Footing*
> 
> Under the current U.S. education system, the quality of students’ schooling is largely determined by their parents’ income. This is because wealthy parents can afford to send their children to private schools and live in neighborhoods with the best public schools. Such options narrow as income declines, and the children of poor families—who are often racial minorities—typically end up in the nation’s worst schools.
> 
> Contrary to popular perception, funding is not the primary cause of differences between schools. Since the early 1970s, school districts with large portions of minority students have spent about the same amount per student as districts with fewer minorities. This is shown by studies conducted by the left-leaning Urban Institute, the U.S. Department of Education, Ph.D. economist Derek Neal, and the conservative Heritage Foundation.
> 
> Moreover, contrary to the notion that certain minorities are intellectually inferior, empirical and anecdotal evidence suggests that with competent schooling, people of all races can excel. For example, in 2009, Public School 172 in Sunset Park, Brooklyn, New York, had:
> 
> * a mostly Hispanic population.
> * one-third of the students not fluent in English and no bilingual classes.
> * 80% of the students poor enough to qualify for free lunch.
> * lower spending per student than the New York City average.
> * the highest average math score of all fourth graders in New York City, with 99% of the students scoring “advanced.”
> * the top-dozen English scores of all fourth graders in New York City, with 99% of students passing.
> 
> These and other such results indicate that school quality plays a major role in student performance. Hassan and other critics of school choice are keenly aware of this, as evidenced by the choices they make for their own children. For example, Obama’s first Education Secretary, Arne Duncan, stated that the primary reason he decided to live in Arlington, Virginia, was so his daughter could attend its public schools. In his words:
> 
> _That was why we chose where we live, it was the determining factor. That was the most important thing to me. My family has given up so much so that I could have the opportunity to serve; I didn’t want to try to save the country’s children and our educational system and jeopardize my own children’s education._
> 
> Duncan’s statement is an admission that public schools in the D.C. area often jeopardize the education of children, but he would not let this happen to his child. Few parents have the choice that Duncan made because most cannot afford to live in places like Arlington, where the annual cash income of the median family is $144,843, the highest of all counties in the United States.
> 
> Other prominent opponents of private school choice—like Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Bill Clinton—personally attended and also sent their own children to private K-12 schools. Likewise, Hassan’s daughter attended an elite private high school (Phillips Exeter Academy) where Hassan’s husband was the principal.
> 
> The existing U.S. education system does not provide an equal footing for children, but Hassan criticizes DeVos for supporting school choice, which would lessen this inequity. By its very definition, school choice allows parents to select the schools their children attend, an option that Hassan and other affluent people regularly exercise.
> 
> *Taxpayer Money and Accountability
> *
> 
> Four lines of evidence disprove Hassan’s claim that DeVos wants to “divert taxpayer dollars” to non-public schools “without requirements for accountability.”
> 
> First, private school choice generally increases public school spending per student, which is the primary measure of education funding. As explained by Stephen Cornman, a statistician with the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics, per-pupil spending is “the gold standard in school finance.”
> 
> Private school choice programs boost per-student funding in public schools because the public schools no longer educate the students who go to the private schools, which typically spend much less per student than public schools. This leaves additional funding for the students who remain in public schools.
> 
> According to the latest available data, the average spending per student in private K-12 schools during the 2011-12 school year was about $6,762. In the same year, the average spending per student in public schools was $13,398, or about twice as much. These figures exclude state administration spending, unfunded pension liabilities, and post-employment benefits like healthcare—all of which are common in public schools and rare in private ones.
> 
> Certain school costs like building maintenance are fixed in the short term, and thus, the savings of educating fewer students occurs in steps. This means that private school choice can temporarily decrease the funding per student in some public schools, but this is brief and slight because only 8% of public school spending is for operations and maintenance.
> 
> Second, school choice provides the most direct form of accountability, which is accountability to students and parents. With school choice, if parents are unhappy with any school, they have the ability to send their children to other schools. This means that every school is accountable to every parent.
> 
> Under the current public education system, schools are accountable to government officials, not students and parents. Again, Hassan knows this, because her son has severe disabilities, and Hassan used her influence as a lawyer to get her son’s public elementary school to “accommodate his needs.”
> 
> Unlike Hassan, people without a law degree, extra time on their hands, or ample financial resources are at the mercy of politicians and government employees. Short of legal action or changing an election outcome, most children and parents are stuck with their public schools, regardless of whether they are effective or safe. That is precisely the situation that DeVos would like to fix through school choice, but Hassan talks as if DeVos were trying to do the opposite.
> 
> Third, taxpayer funds are commonly used for private schools, and Hassan actually wants more of this. Her campaign website states that she “will fight to expand Pell Grants” but fails to reveal that these are often used for private colleges like, for example, Brown University, the Ivy League school that she, her husband, and her daughter attended (disclosure: so did this author).
> 
> In other words, Hassan supports using taxpayer money for top students to attend elite private universities, but she opposes the same opportunity for poor students to attend private K-12 schools.
> 
> Hassan’s position on college aid also undercuts her objection that DeVos supports programs that “leave out students whose families cannot afford to pay the part of the tuition that the voucher does not cover.” If that were truly Hassan’s objection, she would also oppose aid that doesn’t cover the full costs of every college, because that would leave out students who can’t pay the rest of the tuition.
> 
> Fourth, contrary to Hassan’s rhetoric about accountability to taxpayers, she supports current spending levels in public K-12 schools, “debt-free public college for all,” and expanding “early childhood education” in spite of the facts that:
> 
> * the U.S. spends an average of 31% more per K-12 student than other developed nations, but 15-year olds in the U.S. rank 31st among 35 nations in math.
> * federal, state, and local governments spend about $900 billion per year on formal education, but only 18% of U.S. residents aged 16 and older can correctly answer a word problem requiring the ability to search text, interpret it, and calculate using multiplication and division.
> * the average spending per public school classroom is $286,000 per year, but only 26% of the high school students who take the ACT exam meet its college readiness benchmarks in all four subjects (English, reading, math, and science).
> federal, state and local governments spend $173 billion per year on higher education, but 80% of first-time, full-time students who enroll in a public community college do not receive a degree from the college within 150% of the normal time required to do so.
> * 4-year public colleges spend an average of $40,033 per year for each full-time student, but one-third of students who graduate from 4-year colleges don’t improve their “critical thinking, analytical reasoning, problem-solving, and writing” skills by more than one percentage point over their entire college careers.
> * the federal government funds dozens of preschool programs, and the largest —Head Start—spends an average of $8,772 per child per year, but it produces no measurable benefit by the time students reach 3rd grade.
> 
> In sum, Hassan supports pumping taxpayer money into programs with high costs and substandard outcomes, but she opposes doing the same for private K–12 schools that produce better outcomes with far less cost.
> 
> *Left Behind?*
> 
> Hassan’s claim that private school choice programs “leave behind students with disabilities because the schools do not accommodate their complex needs” is also false.
> 
> In Northern and Central New Jersey, there are more than 30 private special education schools that are approved by the state. As far as parents are concerned, these schools serve the needs of their children better than the public schools in their areas. If this were not the case, these private schools would not exist.
> 
> More importantly, if parents don’t think that a private school will be best for their special needs child, school choice allows them to keep the child in a public school that is better-funded thanks to the money saved by school choice.
> 
> In a recent brief to the Nevada Supreme Court, the nation’s largest teachers’ union, and its state affiliate argue that free-market voucher programs will lead to “cream-skimming—the drawing away of the most advantaged students to private schools––and lead to a highly stratified system of education.”
> 
> As detailed above, the current public school system is highly stratified by income, and income and education go hand in hand. Hence, the real issue is not stratification but what happens to students who stay in public schools. Contrary to the belief that school choice will harm these students, a mass of evidence shows the opposite.
> 
> At least 21 high-quality studies have been performed on the academic outcomes of students who remain in public schools that are subject to school choice programs. All but one found neutral-to-positive results, and none found negative results. This is consistent with the theory that school choice stimulates competition that induces public schools to improve.
> 
> *Who Wins and Who Loses?*
> 
> Wide-ranging facts prove that school choice is a win for students, parents, and taxpayers. However, it financially harms teachers unions by depriving them of dues, because private schools are less likely to have unions than public ones.
> 
> In turn, this financially harms Democratic politicians, political action committees, and related organizations, which have received about $200 million in reported donations from the two largest teachers’ unions since 1990. Unions also give many unreported donations to Democratic Party causes.
> 
> Teachers’ unions are firmly opposed to private school choice, and the National Education Association has sent an open letter to Democrats stating that “opposition to vouchers is a top priority for NEA.”
> 
> So why does Hassan oppose giving other children opportunities that she gave to her own children? Motives are difficult to divine, but the reasons she gave in her op-ed are at odds with verifiable facts and her own actions.


As far as the claims towards The new Secretary of State I don't know whether the claims are true or not but the hypocrisy among those who advocate for state controlled public education is very much clear.

Considering what is being projected in this article I decided to do a bit more digging and see what the results are in terms of school voice and a voucher system. The results are very interesting: http://www.justfacts.com/education.asp#choice_gov



> *Effects on Government Schools*
> 
> * The primary measure of school resources is spending per student.[452] [453] [454]
> * School choice initiatives that allow students to attend private schools typically increase the funding per student in public schools, because public schools do not have to educate students who leave and because private schools typically spend less per student than public schools.[455] [456]
> * Certain school costs are fixed in the short term (like buildings), and thus, the cost savings of educating fewer students occurs in steps instead of linearly. This means that private school choice programs can temporarily decrease the funding per student in public schools.[457]
> * In 2011, the journal Education Next published an experimental study of a Florida school choice initiative that offered private and public school vouchers to students enrolled in chronically failing public schools. The study compared the academic gains of public school students whose schools were eligible for vouchers and public school students whose schools were not eligible for vouchers. The study found the following statistically significant results:
> 
> * On the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, “gains in test scores were 15 points higher among those schools whose students were eligible for vouchers than the gains among the rest of Florida’s public schools. Schools whose students were on the verge of becoming eligible also made greater gains.”
> 
> “The same pattern—of greater gains among schools facing competition or the threat thereof—was witnessed on the national Stanford-9 exam, confirming that the gains reflect genuine improvements in learning rather than teaching to the test or cheating.”
> After one year, *“the gains among [chronically failing] schools whose students were eligible for vouchers were enough to erase almost one-fifth of the [achievement] gap between their average score in the 2001-02 school year and the average score of all other Florida public schools.”[458]*
> 
> * In 2013, the Journal of School Choice: International Research and Reform published a systematic review of 21 “high-quality” studies about the academic outcomes of U.S. students who remain in public schools after other students leave through choice programs. This review was designed to measure the “effects of competition on traditional public schools whose enrollments are threatened” by private school choice programs. The author found:
> 
> *“All but one of these 21 studies found neutral/positive or positive results” on public school students.*
> 
> *None of the studies found negative results on public school students.*
> 
> The quasi-experimental studies, which are studies that are best able to determine casual effects, “unanimously find positive impacts on student academic achievement.”
> 
> The only study to find no effects across all subjects … was restricted to a relatively small number of participants in the year this study was conducted. Furthermore, a ‘hold-harmless’ provision ensured that public schools were insulated from the financial loss from any students that transferred into private schools with a voucher. The absence of a positive competition effect is thus unsurprising, given these design features.”[459]


I particularly honed in on the effects of government schools considering that the left's main concern is that it will widen the gap between those who can get vouchers for school choice and those who can't. The example in Florida shows the opposite, it actually closed the gap between government schools and charter/private schools by about a 5th or 20% of the the achievement gap on average. So in actuality in this case, the outcome was more of an equal achievement for students across the board. This is because the voucher system opens up competition between schools, if more students are eligible to go to private/charter schools then the government schools who have the other students left over have more time and resources to concentrate on those particular students who get more attention. It forces schools to increase their standards in order to attract more students and to gain a better reputation. It's common sense and economically makes more sense. It's what the inner city schools desperately need right now.

I think it is also important hone in on Unions and in particular with the Teacher's unions considering the last part of the rare article indicating who would lose out: http://www.justfacts.com/education.asp#choice_politics



> * According to donations reported to the Federal Election Commission, the following education groups were among the top 100 organizations that gave the most money to federal candidates, parties, political action committees, and related organizations during the 1990-2016 election cycles:
> 
> Group, Rank in the Top 100, Total Contributions
> 
> National Education Association (NEA)
> Ranked 3: $123,510,484
> 
> Portion to Democrats & Liberal Groups: 97%
> 
> American Federation of Teachers (AFT)
> Ranked 11: $80,395,458
> 
> Portion to Democrats & Liberal Groups: 100%
> 
> * The NEA and AFT are labor unions.[463] For facts about the accuracy of union donations reported to the Federal Election Commission, visit Just Facts’ research on labor unions.
> * In 2009, the president of the NEA sent an open letter to Democrats in the U.S. House and Senate stating that “opposition to [private school] vouchers is a top priority for NEA.”[464]
> * The 2016 Democratic Party Platform supports “public schools, and high-quality public charter schools,” and it opposes “for-profit charter schools.” The platform is silent on all other forms of school choice.


The Rare article is correct in terms of the Teacher's unions who have a lot of power in the education sector standing to lose a lot of ground if there is competition i.e school choice in the education sector. Essentially they have a monopoly and want to do anything possible to maintain that monopoly. Hence why they are donating heavily to the Democratic party.

It is essentially lobbying the DNC, political lobbying being something the left has said over and over again they are against. Where is the criticism leveled at the Teacher's Unions and the DNC for this? Of course there isn't because the left views it as a good thing and for the greater good...

For those who have missed it, Rep. Thomas Massie who like Rand Paul and Justin Amash who I have a great deal of respect for introduced legislation into Congress to abolish the Department of Education by 2018: http://www.snopes.com/2017/02/07/re...at-would-abolish-the-department-of-education/

I won't call of it because it speaks for itself, what I will do is link an article written by Julie Borowski on the arguments for abolishing the Department of Education: http://www.freedomworks.org/content/abolishing-department-education-right-thing-do



> Eliminating the Department of Education used to be a standard Republican talking point. In 1980, Ronald Reagan ran on abolishing the federal department soon after Jimmy Carter created it. The 1996 GOP platform read, “the Federal government has no constitutional authority to be involved in school curricula or to control jobs in the market place. This is why we will abolish the Department of Education, end federal meddling in our schools, and promote family choice at all levels of learning.”
> 
> The Republican Party has since lost its way. George W. Bush championed the No Child Left Behind law—also known as the No Federal Bureaucrat Left Behind law—which has massively expanded the federal government’s role in education. With a few notable exceptions such as Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul, modern day Republicans have backed away from gutting the Department of Education. It has become more common for Republicans to promise that they will eliminate “waste, fraud and abuse” in government programs without giving any specifics.
> 
> Republicans need to return to their small government roots. We just can’t solve our budget problems and restore liberty by simply tinkering around the edges. Instead of pledging to “fix” unconstitutional government programs—we need more elected representatives willing to scrap entire departments. Today’s GOP should channel Mr. Conservative himself Barry Goldwater who declared that “I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient…my aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them.”
> 
> The Department of Education deserves to be on the chopping block. Our children’s education is too important to be left up to a federal centralized bureaucracy. Jimmy Carter created the Department of Education as a political payoff to the teachers’ unions for their 1976 endorsement. We should judge all governmental agencies by their results rather than their intentions. Like virtually every federal department, the Department of Education has only made things worse. Student educational outcomes have worsened since the creation of the Department of Education.
> 
> The Department of Education is blatantly unconstitutional, like so much that the federal government does. The truth is that the federal government only has about thirty enumerated powers delegated to it in the Constitution. Education is not specifically listed in the document, which means that the authority over education should be left up to the states and the people. We cannot afford to waste anymore taxpayer dollars on failed national schemes.
> 
> Federal agencies always cost more than initially predicted. *The Department of Education’s 2011 budget is nearly six times greater than its original budget. It has increased from $13.1 billion (in 2007 dollars) in 1980 to $77.8 billion in 2011.* The federal government throwing more money at education has done virtually nothing to improve educational outcomes. Student test scores in math, reading and science have remained flat or declined over the past four decades. The chart below from the Cato Institute shows how increased federal spending has not had a positive effect on educational achievement:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The federal government meddling in education has been a failure to say the least. A group of federal bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. cannot possibly design a curriculum that meets the unique needs of millions of school children across the nation. We need to restore control over education to the local level where teachers and parents are put back in charge. Make no mistake; eliminating the Department of Education is a pro-education position.
> 
> More of today's Republicans need to grow spines and renew the call to abolish the Department of Education. It’s unconstitutional, a waste of taxpayer dollars and has been detrimental to the quality of education in America.


I'll have to at some point look into the maths, reading and science test scores but considering how it has been common argument that the US' education system is poor and is lagging behind other countries like Finland, South Korea and Chile I would hazard a guess it's true. What is true is the amount of government spending waste and lack of efficiency there has been at the Federal level when it comes to spending on education which is hardly a shocker. It is also interesting is Julie's claim that the DOE was made as a payoff to the Teacher's unions endorsing Carter, again showing the ties between the DNC and the Teacher's unions....unfortunately Julie's link in the article is dead now.

So I decided to research further found this on the Reason article surrounding the DOE: http://reason.com/blog/2017/02/07/department-of-education-jimmy-carter



> Public education (including federal involvement in public education) was a thing in the United States for a couple hundred years before 1979, when Congress narrowly approved the cleaving of a new Department of Education (DoED) out of the already existing Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. But the newly created federal bureaucracy was more of a favor to a large and powerful special interest group on behalf of a beleaguered president than a necessary reorganization to allow the federal government to "meet its responsibilities in education more effectively, more efficiently, and more responsively," as then-President Jimmy Carter put it.
> 
> Upon signing the Department of Education Organization Act Statement in October 1979, Carter said:
> 
> Primary responsibility for education should rest with those States, localities, and private institutions that have made our Nation's educational system the best in the world, but the Federal Government has for too long failed to play its own supporting role in education as effectively as it could. Instead of assisting school officials at the local level, it has too often added to their burden. Instead of setting a strong administrative model, the Federal structure has contributed to bureaucratic buck passing. Instead of simulating needed debate of educational issues, the Federal Government has confused its role of junior partner in American education with that of silent partner.
> 
> Essentially, Carter's argument—similar to the argument President George W. Bush used to create the bloated, expensive, and ineffective Department of Homeland Security—is that because of all the "bureaucratic buck passing," a new bureaucracy must be created.
> 
> Creating the DoED was Carter's fulfillment of a 1976 presidential campaign promise, when he earned the endorsement of the largest labor union in the United States—the National Education Association (NEA). As the Washington Post reported in 1980:
> 
> The NEA gave its first presidential endorsement ever in 1976, when Walter Mondale promised them, at an NEA annual meeting, that the Carter administration would form an education department. At the 1976 Democratic National Convention, more delegates — 180 — belonged to the NEA than any other group of any kind. They've endorsed Carter for 1980, and were a major force in getting delegates to the Iowa caucuses...
> 
> Is the department, then, a creature of the NEA?
> 
> "That's true," says NEA executive director Terry Herndon. "There'd be no department without the NEA."
> 
> By the time the bill calling for the creation of the DoED had been passed in Congress, President Carter's approval rating was at its nadir—below 30 percent—in large part thanks to an international oil and energy crisis contributing to a tanking economy and a national "crisis of confidence."
> 
> A study of the DoED's creation by Georgia State University found that although the department "was fairly low on the list of priorities," President Carter's "Domestic Policy staff did its research, sent people to testify on behalf of the department in Congress, and hoped that their endorsement of the Department would help ensure the backing of the NEA and its members for the 1980 election."
> 
> A section on the DoED in the Cato Institute's Handbook for Congress includes a passage about the lukewarm support from even congressional Democrats for creating the DoED, who were more motivated to keep a Democrat in the White House than to create a new federal bureaucracy:
> 
> According to Rep. Benjamin Rosenthal (D-N.Y.), Congress went along with the plan out of ''not wanting to embarrass the president.'' Also, many members of Congress had made promises to educators in their home districts to support the new department. The Wall Street Journal reported the admission of one House Democrat: ''The idea of an Education Department is really a bad one. But it's NEA's top priority. There are school teachers in every congressional district and most of us simply don't need the aggravation of taking them on.''


Go back further above to the contributions of unions in political contributions and you will see the NEA's name near the top of the list and the amount they contribute to the DNC. The ties between this government department, the DNC and the Teacher's Unions have been for decades. It's little wonder why they fear the Department of Education getting the axe.

I could go on but I'll leave it at that for now. I'll probably post more on this issue at some point.


----------



## Reaper

L-DOPA said:


> It is essentially lobbying the DNC, something the left has said over and over again they are against. Where is the criticism leveled at the Teacher's Unions and the DNC for this? Of course there isn't because the left views it as a good thing and for the greater good...


Education is one of Democrats biggest platforms and they've used it to get votes - especially from the minorities. The DNC while being responsible for doing nothing have consistently claimed that they're the ones championing education for minority kids and hence there's an attempt to discredit Betsy and Charter Schools. 

The real facts are that Charter Schools are actually designed for parents of minority kids. That is their ultimate goal. If you look through that one link I posted about the Charter Schools in Florida, you'll realize that the statistics show significant improvements in achievement amongst minority kids. Charter Schools also have a higher enrollment of blacks and hispanics as a percentage of the population as compared to whites kids ... they show higher achievement by minority kids compared to traditional public schools and they've sent more minority kids as a percentage to college/university than traditional public schools. They are "marginal" in a manner of speaking, but marginal gains are still better than no gains especially if you break it down to individual achievement and capability. A marginal gain is good enough to go to university for that bottom tier kid who might have never been able to dream of college in the public school system. 

It's a proven method and at this point I think the dems want to oppose this primarily because if charter schools and the system is allowed to spread throughout the inner cities, people might actually wake up and realize that the republicans actually had the better idea of how to fix their issues than the democrats. They stand to lose one of their biggest policy platforms in decades. They've already lost on healthcare with Obabacare, and now they stand to lose on Education with Charter Schools. They can't let it go.



Real Deal said:


> The voucher plan will kill off public schools that cannot afford to lose any more funding...schools that absolutely have to make sacrifices and can't improve without the necessary funds. Working in the janitorial supply distribution field, and having an elementary teacher for a wife, I see and FEEL the funding issues every single day. Our line of salesmen walk into schools that can't afford to clean daily, can't afford the equipment and chemical they once used...and while I see that in sales numbers, my wife is working full days, coming home and working after dinner (lesson plans and grading papers), getting paid less than what she deserves. Schools in Kansas and Oklahoma are going four-day weeks to close the year, so they can use less electricity and not have to run the buses that Friday. There are schools in Missouri that are bidding out their consumables (paper towels, bath tissue, etc.), and janitorial supply companies are making just 5-10% margin because of how extremely competitive pricing has been the last two years.
> 
> A poor school district (talking financially) does not always signify lazy teachers, or lack of education. In some cases, those schools (like a hospital, for instance) are keeping small, struggling towns alive. I can name numerous towns here in Kansas - the state that clearly hates funding education - that are on their deathbed after losing their hospital or school.
> 
> Sometimes, it's not always as simple as eliminating government.
> 
> If I'm incorrect in any of the above, please let me know. I'm all for getting a better understanding of how DeVos' plan will actually work without ripping even more funding from public school districts, especially those in Kansas, who cling to every dollar they have.
> 
> "Survival of the fittest" is the theme, just as it may end up being with health insurance (pre-ACA). Don't get me wrong: the ACA was not perfect, and needed extensive work...but before 2009, healthy people had no idea what it was like to be turned down by multiple insurance companies because of a pre-existing condition (in my case, diabetes). Having insurance allows me to stay fairly healthy, so I don't end up with major damage to my organs, jumping on Medicaid to get it fixed/paid for. The day Trump implements policies that force insurance companies to allow pre-existing conditions, I'm on board, but until then, it's all talk.


Stop being hysterical. The goal of school choice isn't to take any schools' funding away. It will only impact the worst schools in those areas where charter schools are close. And statistics show that increasing funding has not made those schools improve in the slightest. 

Its only purpose is to give individual parents their own money back so that they can use that money to send their kids to charter schools and not schools overrun by terrible and corrupt school administration --- which is a thing you know.


----------



## Beatles123

ShiningStar said:


> While I do believe the establishment was behind Hilary,all these people butthurt she is the nom should be looking at those in power in the party. Elizabeth Warren was a feckless do nothing take no side coward most of the primary. And the fact no Major Senators or Governor's were running knowing what a flawed candidate Hilary was and how untested Bernie was makes it clear Dem politicians are not the ambitious risk takers they were in the past. Fact of the matter is, with the endless amount of debates,the endless length of the pirmary season and with cable news being a vacum with thousands of hours to fill every year their was always an opening for more candidates in the Democratic primary. As divided as the Usa is American's still love a good horse race.


Let them send Fauxcahontas to the polls if they want. We'll smash her just like we will the rest of these globalist fuckwads in the midterms.


----------



## TomahawkJock

@RipNTear, the only problem I seemingly have... rural schools still have fixed costs. While yes, the variable costs student costs like books and etc, wouldn't be as high if students did leave, each school still has to employ an x amount of teachers, provide an x amount of opportunities, pay the electric bill, pay teachers. Especially with teachers, I assume you would then pay them less to compensate for paying for other things which means they would go somewhere else, most likely the bigger, charter schools.

I think you can see how this would be a problem with rural schools. The schools would become worse and worse. And the families stuck there, because the tax break still isn't enough for them to pay for the charter, receive a lower level of education for their children. 

And yes while competition would increase, competition doesn't affect rural areas nearly as much as urban areas who have more choices.


----------



## Reaper

TomahawkJock said:


> @RipNTear , the only problem I seemingly have... rural schools still have fixed costs. While yes, the variable costs student costs like books and etc, wouldn't be as high if students did leave, each school still has to employ an x amount of teachers, provide an x amount of opportunities, pay the electric bill, pay teachers. Especially with teachers, I assume you would then pay them less to compensate for paying for other things which means they would go somewhere else, most likely the bigger, charter schools.
> 
> I think you can see how this would be a problem with rural schools. The schools would become worse and worse. And the families stuck there, because the tax break still isn't enough for them to pay for the charter, receive a lower level of education for their children.
> 
> And yes while competition would increase, competition doesn't affect rural areas nearly as much as urban areas who have more choices.


The government does not create charter schools. It doesn't build them. It doesn't fund them. 

Think about it the way you think about grocery stores. They're independent capitalist run organizations. The department store has to exist in your area in order for people to have the choice. If there's a grocery store in the area that charges $5 for a dozen eggs, and then another grocery store moves in that only charges $3 for a dozen eggs, would you want that old grocery store to continue to exist? It will survive for a while, but then eventually everyone will start buying the $3 dozen eggs and they will all still continue to be able to eat eggs. 

Same concept with charter schools. If for example a rural area does not have a charter school, how will their parents send their kids to that charter school? If a charter school moves in and creates a better school overall and over time the old government run school loses out in terms of admissions because it's a better school that provides a better service to the community, how is that a bad thing for the kids of that rural county? It's a better school. It's a win-win. There's no defunding of existing schools as long as there isn't a competitive school in the area, and if a competitive school moves in, it creates a better school to replace the old school with. If the charter school isn't a better run school, then it won't be able to attract customers and it will die because then that would be the poorly run school. 

I really don't see any reason for poorly run schools to continue to exist ... I don't see the logic in your argument.


----------



## Miss Sally

When it comes to education one should ask themselves..

Do the politicians at hand utilize public schools or private ones? If private why are they against choice if they don't follow what they preach?

Really all you need to do is look at the Democrats and Celebs and their lifestyles and it doesn't take more than a minute to realize they couldn't give a shit about what they say they do.

Tossing money at schools never works, it ends up in the politicians pockets or in the hands of the unions. Poorly performing schools get loads of money yet they never seem to ever improve, gee i wonder why if you pay people more for doing poorly over doing well why they never improve!


----------



## TomahawkJock

RipNTear said:


> The government does not create charter schools. It doesn't build them. It doesn't fund them.
> 
> Think about it the way you think about grocery stores. They're independent capitalist run organizations. The department store has to exist in your area in order for people to have the choice. If there's a grocery store in the area that charges $5 for a dozen eggs, and then another grocery store moves in that only charges $3 for a dozen eggs, would you want that old grocery store to continue to exist? It will survive for a while, but then eventually everyone will start buying the $3 dozen eggs and they will all still continue to be able to eat eggs.
> 
> Same concept with charter schools. If for example a rural area does not have a charter school, how will their parents send their kids to that charter school? If a charter school moves in and creates a better school overall and over time the old government run school loses out in terms of admissions because it's a better school that provides a better service to the community, how is that a bad thing for the kids of that rural county? It's a better school. It's a win-win. There's no defunding of existing schools as long as there isn't a competitive school in the area, and if a competitive school moves in, it creates a better school to replace the old school with. If the charter school isn't a better run school, then it won't be able to attract customers and it will die because then that would be the poorly run school.
> 
> I really don't see any reason for poorly run schools to continue to exist ... I don't see the logic in your argument.


In the long run, a charter school moving in may potentially help yes but in the short run it doesn't help at all. The charter school would even take a bit of time to establish and build, and even then its really hard for charters to exist or be created in rural areas. 



> *National Alliance for Public Schools on challenges of creating a school in rural places*
> Since many rural areas are isolated and sparsely populated, a new schools strategy faces numerous obstacles, such as enrolling enough students, acquiring facilities, and recruiting teachers and administrators.
> 
> Third, it’s often the case that a rural district-run school is the largest employer in the area, the hub of local activities, and one of the few visible public investments for miles. As a result, the existing district school is woven tightly into the community’s fabric. New charter schools are often seen through narrowed eyes.


Here in Missouri, charter schools are only in urban areas. There are some people living in rural areas who could probably move to an urban area with said school choice tax break. Once they leave, the money they were providing to the rural school is gone right? The rural school loses money. The rural school loses opportunities. The rural school loses good teachers. This would put those who stayed in the district at a disadvantage. It would put those who don't have the means to move their whole livelihood, their whole house, to an urban area at a disadvantage. 



> Kim Kaukl is executive director of Wisconsin's Rural School Alliance. He says those districts stand to lose the most, even if they lose only a few kids to vouchers.
> 
> "In rural districts that’s getting harder and harder to keep, especially some of the advanced programs," Kaukl explains. "An advanced placement class may only have three of four kids. Well, that’s going to be pretty hard to keep offering a program like that if you’ve only got three or four students."
> 
> Kaukl says what could further tie districts’ hands is a plan in the legislature to limit how often school districts can ask local voters to raise taxes for school purposes. He says, in some cases, that’s been a tool districts have used to recoup money lost to vouchers.
> 
> -_NPR News in Milwaukee_


It has already affected rural areas in Wisconsin. Am I for this on a city by city basis? Sure, why the fuck not. It would benefit inner cities kids a LOT. But it would hurt rural kids. It would hurt rural schools right now. Once charters are established in rural areas, then I probably would be for that. But I'm not right now. 

Despite all of that, I am for no national curriculum. I want to make that perfectly clear.


----------



## Beatles123

http://www.azfamily.com/story/34462...est-at-ice-facility-in-phoenix?autostart=true


So an illegal immigrant mother with some anchor babies that had a temporary deportation order rescinded under Obama was just deported last night under Trump. Now the children are all saaaaaaad, awwwwww! :trump

What color is my heart, Liberals? iper1


----------



## Real Deal

I think you have to live in a rural area to truly understand the negative impact. In certain areas, overcrowding has become an issue. If the school my wife teaches at closes down, three things happen:

1) good teachers lose jobs (and few will get hired locally, class sizes will just increase)
2) those kids will need to drive 15 miles to go to a school in my town, which has a large class size already
3) the town loses families, declines in population

Yes, the administration is corrupt and overpaid (I feel this is the case with far too many schools), but the teachers and aides are incredible. The amount of things they do, with the little money they have, is outstanding. Unlike most urban schools, they can't afford to give an iPad to every student. Unlike most urban schools, they can't afford new playground equipment, numerous field trips, etc. I'm sure that has a negative impact on their ability to learn, but so does bad parenting and unnecessary medications (but I'll step away from that discussion).

Right now, our county has one charter school, and it enrolls just 15 students. I'm pretty sure our state has under 20 of them, total. Kansas is nowhere near California when it comes to those statistics, but discussions do not take that into consideration. They couldn't build a charter school, and establish it, quick enough to make up for the loss of one elementary and JH/HS in the town I'm speaking of.

Again, I just don't see how a voucher program doesn't take money from public schools. There's approx. $15 billion that goes into Title I, and I'm sure that won't be the case soon...and why wouldn't the state pull money typically allocated for local education agencies and put that into the vouchers that will be provided to individual kids? I'm having a hard time understanding why this wouldn't pull money from public schools all around the country, regardless of their situation.


----------



## Beatles123

Public schools never helped me a damn. :shrug


----------



## stevefox1200

Trumps cabinet is such a mixed bag 

Rex is turning out to be pretty cool headed and might be a future GOP pres candidate if he can keep him self clean and Mattis is great but Bannon, Conway and Spicer are really fucking bad 

Conway just did in interview where she said "Go buy Ivanka's stuff, is what I would tell you. It's a wonderful line. I own some of it. I fully, I'm going to just, I'm going to give a free commercial here. Go buy it today, everybody. You can find it online."


----------



## Kabraxal

As someone that has been through private, home schooling, DoD, and public schooling... I can easily say public schooling was the absolute worst. Surprisingly, home schooling was the best for a multitude of reasons (mainly the fact that I went through three years of normal curriculum in one year). But when my 7-9 grade classes in DoD schools, which are supposed to be notoriously horrible, were replicated text book for text book for 10-12 in public schooling................. yeah, sorry, but the public school system in the US is an absolute joke and one of the biggest reasons for that is gov't interference through the DoE. 

I will not be said to see that department axed.


----------



## virus21

Beatles123 said:


> Public schools never helped me a damn. :shrug


Same. I think I learned more from reading books in the library then I did in class


----------



## TomahawkJock

I was never discussing how good the public school system is. That can be fixed in a myriad of ways. Namely less government regulation when it comes to curriculum. 

There are some poor rural kids who need the public school system though. Kids flocking off to different areas with the vouchers going to charters would only make those who couldn't make the move worse off because the school would be worse off financially.


----------



## Smarkout

Beatles123 said:


> Public schools never helped me a damn. :shrug





virus21 said:


> Same. I think I learned more from reading books in the library then I did in class


Well when teachers are forced to teach towards state tests and not towards a students needs this is what happens. 

I know the some people want to pour money into education and make it this big government program but that isn't the answer. I say this all the time and every student learns differently and comes from a different background, yet we try to teach them the same way. 

Some of these states need to actually spend some money into education (looking at you Republicans) and treat their teachers better though. They are getting paid peanuts in some states to teach the future of their state with little to no support.


----------



## virus21




----------



## Beatles123

TomahawkJock said:


> I was never discussing how good the public school system is. That can be fixed in a myriad of ways.


No it can't. Liberals have tainted it.


----------



## Beatles123

Thank for the shadownegs. you know who you are. :trump


----------



## yeahbaby!

Beatles123 said:


> http://www.azfamily.com/story/34462...est-at-ice-facility-in-phoenix?autostart=true
> 
> 
> So an illegal immigrant mother with some anchor babies that had a temporary deportation order rescinded under Obama was just deported last night under Trump. Now the children are all saaaaaaad, awwwwww! :trump
> 
> What color is my heart, Liberals? iper1


I don't know about your heart, but to take pleasure in this shows you're a fake christian, all your god talk when you've brought it up is for nothing, and you deserve your wheelchair. Enjoy that. 

:trump


----------



## Beatles123

yeahbaby! said:


> I don't know about your heart, but to take pleasure in this shows you're a fake christian, all your god talk when you've brought it up is for nothing, and you deserve your wheelchair. Enjoy that.
> 
> :trump


----------



## MrMister

why do the anti-Trump people bait more than the Trump people?

Trump's existence is triggering:brady6


----------



## CamillePunk

MrMister said:


> why do the anti-Trump people bait more than the Trump people?
> 
> Trump's existence is triggering:brady6


Trump Derangement Syndrome is real. They don't recognize reality anymore. They lash out.


----------



## MillionDollarProns

I'm a Christian and I never feel moved by the Syrian Refugee stories, because I know _every single one of them_ is presented by the media for the sole purpose of getting the knee-jerk humanitarian reaction to the travel ban. And not a single one of these people were lifting a finger to talk about the Syrian Civil War until somehow it became our duty to accept refugees. Teen Vogue, my go to source for liberal news, didn't even start reporting on the SYrian Civil War until like 2 months ago.

On the other hand, I do feel moved everytime someone here makes fun of Beatles for being in a wheelchair. I know the homie doesn't need white knighting but, damn, if you guys said that shit about black ppl or something the world would be over. I feel that, like how some families have swear jars, the WF Trump Thread family needs a "Handicapable hatespeech" jar that we'll use to fund our vacation to the wall when it's built :mark:


----------



## Oxidamus

Beatles123 said:


> No it can't. Liberals have tainted it.


It can be fixed. It probably won't. There's a difference. Either way, you can have extremely liberal schooling that doesn't fail to teach kids how to count, spell and read, which really are the bare minimums a lot of poor western schools struggle with.

Though, I think one of the big reasons these schools suck is because liberalism has loosened the power both schools and parents have over the kids, we can do without fixing those.

Corruption/Greed is easily the #1 thing that needs to be addressed. Same with just about everything though. :trump


----------



## yeahbaby!

CamillePunk said:


> Trump Derangement Syndrome is real. They don't recognize reality anymore. They lash out.


It's real for Team Trumpers too. They think they're warped view is reality just because the buffoon running the country has confirmed their biases to be truth for them. They don't realise :trump is playing them for fools the most.


----------



## CamillePunk

yeahbaby! said:


> It's real for Team Trumpers too. They think they're warped view is reality just because the buffoon running the country has confirmed their biases to be truth for them. They don't realise :trump is playing them for fools the most.


No, that's just the much simpler and more common confirmation bias. 

Many anti-Trumpers are currently hallucinating that the country is becoming a totalitarian white supremacist state. This isn't just a different view of the same set of facts. It's a totally reality-detached hallucination. It's very different.


----------



## yeahbaby!

MillionDollarProns said:


> I'm a Christian and I never feel moved by the Syrian Refugee stories, because I know _every single one of them_ is presented by the media for the sole purpose of getting the knee-jerk humanitarian reaction to the travel ban. And not a single one of these people were lifting a finger to talk about the Syrian Civil War until somehow it became our duty to accept refugees. Teen Vogue, my go to source for liberal news, didn't even start reporting on the SYrian Civil War until like 2 months ago.
> 
> *On the other hand, I do feel moved everytime someone here makes fun of Beatles for being in a wheelchair. I know the homie doesn't need white knighting but, damn, if you guys said that shit about black ppl or something the world would be over. I feel that, like how some families have swear jars, the WF Trump Thread family needs a "Handicapable hatespeech" jar that we'll use to fund our vacation to the wall when it's built :mar*k:


It was probably crossing the line too much into personal and I'll probably get warned or banned, but I think he deserved it.

If he's going to come on here and be a baity little prick over and over, generally face no consequences because he's on the Trump side, then deserves some crap back.


----------



## Reaper

Beatles123 said:


> http://www.azfamily.com/story/34462...est-at-ice-facility-in-phoenix?autostart=true
> 
> 
> So an illegal immigrant mother with some anchor babies that had a temporary deportation order rescinded under Obama was just deported last night under Trump. Now the children are all saaaaaaad, awwwwww! :trump
> 
> What color is my heart, Liberals? iper1


Personally, I think if she had worked as hard in Mexico as he worked to stay illegally in America (because it's actually pretty damned hard to remain in a country illegally as it's not just one crime you have to commit, you have to commit multiple), she might have actually had had a better life for her kids in mexico by now. 

These people simply do not understand this anymore. Their mexico is a fast developing country. If they just return, or if they stay there and work hard there, they can still make good lives for themselves. 

As far as I'm concerned, I'm not torn that she had to go. She is facing the consequences of her own actions. No one asked her to come here illegally. No one told her to stay here illegally. She is a free woman who made a choice and is now paying for it and also making her children pay for it. She has no one to blame but herself. No society or individual in the world is responsible for saving her children from her decisions.



yeahbaby! said:


> It was probably crossing the line too much into personal and I'll probably get warned or banned, but I think he deserved it.
> 
> If he's going to come on here and be a baity little prick over and over, generally face no consequences because he's on the Trump side, then deserves some crap back.


As long as I've known beatles in this thread I have not seen him make a single personal attack against anyone. It's your personal fee fees that are getting hurt over Beatles supporting Trump and supporting the deportation of a random criminal. 

If you guys cannot handle your fee fees (and now you're the second person to have done this to him) and outrage over some random criminal from mexico whose existence makes no difference to your existence, then imo you are the ones who do not deserve anyone's respect on here. Your outrage is disingenuous. Why don't you take in a few refugees into your home personally before you give yourself the right to attack someone else.


----------



## yeahbaby!

CamillePunk said:


> No, that's just the much simpler and more common confirmation bias.
> 
> Many anti-Trumpers are currently hallucinating that the country is becoming a totalitarian white supremacist state. This isn't just a different view of the same set of facts. It's a totally reality-detached hallucination. It's very different.


The same way many rightist shouting heads including Trump for years convinced Team Trumpers and the Alt-Right their world is falling apart, their country is being taken away by the Obama, Islam, PC police, Feminists, etc etc - and if they don't do something now Sharia Law will be knocking at the door with a suicide bomb ready to blow. Talk about hallucinations.


----------



## MrMister

Beatles does bait and shitpost but he doesn't get personal. Getting personal is crossing the line and frankly it's losing tactic. You make yourself look unable to argue legitimate points.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

MrMister said:


> Beatles does bait and shitpost but he doesn't get personal. Getting personal is crossing the line and frankly it's losing tactic. You make yourself look unable to argue legitimate points.


Beatles needs to learn how to multi-quote, dammit!














needs to make "multi-quoting great again" his next campaign initiative so that Beatles follows through.


----------



## yeahbaby!

MrMister said:


> Beatles does bait and shitpost but he doesn't get personal. Getting personal is crossing the line and frankly it's losing tactic. You make yourself look unable to argue legitimate points.


Legitimate points from Beatles? :trump


Point taken however.


----------



## Vic Capri

> Getting personal is crossing the line and frankly it's losing tactic. You make yourself look unable to argue legitimate points.














> Spicer are really fucking bad


He started off good, but I can tell he's cracking under pressure due to the press making fun of him for being human. They're a bunch of dogs.

- Vic


----------



## The Absolute

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/829830382572945412

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/829831418742124544
Welp... :bunk


----------



## MrMister

Supreme Court time? Serious question, I don't know how this stuff works exactly. I am assuming that it's Supreme Court time though. Where is @FITZ WF's lawyer?


----------



## MillionDollarProns

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals clearly reads Teen Vogue :mj2


----------



## yeahbaby!

Vic Capri said:


> - Vic


Please. Please tell me you see the irony in this.


----------



## yeahbaby!

The Absolute said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/829830382572945412
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/829831418742124544
> Welp... :bunk


Damn, The Court of Appeals must be full of cucks and Anti Trumpers too.


----------



## virus21

Sadly it will just take one act of violence from someone who is Muslim to reverse this


----------



## The Absolute

MrMister said:


> Supreme Court time? Serious question, I don't know how this stuff works exactly. I am assuming that it's Supreme Court time though. Where is @FITZ WF's lawyer?


Yeah Supreme Court seems likely now.


----------



## Beatles123

yeahbaby! said:


> It was probably crossing the line too much into personal and I'll probably get warned or banned, but I think he deserved it.
> 
> If he's going to come on here and be a baity little prick over and over, generally face no consequences because he's on the Trump side, then deserves some crap back.


Pointing out the internally flawed racebaiting of the left is being a prick? Okay. Sorry, Steve: Im not gonna stop expressing my opinion that you and a large number of those that are becoming the standard for your political ideology are deranged. When you revert back to the sane democratic party you used to be, so will I. At least I never said you deserved a neurological disease. Thats all you. Its all your ilk has LEFT to fight with. 

My posts are a direct result of what you have become combined with the rules of engagement those like you have set. Blame yourselves.


----------



## DesolationRow

Well, Donald Trump was never going to win this at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, by far the most activist and most overturned court in the land. 

If this goes to the Supreme Court, which seems inevitable now, and Neil Gorsuch is not confirmed in time, Trump probably loses because those who count Justice Anthony Kennedy among the "conservatives" are off-base. 

It would probably be more prudent to go back to the district court.

This is a predictable, though somewhat nevertheless hilarious, shredding of the U.S. Constitution in terms of specific powers granted to the executive branch. 

Trump may very well author a new executive order to attempt to outright ban an entire class of aliens, which is constitutionally within his purview as the president. 

This turns the case of Alabama wanting to restrict the flow of refugees into the state until the state government could go about vetting them against Barack Obama's orders on its head. 

It is not the job of a judge to declare, "The threat is not what the president says it is." Complete, utter overstepping of his authority. 

Will be interesting to see what unfolds now.


----------



## Stephen90

yeahbaby! said:


> Please. Please tell me you see the irony in this


I guess 9\11 was the Democrats fault.


----------



## MrMister

Judge Clifton, one of the judges, challenged that this is religious discrimination by the way. 



> "I have trouble understanding why we're supposed to infer religious animus when, in fact, the vast majority of Muslims would not be affected," Judge Richard Clifton, a George W. Bush nominee, asked an attorney representing Washington state and Minnesota.
> 
> Only 15 percent of the world's Muslims are affected by the executive order, the judge said, citing his own calculations.


http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/09/appeals-court-to-issue-decision-on-trump-travel-ban-later-today.html


----------



## Vic Capri

> Supreme Court time? Serious question, I don't know how this stuff works exactly. I am assuming that it's Supreme Court time though. Where is @FITZ WF's lawyer?


When does Gorsuch get confirmed?

- Vic


----------



## Beatles123

Meh, both arguments were awful TBH.

Gorsuch time.


----------



## MrMister

Gorscuh most likely won't be confirmed in time to rule on this. I imagine the Dems will delay it as much as possible.


----------



## MillionDollarProns

"SEE YOU IN COURT" :mark:


----------



## Beatles123

MrMister said:


> Gorscuh most likely won't be confirmed in time to rule on this. I imagine the Dems will delay it as much as possible.


Nuclear option.


----------



## DOPA

MrMister said:


> Judge Clifton, one of the judges, challenged that this is religious discrimination by the way.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/09/appeals-court-to-issue-decision-on-trump-travel-ban-later-today.html



It seems as though my arguments against the executive order being a slight against religious freedom might hold some weight .


----------



## yeahbaby!

Pretty embarrassing for Trump, two strikes now makes him look like he doesn't know the law and how to draft one of these dang confusing Executive Orders in the first place. Either that or everyone's against him just because - one or the other.


----------



## Beatles123

Never did I believe it would be upheld. You could hear in the call that the woman judge was never going to see reason from the start, not to mention the lawyer was switched with an hour to go.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Beatles123 said:


> Pointing out the internally flawed racebaiting of the left is being a prick? Okay. Sorry, Steve: Im not gonna stop expressing my opinion that you and a large number of those that are becoming the standard for your political ideology are deranged. When you revert back to the sane democratic party you used to be, so will I. At least I never said you deserved a neurological disease. Thats all you. Its all your ilk has LEFT to fight with.
> 
> My posts are a direct result of what you have become combined with the rules of engagement those like you have set. Blame yourselves.


You know the shitty things you've said that have nothing to do with pointing out anything of the left. Take responsibility for them like a man without blaming the other side like a bitch. You got what you deserved and I'm happy to stand by that.

You saying you've changed just because the other side has just shows you can't think for yourself.


----------



## Beatles123

yeahbaby! said:


> You know the shitty things you've said that have nothing to do with pointing out anything of the left. Take responsibility for them like a man without blaming the other side like a bitch. You got what you deserved and I'm happy to stand by that.
> 
> You saying you've changed just because the other side has just shows you can't think for yourself.


I owe you nothing. I have been perfectly consistent with every stance i've taken. I don't owe you a deeper explanation on anything.

I could tell you i believed the sky was purple, and you know what you'd have to do?

Like it.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

This little back-and-forth has been entertaining, but if you guys want to throw stones at each other, this is not the thread to do so. :trump3


----------



## FriedTofu

MrMister said:


> Beatles does bait and shitpost but he doesn't get personal. Getting personal is crossing the line and frankly it's losing tactic. You make yourself look unable to argue legitimate points.


He tries to get personal too but generally failed at doing so because he can't parrot ideas from others for that to trigger a response.

Is this considered personal? :troll


----------



## Beatles123

FriedTofu said:


> He tries to get personal too but generally failed at doing so because he can't parrot ideas from others for that to trigger a response.
> 
> Is this considered personal? :troll


You do nothing BUT parrot! 0

Moving on at Mods' request.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

http://bgr.com/2017/02/09/french-presidential-election-russia/

Why does this sound so painfully familiar? Oh that's right, it's this in a nutshell:















Grow the fuck up, progressives. :kobefacepalm


----------



## Sensei Utero

yeahbaby! said:


> I don't know about your heart, but to take pleasure in this shows you're a fake christian, all your god talk when you've brought it up is for nothing, and you deserve your wheelchair. Enjoy that.
> 
> :trump


Dude, I politically disagree with a lot of viewpoints of @Beatles123, especially what he posted (and to add along - I'm an agnostic atheist so I'm certainly no Christian), but to state to the guy that he deserves a wheelchair or a disability is just low in my book. C'mon.


----------



## yeahbaby!

InUtero said:


> Dude, I politically disagree with a lot of viewpoints of @Beatles123, especially what he posted (and to add along - I'm an agnostic atheist so I'm certainly no Christian), but to state to the guy that he deserves a wheelchair or a disability is just low in my book. C'mon.


You know what else is shitty? Revelling in smugness about a woman and her two kids getting deported. It's not the first time. He deserved it.


----------



## FriedTofu

stevefox1200 said:


> Trumps cabinet is such a mixed bag
> 
> Rex is turning out to be pretty cool headed and might be a future GOP pres candidate if he can keep him self clean and Mattis is great but Bannon, Conway and Spicer are really fucking bad
> 
> Conway just did in interview where she said "Go buy Ivanka's stuff, is what I would tell you. It's a wonderful line. I own some of it. I fully, I'm going to just, I'm going to give a free commercial here. Go buy it today, everybody. You can find it online."


And you find *crickets* from the Trump supporters here about this Ivanka stuff except parroting the party line of Trump has the right to defend his daughter. They seem to have no issue with all the conflict of interests with Trump and his businesses when one of their main criticisms against Hilary was pay to play.

Last I checked Ivanka's stuff were mostly made in China. What ever happened to buy American made? :lol


----------



## CamillePunk

Totally guilty of not giving a shit about this Ivanka stuff. Trying to save western civilization at the moment. Might circle back to fashion later.


----------



## Sensei Utero

yeahbaby! said:


> You know what else is shitty? Revelling in smugness about a woman and her two kids getting deported. It's not the first time. He deserved it.


I'm not agreeing what he reveled in, and never would. Despite our different political opinions, we'd probably agree a lot more on music (me also being a huge Beatles fan). Aside, you don't really make yourself look a lot better by stating that someone deserves a disability or to be in a wheelchair. It's extremely low.


----------



## Beatles123

yeahbaby! said:


> You know what else is shitty? Revelling in smugness about a woman and her two kids getting deported. It's not the first time. He deserved it.


I revel in miscreants who disobey the law being handed their due.


----------



## Sensei Utero

Beatles123 said:


> I revel in miscreants who disobey the law being handed their due.


I don't really see how an innocent woman and two kids can really be classified as criminals.


----------



## FriedTofu

wrong thread


----------



## CamillePunk

InUtero said:


> I don't really see how an innocent woman and two kids can really be classified as criminals.


Wasn't only the mother deported? 

The mother is guilty of illegally entering the country and committing identity theft (by using a fake social security number). How is she not a criminal?

Seems to me that under the law all illegal immigrants are subject to deportation. They only get to stay by the grace of certain institutions not enforcing the law. Which hardly seems fair to those of us who have been subject to punishment for crimes that cost Americans far less than illegal immigration does.


----------



## stevefox1200

Its not that Trumps plans are bad its just that they are horribly written and executed

Earlier in the thread when people kept bring up his bankruptcies I said that Trump only invests in things he believes in and goes "all in" on them so they either succeed extremely well or become an expensive crash and burn 

Trump goes from 0 to 100 extremely quickly, for somethings it makes him look great, for others it makes him look awful but over all it leaves his plans poorly written due to their speed and government, unlike business, is not very friendly to "teething" time that most new ideas need


----------



## yeahbaby!

CamillePunk said:


> Totally guilty of not giving a shit about this Ivanka stuff. Trying to save western civilization at the moment. Might circle back to fashion later.




You can look good while saving us all, baby.


----------



## MillionDollarProns

That is one smart poncho though, might wear that next time my feminine persona in control.


----------



## Sensei Utero

CamillePunk said:


> Wasn't only the mother deported?
> 
> The mother is guilty of illegally entering the country and committing identity theft (by using a fake social security number). How is she not a criminal?
> 
> Seems to me that under the law all illegal immigrants are subject to deportation. They only get to stay by the grace of certain institutions not enforcing the law. Which hardly seems fair to those of us who have been subject to punishment for crimes that cost Americans far less than illegal immigration does.


Read in places that the kids were deported too, although that could just be shite. MSM is filled with that, to be fair. If not, those kids are desperately without a mother.

After what the mother has apparently endured, you can't really blame her for doing what she did. In her situation, I'd probably attempt to do the same. Sure, she broke the law, but a _criminal_? Not in my mind. There's real criminals out there, and she's certainly not one of them. I just don't know how in this certain case, this makes Americans feel safer. The gun laws in America alone would make me feel unsafe there.


----------



## MrMister

MillionDollarProns said:


> That is one smart poncho though, might wear that next time my feminine persona in control.


total thread derailment time...

Did you watch Legion?


----------



## MillionDollarProns

MrMister said:


> total thread derailment time...
> 
> Did you watch Legion?


I did not, does it have a TV Trump character who wants to build a wall to keep out the mutants? BOOM, EXPERT RE-RAIL. :sk:sk:sk:sk:MLG Pro


----------



## CamillePunk

InUtero said:


> Read in places that the kids were deported too, although that could just be shite. MSM is filled with that, to be fair. If not, those kids are desperately without a mother.


I read they were American citizens. Obviously not subject to deportation. 



> After what the mother has apparently endured, you can't really blame her for doing what she did. In her situation, I'd probably attempt to do the same. Sure, she broke the law, but a _criminal_? Not in my mind. There's real criminals out there, and she's certainly not one of them. I just don't know how in this certain case, this makes Americans feel safer. The gun laws in America alone would make me feel unsafe there.


What has she endured? She got to live in a far better country than the one she was in for 20 years, ahead of people who tried to get in the legal way and have had to wait. 

A criminal is literally someone who has broken the law.


----------



## FriedTofu

stevefox1200 said:


> Its not that Trumps plans are bad its just that they are horribly written and executed
> 
> Earlier in the thread when people kept bring up his bankruptcies I said that Trump only invests in things he believes in and goes "all in" on them so they either succeed extremely well or become an expensive crash and burn
> 
> Trump goes from 0 to 100 extremely quickly, for somethings it makes him look great, for others it makes him look awful but over all it leaves his plans poorly written due to their speed and government, unlike business, is not very friendly to "teething" time that most new ideas need


Unless he bats 100 on everything he does, I don't see how that is a good trait to have as president as he isn't playing with just his own wealth now. If you go all in all the time, someone is bound to have a better hand and call your bluff.


----------



## Sensei Utero

CamillePunk said:


> I read they were American citizens. Obviously not subject to deportation.
> 
> What has she endured? She got to live in a far better country than the one she was in for 20 years, ahead of people who tried to get in the legal way and have had to wait.
> 
> A criminal is literally someone who has broken the law.


Ah, nevermind. (first bit)

There was a story online of what she unfortunately had to endure in Mexico (although this was indeed 21-22 years ago). She headed to America for a better life. Sure, the system definitely needs fixed about the last part of that second comment - I'm with you there. Moving on from that though, there's stuff going about too of parents being snatched in front of their kids, like she was, which in my mind is just not on.

Did she break the law? Yes. However, some can understand her reasons. Would I label her an actual criminal, and using that word loosely? No. Here in Northern Ireland/the UK, I wouldn't call anyone taking something like marijuana a criminal. I'd call someone involved in violent crimes, dealing drugs (different than taking, obviously), etc. an actual criminal, which she hasn't been involved in at all.

I know we disagree politically on the ban (respectfully - on my part - I apologise if I got angered in the past :lol feel free to red rep me, but I honestly have no hate despite our political disagreements even though some do on here), but I do think with the ban itself in place that some exceptions etc. can surely be made? How does this make Americans feel safer by having this woman deported, which is why the ban was first put into place? 

Also, apologies if some of my comments are worded back. It's 1:52am here and I have a really bad cold and I'm struggling to sleep :lol.


----------



## Cabanarama

stevefox1200 said:


> Its not that Trumps plans are bad its just that they are horribly written and executed
> 
> Earlier in the thread when people kept bring up his bankruptcies I said that Trump only invests in things he believes in and goes "all in" on them so they either succeed extremely well or become an expensive crash and burn
> 
> Trump goes from 0 to 100 extremely quickly, for somethings it makes him look great, for others it makes him look awful but over all it leaves his plans poorly written due to their speed and government, unlike business, is not very friendly to "teething" time that most new ideas need


The difference is, in the business world, one success can offset many, many failures. You can crash and burn dozens of times but if you have one thing succeed extremely well, you can recoup all your losses and then some. In government, it can be the opposite sometimes. If everything you do is good and successful but you have one complete disaster, the consequences from the disaster can outweigh all the benefits from all the good you did.


----------



## Café de René

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> http://bgr.com/2017/02/09/french-presidential-election-russia/
> 
> Why does this sound so painfully familiar? Oh that's right, it's this in a nutshell:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grow the fuck up, progressives. :kobefacepalm


Wikileaks actually announced something like 1000+ documents on Marine Le Pen, also nobody here needs Russia to know that Macron is a former Rothschild banker and has special interest for them.

Very dishonest medias ! :trump


----------



## DOPA

@InUtero:

I do completely understand that a lot of illegal immigrants who cross over to the US or any other country for that matter have their reasons to do so, to make a better life for themselves and I empathize with that.

The problem is if you accept it as normal practice you are essentially normalizing and encouraging other people to follow suit and it becomes a real issue. That is what has happened in the US now for a very long time. I also happen to disagree with the idea of amnesty because again it does exactly the same thing if you are not willing to take action against the people who cross over afterwards, which often than not the Democrats and even some Republicans are not willing to do.

This particular situation is difficult, of course the children involved should not be punished because they don't know any better. But again, the problem is you have people waiting to immigrate into the country LEGALLY and are going through all sorts of vetting checks and procedures whilst thousands at least are crossing the border and are jumping the queue. It is not a fair system for the people trying to immigrate legally and that needs to be fixed. Everybody wants to talk about illegal immigration and how we should be compassionate towards these people which I again understand from a human empathy perspective but very few want to talk about how this indirectly punishes those who do things the right way. I'd rather focus on making the immigration system better than focusing on legitimizing illegal immigration further regardless of my personal feelings on how I understand the reasons for people jumping the border.

So I can't agree with you that we should just let it slide because they aren't criminal illegals, again it sets a precedent that encourages more illegal immigration than less. I think most people who aren't DNC donors agree that it's better to have a system that doesn't encourage more illegal immigration rather it discourages the practice.


----------



## CamillePunk

InUtero said:


> Ah, nevermind. (first bit)
> 
> There was a story online of what she unfortunately had to endure in Mexico (although this was indeed 21-22 years ago). She headed to America for a better life. Sure, the system definitely needs fixed about the last part of that second comment - I'm with you there. Moving on from that though, there's stuff going about too of parents being snatched in front of their kids, like she was, which in my mind is just not on.
> 
> Did she break the law? Yes. However, some can understand her reasons. Would I label her an actual criminal, and using that word loosely? No. Here in Northern Ireland/the UK, I wouldn't call anyone taking something like marijuana a criminal. I'd call someone involved in violent crimes, dealing drugs (different than taking, obviously), etc. an actual criminal, which she hasn't been involved in at all.
> 
> I know we disagree politically on the ban (respectfully - on my part - I apologise if I got angered in the past :lol feel free to red rep me, but I honestly have no hate despite our political disagreements even though some do on here), but I do think with the ban itself in place that some exceptions etc. can surely be made? How does this make Americans feel safer by having this woman deported, which is why the ban was first put into place?
> 
> Also, apologies if some of my comments are worded back. It's 1:52am here and I have a really bad cold and I'm struggling to sleep :lol.


See, I actually view this woman as an adult capable of making her own choices and being assigned responsibility for the consequences of her actions. She knew she was entering the country illegally. She knew she was using a fake social security number. She knew these things meant she was subject to deportation. She did them anyway, and then chose to have kids in this country, knowing that should the law be enforced against her one day this kind of scenario would occur, traumatizing her children and likely building animosity between them and the government of the country SHE chose to enter illegally and give birth to them in. She is not some innocent lamb suffering from unforeseeable circumstances, and you do her a great disservice to dehumanize her in this way. 

She did the wrong thing, benefited from it for 20 years while others who respected our countrys immigration laws were unable, and now her children are entitled to much better lives in the country she illegally entered decades ago. If there is any debt owed, it is hers to our nation and legal immigrants, not our nations to her and her family. The children should be grateful for our country's generosity, honestly.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Café de René said:


> *Wikileaks actually announced something like 1000+ documents on Marine Le Pen,* also nobody here needs Russia to know that Macron is a former Rothschild banker and has special interest for them.
> 
> Very dishonest medias ! :trump


Hot damn, I can't wait for that shitstorm.

opcorn at the prospect of Le Pen having some serious skeletons in her closet.


----------



## samizayn

Donald Trump be like "Less regulations! Remove two for every one you create!"

*writes more EOs in first month of presidency than anyone in decades*

Sad!



L-DOPA said:


> @InUtero:
> 
> I do completely understand that a lot of illegal immigrants who cross over to the US or any other country for that matter have their reasons to do so, to make a better life for themselves and I empathize with that.


First of all I wanted to say thanks for sharing your perspective and experience as a teacher. I unfortunately couldn't give you more rep for the post you made earlier.

Second of all, and I am genuinely asking, particularly for those that have ever gotten to know any illegal immigrant in their life: is this idea of indirectly punishing legitimate immigrants/allowing people to "cut the line" real? I feel like the people that immigrate legitimately are people of means (at least relative to the others) that have unlocked the totality of American personhood and make full use of it. It's an expensive and arduous process but once they get through it then they get salaried jobs, they start businesses etc etc. 

The other side of the coin is illegal immigrants (at least, from the Mexican border) of no means, that go into to their landscaping or agricultural job where they make minimum wage, maybe, and don't make any significant moves in their lives because they're scared of being caught and deported. Not a full on fugitive lifestyle, but similar enough that they don't ever really live the full live of an American citizen or permanent resident.

So I feel like the comparison is of two separate things. Door A or door B, take the easy way and get some of the reward, or take the hard way and get all of it. _Especially _because option A is so hugely conditional on top of already being limited, since the law is still enforced to a significant degree. I think as long as deportation always remains a real threat. Comes a point where consistency of punishment doesn't end up increasing compliance.

Please tell me your thoughts @everyone


----------



## glenwo2

InUtero said:


> Ah, nevermind. (first bit)
> 
> There was a story online of what she unfortunately had to endure in Mexico (although this was indeed 21-22 years ago). She headed to America for a better life. Sure, the system definitely needs fixed about the last part of that second comment - I'm with you there. Moving on from that though, there's stuff going about too of parents being snatched in front of their kids, like she was, which in my mind is just not on.
> 
> *Did she break the law? Yes. However, some can understand her reasons.*


I couldn't give a rat's ass about her "reasons". 

SHE. BROKE. THE. LAW. 

And therefore she's now been deported. 

The End. 


Hope this is the first of many who get the boot back where they ILLEGALLY came from.


----------



## DOPA

samizayn said:


> Donald Trump be like "Less regulations! Remove two for every one you create!"
> 
> *writes more EOs in first month of presidency than anyone in decades*
> 
> Sad!


To be fair, one of the EOs did include repealing a lot of regulations .

Also not all the EOs include regulations 





samizayn said:


> First of all I wanted to say thanks for sharing your perspective and experience as a teacher. I unfortunately couldn't give you more rep for the post you made earlier.
> 
> Second of all, and I am genuinely asking, particularly for those that have ever gotten to know any illegal immigrant in their life: is this idea of indirectly punishing legitimate immigrants/allowing people to "cut the line" real? I feel like the people that immigrate legitimately are people of means (at least relative to the others) that have unlocked the totality of American personhood and make full use of it. It's an expensive and arduous process but once they get through it then they get salaried jobs, they start businesses etc etc.
> 
> The other side of the coin is illegal immigrants (at least, from the Mexican border) of no means, that go into to their landscaping or agricultural job where they make minimum wage, maybe, and don't make any significant moves in their lives because they're scared of being caught and deported. Not a full on fugitive lifestyle, but similar enough that they don't ever really live the full live of an American citizen or permanent resident.
> 
> So I feel like the comparison is of two separate things. Door A or door B, take the easy way and get some of the reward, or take the hard way and get all of it. _Especially _because option A is so hugely conditional on top of already being limited, since the law is still enforced to a significant degree. I think as long as deportation always remains a real threat. Comes a point where consistency of punishment doesn't end up increasing compliance.
> 
> Please tell me your thoughts @everyone


I get the argument you are making, the problem though is how much of a deterrent is it when you have someone who managed to illegally immigrate and got by for 20 years without being punished? It is only so much a deterrent as how well you enforce the law. If the US government isn't enforcing it and is actually rewarding such practices then it no longer becomes a deterrent.

Secondly, to the best of my knowledge the US does not have points based Australian style system. So in the cases of well off salaried jobs to go to it isn't always the case. I'm sure it is for some people but for others it may be they are legally immigrating simply to move to or with family or that they aren't immigrating to well paid jobs at all. But that really is for someone who lives in the United States to explain it to me.

I can only go by what happens in the UK and let me tell you, a big portion of the people immigrating legally here are not going into high paid jobs. Many, particularly from Eastern Europe and Asia are taking lower paid jobs. Now in terms of the Eastern Europeans it's bit different due to the free movement of people in the EU but for others coming over from the rest of the world, a big chunk who are taking lower wage jobs yes there is the problem of illegal immigrants cutting the line for those who are having to apply for work visas. It definitely happens here.


----------



## RAThugaNomenal

What a sad day.


----------



## DesolationRow

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/829814122443272192
:lmao :lmao :lmao :sodone

The French truly do put everything in the best possible light with their language.


----------



## Reaper

"Poor people can commit crimes because they're poor."

I hope you all feel the same way when someone breaks into your house and steals everything because the person stealing from you is obviously poor and you're a person of means so their crime is justified. 

Just buy more stuff. It wasn't your private property anyways because someone who's poor has more right to it... It doesn't matter if you sweat blood and tears for it. The person who stole from you has more right to it. What a wonderful world that creates.


----------



## Miss Sally

samizayn said:


> Donald Trump be like "Less regulations! Remove two for every one you create!"
> 
> *writes more EOs in first month of presidency than anyone in decades*
> 
> Sad!
> 
> 
> 
> First of all I wanted to say thanks for sharing your perspective and experience as a teacher. I unfortunately couldn't give you more rep for the post you made earlier.
> 
> Second of all, and I am genuinely asking, particularly for those that have ever gotten to know any illegal immigrant in their life: is this idea of indirectly punishing legitimate immigrants/allowing people to "cut the line" real? I feel like the people that immigrate legitimately are people of means (at least relative to the others) that have unlocked the totality of American personhood and make full use of it. It's an expensive and arduous process but once they get through it then they get salaried jobs, they start businesses etc etc.
> 
> The other side of the coin is illegal immigrants (at least, from the Mexican border) of no means, that go into to their landscaping or agricultural job where they make minimum wage, maybe, and don't make any significant moves in their lives because they're scared of being caught and deported. Not a full on fugitive lifestyle, but similar enough that they don't ever really live the full live of an American citizen or permanent resident.
> 
> So I feel like the comparison is of two separate things. Door A or door B, take the easy way and get some of the reward, or take the hard way and get all of it. _Especially _because option A is so hugely conditional on top of already being limited, since the law is still enforced to a significant degree. I think as long as deportation always remains a real threat. Comes a point where consistency of punishment doesn't end up increasing compliance.
> 
> Please tell me your thoughts @everyone


I've talked about this several times but I'll answer. Yes, I've worked with illegals, lived with them and some of my family have been illegals. While there are some illegals who come here to make a better life many of those eventually get their citizenship and work at it, they don't come here, use fake documents and never try to become a citizen. Using fake documents or stolen identities, do you know how hard it is to fix that? How much time it takes to fix if an illegal is using your SS?

The ones working not making minimum wage don't really care, they often live together in houses so bills are kept to minimal and much of that money is banked or sent back to mexico. They often find cash jobs to make this easier, once a certain amount is saved they move back to Mexico or they just keep working here and sending it back home. It's even better for them if they have a wife or kids. Despite being illegal, women can get Government aid, could even get on housing lists while their bf/husband the Government doesn't know about works under the table. There are many dupes and ways to get aid or even taxes back if you use stolen identities. They also tend to drive around with no insurance so hahaha if you get hit by one, you're fucked!

Illegals pretty much show there isn't a huge downside as their crimes just get them deported and they're back again next week. They can commit serious crimes and live off the radar or simply go back home, rack up a huge financial debt? Just go back home, can't be touched! I'm sure most people would like that. Illegals also fuck up everything for legals as people tend to confuse the two because both are similar when first getting to the US. By screwing up this process and people coming here hoping to just get amnesty eventually it messes up the whole process, they miss out on US history, getting to know Americans and really getting the feel for the land. Instead it means they live in conclaves of cultural segregation.

Legal immigrant Mexicans are far different, everyone I've worked with has been hard working, wanting more education for themselves or their children and really strives to fit in and make a difference. We need more Legal Mexicans because they're some of the best people you can know, many follow all of the rules and abhor using help or handouts as they have something to prove. Many have pride in knowing American history and having an appreciation for the country most of us Americans take for granted. They make great Americans, neighbors and friends. We need more of them and I'll say it once and forever, Legal immigration done right is fantastic, I'll take Legal immigrants from South American over pampered Europeans moving over any day of the week.

The biggest difference I've noticed is that the legal immigrant appreciates and loves America for the most part and wants to improve their life and the life of their family, the illegal tends to talk about the superiority of Mexico and lament over how they're "held down" or "looked down upon" never stopping to realize they're here illegally, get benefits for law breaking and fuck over legal citizens in various ways. Legal immigration is great. Illegal immigration isn't good for anyone in the end, it simply justifies not giving legal people or young people jobs and instead utilizing a form of slave labor at times. People need to stop looking at illegals as nothing but victims but as people capable of making choices, they're rule breakers, not morons so stop treating them like they're lost children.


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> The biggest difference I've noticed is that the legal immigrant appreciates and loves America for the most part and wants to improve their life and the life of their family, the illegal tends to talk about the superiority of Mexico and lament over how they're "held down" or "looked down upon" never stopping to realize they're here illegally, get benefits for law breaking and fuck over legal citizens in various ways. Legal immigration is great. Illegal immigration isn't good for anyone in the end.


We don't need to talk about the morality of illegals. They're already moral relativists the moment they enter a country illegally and they're only here for themselves. They don't care about anything else except what they can get for themselves and that's it. The same can be said about legals too, but by and large not in America (as compared to other countries), because America has fewer social programs for legals therefore they're not half as selfish. 

I know at least a dozen Canadian Paki immigrants that went to Canada and came back via the backdoor (if they travel from Canada to America and then to Pakistan their clock continues and they can still come back whenever and get the citizenship). The free healthcare eligibility starts the day they honor their immigrant Visa so they get their healthcare cards which are valid for several years and simply milk the healthcare system while many of them don't even live in Canada. Several of them only got the Canadian citizenship for free healthcare and gladly leave Pakistan to fly to Canada for free treatments and surgeries and then fly back. It's a great life when you have a bunch of liberals giving you a free ride through life just cuz. 

It's such a great heist that it's not even funny. Can you imagine getting free healthcare from a country where you don't even have to work and pay taxes or anything at all just because some people lobbied their government on their behalf and their "right" to "free stuff". Thankfully, America is stricter than Canada and is not as easily exploitable.


----------



## DesolationRow

Magnificent post, @Miss Sally, one of the very best this thread has seen. 

As a Northern Californian our situations are considerably different, but certainly not altogether so. I have discovered, by and large, roughly the same general breakdown between legal Mexican/Latin American immigrants and people who are in the long process toward citizenship versus those who are here illegally in attitude and "worldview" for lack of better terms. The input from @RipNTear is fascinating as well.


----------



## Reaper

See, from a moral stand point I can't even think about crossing a country's border ... not as someone who has the money and not as someone who wants to make money. For me, it's literally the same thing as selling drugs, or stealing, or doing anything else illegally. What makes crossing a border that's clearly an illegal act any more justifiable than stealing a car, breaking and entering, murder for wealth? It's simply impossible for me to understand. 

I have a valid Canadian healthcare from Ontario. I was sick all of last year and a lot of people advised me to go back to Canada for treatment cuz it would be free. I couldn't do it even though it would have been legal for me. I couldn't do it from a moral standpoint and instead my wife and I ran up our credit card debt and paid $4000 ourselves which was then paif off by my dad. But my point is, that I wasn't comfortable taking from a system that I hadn't put anything into myself so I didn't. It wasn't morally justifiable to me. 

Almost everyone that steals does it for material gain. Immigrants that come here illegally do it for material gain. Why is their act of illegality any different from someone else's? I find it a completely ridiculous "debate" at this point. I have just as much regard for an illegal immigrant as I have for the person who put a gun to my wife's head and told her to give him her jewelry. That person was looking for an improvement in the quality of his life too. He stole something of value to me. 

The material stealing of illegal immigrants manifests itself in the stealing of opportunity of locals and legals. Just because not all of them put a gun to your head and ask you for your jewelry doesn't mean that when they send their kids to public school they aren't driving down the quality of education for others in that school considering that schools are already massively under-funded. 

So yeah, please ... this is not even a debate. This is outright stealing and is no different from having someone put a gun to your head and ask you for your wallet. At least not to me.


----------



## Rowdy Yates

The shit storm that will follow if a terrorist attack occurs while Trumps ban goes through the courts will be of epic proportion

If the attack was carried out by a national of one of the 7 countries on the list then holy smokes


----------



## samizayn

L-DOPA said:


> I get the argument you are making, the problem though is how much of a deterrent is it when you have someone who managed to illegally immigrate and got by for 20 years without being punished? It is only so much a deterrent as how well you enforce the law. If the US government isn't enforcing it and is actually rewarding such practices then it no longer becomes a deterrent.
> 
> Secondly, to the best of my knowledge the US does not have points based Australian style system. So in the cases of well off salaried jobs to go to it isn't always the case. I'm sure it is for some people but for others it may be they are legally immigrating simply to move to or with family or that they aren't immigrating to well paid jobs at all. But that really is for someone who lives in the United States to explain it to me.
> 
> I can only go by what happens in the UK and let me tell you, a big portion of the people immigrating legally here are not going into high paid jobs. Many, particularly from Eastern Europe and Asia are taking lower paid jobs. Now in terms of the Eastern Europeans it's bit different due to the free movement of people in the EU but for others coming over from the rest of the world, a big chunk who are taking lower wage jobs yes there is the problem of illegal immigrants cutting the line for those who are having to apply for work visas. It definitely happens here.


Yeah I do wonder about amnesty, I thought it was extremely rare but apparently it's common? Two decades is a lifetime, really. One the one hand you've already gotten away with it, on the other hand you wonder if there was a noticeably lower quality of those two years because of what you necessarily miss out on. Maybe not I guess

Yeah for sure, that was meant to be me walking through how and why immigrants come to the US legitimately. There are obviously the ones that have been called over for guaranteed/specific job, which would make the hassle make sense. Especially since these guys often have employers paying for the expense of the documentation procedures. Scholars, researchers etc same thing. I guess logically speaking it must happen, but I don't see how or why lower income people do this without it being a refugee kind of deal, or family I guess. Which is why I mainly spoke on the people of somewhat higher incomes, and why I solicited input from everyone! 

Perhaps the Asian migrants would be a good example; Eastern Europeans face little to no prohibitive cost for legal migration to wealthier EU countries. Also not familiar with UK immigration system but if you are, please shed some light on how hard it is to do as a non-EU national.





Miss Sally said:


> I've talked about this several times but I'll answer. Yes, I've worked with illegals, lived with them and some of my family have been illegals. *While there are some illegals who come here to make a better life many of those eventually get their citizenship and work at it, they don't come here, use fake documents and never try to become a citizen.* Using fake documents or stolen identities, do you know how hard it is to fix that? How much time it takes to fix if an illegal is using your SS?


Thank you so much for this entire post! I do not understand the bolded sentence, could you please clarify it?


----------



## yeahbaby!

Rowdy Yates said:


> The shit storm that will follow if a terrorist attack occurs while Trumps ban goes through the courts will be of epic proportion
> 
> If the attack was carried out by a national of one of the 7 countries on the list then holy smokes


The vetting processes are still there and always have been. If the authorities can't stop terrorists coming in for this relatively short amount of time then they're incompetent and it's on them.

Besides there is a high chance they could be from Saudi Arabia and the UAE and the ban wouldn't have caught them anyway.


----------



## Miss Sally

samizayn said:


> Yeah I do wonder about amnesty, I thought it was extremely rare but apparently it's common? Two decades is a lifetime, really. One the one hand you've already gotten away with it, on the other hand you wonder if there was a noticeably lower quality of those two years because of what you necessarily miss out on. Maybe not I guess
> 
> Yeah for sure, that was meant to be me walking through how and why immigrants come to the US legitimately. There are obviously the ones that have been called over for guaranteed/specific job, which would make the hassle make sense. Especially since these guys often have employers paying for the expense of the documentation procedures. Scholars, researchers etc same thing. I guess logically speaking it must happen, but I don't see how or why lower income people do this without it being a refugee kind of deal, or family I guess. Which is why I mainly spoke on the people of somewhat higher incomes, and why I solicited input from everyone!
> 
> Perhaps the Asian migrants would be a good example; Eastern Europeans face little to no prohibitive cost for legal migration to wealthier EU countries. Also not familiar with UK immigration system but if you are, please shed some light on how hard it is to do as a non-EU national.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you so much for this entire post! I do not understand the bolded sentence, could you please clarify it?



Poorly worded on my end but what I was saying that illegals that come here to make a better life eventually become citizens. They usually don't come here using fake documents, stolen identities and then live here 20+ years without trying to become a citizen.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

http://time.com/4663314/president-trump-destroy-texas-sheriff-opponent/



> Sheriff Harold Eavenson of Rockwall County, a major figure in the National Sheriffs' Association, was one of a group of law enforcement officials to meet with Trump and a number of White House officials on Tuesday. He expressed frustration with a state senator in Texas who wants to change asset forfeiture law. "He was talking about introducing legislation to require conviction before we can receive that forfeiture money," Eavenson said, "and I told him that the cartel would build a monument to him in Mexico if he could get that legislation passed."
> 
> "Who is the state senator?" Trump responded. "Do you want to give his name? We'll destroy his career?"
> 
> The quip was met with laughter in the room.
> 
> A White House spokesperson said the president was only "joking."


Yeah, fuck that guy for wanting a conviction before you take peoples' money and property for your own benefit.

I get he was making a joke about destroying his career. I don't care about that, but he seems to be supporting asset forfeiture and I do care about that.


----------



## FriedTofu

I feel like providing amnesty for those that have contributed to the country for decades is a way to simplify the workload of the authority to focus on deporting the illegals that are criminals. I think focusing on criminals is one reason why Obama's deportation numbers are so high isn't it?

Lets not pretend why the GOP is so hard on immigration. They want to prevent the demographics of America from changing too much. Nobody likes feeling like a stranger in their own land, at least that's what the main argument is for people that claim to 'not be racist' have been saying. That's what my country has been doing with our immigration policies that prioritise the majority ethnicity for decades. Some assimilate, some don't. I just don't know how many Europeans are similar to white rural Americans for them to feel comfortable with any immigrants. :shrug

Also, the delicious irony of not feeling comfortable in taking from a system one doesn't contribute to but have no issue accepting Daddy's money to pay off credit card debt incurred due to a ideological stance is lost on someone. Talk about privliege. :troll


----------



## MrMister

Aesthetic perimeter :lmao

Good job French though. You get to troll and protect one of the world's most important landmarks.


----------



## TeflonDixie

Its called an echo chamber. Each passing day makes them more unhinged and intolerant of any legitimate criticism towards Prophet Trump.


----------



## DesolationRow

FriedTofu said:


> I feel like providing amnesty for those that have contributed to the country for decades is a way to simplify the workload of the authority to focus on deporting the illegals that are criminals. I think focusing on criminals is one reason why Obama's deportation numbers are so high isn't it?
> 
> Lets not pretend why the GOP is so hard on immigration. They want to prevent the demographics of America from changing too much. Nobody likes feeling like a stranger in their own land, at least that's what the main argument is for people that claim to 'not be racist' have been saying. That's what my country has been doing with our immigration policies that prioritise the majority ethnicity for decades. Some assimilate, some don't. I just don't know how many Europeans are similar to white rural Americans for them to feel comfortable with any immigrants. :shrug


The GOP has hardly been "hard on immigration" in the past fifty years, with only one or two aberrations and now recently with Donald Trump's successful presidential campaign. Ronald Reagan shepherded the 1986 amnesty which irrevocably changed California's demographics and, along with the dismissing of Proposition 187 a decade later, paved the way for California to be a one-party state with a distinctly Third World future of extremely stratified income groups over the next generation from now. If Republicans are concerned about the changing demographics of the U.S. all they have to do to confirm their worst fears is take a look at the political and cultural landscape of the Golden State. Due to Trump's success on the issue, just this week Republicans have been delivering proposals to halve the U.S.'s legal immigration intake with more emphasis placed on immigrants' skill sets.

Meanwhile, to the immediate south the U.S. has an interesting case study to observe in Mexico's immigration policies. All of Mexico's legal immigration policies have one and only one objective, which is to allow the country the greatest advantage in accumulating immigrants with skill sets that the country could genuinely use. Mexican immigration statutes stipulate that those who endeavor to emigrate to Mexico possess the "necessary funds for their sustenance"--no government services for illegals or even those on the pathway to citizenship--while ensuring that no one who is not remotely healthy or having a criminal past or being apt to, in the words of the Mexican constitution, "upset the equilibrium of the national demographics," be allowed in. 

While the U.S. is set to undergo one of the greatest demographical alterations in world history for a major republic, no major transformation of the Mexican people as they are known today will ever be allowed under the present Mexican constitution. Article 32 of Mexico's constitution strictly prohibits all non-native-born residents from holding even remotely sensitive jobs, joining the country's military in peacetime, accumulating benefits derived from the government at all, including no tuitions paid for, no health services rendered. Foreigners are told on the way in that they shall refrain from participating in any and all forms of Mexican politics "in any way." :lol

With 50% poverty rates and a ceaseless, bloody narco-terror war engulfing much of the country, Mexico is a deeply troubled state, and there is little wonder why there are so many in the country who wish to leave no matter what. At the same time, if holding on to the demographical _status quo_--which has a perspicuous way of continuing the political _status quo_--is an objective of a regime, the Mexican government's statutes and seriousness in carrying out those statutes all work in concert like gangbusters.


----------



## Miss Sally

DesolationRow said:


> The GOP has hardly been "hard on immigration" in the past fifty years, with only one or two aberrations and now recently with Donald Trump's successful presidential campaign. Ronald Reagan shepherded the 1986 amnesty which irrevocably changed California's demographics and, along with the dismissing of Proposition 187 a decade later, paved the way for California to be a one-party state with a distinctly Third World future of extremely stratified income groups over the next generation from now. If Republicans are concerned about the changing demographics of the U.S. all they have to do to confirm their worst fears is take a look at the political and cultural landscape of the Golden State. Due to Trump's success on the issue, just this week Republicans have been delivering proposals to halve the U.S.'s legal immigration intake with more emphasis placed on immigrants' skill sets.
> 
> Meanwhile, to the immediate south the U.S. has an interesting case study to observe in Mexico's immigration policies. All of Mexico's legal immigration policies have one and only one objective, which is to allow the country the greatest advantage in accumulating immigrants with skill sets that the country could genuinely use. Mexican immigration statutes stipulate that those who endeavor to emigrate to Mexico possess the "necessary funds for their sustenance"--no government services for illegals or even those on the pathway to citizenship--while ensuring that no one who is not remotely healthy or having a criminal past or being apt to, in the words of the Mexican constitution, "upset the equilibrium of the national demographics," be allowed in.
> 
> While the U.S. is set to undergo one of the greatest demographical alterations in world history for a major republic, no major transformation of the Mexican people as they are known today will ever be allowed under the present Mexican constitution. Article 32 of Mexico's constitution strictly prohibits all non-native-born residents from holding even remotely sensitive jobs, joining the country's military in peacetime, accumulating benefits derived from the government at all, including no tuitions paid for, no health services rendered. Foreigners are told on the way in that they shall refrain from participating in any and all forms of Mexican politics "in any way." :lol
> 
> With 50% poverty rates and a ceaseless, bloody narco-terror war engulfing much of the country, Mexico is a deeply troubled state, and there is little wonder why there are so many in the country who wish to leave no matter what. At the same time, if holding on to the demographical _status quo_--which has a perspicuous way of continuing the political _status quo_--is an objective of a regime, the Mexican government's statutes and seriousness in carrying out those statutes all work in concert like gangbusters.


I was going to post on this but at work so it's very hard to make a detailed post. I'll add more later but great post!


----------



## Beatles123

InUtero said:


> I don't really see how an innocent woman and two kids can really be classified as criminals.


That's because if you're a criminal, you aren't INNOCENT! :cena

She knew what she was doing and chose to steal someone's identity AND never apply to be legal. She deserves what's coming to her.


----------



## CamillePunk

I know quite a few illegals, having many latino friends and having dated several latina women (I go for them almost exclusively, which I believe I've mentioned before. :mj). Many of them (their illegal relatives) don't even speak English and frequently take vacations IN MEXICO. Like, seriously, what the fuck? :lol No attempt to assimilate, and they love being in their home country that they chose to leave. Of course their children assimilate but they still have a glorified idea of Mexico and a huge emotional attachment to their illegal relatives (which is obviously understandable) and thus are likely to support pro-illegal immigrant policies.

I also know a few latinos that support Trump. :mj One of my friend's mom is a totally blind Trump mark, much to the chagrin of her more moderate husband. :lol


----------



## LowRida

Sure hope we are not going to hear hard luck stories and have protests/riots for every illegal alien that is deported.
They'll tell you all about their bursting latino pride in mexico, then act like its a fate worse than death to actually have to live there, how does that make any sense ? USA simply cannot go on absorbing overbred populations, simple as that.


----------



## FriedTofu

DesolationRow said:


> The GOP has hardly been "hard on immigration" in the past fifty years, with only one or two aberrations and now recently with Donald Trump's successful presidential campaign. Ronald Reagan shepherded the 1986 amnesty which irrevocably changed California's demographics and, along with the dismissing of Proposition 187 a decade later, paved the way for California to be a one-party state with a distinctly Third World future of extremely stratified income groups over the next generation from now. If Republicans are concerned about the changing demographics of the U.S. all they have to do to confirm their worst fears is take a look at the political and cultural landscape of the Golden State. Due to Trump's success on the issue, just this week Republicans have been delivering proposals to halve the U.S.'s legal immigration intake with more emphasis placed on immigrants' skill sets.
> 
> Meanwhile, to the immediate south the U.S. has an interesting case study to observe in Mexico's immigration policies. All of Mexico's legal immigration policies have one and only one objective, which is to allow the country the greatest advantage in accumulating immigrants with skill sets that the country could genuinely use. Mexican immigration statutes stipulate that those who endeavor to emigrate to Mexico possess the "necessary funds for their sustenance"--no government services for illegals or even those on the pathway to citizenship--while ensuring that no one who is not remotely healthy or having a criminal past or being apt to, in the words of the Mexican constitution, "upset the equilibrium of the national demographics," be allowed in.
> 
> While the U.S. is set to undergo one of the greatest demographical alterations in world history for a major republic, no major transformation of the Mexican people as they are known today will ever be allowed under the present Mexican constitution. Article 32 of Mexico's constitution strictly prohibits all non-native-born residents from holding even remotely sensitive jobs, joining the country's military in peacetime, accumulating benefits derived from the government at all, including no tuitions paid for, no health services rendered. Foreigners are told on the way in that they shall refrain from participating in any and all forms of Mexican politics "in any way." :lol
> 
> With 50% poverty rates and a ceaseless, bloody narco-terror war engulfing much of the country, Mexico is a deeply troubled state, and there is little wonder why there are so many in the country who wish to leave no matter what. At the same time, if holding on to the demographical _status quo_--which has a perspicuous way of continuing the political _status quo_--is an objective of a regime, the Mexican government's statutes and seriousness in carrying out those statutes all work in concert like gangbusters.


I think you just proved my point of why and how the current GOP reached their immigration position. Might want to add in Bush 2nd and his lenient policies too. And you failed to realise that America being different from what most countries, such as mine, is what made America exceptional. :shrug

Even so, America has a similar set up to what you listed for Mexico with their immigration policies for skilled labour. However American industry also genuinely need the abundance of manual labour Mexico supplies so what's the issue about giving legal immigration status to those that has worked in the country for decades that can probably prove more loyalty to the US than the rich globalists who games the system like getting Canadian citizenship first before applying for American citizenship? 

America has similar restrictions on non-native-born residents holding some positions too. For example being the president. Most countries places similar restrictions. Not sure why you feel the need to bring this up? You don't even have conscription anymore for the price of citizenship. You just need to register to a list to be potentially drafted if you are within a certain age range that someone like the President know how to dodge.


----------



## Sensei Utero

CamillePunk said:


> See, I actually view this woman as an adult capable of making her own choices and being assigned responsibility for the consequences of her actions. She knew she was entering the country illegally. She knew she was using a fake social security number. She knew these things meant she was subject to deportation. She did them anyway, and then chose to have kids in this country, knowing that should the law be enforced against her one day this kind of scenario would occur, traumatizing her children and likely building animosity between them and the government of the country SHE chose to enter illegally and give birth to them in. She is not some innocent lamb suffering from unforeseeable circumstances, and you do her a great disservice to dehumanize her in this way.
> 
> She did the wrong thing, benefited from it for 20 years while others who respected our countrys immigration laws were unable, and now her children are entitled to much better lives in the country she illegally entered decades ago. If there is any debt owed, it is hers to our nation and legal immigrants, not our nations to her and her family. The children should be grateful for our country's generosity, honestly.


If anything is dehumanizing her, it's the argument of splitting her from her kids (clearly in need of her). If I was dehumanizing her, I wouldn't be writing this, and I'd be laughing at her like some have done in this thread, which quite frankly is a bit disgusting (though could also be pointed out that stating that someone deserves to be in a wheelchair is also that as well). You do make a very compelling argument though. Y'see, what I just don't understand is how these laws view her as a 'threat' and make America feel safer. Considering the gun laws and everything, I'd be scared shitless if I were in the US of A. I do agree that the system needs changing in terms of immigration laws, but I just can't agree with splitting a mother from her kids, especially those who're in need of her. I think if this was happening to my sister, who has two beautiful daughters, I'd be so gutted. Perhaps I'm just playing the sympathy card there, though. However, it is a particular situation which could've been handled a lot better than what it has been.



glenwo2 said:


> I couldn't give a rat's ass about her "reasons".
> 
> SHE. BROKE. THE. LAW.
> 
> And therefore she's now been deported.
> 
> The End.
> 
> 
> Hope this is the first of many who get the boot back where they ILLEGALLY came from.


See, this is where our own cultures, country's ideas, etc (although I do have American ancestors - my mother's grandfather was born in Washington). probably come into play. Over here in Northern Ireland, a lot of people just view America as a crazy place, and very broken (the inequality, the gun laws, how broken the country is, etc.). This country (though the shitehole it is, and I'd love to leave it), my area and the areas nearby now being particularly rural, has had its ups and downs as well (read up on 'The Troubles', current paramilitary-ism, protestant/catholic stuff etc. though I heard America have knowledge on that due to the country being into its Irish links - I'd actually like to hear insight on that). Side note - it says a lot that a study over here claims you're better off here than in America due to the pay, lack of crimes compared to America (though is a very small country, even if you pair it with Ireland), certain laws etc. (and though we thankfully don't have extreme gun laws or an extreme police force, considering there's food banks here and the immigration law is pretty broken also, it's still shocking to a lot of folk here. Also, unfortunately being the most homophobic place in the west - according to local news, homosexuals are shocked at the study considering they can't even get married here yet would be able to do so in America).

This story is kinda being viewed a bit bad by the general public over here, which even I'm shocked at considering this place is a bit of a dump. It's the mother link, mostly, which is what I'm stating. As I said with Camille, I know we disagree politically on the ban, but I do think this could've been handled a lot better in order not to split her up from her kids, who clearly need her. Sure, she broke the law (I personally wouldn't view her as a _criminal_ (using the word strongly here), just like how I wouldn't view folk as criminals over here who say smoke marijuana). I just think something needs to be looked at there, even to reunite her with her kids in some way and not toss her over back into where she originated from. Even if she has to reapply for whatever (I'm not sure how it'd work in America compared to here, so I apologise for my lack of knowledge on that subject).

Though I'm not linking it with you guys, but I'm curious to know your thoughts on Americans telling Mexicans, or Mexicans telling Americans to 'get back to your own country', despite the fact those immigrants hold the legal right to be there? Some video online spread about of that from the American side. Just curious is all, not stating you do that or anything.



L-DOPA said:


> @InUtero:
> 
> I do completely understand that a lot of illegal immigrants who cross over to the US or any other country for that matter have their reasons to do so, to make a better life for themselves and I empathize with that.
> 
> The problem is if you accept it as normal practice you are essentially normalizing and encouraging other people to follow suit and it becomes a real issue. That is what has happened in the US now for a very long time. I also happen to disagree with the idea of amnesty because again it does exactly the same thing if you are not willing to take action against the people who cross over afterwards, which often than not the Democrats and even some Republicans are not willing to do.
> 
> This particular situation is difficult, of course the children involved should not be punished because they don't know any better. But again, the problem is you have people waiting to immigrate into the country LEGALLY and are going through all sorts of vetting checks and procedures whilst thousands at least are crossing the border and are jumping the queue. It is not a fair system for the people trying to immigrate legally and that needs to be fixed. Everybody wants to talk about illegal immigration and how we should be compassionate towards these people which I again understand from a human empathy perspective but very few want to talk about how this indirectly punishes those who do things the right way. I'd rather focus on making the immigration system better than focusing on legitimizing illegal immigration further regardless of my personal feelings on how I understand the reasons for people jumping the border.
> 
> So I can't agree with you that we should just let it slide because they aren't criminal illegals, again it sets a precedent that encourages more illegal immigration than less. I think most people who aren't DNC donors agree that it's better to have a system that doesn't encourage more illegal immigration rather it discourages the practice.


Thanks for actually 'getting' the first bit.

You do make a very good argument there. The way the USA system works, is there a way the kids could be reunited with her in some way?



Beatles123 said:


> That's because if you're a criminal, you aren't INNOCENT! :cena
> 
> She knew what she was doing and chose to steal someone's identity AND never apply to be legal. She deserves what's coming to her.


The word criminal is used a bit strongly, though. I'm not denying she broke the law, but considering her situation, surely things could've been handled better, as I've stated up above and before?



CamillePunk said:


> I know quite a few illegals, having many latino friends and having dated several latina women (I go for them almost exclusively, which I believe I've mentioned before. :mj). *Many of them (their illegal relatives) don't even speak English and frequently take vacations IN MEXICO. Like, seriously, what the fuck? :lol No attempt to assimilate, and they love being in their home country that they chose to leave. Of course their children assimilate but they still have a glorified idea of Mexico and a huge emotional attachment to their illegal relatives (which is obviously understandable) and thus are likely to support pro-illegal immigrant policies.*
> 
> I also know a few latinos that support Trump. :mj One of my friend's mom is a totally blind Trump mark, much to the chagrin of her more moderate husband. :lol


Even I, a socialist, have to laugh with you at this :lol. Side not totally unrelated to all of this, but only if you guys could see what's going on with Northern Ireland right now. Even you would probably be more 'left-wing' over here. Also, noticing some of the grammar mistake I made last night, smh. fpalm #damncold


----------



## RavishingRickRules

So hold up a minute. How many of the so called "patriots" happen to know "many illegals" and sit here complaining about the lax immigration policy but haven't turned them in to the authorities? Seems a little hypocritical don't you think?


----------



## Art Vandaley

Not if you're banging them haha


----------



## CamillePunk

InUtero said:


> If anything is dehumanizing her, it's the argument of splitting her from her kids (clearly in need of her). If I was dehumanizing her, I wouldn't be writing this, and I'd be laughing at her like some have done in this thread, which quite frankly is a bit disgusting (though could also be pointed out that stating that someone deserves to be in a wheelchair is also that as well).


I don't find it amusing or "good" that she's being split from her children. It's a consequence of her own choices though. You have to admit that. Also I don't think she's a threat, and it's a bit of a strawman to frame any desire to crack down on illegal immigration as an attempt to combat a threat to American safety. That is an element of illegal immigration, certainly, but not the entire picture. Illegals CAN apply for and get state assistance (aka taxpayer funds). They DO take jobs away from Americans. They also have children in our country who are then naturalized as Americans and then even more taxpayer resources go to their family. It's about more than crime. 



> Though I'm not linking it with you guys, but I'm curious to know your thoughts on Americans telling Mexicans, or Mexicans telling Americans to 'get back to your own country', despite the fact those immigrants hold the legal right to be there? Some video online spread about of that from the American side. Just curious is all, not stating you do that or anything.


I welcome legal immigrants from any country that recognize the superiority of our country's values (separation of church and state, individualism, innocent before proven guilty, free speech, right to bear arms, etc.) which allowed for the establishment of a country they'd rather live in than their own. I welcome any legal immigrant who wants to assimilate into our culture, learn our language, and work to EARN a living in our country, rather than live off of any government assistance. Telling such people to "go back to their own country" is not in any way agreeable to me. I care about values, not nationality or race. Unfortunately this is not the case for most people. 

EDIT: This does mean no Muslims btw :mj 



RavishingRickRules said:


> So hold up a minute. How many of the so called "patriots" happen to know "many illegals" and sit here complaining about the lax immigration policy but haven't turned them in to the authorities? Seems a little hypocritical don't you think?


I've never called myself a patriot. :mj You can complain about someone doing something wrong without being a fucking narc. There's no hypocrisy here. 



Alkomesh2 said:


> Not if you're banging them haha


:aryep (I don't actually date illegals lolol)


----------



## DesolationRow

FriedTofu said:


> I think you just proved my point of why and how the current GOP reached their immigration position. Might want to add in Bush 2nd and his lenient policies too. And you failed to realise that America being different from what most countries, such as mine, is what made America exceptional. :shrug


This depends upon whether or not you are speaking of America politically or America economically in terms of the country's exceptional _bona fides_. What made America politically exceptional in the first place was the specifically Anglo-Saxon conception of republican governance, respective branches of government, and severely limited government with specifically enumerated powers. This was why, for good or for ill, the 1790 Immigration and Naturalization Act called for only the allowing of "free white persons of good character." Benjamin Franklin, one of the greatest liberals of his generation, railed tirelessly against small pockets of Germanic immigrants in Pennsylvania, resorting to calling them ignorant and swarthy, and pleading that their numbers be cut off so that the majority of Anglos could "Anglicize" them rather than the other way around. It is hardly a coincidence that the greater the share of the non-Anglo, and then non-European, population, the more "unexceptional" the politics become compared to the politics of the founding generation in the U.S., such as the already-delineated example of present day California. 



RavishingRickRules said:


> So hold up a minute. How many of the so called "patriots" happen to know "many illegals" and sit here complaining about the lax immigration policy but haven't turned them in to the authorities? Seems a little hypocritical don't you think?


As someone who views life through an Aristotelian lens and weighing the considerations of Cicero, Aurelius, Aquinas and others, it is neither incongruent nor hypocritical for someone to comprehend the gravity of a sprawling, poorly controlled problem without simultaneously possessing great empathy and even concern for the personal well-being of individuals who have, for five minutes or on and off again for five months, entered one's personal orbit while also contributing to the aforementioned problem. Particularly as the state of California is almost a proto-sanctuary state at this juncture and now great movement appears afoot to make the near-_fait accompli_ official. 

I spend countless hours in the city of San Francisco every week, and while the city government clearly has a downright loathsome and wicked relationship with even the most basic understanding of law and order, as per its flaunting of being a "sanctuary city" even if an illegal alien walks up and demands money from a young American citizen and murders her on a San Francisco pier, but I still love my city and my city's people. The Augustinian semblance of morality, defined by our limited capabilities to help others, demands that I pay the most attention to the troubles of those closest to me: family members before friends, friends before neighbors, neighbors before townsfolk, townsfolk before those outside the town, all the way the countrymen, and finally the world. Casuistry of a sincerest and most genuine form demands as much. 

Were we to live in a society which valued law and order again, and those here illegally were deported simply because they were here illegally and thus breaking the law, I would advise those acquaintances and even a couple who I see as friends to cooperate as best as possible and try to remain best-informed of their deportation to ensure that they were not being mistreated during the process. Life demands that we wear many hats. Though I have trouble wearing any hats but for a couple of well-worn baseball hats. Head is too big.


----------



## FriedTofu

CamillePunk said:


> I've never called myself a patriot. :mj You can complain about someone doing something wrong without being a fucking narc. There's no hypocrisy here.


You are actively participating in the destruction of Western civilisation by doing so though. :mj


----------



## CamillePunk

FriedTofu said:


> You are actively participating in the destruction of Western civilisation by doing so though. :mj


More like passively. :mj


----------



## DesolationRow

CamillePunk said:


> I've never called myself a patriot. :mj You can complain about someone doing something wrong without being a fucking narc. There's no hypocrisy here.


Next time I'm just saying this. 

And yeah I never called myself a "patriot," either. Too unseemly. Let such designations stand in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Oh I get it then. So you want the illegals gone, unless they're the ones you know because you can't betray their confidence? Sorry that's hypocrisy at it's finest. "Make America Great Again" (but not if I actually have to do it myself.) Everyone bangs on about things like "it's all about national security." This is akin to when people hit at the SJW's saying "take a refugee in your home then." It's very simple, you want the illegals gone, get rid of them. Don't harbour criminals and illegals, generally that makes you an accessory. I'm all for removing illegals, but be consistent with it at least. Don't claim to be anti-illegal immigration then knowingly allow illegals to carry on living in the country. That's just silly to be honest. Everyone's an upstanding citizen until they actually have to DO something to back up their rhetoric.


----------



## FriedTofu

DesolationRow said:


> This depends upon whether or not you are speaking of America politically or America economically in terms of the country's exceptional _bona fides_. What made America politically exceptional in the first place was the specifically Anglo-Saxon conception of republican governance, respective branches of government, and severely limited government with specifically enumerated powers. This was why, for good or for ill, the 1790 Immigration and Naturalization Act called for only the allowing of "free white persons of good character." Benjamin Franklin, one of the greatest liberals of his generation, railed tirelessly against small pockets of Germanic immigrants in Pennsylvania, resorting to calling them ignorant and swarthy, and pleading that their numbers be cut off so that the majority of Anglos could "Anglicize" them rather than the other way around. It is hardly a coincidence that the greater the share of the non-Anglo, and then non-European, population, the more "unexceptional" the politics become compared to the politics of the founding generation in the U.S., such as the already-delineated example of present day California.


I can't speak for America over 200 years ago, but I'm pretty sure the past 50 years hasn't been too bad for America. America is exceptional for its embrace of liberty, which I don't know is the belongs exclusively to Anglos. It is just disheartening from afar to see how America is moving closer to the likes of Russia and China of governing, though not remotely close to how bad they are.

Would you consider the politics of the current rural Americana 'exceptional' for California to follow?



CamillePunk said:


> More like passively. :mj


You got me there. :mj


----------



## DesolationRow

RavishingRickRules said:


> Oh I get it then. So you want the illegals gone, unless they're the ones you know because you can't betray their confidence? Sorry that's hypocrisy at it's finest. "Make America Great Again" (but not if I actually have to do it myself.) Everyone bangs on about things like "it's all about national security." This is akin to when people hit at the SJW's saying "take a refugee in your home then." It's very simple, you want the illegals gone, get rid of them. Don't harbour criminals and illegals, generally that makes you an accessory. I'm all for removing illegals, but be consistent with it at least. Don't claim to be anti-illegal immigration then knowingly allow illegals to carry on living in the country. That's just silly to be honest. Everyone's an upstanding citizen until they actually have to DO something to back up their rhetoric.


When the U.S. begins to deport even one million of the many millions of illegal aliens here strictly for being illegal aliens I will begin considering the possibility of notifying ICE of the 79-year-old woman and her 75-year-old husband who is dying of cancer and was most recently told he has six months left to live who are here illegally from El Salvador and whose offspring is a legal citizen and moderately successful restaurateur with a pregnant wife who I happen to know. Once her husband dies and her grandchild is born she is rather certain she will be going back home. 

San Francisco knowingly keeps illegal alien gang members, many of them with violent histories and most linked to drug-dealing, out of the hands of U.S. federal ICE officials and agents. I have debated an ACLU lawyer at Cal Berkeley (this is where I have interacted the most with illegal aliens, but they are all protected by the campus authorities so even if I were to attempt to drop the proverbial dime on them it would go nowhere) over this as well as the ACLU's pro-mass immigration bias in general in the past, have discussed the issue with legislators in Sacramento dating back to 2002 and voted for Donald Trump, the first major presidential candidate to say he would at least attempt to turn this gigantic ship around on this issue. 

I have also personally been consistent on this issue. I do not believe that every single illegal alien here will be deported and I do not believe that every single illegal alien here should be deported, but the border needs to be shut, a wall should be built where it is appropriate, the Border Patrol should be expanded and illegal alien gangs, of which there are many, need to be rounded up and thrown out. Once all of that occurs, we can start discussing the possibility of old ladies who used to be hotel maids not having to go back home but it is foolhardy to continue down this road, or entertain the possibility of "comprehensive immigration reform," i.e., another amnesty, until these measures are taken. 



FriedTofu said:


> Would you consider the politics of the current rural Americana 'exceptional' for California to follow?


This is a dicey question with many possible avenues for response. Ultimately one key ingredient which made "America" exceptional was that it kept its internal polities in a majorly decentralized system. This allowed for all manner of tomfoolery and bizarreness at state and city and county levels but it endearingly did allow for widespread political liberty, even under pseudo-feudal economic arrangements such as in the South. 

You raise a good point, however, because to some degree rural Americana has fallen short in its own way, but these disparate cases do nevertheless likely have a symbiotic relationship with one another, either positively or negatively. Ultimately I am a little too realistic to believe that things can necessarily get better, but perhaps they could if only things could be prevented from getting worse. 


Another element of this discussion has to do with how one population may in some manner of speaking radicalize the other. The mass protests, the ever-present waving of the Mexican flag, the attacking of Donald Trump supporters, all in San Jose, California this past spring elementally displayed just how much volatility is involved with this issue the greater general allowance is made. Mexican separatism is definitely a potent force here and this was all too easy to predict. Which is one of the reasons why I stress that the border needs to be shut and illegal aliens must be strictly barred from entering the U.S. from now on, because the U.S.'s sociopolitical and cultural landscapes need a cooling off period, just as the stoppage in immigration beginning in 1924 turned out to be beneficial due to the political turmoil unleashed by the Great Depression only a few years later. With automation taking more and more Central Valley California jobs as well as at fast food establishments and the like, the necessity for so many low-skilled migrant laborers is also going to dramatically decrease in the coming years. And California, which is already buried under an insurmountable debt, could ill-afford greater bleeding in this regard.


----------



## Sensei Utero

CamillePunk said:


> I don't find it amusing or "good" that she's being split from her children. It's a consequence of her own choices though. You have to admit that. Also I don't think she's a threat, and it's a bit of a strawman to frame any desire to crack down on illegal immigration as an attempt to combat a threat to American safety. That is an element of illegal immigration, certainly, but not the entire picture. Illegals CAN apply for and get state assistance (aka taxpayer funds). They DO take jobs away from Americans. They also have children in our country who are then naturalized as Americans and then even more taxpayer resources go to their family. It's about more than crime.


I'm glad to hear that. Of course, I admit that. The only reason I mentioned about the 'safety' thing was because on twitter, I seen a lot of Trump supporters state that it was all about keeping the country safer, and that she posed a terrorist threat which I just found ridiculous. If anything can be done to unite her again with her kids, who'll probably never forget what's occurred to her (you have to admit, that bit definitely could've been handled better), that'd be great. She is a human being, after all.

I can't really speak on the jobs bit though, not being from America and everything. Over here in Northern Ireland (part of the UK, although tend to their own thing about 50% of the time), I just think a lot of folk complain about immigrants getting jobs without actually applying for the jobs, and just sit around mouthing off about it. Of course, a LOT of it is to do with the DUP (political part here - very corrupt) not funding enough money for jobs, yet folk refuse to see anything past the whole British/Irish thing, but that is a totally different discussion.



> I welcome legal immigrants from any country that recognize the superiority of our country's values (separation of church and state, individualism, innocent before proven guilty, free speech, right to bear arms, etc.) which allowed for the establishment of a country they'd rather live in than their own. I welcome any legal immigrant who wants to assimilate into our culture, learn our language, and work to EARN a living in our country, rather than live off of any government assistance. Telling such people to "go back to their own country" is not in any way agreeable to me. I care about values, not nationality or race. Unfortunately this is not the case for most people.


That's cool, and I'm glad to hear. What're your thoughts on the gun control in America? Outta curiosity. Just seems crazy to me over here in Northern Ireland. America is a broken system, but there'll always be hope.


----------



## CamillePunk

InUtero said:


> That's cool, and I'm glad to hear. What're your thoughts on the gun control in America? Outta curiosity. Just seems crazy to me over here in Northern Ireland. America is a broken system, but there'll always be hope.


I'm strongly in favor of being allowed to maintain my own nuclear missiles, should I have the capability, in order to establish a state of deterrence between myself and any and all governments or other violent institutions looking to infringe on my individual sovereignty and private property.

I hope that answers your question.


----------



## Art Vandaley

CamillePunk said:


> I'm strongly in favor of being allowed to maintain my own nuclear missiles, should I have the capability, in order to establish a state of deterrence between myself and any and all governments or other violent institutions looking to infringe on my individual sovereignty and private property.
> 
> I hope that answers your question.


The one thing America has over Australia is gun control.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

DesolationRow said:


> This depends upon whether or not you are speaking of America politically or America economically in terms of the country's exceptional _bona fides_. What made America politically exceptional in the first place was the specifically Anglo-Saxon conception of republican governance, respective branches of government, and severely limited government with specifically enumerated powers. This was why, for good or for ill, the 1790 Immigration and Naturalization Act called for only the allowing of "free white persons of good character." Benjamin Franklin, one of the greatest liberals of his generation, railed tirelessly against small pockets of Germanic immigrants in Pennsylvania, resorting to calling them ignorant and swarthy, and pleading that their numbers be cut off so that the majority of Anglos could "Anglicize" them rather than the other way around. It is hardly a coincidence that the greater the share of the non-Anglo, and then non-European, population, the more "unexceptional" the politics become compared to the politics of the founding generation in the U.S., such as the already-delineated example of present day California.


Sorry, I do have to ask. Where is this "Anglo-Saxon" master-race of politicians coming from? Did they manage to hide away among the peasantry for half a millennia after their utter domination by the Vikings and Normans (also of Norse stock?) Beneath the flowery waffle this sounds an awful lot like a misplaced notion of racial superiority attributed to a race of people who had very little effect on England after the 11th century, no? Don't get me wrong, it's well written, but the verbal masturbation doesn't appear to hold much substance if I'm honest. I also wonder what the distinct difference between Anglo-Saxons (a Germanic people) and these less desirable "Germanic folk" would be? Forgive me for failing to be dazzled by the excellent pontificating but I had enough of that in the pubs around Cambridge as an undergrad to be that effected by a lyrical tongue and a delightful turn of phrase. I must admit, it's a very clever sounding piece of propaganda, but do explain where this misguided notion of Anglo-Saxon Übermenschen originated from?


----------



## Art Vandaley

RavishingRickRules said:


> Sorry, I do have to ask. Where is this "Anglo-Saxon" master-race of politicians coming from? Did they manage to hide away among the peasantry for half a millennia after their utter domination by the Vikings and Normans (also of Norse stock?) Beneath the flowery waffle this sounds an awful lot like a misplaced notion of racial superiority attributed to a race of people who had very little effect on England after the 11th century, no? Don't get me wrong, it's well written, but the verbal masturbation doesn't appear to hold much substance if I'm honest. I also wonder what the distinct difference between Anglo-Saxons (a Germanic people) and these less desirable "Germanic folk" would be? Forgive me for failing to be dazzled by the excellent pontificating but I had enough of that in the pubs around Cambridge as an undergrad to be that effected by a lyrical tongue and a delightful turn of phrase. I must admit, it's a very clever sounding piece of propaganda, but do explain where this misguided notion of Anglo-Saxon Übermenschen originated from?


Fair to an extent, but did the Anglo Saxon peasantry start speaking Norman-French, or did the Norman aristocracy start speaking English?


----------



## Vic Capri

> I couldn't give a rat's ass about her "reasons".
> 
> SHE. BROKE. THE. LAW.
> 
> And therefore she's now been deported.
> 
> The End.
> 
> 
> Hope this is the first of many who get the boot back where they ILLEGALLY came from.


Liberals want to crucify Kellyanne Conway for breaking a ethics law, but show mercy to an illegal fucking alien. The double standards is absurd.

- Vic


----------



## FriedTofu

DesolationRow said:


> This is a dicey question with many possible avenues for response. Ultimately one key ingredient which made "America" exceptional was that it kept its internal polities in a majorly decentralized system. This allowed for all manner of tomfoolery and bizarreness at state and city and county levels but it endearingly did allow for widespread political liberty, even under pseudo-feudal economic arrangements such as in the South.
> 
> You raise a good point, however, because to some degree rural Americana has fallen short in its own way, but these disparate cases do nevertheless likely have a symbiotic relationship with one another, either positively or negatively. Ultimately I am a little too realistic to believe that things can necessarily get better, but perhaps they could if only things could be prevented from getting worse.
> 
> 
> Another element of this discussion has to do with how one population may in some manner of speaking radicalize the other. The mass protests, the ever-present waving of the Mexican flag, the attacking of Donald Trump supporters, all in San Jose, California this past spring elementally displayed just how much volatility is involved with this issue the greater general allowance is made. Mexican separatism is definitely a potent force here and this was all too easy to predict. Which is one of the reasons why I stress that the border needs to be shut and illegal aliens must be strictly barred from entering the U.S. from now on, because the U.S.'s sociopolitical and cultural landscapes need a cooling off period, just as the stoppage in immigration beginning in 1924 turned out to be beneficial due to the political turmoil unleashed by the Great Depression only a few years later. With automation taking more and more Central Valley California jobs as well as at fast food establishments and the like, the necessity for so many low-skilled migrant laborers is also going to dramatically decrease in the coming years. And California, which is already buried under an insurmountable debt, could ill-afford greater bleeding in this regard.


Interesting, I didn't realise there is a huge Mexican separatism force in California. Do many immigrants really have the sense that part of current US soil belong to Mexico? Along the same line, I read somewhere recently that there is a movement to split California into two state creating the state of Jefferson to better represent the predominantly rural area that is more conservative. Is that feasible?


----------



## DesolationRow

RavishingRickRules said:


> Sorry, I do have to ask. Where is this "Anglo-Saxon" master-race of politicians coming from? Did they manage to hide away among the peasantry for half a millennia after their utter domination by the Vikings and Normans (also of Norse stock?) Beneath the flowery waffle this sounds an awful lot like a misplaced notion of racial superiority attributed to a race of people who had very little effect on England after the 11th century, no? Don't get me wrong, it's well written, but the verbal masturbation doesn't appear to hold much substance if I'm honest. I also wonder what the distinct difference between Anglo-Saxons (a Germanic people) and these less desirable "Germanic folk" would be? Forgive me for failing to be dazzled by the excellent pontificating but I had enough of that in the pubs around Cambridge as an undergrad to be that effected by a lyrical tongue and a delightful turn of phrase. I must admit, it's a very clever sounding piece of propaganda, but do explain where this misguided notion of Anglo-Saxon Übermenschen originated from?


Well the racial and ethnic issue is a fascinating one because like you note, the Anglo-Saxons as they became known and popularly referred to were in actuality among the biggest "mutts" following the Norman conquests--but of course what I mean is in the Jeffersonian sense, per Thomas Jefferson's quaint understanding of the matter. It's with this perspective that I refer to Anglo-Saxon customs or traditions, because it is chiefly a catch-all in terms of phraseology. And because, as I noted with my post on Plato a few weeks ago, so much of politics is about the enshrinement of myth, it makes complete sense that the colonists who were actively rebelling against the crown eschewed mere political conversing by way of expediency but sought to reach to the past to justify the present and their wished-for future. As an American I cannot help but be biased, perhaps, but Jefferson's asserting of the "ancient rights as Englishmen" for the colonists following the clamping down of the British statutes following the lackadaisical enforcement of the Navigation Acts compelled those struggling under those laws to refer to the increased invasiveness of London as representing what they would call the interceding to "extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction." 

Now the Enlightenment itself has its own balls of wax to go over and many of them are terribly dissatisfying, to be sure, but considering that the founding Americans were children of the Enlightenment, and Jefferson and his cohorts saw the British treatment of the colonists as a brutal violation of the laws of nature, it fell to Jefferson to philosophically explain what these "ancient rights as Englishmen" were in full, three-dimensional context, for lack of a better way of putting it. Indeed, as Jefferson posited, blasting King George, "America was not conquered by William the Norman, nor its lands surrendered to him." Jefferson's affinity for and burning desire to learn from Anglo-Saxon culture dating back to pre-eleventh century developments was an unmistakable philosophical and historical buttressing of the American Revolution. 

Rather than go on and on concerning this at 3:10 in the morning, much of this tradition of particular "exceptionalism" as it were (which is, in myriad contexts, a horrific term, no question about that), comprehending the mythical-historical linking between that which emanated from centuries long pre-dating the Enlightenment to the Enlightenment's most frantic years with the American Revolution and French Revolution and their respective litanies of consequences, Jefferson's meaning is probably best understood in this regard by surveying his _A Summary View of the Rights of British America_. Other writings of Jefferson pertain almost solely to the Magna Carta and the curtailment of the crown's domain. 

This ties into the earlier point raised by @FriedTofu, which was particularly interesting, for the political gives over to the economic. Jefferson's Declaration of Independence was designed "not to find out new principles, or new arguments" but to appeal to what Thomas Paine referred to as "common sense." Jefferson's historical grasp was of course at times imperfect (and his reading of political events at times potentially disastrous as the unfolding Reign of Terror resulting from the French Revolution and the immediately renewed geopolitical struggle between the French and British in the 1790s), but there is something sweet and quaint about how he views the American Revolution through the prism of expanding the historical liberties of the Anglo-Saxons which had been cast aside and almost, in the darkest hours, almost obviated with the coming of Norman rule. It animated Jefferson's outlook and informed his writings, as per the written barrage toward the king over America not being conquered by "William the Norman." 

Anglo-Saxons before the mid-eleventh century had built a society around which tribal customs, laws and traditions stemming from sturdy, trans-generational commonwealths formed of families, out of which sprang individuals, and Jefferson marveled at their ways. Now, a great deal of what Jefferson knew of England was from the book which was arguably his favorite as a child, Peter Jefferson's copy of Rapin's _History of England_. This book and numerous others pointed to the pre-Norman Anglo-Saxons holding their local kings accountable, entirely subject to the laws and custom of the tribe. Private property, Jefferson enthused, as treasured and deeply respected, with Saxon councils originating what became the modern procedure of jury trials. Common law was paramount in disputes, allowed to stand as more important than all civil statutes. 

It could be plausibly said that more critical to the shaping of "America" as it has stood for the past two hundred-plus years battle was not the Battle of Yorktown or the Battle of Gettysburg or any other conflagration but the struggle for Quebec in 1759 during the Seven Years' War. With the French efforts to claim Canada defeated, it became fundamentally inevitable that America would gestate as a child of what could be referred to as the child of Anglo custom, as well as remaining a largely Protestant nation in its character and makeup. 

And, for reasons both large and small, nations birthed or nurtured from or by that Anglo tradition, possessed by Great Britain, demonstrate to this day the relative economic freedom, individualism and distancing from wholesale collectivist schemes, speaking comparatively, to most of the rest of the world. Without looking at the nations or states deemed freest, economically, or in terms of personal liberty, off the top of my head they probably still include Hong Kong, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, Singapore, Mauritius and the United States. There are other states that are free, of course, but it is a prevalent focal point toward individuality within these aforementioned societies which concerns us with this discussion. 

As you note, Anglo-Saxons are Germanic. Even though Benjamin Franklin had a point about the cohesion of society within Pennsylvania, someone should have told him in his chauvinistic ranting to at least recognize this point.


----------



## Art Vandaley

^ epic post Drow!

Just gonna add a little as a medieval historian focusing in the era:

Prior to 1066 England was split between 2 jurisdictions, the "english" common law which applied in the southern half of the country and the viking law which applied in the northern half (the result of a deal between Alfred the Great and Gunthred).

At 1066 William the conqueror took the throne and part of the contract with Harold he had signed (which Harold repudiated on the basis that he was forced to sign it by threat of force) and supported by the King of the time Edward the Confessor, was that English law (as opposed to Viking law, and remember Normans are merely vikings who had learned to ride horses, and they were as terrifying as that sounds) would rule in all of England. 

And a big part of the legitimacy of William the Conquerors claim is that he stood by that deal, and even though he was effectively a viking, he ended the 2 jurisdiction system and put the entire country under Anglo-Saxon law.

My point being English Common Law is the only law with any relevance to anyone from an English speaking country.


----------



## Reaper

FriedTofu said:


> I feel like providing amnesty for those that have contributed to the country for decades is a way to simplify the workload of the authority to focus on deporting the illegals that are criminals. I think focusing on criminals is one reason why Obama's deportation numbers are so high isn't it?
> 
> Lets not pretend why the GOP is so hard on immigration. They want to prevent the demographics of America from changing too much. Nobody likes feeling like a stranger in their own land, at least that's what the main argument is for people that claim to 'not be racist' have been saying. That's what my country has been doing with our immigration policies that prioritise the majority ethnicity for decades. Some assimilate, some don't. I just don't know how many Europeans are similar to white rural Americans for them to feel comfortable with any immigrants. :shrug
> 
> Also, the delicious irony of not feeling comfortable in taking from a system one doesn't contribute to but have no issue accepting Daddy's money to pay off credit card debt incurred due to a ideological stance is lost on someone. Talk about privliege. :troll


You're comparing a thief to taking money from my own father. You have literally no sense of how to make logical comparisons. Whatsoever. Lmao.

Keep trying. But ultimately you're reaching to the point where even you know what you're saying isn't logical enough to warrant being taken seriously as you have to put a troll smiley next to it. Lol.

Also, since you're all so willing to give and want others to give, why not put a gofundme together pay up for my legal immigration fees. I need about a $1000 :draper2


----------



## Sensei Utero

CamillePunk said:


> I'm strongly in favor of being allowed to maintain my own nuclear missiles, should I have the capability, in order to establish a state of deterrence between myself and any and all governments or other violent institutions looking to infringe on my individual sovereignty and private property.
> 
> I hope that answers your question.


No, it's not nuclear weapons, but actual guns in America. Let's not get into nuclear weapons. We'll be debating for like two weeks about that :lol.


----------



## TomahawkJock

I know some are going through the immigration process, specifically you @RipNTear, and there may be others in here. I just wanted to know how costly the fees were and how hard the tests were, etc. I haven't really looked into it all that much but I'd love to learn.


----------



## Reaper

TomahawkJock said:


> I know some are going through the immigration process, specifically you @RipNTear, and there may be others in here. I just wanted to know how costly the fees were and how hard the tests were, etc. I haven't really looked into it all that much but I'd love to learn.


Well, my wife and I took out a loan against her 401k for our first round of fees which was about $1600. It's taken us 2 years to pay it off in full. 

On top of that, my wife had to prove that our marriage was a genuine love marriage, so that meant pre-marriage correspondence, wedding pictures, telling them about our sexual activity (basically they asked how often we had sex and who slept on which side of the bed), then they needed all of our personal gift receipts, bank statements, wife's tax papers, joint account, lease, proof that my wife had stable permanent employment where she made at least 14k a year and a bunch of affidavits from family and friends (I think it was 6-7 in total). Also wanted a joint lease and "anything else that proves the validity of marriage" (which basically amounted to pictures of us together at different events spread over the overal period of our relationship till the date of filing. Also had to submit for a full FBI background check, fingerprinting and bioscanning. The interviewer was harsh and unfriendly and it was less of an immigration interview than an immigration interrogation. 

That gave us a temporary 2 year period of conditional permanent residency. Now that the two years are up, I have to refile all the same things all over again and this time they want 600-800 bucks for processing fees and potentially another FBI background check and finger-printing. After this, I'll probably get another 5-10 year "permanent" residency which will put me on the path to citizenship which I'm not sure happens after 3 years of my conditional being extended or another 5 years after that. 

It's not a very tough process for my wife and I because my wife's doing well financially and I have savings and make a little on the side. But it is a lot more than illegals have to do. I mean, you have a situation where someone who comes in legally is stripped of all privacy, while you have a bunch of ridiculous notions that you can't even ask fucking illegals to provide their documentation. The system is incredibly twisted in favor of illegals and it's retarded to me that there is even systematic protection of illegals at this point. 

There's a reason why legals abhor illegals and those who support them and this is one of them. That's why for me the comparison between an illegal immigrant and a car thief is an easy one to make. Can you imagine a society where if the cops suspect someone of stealing a car and they can't even chase after the guy because it would be "discrimination" if he did that?


----------



## TomahawkJock

RipNTear said:


> Well, my wife and I took out a loan against her 401k for our first round of fees which was about $1600. It's taken us 2 years to pay it off in full.
> 
> On top of that, my wife had to prove that our marriage was a genuine love marriage, so that meant pre-marriage correspondence, wedding pictures, telling them about our sexual activity (basically they asked how often we had sex and who slept on which side of the bed), then they needed all of our personal gift receipts, bank statements, joint account, lease, proof that my wife had stable permanent employment where she made at least 14k a year and a bunch of affidavits from family and friends (I think it was 6-7 in total). Also wanted a joint lease and "anything else that proves the validity of marriage" (which basically amounted to pictures of us together at different events spread over the overal period of our relationship till the date of filing. Also had to submit for a full FBI background check, fingerprinting and bioscanning. The interviewer was harsh and unfriendly and it was less of an immigration interview than an immigration interrogation.
> 
> That gave us a temporary 2 year period of conditional permanent residency. Now that the two years are up, I have to refile all the same things all over again and this time they want 600-800 bucks for processing fees and potentially another FBI background check and finger-printing. After this, I'll probably get another 5-10 year "permanent" residency which will put me on the path to citizenship which I'm not sure happens after 3 years of my conditional being extended or another 5 years after that.
> 
> It's not a very tough process for my wife and I because my wife's doing well financially and I have savings and make a little on the side. But it is a lot more than illegals have to do.
> 
> There's a reason why legals abhor illegals and those who support them and this is one of them. That's why for me the comparison between an illegal immigrant and a car thief is an easy one to make.


Did you have a long wait time in order to receive your green card? I'm assuming that's what you have at least. Granted, I know it's probably different for you than it is for another person in a different situation.


----------



## Reaper

TomahawkJock said:


> Did you have a long wait time in order to receive your green card? I'm assuming that's what you have at least. Granted, I know it's probably different for you than it is for another person in a different situation.


I came to America on a visit visa in May 2014. Got married in August and applied for change of status in October or November of 2014, got called in for the interview in April 2015 and got my green card in the mail literally the day after the interview. 

There was a period between my Visit Visa expiring and getting my green card where I was legally in limbo with no status. UCIS told me not to leave the country during that time or they would void my status. I'm about to go through the same process (not being able to leave the country) after I file my papers against in a couple of weeks till I receive my second green card. 

Another reason why I'm so fucking annoyed with people whinging about not being able to enter or leave the country during the immigration "ban". Not being able to leave or enter the country (at least in Canada's case) which is processing your paperwork is a normal thing. 

If I had done this in reverse. I.E. If my wife had decided to move to Canada, she and I could not live together during our process unlike in America ... which is why I find the virtue signalling Canadians even more disingenuous. Their immigration laws do not allow a husband and wife to live together in Canada while their papers are being processed. They force couples apart and here we have a bunch of canadians critiquing Trump's "ban" when they themselves don't have a system that allows couples to live together unlike America. America really has the most unique and humanitarian immigration standards in the world. Nothing even comes close.

I think England is the same where one of my cousins is working in England and is trying to get his wife over but they have to approve her first before they allow them to live together. They've been apart for a year now. I'm not sure about the details. Maybe @L-DOPA might be able to help.


----------



## QWERTYOP

Even the dumbest ******** must surely now be grasping how deeply unqualified for the job the guy is. His meltdown yesterday was fucking hilarious. The guy hasn't a clue.


----------



## TomahawkJock

RipNTear said:


> I came to America on a visit visa in May 2014. Got married in August and applied for change of status in October or November of 2014, got called in for the interview in April 2015 and got my green card in the mail literally the day after the interview.
> 
> There was a period between my Visit Visa expiring and getting my green card where I was legally in limbo with no status. UCIS told me not to leave the country during that time or they would void my status. I'm about to go through the same process (not being able to leave the country) after I file my papers against in a couple of weeks till I receive my second green card.
> 
> Another reason why I'm so fucking annoyed with people whinging about not being able to enter or leave the country during the immigration "ban". Not being able to leave or enter the country (at least in Canada's case) which is processing your paperwork is a normal thing.
> 
> If I had done this in reverse. I.E. If my wife had decided to move to Canada, she and I could not live together during our process unlike in America ... which is why I find the virtue signalling Canadians even more disingenuous. Their immigration laws do not allow a husband and wife to live together in Canada while their papers are being processed. They force couples apart and here we have a bunch of canadians critiquing Trump's "ban" when they themselves don't have a system that allows couples to live together unlike America. America really has the most unique and humanitarian immigration standards in the world. Nothing even comes close.



I appreciate the information on this. I've never really taken the time to look into the process and this was definitely helpful. I have never heard anything 'wrong' perse with our immigration process and laws. I certainly respect all people who go about it the right way. 

Saying that though, I can certainly understand why Latin American people illegally immigrate to the USA. Fuck, I think it's less of an immigration issue than it is a fucking refugee issue. And when you feel like your life is on the line, you will do whatever it takes to survive. Some people don't have the time or documentation to wait for a green card and I know the waiting times can be pretty long in certain situations. Do I agree with them breaking the law to get into the country? No. Can I understand? Yeah. Does it suck? Yeah.

The shittiest part of it all imo, is that the violence in Latin America is fueled by the massive drug trade which is fueled by the money our country puts into it. Plus we are supplying cartels with guns. By having the government regulate drugs, decriminalizing or making them legal and selling it themselves, it would decrease the profit cartels can get and decrease the amount of violence, decreasing the amount of people coming to the border.

I was lucky enough to go to Costa Rica when I went down to L.A. because it is one of the safer states. I'm going to southern Mexico this summer though so that may be a more interesting journey.


----------



## Stephen90

Vic Capri said:


> Liberals want to crucify Kellyanne Conway for breaking a ethics law, but show mercy to an illegal fucking alien. The double standards is absurd.
> 
> - Vic


So it's ok to lie about fake terrorist attacks? The women is an idiot.


----------



## Reaper

TomahawkJock said:


> Saying that though, I can certainly understand why Latin American people illegally immigrate to the USA. Fuck, I think it's less of an immigration issue than it is a fucking refugee issue. And when you feel like your life is on the line, you will do whatever it takes to survive. Some people don't have the time or documentation to wait for a green card and I know the waiting times can be pretty long in certain situations. Do I agree with them breaking the law to get into the country? No. Can I understand? Yeah. Does it suck? Yeah.


Nah. A lot of these "migrants" can have very decent lives in Mexico. There's work there. There's opportunity there. And Mexico has been a rising star in the south/central American continent for decades now. We as Americans need to stop viewing it as a decrepit country that doesn't have jobs/opportunities for its citizens. They're not even coming here to get away from crimes imo. They're coming here because in some parts of Mexico you still have this belief that America is the land of opportunity for them while ignoring the fact that if they put in that much hard work into their own country they can do well. The only real attraction here is the humane treatment of illegals and our free public schools - which majority of illegals can exploit without ever contributing a dime into the system as they stay off the radar but still are allowed to send their kids to school. 

They get away with it mainly because they know that they can get away with it. You see what I'm saying? The excuses you make for them were true maybe a decade or two ago. But not anymore. Mexico is a very well developed country and surging in terms of GDP growth and economic opportunity for locals. Some of these illegals that come here can actually have better lives than the shitty ordeal they put themselves in in America. Mexico has more opportunity right now than even many parts of the US with all the US companies creating jobs south of the border. The myths of mexico not being able to create a good lifestyle for themselves simply refuse to die. 

I'd say that at this point certain Australian states have fewer opportunities for its citizens than Mexico does for theirs. You should look at the rising rates of homeless in Melbourne and the pics and stats will surprise you. 



> The shittiest part of it all imo, is that the violence in Latin America is fueled by the massive drug trade which is fueled by the money our country puts into it. Plus we are supplying cartels with guns. By having the government regulate drugs, decriminalizing or making them legal and selling it themselves, it would decrease the profit cartels can get and decrease the amount of violence, decreasing the amount of people coming to the border.


Well, state of your country and your personal living standards simply cannot justify illegal immigration. Also, pretty sure that the import of illegal guns and drugs from Mexico far outnumbers the export of illegal guns to mexico from America. Mexicans have the corrupt latin America countries to its south that is far more responsible for their socio-economic problems and they need to fix their southern border in order to fix their cartel problems just as Americans need to fix their southern border with Mexico to fix their illegal drug trade. There's a lot less outflow south from North than there is from south to north.


----------



## Goku

InUtero said:


> No, it's not nuclear weapons, but actual guns in America. Let's not get into nuclear weapons. We'll be debating for like two weeks about that :lol.


if he is willing to allow nuclear weapons to be privately owned, then he obviously does not have an issue with guns with being privately owned.


----------



## Sensei Utero

Goku said:


> if he is willing to allow nuclear weapons to be privately owned, then he obviously does not have an issue with guns with being privately owned.


I wasn't asking about nuclear weapons at all, but fair enough. Personally, I'd be scared shitless if anyone owned a gun here though. To even think of a next door neighbour owning a gun scares me. Or a guy nearby, or a student, or whoever. Guns do pose massive risks...but I guess this is America we're talking about, so it's a very complicated issue.



TomahawkJock said:


> Saying that though, I can certainly understand why Latin American people illegally immigrate to the USA. Fuck, I think it's less of an immigration issue than it is a fucking refugee issue. And when you feel like your life is on the line, you will do whatever it takes to survive. Some people don't have the time or documentation to wait for a green card and I know the waiting times can be pretty long in certain situations. Do I agree with them breaking the law to get into the country? No. Can I understand? Yeah. Does it suck? Yeah.


Basically this.
@RipNTear I heard the Mexican currency was down, though? Or am I wrong?


----------



## Goku

InUtero said:


> I wasn't asking about nuclear weapons at all, but fair enough. Personally, I'd be scared shitless if anyone here did though. Guns do pose risks, too.


I know. He knows. He answered the question with as much conviction as possible.

It's like this:

Q: Would you betray a friend for your girl?
A: I'd betray my whole family for her.

It's obvious what is meant.


----------



## Sensei Utero

Goku said:


> I know. He knows. He answered the question with as much conviction as possible.
> 
> It's like this:
> 
> Q: Would you betray a friend for your girl?
> A: I'd betray my whole family for her.
> 
> It's obvious what is meant.


When you put it like that ..:quimby


----------



## Reaper

InUtero said:


> Basically this.
> @RipNTear I heard the Mexican currency was down, though? Or am I wrong?


A lower currency for an economy like Mexico that's heavily reliant on exporting goods to America is a good thing for their economy.


----------



## Stinger Fan

I wonder why this wasn't on national headlines. I don't see it covered anywhere


----------



## Vic Capri

http://www.tmz.com/2017/02/10/shia-labeouf-he-will-not-divide-us-protest-ends/

He Will Not Divide Us was supposed to last 4 years, didn't even 4 weeks! Another liberal fail on the list! :lol




> So it's ok to lie about fake terrorist attacks? The women is an idiot.


Cool strawman, bro.

- Vic


----------



## Miss Sally

Alkomesh2 said:


> ^ epic post Drow!
> 
> Just gonna add a little as a medieval historian focusing in the era:
> 
> Prior to 1066 England was split between 2 jurisdictions, the "english" common law which applied in the southern half of the country and the viking law which applied in the northern half (the result of a deal between Alfred the Great and Gunthred).
> 
> At 1066 William the conqueror took the throne and part of the contract with Harold he had signed (which Harold repudiated on the basis that he was forced to sign it by threat of force) and supported by the King of the time Edward the Confessor, was that English law (as opposed to Viking law, and remember Normans are merely vikings who had learned to ride horses, and they were as terrifying as that sounds) would rule in all of England.
> 
> And a big part of the legitimacy of William the Conquerors claim is that he stood by that deal, and even though he was effectively a viking, he ended the 2 jurisdiction system and put the entire country under Anglo-Saxon law.
> 
> My point being English Common Law is the only law with any relevance to anyone from an English speaking country.


There was a few posts i wanted to answer but DROW answered tofu's one excellently and I only had a little to add but too tired for that!

Your post on William was fantastic! I loved your posts in the vikings thread. Your mentioning of the Norman court eventually speaking English was spot on, if I recall that didn't make the French crown happy as they wanted to extend control into England. The Normans aren't much talked about which is weird because the Normans set a lot of stuff in motion! Their conquests and mark on Medieval history is a big one!

Norman troops were some of the best Europe ever produced. Norman Knights were fearsome and their prowess in battle was felt throughout Europe and even in the first Crusade if I recall correctly. This why the Vikings show annoys me when they disregard Rollo and the entire Norman arc as the Normans pretty much established Anglo-Saxon ways and without them who knows what would have happened.


----------



## Stephen90

Vic Capri said:


> Cool strawman, bro.
> 
> - Vic


Conway has no credibility anymore.


----------



## glenwo2

QWERTYOP said:


> Even the dumbest ******** must surely now be grasping how deeply unqualified for the job the guy is. His meltdown yesterday was fucking hilarious. The guy hasn't a clue.



SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 9, 2017


This is considered a "meltdown"? fpalm


Perfectly understandable response, imo. Especially when a President is being obstructed every fucking step of the way.


----------



## samizayn

glenwo2 said:


> SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!
> 
> — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 9, 2017
> 
> 
> This is considered a "meltdown"? fpalm
> 
> 
> Perfectly understandable response, imo. Especially when a President is being obstructed every fucking step of the way.


Hahaha did he really post that, in all caps? :lmao :lmao

How is it understandable at all? Pretty much everything he has done so far as president has been through executive order instead of the proper means. He isn't being limited nearly as much as Obama was. Did Obama throw twitter tantrums like these?





Stephen90 said:


> So it's ok to lie about fake terrorist attacks? The women is an idiot.


Kellyanne Conway is not an idiot. She's someone who makes up stories to further a political agenda.


----------



## glenwo2

samizayn said:


> Hahaha did he really post that, in all caps? :lmao :lmao


Yes he did and I guess apparently it's against the fucking law to post in all-caps on twitter to show your frustration. Guess I better re-read the fucking rules, huh? fpalm



> How is it understandable at all? Pretty much everything he has done so far as president has been through executive order instead of the proper means. He isn't being limited nearly as much as Obama was. *Did Obama throw twitter tantrums like these?*


No. Obama didn't because he didn't have the entire fucking Media out to destroy him. Have you been paying attention at all? 

Anyway, he's doing the "executive order" thing to show the American people that voted for him that unlike his predecessors, he won't DRAG HIS FEET(so to speak) in trying to get shit done. 





> Kellyanne Conway is not an idiot. She's someone who makes up stories to further a political agenda.


Was she an idiot when she was attacking Trump? Probably not. #LEFTdoublestandard 


EDIT : I misread that part of your post as you saying she is an idiot but idiot or not, the LEFT wasn't complaining much when she was attacking TRUMP. Now that she's in his corner, she's Evil Personified. 


Speaking of the LEFT :













^BTW, before anyone attacks me for the confederate flag that's in that pic, DON'T. I put this pic up because of the message and because it was funny(because it's true).


----------



## MrMister

Conway is a lot of things, but an idiot is definitely not one of them.


----------



## Beatles123

>women's march
>anti-abortion laws continue to pass

>protests on campus
>Milo becomes more famous

>#hewillnotdivideus
>abandoned after a few weeks

>use twitter to fuel their campaigning
>twitter announces record losses

The absolute state of liberals in America.

:lmao the only victory the left can claim against Trump so far is the work of a fat washington Ham-planet who issued a misguided restraining order that will be overturned in the SC! AND SOMEONE HERE ACTUALLY USED "*******" AS AN INSULT!

Well kiss my ******* ass and welcome to hell, boys and girls! :trump3

#Winning :trump2


----------



## MrMister

are we sure twitter losing money is directly correlated to SJW? i mean i think we can know that SJW = burning money (lol if anyone is still trying to make SJW "entertainment" at this point), but there might be other reasons not SJW related.

it is pretty interesting that ******* is used as insult by non-********, but ******** themselves have always worn the moniker with pride.


----------



## TomahawkJock

Although I am more left leaning on a lot of things, I am fucking happy I live in southwest Missouri right now. Don't have to deal with stupid protests. Granted, I worked with Mexican students and they had to deal with a lot of racism during their time here but hey, at least rocks aren't getting thrown through businesses.


----------



## MillionDollarProns

MrMister said:


> are we sure twitter losing money is directly correlated to SJW? i mean i think we can know that SJW = burning money (lol if anyone is still trying to make SJW "entertainment" at this point), but there might be other reasons not SJW related.
> 
> it is pretty interesting that ******* is used as insult by non-********, but ******** themselves have always worn the moniker with pride.


As much as I'd love to say SJW extremism is causing people to abandon Twitter, it's probably more reasonable to assume normies are just switching over to Snapchat and other programs that have better functionality.

I'm using the ******* part of your post as an excuse to post a David Alan Coe video, sorry.


----------



## Beatles123

MrMister said:


> are we sure twitter losing money is directly correlated to SJW? i mean i think we can know that SJW = burning money (lol if anyone is still trying to make SJW "entertainment" at this point), but there might be other reasons not SJW related.
> 
> it is pretty interesting that ******* is used as insult by non-********, but ******** themselves have always worn the moniker with pride.


When you considder the fact that Twitter as a whole actively censores conservative viewpoints (As facebook does, which I have seen firsthand) And the fact that sponsored and popular hashtags are generally ones that support a liberal platform. I'd say it is one of the biggest factors at the very least.

Every day just about, you will see an anti-Trump or anti-straight/white/conservative trending topic, all based around an article from a left-leaning think tank like Huffpo or NYT. Further, if we go up the chain, we find that @jack (on twitter, not here! :lol) is actually a hard left liberal. Even higher is a globalist shareholder from Saudi Arabia.


----------



## TomahawkJock

Beatles123 said:


> When you considder the fact that Twitter as a whole actively censores conservative viewpoints (As facebook does, which I have seen firsthand) And the fact that sponsored and popular hashtags are generally ones that support a liberal platform. I'd say it is one of the biggest factors at the very least.
> 
> Every day just about, you will see an anti-Trump or anti-straight/white/conservative trending topic, all based around an article from a left-leaning think tank like Huffpo or NYT. Further, if we go up the chain, we find that @jack (on twitter, not here! :lol) is actually a hard left liberal. Even higher is a globalist shareholder from Saudi Arabia.


You have seen the censoring of FB conservative viewpoints? Wut? Maybe it's because of where I live and the viewpoints of my friends but my feed is filled with such things.


----------



## MrMister

Beatles123 said:


> When you considder the fact that Twitter as a whole actively censores conservative viewpoints (As facebook does, which I have seen firsthand) And the fact that sponsored and popular hashtags are generally ones that support a liberal platform. I'd say it is one of the biggest factors at the very least.
> 
> Every day just about, you will see an anti-Trump or anti-straight/white/conservative trending topic, all based around an article from a left-leaning think tank like Huffpo or NYT. Further, if we go up the chain, we find that @jack (on twitter, not here! :lol) is actually a hard left liberal. Even higher is a globalist shareholder from Saudi Arabia.


i worded my post like shit. 

i agree SJW lunacy is part of the money loss. i just don't think it's the only reason.


----------



## Beatles123

TomahawkJock said:


> You have seen the censoring of FB conservative viewpoints? Wut? Maybe it's because of where I live and the viewpoints of my friends but my feed is filled with such things.


Had my comment censored after i told someone "Don't suckle the liberal bottle!" for "Violating terms of service" iper1 

And that's just one example.



MrMister said:


> i worded my post like shit.
> 
> i agree SJW lunacy is part of the money loss. i just don't think it's the only reason.


Oh no, technology evolves. Competition yadda yadda, but it certainly hasn't done them any favors when the only time twitter is in the news is when they attack a conservative figure/something involves censorship.

Edit: GAWSH DURNIT I FORGOT MUH MULTI QUOTE AGAIN! :regal


----------



## TomahawkJock

Beatles123 said:


> Had my comment censored after i told someone "Don't suckle the liberal bottle!" for "Violating terms of service" iper1
> 
> And that's just one example.


Violating terms of service? :what?

Can't even make a joke without being personal or using inappropriate language anymore? Fuck have we come to? :lol


----------



## glenwo2

Local Voice said:


> I already Know It


Hello "new" poster. 

what's up with the youtube link that leads to nowhere?






Beatles123 said:


> Had my comment censored after i told someone *"Don't suckle the liberal bottle!"* for "Violating terms of service" iper1


So I guess "liberal bottle" is the new "Boobs" then? :lmao


----------



## Sensei Utero

Personally, as a socialist I'm pretty like 'oh, cool' at the outcome. I do believe that freedom of movement should be allowed for all legal immigrants. Does the system need fixed? Definitely, without question, especially with refugees. No matter what, it was going to be bitter whatever the outcome. America to me is just so...broken, though. I could type out pages long of what I find wrong, but I only live in Northern Ireland, so...I probably wouldn't be eligible to 100% state things.

Anyway, we'll see what happens here for now, whether the decision will stand or whatnot. Happy for all legal immigrants, though.


----------



## virus21

TomahawkJock said:


> Violating terms of service? :what?
> 
> Can't even make a joke without being personal or using inappropriate language anymore? Fuck have we come to? :lol


----------



## glenwo2

InUtero said:


> Personally, as a socialist I'm pretty like 'oh, cool' at the outcome. I do believe that freedom of movement should be allowed for all legal immigrants. Does the system need fixed? Definitely, without question, especially with refugees. No matter what, it was going to be bitter whatever the outcome. America to me is just so...broken, though. I could type out pages long of what I find wrong, but *I only live in Northern Ireland, so...I probably wouldn't be eligible to 100% state things*.
> 
> Anyway, we'll see what happens here for now, whether the decision will stand or whatnot. Happy for all legal immigrants, though.


I don't think those that don't live here(U.S) would be eligible to even 50% state things. But you do anyway. :lol


----------



## Sensei Utero

glenwo2 said:


> I don't think those that don't live here(U.S) would be eligible to even 50% state things. But you do anyway. :lol


Only provided things on Trump, his rulings etc. Someone's mad. I am entitled to a political opinion, like anyone here. Just because I'm not American doesn't mean I can't have a political opinion on America. Just like how Americans had a political opinion on 'Brexit'. @glenwo2


----------



## deepelemblues

InUtero said:


> Personally, as a socialist I'm pretty like 'oh, cool' at the outcome. I do believe that freedom of movement should be allowed for all legal immigrants. Does the system need fixed? Definitely, without question, especially with refugees. No matter what, it was going to be bitter whatever the outcome. America to me is just so...broken, though. I could type out pages long of what I find wrong, but I only live in Northern Ireland, so...I probably wouldn't be eligible to 100% state things.
> 
> Anyway, we'll see what happens here for now, whether the decision will stand or whatnot. Happy for all legal immigrants, though.


i'm not aware of any restrictions placed on legal immigrants except that if they are not permanent immigrants eventually their visa or green card expires


----------



## LowRida

QWERTYOP said:


> Even the dumbest ******** must surely now be grasping how deeply unqualified for the job the guy is. His meltdown yesterday was fucking hilarious. The guy hasn't a clue.


Same way the leftist shills grasped how deeply unqualified a jr 1st term senator and community activist hustler was for the job ?

Don't think so - I realize you are just following standard moveon.org talking points here, but the fact is, no one knows exactly how to be president of the USA until they have some time in office. I think he is making good progress, has surrounded himself with highly qualified cabinet picks [who were NOT appointed strictly on racial/gender/ideological grounds] , and has done far more + in the first couple of weeks than the last administration did in a year.


----------



## Sensei Utero

deepelemblues said:


> i'm not aware of any restrictions placed on legal immigrants except that if they are not permanent immigrants eventually their visa or green card expires


Worded two things wrongly twice, my bad (was talking on the phone to my brother whilst typing all that and was only paying about a quarter of attention). 

Aside, would be curious to hear the thoughts of @Headliner on the verdict as he always seems to provide an intriguing opinion.


----------



## Headliner

InUtero said:


> Worded two things wrongly twice, my bad (was talking on the phone to my brother whilst typing all that).
> 
> Aside, would be curious to hear the thoughts of @Headliner on the verdict as he always seems to provide an intriguing opinion.


I'm not surprised at the verdict. Trump's legal representation was horrid and Washington State didn't do 'that' much better in the hearing but they did enough. 

Here's my issue when it comes to determining whether this is a Muslim ban or not: 










So Trump says Muslim ban directly during the campaign. Rudy G discusses how it was put together.

So then after saying it directly, they put an Executive Order together and spin it by saying that they are focusing on danger and not religion. The undertone is still Muslim ban, _because that's what he said directly._ It's just he's smart enough to know he can't directly say that in the Executive Order or else he'll face incredible amounts of backlash from Congress & The Courts so he has to make it sound more strategic and use the countries chosen by President Obama as a way of justifying the order. From listening to the appeals court hearing I do remember this being discussed briefly by a judge and one of the attorneys. 

Another example of a Trump undertone would be how he re-tweeted false black crime stats without apology (even that scumbag Bill O'Reilly was disgusted at Trump for that) which criminalized black people and helped strengthen his white nationalist fanbase. So he could act on the idea that we're all criminals and make an Executive Order that promotes stop and frisk, which is something he has been an avid supporter of. Trump, some white nationalist or hardcore Republican would spin it by saying that it's not a discriminatory Executive Order and it's being done to protect the streets, even though stop and frisk is direct racial profiling based on a predetermined view of black and latino people.

If Trump never said what he said on the campaign trail, then he may not face as much backlash from people and people may not view it as a Muslim ban. People still remember the things he said in the campaign trail so everything he says or does will be viewed with extra lenses.

Overall, the smart thing to do would be to cancel the current order and re-write a better one, but I don't think Trump's ego would allow him to do it honestly so this is going to the Supreme Court.


----------



## glenwo2

InUtero said:


> Only provided things on Trump, his rulings etc. Someone's mad. I am entitled to a political opinion, like anyone here. Just because I'm not American doesn't mean I can't have a political opinion on America. *Just like how Americans had a political opinion on 'Brexit'*. @glenwo2



You're giving us a bit too much credit on that front. I can walk up to any random "joe" or "jane" off the street and ask them what "Brexit" is and they wouldn't have a fucking clue.

And quite frankly, I still don't have much of a clue what it is either so I haven't commented on it nor do I CARE what it is.


----------



## virus21

Beatles123 said:


> When you considder the fact that Twitter as a whole actively censores conservative viewpoints (As facebook does, which I have seen firsthand) And the fact that sponsored and popular hashtags are generally ones that support a liberal platform. I'd say it is one of the biggest factors at the very least.
> 
> Every day just about, you will see an anti-Trump or anti-straight/white/conservative trending topic, all based around an article from a left-leaning think tank like Huffpo or NYT. Further, if we go up the chain, we find that @jack (on twitter, not here! :lol) is actually a hard left liberal. Even higher is a globalist shareholder from Saudi Arabia.


Go to Minds.com.


----------



## stevefox1200

I am greatly amused that the Republicans have become the "LOOK AT THE SPREAD SHEETS" party and the Democrats have become the "THINK OF THE CHILDREN PARTY" party

after years of watered down Jesus its nice to have spread sheets (not that dumping studies on people is not annoying)


----------



## DesolationRow

Thank you, @Alkomesh2, and your post on the two jurisdictions of England prior to the Norman invasion is most excellent, so happy you contributed that. I recall reading a fine book about the deal struck between Alfred the Great and Gunthred some years ago and it was utterly fascinating. Unearthing points of interest concerning the kingdom of Wessex is always fun because their culture, in so many ways, truly was on its own terms truly splendid. One can see why the Jeffersons of that era looked back with fondness and even a semblance of pride, as it were. 



samizayn said:


> Hahaha did he really post that, in all caps? :lmao :lmao
> 
> How is it understandable at all? Pretty much everything he has done so far as president has been through executive order instead of the proper means. He isn't being limited nearly as much as Obama was.


Well, to be completely fair, Barack Obama issued several more executive orders through his first twenty days than Donald Trump has. Now, it could be said that several of Trump's executive orders have unquestionably had greater impact than just about any of Obama's at that point in his presidency, but Obama averaged 1.5 more executive orders through this point in his first term than Trump. 

Obama's Democratic majorities in the House and Senate roughly mirror what Trump enjoys today, even with Ted Kennedy suffering his seizure during an Inaugural luncheon, thus removing him from Senate proceedings forever and leaving that seat effectively vacant for a while, as well as the Al Franken-Norm Coleman contest dragging that process of Franken taking his Senate seat until early June of 2009. The Democrats did not quite have a "super-majority" in the Senate just as the Republicans today have an even lesser claim toward having anything close to a "super-majority," but the Democrats nevertheless did have a simple majority while the House was lopsided until the 2010 midterms.


----------



## Reaper

TomahawkJock said:


> You have seen the censoring of FB conservative viewpoints? Wut? Maybe it's because of where I live and the viewpoints of my friends but my feed is filled with such things.


Facebook "censors" in multiple ways. It was already proven a few months ago that they were deliberately picking only left of center news to trend in its trending. 

Even after admitting to that and promising to change, look at the news outlets on my trending: 

ChicagoTribune - Left of center
Slittoday - Left leaning
Theguardian - England's SJW newspaper (they're the ones running the worst Hitler comparisons out of everyone I've read)
NYT - Pretty far left
VanityFair - Far left
Buzzfeed - Far, far left (fake news)
Guardian (again)
Tom Price - ABC (sort of left of center)
BBC - England's left of center which is America's far left
NBC News - Left of center. 

Fox trends maybe once every other day or so. And I've never seen anything from any other right-wing news outlet. 

You also get the same shit on Google's news aggregate with the most left-leaning sites they can find to shove in your face, so I've actually stopping loading their news app since they simply refuse to stop showing me news from Huffpo and a bunch of other horrible "news" sites. 

The funny thing is however, most of the times the top comments on these trending articles is someone bashing the article or the person involved in the story. Meanwhile if you go to RealClear Politics for example, you'll have a story that will give you the left and the right perspective on the same issue.


----------



## DOPA

samizayn said:


> Yeah I do wonder about amnesty, I thought it was extremely rare but apparently it's common? Two decades is a lifetime, really. One the one hand you've already gotten away with it, on the other hand you wonder if there was a noticeably lower quality of those two years because of what you necessarily miss out on. Maybe not I guess


The argument I was making wasn't that it is common but that when it has been tried it hasn't worked. Ronald Reagan for example granted amnesty to illegals and yet it didn't do much to curb illegal immigration. Why? Because if you grant citizenship to illegals not only are you telling people who are thinking about crossing over illegally that you won't punish them but also that you mind even reward them. It did the opposite of deter people away from doing it. That is why I am against amnesty because it has shown in the past to not work.

The reason I thought it was relevant to bring up is the fact that the left and Democrats for years have tried to push this concept. Though to be fair Obama did deport millions in his presidency. That is something a lot of the left and right won't bring up either because they simply don't know or because it doesn't fit their narrative. Which is rather hilarious. You can just see that certain people from both sides of the political spectrum are doing this over the case that is being talked about right now.



samizayn said:


> Yeah for sure, that was meant to be me walking through how and why immigrants come to the US legitimately. There are obviously the ones that have been called over for guaranteed/specific job, which would make the hassle make sense. Especially since these guys often have employers paying for the expense of the documentation procedures. Scholars, researchers etc same thing. I guess logically speaking it must happen, but I don't see how or why lower income people do this without it being a refugee kind of deal, or family I guess. Which is why I mainly spoke on the people of somewhat higher incomes, and why I solicited input from everyone!


If there is a chance for a better life elsewhere and the country involved will accommodate you in terms of letting come over to the country legally and giving you an opportunity to get a decent job and move your way up the economic ladder then people will always want to try and make it happen. Especially if they admire the country they are immigrating to.

It all depends on the immigration system set up. Australia has a very specific system set up only for high earning immigrants for certain jobs. The US from what I understand is more open in terms of who they let in but the vetting process remains vigorous.



samizayn said:


> Perhaps the Asian migrants would be a good example; Eastern Europeans face little to no prohibitive cost for legal migration to wealthier EU countries. Also not familiar with UK immigration system but if you are, please shed some light on how hard it is to do as a non-EU national.


I will tag @RipNTear in this part seeing as he asked something similar I think.

It can be really hard for sure. To give you a real life example, A Sri Lankian guy I know had to re-apply for his work visa because it was running out and it was taking months to process through (I think it's done now but not 100% sure). During that time he could not get it done in time, he essentially went over the time limit for the visa and because of that he had to be let go of his job. This due to the work visa laws here in the UK and the company not wanting to take a chance with someone who was now not under a legal work document/visa. Thankfully immigration and customs here have the sense to allow him to stay in the country whilst everything processes but he has been effected due to how inefficient the visa system here is in the UK.

It's examples like this makes me upset when good, honest people like that are punished for following the rules and procedure whilst illegal immigrants come over and are not punished/found out. Also upsets me when economic migrants posing as refugees are allowed a free pass into the country without being vetted properly when situations like the one I have described happen.

I know someone who has applied for a visa here from Russia so it will be interesting to see how she gets on.


----------



## Reaper

L-DOPA said:


> The reason I thought it was relevant to bring up is the fact that the left and Democrats for years have tried to push this concept. Though to be fair Obama did deport millions in his presidency. That is something a lot of the left and right won't bring up either because they simply don't know or because it doesn't fit their narrative. Which is rather hilarious. You can just see that certain people from both sides of the political spectrum are doing this over the case that is being talked about right now.


Obama's deportations were a lot of smoke and mirrors using high deportation numbers of his first term while the numbers in his second term plummeted. A lot of people on the left simply didn't keep track of the changing numbers over time as they remained transfixed on the deportations during his first term.


----------



## Beatles123

@RipNTear @Miss Sally @DesolationRow @glenwo2 @CamillePunk

Uhh, Lads?!!










ARE WE WINNING??? :trump


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*Damn, we went 8 whole days without the Trump Administration getting a hee haw before another surprising ethics violation:*


----------



## Beatles123

Legit BOSS said:


> *Damn, we went 8 whole days without the Trump Administration getting a hee haw before another surprising ethics violation:*


Why the fuck does that jackwaggon outfit's opinion matter? :lol:


----------



## Arya Dark

Legit BOSS said:


> *Damn, we went 8 whole days without the Trump Administration getting a hee haw before another surprising ethics violation:*



*Hey she received counseling :hglol *


----------



## glenwo2

Hey Arya, Kellyanne looks like what your sig(the blonde girl) would look like 50 years from now. :lol


----------



## Oxidamus

L-DOPA said:


> Secondly, to the best of my knowledge the US does not have points based Australian style system. So in the cases of well off salaried jobs to go to it isn't always the case. I'm sure it is for some people but for others it may be they are legally immigrating simply to move to or with family or that they aren't immigrating to well paid jobs at all. But that really is for someone who lives in the United States to explain it to me.


As an Australian I would like to see if I can comment on this but I don't understand the paragraph. :armfold



RipNTear said:


> "Poor people can commit crimes because they're poor."
> 
> I hope you all feel the same way when someone breaks into your house and steals everything because the person stealing from you is obviously poor and you're a person of means so their crime is justified.
> 
> Just buy more stuff. It wasn't your private property anyways because someone who's poor has more right to it... It doesn't matter if you sweat blood and tears for it. The person who stole from you has more right to it. What a wonderful world that creates.


More reason for my good friend Reaper to see the benefit of social welfare despite it being a bandaid fix! :trump2



Beatles123 said:


> That's because if you're a criminal, you aren't INNOCENT! :cena
> 
> She knew what she was doing and chose to steal someone's identity AND never apply to be legal. She deserves what's coming to her.


I feel a lot of people pick and choose when to use legality as an argument. Like if you don't like something someone did, and it's a crime, people would bring up the law to defend their opinion. And those same people would call other laws stupid and nonsense (ie a lot of those who are pro marijuana). Not that I disagree here, I just find it inconsistent and unfair people choose whether they use legality as a defence, or write it off completely.


----------



## LowRida

Oxi X.O. said:


> I feel a lot of people pick and choose when to use legality as an argument. Like if you don't like something someone did, and it's a crime, people would bring up the law to defend their opinion. And those same people would call other laws stupid and nonsense (ie a lot of those who are pro marijuana). Not that I disagree here, I just find it inconsistent and unfair people choose whether they use legality as a defence, or write it off completely.


Identity theft is a felony and is no joke, at least for the victims.
Her victim was only 14 years old when she scammed his SS# ,,, He says luckily he hasn't had any complications from the IRS, which would have nailed him for tax evasion if unreported income was found.
Most likely reason he didn't have any problems - She was getting paid under the table [just a guess], which would be another crime on her employers part, and probably tax evasion on her part [might be a threshold under which doesn't need to be reported].

So she didn't have a care in the world what kind of problems she might be causing her victim for 8 years - And now we are supposed to care about her ? Just bash down our borders, commit crimes, live here illegally, have babies, ignore deportation orders ,, I just can't quite grasp why they think they are so special and laws just don't apply to them - Maybe that attitude is why her home country is such a wreck. People just in it for themselves, bound by no laws, and not caring what effects their actions might have on others.


----------



## Oxidamus

LowRida said:


> Identity theft is a felony and is no joke, at least for the victims.
> Her victim was only 14 years old when she scammed his SS# ,,, He says luckily he hasn't had any complications from the IRS, which would have nailed him for tax evasion if unreported income was found.
> Most likely reason he didn't have any problems - She was getting paid under the table [just a guess], which would be another crime on her employers part, and probably tax evasion on her part [might be a threshold under which doesn't need to be reported].
> 
> So she didn't have a care in the world what kind of problems she might be causing her victim for 8 years - And now we are supposed to care about her ? Just bash down our borders, commit crimes, live here illegally, have babies, ignore deportation orders ,, I just can't quite grasp why they think they are so special and laws just don't apply to them - Maybe that attitude is why her home country is such a wreck. People just in it for themselves, bound by no laws, and not caring what effects their actions might have on others.


Uhh, I said I didn't disagree. Just pointing out what I think is inconsistency regarding when people use the law as defence of their stance or morals.


----------



## LowRida

Oxi X.O. said:


> Uhh, I said I didn't disagree. Just pointing out what I think is inconsistency regarding when people use the law as defence of their stance or morals.


I saw that part where you claim you don't disagree, you seem to be fishing for excuses and thats what I was addressing. 

Law is law, doesn't really matter if people agree or disagree with it - And in that regards, don't think you'll see a push to legalize identity theft any time soon [as per your MJ comparison].


----------



## Beatles123

Oxi X.O. said:


> Uhh, I said I didn't disagree. Just pointing out what I think is inconsistency regarding when people use the law as defense of their stance or morals.


Meh, I personally am a purist when it comes to law. im not a saint, but it irks me when i see people do even little illegal things beyond a certain reasonable limit.

I could respect the woman if she had at least TRIED to become a citizen (and integrate as an American, which is a whole new ballgame than what we're discussing here) but to me a line has to be drawn after a point.

But hey, this is coming from a borderline authoritarian who thinks weed is degenerate...:shrug


----------



## Oxidamus

LowRida said:


> I saw that part where you claim you don't disagree, you seem to be fishing for excuses and thats what I was addressing.
> 
> Law is law, doesn't really matter if people agree or disagree with it - And in that regards, don't think you'll see a push to legalize identity theft any time soon [as per your MJ comparison].


So we agree then? The law is the law. Don't pick and choose when you use "it's the law" as defence of your stance/opinion?



Beatles123 said:


> Meh, I personally am a purist when it comes to law. im not a saint, but it irks me when i see people do even little illegal things beyond a certain reasonable limit.
> 
> I could respect the woman if she had at least TRIED to become a citizen (and integrate as an American, which is a whole new ballgame than what we're discussing here) but to me a line has to be drawn after a point.
> 
> But hey, this is coming from a borderline authoritarian who thinks weed is degenerate...:shrug


I wasn't trying to say you were being inconsistent. It was just an observation, I see it a lot. 
But I disagree with you very strongly. Some laws are absurdly dumb. Some are great. But I will never try to justify my stance by saying something is illegal and leave it at that, and I can't understand the people who do, which was my point... which was directed at no-one in particular. :lol


----------



## CamillePunk

Oxi X.O. said:


> As an Australian I would like to see if I can comment on this but I don't understand the paragraph. :armfold


A job is where you perform work for someone and then they pay you for it.


----------



## Beatles123

Oxi X.O. said:


> So we agree then? The law is the law. Don't pick and choose when you use "it's the law" as defence of your stance/opinion?
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't trying to say you were being inconsistent. It was just an observation, I see it a lot.
> But I disagree with you very strongly. Some laws are absurdly dumb. Some are great. But I will never try to justify my stance by saying something is illegal and leave it at that, and I can't understand the people who do, which was my point... which was directed at no-one in particular. :lol


Except, you uh..Kinda have to do that? :lol I'm pretty sure if there's a law forbidding something, you don't have the right to go "FUCK THE PO-LICE!" and do it anyway! Sure, you can disagree with a law, but in the end the law doesn't give two shits what you think. Breaking It still will send your ass to jail and it really is that simple. :quite


----------



## Café de René

Damn it, I'm actually legit bummed they shut down Shia LaBeouf' stream, that was a daily dose of entertainment.


----------



## Art Vandaley

Miss Sally said:


> Norman troops were some of the best Europe ever produced. Norman Knights were fearsome and their prowess in battle was felt throughout Europe and even in the first Crusade if I recall correctly. This why the Vikings show annoys me when they disregard Rollo and the entire Norman arc as the Normans pretty much established Anglo-Saxon ways and without them who knows what would have happened.


Yeah that's probably been one of my biggest annoyances with the show, I really liked your post pointing out that they've had it like Rollo just became the leader of a bunch of French people as opposed to the viking settlement Normandy actually was.



Beatles123 said:


> Except, you uh..Kinda have to do that? :lol I'm pretty sure if there's a law forbidding something, you don't have the right to go "FUCK THE PO-LICE!" and do it anyway! Sure, you can disagree with a law, but in the end the law doesn't give two shits what you think. Breaking It still will send your ass to jail and it really is that simple. :quite


I think people have a moral duty to disobey immoral laws.


----------



## LowRida

Oxi X.O. said:


> So we agree then? The law is the law. Don't pick and choose when you use "it's the law" as defence of your stance/opinion?


I'm a realist, always have been.
I am a law abiding citizen and I obey laws, agree or not. Do I really like wasting my time stopping at all those pesky red lights every day ? Not really, but I do it. Wouldn't it be nice if I could just grab any girls tit any time I wanted just for fun ? Maybe, but I'd end up in jail pretty quick, so I don't.
If enough people want a law changed there is a process, the alternative is pretty much anarchy - And our laws, rule of law and citizens that obey them are, by and large, what separates us from the 3rd world.

Might I ask, what angle are you going on with this ?


----------



## Oxidamus

Beatles123 said:


> Except, you uh..Kinda have to do that? :lol I'm pretty sure if there's a law forbidding something, you don't have the right to go "FUCK THE PO-LICE!" and do it anyway! Sure, you can disagree with a law, but in the end the law doesn't give two shits what you think. Breaking It still will send your ass to jail and it really is that simple. :quite





LowRida said:


> I'm a realist, always have been.
> I am a law abiding citizen and I obey laws, agree or not. Do I really like wasting my time stopping at all those pesky red lights every day ? Not really, but I do it. Wouldn't it be nice if I could just grab any girls tit any time I wanted just for fun ? Maybe, but I'd end up in jail pretty quick, so I don't.
> If enough people want a law changed there is a process, the alternative is pretty much anarchy - And our laws, rule of law and citizens that obey them are, by and large, what separates us from the 3rd world.
> 
> Might I ask, what angle are you going on with this ?


I'm not out breaking laws either but I'm not going to pretend that just because a law says it's wrong, means it's wrong. That mindset is one of the many major reasons why dumb laws aren't changed or take a long time to be changed.

I suppose I'm not going anywhere with it. It's just a principle to me. I don't smoke weed and most of the time don't really give a shit about it either, but recreational use being illegal? Stupid. I'm not out seducing teens but one state telling you that you can legally fuck a 16 year old whereas the one next to it says that's illegal and the minimum age is 18 is also dumb as hell. Plus living in [current year] and still having sodomy laws. What's up with that?


----------



## LowRida

Oxi X.O. said:


> I'm not out breaking laws either but I'm not going to pretend that just because a law says it's wrong, means it's wrong. That mindset is one of the many major reasons why dumb laws aren't changed or take a long time to be changed.
> 
> I suppose I'm not going anywhere with it. It's just a principle to me. I don't smoke weed and most of the time don't really give a shit about it either, but recreational use being illegal? Stupid. I'm not out seducing teens but one state telling you that you can legally fuck a 16 year old whereas the one next to it says that's illegal and the minimum age is 18 is also dumb as hell. Plus living in [current year] and still having sodomy laws. What's up with that?


Well, sexual regulation laws can be dicey, very subjective as well.
I sure don't agree with men in drag using restrooms with little girls, apparently quite a few folks think that is perfectly fine.
I personally don't think MJ should be made legal except for strict medicinal uses. 

Quite a topic, I meant as far as relating to this thread and what is being discussed, not in general.


----------



## BruiserKC

This whole immigration thing has led me to come up with a solution that is crazy enough to work...I like to think outside the box.  

Maybe...just maybe...it's time for Congress to do the job we pay them for and start MAKING SOME LAWS! Does Trump have the right to limit who comes in? Yes. Do I think they could have crafted the E.O. a little better and been a little more prudent in getting the wording better before rolling it out to limit the challenge? Yes. 

At the same time...we've had this issue for years. Congress has been consistent in sitting on their ass and doing nothing while this matter festers. Take the matter out of the hands of the President and pass some legislation for him to sign. Start working on the problem and not letting it get even worse.


----------



## DesolationRow

BruiserKC said:


> This whole immigration thing has led me to come up with a solution that is crazy enough to work...I like to think outside the box.
> 
> Maybe...just maybe...it's time for Congress to do the job we pay them for and start MAKING SOME LAWS! Does Trump have the right to limit who comes in? Yes. Do I think they could have crafted the E.O. a little better and been a little more prudent in getting the wording better before rolling it out to limit the challenge? Yes.
> 
> At the same time...we've had this issue for years. Congress has been consistent in sitting on their ass and doing nothing while this matter festers. Take the matter out of the hands of the President and pass some legislation for him to sign. Start working on the problem and not letting it get even worse.


Congress unfortunately lacks the fortitude. Increasingly, since World War II the U.S. government has been increasingly two outstandingly powerful branches vying against one another--executive and judicial--with the vestigial remains of a legislative branch playing an almost nominal role at this point. 

Chapter 12, Sub Chapter 2, Squiggle, 1182 leaves it all clear. The presidency gained greater powers with the emergence of the postmodern national security state. Section F makes it evident: "Whenever the president finds that the entry of aliens or of any class of aliens would be detrimental to the United States, he may by proclamation and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants or impose upon the entry of aliens any restrictions that he may deem to be appropriate." All quite simple. 

And Trump's ninety-day moratorium, placed on six countries which are presently war zones with either no or barely any central government--Sudan and Libya, for instance, among others, only have military airports open right now, provoked so many protests and so much hand-wringing. Ronald Reagan restricted immigration five times; George H.W. Bush, once; Bill Clinton, twelve times; George W. Bush, six times; and Barack Obama, nineteen times, including four times directly on Muslim countries. 

A new executive order may very well be in the offing. Let the games begin, haha!


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Beatles123 said:


> Why the fuck does that jackwaggon outfit's opinion matter? :lol:


*
Maybe because he's the most popular person on the #1 syndicated morning radio show in America, reaching millions of people on various venues such as iHeartRadio, Youtube, and 50+ markets in multiple different states :mj. In other words, it's his job to remind the entire country that the Trump Administration is full of jackasses :curry.*


----------



## Miss Sally

Legit BOSS said:


> *
> Maybe because he's the most popular person on the #1 syndicated morning radio show in America, reaching millions of people on various venues such as iHeartRadio, Youtube, and 50+ markets in multiple different states :mj. In other words, it's his job to remind the entire country that the Trump Administration is full of jackasses :curry.*


Rush Limbaugh is one of the most listened to hosts so does that mean I should believe and agree with everything he says? :wink2:


----------



## Oxidamus

Legit BOSS said:


> *
> Maybe because he's the most popular person on the #1 syndicated morning radio show in America, reaching millions of people on various venues such as iHeartRadio, Youtube, and 50+ markets in multiple different states :mj. In other words, it's his job to remind the entire country that the Trump Administration is full of jackasses :curry.*


Guys here posting YouTube videos from right wing media like The Rebel and right wing media celebs like Milo, so BBR has to come in and post a YouTube video from a left wing source to balance out the bias. :trump


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Miss Sally said:


> Rush Limbaugh is one of the most listened to hosts so does that mean I should believe and agree with everything he says? :wink2:


*I agree with him because he's right, does his research, and uses documented facts and reports to prove his point. That's much different from being an irrational and racist blowhard that rages uncontrollably. *



Oxi X.O. said:


> Guys here posting YouTube videos from right wing media like The Rebel and right wing media celebs like Milo, so BBR has to come in and post a YouTube video from a left wing source to balance out the bias. :trump


*The Donkey of The Day does not discriminate! I've lost count of how many times Trump and his administration have gotten it, but he's given it to Hillary twice as well, and he's had his segments featured on CNN:* http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/07/polit...-gets-political-donald-trump-hillary-clinton/


----------



## Miss Sally

Legit BOSS said:


> *I agree with him because he's right, does his research, and uses documented facts and reports to prove his point. That's much different from being an irrational and racist blowhard that rages uncontrollably. *


Fair enough. Just don't think you can go by popularity and or just one source. I was mostly teasing anyways. DROW makes some good points, maybe you'd like to take a gander at them?


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Miss Sally said:


> Fair enough. Just don't think you can go by popularity and or just one source. I was mostly teasing anyways. DROW makes some good points, maybe you'd like to take a gander at them?


*
I've already pointed out multiple times how Trump's straight up ban differs from Obama's restrictions on dual citizens. I've also pointed out how Trump is a hypocrite for banning countries that have never held attacks on American soil, whilst keeping those who have done it unbanned, simply because he has business ties to them. Trying to justify the racist and religiously discriminatory executive order with what's going on in their countries is irrelevant, because he's banning citizens who want to escape that horrible environment. If anything, we should be welcoming them, because they're not the "bad dudes".*


----------



## Miss Sally

Legit BOSS said:


> *
> I've already pointed out multiple times how Trump's straight up ban differs from Obama's restrictions on dual citizens. I've also pointed out how Trump is a hypocrite for banning countries that have never held attacks on American soil, whilst keeping those who have done it unbanned, simply because he has business ties to them. Trying to justify the racist and religiously discriminatory executive order with what's going on in their countries is irrelevant, because he's banning citizens who want to escape that horrible environment. If anything, we should be welcoming them, because they're not the "bad dudes".*


I cannot agree with just welcoming people because their country is a mess. There will never be 100% stable countries everywhere. At least a billion people are living in poverty that's terrible and the Earth's population is rising, do you really think we can take in all these people? To what end does our obligation end? Most of South America is poor, do we take those millions and millions of people as well? Or are you saying we should be selective who we bring in? 

Nobody has a right to immigrate, the US isn't obligated to accept anyone and halting people from other countries isn't racist, if that's the case then the entire world is racist. Let's also not pretend Islam doesn't have major issues. If anything there needs to be stricter vetting like Canada and most other places have.

What you're saying is pretty vague on what exactly the plan or solution should be.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Miss Sally said:


> I cannot agree with just welcoming people because their country is a mess. There will never be 100% stable countries everywhere. At least a billion people are living in poverty that's terrible and the Earth's population is rising, do you really think we can take in all these people? To what end does our obligation end? Most of South America is poor, do we take those millions and millions of people as well? Or are you saying we should be selective who we bring in?
> 
> Nobody has a right to immigrate, the US isn't obligated to accept anyone and halting people from other countries isn't racist, if that's the case then the entire world is racist. Let's also not pretend Islam doesn't have major issues. If anything there needs to be stricter vetting like Canada and most other places have.
> 
> What you're saying is pretty vague on what exactly the plan or solution should be.


*Considering that America was founded by Europeans seeking religious freedom and refuge from tyranny, yeah, that's kind of what we stand for. If you want to use radical Islam as justification, then we should probably ban all Christians since radical Christians have committed tens of thousands of murders, and founded the KKK. It's baffling that you talk about me being vague while you have still failed to acknowledge that Trump has blatantly ignored violent Middle Eastern countries that have business ties with him. If he really cares about American safety, then the ones left out of the ban should've been at the top of the list. This is yet another conflict of interest and ethical issue. And every time he writes another bullshit EO like that, it will continue to be rejected by federal judges for being baseless, illegal, and unconstitutional: * https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/09/us/politics/appeals-court-trump-travel-ban.html?_r=0



> WASHINGTON — A federal appeals panel on Thursday unanimously rejected President Trump’s bid to reinstate his ban on travel into the United States from seven largely Muslim nations, a sweeping rebuke of the administration’s claim that the courts have no role as a check on the president.
> 
> The three-judge panel, suggesting that the ban did not advance national security, said the administration had shown “no evidence” that anyone from the seven nations — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — had committed terrorist acts in the United States.
> 
> The ruling also rejected Mr. Trump’s claim that courts are powerless to review a president’s national security assessments. Judges have a crucial role to play in a constitutional democracy, the court said.
> 
> “It is beyond question,” the decision said, “that the federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action.”
> 
> The decision was handed down by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco. It upheld a ruling last Friday by a federal district judge, James L. Robart, who blocked key parts of the travel ban, allowing thousands of foreigners to enter the country.


----------



## Miss Sally

Legit BOSS said:


> *Considering that America was founded by Europeans seeking religious freedom and refuge from tyranny, yeah, that's kind of what we stand for. If you want to use radical Islam as justification, then we should probably ban all Christians since radical Christians have committed tens of thousands of murders, and founded the KKK. It's baffling that you talk about me being vague while you have still failed to acknowledge that Trump has blatantly ignored violent Middle Eastern countries that have business ties with him. If he really cares about American safety, then the ones left out of the ban should've been at the top of the list. This is yet another conflict of interest and ethical issue. And every time he writes another bullshit EO like that, it will continue to be rejected by federal judges for being baseless, illegal, and unconstitutional: * https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/09/us/politics/appeals-court-trump-travel-ban.html?_r=0


You must remind me how many Christian terrorist attacks to Islamic attacks happened world wide?

That being said radical Islam is an issue, an issue for some reason people like to ignore and pretend it doesn't happen. Not all Muslim countries were banned, only certain ones so how can it be a full Islamic ban when there are Muslims coming in from all parts of the world still? I certainly agree about Saudi Arabia and the like, they should be banned as well.



DesolationRow said:


> Congress unfortunately lacks the fortitude. Increasingly, since World War II the U.S. government has been increasingly two outstandingly powerful branches vying against one another--executive and judicial--with the vestigial remains of a legislative branch playing an almost nominal role at this point.
> 
> Chapter 12, Sub Chapter 2, Squiggle, 1182 leaves it all clear. The presidency gained greater powers with the emergence of the postmodern national security state. Section F makes it evident: "Whenever the president finds that the entry of aliens or of any class of aliens would be detrimental to the United States, he may by proclamation and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants or impose upon the entry of aliens any restrictions that he may deem to be appropriate." All quite simple.
> 
> And Trump's ninety-day moratorium, placed on six countries which are presently war zones with either no or barely any central government--Sudan and Libya, for instance, among others, only have military airports open right now, provoked so many protests and so much hand-wringing. Ronald Reagan restricted immigration five times; George H.W. Bush, once; Bill Clinton, twelve times; George W. Bush, six times; and Barack Obama, nineteen times, including four times directly on Muslim countries.
> 
> A new executive order may very well be in the offing. Let the games begin, haha!


Here you can read what DROW posted, again you say it's illegal and unconstitutional yet it doesn't appear it is.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Miss Sally said:


> You must remind me how many Christian terrorist attacks to Islamic attacks happened world wide?


http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-a...ks-extreme-christians-and-far-right-white-men

*That's just to get you started with attacks on American soil. Considering the score is already 10-0 against the previously selected 7 countries, you have no legitimate justification for them being banned.*



> That being said radical Islam is an issue, an issue for some reason people like to ignore and pretend it doesn't happen. Not all Muslim countries were banned, only certain ones so how can it be a full Islamic ban when there are Muslims coming in from all parts of the world still? I certainly agree about Saudi Arabia and the like, they should be banned as well.


*Again, radical Islamic terrorism on US soil is non-existent by any citizens of the countries Trump selected for banning. Ironically, several of the ones he didn't ban(because he has business ties with them) have committed some form of terrorism on on US soil, which means you once again have no legitimate justification for them being banned.
*


> Here you can read what DROW posted, again you say it's illegal and unconstitutional yet it doesn't appear it is.


*I'm not repeating myself again.*


----------



## BruiserKC

DesolationRow said:


> Congress unfortunately lacks the fortitude. Increasingly, since World War II the U.S. government has been increasingly two outstandingly powerful branches vying against one another--executive and judicial--with the vestigial remains of a legislative branch playing an almost nominal role at this point.
> 
> Chapter 12, Sub Chapter 2, Squiggle, 1182 leaves it all clear. The presidency gained greater powers with the emergence of the postmodern national security state. Section F makes it evident: "Whenever the president finds that the entry of aliens or of any class of aliens would be detrimental to the United States, he may by proclamation and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants or impose upon the entry of aliens any restrictions that he may deem to be appropriate." All quite simple.
> 
> And Trump's ninety-day moratorium, placed on six countries which are presently war zones with either no or barely any central government--Sudan and Libya, for instance, among others, only have military airports open right now, provoked so many protests and so much hand-wringing. Ronald Reagan restricted immigration five times; George H.W. Bush, once; Bill Clinton, twelve times; George W. Bush, six times; and Barack Obama, nineteen times, including four times directly on Muslim countries.
> 
> A new executive order may very well be in the offing. Let the games begin, haha!


Very true. At the same time, none of those restrictions could have been directly tied to a specific group (Muslims). While there is no doubt Trump used the previous President's laws to act on this (the nations all under previous legislation signed by BHO himself), I still feel he rushed this out there too quickly just to say "I did what I promised." You have to make sure every I is dotted and T is crossed in the right fashion. 

Meanwhile, while he didn't intend for it to be a Muslim ban (I don't believe it was, IMO), this is where his words start coming back to haunt him. During the course of the campaign, he specifically said maybe we need to have a ban on Muslims entering this country until we can get them vetted properly. Some might use the argument that he uses extreme examples to start with as part of negotiations or in how he speaks so that eventually he gets something in the middle closer to what he is seeking. However, the moment it came out, people went into action because they truly fear he is actually going to follow through on the extreme of what he said. With as much paranoia and people walking on eggshells right now over every little thing, you have to show a little bit of prudence and make sure that there is as little wiggle room as possible. The niceties can be a pain in the ass, but they are there for a reason. 

At the same time, Congress now needs to move forward, especially considering all we've been hearing for the last six years is "Give us the Senate, the House, and the White House, and all your dreams will come true." You have it all now, GOP...start actually earning your paycheck and actually do what we sent you to Washington and pay you to do.


----------



## stevefox1200

This is why a I vote for boring congressmen and governors

They understand that spicy domestic matters are distractions to economic, foreign relation and military concerns 

Trump meeting with Japan's PM and confirming the US/Japan alliance and Mattis going to Europe to do a large scale discussion with the other NATO SODs is far more important than than this deport fest that is going on


----------



## samizayn

glenwo2 said:


> Yes he did and I guess apparently it's against the fucking law to post in all-caps on twitter to show your frustration. Guess I better re-read the fucking rules, huh? fpalm
> 
> No. Obama didn't because he didn't have the entire fucking Media out to destroy him. Have you been paying attention at all?
> 
> Anyway, he's doing the "executive order" thing to show the American people that voted for him that unlike his predecessors, he won't DRAG HIS FEET(so to speak) in trying to get shit done.
> 
> Was she an idiot when she was attacking Trump? Probably not. #LEFTdoublestandard
> 
> 
> EDIT : I misread that part of your post as you saying she is an idiot but idiot or not, the LEFT wasn't complaining much when she was attacking TRUMP. Now that she's in his corner, she's Evil Personified.



Put it this way: If you received that exact text in a work email would you take it seriously? Or would you forward it to all of your friends so they could all laugh at it? Of course, a tweet is not an email, but the point is online comport matters as much as the in-person does. It's not that people are trying to lynch Trump for this, it's that it's concerning that he doesn't seem to fully grasp something his contemporaries (age and education wise) have no problem doing. It's just weird, and that's what makes it funny!

Kellyanne Conway has been in the media this entire time and this is the first instance of her being caught in a flagrant, obvious lie. Don't cry about "they never did it before" if it didn't happen before, come on my guy.


----------



## Beatles123

Legit BOSS said:


> *
> Maybe because he's the most popular person on the #1 syndicated morning radio show in America, reaching millions of people on various venues such as iHeartRadio, Youtube, and 50+ markets in multiple different states :mj. In other words, it's his job to remind the entire country that the Trump Administration is full of jackasses :curry.*


nah, pretty sure that only applies to those of your opinion.

__________

Edit:

"DEPORTATION LAWS ARE BA-----"










You're welcome! :trump3


----------



## stevefox1200

Legit BOSS said:


> http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-a...ks-extreme-christians-and-far-right-white-men
> 
> *That's just to get you started with attacks on American soil. Considering the score is already 10-0 against the previously selected 7 countries, you have no legitimate justification for them being banned.*
> 
> 
> 
> *Again, radical Islamic terrorism on US soil is non-existent by any citizens of the countries Trump selected for banning. Ironically, several of the ones he didn't ban(because he has business ties with them) have committed some form of terrorism on on US soil, which means you once again have no legitimate justification for them being banned.
> *
> 
> 
> *I'm not repeating myself again.*


lets run AlterNet through my favorite site https://mediabiasfactcheck.com

lets see the rundown



> "These media sources are highly biased toward liberal causes. They utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage liberal causes. Sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Left Bias sources.
> 
> Factual Reporting: MIXED
> 
> Notes: AlterNet is a liberal activist news service and a project of the non-profit Independent Media Institute that Launched in 1998. Very strong left wing bias through report choices and strongly worded headlines. Some articles are sourced to other biased sources and may need a fact check"


and for balance here is Brietbart



> "These media sources are highly biased toward conservative causes. They utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Right Bias sources.
> 
> Factual Reporting: MIXED
> 
> Notes: Breitbart News Network is a politically conservative American news and opinion website founded in 2007 by conservative commentator and entrepreneur Andrew Breitbart (1969–2012). It also has a daily radio program, Breitbart News Daily. The content ranges from extreme right wing bias to conspiracy. Breitbart has been accused of publishing fake news for the purpose of a political agenda.
> 
> Update: As of 8/17/16 Stephen Bannon, the executive chairman of Breitbart News LLC, will become Donald Trumps campaign’s chief executive. This move ensures that Breitbart will become the official media outlet and propaganda wing for Donald Trump’s Presidential bid.
> 
> Update: After the election 2016 Stephen Bannon was named Adviser to President-Elect Donald Trump."


I putting all you "editorial that proves I am right" people on notice


----------



## DesolationRow

BruiserKC said:


> Very true. At the same time, none of those restrictions could have been directly tied to a specific group (Muslims). While there is no doubt Trump used the previous President's laws to act on this (the nations all under previous legislation signed by BHO himself), I still feel he rushed this out there too quickly just to say "I did what I promised." You have to make sure every I is dotted and T is crossed in the right fashion.
> 
> Meanwhile, while he didn't intend for it to be a Muslim ban (I don't believe it was, IMO), this is where his words start coming back to haunt him. During the course of the campaign, he specifically said maybe we need to have a ban on Muslims entering this country until we can get them vetted properly. Some might use the argument that he uses extreme examples to start with as part of negotiations or in how he speaks so that eventually he gets something in the middle closer to what he is seeking. However, the moment it came out, people went into action because they truly fear he is actually going to follow through on the extreme of what he said. With as much paranoia and people walking on eggshells right now over every little thing, you have to show a little bit of prudence and make sure that there is as little wiggle room as possible. The niceties can be a pain in the ass, but they are there for a reason.
> 
> At the same time, Congress now needs to move forward, especially considering all we've been hearing for the last six years is "Give us the Senate, the House, and the White House, and all your dreams will come true." You have it all now, GOP...start actually earning your paycheck and actually do what we sent you to Washington and pay you to do.


Well it's interesting that the 9th Circuit could have followed what the Justice Department allowed, which would have been striking down elements of the TRO which were deemed "too broad." The Ninth Circuit's ruling disregarded the plainspoken White House directive concerning the exemptions which the Ninth Circuit was looking for, and this is why the president will probably be drawing a new executive order. Ultimately it's immaterial what Trump said on the campaign trail, and even if it were fine for the Ninth Circuit to weigh it as a piece of evidence, it was wrong to come to a ruling based on that information. That would be the case with any other president. Barack Obama's wailing over, say, _Citizens United_, were he to issue an executive order (ha!) endeavoring to overturn the Supreme Court ruling, as a hypothetical example, should not have any bearing on the constitutionality of the executive order. In this instance the law could not be clearer; the District Court judge as well as the Ninth Circuit court simply do not hold the constitutional power to interfere with what has been left to the executive branch as per the express writing in the law. The judiciary has engendered a constitutional crisis based on the commander-in-chief's powers as defined by Article II of the Constitution as well as the statutory authority. 

Trump will likely follow Attorney General Sessions's advice, but it will probably mean a new executive order being drawn to meet the burdens imposed by the Ninth Circuit and sending it back to the courts, and if so, the Supreme Court will almost surely uphold the presidential power as it has been understood for two-thirds of a century.

A most useful article: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/r...slim-countries-trump-targeted/article/2614582



> Report: 72 convicted of terrorism from 'Trump 7' mostly Muslim countries
> By Paul Bedard (@SecretsBedard) • 2/11/17 10:13 AM
> 
> Since 9/11, 72 individuals from the seven mostly Muslim countries covered by President Trump's "extreme vetting" executive order have been convicted of terrorism, a finding that clashes sharply with claims from an appeals court that there is "no evidence" those countries have produced a terrorist.
> 
> According to a report out Saturday, at least 17 claimed to be refugees from those nations, three came in as "students," and 25 eventually became U.S. citizens.
> 
> The Center for Immigration Studies calculated the numbers of convicted terrorists from the Trump Seven:
> 
> — Somalia: 20
> 
> — Yemen: 19
> 
> — Iraq: 19
> 
> — Syria: 7
> 
> — Iran: 4
> 
> — Libya: 2
> 
> — Sudan: 1
> 
> The Center's director of policy studies, Jessica M. Vaughan, based her blockbuster report on a 2016 report from the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, then chaired by new Attorney General Jeff Sessions, that report found that 380 out of 580 people convicted in terror cases since 9/11 were foreign-born.
> 
> She received further information on many in the report to conclude that 72 of those convicted of terrorism come from the seven nations target by Trump.
> 
> From her report seen here:
> 
> These immigrant terrorists lived in at least 16 different states, with the largest number from the terror-associated countries living in New York (10), Minnesota (8), California (8), and Michigan (6). Ironically, Minnesota was one of the states suing to block Trump's order to pause entries from the terror-associated countries, claiming it harmed the state. At least two of the terrorists were living in Washington, which joined with Minnesota in the lawsuit to block the order.
> 
> Thirty-three of the 72 individuals from the seven terror-associated countries were convicted of very serious terror-related crimes, and were sentenced to at least three years imprisonment. The crimes included use of a weapon of mass destruction, conspiracy to commit a terror act, material support of a terrorist or terror group, international money laundering conspiracy, possession of explosives or missiles, and unlawful possession of a machine gun.
> 
> In dismissing the Trump executive order, San Francisco's Ninth Circuit court of appeals said, "The government has pointed to no evidence...that any alien from any of the countries named in the order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States."
> 
> Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner's "Washington Secrets" columnist, can be contacted at [email protected]


Ah, Ninth Circuit. You truly are a wonderment. Yet another hallmark of justice in San Francisco. 


You are 100% right about the sniveling Republican in Congress, led by the supine Paul Ryan. Now they are ostensibly attempting to walk back their previously stated efforts to roll back Obamacare and Obamacare-initiated taxes. Pathetic. Haha.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-02-11-08-24-50



> GOP dilemma on health law taxes: To repeal or not to repeal?
> 
> By ALAN FRAM
> Associated Press
> 
> WASHINGTON (AP) -- Republicans love cutting taxes, especially if they were authored by a president named Barack Obama. But as they push their wobbly effort to erase his health care overhaul, they're divided over whether to repeal the levies the law imposed to finance its expanded coverage for millions of Americans.
> 
> It's a trillion-dollar dilemma - actually closer to $1.1 trillion. That's the 10-year price tag the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office puts on revenue the government would lose if the law's taxes on wealthy people, the insurance and pharmaceutical industries and others were eliminated.
> 
> Republicans and President Donald Trump have been edging away from their promise to quickly eliminate Obama's entire law. Still, annulling its taxes would be a partial victory and is irresistible for many GOP lawmakers and the conservative voters at the core of their support.
> 
> "We should do full repeal," said Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, a leading House conservative. "And full repeal means not taking the taxes" from people.
> 
> Yet voiding those levies erases a mammoth war chest Republicans would love to have - and may well need - as they try replacing Obama's law. It's a major rift GOP leaders face as they try crafting a health care package that can pass Congress.
> 
> "These are sources of revenue you just can't discount," said Rep. Patrick Meehan, R-Pa., a member of the Tuesday Group of GOP pragmatists. He said the money could help "create a soft landing and coverage for those who currently rely on Obamacare."
> 
> Republicans know they'll need tons of cash, whatever they devise. The figure is currently unknown.
> 
> "Whatever we do in replacement is going to cost some money, and is there a way to generate money if we ditch all the Obamacare tax revenues or not? That's where we haven't achieved consensus," said No. 2 Senate GOP leader John Cornyn of Texas, who supports erasing the levies.
> 
> Killing the taxes leads Republicans to other tough decisions.
> 
> If the taxes are repealed and they need money for their replacement plan, do they pay for it with higher federal deficits? Do they deeply cut Medicaid, which provides health care for low-income people, or carve savings from Medicare, which serves the elderly? Might they raise other taxes, something that's been anathema to Republicans for decades?
> 
> "There's going to be a temptation for policymakers to take the easy way out" and simply let deficits rise, said Maya MacGuineas, president of the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. She said for Republicans promising for decades to improve the nation's fiscal health, that choice "is going to look hypocritical."
> 
> The GOP has different options for preserving revenues, like phasing in repeals of taxes or eliminating some while retaining others. Participants say Obama's taxes on medical device makers and on insurance and pharmaceutical companies seem among the likeliest to go.
> 
> Still, with solid Democratic opposition a certainty, GOP leaders such as House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., face pressure to find a tax sweet spot without enraging part of their party or threatening the entire effort.
> 
> Last summer, Ryan offered a campaign proposal with scant detail to replace Obama's law with tax credits, expanded health savings accounts and other steps. It would repeal all of the statute's tax increases.
> 
> It also proposed new taxes on the part of employer-provided health insurance that exceeds an unspecified level. The blueprint says it would affect "only the most generous plans."
> 
> Such coverage is currently not taxed, and supporters say the idea would prod companies and workers away from overly costly insurance. Its fate is uncertain.
> 
> Besides financing their replacement programs, Republicans will need additional billions to deliver on their pledge to not abruptly halt coverage for the 20 million people receiving it under Obama's law. That means covering them during a transition period of perhaps two years or more until new GOP programs begin.
> 
> The health insurance industry has warned it will need billions in federal payments that companies currently receive to continue during that transition. The money subsidizes out-of-pocket costs like deductibles and copays for millions of lower-earning customers.
> 
> Last year, a federal judge agreed with House Republicans that Obama's law didn't authorize that spending. If the Trump administration and congressional Republicans declare victory and halt those payments, that could force companies to boost rates or abandon markets.
> 
> That's an outcome Republicans want to avoid, so Congress may be asked to provide some of that money.
> 
> "We could be asked to take a very, very tough vote to stabilize the insurance market," said Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas, who heads a House health subcommittee.
> 
> "They're in a hell of a bind," said Joseph Antos, health policy expert at the conservative American Enterprise Institute.
> 
> © 2017 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.


----------



## Art Vandaley

DesolationRow said:


> Ultimately it's immaterial what Trump said on the campaign trail, and even if it were fine for the Ninth Circuit to weigh it as a piece of evidence, it was wrong to come to a ruling based on that information. That would be the case with any other president. Barack Obama's wailing over, say, _Citizens United_, were he to issue an executive order (ha!) endeavoring to overturn the Supreme Court ruling, as a hypothetical example, should not have any bearing on the constitutionality of the executive order.


How about this is another theoretical Obama example, lets say in the lead up to the 08 election he'd been out in left wing parts of America promising to "take everyone's guns" he was on record saying "we are going to take away peoples right to bear arms". 

Then after getting elected by executive order did a bunch of stuff that took away guns from a huge amount of people, lets say it was a list of guns Bush had put together that were of particular risk to be leaked to the Mexican cartels (remember Obama's list was not a list of places that were security concerns, it was a list of countries who's governments fund terror) and then when it came to the question of constitutionality it was argued that the court's shouldn't be even allowed to consider what Obama had said his motive's were when investigating his motives?


----------



## Vic Capri

Trump writing a second ban order to piss off the liberals more. Never give up! :lol



> I've also pointed out how Trump is a hypocrite for banning countries that have never held attacks on American soil, whilst keeping those who have done it unbanned, simply because he has business ties to them.


There goes Legit Boss with his speculation and conspiracy theories again.










- Vic


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> Then after getting elected by executive order did a bunch of stuff that took away guns from a huge amount of people, lets say it was a list of guns Bush had put together that were of particular risk to be leaked to the Mexican cartels (remember Obama's list was not a list of places that were security concerns, it was a list of countries who's governments fund terror) and then when it came to the question of constitutionality it was argued that the court's shouldn't be even allowed to consider what Obama had said his motive's were when investigating his motives?


It's called a backdoor ban and he has already implemented several bans without them being contested in courts but then reversed by Republicans under Trump. This shit (i.e. Presidents passing laws/rules that the other party doesn't like happens a lot just as much as there is sometimes partisan agreement. The difference is that this is the first time people are actually caring enough to learn and know - but mostly people don't do their research anyways before saying a bunch of stuff that they think is a damaging argument. 












> By Kevin Ryan - Republicans in the House of Representatives passed a bill last week reversing a gun rule adopted in the final days of the Obama administration that allowed the Social Security Administration to ban the sale of guns to people who use a representative to help manage Supplemental Security Income funds due to a mental disability. The rule was the latest in a series of laws and regulations that, taken together, are growing into a sort of backdoor ban on firearms.
> 
> It would have added to the government's list of people forbidden from owning firearms. Between 2006 and 2014, the number of prohibited persons on the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) has increased by 200%. During the same time, the U.S. population only grew by 6%.
> 
> 12/31/2006: 4,310,441 people
> 12/31/2014: 12,881,223 people
> 
> Although many of the categories included on the list are seemingly justified, such as felons and illegals, the problem is that the government can manipulate the definitions of each category to include more and more people if they wanted to. In that way, a sort of back door firearms ban could be put in place.
> 
> Take for example the category of people deemed "mentally unfit" to own a firearm. It increased from 299,000 people to 3,775,000 people, a staggering 1,164 percent. While it might seem logical that those who are mentally unfit shouldn't have access to firearms, by changing the definition of mentally unfit to mean anyone who sees a psychiatrist or takes an antidepressant, one could easily prohibit a sizable portion of the country from owning firearms.
> 
> Likewise for the category of people prohibited of owning a firearm because they've committed certain crimes. Increase the list of crimes that disqualify ownership and you decrease ownership. Or add people on the do-not-fly list or the Terrorist Screening Database, as Diane Feinstein wants to do, and you add another 1 million names.
> 
> It's the type of backdoor ban that politicians have been trying to accomplish lately with ammo taxes and micro-labeling requirements that would make gun ownership too expensive. Except in the Criminal Background Check System, you have a program that is very popular with Americans, which would make a backdoor firearms ban politically easier to accomplish.


It's almost like the pages I follow make the counter-arguments for non-American's ridiculous arguments in advance or something.

Anyways, the point here is that the courts on the 9th circuit did not rule fairly as courts are sometimes apt to do in order to favor a particular political bias which is evident. Note that none of the courts actually bothered to address the legality or constitutionality of the Order. Just a bunch of hypothezing on intent, past words (words that are not part of the order itself) and assumed intent based on potential harm or injury. 

The crux of the matter is that the courts are required to prove harm or injury to the victim and no actual harm or injury has occurred (it's not harm or injury when someone is not allowed into the country at all) so they've had to rule based on potentiality of harm which is something that is a loophole around the core constitutional power of the President. Courts can make that argument but the justification isn't based on outright illegality or unconstitutionality of the order itself because they can't make that argument.

Think about it this way. This is the same case as if someone said that they will kill a black person because they're black at one point. Then they go out and kill a black man, however their intent at the time was not to kill a black man because he was black, but because that black man was sleeping with his wife. The court cannot charge this as a hate crime anymore but rather a crime of passion. It would be wrong for the court to judge this as a hate crime. This is kind of what they're doing with Trump's EO at the moment. In fact, it's an even weaker argument because there is no victim.


----------



## DesolationRow

Alkomesh2 said:


> How about this is another theoretical Obama example, lets say in the lead up to the 08 election he'd been out in left wing parts of America promising to "take everyone's guns" he was on record saying "we are going to take away peoples right to bear arms".
> 
> Then after getting elected by executive order did a bunch of stuff that took away guns from a huge amount of people, lets say it was a list of guns Bush had put together that were of particular risk to be leaked to the Mexican cartels (remember Obama's list was not a list of places that were security concerns, it was a list of countries who's governments fund terror) and then when it came to the question of constitutionality it was argued that the court's shouldn't be even allowed to consider what Obama had said his motive's were when investigating his motives?


My language was probably too loose previously. No problem with the Ninth Circuit weighing Trump's words on the campaign trail, but at the same time, it was wrong for that evidence to matter insofar as it matters not, all that matters is the legality and constitutionality of the suspension of immigration allowed from certain countries. 

Same thing goes for Obama. The motives may be interesting to know and could be ruled as fair game to be considered by the courts but whether Obama had declared he'd collect all of the guns in America and melt them down or if he never said a word about the issue should not have any sway in determining the constitutionality, or lack thereof, of the action. 

Hope that clears up my meaning.


----------



## LowRida

Alkomesh2 said:


> How about this is another theoretical Obama example, lets say in the lead up to the 08 election he'd been out in left wing parts of America promising to "take everyone's guns" he was on record saying "we are going to take away peoples right to bear arms".
> 
> Then after getting elected by executive order did a bunch of stuff that took away guns from a huge amount of people, lets say it was a list of guns Bush had put together that were of particular risk to be leaked to the Mexican cartels (remember Obama's list was not a list of places that were security concerns, it was a list of countries who's governments fund terror) and then when it came to the question of constitutionality it was argued that the court's shouldn't be even allowed to consider what Obama had said his motive's were when investigating his motives?


A bit of a convoluted & nonsensical analogy - Where is Obamas legal authority to take away any guns, regardless of what he said previously ?

Where is Trumps legal authority to impose bans on particular people from particular countries ?
Why, right here !

"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate." [Act 212(b) | USCIS]

Really not to hard to figure out what happened here.

Soros funded left wing groups went shopping for attorneys/judges

Soros Fingerprints All Over Anti-Trump Lawsuits
Billionaire leftist teams up with Democrat attorneys general to bury administration in legal challenges 

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/soros-fingerprints-all-over-anti-trump-lawsuits/

And cherry picked courts where they knew it would end up in the dingbat crazy leftist 9th circuit in SAN FRANCISCO. Result - Activist unelected judges subvert presidential authority ,,, And this great left wing, democrat victory allows 1,000's of muslims to flood into the USA. Whether or not any of them try to blow us up, they will all be living on our backs into eternity as a time we are wallowing in debt.
So no, I don't think its a good idea to import "refugees" from half way around the world and subsidize them, yes I think the court ruling was a sham and will soon be demolished.


----------



## virus21




----------



## Art Vandaley

RipNTear said:


> Think about it this way. This is the same case as if someone said that they will kill a black person because they're black at one point. Then they go out and kill a black man, however their intent at the time was not to kill a black man because he was black, but because that black man was sleeping with his wife. The court cannot charge this as a hate crime anymore but rather a crime of passion. It would be wrong for the court to judge this as a hate crime. This is kind of what they're doing with Trump's EO at the moment.


There has been no intervening incident between Trumps statement of intent an the act that would lead a court to believe it was no longer his intent though. I'd accept things would be different if say, if there was a terrorist attack tomorrow committed by someone from Saudi Arabia and Trump issued a travel ban on people from Saudi Arabia, in such an instance it would be hard to point back to his Muslim ban comments. But here we lack any intervening incident which would wipe away the evidence of intent. 



RipNTear said:


> The crux of the matter is that the courts are required to prove harm or injury to the victim and no actual harm or injury has occurred (it's not harm or injury when someone is not allowed into the country at all) so they've had to rule based on potentiality of harm which is something that is a loophole around the core constitutional power of the President. Courts can make that argument but the justification isn't based on outright illegality or unconstitutionality of the order itself because they can't make that argument.


Tbf at this point they aren't actually considering the constitutionality of the order, they're merely considering whether to stop the order being enforced until a court can look at whether it is constitutional. 

Also the harm alleged isn't to the people not being let in, the harm alleged is to the people who live in a country which grants them the right to freedom from a state religion and are now having a state religion imposed by an immigration policy which discriminates on the basis of religion. 



DesolationRow said:


> My language was probably too loose previously. No problem with the Ninth Circuit weighing Trump's words on the campaign trail, but at the same time, it was wrong for that evidence to matter insofar as it matters not, all that matters is the legality and constitutionality of the suspension of immigration allowed from certain countries.
> 
> Same thing goes for Obama. The motives may be interesting to know and could be ruled as fair game to be considered by the courts but whether Obama had declared he'd collect all of the guns in America and melt them down or if he never said a word about the issue should not have any sway in determining the constitutionality, or lack thereof, of the action.
> 
> Hope that clears up my meaning.


Sorry I see what you're saying, I don't necessarily agree though haha,

To me the constitutionality of the action really comes down to intent, did he intend to ban Muslims, in which case its unconstitutional (even Trumps lawyers have conceded that a ban on Muslims would likely be unconstitutional) or is he merely acting in the interests of national security?

On one hand you have:
- him saying that its about Muslims
- the list he used isn't a list put together of countries with national security concerns 

On the other
- his justification for banning Muslims had its basis in national security 
- he's the President and it has long been accepted that the President can ban groups of people on the basis of national security concerns

I mean this could really go either way, and its not like if this particular EO is unconstitutional (and I honestly think the fact that the list was put together for an entirely different purpose than the one they are claiming to use it for is kinda fatal) that Trump can't just pass another better written more thought out one that can purposely avoid the pitfalls set by any decision blocking this one. 



LowRida said:


> A bit of a convoluted & nonsensical analogy - Where is Obamas legal authority to take away any guns, regardless of what he said previously ?
> Where is Trumps legal authority to impose bans on particular people from particular countries ?
> Why, right here !
> 
> "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate." [Act 212(b) | USCIS]
> 
> Really not to hard to figure out what happened here.
> 
> Soros funded left wing groups went shopping for attorneys/judges
> 
> Soros Fingerprints All Over Anti-Trump Lawsuits
> Billionaire leftist teams up with Democrat attorneys general to bury administration in legal challenges
> 
> http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/soros-fingerprints-all-over-anti-trump-lawsuits/
> 
> And cherry picked courts where they knew it would end up in the dingbat crazy leftist 9th circuit in SAN FRANCISCO. Result - Activist unelected judges subvert presidential authority ,,, And this great left wing, democrat victory allows 1,000's of muslims to flood into the USA. Whether or not any of them try to blow us up, they will all be living on our backs into eternity as a time we are wallowing in debt.
> So no, I don't think its a good idea to import "refugees" from half way around the world and subsidize them, yes I think the court ruling was a sham and will soon be demolished.


The religious freedom clause of the American Constitution is not a ridiculous technicality, its a fundamentally important point to the health of the American system of governance. 

@DesolationRow Probably knows a lot more about this than me, but my understanding is that it's all about preventing America from ever becoming either a Catholic or Protestant nation so as to prevent a repeat of the wars of religion that were ongoing in Europe at the time. 

People not that long ago in europe were being massacred in ludicrous numbers during wars between protestant countries and catholic countries, its why the freedom from a state religion is important. And any attempt to advantage the immigration of one religion over another would be a breach of that and lead the country down a dark path.

Whatever Congress may have said, they can't overrule the Constitution.


----------



## Hencheman_21

Trump and his tax returns

pre-election: I can release them right now because I am being audited 

post-election: I will not release them now that I won

Conclusion: There is something in them he does not want the people to see. Funny this is from the guy who kept on about Obama's birth certificate even after the GOP Governor of Hawaii confirmed Obama was born there. 


Never change Trump. If nothing else, you will make George W Bush's terms seem not as bad. >


----------



## Stinger Fan

Legit BOSS said:


> http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-a...ks-extreme-christians-and-far-right-white-men
> 
> *That's just to get you started with attacks on American soil. Considering the score is already 10-0 against the previously selected 7 countries, you have no legitimate justification for them being banned.*
> 
> 
> 
> *Again, radical Islamic terrorism on US soil is non-existent by any citizens of the countries Trump selected for banning. Ironically, several of the ones he didn't ban(because he has business ties with them) have committed some form of terrorism on on US soil, which means you once again have no legitimate justification for them being banned.
> *
> 
> 
> *I'm not repeating myself again.*


That list is a joke and just goes to show you how vastly different "Christian terrorism" is to Islamic terrorism , they're not even remotely comparable. Breaking down that list, they only come up with 9 actual cases. When you combine the deaths you get 18 deaths total over the span of 30 years as the "worst" of all time. Don't get me wrong, 1 death is too many but if it takes 9 different cases to get under 20 then maybe you need to stop over exaggerating "Christian terrorism". The Orlando Night Club shooting had 50 fatalities in one day . The Oregon School shooter was an atheist who killed 9 Christians which is half that list comprises. Even number 10 on that list is stretching, the motivations not only had nothing to do with Christianity, the guy himself claimed he wasn't even that religious by the time the attack occurred. But 10 is a nice round number...


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> Also the harm alleged isn't to the people not being let in, the harm alleged is to the people who live in a country which grants them the right to freedom from a state religion and are now having a state religion imposed by an immigration policy which discriminates on the basis of religion.


And if you can't tell how ridiculous that argument is after typing it, then we have nothing left to discuss. This is BS because it's a judgement passed on people in another country, not the people in this country which is why dual citizens are greencard holders are excluded to make this constitutional. The constitutional protections are awarded to American citizens and immigrants only .. they are not expanded or expandable to citizens of another country because on them our constitution does not apply making it completely constitutional to prevent them from coming here even on the basis of religion. This is something that the courts have already decided in the past in favor of keeping certain people out of the country. :lmao 

Even if you don't consider this a bullshit argument, you still have the problem it being a decision based on hypotheticals. This is now how the legal system works. It doesn't work on hypothesis. It works on facts until and unless you have a bunch of judges literally shooting the shit and hoping something sticks.



Stinger Fan said:


> That list is a joke and just goes to show you how vastly different "Christian terrorism" is to Islamic terrorism , they're not even remotely comparable. Breaking down that list, they only come up with 9 actual cases. When you combine the deaths you get 18 deaths total over the span of 30 years as the "worst" of all time. Don't get me wrong, 1 death is too many but if it takes 9 different cases to get under 20 then maybe you need to stop over exaggerating "Christian terrorism". The Orlando Night Club shooting had 50 fatalities in one day . The Oregon School shooter was an atheist who killed 9 Christians which is half that list comprises. Even number 10 on that list is stretching, the motivations not only had nothing to do with Christianity, the guy himself claimed he wasn't even that religious by the time the attack occurred. But 10 is a nice round number...


You won't get through to people who've decided that christians are just as bad as muslims. It's because their professors made these comparisons and filled their head with nonsense. I'm well aware of it myself as I went through the same indoctrination. My professors are guilty of the same conflation of old testament values as though christians still apply them today and they also taught me that western imperialism is innately evil and that western world view and speaking well of western culture means that I'm a eurocentrist. I was once tokenized by my professors too and told to my face that I face racism everyday even though I absolutely did not experience any racism at all. But I can see why it's such an easy thing to believe that the world and odds are stacked against me. On top of all the excuses, it's such a great excuse to look in the mirror and go "you know what, I'm not a failure because of my own choices. I'm a failure because everyone else is white and the white world is geared to hurt me and hate me". 

I just turned out to develop a better view of Christians because I went to catholic school myself and my best friend of 20 years is a pastor who spent hours trying to explain what modern christians really believe and why my old testament related rantings were BS with regards to modern christians. Sure, there are evangelicals today too, but the statistics corroborate with my pastor friend's non-violent values as well. I haven't yet heard any example of mass christian terrorism, nor seen it with my own eyes in any country where they represent the majority. I definitely have not seen a bunch of christians bombing buildings and shooting up and schools and malls with the express intention of establishment a popehood and catholic domain over all of society and I haven't seen a single christian group that has taken up arms and killed thousands of people to create a Christian State with a Christian head of State.


----------



## Art Vandaley

RipNTear said:


> And if you can't tell how ridiculous that argument is after typing it, then we have nothing left to discuss.


I honestly believe in the freedom from state religion, its something I'm very sad the Australian courts have read into meaninglessness and something I think the American courts have been right to jealously protect.

(America is the country with freedom from state religion I was referring to btw and Americans are the people having that freedom taken away by discriminatory immigration policy.)

This btw is the key decision on the freedom from state religion in America (Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971)):

"1. The statute must have a secular legislative purpose. (Also known as the Purpose Prong)
2. The principal or primary effect of the statute must not advance nor inhibit religion. (Also known as the Effect Prong)
3. The statute must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion. (Also known as the Entanglement Prong)"

The argument would be under 2. that this ban, if is found to be motivated by banning Muslim immigration would inhibit religion, and also under 1. because that could not be considered a "secular purpose".


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> I honestly believe in the freedom from state religion, its something I'm very sad the Australian courts have read into meaninglessness and something I think the American courts have been right to jealously protect.
> 
> (America is the country with freedom from state religion I was referring to btw and Americans are the people having that freedom taken away by discriminatory immigration policy.)
> 
> This btw is the key decision on the freedom from state religion in America (Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971)):
> 
> "1. The statute must have a secular legislative purpose. (Also known as the Purpose Prong)
> 2. The principal or primary effect of the statute must not advance nor inhibit religion. (Also known as the Effect Prong)
> 3. The statute must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion. (Also known as the Entanglement Prong)"
> 
> The argument would be under 2. that this ban, if is found to be motivated by banning Muslim immigration would inhibit religion, and also under 1. because that could not be considered a "secular purpose".


This applies to local citizens and green card holders. This does not apply to people of other countries. The American constitution allows discrimination of who to let in and who to allow to become a citizen. 

It doesn't allow discrimination after they've been let in - because then they've won the right to be protected under the constitution of America. The American constitution does not apply to non-citizens and non-immigrants therefore the president can decide who he wants to let in and who he doesn't. Refusing to allow Muslims to come into the country does not establish a state religion at all. This is a completely bullshit argument.


----------



## Art Vandaley

RipNTear said:


> Refusing to allow Muslims to come into the country does not establish a state religion at all.


Is it done for a secular purpose? No.

Does it inhibit a religion? Yes.

Does it entangle the state with religion? Yes. 

Hence it breaches the establishment clause in the Us Constitution under the test set out by the Supreme Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). 

Obvs we disagree, but at this point its likely to go the Supreme Court so we'll get an answer eventually.


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> Is it done for a secular purpose? No.
> 
> Does it inhibit a religion? Yes.
> 
> Does it entangle the state with religion? Yes.
> 
> Hence it breaches the establishment clause in the Us Constitution under the test set out by the Supreme Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971).
> 
> Obvs we disagree, but at this point its likely to go the Supreme Court so we'll get an answer eventually.


This is not a disagreement. This is a case of you being completely wrong and applying a case that does not relate to this argument to this case because that decision was for Americans only and not for non-americans which is what the ban is about. 

Non-Americans are not covered under the constitution. This is why the ban is on non-Americans only because you have to be an American for the constitution to protect you so if you're not an american then you are not protected by the constitution. And I'll keep repeating this till you realize that your assertion that this is establishing a state religion is completely bogus because it has nothing to do with americans because the ban is on non americans and non americans are not protected by the US constitution which is for Americans only and not for non-americans. 

Hopefully it has sunk in by now.


----------



## Art Vandaley

RipNTear said:


> This is not a disagreement. This is a case of you being completely wrong and applying a case that does not relate to this argument to this case because that decision was for Americans only and not for non-americans which is what the ban is about.
> 
> Non-Americans are not covered under the constitution. This is why the ban is on non-Americans only because you have to be an American for the constitution to protect you so if you're not an american then you are not protected by the constitution. And I'll keep repeating this till you realize that your assertion that this is establishing a state religion is completely bogus because it has nothing to do with americans because the ban is on non americans and non americans are not protected by the US constitution which is for Americans only and not for non-americans.
> 
> Hopefully it has sunk in by now.


The argument has already been accepted by 2 levels of the American court system.

And you keep missing the point (I'm starting to suspect intentionally) that having a discriminatory immigration policy establishes a state religion, which is a breach of the freedom from the establishment of a state religion in the Constitution, and that affects American citizens, who's freedom, the freedom from the establishment of a state religion is being breached.

The case I've quoted is about the funding of Catholic schools btw, and the ruling was that this was enough to be the establishment of a state religion and therefore the rest of the American't citizentry's right to freedom from the establishment of a state religion was being breached.


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> The argument has already been accepted by 2 levels of the American court system.


Yeah, because the courts make perfect decisions all the time :lmao 

So I guess that every single time a court has ruled in favor of a cop shooting where the cop sees no jail time means that those decisions were perfect too. I guess none of those cops you and others hate so much ever actually needed to go to jail for murder after all because the courts are never wrong. :mj

Or are court decisions only perfect and correct when they happen to confirm your own personal bias?


----------



## Vic Capri

Week 3


Also, President Trump and Shinzo Abe are putting their foot down after North Korea's missile test, which violates UN Security Resolutions.



> Trump and his tax returns


Its a non-issue.

- Vic


----------



## LowRida

Class, charm, dignity and beauty restored to the white house - Thank god that screeching banshee is gone, what an embarrassment.
Say what you want about Trump, his old lady is pretty hot. 


Melania the green goddess: First Lady shares her unexpected love of GARDENING on day-trip with Japanese PM's wife after coming under fire for skipping out on official White House tour yesterday

First Lady Melania Trump made her first solo public appearance by joining Prime Minister of Japan's wife, Akie Abe in a tour of Morikami Museum and Japanese Garden
The two took in the sights while their husbands played golf at President Trump's club in Jupiter, Florida
Mrs Trump revealed in a statement she plans to preserve the White House Gardens specifically the First Lady's Kitchen Garden











Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-unexpected-love-GARDENING.html#ixzz4YRi7N3TV


----------



## Vic Capri

Can't say I'm surprised how petty FNN is! :lol

- Vic


----------



## Banez




----------



## njcam

*Tom Arnold Reveals Hillary Clinton Asked Him To Release Damning Video Of Trump Saying N-Word 2 Days Before Election*

Source: news.com.au

Note: Tom Arnold is currently in the African jungle competing on the Australian TV show 'I’m A Celebrity, Get Me Out Of Here'.

http://www.news.com.au/entertainmen...p/news-story/b7f196ac79a2a6b37d3d248938f3f904


----------



## njcam

*Re: Tom Arnold Reveals Hillary Clinton Asked Him To Release Damning Video Of Trump Saying N-Word 2 Days Before Election*

Tom Arnold has also said about Trump..... _*“I know him very well, He is sexist, he’s racist but I consider him a kind of joke. I have friends that are real billionaires, that are real and I always considered him a phony billionaire.”*_

http://www.news.com.au/entertainmen...p/news-story/8ccd58a90f86a0156f46df21c7d685c8


----------



## Vic

*Re: Tom Arnold Reveals Hillary Clinton Asked Him To Release Damning Video Of Trump Saying N-Word 2 Days Before Election*

"Trump's not racist, fake news, etc, etc"-Pro Trump crowd.


----------



## Blackbeard

*Re: Tom Arnold Reveals Hillary Clinton Asked Him To Release Damning Video Of Trump Saying N-Word 2 Days Before Election*

http://www.wrestlingforum.com/anything/2074873-president-donald-trump-thread-all-trump-discussion-here-606.html


----------



## LowRida

Just to clear up a little confusion thats going around with certain people in the USA, hope this helps !


----------



## DesolationRow

@Alkomesh2 on the issue of the Establishment Clause and why the First Amendment ensured that the central federal government would not establish a "state religion," this was done primarily because of abuses related to the enmeshing of interests between the British government and the Church of England, a situation found intolerable for many. Just as one part of the First Amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances," due to the nearly habitual and brutal practice of responding to petitions by simply locking up the presenters of the petition in the Tower, as Henry VIII, Elizabeth I and others had done, with the Roundhead Parliament, proving more avaricious and tyrannical than the very king in Charles I they argued was a repressive tyrant, continued the custom of sorts; the abuses of the crown and the Church of England against religious minorities provided the context of the amendment's drafting. 

This said, the First Amendment was also crafted with full understanding of the people and customs of the new American nation as nine of the thirteen colonies had, in 1775, in essence, what could be called "state religions." They maintained religious establishments armed with assessments systems with legal preferences which were based entirely on religious affiliation. In 1790 eleven of the fourteen states elected to abolish all religious assessments while declining to adopt the necessary legal mechanisms for their operation, which ensured the ceasing of the practice. The obvious inconsistencies between, firstly, tax assessments and legal preferences on behalf of public worship for churches and communities and, secondly, the inherent rights of individual conscience, held to exist outside the purview of government became too great to ignore by this point in time for a plurality of citizens and legislators. Most of the states altered the religious demands for civic participation, such as voting. 

Meanwhile, though, four New England states stood in defiance of this movement by holding to their "mild and equitable" all while arguing on behalf of the notion that religious assessments were perfectly consistent with republican governance, constitutional principles and rights of conscience. 

In 1795 Connecticut Judge Zephaniah Swift ardently defended his own state's complex system of tax assessments for registered Protestant churches, arguing that



> ...yet here is a compleat renunciation of the doctrine, that an ecclesiastical establishment is necessary to the support of civil government. No sect is invested with privileges superior to the other. No creed is established, and no test act excluded any person from holding any offices in government.


Like the majority of New Englanders and as most Americans of the time understood the concept, Judge Swift recognized nothing irreconcilable about maintaining a general status quo of religious liberty and the public patronage of religion by state governments. As a proud member of the New England Standing Order Swift would have found the idea that such tax assessments and legal preferences on behalf of Protestant churches constituted "an establishment" of such a church or religion, imposed by the authority of the state government, to be utterly ludicrous.

Now, all of this is said not to defend state, county and town governments in all that they proceed to undertake.

Much of what informed the American founding generation's conception of what has become known as "the separation of church and state" was most comprehensively launched by the writings of John Locke, largely based on his theorizing of a social contract by which government had no place interfering with the individual conscience of the citizen in the realm of religion. Pierre Bayle as well as some of the works of Blaise Pascal and Johann Georg Hamann, loomed large, too, along with some lesser known fideists of the seventeenth century. Building off of all of that came Montesquieu and perhaps most directly of all the pointed critiques of how crown and church, royalty and altar, had tended through history to collude with one another for nefarious ends by Denis Diderot.


----------



## Oxidamus

*Re: Tom Arnold Reveals Hillary Clinton Asked Him To Release Damning Video Of Trump Saying N-Word 2 Days Before Election*



Son Goku Burakku said:


> "Trump's not racist, fake news, etc, etc"-Pro Trump crowd.


"Someone says he knows Trump and that he is racist and sexist, this confirms my bias." - Anti-Trump crowd. :mj


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Tom Arnold Reveals Hillary Clinton Asked Him To Release Damning Video Of Trump Saying N-Word 2 Days Before Election*



njcam said:


> Tom Arnold has also said about Trump..... _*“I know him very well, He is sexist, he’s racist but I consider him a kind of joke. I have friends that are real billionaires, that are real and I always considered him a phony billionaire.”*_
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/entertainmen...p/news-story/8ccd58a90f86a0156f46df21c7d685c8


Why would he sit on this until now? It makes no sense.


----------



## njcam

*Re: Tom Arnold Reveals Hillary Clinton Asked Him To Release Damning Video Of Trump Saying N-Word 2 Days Before Election*



njcam said:


> Tom Arnold has also said about Trump..... _*“I know him very well, He is sexist, he’s racist but I consider him a kind of joke. I have friends that are real billionaires, that are real and I always considered him a phony billionaire.”*_
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/entertainmen...p/news-story/8ccd58a90f86a0156f46df21c7d685c8





Miss Sally said:


> Why would he sit on this until now? It makes no sense.


HA HA HA... 'taking the piss' I see.

Have you heard a friend of Trump ever say that he is 'a phoney billionaire' ??? I doubt you will, which is why I posted.


----------



## Goku

I don't know who tom arnold is but he is obviously a very honest person. :mj


----------



## Stephen90




----------



## Stephen90

Goku said:


> I don't know who tom arnold is but he is obviously a very honest person. :mj


He was married to Roseanne back in the 90's


----------



## MrMister

Tom Arnold is an incredibly reliable source. He doesn't remind everyone of a used car salesman at all.


----------



## Reaper

Well a celebrity on the *** end of a waning career said something about Trump. Has to be true. 

That's it, I'm voting Democrats in 2020.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Tom Arnold Reveals Hillary Clinton Asked Him To Release Damning Video Of Trump Saying N-Word 2 Days Before Election*



Son Goku Burakku said:


> "Trump's not racist, fake news, etc, etc"-Pro Trump crowd.


Well, we don't truly know but I found this video rather interesting


----------



## Vic Capri

> "Trump's not racist, fake news, etc, etc"-Pro Trump crowd.












- Vic


----------



## KingCosmos

Gotta love Trump supporters basically using the I have a black friend argument to prove Trump is not racist. This is like the number 1 "I'm racist but this is my go to argument to say i'm not" Racist can have friends of Color but still view them in a inferior light compared towards themselves...............B-b-but Ben Carson

Who gives a damn about some Token Blacks in his cabinet? Trump is a man that has housing discrimination in his past, not only does it stop at mere words but his Racism has tried to influence lives in a negative.

Trump is a man who STIIIIIIIIIILL believes the Central Park Five( Black and Latin Males that were falsely accused and convicted of raping a white women) is guilty EVEN tho thy have been cleared by DNA evidence.

People who defend Trumps Racism are probably people that think Abraham Lincoln isn't a racist as well despite him considering Blacks inferior beings. Ok with the ******* not being Slaves to spite the confederacy but not ok with them being equal to whites and clearly viewing them as inferior. This very thing is why the whole "Black Friend" argument fails.


----------



## DOPA

@DesolationRow @CamillePunk @AryaDark @Miss Sally @RipNTear

https://thefederalist.com/2017/01/3...born-terrorists-reporters-cant-believe-exist/



> When arguing with the Left about matters of national security and terrorism, one becomes accustomed to their habitual moving of goal posts and artificial construction of sample sizes that deliberately exclude relevant cases.
> 
> The most notorious example, of course, is the beloved “since 9/11…” canard, such as the oft-repeated although false claim that since 9/11 right-wing terrorists have killed more Americans than Islamic terrorists.
> 
> The recent executive order by the Trump administration on immigration led to an urgent desire to proclaim that there is no terrorism threat from immigrants. The most egregious example: A tweet from The New York Times’ White House correspondent Maggie Haberman, who is also a CNN analyst. She posed the question, “Other than San Bernardino shootings, has there been a terrorist attack involving a non-US-born attacker since 9/11?”
> 
> Of course, there is no sensible reason for excluding San Bernardino shooter Tasheen Malik, who was born in Pakistan, from a list of terror attacks. The attack killed 14 and took place only last year.
> 
> But even within the confines of such a ludicrously constructed sample, the question surprised more up-to-speed denizens of Twitter, who quickly bombarded Haberman with lists of successful and unsuccessful attacks carried out by non-U.S.-born individuals, including some of the most notorious recent terror attacks.
> 
> Yes, Foreign-Born Immigrants Have Committed Terrorism
> Among such individuals: the Tsarnaev brothers of the Boston Marathon bombing, who were both born abroad. Tamerlan was born in Kyrgyzstan in 1986, and Dzhokhar was reportedly born in Dagestan.
> 
> The 2015 Chattanooga Recruiting Center shooter, Mohammad Youssuf Abdulazeez, was born in Kuwait and lived in Jordan before migrating to the United States at the age of six. He killed five people.
> 
> Ohio State University attacker Abdul Razak Artan, who ran over several fellow students with a car before attacking them with a butcher knife, was a refugee born in Somalia who had only been in the United States for two years.
> 
> Ahmad Khan Rahimi, born in Afghanistan, detonated a bomb near a 5K run event, then another in downtown Manhattan in October of last year.
> 
> Dahir Adan, a Somali born in Kenya who immigrated to the United States as a child, launched a mass stabbing attack at a St. Cloud Minnesota mall in 2016. And these are only a few recent examples.
> 
> Let’s Just Define Away Counterexamples
> While it might be amusing to imagine that a mainstream media figure of some note is totally oblivious to any of the details of recent terror attacks, it’s almost beside the point. Had Haberman known better, perhaps she’d have simply constructed a question that did meet what appears to be her preformed opinion that foreign-born individuals are nearly incapable of representing a threat.
> 
> That was the position CNN took in its piece on the Trump administration’s executive order. The piece moved the goal posts yet again, insisting that no refugee had carried out a fatal terror attack in the United States. That’s surely cold comfort to the families of those killed by Waad Ramadan Alwan and Mohanad Shareef Hammadi, two Iraqi refugees settled in Bowling Green, Kentucky.
> 
> After their fingerprints were discovered on Iraqi IEDs, the two Iraqi refugees were caught in an FBI counterterrorism investigation, where Alwan bragged about using a sniper rifle to kill American troops abroad. The two plotted to kill returning U.S. troops as well. An IED constructed by Alwan is believed to have killed four Pennsylvania National Guardsmen in 2005.
> 
> That case resulted in a six-month freeze on Iraqi refugee resettlement in 2011 as U.S. authorities attempted to clamp down on serious screening problems. But, according to CNN’s twisted logic, these Iraqi refugees were never a threat. Ironically, the more attacks American law enforcement successfully prevent or mitigate, the less of a threat there is, according to the CNN model.
> 
> If one were truly interested in whether there is a terror threat from individuals born abroad, one would examine the totality of activity, not a narrowly constructed definition aimed to minimize it. That’s what senators Ted Cruz and Jeff Sessions did last June when they examined 580 individuals successfully prosecuted on terrorism offenses from September 2001 until 2014. According to the senators, 380 were foreign-born and at least 40 were refugees. While not all of those cases involved successful or attempted terror attacks, all involved cases that were terrorism-related.
> 
> Haberman’s offhand tweet is a snapshot of the willingness of the mainstream media to engage in reflective self-censoring, a kind of doublethink, where reporters seem to remain proudly unaware of key evidence that would contradict their pre-established conclusions. Unfortunately for The New York Times correspondent, not everyone on social media was inclined to play along.


----------



## birthday_massacre




----------



## Reaper

This is for the benefit of those individuals who've rationally discussed Charter Schools with me (I can't remember your names, sorry). 

You already know where I fall with regards to the topic so I won't continue to press the point home. However, here are some common misconceptions and counter-facts to some anti-Charter School narratives out there. Make of this what you will. I'm just posting for the benefit of people who are still viewing it from a lens of complete opposition:



> THE MYTH: Charter schools disproportionately serve the privileged, white, wealthy class, while cherry-picking the highest scoring applicants to unfairly inflate their school's performance.
> 
> THE REALITY:
> Per 2013 research which studied 95% of the nation's charter school students, 54% of them were from low-income families (ones eligible for free or reduced price lunch) while the same figure for traditional public schools was only 48%. [a] These charter schools also served a higher percentage of "English-learning" students (9% as opposed to 6%), a higher percentage of black students (29% rather than 16%), and more Hispanic students (28% instead of 23%). [a] Meanwhile, only 35% of charter school students were caucasian compared to 52% for traditional public schools. [a] Therefore, contrary to what many believe, charter schools are actually disproportionately serving racial/ethnic minorities and low-income / underprivileged families.
> 
> • THEY ONLY ACCEPT GOOD STUDENTS?
> In addition, and perhaps related to the less privileged nature of the student body, charter schools actually start at an academic disadvantage as their students begin with test scores lower than their counterparts in traditional public schools. This is not as assumption, this is simply what the numbers show. For instance, the same CREDO research measured the "mean charter student starting score by state" and found that charter students deviated from the statewide academic average for reading and math. [a] The deviations were -0.05 and -0.10 respectfully, which roughly translated into 36 and 72 fewer "learning days." (a common metric used within school-performance research) [a] Given that only about 23 days a month are spent attending class, this deviation is akin to having lost about 1.5 and 3.1 months of education over the year. Again, this is their STARTING point.
> Not only does this complicate efforts to compare the effectiveness of educational approaches, since both types of schools aren't beginning with similar baselines, but it thwarts a popular accusation that charter schools seek to deceptively inflate their performance by filtering out poor-performing applicants and disproportionately accepting higher-performing ones. Clearly, since test scores show students begin their charter experience behind traditional counterparts, this is generally not the case.
> 
> • RACIST PAST:
> So why do some regard charter school advocacy as a front for bigotry? Perhaps due to an arguably racist past. As Associate Professor of Sociology, Christopher Bonastia, wrote in his piece "The Racist History of the Charter School Movement,"
> In Prince Edward County, Virginia, one of the five cases decided in Brown v. Board of Education, segregationist whites sought to outwit integration by directing taxpayer funds to segregated private schools. Two years before a federal court set a final desegregation deadline for fall 1959, local newspaper publisher J. Barrye Wall shared white county leaders’ strategy of resistance with Congressman Watkins Abbitt: “We are working [on] a scheme in which we will abandon public schools, sell the buildings to our corporation, reopen as privately operated schools with tuition grants from [Virginia] and P.E. county as the basic financial program,” he wrote. “Those wishing to go to integrated schools can take their tuition grants and operate their own schools. To hell with 'em.” Though the county ultimately refused to sell the public school buildings, public education in Prince Edward County was nevertheless abandoned for five years (1959-1964), as taxpayer dollars were funneled to the segregated white academies, which were housed in privately owned facilities such as churches and the local Moose Lodge. *
> 
> • URBAN SUCCESS:
> While the above excerpt serves as an illuminating insight into the angst of disconcerted progressives, recall the statistics cited earlier which concretely demonstrated that - today - charter schools are serving more minorities than traditional public schools. In addition, charter schools are specifically seeing most of their success stories in urban centers / cities.
> In a 2015 study entitled "Urban Charter School Study Report on 41 Regions," again using the metric cited above, it was found that charter school students had experienced gains akin to 40 more days worth of learning in math and 28 more days worth of learning in reading. [c] To be clear, this was not the finding for ALL charter schools, it was merely the finding for URBAN charter schools. Even clearer, that wasn't the finding for ALL urban charters, just most of them. That's important to know, because the entire concept behind charter schools is that they'd act as laboratories to test differing educational approaches/models, as to demonstrate which ones fail and which ones succeed, so it's very relevant to see that some charter schools are implementing approaches superior to other charter schools. For instance, while the typical charter student in this urban study gained about 40 days more learning in math, charter students in Boston gained over 200 days! Meanwhile, charter students in Fort Worth, Texas went in the opposite direction, scoring far worse than their traditional public school peers. [c] So the question shouldn't be, "did charters, as a whole, do better or worse than traditional schools," it should be, "what is the Boston charter model doing RIGHT that the Fort Worth charter model was doing WRONG?" Upon learning which approaches failed, we SHOULD abandon them and adopt the approaches which succeeded.
> 
> • RESPONDING TO FAILURE:
> THIS is the magic behind the concept of charter schools. They're afforded more institutional and curricular freedom, meaning we see great diversity in their results because they get to experiment with different education models. This is why there are both major charter school successes AND major charter school failures. The key difference between this approach and that of more-regulated traditional public schools is that the traditional ones continue to exist regardless of whether they succeed or fail. That failing Texas charter school mentioned earlier, in other words, will eventually be forced to either adopt a new business model OR go out of business. It will not be permitted to exist in a never-ending state of failure. In fact, the national average for all charter schools is not necessarily a glaring success story, as their performance ratings are generally comparable or even slightly worse than traditional counterparts, but such an A/B analysis tells us very little, since traditional schools are largely monolithic, similar, and static, but charter schools are wildly different from one another and ever-evolving. As tempting as might be, we actually shouldn't lump all charter schools into one group and contrast them to traditional schools. That was never the intent or purpose behind these experimental schools. Advocates of charter schools always knew there would be numerous failures among them, but that type of experimentation and competition is precisely how we find the occasional success story like Boston's charter schools. Charter school advocates simply seek to have the failures replaced by the successes. What we SHOULD be doing, then, is viewing traditional schools as a baseline and seeking specific charter models that saw great success as to adopt their successful characteristics.
> 
> • SPECIAL NEEDS CHILDREN:
> Regarding special needs children, the CREDO research in citations A and F cover this as well. [before we proceed, note that the CREDO authors referred to special needs children as "special education students."] Regarding Reading: "In 2013, special education students at charter schools have 14 additional days of learning than their counterparts at TPS." (Traditional Public Schools) "Looking at the two school groups for 2013, however, [they're distinguishing between existing charter schools and brand new charter schools] reveals that this result is statistically significant only for continuing schools. At new schools, special education students have similar learning gains in reading compared to TPS special education students." [a] Regarding Math: "Academic progress for special education students at charter schools in 2009 was significantly better in math than for similar students at TPS by about seven more days of learning. This continued to be true for charter schools in 2013 with special education students receiving 14 more days of learning at charter schools than at TPS. When the 2013 results are separated, it is revealed that the 2013 results are heavily influenced by the continuing schools. Special education students learn significantly more in math than their TPS counterparts in the continuing charter schools but not at the new charters." [a] The bottom line? For special needs children, new charter schools perform on par but no better than traditional public schools, but they adapt and improve in following years, ultimately outperforming traditional schools. One point of contention that the anti-charter crowd is partially right on, however, is in reference to resource allocation. Only 8% of charter students are special needs while 13% of traditional public school students are. [a] Thus, it burdens charter schools less than the traditional public schools.
> 
> CONCLUSION:
> Much of data regarding charter school performance is ambiguous. We have studies similar to the CREDO analysis (cited above) which imply that charters - as a whole - are roughly comparable to their traditional counterparts. [a] We have a 2014 meta-analysis performed by CRPE on the literature surrounding charter schools, concluding that "charter schools are producing higher achievement gains in math" but found "no significant differences for reading." [d] We have a study of studies, conducted by Miami-Dade County's Research Services Office of Assessment, Research, and Data Analysis, concluding that "Most studies have found that charter schools produce achievement gains that are about the same or lower than those found in traditional public schools" [e] So the truth is, at the moment, the research is quite ambivalent. But as explained earlier, charter schools were intended to differ wildly, so it makes little sense to average them all together rather than simply learn from the successful ones. Regardless, the data DOES clearly dispel a few misconceptions. "For students that are LOW INCOME, charter schools had a larger and MORE POSITIVE EFFECT than for similar students in traditional public schools." [f] The same held true for English-learning students. [f] In addition, they are serving more black and Hispanic students than traditional public schools, and start with students who are academically behind. Lastly, though it should go without saying, be reminded that charter schools ARE still public schools. They may be experimental in nature, and parents have greater flexibility in choosing which ones their children attend, but this doesn't mean they're "private schools." While school-choice is understandably a heated topic as it involves people's children, the fact is, despite outrage from self-preserving teacher's unions and misinformed activists, charter schools are NOT a front to disproportionately serve the privileged, white, wealthy class. Hopefully the data above serves to better inform the ongoing debate. Yes, charter schools are not perfect, yes many of them require improvement, but charter school advocates already know this, and THAT is perhaps the most significant characteristic distinguishing them from advocates of traditional schools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sources:
> 
> http://credo.stanford.edu/documents/NCSS 2013 Final Draft.pdf
> http://www.alternet.org/education/racist-history-charter-school-movement
> http://urbancharters.stanford.edu/download/Urban Charter School Study Report on 41 Regions.pdf
> http://www.crpe.org/sites/default/f...s-effect-student-achievement_workingpaper.pdf
> http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED536259.pdf
> http://credo.stanford.edu/reports/National_Release.pdf*


----------



## MillionDollarProns

KingCosmos said:


> Gotta love Trump supporters basically using the I have a black friend argument to prove Trump is not racist. This is like the number 1 "I'm racist but this is my go to argument to say i'm not" Racist can have friends of Color but still view them in a inferior light compared towards themselves...............B-b-but Ben Carson
> 
> 
> Who gives a damn about some Token Blacks in his cabinet? Trump is a man that has housing discrimination in his past, not only does it stop at mere words but his Racism has tried to influence lives in a negative.



Moving goalposts. If he had an all-white cabinet he's racist, if he has a couple minorities he's putting in "token blacks." He could put together a cabinet entirely of dark-skinned bisexual transpeople and people would still say they're just token haitain transpeople.

Also, in 2017 are we still doing the whole "token black" thing as if that's not incredibly racist? I guess it's okay to shit on black ppl being put in positions of power by calling them "the token blacks." Do you consider Barrack Obama the token black president?



KingCosmos said:


> Trump is a man who STIIIIIIIIIILL believes the Central Park Five( Black and Latin Males that were falsely accused and convicted of raping a white women) is guilty EVEN tho thy have been cleared by DNA evidence.


So thinking one way about a specific case makes you an all-around racist? This is a thought process I've never understood.



KingCosmos said:


> People who defend Trumps Racism are probably people that think Abraham Lincoln isn't a racist as well despite him considering Blacks inferior beings. Ok with the ******* not being Slaves to spite the *union* but not ok with them being equal to whites and clearly viewing them as inferior. This very thing is why the whole "Black Friend" argument fails.


What does Abraham Lincoln being "racist" have to do with Trump? Why would Abraham Lincoln spite the Union when he was president of the Union? What does any of that have to do with the "black friend" argument?


----------



## stevefox1200

Most Trump supporters don't give a fuck about the KKK or Nazis, they just want jobs, not being afraid to go out and public and being attacked by extremists and not having neighbors that want to kill them for the "cause"

Most Anti-Trump people don't give a fuck about transsexual bathrooms or gender studies, they just don't the political mainstream to generalize them as "the problem" and or to allow "I'm not racist but..." to be the mainstream and common viewpoint

QUIT

LETTING 

FUCKING 

MORONS 

DEFINE 

YOUR 

POLITICS

AND

QUIT 

ACTING

LIKE

A 

STEREOTYPE


----------



## LowRida

KingCosmos said:


> Gotta love Trump supporters basically using the I have a black friend argument to prove Trump is not racist. This is like the number 1 "I'm racist but this is my go to argument to say i'm not" Racist can have friends of Color but still view them in a inferior light compared towards themselves...............B-b-but Ben Carson
> 
> Who gives a damn about some Token Blacks in his cabinet? Trump is a man that has housing discrimination in his past, not only does it stop at mere words but his Racism has tried to influence lives in a negative.
> 
> Trump is a man who STIIIIIIIIIILL believes the Central Park Five( Black and Latin Males that were falsely accused and convicted of raping a white women) is guilty EVEN tho thy have been cleared by DNA evidence.
> 
> People who defend Trumps Racism are probably people that think Abraham Lincoln isn't a racist as well despite him considering Blacks inferior beings. Ok with the ******* not being Slaves to spite the union but not ok with them being equal to whites and clearly viewing them as inferior. This very thing is why the whole "Black Friend" argument fails.



I bet you aren't on record anywhere criticizing Obama appointing 2 successive attorney generals based exclusively on race, are you ?
Of course not, because you people think thats its perfectly OK and even expected for blacks to be racist - That makes you a 1st class hypocrite. 
Trump to my eyes is appointing the best, most qualified people possible for the good of the nation - A very welcome change from the partisan, racial/gender appointments of Obama. It is pretty obvious that there is nothing he could possibly do to placate and please the leftists crowd - He is aware of that and is not even going to try.
You have your black hearts so set on vilifying and destroying the man that you don't give a rats ass about the country, only your myopic goals and agenda.
You got slammed at the polls, can only hope for the further marginalization of people like you.

As far as Abe, you are even going to slam him ? He was a product of his friggin times, very very few thought of blacks as equal then. He never would have become president if he ran on a platform of black equality, that was a full century ahead of the times. Rivers of white mens blood was shed to set them free, 1.5 centuries ago and you are still butthurt, that is just crazy - You are an obsessed, agenda motivated partisan zealot and have no rational idea of what you are saying ,, And I'll have you know, since you are so into history and all, that is was DEMOCRATS who founded the KKK, even more recently that racist Abe, so what about that ?


----------



## Oxidamus

KingCosmos said:


> Gotta love Trump supporters basically using the I have a black friend argument to prove Trump is not racist. This is like the number 1 "I'm racist but this is my go to argument to say i'm not" Racist can have friends of Color but still view them in a inferior light compared towards themselves...............B-b-but Ben Carson


What if I said I have no non white friends but I'm still not racist? :trump


----------



## LowRida

Former SNL funnyman Al Franken doing his level best to keep the PC era alive


'With all due respect, that's racist': Al Franken takes on Donald Trump for calling Elizabeth Warren 'Pocahontas'

Sen. Al Franken sat down with CNN's Jake Tapper today and said he would have said something had he attended a meeting with Donald Trump on Thursday
There, Trump reportedly mocked the Democrats for Sen. Elizabeth Warren's prominent position saying, 'Pocahontas is now the face of your party' 
Warren's family had claimed Native American ancestry and she dominated the news this week after being tossed out of debate over Sen. Jeff Sessions
The Massachusetts Democrat had attempted to read a letter critical of Sessions, now the attorney general, written by Coretta Scott King 
Franken said he would have told the president the comment was 'racist' and 'completely unacceptable' had he been in the room 


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-calling-Warren-Pocahontas.html#ixzz4YVgQj7dV


----------



## Reaper

Oxi X.O. said:


> What if I said I have no non white friends but I'm still not racist? :trump


Oxi low-key claiming he doesn't consider any of us his friends :mj 

:cookie

Here's another question, if I claim that I'm transracial and identify as a white male, does that mean that no white person can claim me as their token minority friend?


----------



## KingCosmos

MillionDollarProns said:


> Moving goalposts. If he had an all-white cabinet he's racist, if he has a couple minorities he's putting in "token blacks." He could put together a cabinet entirely of dark-skinned bisexual transpeople and people would still say they're just token haitain transpeople.
> 
> Also, in 2017 are we still doing the whole "token black" thing as if that's not incredibly racist? I guess it's okay to shit on black ppl being put in positions of power by calling them "the token blacks." Do you consider Barrack Obama the token black president?
> 
> 
> 
> So thinking one way about a specific case makes you an all-around racist? This is a thought process I've never understood.
> 
> 
> 
> What does Abraham Lincoln being "racist" have to do with Trump? Why would Abraham Lincoln spite the Union when he was president of the Union? What does any of that have to do with the "black friend" argument?


Once again another user misses the point completely and fail to understand anything. Where did i say if he had a all White Cabinet he is a racist? His past actions of purposely disenfranchising other races(WHICH YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED BECAUSE IT PROVES MY POINT) makes those people Tokens 

Maybe you shouldn't speak on things you don't understand because Token is not a slight towards a person of color. A Token can be any person. A person with racist tendencies say has a friend of color then that would make the friend a Token. Your Obama comparison makes no sense 

Regarding the Central park 5. You can play the fool if you want to but we both live in the real world. Let's not be ignorant here and insult each other's intelligence because we know full well 5 people of color accused of raping a white women then free'd with undeniable proof and still thought of as being guilty has to do with race. Let's not even play this game

Sorry made a typo i meant Confederacy. The reason i talked about Abraham Lincoln was not in comparison to Trump but the Black Friend argument which once again you don't understand. You don't need to be a KKK member or Neo-Nazi to be a racist. You can think blacks should be free from slavery, be friends with them, have a jolly time together but still see them in a inferior light. Having Black Friends means absolutely nothing so i don't understand why people keep pointing towards his Cabinet




Oxi X.O. said:


> What if I said I have no non white friends but I'm still not racist? :trump


Then there is nothing wrong with that unless past history indicates racist behavior unlike Trump



LowRida said:


> I bet you aren't on record anywhere criticizing Obama appointing 2 successive attorney generals based exclusively on race, are you ?
> Of course not, because you people think thats its perfectly OK and even expected for blacks to be racist - That makes you a 1st class hypocrite.


Nice assumptions you got there. I don't care for Obama at all and I think his Presidency was very weak. 
Sure Blacks can be Racist and that sucks. But Fortunately Black Racism boils down to simple name calling while White Racism affects peoples lives on a global scale. Both are bad but i prefer to deal with the one that has affects on everyday life

Also I don't care about democrats or Republicans. I Know whihc party founded the KKK and it doesn't matter. Racism is bad when Everyone does it Democrats and Republicans. The polls didn't matter to me either since i don't care for Hilary. She is a dog who has taken advantage of the great people of Haiti 

Lastly yes I Blame Abe Lincoln. Just as I blame everyone cracking the whip because they were just a product of the times. Just as I blame the people that Lynched Blacks and put it on a post card because they were just products of their time. Fondling little boys and girls in Greece was a product of the times and i still find it disguising.


----------



## stevefox1200

I am trying form a political party but I am having trouble picking a name

Put Justice Somewhere in the Middle of Our Priorities Party

Pity Party

Libertarian Socialist Riff-Raff Party

Motherland Party

Tax the Poor Party

The New Democratic Republic of the People's Workers United Conservative Alliance Party

It seems all the good names have been taken by west coast rock bands

damn them, damn them to hell


----------



## MillionDollarProns

KingCosmos said:


> You can think blacks should be free from slavery, be friends with them, have a jolly time together but still see them in a inferior light. Having Black Friends means absolutely nothing so i don't understand why people keep pointing towards his Cabinet


This I agree with. My problem with your rhetoric is most of it relies on Trump viewing black people as inferior, but the proof you offer seems flimsy to me. Your arguments (that I've seen) are as follows:

He disagrees with the ruling in a particular court case.

To me that does not a racist make.


----------



## DOPA

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/mike...-place-trump-administration/story?id=45273812



> Vice President Mike Pence defended President Trump's decision to let stand an Obama-era order protecting the rights of some LGBT workers, noting that Trump made clear during his campaign that "discrimination would have no place in our administration."
> 
> ABC News Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos asked Pence about the response of social conservatives to Trump's decision last week to keep intact President Obama's 2014 executive order barring discrimination against LGBT employees of federal contractors.
> 
> Stephanopoulos referred to the reaction of Bob Vander Plaats of the conservative group The Family Leader, who said, "Our base would want to know who is responsible for what we believe is an issue of religious liberty — that would be of concern to us."
> 
> "What's the answer?," Stephanopoulos asked Pence.
> 
> The vice president responded that Trump's decision was in line with his message about the LGBT community on the campaign trail.
> 
> “I think throughout the campaign, President Trump made it clear that discrimination would have no place in our administration,” Pence said in an interview on ABC's "This Week" that aired Sunday,. “He was the very first Republican nominee to mention the LGBTQ community at our Republican National Convention and was applauded for it. And I was there applauding with him.”
> 
> Pence continued, "I think the generosity of his spirit, recognizing that in the patriot's heart, there's no room for prejudice, is part of who this president is."
> 
> The vice president also reaffirmed Trump’s stated plan to "destroy" the Johnson Amendment, which prohibits churches and other tax-exempt organizations from endorsing or opposing political candidates.
> 
> The president said at the National Prayer Breakfast on Thursday, "I will get rid of and totally destroy the Johnson Amendment and allow our representatives of faith to speak freely and without fear of retribution."
> 
> Passed in 1954, the Johnson Amendment is a provision of the U.S. tax code that prevents tax-exempt organizations — like churches and universities — from engaging in political activities. Organizations that do so risk losing their tax-exempt status.
> 
> Pence told Stephanopoulos, “The president's made it clear that he wants to take action on the Johnson Amendment. He's directed the administration to begin to look at ways, both legislatively and through executive action, to do that.”
> 
> The vice president also left the door open to President Trump issuing executive orders to preserve what Pence described as other matters of religious liberty.
> 
> “His reiterated commitment to religious liberty are all a part of the kind of leadership that people are going to welcome from President Trump,” Pence said.
> 
> Stephanopoulos pressed the vice president, asking, “Do you think a new executive order is necessary on religious liberty? Or is current law sufficient?”
> 
> Pence responded that it’s the “purview of the president” to determine if further executive action would be necessary.


Make what you will about Pence's statements but Trump thus far despite the leftist rhetoric has done nothing to suggest he is anti-gay.

The repealing of the Johnson amendment I have mixed feelings on and am skeptical of. On the one hand, I think Churches and Universities shouldn't be stopped from endorsing or supporting candidates. On the other, does this leave the door open for Churches and Universities to contribute to campaigns and essentially become donors? I don't know but I would be against it in that case.


----------



## KingCosmos

MillionDollarProns said:


> This I agree with. My problem with your rhetoric is most of it relies on Trump viewing black people as inferior, but the proof you offer seems flimsy to me. Your arguments (that I've seen) are as follows:
> 
> He disagrees with the ruling in a particular court case.
> 
> To me that does not a racist make.


Once again Ignoring his blatant racism with housing discrimination.

Since what i'm spouting is too off the deep end for you tell me Why someone would still believe these men to be guilty despite undeniable evidence? Especially regarding the oh so famous Black Men rape White woman without any evidence scenario that has sparked a myriad lynchings through history. Trump after the trial payed for a ad that advocated bringing back the death penalty so these colored men can be killed for raping a white woman( Blast from the past huh). Please tell me why tho i'm curious. I sure can think of a reason and i'm sure you can also. I think you are just feigning ignorance by saying "He disagrees with the ruling in a particular court case." You know what i'm getting at. And this is not like this is Trump in the heat of the moment saying they are guilty. This is YEARS after these men have been proved innocent and he is still saying they are guilty.


----------



## wwe9391

I love it when the Left says 'Trump needs to be impeached" lol. That WILL NOT happen. The GOP controls everything.


----------



## BruiserKC

stevefox1200 said:


> Most Trump supporters don't give a fuck about the KKK or Nazis, they just want jobs, not being afraid to go out and public and being attacked by extremists and not having neighbors that want to kill them for the "cause"
> 
> Most Anti-Trump people don't give a fuck about transsexual bathrooms or gender studies, they just don't the political mainstream to generalize them as "the problem" and or to allow "I'm not racist but..." to be the mainstream and common viewpoint
> 
> QUIT
> 
> LETTING
> 
> FUCKING
> 
> MORONS
> 
> DEFINE
> 
> YOUR
> 
> POLITICS
> 
> AND
> 
> QUIT
> 
> ACTING
> 
> LIKE
> 
> A
> 
> STEREOTYPE


I agree with that wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, identity politics dominates the way things go these days. Many people that have wholeheartedly supported Trump have been stereotyped as racist, homophobic, etc. Not all of them are, but there is that group of supporters that are just that or are willing to fight using the liberal smear tactics that they had thrown at them for a long time. On the other side of the aisle, you have some who absolutely despise Trump and believe that everything about the man is evil. They think that strategy will get them back in control of the White House...but that's not going to happen because hate is not a strategy in and of itself.


----------



## LowRida

KingCosmos said:


> . Fondling little boys and girls in Greece was a product of the times and i still find it disguising.


?? - Never mind, don't want to know.
You are clearly off on a morbid tangent, I'll leave you alone with that.


----------



## MillionDollarProns

KingCosmos said:


> *Since what i'm spouting is too off the deep end* for you tell me Why someone would still believe these men to be guilty despite undeniable evidence? Especially regarding the oh so famous Black Men rape White woman without any evidence scenario that has sparked a myriad lynchings through history. Trump after the trial payed for a ad that advocated bringing back the death penalty so these colored men can be killed for raping a white woman( Blast from the past huh). Please tell me why tho i'm curious. I sure can think of a reason and i'm sure you can also. I think you are just feigning ignorance by saying "He disagrees with the ruling in a particular court case."


I'd appreciate it if you'd stop trying to insult me just because I don't agree with you, dear sir. :quite

Now as for the Central Park case, I think Trump's initial reaction was probably the same as many people at the time. I don't believe his original statements had to do with skin color. I think most people at the time felt gang rapists, regardless of skin color, should be given the death penalty or worse. This was the same decade that glamorized the idea of subway vigilantes, after all.

As for his recent statements, I don't agree with him. But he's not the only one who thinks the way he does. According to the New York Times, Linda Fairstein, who oversaw the sex crime unit in the Manhattan district attorney’s office at the time, maintains that the jury reached the correct verdict. It is possible Linda Fairstein is a racist, that I cannot confirm.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Are those tax returns ever going to surface? Or is that all forgotten and swept under the rug now?

Surely one day Trump's audit will be done so he can release them and prove to us all he's on the level.


----------



## CamillePunk

If he wasn't then wouldn't the IRS, who have his tax information, have done something a long time ago? :mj


----------



## yeahbaby!

CamillePunk said:


> If he wasn't then wouldn't the IRS, who have his tax information, have done something a long time ago? :mj


Not really, they're part of THE ESTABLISHMENT which, surely you for one (as an anarchist), wouldn't trust walking your dog, no?

So if he wants to be trusted he should just release them like other Prez's have done, you know as a show of high character, someone who has nothing to hide.

If he has nothing to hide, he should just release them right?


----------



## KingCosmos

MillionDollarProns said:


> I'd appreciate it if you'd stop trying to insult me just because I don't agree with you, dear sir. :quite
> 
> Now as for the Central Park case, I think Trump's initial reaction was probably the same as many people at the time. I don't believe his original statements had to do with skin color. I think most people at the time felt gang rapists, regardless of skin color, should be given the death penalty or worse. This was the same decade that glamorized the idea of subway vigilantes, after all.
> 
> As for his recent statements, I don't agree with him. But he's not the only one who thinks the way he does. According to the New York Times, Linda Fairstein, who oversaw the sex crime unit in the Manhattan district attorney’s office at the time, maintains that the jury reached the correct verdict. It is possible Linda Fairstein is a racist, that I cannot confirm.


That wasn't a insult lol i was saying you probably thought my arguments were too far fetched so i was appealing to you to tell me what you think on the subject. Linda Fairstein and the cops are the same people that pressured these innocent young men and the courts to make the rash judgment. Also doesn't help that Cops don't like being wrong about things also.

Personally i agree with many things Trump suggests and wants. I just don't get why people try to outright deny he has done questionable things in the past. You can agree with someone and still call them out on things but i feel if people a forced to admit Trump has done these things they will feel like their moral character is diminished somehow which is not true at all. You agree with Trump but you can call him out on this also.


----------



## Vic Capri

> Gotta love Trump supporters basically using the I have a black friend argument to prove Trump is not racist. This is like the number 1 "I'm racist but this is my go to argument to say i'm not" Racist can have friends of Color but still view them in a inferior light compared towards themselves...............B-b-but Ben Carson
> 
> Who gives a damn about some Token Blacks in his cabinet? Trump is a man that has housing discrimination in his past, not only does it stop at mere words but his Racism has tried to influence lives in a negative.
> 
> Trump is a man who STIIIIIIIIIILL believes the Central Park Five( Black and Latin Males that were falsely accused and convicted of raping a white women) is guilty EVEN tho thy have been cleared by DNA evidence.
> 
> People who defend Trumps Racism are probably people that think Abraham Lincoln isn't a racist as well despite him considering Blacks inferior beings. Ok with the ******* not being Slaves to spite the confederacy but not ok with them being equal to whites and clearly viewing them as inferior. This very thing is why the whole "Black Friend" argument fails.


Still waiting for concrete proof that Trump is a racist.










- Vic


----------



## CamillePunk

yeahbaby! said:


> Not really, they're part of THE ESTABLISHMENT which, surely you for one (as an anarchist), wouldn't trust walking your dog, no?


But if the idea is that he's some kind of tax cheat then what incentive does THE ESTABLISHMENT have not to prosecute him when he's running for president with an anti-establishment campaign? Obama used the IRS to illegitimately harass right-wing groups leading up to the 2012 election, you'd think they wouldn't hesitate to use the IRS legitimately in this one. 

The simpler and more likely explanation is that Trump hasn't broken any tax laws and he just doesn't want to release because the media will do what they always do and re-frame things too complex and nuanced for most people to understand in a way that makes Trump look like Scrooge McDuck.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Vic Capri said:


> Still waiting for concrete proof that Trump is a racist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Vic


Poor fellow has also been waiting for the Trump Tax Returns.


----------



## Beatles123

yeahbaby! said:


> Poor fellow has also been waiting for the Trump Tax Returns.


Be real with me: In his situation, even if they were clean (and i believe they are) would you give them ammo? You know they'd find some scandal. What difference would it make? You'd be hearing the same story.


----------



## DesolationRow

The gestation of Donald Trump's surname becoming a brand name in housing over several generations delineates how the matter of race as constant stumbling block in American political life has swelled and swelled, while also providing billionaires with myriad options unavailable for those of more humble means. There was a good article from the _Washington Post_ about six months ago which was headlined, "How Donald Trump abandoned his father's middle-class housing empire for luxury building." The _Washington Post_ provides a tenderly positive written portrait of Fred C. Trump (1905-1999) as one of the most notable and ambitious builders of affordable apartments in the outer boroughs. The elder Trump's efforts, however, would be considered racist by many today for he led the charge to constructing many apartment buildings with the assistance of the Veterans Administration and other federal government agencies in almost entirely exclusive redlined areas like the 3,800-unitTrump Village in the heavily Jewish Coney Island. It is no coincidence that Fred Trump would, upon discovering certain ethnic distrusts from his tenants, insist that his parents were from Sweden rather than admitting that he was a German-American. 

As with so many other titans of affordable housing, Fred Trump's providing of excellent conditions in which middle-class Americans could live was rewarded by being sued by the Richard Nixon administration's Justice Department in 1973 for possibly violating the 1968 Fair Housing Act. As the charges levied against Fred Trump revealed, only four percent of its tenants were black (this in in Brooklyn's Brighton Beach and the outskirts of Forest Hills in Queens). Fred's son Donald took up the charge of defending his father, hiring the ruthless lawyer Roy Cohn and making the case that allowing welfare recipients to rent in his father's complexes would risk "massive fleeing from the city of not only our tenants, but communities as a whole." In the end Donald Trump signed a consent decree with the federal government, a "clean" way to extricate his and his father's business from the affair, never admitting any wrongdoing but simultaneously promising to never do it again. 

Donald learned a great deal from the experience, and perhaps what he learned best was that it was prudent to simply drop the continuation of ventures on behalf of the middle-class and lower-class in the way of affordable housing in New York City's outer boroughs. The ever-stricter anti-discrimination laws ensured that the efforts would lead to almost unending law suits and the consequently inevitable "white flight" to the suburbs among the generally middle-class and lower-class Jewish customers... So Donald Trump metaphorically packed his bags and followed the nascent generation of _nouveaux riches_ New Yorkers to the Manhattan of the 1980s. In 1983 Donald Trump played a major role improving that the New York 1970s economic downturn and malaise as captured in films such as Sidney Lumet's _Serpico_ and _Dog Day Afternoon_ and Martin Scorsese's _Taxi Driver_ was over as he led the opening of the Fifth Avenue Trump Tower, a palatial skyscraper that has seen the likes of Mike Tyson, Don King, Jay-Z, Beyoncé, Ray Lewis and others. And so Trump's venture reestablished the humorous saying which goes along the lines of, "Our prices discriminate, so we don't have to."


----------



## yeahbaby!

Beatles123 said:


> Be real with me: In his situation, even if they were clean (and i believe they are) would you give them ammo? You know they'd find some scandal. What difference would it make? You'd be hearing the same story.


Why would there be a scandal? Isn't Trump on the level, a man of integrity, a man of character? Yes there is the point about shady media twisting things around - but Trump is a tough guy isn't he? He should be able to deal with that. Plus there is plenty of Pro-Trump media which would take his side.

If they're clean he has nothing to worry about - the difference it would make is it would end suspicion about any shady dealings and conflicts of interest.

At the moment it looks like he's hiding something, and he should release them to show he's clean like his supporters believe. 

As many have said about the people held up in limbo over the travel bans 'If they've got nothing to hide, then they'll be fine'.


----------



## yeahbaby!

CamillePunk said:


> But if the idea is that he's some kind of tax cheat then what incentive does THE ESTABLISHMENT have not to prosecute him when he's running for president with an anti-establishment campaign? Obama used the IRS to illegitimately harass right-wing groups leading up to the 2012 election, you'd think they wouldn't hesitate to use the IRS legitimately in this one.
> 
> The simpler and more likely explanation is that Trump hasn't broken any tax laws and he just doesn't want to release because the media will do what they always do and re-frame things too complex and nuanced for most people to understand in a way that makes Trump look like Scrooge McDuck.


I have no idea what the incentives or non-incentives are of the IRS, and neither does anyone else except them. I'm not concerned with that at all.

The big bad media is a very nice excuse for him to avoid doing what Presidents are supposed to do to disprove any conflicts of interest or any dodgy dealings, but it doesn't change the fact the only way to be sure is to release them and be done with it. Just do it and prove that he hasn't broken any tax laws.

Tax stuff is boring, the media wouldn't spend too long on it until the next Trump Gaffe / twitter explosion came along anyway.


:trump
JUST DO IT


----------



## Reaper

yeahbaby! said:


> Why would there be a scandal? Isn't Trump on the level, a man of integrity, a man of character? Yes there is the point about shady media twisting things around - but Trump is a tough guy isn't he? He should be able to deal with that. Plus there is plenty of Pro-Trump media which would take his side.
> 
> If they're clean he has nothing to worry about - the difference it would make is it would end suspicion about any shady dealings and conflicts of interest.
> 
> At the moment it looks like he's hiding something, and he should release them to show he's clean like his supporters believe.
> 
> As many have said about the people held up in limbo over the travel bans 'If they've got nothing to hide, then they'll be fine'.


I want you to give me your email passwords, house key and every other password. Also, show me your tax returns. 

Oh you won't? You're hiding something. You're a criminal. Prove you're not a criminal.

Oh, you didn't rape someone? Prove that you didn't rape them. 

I don't think you understand the concept of burden of proof at all. You should probably look up what it means.


----------



## CamillePunk

yeahbaby! said:


> Just do it and prove that he hasn't broken any tax laws.


You don't need to prove you haven't broken laws in this country. It needs to be proven that you have. The IRS has his tax information and he has yet to be charged with anything. That should be sufficient.


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/830925158252740610
I don't even know who she is, but I'm pretty sure the lefties in here are 100% sure she's a self-hating race-traitor :draper2


----------



## LowRida

CamillePunk said:


> You don't need to prove you haven't broken laws in this country. It needs to be proven that you have. The IRS has his tax information and he has yet to be charged with anything. That should be sufficient.


Concise and well stated - A simple concept like "innocent until proven guilty", a principle which the USA was founded on [and which the lefties were all too willing to grant to scandal plagued, bought & sold Hillary] is beyond the mental grasp of left wing zealots.

Their lust for scandal innuendo at all costs knows no bounds, and was more than proven during the election when they dredged out a dozen+ obscure Soros funded bimbos to claim they were sexually abused/harassed by Trump, years and even decades back - Has anyone noticed that they dropped straight out of sight the day after Trump won ?
Assuming that they would have filed charges and sued if they had any legit grounds for their claims, are any lefties ready to apologize to Trump for dragging his name through the mud in a crass, transparent, cheap effort to drum up female votes ?


----------



## stevefox1200

RipNTear said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/830925158252740610
> I don't even know who she is, but I'm pretty sure the lefties in here are 100% sure she's a self-hating race-traitor :draper2


Looking on Twitter left leaning people don't give a fuck and a tons a taunts from right leaning people to said the left

and for that matter when someone does something like this from the Republican side the right doesn't give a fuck and the left taunts them

In today's world I see more people reacting to hypothetical reactions than the actual reactions 

I am starting to think we are making our own controversies


----------



## Reaper

stevefox1200 said:


> I am starting to think we are making our own controversies


Well, at this point in time the weighing scale is obviously not as even as you're leading people to believe in your post. 

While I agree that Joy hasn't been attacked yet (though there is one unconfirmed death threat), do you, in this climate sincerely believe that she'll be left alone by the left?


----------



## Miss Sally

stevefox1200 said:


> Looking on Twitter left leaning people don't give a fuck and a tons a taunts from right leaning people to said the left
> 
> and for that matter when someone does something like this from the Republican side the right doesn't give a fuck and the left taunts them
> 
> In today's world I see more people reacting to hypothetical reactions than the actual reactions
> 
> I am starting to think we are making our own controversies


It's why I support simply ignoring the SJWs and "Left" same with the Alt right, discussing their stupidity is one thing but getting triggered and fighting with them or acting like them is exactly what they want. If the right wants to beat the "Left" all they have to do is ignore them, it would be a blessing for real Liberals as they'd finally get people listening to them.


----------



## yeahbaby!

CamillePunk said:


> You don't need to prove you haven't broken laws in this country. It needs to be proven that you have. The IRS has his tax information and he has yet to be charged with anything. That should be sufficient.


Agreed - there is nothing 'have to' about the tax returns thing, but that's beside the point and I think you know it. It's a presidential tradition for obvious reasons.

It's been a tradition since Nixon(?) for Presidents to release their returns to show they are transparent about their financial past and open to critique from all sides.

Considering this tradition, his secrecy is indeed not sufficient and it's yet another character test he's falling short on.

I fail to see to why he should be held to lower standards than every other Prez from recent memory when it comes to this.


----------



## CamillePunk

yeahbaby! said:


> Agreed - there is nothing 'have to' about the tax returns thing, but that's beside the point and I think you know it. It's a presidential tradition for obvious reasons.
> 
> It's been a tradition since Nixon(?) for Presidents to release their returns to show they are transparent about their financial past and open to critique from all sides.
> 
> Considering this tradition, his secrecy is indeed not sufficient and it's yet another character test he's falling short on.
> 
> I fail to see to why he should be held to lower standards than every other Prez from recent memory when it comes to this.


Wasn't someone else (or possibly you?) on here moaning about how Trump also broke tradition by attacking the media and the political elites at that fundraiser dinner with Hillary? Seriously, we don't care about these traditions. :lol We have much bigger concerns. The media has enough to attack Trump over, they don't need more ammunition. If there was a problem we'd know about it by now.


----------



## yeahbaby!

CamillePunk said:


> Wasn't someone else (or possibly you?) on here moaning about how Trump also broke tradition by attacking the media and the political elites at that fundraiser dinner with Hillary? Seriously, we don't care about these traditions. :lol We have much bigger concerns. The media has enough to attack Trump over, they don't need more ammunition. If there was a problem we'd know about it by now.


No I don't think that was me but in any case the two things are hardly comparable.

Comparing Trump loudmouthing with Presidential Transparency on Tax Returns?

Try again. I'm not even Kelly-Anne Conway would try that on.


----------



## CamillePunk

Yes two statements saying Trump should or should not have done something because of "tradition" are comparable.


----------



## yeahbaby!

CamillePunk said:


> Yes two statements saying Trump should or should not have done something because of "tradition" are comparable.


----------



## FriedTofu

yeahbaby! said:


> Poor fellow has also been waiting for the Trump Tax Returns.


I think it is the same person here


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/232572505238433794
Probably why our president couldn't provide the source even now.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/830775701817135105


----------



## Beatles123

yeahbaby! said:


> Why would there be a scandal? Isn't Trump on the level, a man of integrity, a man of character? Yes there is the point about shady media twisting things around - but Trump is a tough guy isn't he? He should be able to deal with that. Plus there is plenty of Pro-Trump media which would take his side.
> 
> If they're clean he has nothing to worry about - the difference it would make is it would end suspicion about any shady dealings and conflicts of interest.
> 
> At the moment it looks like he's hiding something, and he should release them to show he's clean like his supporters believe.
> 
> As many have said about the people held up in limbo over the travel bans 'If they've got nothing to hide, then they'll be fine'.


It doesn't matter! It "Shows" nothing. No one would be convinced either way.

You really believe the media would say, "Ooops, we found nothing. Our bad!"

Hey, off topic, but did you know that "Gullible" has 4 syllables?


----------



## Vic Capri

> You don't need to prove you haven't broken laws in this country. It needs to be proven that you have. The IRS has his tax information and he has yet to be charged with anything. That should be sufficient.












- Vic


----------



## yeahbaby!

Vic Capri said:


> - Vic


Bryan Cranston to you:

"Don't use my fucking picture to support Trump in any fucking way!"

- Bryan Cranstan
* Canada


----------



## Miss Sally

yeahbaby! said:


> Bryan Cranston to you:
> 
> "Don't use my fucking picture to support Trump in any fucking way!"
> 
> - Bryan Cranstan
> * Canada


Are you implying he moved to Canada? Because i don't think he did, neither did any of the other Celebs that said they would did. Who can blame them? Canadian tax is astronomical!


----------



## yeahbaby!

Miss Sally said:


> Are you implying he moved to Canada? Because i don't think he did, neither did any of the other Celebs that said they would did. Who can blame them? Canadian tax is astronomical!


I think he pledged to, he's just being audited at the moment so he's busy. When that's done he'll move to Canada and release his tax returns like you're supposed to.


----------



## CamillePunk

Scott Adams with another great article, this time about how those of us in our separate realities experience Trump's current battle with the judicial branch over his immigration ban differently:

Good Example of Our Two-Movie Reality by Scott Adams


----------



## Miss Sally

yeahbaby! said:


> I think he pledged to, he's just being audited at the moment so he's busy. When that's done he'll move to Canada and release his tax returns like you're supposed to.


There is a law that says he must release his tax returns? I wasn't aware of this law, hm I hope the IRS isn't taking him to court, it could be a big mess.


----------



## birthday_massacre

John Oliver destroying Trump once again with those truth bombs lol


----------



## Kink_Brawn

birthday_massacre said:


> John Oliver destroying Trump once again with those truth bombs lol


No. John Oliver is not "destroying" Trump.

He is regurgitating a script some over paid, bourgeois people that wouldn't piss on a Muslim or Mexican immigrant if they were on fire wrote. 

Oliver works for HBO which is a subsidiary of Time Warner, which was one of the highest donators to the Clinton campaign. He is a vehicle of propaganda.

I swear, I can see faults in Trump but you staunch anti-Trump people literally have nothing of value to argue.....you guys are always just like "OMG, the screen writer of Star Wars likened Trump to Darth Vader!!" "That ought to show him!!" "Harumph!! Harumph I say!!" or "did you see that SNL skit, the one that called Trump a dummy?? OMG, how will he like ever recover??!!"

Who cares what some idiot on some tv show says??


----------



## Stephen90

Kink_Brawn said:


> No. John Oliver is not "destroying" Trump.
> 
> He is regurgitating a script some over paid, bourgeois people that wouldn't piss on a Muslim or Mexican immigrant if they were on fire wrote.
> 
> Oliver works for HBO which is a subsidiary of Time Warner, which was one of the highest donators to the Clinton campaign. He is a vehicle of propaganda.
> 
> I swear, I can see faults in Trump but you staunch anti-Trump people literally have nothing of value to argue.....you guys are always just like "OMG, the screen writer of Star Wars likened Trump to Darth Vader!!" "That ought to show him!!" "Harumph!! Harumph I say!!" or "did you see that SNL skit, the one that called Trump a dummy?? OMG, how will he like ever recover??!!"
> 
> Who cares what some idiot on some tv show says??


Trump does he never shuts up about it on Twitter.


----------



## DOPA

http://www.collective-evolution.com...sk-a-woman-born-in-nazi-germany-her-thoughts/



> *CAN WE COMPARE TRUMP TO HITLER? REPORTERS ASK A WOMAN BORN IN NAZI GERMANY HER THOUGHTS*
> 
> 
> Headlines have been very controversial in their portrayal of President Donald Trump. Type in his name on Google, and one of the results you’ll see is: “Hitler expert says President Trump pulls from Mein Kampf to normalize tyranny,” among many others that relate him to the World War II figure no one will forget.
> 
> There’s no doubt we are living in one of the most politically controversial times in modern history, but extremists on both the left and the right only create more distance, more hate, with their antagonistic and close-minded viewpoints.
> 
> This perhaps is the exact reflection we might expect from an evolving consciousness that needs to see all of the ‘darkness’ we have within ourselves in our journey to evolving beyond our current ways.
> 
> As we explored in What Trump’s ‘Muslim Travel Ban’ Truly Means For The Collective Consciousness, no matter how we look at it, it isn’t productive to continue in our ways of political polarity, hatred towards anyone and arguing about emotional opinions that don’t move us anywhere but destined to repeat history. Now is a time for serious reflection and for rethinking what it means to have leaders, how the world really works and ultimately to think about the type of world we want to see.
> 
> We are in the midst of a mass shift in consciousness and it’s truly an amazing time. We made a film all about just how exciting this time truly is.
> 
> Independent Journal Review wanted to analyze the popular comparison of Trump to Hitler by speaking with a woman born in Nazi Germany.
> 
> Inga Andrews was born in Dusseldorf, Germany. As opposed to frolicking carelessly about as most children do, playing as much as they can, Andrews was hiding in air raid shelters and helping clean up the mess left behind by destroyed buildings. She was just a child during the reign of Hitler.
> 
> Andrews says:
> 
> What is going on in this country is giving me chills. Trump is not like Hitler. Just because a leader wants order doesn’t mean they’re like a dictator.
> 
> What reminds me more of Hitler than anything else isn’t Trump, it’s the destruction of freedom of speech on the college campuses — the agendas fueled by the professors.
> 
> That’s how Hitler started, he pulled in the youth to miseducate them, to brainwash them, it’s happening today.
> 
> Andrews feels burdened by the younger generation’s carelessness in such a disheartening comparison:
> 
> It saddens me that we are teaching garbage in the schools and in the college. We don’t teach history anymore. History repeats itself over and over.
> 
> The kids out there today haven’t ever lived through a war like I did. I remember sitting in a rock pile, cleaning rocks, to rebuild Germany. I remember eating maple leaves and grass to survive.
> 
> Andrews eventually made it out of Germany alive, fleeing to the U.S. with her mother and later marrying an American. But her journey was filled with obstacles:
> 
> It took six years because she had worked in Germany. It took six years to clear her to be able to be married. Then when you married an American, because we were the enemy, you had to wait.
> 
> We had to go from Heidelberg to Bremerhaven where another camp was. This camp was run by the U.S. military. They vetted us in both places. There were all these German brides with their children and families who had to be vetted again for three of four days before they could get on the ship.
> 
> The ship we took was the S.S. Washington. We arrived in New York in 1953.
> 
> So we had a vetting process like what we are going through now because you have to have this to make the country safe.
> 
> Having once helped her city rebuild itself with her own two hands, as just a small child, it only makes sense that Andrews feels strongly about today’s protestors destroying property in the streets to drive home a point.
> 
> “America needs to grow up,” she says. “The young people who are rioting and destroying property, who have no respect for elders and freedom of speech, I was so proud to become a citizen of this country.”
> 
> And while so many people mock the very right to be an American because of today’s politics, Andrews recounts her desire to become an American:
> 
> At school, they put me in first grade even though I was a teenager because I didn’t speak English. The teachers would take time at their lunch time to teach us how to speak English.
> 
> But they came to find out that I was hiding in the bathroom stall with my legs up eating my braunschweiger and onion sandwich, so nobody would talk to me.
> 
> Still, I had a burning desire to be an American. I went to night school to learn English. I would practice English without a German accent. I didn’t want to be German. I wanted to be an American.
> 
> When I was fourteen, I was working in a drug store reading comic books. Through reading comic books, I developed my English skills.
> 
> We would go to the malls and we wouldn’t speak our foreign language, we would speak English. Because we believed we needed to honor the country that opened its doors for us. It was rude to do otherwise.
> 
> Andrews continued on to discuss those attacking freedom of speech in the present day. While her statements are controversial and something we don’t entirely agree with, here’s what she said:
> 
> Professors shouldn’t be telling their students to go after freedom of speech. They should be telling them that this is the greatest country in the world.
> 
> The demonstrators can’t tell you why they’re demonstrating. I’m not a Republican. I’m not a Democrat. I just want the country to be at peace.
> 
> I see what is happening here reflecting some of the things we saw in Germany, and it’s terrifying. It’s sad. But it’s not because of Trump. It’s because of poor education.
> 
> Trump is not like Hitler. The theory that he is is propaganda. Yes, I lived through some of Nazi Germany, but all you have to do is read some books about that period to see how wrong that theory is.
> 
> Andrews finished with a personal story: “I had an aunt who was in the Olympics. My aunt got all this extra stuff from Hitler and was surrounded by this propaganda,” she explained. “I couldn’t have anything to do with her. Even after the war, she was calling the Jewish people, of whom I was friends with, ‘dirty Jews.’ ”
> 
> *“My point in saying all this is that if people aren’t able to see outside of one world view, that’s what happens,”* Andrews said. *“They buy the propaganda. And that’s what is happening today. And if people aren’t educated properly and given the ability to think freely — we will repeat that history.”*
> 
> What do you think of her words? How do they resonate with you? Truly take a moment to feel this out within yourself and share your thoughts below.


People need to stop comparing Trump to Hitler, it's literally embarrassing especially as someone who has studied history like myself. At least come up with an argument that could be conceivable like Trump is authoritarian which would at least be an angle you can take critically. Not comparing him to a leader who undertook one of the biggest mass genocides in human history and was obsessed with eugenics.

Seriously...

The part I bolded has to be the truest statement out of everything I've ever read surrounding Trump thus far and the ridiculous comparisons. In fact, I'm pretty sure I said in an earlier post about how people can't even recognize when they are falling for propaganda even though they are taught about the propaganda used in WW1 and WW2.


----------



## Vic Capri

> Bryan Cranston to you:


Me to you: I don't give a fuck!




> *CAN WE COMPARE TRUMP TO HITLER? REPORTERS ASK A WOMAN BORN IN NAZI GERMANY HER THOUGHTS*


The Nazis were a political party that believed in bigger government, socialism, abortion, gun control, had a penchant for thuggery, and put people in concentration camps. Sound familiar?

- Vic


----------



## TomahawkJock

Trump is more comparable to a right wing Hugo Chavez.


----------



## LowRida

Don't think too many people talked smack about Hitler in Germany and lived to tell about it.

Here we have every Tom, Dick and Harry/washed up celebrity/wannabe jealous politician that comes down the pike gaily insulting him like there is no tomorrow, they all seem to be doing just fine so far.


----------



## virus21

Vic Capri said:


> Me to you: I don't give a fuck!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Nazis were a political party that believed in bigger government, socialism, abortion, gun control, had a penchant for thuggery, and put people in concentration camps. Sound familiar?
> 
> - Vic


Well except for the camps, yeah it does

Also, every time someone mention sanctuary cities, it reminds me of this
http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Sanctuary_District


----------



## AJ_Styles_P1

Anyone who _seriously_ compares Trump to Hitler exposes themselves as having little knowledge (accurate knowledge that is) of history IMO.

I don't see Donald Trump having a widespread ministry of public enlightenment. So far he's been struggling just to fend off the media barrage against him as it is.


----------



## CamillePunk

For those bothered by all the pictures of President Trump in the Oval Office surrounded by mostly men, here's a picture of him surrounded only by women:


----------



## FatherJackHackett

CamillePunk said:


> For those bothered by all the pictures of President Trump in the Oval Office surrounded by mostly men, here's a picture of him surrounded only by women:


LOL, I see what you did there


----------



## yeahbaby!

CamillePunk said:


> For those bothered by all the pictures of President Trump in the Oval Office surrounded by mostly men, here's a picture of him surrounded only by women:


Thank god Trumpo has his hands above the desk. I think he probably had to sign some order agreeing he wouldn't try the pussy grab on any of the women.

For some reason they weren't prepared to let him do it like he normally experiences. They must all be feminazis.


----------



## LowRida

yeahbaby! said:


> Thank god Trumpo has his hands above the desk. I think he probably had to sign some order agreeing he wouldn't try the pussy grab on any of the women.
> 
> For some reason they weren't prepared to let him do it like he normally experiences. They must all be feminazis.


Every single one of them would be reaching for his schlong well before he lunged for their pussies


----------



## CamillePunk

yeahbaby! said:


> Thank god Trumpo has his hands above the desk. I think he probably had to sign some order agreeing he wouldn't try the pussy grab on any of the women.
> 
> For some reason they weren't prepared to let him do it like he normally experiences. They must all be feminazis.


He had already grabbed himself some pussy earlier:


----------



## deepelemblues

yeahbaby! said:


> Thank god Trumpo has his hands above the desk. I think he probably had to sign some order agreeing he wouldn't try the pussy grab on any of the women.
> 
> For some reason they weren't prepared to let him do it like he normally experiences. They must all be feminazis.


if i were president i'd never put my hands under that desk

bill clinton had his hands under that desk

for 8 years

just

ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww


----------



## yeahbaby!

CamillePunk said:


> Scott Adams with another great article, this time about how those of us in our separate realities experience Trump's current battle with the judicial branch over his immigration ban differently:
> 
> Good Example of Our Two-Movie Reality by Scott Adams


Um. Wut?

Trump supporters see the world = Eating a delicious apple
Anti-Trumpers see the world = Hitler lines people up and shoots them

It kinda puts the Pro-Trumpers in a slightly better light for someone so objective.


I like the idea of people experiencing the same events differently, but someone needs to tell Scott that's actually been around much longer than Trump and even longer than HE thought of it.


----------



## yeahbaby!

LowRida said:


> Every single one of them would be reaching for his schlong well before he lunged for their pussies


Come on. We all know Trump needs to pay for a trophy wife or put on another beauty pageant if he wants that.

I bet Melania probably already has some presidential pool boys more her own age to forget about the old man Trump stink. Poor woman.


----------



## Vic Capri

> He had already grabbed himself some pussy earlier:


Trudeau should've done this 3 weeks ago, but had more important matters to attend to like taking selfies.




> Well except for the camps, yeah it does


It actually happened.

- Vic


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Thought this was an interesting article about an interview with Daryl Davis on the podcast Love+Radio. He's advising the left on how they should be trying to convert people on the other side instead of just being angry, yelling, and surrounding yourself with like minded people. I'm leaving out the click bait title since I think it actually goes against what Davis is saying and were I him, I'd be angry since it subverts what he's trying to say.

Link to article.



> As a hobby, the black musician Daryl Davis persuades members of the Ku Klux Klan to defect from the organization. Over the years, he has spoken with hundreds of white supremacists. And due to his work, a couple dozen people have left the organization, including at least two prominent figures in senior leadership positions.
> 
> Two years ago, after listening to his life story on Love+Radio, the peerless character-driven interview podcast, I wrote about his belief that “when you are actively learning about someone else you are passively teaching them about yourself.” In listening to his most bitter enemies, Davis heard words and ideas that chilled him to the bone—yet he found that by listening and conversing he could subvert them. Some men even handed over their Klan garb, as he reminds critics of his approach. “I pull out my robes and hoods and say, ‘This is what I've done to put a dent in racism,” he explained. “I've got robes and hoods hanging in my closet by people who've given up that belief because of my conversations sitting down to dinner. They gave it up. How many robes and hoods have you collected?”
> 
> This week, Love+Radio released a followup interview.
> 
> The show’s creator, Nick van der Kolk, felt that in the aftermath of the 2016 presidential election, Americans were having a hard time conversing. “I think when people feel scared they start arguing from this place of emotionality,” he said, “which is totally understandable, but it's also not very effective in terms of converting people.” He called Davis to ask his advice—and his thoughts on Donald Trump.
> 
> “Every racist that I know—and I know a lot of racists—every racist that I know voted for Donald Trump,” Davis said near the end of the interview. “However,” he added, “that does not, and I expressly repeat it, that does not mean that everybody who voted for Donald Trump is a racist. There are plenty of people, including good friends of mine, who are not racist, and who voted for Trump. A lot of people wanted a change from what they were accustom to for the last decades … they wanted a change of the status quo, a changing of the guard. And they were willing to overlook his misogyny, his racist or bigoted comments. They just wanted that change. They were are not racist people. But every racist I know did vote for him.”
> 
> He attributes that to a campaign focused on fear of outsiders. “They got the most powerful man in the world to say the exact same thing that they've been saying for decades. For over a century,” he said. “You know they're going to vote for him.”
> 
> Racists now feel emboldened, he said—“stuff that this country has denied for so long has come to surface. We can no longer deny racism exists in abundance in this country.”
> 
> How does one counter fear or hatred of outsiders, whether from the leadership of the KKK or an otherwise wonderful neighbor with ugly prejudices toward Syrian refugees? For that matter, how does one talk about any subject despite deep moral disagreements? There is no substitute for listening to Davis’ advice in his own voice here.
> 
> For now, a sample of his advice.
> 
> *The dos:*
> 
> “Gather your information. Get an astute knowledge of the other person's side before meeting them. Review it in your head. Be as familiar with their position as you are with your own. That way you know what to expect and how to react. You might hear things that frighten you. You might hear things that make you angry or make you sad or hurt you. But these are words. And you go in there because that person has an opposing point of view. That's what you're looking for. To find out why they think that way, why they want to do these things.”
> 
> “Invite them to have a conversation, not to debate. A debate is I want to make my point, you want to make your point, and we're going to fight it out. That tends to get their guard up. You say, hey, I want to have a conversation with you. I want to understand why you feel the way you feel. I want you to convince me that I need to change my way of thinking. And I appreciate your sharing your views. I'm interested in how you feel. And that's what a lot of people want. They want to be heard. They want to be able to speak their mind freely without fear of retaliation or somebody beating them over the head for their views or ramming their own views down the person's throat. So give them that.”
> 
> “Look for commonalities. You can find something in five minutes—even with your worst enemy. And build on those. Say I don't like you because you're white and I'm black. You disgust me … And so our contention is based upon our races. But you're like, ‘how do you feel about all these drugs on the street, and all these meth labs that are popping up?’ And I say, I think the law needs to crack down on things that people can get addicted to very easily and it's destroying our society. So you say, ‘Well yeah, I agree 100 percent.’ You might even tell me your son started dabbling in drugs. They don't discriminate. So now I see that you want what I want, that drugs are affecting your family the same way they affect my family, so now we're in agreement. So let's focus on that. As we focus more and more and find more things in common, things we have in contrast, such as skin color, matter less and less.”
> 
> “When two enemies are talking they're not fighting. They might be yelling and screaming or disagreeing or beating their fists on the table to drive home a point but at least they're talking. It's when the talking ceases that the ground becomes fertile for violence. So you want to keep the conversation going. And the more you keep the conversation going, even though you might be disagreeing, the more commonalities you will eventually find. When you can't talk to one another you're laying the ground work for trouble.”
> 
> “Patience is a virtue. My method worked for me, because I've taken the time and had the patience to learn about the other side. I've read tons of material on the Klan, on the neo-Nazis, on white supremacy, on black supremacy. So I know how the mentality works. And when I go in there I tend to be a little more disarming than someone who does not have that knowledge.”
> 
> “I know there comes a point in time when you say, okay, enough time, now things have got to change ... if you need to legislate something or force something, then fine, you have those tools available. That's why we have lawmakers. But the day the law changed to when black people could ride in the front of the bus, or not have to give up their seat, the day that law changed did not necessarily change the minds of the white riders. You can legislate behavior but you cannot legislate belief. Patience is what it takes. But patience doesn't mean sitting around on your butt waiting for something to happen. Be proactive. And don't just sit around and talk with your friends who believe the way you do. Invite other people who have differences of opinion.”
> 
> *And the don’ts:*
> 
> “You can become argumentative but don't become condescending. Don't become insulting. You're going to hear things that you don't like. You're going to hear things that you know are absolutely wrong. And their opinion may be ridiculous. You will also hear things that are not opinions that they're going to put out as facts. ‘There are more black people on welfare than white people.’ Well, that's not true. And you should counter that and correct that. But don't do it in a manner that is insulting or condescending because you know they're wrong, and you're going to beat them over the head for being wrong. Show them the data, or tell them you'll get it, or if they really believe it, say, I know you're wrong, but if you think you're right then bring me the data.”
> 
> “Don't explain somebody else's movement initially. Let them explain it. And then address the points they have defined. There will be key points that you know you can counter and shut down, but let them finish, give them a little more rope. Say, I hear what you're saying but I'm not there yet. I need more clarification from you. You said, blah blah blah. Can you give me more facts on why I should accept that? And they'll come out with these points. Then go to the points that they made. Quote their words and shut down their factual mistakes.”
> 
> How would Daryl Davis go about arguing against, say, a ban on Muslim refugees?
> 
> You want to draw people out. They are fearful of people who look different, but you have to remind them you're dealing with a certain sect of that religion.
> 
> The Ku Klux Klan claims to be Christian. These people who are supporting this travel ban—most of them are Christian, too. But are they the same Christians as the Klan? Ask them that.
> 
> "The Klan says that they are Christian. Are you the same as the Klan?"
> 
> No, I don't support the Ku Klux Klan.
> 
> "Well, guess what, they're Christian."
> 
> Well, no, I don't consider them Christian.
> 
> "Good. Guess what? There are Muslims here and abroad who do not support the Muslims that are doing all this destruction and all this terrorism. So why paint that religion with a broad brush and not your own?"
> 
> You've got to show them different perspectives.
> 
> And they'll say, I see what you're saying, but how do you tell?
> 
> “Well, you know what, why should I let any white people into my neighborhood? How do I know that they're not Klan unless they're wearing their robe and hood? You might be a klansman in your suit and tie. How do I tell? We need to come up with ways to figure this stuff out but we don't do it by discriminating against other people unless we have valid proof.”
> 
> Not everyone has the personality or reasoning skills to pull off the Daryl Davis approach to persuasion. But to his critics, I find the question, “How many people have you persuaded to leave the Ku Klux Klan?” a powerful retort. And an energizing one, in that improving America doesn’t require that most people achieve anything as daunting as converting a klansmen or other extremist with hatred in his heart.
> 
> Indeed, there is much lower hanging fruit to pluck.
> 
> Think of your least favorite politician or policy. Often as not, converting even 5 percent of the folks on the other side is enough to push the country in a different direction. A lot of those people are already somewhat sympathetic to your views. For Trump opponents, the challenge isn’t converting the Klansmen who support him. It’s helping others see the most toxic elements of his coalition and agenda. Having truth on one’s side is an advantage, but only for those who know how to exploit it. The approach Trump opponents used in 2016 failed; perhaps it’s time for something new.


----------



## CamillePunk

yeahbaby! said:


> Um. Wut?
> 
> Trump supporters see the world = Eating a delicious apple
> Anti-Trumpers see the world = Hitler lines people up and shoots them
> 
> It kinda puts the Pro-Trumpers in a slightly better light for someone so objective.


Oh dear, you never cease to amaze me with how little you understand anything you read. :lol I'm going to walk you through it because I'm a nice guy.



Scott Adams said:


> If you are a Trump supporter, all you see is an example of Trump talking the way Trump always does. He bluntly criticizes everything he doesn’t like.* That’s one of the things his supporters like about him. Mmm, that’s a delicious apple.*


They're Trump SUPPORTERS, so him talking the way he always does is something they like, and thus is a positive image. Hence, a delicious apple. He never makes the claim that they see THE WORLD IN GENERAL as a delicious apple. That's just you failing at reading comprehension. 



Scott Adams said:


> But if you are an anti-Trumper, and his unexpected election sent you into cognitive dissonance, you see “So-called judge” as exactly what Hitler might say before he lined them all up and shot them. Where his supporters see a delicious apple in Trump’s hand, his critics see a gun.


The unexpected election result sends anti-Trumpers into cognitive dissonance because in their minds he's obviously Hitler and there's no way he could win an election, plus all the media told them there was no way he could win. Therefore, when they see him in conflict with a judge, the Hitler narrative takes over and they assume he's trying to overthrow the judiciary, hence, a gun. Again, there's no general claim here that anti-Trumpers see the world as Hitler just lining people up and killing each other. That's you failing miserably at comprehension once again. I feel bad ragging on you for this because your mind is literally hallucinating these things, and you'll probably hallucinate that I'm saying something completely different than I am, but as usual when I interact with people who have a long record of failing to reason it's more about informing the audience than informing them personally.



> I like the idea of people experiencing the same events differently, but someone needs to tell Scott that's actually been around much longer than Trump and even longer than HE thought of it.


Where did he make the claim that people started experiencing reality differently only once Trump came along or that he was the first to think of it? :lol Dear God, how ignorant can one person be. He's been talking about this stuff for years. This is just the latest and most blatant example. Read up on someone's views before you make assumptions about them.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

...just me?

o.k.


----------



## deepelemblues

2 Ton 21 said:


> ...just me?
> 
> o.k.


no, :trump 's raw alpha male sexual energy is clearly having an effect on justin trudeau there

rich guy finding a young teenage boy who is hot and knows it to sodomize. ancient greek vibe going on 

:cena5

:trump3


----------



## LowRida

yeahbaby! said:


> Come on. We all know Trump needs to pay for a trophy wife or put on another beauty pageant if he wants that.
> 
> I bet Melania probably already has some presidential pool boys more her own age to forget about the old man Trump stink. Poor woman.



$$ + power attracts babes, no question about it.
Don't think he is shooting blanks quite yet, he does have a 10 year old son and seems to have more vitality than anyone around him, certainly alot more than old filly Hillary, who got winded walking up a flight of 3 steps [with helpers on either side]


----------



## deepelemblues

the day :trump stops tweeting is the day his presidency is over and done with.

whether for good or ill as long as he remains HIGH ENERGY or whatever he will have a great influence on the country.

after 2010 obama got pissed at not just getting his way and really kind of stopped fighting except to protect what he accomplished in his first two years and to tinker around the edges of the constitution with regulations and executive orders. and lob occasional grenades from the peanut gallery. it greatly reduced the influence of his presidency from 2011-2017.

even if there were say a democratic house or senate :trump would never stop fighting i think and he'd still get big things done.


----------



## Reaper

2 Ton 21 said:


> ...just me?
> 
> o.k.


Lol. What I found interesting here is that they used Trudeau's visit to the white house to talk about female empowerment. I guess Trudeau really gives off those feminine vibes 'cuz that's the kind of thing world leaders talk about when they're meeting some prominent woman or something.


----------



## yeahbaby!

CamillePunk said:


> Oh dear, you never cease to amaze me with how little you understand anything you read. :lol I'm going to walk you through it because I'm a nice guy.
> 
> They're Trump SUPPORTERS, so him talking the way he always does is something they like, and thus is a positive image. Hence, a delicious apple. He never makes the claim that they see THE WORLD IN GENERAL as a delicious apple. That's just you failing at reading comprehension.
> 
> The unexpected election result sends anti-Trumpers into cognitive dissonance because in their minds he's obviously Hitler and there's no way he could win an election, plus all the media told them there was no way he could win. Therefore, when they see him in conflict with a judge, the Hitler narrative takes over and they assume he's trying to overthrow the judiciary, hence, a gun. Again, there's no general claim here that anti-Trumpers see the world as Hitler just lining people up and killing each other. That's you failing miserably at comprehension once again. I feel bad ragging on you for this because your mind is literally hallucinating these things, and you'll probably hallucinate that I'm saying something completely different than I am, but as usual when I interact with people who have a long record of failing to reason it's more about informing the audience than informing them personally.
> 
> Where did he make the claim that people started experiencing reality differently only once Trump came along or that he was the first to think of it? :lol Dear God, how ignorant can one person be. He's been talking about this stuff for years. This is just the latest and most blatant example. Read up on someone's views before you make assumptions about them.


I think you're just so far up Adams' ass you can't take any criticism of his ramblings. Talk about Triggered!


----------



## LowRida

Trudeau looks like a little boy on a construction site, dreaming of one day himself operating heavy, complex machinery.


----------



## yeahbaby!

LowRida said:


> *$$ + power attracts babes, no question about it.*
> Don't think he is shooting blanks quite yet, he does have a 10 year old son and seems to have more vitality than anyone around him, certainly alot more than old filly Hillary, who got winded walking up a flight of 3 steps [with helpers on either side]


Yes lucky for him it does.


----------



## samizayn

I dunno about that article you posted @camille_Punk. Talks a big game about how the realities have nothing to do with intelligence or moral compass, then oversimplifies an anti-Trump point of contention to illustrate the cognitive dissonance they are apparently experiencing? I don't know how you can claim that without properly repeating what people are actually saying or feeling. The guy in the tweet made the point a lot better, if that's what he wanted to say then he should have left it at that.


----------



## CamillePunk

samizayn said:


> I dunno about that article you posted @camille_Punk. Talks a big game about how the realities have nothing to do with intelligence or moral compass, then oversimplifies an anti-Trump point of contention to illustrate the cognitive dissonance they are apparently experiencing? I don't know how you can claim that without properly repeating what people are actually saying or feeling. The guy in the tweet made the point a lot better, if that's what he wanted to say then he should have left it at that.


I want to respond to this but I have no idea what you just said here. Please recompile and re-submit.


----------



## Reaper

Klavan talks about the media in this one.


----------



## Beatles123

yeahbaby! said:


> I think you're just so far up Adams' ass you can't take any criticism of his ramblings. Talk about Triggered!


So, you want to shitpost for the left like you claim I do for the right, eh? 

I mean, since i've debated far better than you ever have. :trump


----------



## CamillePunk

Beatles123 said:


> So, you want to shitpost for the left like you claim I do for the right, eh?
> 
> I mean, since i've debated far better than you ever have. :trump


It's a white flag post. No need to respond further. :lol


----------



## yeahbaby!

CamillePunk said:


> I want to respond to this but I have no idea what you just said here. Please recompile and re-submit.


He's basically saying the creator of Dilbert is full of shit.


----------



## DOPA

@DesolationRow @CamillePunk @Miss Sally @RipNTear @Alco @Goku @AryaDark @Pratchett @Alkomesh2

http://rare.us/rare-politics/rare-l...&utm_campaign=Influencers_Rare_Julia_Borowski



> *If Trump wants to keep Mexican drugs out of the country, he should try ending the drug war
> *
> 
> President Trump is a businessman, which is what makes his approach to stemming the flow of illicit drugs from Mexico into America so baffling.
> 
> An inveterate crony capitalist who likes to boast of manipulating government in his favor, it should be easy for him to see how drug prohibition in the United States is a huge economic boon to drug cartels in Latin America.
> 
> It’s as if New York City banned the production and sale of steaks, but the people of Manhattan still had an established and voracious appetite for porterhouse. An enterprising real estate mogul might take advantage of the situation to ship steaks up from West Palm Beach, Florida, and sell them at exorbitantly high prices in New York to compensate for the risk involved in the illegal transaction.
> 
> If New York City reacted by building a wall around the island to keep out the steaks obligingly and profitably provided by this entrepreneur, the steak man would simply find some other way to maintain his trade. I imagine President Trump understands this.
> 
> Perhaps he would use a plane. Or a tunnel. Or — well, you get the idea. And if his business prowess is anything like he describes, Trump would too.
> 
> But Trump’s border wall plan suggests otherwise. Of course, the primary purpose of the wall, which is allegedly going to begin construction within a few months, is not about drugs. It’s about immigration, along with the Trump administration’s conception of national culture and sovereignty.
> 
> Still, the drugs have always been part of the rationale. “I want to build the wall. We need the wall,” Trump said during his campaign. “We stop the drugs. We shore up the border.”
> 
> His top aide and spinmeister Kellyanne Conway claimed just a few days ago that Mexico opposes the wall “because they want to continue to allow people and I assume drugs, since they’re not doing much to stop that, pouring over our borders” — so clearly the drug aspect is still very much part of this wall agenda.
> 
> The trouble is that it won’t work. If anything, the wall will unintentionally benefit the drug cartels and foster their violence, as Eric Boehm explains at Reason:
> 
> _Instead of increasingly militant and expensive measures designed to stop the flow of drugs, [drug war journalist David] Bienenstock told Reason in an email interview this week, Trump should be backing the legalization of marijuana, which has already begun to cut into the drug cartels’ profits while creating American jobs.
> 
> “It’s important to understand that the Drug War created the cartels, not the other way around,” says Bienenstock. “We’ve been wasting trillions of dollars for nearly 50 years on wholly ineffective, and even counterproductive, efforts to stop the flow of drugs into the United States, and those efforts have only made the cartels bigger, stronger, and more dangerous.”_
> 
> What would work? Shutting the drug war down once and for all:
> 
> _The less expensive, more effective way to reduce the flow of drugs over the border is loosen drug laws here in America. In fact, liberalized marijuana laws in some states are already having an effect. The Washington Post reported in March that “marijuana seizures along the southwest border tumbled to their lowest level in at least a decade.”_
> 
> Trump himself is a teetotaler, and his attorney general pick of Senator Jeff Sessions does not bode well for criminal justice reform issues under his administration.
> 
> Still, as a businessman, the likely outcome of the wall for the drug trade — and especially cartel violence — should be clear.
> 
> “The only law that cartels do not break is the law of supply and demand,” notes Paul Kan at War on the Rocks. And “as new barriers along the border increase risks for the cartels,” he adds, “they will innovate smuggling operations, raise their prices to keep profits flowing, and stimulate new domestic markets in Mexico and on the U.S. side of the border.”
> 
> We know this, Kan added, because the same sort of “adaptations occurred after 9/11, the last time the United States seriously tightened its border security.” Trump should know, too, if he’s even half as good at business as he says.


I could not agree with this more. Won't happen with a Trump presidency though.


----------



## Beatles123

L-DOPA said:


> @DesolationRow @CamillePunk @Miss Sally @RipNTear @Alco @Goku @AryaDark @Pratchett @Alkomesh2
> 
> http://rare.us/rare-politics/rare-l...&utm_campaign=Influencers_Rare_Julia_Borowski
> 
> 
> 
> I could not agree with this more. Won't happen with a Trump presidency though.


Recreational drugs are degenerate and have no place in society.


----------



## DOPA

Beatles123 said:


> Recreational drugs are degenerate and have no place in society.


Just to ask, do you have the same attitude towards alcohol and tobacco? Because they are both recreational drugs too despite them being legal.


----------



## samizayn

CamillePunk said:


> I want to respond to this but I have no idea what you just said here. Please recompile and re-submit.


Basically, he has started with an idea that is obvious enough to agree with, but then I feel the way he illustrated it was weak and kind of lazy. In the post he went on to embed a pair of tweets that drive home the anti-Trump cognitive dissonance he brought up, but since those was far more on the nose than whatever the author wrote, I was not sure why he didn't centre the blog around them, instead of the lousy Hitler/gun thing he went with. Or alternatively, frame the anti-Trump 'gun' mentality more accurately.



L-DOPA said:


> I could not agree with this more. Won't happen with a Trump presidency though.


Tag me in this shit too!!

I agree, in normal circumstances that kind of pragmatic option would be obvious to a bizznisman like Trump, but I suppose he has to appeal to his base. Or perhaps if he was ten years younger? idk.

Decriminilisation of all banned substances is the ultimate answer, but I imagine the political risk will be too much for any politician in a very long time. If it would have been anyone in my lifetime it would have been this guy, but oh well.


----------



## yeahbaby!

L-DOPA said:


> Just to ask, do you have the same attitude towards alcohol and tobacco? Because they are both recreational drugs too despite them being legal.


Why bother feeding that troll dude?


Your article indeed makes perfect sense, and It's the same common sense argument that's been around for years but politicians at large will simply not entertain.

I think it doesn't get up because it's too easy to counter with hysteria from out of touch politicians about legitimising drug use and 'giving' drugs to people, leading to more kids getting addicted etc etc etc.

Some people still honestly believe the 'Just say no' approach and refuse the look at the problem practically.


----------



## CamillePunk

samizayn said:


> Basically, he has started with an idea that is obvious enough to agree with, but then I feel the way he illustrated it was weak and kind of lazy. In the post he went on to embed a pair of tweets that drive home the anti-Trump cognitive dissonance he brought up, but since those was far more on the nose than whatever the author wrote, I was not sure why he didn't centre the blog around them, instead of the lousy Hitler/gun thing he went with. Or alternatively, frame the anti-Trump 'gun' mentality more accurately.


You haven't explained what was weak, lazy, or lousy about the content of the article.


Beatles123 said:


> Recreational drugs are degenerate and have no place in society.


I disagree. I want to keep using them whenever I want to for whatever reasons I deem appropriate. What should happen to me?


----------



## FriedTofu

I don't see how legalising heroin is beneficial to the public though. The healthcare costs will still be there. You might be able to cut the revenue from the drug trade to the cartels, but it's not like they wouldn't adapt and stay in the market or move to other lucrative harmful activities. Did legalised gambling shut down illegal gambling? Look at the harm of liberal use of opiods legally has done to America. Not sure why you feel it will work differently with legalised drug trade.


----------



## CamillePunk

FriedTofu said:


> I don't see how legalising heroin is beneficial to the public though. The healthcare costs will still be there. You might be able to cut the revenue from the drug trade to the cartels, but it's not like they wouldn't adapt and stay in the market or move to other lucrative harmful activities. Did legalised gambling shut down illegal gambling? Look at the harm of liberal use of opiods legally has done to America. Not sure why you feel it will work differently with legalised drug trade.


If public health is more important than respecting people's freedom to make peaceful choices, then by this logic the government ought to ban everything that is unhealthy. Do you agree?


----------



## FriedTofu

CamillePunk said:


> If public health is more important than respecting people's freedom to make peaceful choices, then by this logic the government ought to ban everything that is unhealthy. Do you agree?


Sure why not? While you are at it, feed your kids all the candies they want and play video games all day too as it is their peaceful choices.


----------



## Reaper

L-DOPA said:


> @DesolationRow @CamillePunk @Miss Sally @RipNTear @Alco @Goku @AryaDark @Pratchett @Alkomesh2
> 
> http://rare.us/rare-politics/rare-l...&utm_campaign=Influencers_Rare_Julia_Borowski
> 
> 
> 
> I could not agree with this more. Won't happen with a Trump presidency though.


Cartels will find something else. 

They always find something else. For them it's about wealth accumulation. They'll switch from drugs to something else. 

This isn't an argument against legalization btw. This is just the idea that legalization is the fix-all solution to the cartel problem is just plain short-sighted.


----------



## DOPA

FriedTofu said:


> I don't see how legalising heroin is beneficial to the public though. The healthcare costs will still be there. You might be able to cut the revenue from the drug trade to the cartels, but it's not like they wouldn't adapt and stay in the market or move to other lucrative harmful activities. Did legalised gambling shut down illegal gambling? Look at the harm of liberal use of opiods legally has done to America. Not sure why you feel it will work differently with legalised drug trade.


Because you can regulate the most harmful variants of those drug types out of existence with the harder type of drugs. Think about when alcohol was made illegal back in the 1920's in America, before then you had alcohol which the content of had to be regulated to a certain standard so that it wasn't something that could kill you in one sitting or quickly over time. When alcohol was made illegal not only did of course the prices of illegal alcohol shoot up along with the power of the drug cartels but also the strength of the alcohol being made was far stronger than what it is today, it was practically ethanol with the homemade moonshine people were making, buying and selling.

As far as your opiate example goes, in the UK before drugs were made illegal you could buy opiates over the counter from a medical practice and it didn't cause an epidemic. Part of the reason why there is such an epidemic with opiates in the states is because the only means to get them type of drugs or fixes is illegally and where there is no quality control. So generally speaking, people are scared to go to rehabilitation because of the fact they know what they are doing is illegal and they are scared of being turned over to the authorities and given prison sentences. The types of opiates particularly in terms of heroin have become such an addictive and incredibly harmful substance because of the lack of regulation surrounding those drugs in which alcohol for example does not have the same problems because of them being legal and having quality control.

Now I'm not suggesting we legalize everything at once because that would be too big of a change to account for, but if you legalize softer drugs like Marijuana and LSD (not as hard as meth, crack or heroin at least) and see how that does in terms of results and in terms of quality control you can also research in terms of how to regulate and control harder substances in that time and analyze the effects of the legalization process for weed for example. Colorado has had largely positive results from legalization of weed and the numbers of adolescent users for example have actually declined whilst adult users have remained largely the same.

The war on drugs has had a disastrous effect, trillions spent and the problem has only increased. It has particularly been damaging to poorer working class communities and ethnic minorities. Something has to change, the hard on drugs stance hasn't been working and steps need to be taken in the opposite direction. Particularly in terms of criminal justice reform and mandatory minimums at the very least, if not outright decriminalization.

Nobody who is practical about this will say to legalize heroin tomorrow but if we legalize other substances and the results are a net positive, then absolutely I'd say legalize it.

I'd also like to note I've used all consequential arguments and haven't delved into my personal opinion on the matter, which as an individualist would say nobody should be punished for putting substances into your own body and that you should have the liberty to make personal choices....even bad and harmful ones for recreational use .


----------



## BruiserKC

L-DOPA said:


> @DesolationRow @CamillePunk @Miss Sally @RipNTear @Alco @Goku @AryaDark @Pratchett @Alkomesh2
> 
> http://rare.us/rare-politics/rare-l...&utm_campaign=Influencers_Rare_Julia_Borowski
> 
> 
> 
> I could not agree with this more. Won't happen with a Trump presidency though.


http://fortune.com/2017/01/10/jeff-sessions-marijuana-confirmation-hearing/

http://www.businessinsider.com/attorney-general-jeff-sessions-legal-weed-2017-2

https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/01/14/the-3-most-likely-scenarios-for-marijuana-with-jef.aspx

While Sessions in the past has been extremely anti-marijuana even for medicinal purposes, he didn't sound as such during his hearings while being vetted for AG. Either that or he's not tipping his hand on which way he's going. 

For those that might not be familiar with Ken Burns' "Prohibition" mini-series, the ban was finally possible with the passage of the 16th Amendment instituting a national income tax. It was necessary as prior to then, the government was funded on the taxation of alcoholic beverages. With a new stream of revenue, the path was clear to the banning of alcohol. 

Now, Trump has mentioned he wants to simplify the tax code. What would make the code simpler then doing away with the IRS altogether? You can replace it with a national sales tax, similar to the VAT that is used in many European nations. Additional revenue can also be provided by legalizing marijuana. Even if you only legalize it for medical purposes, you can tax it like they tax alcohol and tobacco. I think this could be a win-win.

Personally I am not crazy about the legalization of recreational marijuana, but I also am a firm believer that it's your body and as long as you don't hurt anyone else you can do what you want. We don't legislate if someone goes to the buffet line 9 times, and that can be as damaging to your body. Same with slamming down a full bottle of Jameson's and passing out in your own vomit in the living room.


----------



## DOPA

RipNTear said:


> Cartels will find something else.
> 
> They always find something else. For them it's about wealth accumulation. They'll switch from drugs to something else.
> 
> This isn't an argument against legalization btw. This is just the idea that legalization is the fix-all solution to the cartel problem is just plain short-sighted.


Oh no I get that for sure. With Trump however, one of the things he has always stressed is stopping the pouring of drugs over the border and how much power these cartels have over the drug industry in general. The best way to stop that instead of trying to crack down on drug users which doesn't help the situation is to cut off the profits cartels are making through these drugs by legalizing drugs over time and allowing legal businesses into the market. Legal businesses with no fear of being arrested would undercut the expensive prices of the drug cartels and drug users will use the safer option to purchase without fearing of being killed or arrested.

Win-win all around especially if you can use some of the money made to help people rehabilitate which helps far more than being put in jail where the majority of users either continue the same addiction or move on to harder drugs due to how poorly the prisons are ran in terms of security.

But I digress, you have a point with the first part.


----------



## samizayn

CamillePunk said:


> You haven't explained what was weak, lazy, or lousy about the content of the article.


Ok I will fetch it



> If you are a Trump supporter, all you see is an example of Trump talking the way Trump always does. He bluntly criticizes everything he doesn’t like. That’s one of the things his supporters like about him. Mmm, that’s a delicious apple.


I think it was this^


> But if you are an anti-Trumper, and his unexpected election sent you into cognitive dissonance, you see “So-called judge” as exactly what Hitler might say before he lined them all up and shot them. Where his supporters see a delicious apple in Trump’s hand, his critics see a gun.


Side by side with this^. I think attempting to parse both situations into equally simple terms makes him seem like he doesn't care to exhibit the true anti-Trump sentiment in this situation. Apple-to-gun overall seems either hastily thought up or intentionally inflammatory I guess to mock the left. It came across like a quick write up to me which is why I said lazy, but I suppose it could have always been done intentionally.

I also think a soundtrack analogy would have been far more appropriate :gaymj:

In any case he's allowed to be lazy and/or inflammatory, it's just a little blog. But I think it's definitely one for a certain audience even though it presents itself as being right down the middle (which again, his blog, do whatever.)




FriedTofu said:


> I don't see how legalising heroin is beneficial to the public though. The healthcare costs will still be there. You might be able to cut the revenue from the drug trade to the cartels, but it's not like they wouldn't adapt and stay in the market or move to other lucrative harmful activities. Did legalised gambling shut down illegal gambling? Look at the harm of liberal use of opiods legally has done to America. Not sure why you feel it will work differently with legalised drug trade.


Probably boring harping on about PORTUGAL, and yes it's over simplifying things to just assume copy-pasting the policy will automatically work, but I still think they're worth bearing in mind regardless.


----------



## Reaper

L-DOPA said:


> Win-win all around especially if you can use some of the money made to help people rehabilitate which helps far more than being put in jail where the majority of users either continue the same addiction or move on to harder drugs due to how poorly the prisons are ran in terms of security.
> 
> But I digress, you have a point with the first part.


It's all valid arguments. I'm not questioning the validity of legalization as obviously this satiates my need for less and less government control. I don't think that marijuana is the illegal drug choice of the cartels anymore anyways. Isn't it Cocaine and Heroin now?

Our marijuana legislation isn't going to impact the cartels at all if that's the case.


----------



## Oxidamus

CamillePunk said:


> If public health is more important than respecting people's freedom to make peaceful choices, then by this logic the government ought to ban everything that is unhealthy. Do you agree?


Nuance. Consider long term and short term.


----------



## FriedTofu

L-DOPA said:


> Because you can regulate the most harmful variants of those drug types out of existence with the harder type of drugs. Think about when alcohol was made illegal back in the 1920's in America, before then you had alcohol which the content of had to be regulated to a certain standard so that it wasn't something that could kill you in one sitting or quickly over time. When alcohol was made illegal not only did of course the prices of illegal alcohol shoot up along with the power of the drug cartels but also the strength of the alcohol being made was far stronger than what it is today, it was practically ethanol with the homemade moonshine people were making, buying and selling.
> 
> As far as your opiate example goes, in the UK before drugs were made illegal you could buy opiates over the counter from a medical practice and it didn't cause an epidemic. Part of the reason why there is such an epidemic with opiates in the states is because the only means to get them type of drugs or fixes is illegally and where there is no quality control. So generally speaking, people are scared to go to rehabilitation because of the fact they know what they are doing is illegal and they are scared of being turned over to the authorities and given prison sentences. The types of opiates particularly in terms of heroin have become such an addictive and incredibly harmful substance because of the lack of regulation surrounding those drugs in which alcohol for example does not have the same problems because of them being legal and having quality control.
> 
> Now I'm not suggesting we legalize everything at once because that would be too big of a change to account for, but if you legalize softer drugs like Marijuana and LSD (not as hard as meth, crack or heroin at least) and see how that does in terms of results and in terms of quality control you can also research in terms of how to regulate and control harder substances in that time and analyze the effects of the legalization process for weed for example. Colorado has had largely positive results from legalization of weed and the numbers of adolescent users for example have actually declined whilst adult users have remained largely the same.
> 
> The war on drugs has had a disastrous effect, trillions spent and the problem has only increased. It has particularly been damaging to poorer working class communities and ethnic minorities. Something has to change, the hard on drugs stance hasn't been working and steps need to be taken in the opposite direction. Particularly in terms of criminal justice reform and mandatory minimums at the very least, if not outright decriminalization.
> 
> Nobody who is practical about this will say to legalize heroin tomorrow but if we legalize other substances and the results are a net positive, then absolutely I'd say legalize it.
> 
> I'd also like to note I've used all consequential arguments and haven't delved into my personal opinion on the matter, which as an individualist would say nobody should be punished for putting substances into your own body and that you should have the liberty to make personal choices....even bad and harmful ones for recreational use .


But wouldn't the regulation of how hard the drug is simply create a new black market for harder drugs that the current cartels thrive in?

From my admittedly limited understanding, the issue with opioids in America is the overprescription of them legally to people that needed pain relief. And when the regulators stepped in to cut out the supply for addicts, they went to the black market to obtain them from people who can get them legally. And when that loophole was tighten, the addicts went for the cheaper illegal alternatives to get their fix from the cartels. Maybe target big pharma first before cartels? 

I don't think fear of incarceration is the driving force for their reluctance to seek rehabilitation as much as the shame of it. Many alcoholics also refuse to get treatment even when drinking is legal.


----------



## DOPA

RipNTear said:


> It's all valid arguments. I'm not questioning the validity of legalization as obviously this satiates my need for less and less government control. I don't think that marijuana is the illegal drug choice of the cartels anymore anyways. Isn't it Cocaine and Heroin now?
> 
> Our marijuana legislation isn't going to impact the cartels at all if that's the case.


Well you already know my position which is to eventually legalize everything .

But in terms of weed, I'd have to look it up and see. My guess would be that the three strongest illegal substances those being Heroin, Cocaine and Meth are the three biggest choices of the drug cartels due to how much they can charge and how addictive each of them are. But that is just assumption.

I do know that weed legalization has dug in deep into the pockets of criminal gangs in the states that have legalized them. In terms of the big cartels however, that is something I'd have to research.


---------------

@BruiserKC Encouraging news about Sessions which I did already read but thanks for bringing it up again.

I think we may see a good chance of medical marijuana being legalized at the federal level during Trump's presidency as it is an idea which has wide support. I think if you are someone who believes ultimately in the Constitution then you should at least be in favour of decriminalization and letting the states decide for themselves. As someone who believes a lot in decentralization of power and limiting the size and scope of government as far as possible I'd be happy with that as a measure in terms of the US's drug policy. Would be a great step forward.

The sales tax idea that you've floated is a good one, especially if you can shred that damn tax code and get the IRS out of the way. The simpler the better (Y).


----------



## yeahbaby!

I think another good thing for the legalisation scenario is I think it will provide more opportunities for education about substances into the mainstream. In the current climate, education about illegal drugs tends to be very fringe in my experience and not very effective.

As has been shown in numerous studies, the more people learn about a potentially dangerous thing, the less likely they are to do it (like your unprotected sex and excessive drug abuse). Opponents will inevitably argue the opposite however that is absolutely not the case.


----------



## BruiserKC

L-DOPA said:


> Well you already know my position which is to eventually legalize everything .
> 
> But in terms of weed, I'd have to look it up and see. My guess would be that the three strongest illegal substances those being Heroin, Cocaine and Meth are the three biggest choices of the drug cartels due to how much they can charge and how addictive each of them are. But that is just assumption.
> 
> I do know that weed legalization has dug in deep into the pockets of criminal gangs in the states that have legalized them. In terms of the big cartels however, that is something I'd have to research.
> 
> 
> ---------------
> 
> @BruiserKC Encouraging news about Sessions which I did already read but thanks for bringing it up again.
> 
> I think we may see a good chance of medical marijuana being legalized at the federal level during Trump's presidency as it is an idea which has wide support. I think if you are someone who believes ultimately in the Constitution then you should at least be in favour of decriminalization and letting the states decide for themselves. As someone who believes a lot in decentralization of power and limiting the size and scope of government as far as possible I'd be happy with that as a measure in terms of the US's drug policy. Would be a great step forward.
> 
> The sales tax idea that you've floated is a good one, especially if you can shred that damn tax code and get the IRS out of the way. The simpler the better (Y).


The one thing that will need to be solved though is the role of the feds in all of this. Remember, it is still technically illegal at the federal level and illegal for it to be taken across state lines. For example, here in Iowa a couple of years ago they legalized the use of medical marijuana for certain situations. However, they didn't do anything in regards to obtaining it. It is still illegal to grow it here in the state, and people going to Colorado to get it legally there have to cross through Nebraska where it is illegal. Not to mention you are breaking federal law moving the pot across state lines.


----------



## DOPA

FriedTofu said:


> But wouldn't the regulation of how hard the drug is simply create a new black market for harder drugs that the current cartels thrive in?


That hasn't been the case for alcohol or tobacco and thus far it hasn't been the case for weed either. This is really because the regulated variants still have the same type of buzz you would get from the illegal substances that would come out of them if they were criminalized.

I mean when was the last time you heard of really strong variants of alcohol close to ethanol levels being sold on the black market and people being caught for it? It doesn't happen because there is no demand for it. If people can get exactly the same high from the regulated and safer variant, people will use the safer variant not only because the risks are lower but the costs are cheaper due to legalized competition in the market place.

This has also been happening in the states for weed and has happened for years in the Netherlands. There is no reason why it wouldn't happen for other drugs too if there is a demand for those drugs, which judging from the amount of activity there is with people taking these drugs illegally there would be. It's better to use the market to provide a platform to sell these substances and have there be a regulatory framework to work within than to outlaw it and then not have any barriers to entry.



FriedTofu said:


> From my admittedly limited understanding, the issue with opioids in America is the overprescription of them legally to people that needed pain relief. And when the regulators stepped in to cut out the supply for addicts, they went to the black market to obtain them from people who can get them legally. And when that loophole was tighten, the addicts went for the cheaper illegal alternatives to get their fix from the cartels. Maybe target big pharma first before cartels?


Oh certainly, those are great points and I've been heavily critical of the FDA for a number of different reasons. But the heroin and opiate addiction problem does go beyond the overprescription and into far more dangerous territory in terms of criminality and risk at least in terms of potential violence. DROW for example posted this unbelievably sad story about a woman who got hooked on Heroin for 10 years and almost lost her life and most certainly lost her job, her home, income..everything. Unfortunately those stories are more common than you would want to happen.

I think I also remember someone posting an article showing the potential link between these medical opiods and then eventually getting hooked on to the harder heroin. But anyhow, you make a good point about the FDA.



FriedTofu said:


> I don't think fear of incarceration is the driving force for their reluctance to seek rehabilitation as much as the shame of it. Many alcoholics also refuse to get treatment even when drinking is legal.


Maybe when it comes to alcoholics sure, but even alcoholics go to rehab far more often than people using illegal drugs because of the access. Absolutely I think for a lot of people it is the fear of incarceration, no doubt I think shame comes into it too but if it were just purely down to shame the numbers in proportional to use would be similar and they aren't on the whole.


----------



## DOPA

BruiserKC said:


> The one thing that will need to be solved though is the role of the feds in all of this. Remember, it is still technically illegal at the federal level and illegal for it to be taken across state lines. For example, here in Iowa a couple of years ago they legalized the use of medical marijuana for certain situations. However, they didn't do anything in regards to obtaining it. It is still illegal to grow it here in the state, and people going to Colorado to get it legally there have to cross through Nebraska where it is illegal. Not to mention you are breaking federal law moving the pot across state lines.


In terms of federal law, if weed were decriminalized it would be illegal to carry the substance from state to state even if it was only for personal use? I guess the understanding would be if you moved the drug from a state where it is legal to buy and sell to one that isn't that it would be deemed as possible dealership rather than personal use? I just want to know how it would exactly work in terms of a legality issue. Me being a stupid British guy .

So yeah the role of the police definitely would have to be worked out. Certainly something to think on...


----------



## Miss Sally

I support drugs being made legal and I'd hope that the substances to break addiction would be legal too. They've created this drug issue by making nearly everything illegal and as soon as something can help break that, suddenly that becomes a controlled substance. 

That's bullshit.


----------



## DOPA

Miss Sally said:


> I support drugs being made legal and I'd hope that the substances to break addiction would be legal too. They've created this drug issue by making nearly everything illegal and as soon as something can help break that, suddenly that becomes a controlled substance.
> 
> That's bullshit.


I think the thing that got me to really think about drug legalization in general was just the attitudes of people and of the way the law is applied to drug use overall, especially in the UK. If you have an addiction to alcohol or tobacco it is seen as a health issue and that you need to got to rehab and/or get off the drugs.

But if you use an illegal substance, even if it's weed instead of it being treated as a health problem it's treated as a criminal issue.

Whatever way you look at it and I've tried looking at it from all angles, it's hypocritical and doesn't make sense. Once you realize that, it becomes pretty evident something needs to change when you look deeper into the issue.

And I thought that even before I held the political positions I do now.


----------



## CamillePunk

FriedTofu said:


> Sure why not? While you are at it, feed your kids all the candies they want and play video games all day too as it is their peaceful choices.


My kids would require me to provide the candy and video games, which I don't have to do. I can obtain all the drugs I want without the government doing a thing. Really bad analogy on your part. 



L-DOPA said:


> I'd also like to note I've used all consequential arguments and haven't delved into my personal opinion on the matter, which as an individualist would say nobody should be punished for putting substances into your own body and that you should have the liberty to make personal choices....even bad and harmful ones for recreational use .


I had to delete PARAGRAPHS because you decided to include this late disclaimer. 



BruiserKC said:


> *Now, Trump has mentioned he wants to simplify the tax code. What would make the code simpler then doing away with the IRS altogether? * You can replace it with a national sales tax, similar to the VAT that is used in many European nations. Additional revenue can also be provided by legalizing marijuana. Even if you only legalize it for medical purposes, you can tax it like they tax alcohol and tobacco. I think this could be a win-win.
> 
> Personally I am not crazy about the legalization of recreational marijuana, but I also am a firm believer that it's your body and as long as you don't hurt anyone else you can do what you want. We don't legislate if someone goes to the buffet line 9 times, and that can be as damaging to your body. Same with slamming down a full bottle of Jameson's and passing out in your own vomit in the living room.


This is one aspect of Ted Cruz's platform (although I doubt he would have tried to actually do it) I wish Trump had implemented into his campaign. Using his Master Persuasion skills to convince nearly half the country (of voters) that the IRS is unnecessary would've been my everything. :done

I appreciate your classical liberalism on the drug matter, by the way. (Y) 



samizayn said:


> Ok I will fetch it
> 
> 
> I think it was this^
> 
> Side by side with this^. I think attempting to parse both situations into equally simple terms makes him seem like he doesn't care to exhibit the true anti-Trump sentiment in this situation. Apple-to-gun overall seems either hastily thought up or intentionally inflammatory I guess to mock the left. It came across like a quick write up to me which is why I said lazy, but I suppose it could have always been done intentionally.


Is his description inaccurate? Did many leftists not represent Trump's choice of the phrase "so-called judge" as an attack on the judiciary branch and an example of his authoritarian rhetoric? The answer to this is yes, they did, by the way. So I don't see the issue. Perhaps the issue is the article triggers some conflict in your mind that you can't rationally resolve so you instead lodge vague criticisms about what you don't "like" as if it's any kind of argument? No shame in that, I'm sure I've done it as well. We're largely irrational beings, after all.


----------



## DOPA

@CamillePunk :lmao. I decided to go the more practical application route to answer that specific question rather than on ideological grounds. My personal preference is legalize everything because nobody should tell an individual what they should do in their personal life so long as they aren't harming another person.

I've done so many posts on this topic :lol. I need to go to bed.


----------



## FriedTofu

CamillePunk said:


> My kids would require me to provide the candy and video games, which I don't have to do. I can obtain all the drugs I want without the government doing a thing. Really bad analogy on your part.


They can obtain them from your spouse. Unless you are saying your spouse do not have the personal freedom to make the decision.



L-DOPA said:


> That hasn't been the case for alcohol or tobacco and thus far it hasn't been the case for weed either. This is really because the regulated variants still have the same type of buzz you would get from the illegal substances that would come out of them if they were criminalized.
> 
> I mean when was the last time you heard of really strong variants of alcohol close to ethanol levels being sold on the black market and people being caught for it? It doesn't happen because there is no demand for it. If people can get exactly the same high from the regulated and safer variant, people will use the safer variant not only because the risks are lower but the costs are cheaper due to legalized competition in the market place.
> 
> This has also been happening in the states for weed and has happened for years in the Netherlands. There is no reason why it wouldn't happen for other drugs too if there is a demand for those drugs, which judging from the amount of activity there is with people taking these drugs illegally there would be. It's better to use the market to provide a platform to sell these substances and have there be a regulatory framework to work within than to outlaw it and then not have any barriers to entry.


I guess my assumption was taking more of the same drugs wouldn't work to get the same high as the body could build up tolerance to the substance. 

I'm ethnically Chinese and have been raised with the stories of the Opium wars of how legalised rampant recreational drug use is bad for society. Although on the flip side, I guess you could argue the ban by China on the drug trade, which was illegal in Britain anyway, fuelled the wars that China lost.




> Oh certainly, those are great points and I've been heavily critical of the FDA for a number of different reasons. But the heroin and opiate addiction problem does go beyond the overprescription and into far more dangerous territory in terms of criminality and risk at least in terms of potential violence. DROW for example posted this unbelievably sad story about a woman who got hooked on Heroin for 10 years and almost lost her life and most certainly lost her job, her home, income..everything. Unfortunately those stories are more common than you would want to happen.
> 
> I think I also remember someone posting an article showing the potential link between these medical opiods and then eventually getting hooked on to the harder heroin. But anyhow, you make a good point about the FDA.


People get hooked for all sorts of reasons. Peer pressure, adventurous nature, depression, fun, etc. But the explosion of addicts and the trend of liberal use of medical opioids can't be a coincidence. It is just hard to say no to a quick fix pill for pain relief. And once people who got hooked on it had no legal means to obtain the pills for medical reasons, they resort to heroin. Something as simple as cough medicine can be addictive because they contain codeine. Much less what is found in painkillers for serious issues.



> Maybe when it comes to alcoholics sure, but even alcoholics go to rehab far more often than people using illegal drugs because of the access. Absolutely I think for a lot of people it is the fear of incarceration, no doubt I think shame comes into it too but if it were just purely down to shame the numbers in proportional to use would be similar and they aren't on the whole.


Probably because getting hooked on drinking is more acceptable socially than someone who got hooked on painkillers, implying the person is not strong enough to handle pain.


----------



## CamillePunk

FriedTofu said:


> They can obtain them from your spouse. Unless you are saying your spouse do not have the personal freedom to make the decision.


This isn't how any of this works. :faint:


----------



## Reaper

L-DOPA said:


> @CamillePunk :lmao. I decided to go the more practical application route to answer that specific question rather than on ideological grounds. My personal preference is legalize everything because nobody should tell an individual what they should do in their personal life so long as they aren't harming another person.


Well, alcohol being the measure since it does everything (cause harm to the self as well as others) we will still need the legal system to find ways to make practical legislation. I'm cool with separating government authority over drugs to the legislative body, but as a society we will always need to maintain some level of control over certain mind-body-behavior altering substances. 

You can't drink and drive because you can kill someone else. You can't handle heavy machinery while on certain medication. Even something like Nyquil can't be present in your system if you're operating certain kinds of vehicles if I'm not wrong. Those are common sense laws and almost all drugs will still need those.

The thing I will admit though that we're certainly at the stage in human civilization where we have the common sense to make such laws and even enforce them .. and it's just not happening and that's beyond my ability to comprehend as to why.


----------



## samizayn

CamillePunk said:


> Is his description inaccurate? *Did many leftists not represent Trump's choice of the phrase "so-called judge" as an attack on the judiciary branch and an example of his authoritarian rhetoric?* The answer to this is yes, they did, by the way. So I don't see the issue. Perhaps the issue is the article triggers some conflict in your mind that you can't rationally resolve so you instead lodge vague criticisms about what you don't "like" as if it's any kind of argument? No shame in that, I'm sure I've done it as well. We're largely irrational beings, after all.


Yes. I thought he depicted it poorly though, and a part of me still believes he was being misleading. That is probably my biases speaking however.



FriedTofu said:


> But wouldn't the regulation of how hard the drug is simply create a new black market for harder drugs that the current cartels thrive in?
> 
> From my admittedly limited understanding, the issue with opioids in America is the overprescription of them legally to people that needed pain relief. And when the regulators stepped in to cut out the supply for addicts, they went to the black market to obtain them from people who can get them legally. And when that loophole was tighten, the addicts went for the cheaper illegal alternatives to get their fix from the cartels. Maybe target big pharma first before cartels?


From what I hear there's been a significant crackdown on this kind of thing, to the point that people needing their palliative care struggle to get morphine etc needed. Anecdotal, though.

Regardless the buck stops with the doctors at the end of the day. Just stop them prescribing drugs #TBH


----------



## LowRida

Trump thread is massive enough without pages of debates about drugs sheesh


----------



## LowRida

Lefties just the other day talking about CA succession, now they are begging for mass fed handouts to help them out.

"Dear President Trump:

We write to urge you to approve a major disaster declaration in response to the severe damage in California and approve the state’s request for disaster assistance.

Due to the severe damage caused by the series of storms, as well as the compounded impact of other major disasters that have impacted California in the past year, the state is requesting $162.3 million in public assistance"

Sincerely,

Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

Kamala Harris
United States Senator

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/pub...eases?ID=E01F938A-8A11-4E00-B6B6-42E39E44E114


----------



## FriedTofu

Micheal Flynn just resigned from his position. Thoughts?


----------



## CamillePunk

FriedTofu said:


> Micheal Flynn just resigned from his position. Thoughts?


It's a shame. He was one of the few realists about Islam, and this will just embolden the left further against those associated with Trump.


----------



## FriedTofu

CamillePunk said:


> It's a shame. He was one of the few realists about Islam, and this will just embolden the left further against those associated with Trump.


That may be so but he also has too many radical thoughts on Islam for my liking and his relationship with Russia is a concern. He correctly identifies that Islam is more than a religion and is also a political ideology but then he also associates Islamic terrorists as being allied with China and North Korea too.


----------



## yeahbaby!

LowRida said:


> Lefties just the other day talking about CA succession, now they are begging for mass fed handouts to help them out.
> 
> "Dear President Trump:
> 
> We write to urge you to approve a major disaster declaration in response to the severe damage in California and approve the state’s request for disaster assistance.
> 
> Due to the severe damage caused by the series of storms, as well as the compounded impact of other major disasters that have impacted California in the past year, the state is requesting $162.3 million in public assistance"
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Dianne Feinstein
> United States Senator
> 
> *Kamala* Harris
> United States Senator
> 
> http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/pub...eases?ID=E01F938A-8A11-4E00-B6B6-42E39E44E114


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> It's a shame. He was one of the few realists about Islam, and this will just embolden the left further against those associated with Trump.


Hopefully replaced with another realist.


----------



## MillionDollarProns

CamillePunk said:


> For those bothered by all the pictures of President Trump in the Oval Office surrounded by mostly men, here's a picture of him surrounded only by women:


It doesn't matter they're clearly all sell-outs and brainwashed and abused. They are just there because the MALE-DOMINATED MEDIA tells them that women are only truly successful when they're on the side of a man. A true, liberated woman would be out painting Sluts Against Trump on their abdomens with period blood.

-----------------------------

RE Trump drug policies: The problem with the wall, as the article that was posted indicates, is that it will do little to stop actual drug flow into the country. According to the BBC(2015), 95% of drugs get in this country via the ocean. Sometimes in homemade submarines. 

RE Legalization: There are certain drugs I feel should be made legal, and others that I feel should stay controlled. Meth production is too dangerous to let just anybody do it, for example.

tl;dr we need to either build a sea wall and train attack dolphins like Red alert 2


----------



## DesolationRow

The next week is going to be critical for the Trump administration. Trump's enemies smell blood in the water now.

Based on everything I know about the case Flynn was right to resign. Though his omission toward Vice President Mike Pence was probably inadvertent just as he claims, with both his actions and arguably more importantly his inactions Flynn more or less had to go. 

Looking at it as some sort of karmic tradeoff, would rather see Flynn go and not have Elliot Abrams allowed into the State Department again than have Flynn and Abrams. 

The Justice Department tipped to Trump administration off to the point that Flynn was a likely blackmail target approximately three weeks ago and evidently Flynn had lost the faith of a host of administration officials. There is even the rumor flying around that Trump was in the past several days keeping Flynn as close as possible to feed him disinformation, though the veracity of that is unlikely to be proven one way or the other anytime soon.


----------



## FriedTofu

Twitter is trolling Trump hard with his past tweets these days. :lol


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/228949017827082241


----------



## Miss Sally

FriedTofu said:


> Twitter is trolling Trump hard with his past tweets these days. :lol
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/228949017827082241


Not as hard as Sarah Silverman is getting trolled. She needs glasses I think.:nerd:


----------



## DesolationRow

Missed the whole "to drug war or not to drug war" discussion but just caught up, beginning with the article @L-DOPA mentioned me for reading... Thank you for that by the way!

The extent to which the "drug war" makes sense at a federal level is keeping as much drugs out of the U.S. from foreign sources as possible with Customs agents, Border Patrol, et. al. Taking Trump's remarks about the U.S. "already having enough problems," extending that to foreign drug suppliers only makes sense and would doubtless continue even under large-scale legalization. In this regard the alcohol versus heroin comparison for the sake of legalization falls a bit flat. At the same time the U.S. federal "war on drugs" in the U.S. has been a generally awful occurrence. Aside from keeping genuinely baleful contraband out of the country from the outside, it properly should not be the U.S. federal government's responsibility to either wage the war on drugs or to "legalize" drugs. Simply loosening up the restrictions on states choosing their own paths on this matter should be followed for the time being. Have so much more to say about this but not sleeping for a few days has brought me to the point at which I must stop, ha.

@BruiserKC earns mad points for bringing up the idea of obliterating the IRS! :mark: Haha...


----------



## Alco

@L-DOPA makes very good points. I like him.

I don't know what relevant or valid points I could add to the discussion, so I'll just say that the hypocrisy in the whole drug debate(on a political level, not in this thread and not even in public opinion) is insane. Develop a legal framework for drugs, make sure there is an element of quality control, and let the real market place take over. It shouldn't have to be that complicated.


----------



## FriedTofu

This is like watching breaking the magician's code for the first time. Once you know the secret behind it, you can't capture the magic again. :vincecry


----------



## virus21




----------



## Reaper

virus21 said:


>


Ironically Ivanka actually considers herself a feminist, if not pro-feminist so she's more than enough with regards to Trump's administration. She's already championing a couple of female-centric social welfare policies and that's more than enough.

It's beginning to look more and more like she's standing in as the first lady too.

From her Facebook: 












> "A great discussion with two world leaders about the importance of women having a seat at the table!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "


----------



## Miss Sally

RipNTear said:


> Ironically Ivanka actually considers herself a feminist, if not pro-feminist so she's more than enough with regards to Trump's administration. She's already championing a couple of female-centric social welfare policies and that's more than enough.
> 
> It's beginning to look more and more like she's standing in as the first lady too.
> 
> From her Facebook:


I honestly thought it would be Trump Jr running for President after 2020 but Ivanka could be the one being groomed for it.


----------



## DOPA

I bet there are Canadians that miss having a Prime Minister talk about actual issues rather than feminism, gender pronouns and black lives matter.

#IdentityPoliticsisCancer


----------



## Miss Sally

L-DOPA said:


> I bet there are Canadians that miss having a Prime Minister talk about actual issues rather than feminism, gender pronouns and black lives matter.
> 
> #IdentityPoliticsisCancer


Considering the leader of BLM Canada is a raging psychotic racist bitch who think pretty boy is a white supremacist, I'd think he would want to talk about other things too.


----------



## Stephen90

L-DOPA said:


> I bet there are Canadians that miss having a Prime Minister talk about actual issues rather than feminism, gender pronouns and black lives matter.
> 
> #IdentityPoliticsisCancer


Like the president of the US who talks about SNL, Meryl Steep and stage actor's.


----------



## Oxidamus

Stephen90 said:


> Like the president of the US who talks about SNL, Meryl Steep and stage actor's.


You mean a President of the United States who responds to ignorant criticism instead of sitting on his ass letting people spread misinformation without responding? :trump


----------



## Stephen90

Oxi X.O. said:


> You mean a President of the United States who responds to ignorant criticism instead of sitting on his ass letting people spread misinformation without responding? :trump


Whining on Twitter like a 16 year old girl who didn't win prom night isn't helping anything either when there are much bigger issues.


----------



## Miss Sally

Stephen90 said:


> Whining on Twitter like a 16 year old girl who didn't win prom night isn't helping anything either when there are much bigger issues.


While i think he uses twitter too much, let's not pretended that most of the DNC hasn't been whining since he became president, it was excuse after excuse. Constant whining by the talking heads and celebs and officials from California constantly talking shit, well not so much shit talking from them now given the dam situation. That seems like a pretty big issue that could have been prevented! Stop acting like there isn't constant whining, bullshit and left over Obama staff working against him every step of the way. Maybe if these guys didn't act like little bitches some stuff could get done.


----------



## Stephen90

Miss Sally said:


> While i think he uses twitter too much, let's not pretended that most of the DNC hasn't been whining since he became president, it was excuse after excuse. Constant whining by the talking heads and celebs and officials from California constantly talking shit, well not so much shit talking from them now given the dam situation. That seems like a pretty big issue that could have been prevented! Stop acting like there isn't constant whining, bullshit and left over Obama staff working against him every step of the way. Maybe if these guys didn't act like little bitches some stuff could get done.


Don't worry I'm not a fan of the democrats either. Especially since they want Tim Kaine to run in 2020.


----------



## Stinger Fan

L-DOPA said:


> I bet there are Canadians that miss having a Prime Minister talk about actual issues rather than feminism, gender pronouns and black lives matter.
> 
> #IdentityPoliticsisCancer


I don't know, our last PM was just a super "evil" man who was anti-woman and hated Natives and Muslims. Our current guy is totally better though with his fantastic head of hair


----------



## 2 Ton 21

The spy sub thing happens from time to time. They're in international waters. It's really shitty timing the day after the Flynn resignation though. As for the missiles, I don't know enough about the treaty to say how big a violation this is. With the missiles, are they testing Trump to see if he makes them back down?



> *Russia sends spy ship near US coast, deploys banned missiles at home, officials say*
> 
> A Russian spy ship was spotted patrolling off the East Coast of the United States on Tuesday morning, the first such instance during the Trump administration -- and the same day it was learned the Kremlin had secretly deployed controversial cruise missiles inside Russia and buzzed a U.S. Navy destroyer, U.S. officials told Fox News.
> 
> The Russian ship was in international waters, 70 miles off the coast of Delaware and heading north at 10 knots, according to one official. The U.S. territory line is 12 nautical miles.
> 
> It was not immediately clear where the ship is headed.
> 
> Later Tuesday, a U.S. official confirmed to Fox News that Russia had deployed ground-launched cruise missiles to two locations inside the country in December. The New York Times first reported that the Obama administration had previously seen the missiles -- then in a testing phase -- as a violation of a 1987 treaty between the U.S. and Russia that banned ground-launched intermediate-range missiles.
> 
> But Russia has pressed ahead with its program, apparently testing a Trump administration which has sought better ties with Moscow -- but is also fresh off the loss of National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, who resigned Monday night in the wake of a scandal surrounding his communications with Russia.
> 
> Adding to the aggressive actions, Fox News confirmed a report from The Washington Free Beacon that four Russian jets buzzed the USS Porter in the Black Sea on Friday.
> 
> "There were several incidents involving multiple Russian aircraft," Navy Capt. Danny Hernandez, spokesman for the European Command, told The Washington Free Beacon. "They were assessed by the commanding officer as unsafe and unprofessional."
> 
> The ship, the SSV-175 Viktor Leonov, last sailed near the U.S. in April 2015, an official said. It was also seen in Havana in January 2015.
> 
> Capable of intercepting communications or signals, known as SIGINT, the ship can also measure U.S. Navy sonar capabilities, a separate official said.
> 
> The Russian spy ship is also armed with surface-to-air missiles.
> 
> “It’s not a huge concern, but we are keeping our eyes on it,” one official said.
> 
> This action by the Russian military follows recent missile test launches by Iran and North Korea.
> 
> In the past, Russian spy ships have loitered off the coast of Kings Bay, Ga., home to a U.S. Navy ballistic missile submarine base. During the Cold War, Russian intelligence gathering ships routinely parked off U.S. submarine bases along the East Coast
> 
> In September 2015, another Russian spy ship was spotted near the U.S. outside the submarine base in Kings Bay.
> 
> Outside of U.S. intelligence gathering satellites monitoring the Russian spy ship’s voyage north, there are several airborne platforms along the East Coast that could be used by the U.S. military to monitor the Russian ship, according to one official.
> 
> Currently there are four U.S. Navy warships in the Atlantic off the coast of Norfolk participating in normal training, but none have been tasked with shadowing the Russian spy ship.
> 
> There are no U.S. Navy aircraft carriers nearby.
> 
> The USS Eisenhower, an aircraft carrier, is currently off the coast of Florida doing carrier qualifications, with young pilots making their first landings. Ike does not currently have strike aircraft.


----------



## amhlilhaus

Stephen90 said:


> Whining on Twitter like a 16 year old girl who didn't win prom night isn't helping anything either when there are much bigger issues.


Which hes addressing. I love how the left is acting. You can only be outraged for so long, then exhaustion sets in. Those people will be worn out before mid terms. Trumps inexorable success will deflate them more. After a heavy defeat in the mid terms, they wont be able to do nothing.


----------



## DesolationRow

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/831497364661747712
Last week Bill Kristol celebrated the idea of "the white working class" being "replaced" with a limitless flow of low-wage, low-skilled immigrants. This after being one of the most indispensable champions of the pointless Iraq War in which many of the "white working class's" sons have been mentally scarred, maimed and killed.

Now he effectively calls for a coup to be performed by the deep state against the sitting president who was elected by the standards of American republicanism. 

For serving a foreign power and that foreign power's interests while wrapping himself in the American flag like so many neoconservatives, Kristol and several of his most notable comrades deserve to be investigated for treason. His glee at the idea of the very voters he has had a major hand in misleading as a purported "conservative"--who conserves nothing--being systematically replaced by foreigners who will, by overwhelming numbers, vote for the political party whose next renaissance probably depends upon the continued lessening role of that demographic bloc of voters is just the diseased icing on the poisonous cake. 

If the money and power had been available in the U.S. for Kristol, his father and numerous other neocons to remain the Trotskyists they always have been at heart, they doubtless would have happily done so.


----------



## DOPA

Stephen90 said:


> Like the president of the US who talks about SNL, Meryl Steep and stage actor's.


Nvm, I shouldn't type when I'm drunk lol


----------



## FriedTofu

This Trump presidency is great television so far and we are only 3 weeks in!. So much twists and turns and infighting just like in a reality show. :lol

I see the white nationalists are co-opting the treason angle from critics of Flynn now. :lol


----------



## Reaper

Trump has pushed more work through in a month than Trudeau has done in more than a year. There literally is no comparison.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/831673294025732096
And here's another Trump win. I guess prayers don't work after all.


----------



## DesolationRow

FriedTofu said:


> I see the white nationalists are co-opting the treason angle from critics of Flynn now. :lol


This better not be a comment about me. :cudi

Not a nationalist of any sort, certainly not a racial nationalist. And Bill Kristol's possibly treasonous actions date back a decade and a half now. The neocons within and without the George W. Bush administration steering the ship of state toward war with Iraq literally hours after the 9/11 attacks should be held accountable for their actions one day (though it will never happen).


----------



## FriedTofu

DesolationRow said:


> This better not be a comment about me. :cudi
> 
> Not a nationalist of any sort, certainly not a racial nationalist. And Bill Kristol's possibly treasonous actions date back a decade and a half now. The neocons within and without the George W. Bush administration steering the ship of state toward war with Iraq literally hours after the 9/11 attacks should be held accountable for their actions one day (though it will never happen).


If the shoe fits. :draper2

You comment echos what many of them are saying by brushing off the deception of Flynn and why the administration didn't let him go weeks ago while painting his critics as traitors.

But at least you aren't ignoring this developing issue unlike your fellow Trump supporters in this thread who prefer to mock Trudeau instead. :benson


----------



## LowRida

DesolationRow said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/831497364661747712
> Last week Bill Kristol celebrated the idea of "the white working class" being "replaced" with a limitless flow of low-wage, low-skilled immigrants. This after being one of the most indispensable champions of the pointless Iraq War in which many of the "white working class's" sons have been mentally scarred, maimed and killed.
> 
> Now he effectively calls for a coup to be performed by the deep state against the sitting president who was elected by the standards of American republicanism.
> 
> For serving a foreign power and that foreign power's interests while wrapping himself in the American flag like so many neoconservatives, Kristol and several of his most notable comrades deserve to be investigated for treason. His glee at the idea of the very voters he has had a major hand in misleading as a purported "conservative"--who conserves nothing--being systematically replaced by foreigners who will, by overwhelming numbers, vote for the political party whose next renaissance probably depends upon the continued lessening role of that demographic bloc of voters is just the diseased icing on the poisonous cake.
> 
> If the money and power had been available in the U.S. for Kristol, his father and numerous other neocons to remain the Trotskyists they always have been at heart, they doubtless would have happily done so.


Well said, you ought to be an op-ed writer, for real.

These neos are pure poison, they themselves are sheep in wolves clothing, but the anarchic ideology they espouse is toxic and dangerous, and far more in line with left wing rantings than anything else.
Never has a presidency been under organized, systematic assault from so many well connected sides like this, these guys [and gals] ought to be investigated and held to task for their inflammatory words. If left unchecked, drastic action may be required to keep the situation from spiraling out of control.


----------



## FriedTofu

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/319534-rand-paul-flynn-probe-would-be-excessive



> Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) says there's not much need for Congress to investigate former national security adviser Michael Flynn's talks with Russia, warning it would distract from the GOP's agenda.
> 
> "That might be excessive. I think it looks like the president has handled the situation, and unless there’s some kind of other evidence of malfeasance, this sounds like something that was internal White House politics, and it looks like the president’s handled it,” Paul told Fox News on Tuesday.
> 
> *“I just don’t think it’s useful to be doing investigation after investigation, particularly of your own party,” he said.
> “We’ll never even get started with doing the things we need to do like repealing ObamaCare if we’re spending our whole time having Republicans investigate Republicans. I think it makes no sense."*
> 
> Flynn resigned on Monday night amid backlash about reports that he spoke with the Russian Embassy before the President Trump's inauguration about sanctions targeting Moscow. The Washington Post reported Monday that White House counsel had been warned that Flynn had misled members of the administration and the public about his communications with the Russian ambassador.
> Paul's comments are a break with top Senate Republicans who signaled on Tuesday that they expect the Senate Intelligence Committee will likely look into Flynn's calls as part of its ongoing investigation about Russia's involvement in the White House race. Paul is on the Foreign Relations Committee.
> 
> Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) noted that the Intelligence Committee has "broad jurisdiction" on its investigation and said it's "highly likely" the panel would want to probe the incident.
> 
> Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said it was "likely" that Flynn would be called before the Intelligence Committee.
> 
> Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) separately told reporters that he supports the Senate committees investigating Flynn but downplayed the need for an independent probe.
> 
> "We have standing committees that have all the appropriate clearances that can do an investigation," he said.
> 
> Democrats are doubling own on their push for a special committee or independent commission to be formed to probe Flynn as well as broader ties between the Trump team and Russia.
> 
> Flynn wrote in his resignation letter that he "inadvertently briefed the Vice President Elect and others with incomplete information regarding my phone calls with the Russian Ambassador" because of the "fast pace of events."


But what about Benghazi Mr. Senator? :lol


----------



## DesolationRow

FriedTofu said:


> If the shoe fits. :draper2
> 
> You comment echos what many of them are saying by brushing off the deception of Flynn and why the administration didn't let him go weeks ago while painting his critics as traitors.
> 
> But at least you aren't ignoring this developing issue unlike your fellow Trump supporters in this thread who prefer to mock Trudeau instead. :benson


...What...?

Flynn should be investigated. What he did was wrong, even if he did it inadvertently. Ultimately the reason why Trump could no longer tolerate his presence was because the image of Flynn not being fully truthful with the administration had been broadcast and that could damage the White House's credibility going forward. Those are two separate truths but neither one cancels out the other.

I am not brushing off Flynn's deception at all as I discussed it in an earlier post last night. 

As for the Trump White House declaring critics are "traitors" I am unconvinced that this broadest possible interpretation is genuine. Even Trump's harshest critics are admitting that the deep state has a bevy of operatives working against Trump's White House. There was an excellent expose about federal agents using secret coded apps with which to communicate with one another in attempting to undermine Trump's executive orders, for instance. It would appear that there are genuine forces who are undermining Trump's administration at every possible turn; as Charles Schumer warned Trump, the intelligence community can get you back six ways for Sunday, and Flynn's downfall as NSA is the first major piece of evidence to bolster Schumer's claims. 

Bringing up Bill Kristol's enthusiasm over the "replacement" of "the white working class"--a group of people directly impacted by his "invade the world, invite the world" programs--as he himself said at an AEI conference last week does not make one a white nationalist. It is simply an insight into his character (or lack thereof). He and many other neoconservatives positioned themselves as patriotic Americans reacting to 9/11 when in actuality they were simply following the blueprint they themselves had drawn up in the 1990s. Now he champions a deep state takeover of the U.S. government mainly because Donald Trump is insufficiently hawkish for Kristol and his friends. Advocating a coup of the government amounts to a sort of treason, yes, and if, in some alternative timeline, a group of actual white nationalists within the deep state attempted to fundamentally displace Barack Obama or render his power as chief executive officer of the country toothless, it would be treasonous on their part.

Thank you for the kind words, @LowRida.  :lol


----------



## FriedTofu

DesolationRow said:


> ...What...?
> 
> Flynn should be investigated. What he did was wrong, even if he did it inadvertently. Ultimately the reason why Trump could no longer tolerate his presence was because the image of Flynn not being fully truthful with the administration had been broadcast and that could damage the White House's credibility going forward. Those are two separate truths but neither one cancels out the other.
> 
> I am not brushing off Flynn's deception at all as I discussed it in an earlier post last night.


Entertaining the idea that Flynn 'might' have done something wrong inadvertently is brushing off the seriousness of the offence of lying to a higher ranked official about a matter that concern national security. He lied to the Vice President and made a fool out of him. More importantly, did he lie to federal investigators?



> As for the Trump White House declaring critics are "traitors" I am unconvinced that this broadest possible interpretation is genuine. Even Trump's harshest critics are admitting that the deep state has a bevy of operatives working against Trump's White House. There was an excellent expose about federal agents using secret coded apps with which to communicate with one another in attempting to undermine Trump's executive orders, for instance. It would appear that there are genuine forces who are undermining Trump's administration at every possible turn; as Charles Schumer warned Trump, the intelligence community can get you back six ways for Sunday, and Flynn's downfall as NSA is the first major piece of evidence to bolster Schumer's claims.
> 
> Bringing up Bill Kristol's enthusiasm over the "replacement" of "the white working class"--a group of people directly impacted by his "invade the world, invite the world" programs--as he himself said at an AEI conference last week does not make one a white nationalist. It is simply an insight into his character (or lack thereof). He and many other neoconservatives positioned themselves as patriotic Americans reacting to 9/11 when in actuality they were simply following the blueprint they themselves had drawn up in the 1990s. Now he champions a deep state takeover of the U.S. government mainly because Donald Trump is insufficiently hawkish for Kristol and his friends. Advocating a coup of the government amounts to a sort of treason, yes, and if, in some alternative timeline, a group of actual white nationalists within the deep state attempted to fundamentally displace Barack Obama or render his power as chief executive officer of the country, it would be treasonous on their part.


Yeah when I meant traitors, I meant they tried to paint those who oppose Trump's white house as traitors to America. If that is the definition, many of Trump's base would be considered traitors during the 8 years of Obama's administration. Let's not pretend Trump's administration wasn't doing what you are accusing the deep state of doing. Trump undermined his own party with the executive orders for the travel ban, dooming them to fail because of the lack of oversight of the legality of them. If they worked within the system, they wouldn't have the embarrassment of having to say green card holders had to be exempted from the ban after the orders were signed.

I have a feeling Kristol is more concerned about the incompetence Trump is displaying than his thirst for wars. Obama was a gift to them as they could sell arms and sell the image of no American lives being lost with the use of drone strikes. Trump's presidency and the instability it creates in theory is creating demand for the arms the neocons made a living off of. But there is probably doubt that Trump will overreact to provokecations and lead to something they couldn't control, rather than Trump not being hawkish enough. 

I don't see anything wrong with wanting the white working class to move up a level in the social standing with his comments. :shrug


----------



## DesolationRow

FriedTofu said:


> Entertaining the idea that Flynn 'might' have done something wrong inadvertently is brushing off the seriousness of the offence of lying to a higher ranked official about a matter that concern national security. He lied to the Vice President and made a fool out of him. More importantly, did he lie to federal investigators?


No, Flynn did do something wrong, whether it was intentional or not, and as far as Vice President Pence is concerned, it had to go down as a "lie." As I said, the investigation should continue. 



FriedTofu said:


> Yeah when I meant traitors, I meant they tried to paint those who oppose Trump's white house as traitors to America. If that is the definition, many of Trump's base would be considered traitors during the 8 years of Obama's administration. Let's not pretend Trump's administration wasn't doing what you are accusing the deep state of doing. Trump undermined his own party with the executive orders for the travel ban, dooming them to fail because of the lack of oversight of the legality of them. If they worked within the system, they wouldn't have the embarrassment of having to say green card holders had to be exempted from the ban after the orders were signed.
> 
> I have a feeling Kristol is more concerned about the incompetence Trump is displaying than his thirst for wars. Obama was a gift to them as they could sell arms and sell the image of no American lives being lost with the use of drone strikes. Trump's presidency and the instability it creates in theory is creating demand for the arms the neocons made a living off of. But there is probably doubt that Trump will overreact to provokecations and lead to something they couldn't control, rather than Trump not being hawkish enough.
> 
> I don't see anything wrong with wanting the white working class to move up a level in the social standing with his comments. :shrug


Okay we're going around and around because you are discussing the metaphorical understanding of "traitor" just as I introduced Bill Kristol into the discussion because he and other neocons should genuinely be investigated for their nefarious wrongdoing which in large part has led everything to where it stands today, and I have to run out in a minute or two. 

In spite of supporting Trump I will gladly concede that he tends to be rather clumsy (sometimes "clumsy" is far too kind a word) in explaining what he means. What Flynn did was wrong, but it is also true that Americans operating on behalf of the government have in the past been protected as deep state operatives are listening in to ambassadors and foreign dignitaries. At some point it becomes almost like a police state if government officials are being spied on by their own government's deep state, and while, again, to put it more clearly, what Flynn did was wrong, and fundamentally necessitated his removal, it is not wrong on the part of the Trump White House to point out that there truly are those within the government working against the new administration, almost at every turn.

This is where Trump and some of his people should learn a lesson, which is that the more you complain about things and people in general, the more you start sounding, psychologically, like "The Boy Who Cried Wolf." Trump's ranting about Saturday Night Live has been instrumental in SNL enjoying their highest ratings in over twenty years, and it serves little purpose. Aside from the judiciary actions vis-à-vis the "travel ban" this was the first major case where a harsh denunciation of certain actions should have been made by Trump and his people (the judicial overreach in the travel visa moratorium merited scorn, but more thoughtful scorn beforehand) and this is the one critical danger in Trump overusing his bully pulpit.

All right have to run. Going to track down the genuine white nationalist against whom I debated last summer as a seminar to tell him that I have been unwittingly conscripted into his ranks. :lol


----------



## stevefox1200

If there is grounds to this Trump might be royally fucked 

Its treason in the US for a private citizen to make negotiations with other nations in place of the US government, Trump could go to prison if it turns out he was negotiating with Russia before election 

Nixon barely got away with it and he was a wizard of a politician 

The militarists (for lack of better word) on the right seem enraged over this Russia thing after spending multiple terms trying to prevent a Russia foothold in western politics

The hounds smell blood and even if he is innocent Trump is going to have to be hard-line all the time on diplomatic matters to keep that blood covered

Trumps political loyalists are the youngest and weakest of the republican establishment and the GOP has zero problem slaughtering runts to keep their pack moving 

I have said Trump was fucked before and was wrong and have no problem being wrong again but as a Republican who is not a fan of his he is looking incompetent at best and a traitor at worst

Don't fuck it up Trump or the democrats might win the next election with the most lefty leftest to ever walk left


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Should I be wondering why the left wants an investigation of Flynn, but not Hillary?


----------



## MrMister

How long before Trump is impeached?


----------



## yeahbaby!

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Should I be wondering why the left wants an investigation of Flynn, but not Hillary?


I think the whole Hillary investigation has already been done and dusted hasn't it? ARE THERE NEW ALLEGATIONS!!??

Besides I think more sides than just the left want him investigated.


----------



## FriedTofu

Republicans don't have the balls to impeach Trump. A better question that has to be asked is why is it that all of this information is only coming out now after the inauguration.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

The Honeymoon period is over. :trump3


----------



## Headliner

MrMister said:


> How long before Trump is impeached?


Unless this current investigation reaches Watergate levels of foolery, I don't see it happening. But this investigation and the possibilities that can stem from it does sound like possible impeachment. Actual removal? Not too sure about that. Depends on how damaging the information is.

Right now it seems like Ryan and McConnell are just trying to go on about Republican business in hopes that this eventually goes away even though McConnell did say there would be a probe into Flynn. It won't go away though because Trump crapped on the media and that's a huge mistake because the media can and will ruin people's lives. Just see what they've done to celebrities over the years. 

An oddball idea is that Pence, Ryan and McConnell gets tired of the negativity around Trump's administration and formulates some kind of secret plan to get rid of Trump which would make Pence President and possibly Ryan as VP on some House of Cards type of plot. The issue with the idea of Trump's removal or possible impeachment is that it almost guarantees that Democrats take the White House back in 2020 and possibly majority in Congress in 2018. Republicans most likely know this.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Give Trump a break, this stuff happens all the time in the business world. He's still getting used to the idea he's in politics, give him some more time, say 4 years?


----------



## Vic Capri

New York Times back at it again with the Russian conspiracy theory. The media won't give it a rest. :lol



> Its treason in the US for a private citizen to make negotiations with other nations in place of the US government, Trump could go to prison if it turns out he was negotiating with Russia before election


But its okay when the President does it before an election?








> Whining on Twitter like a 16 year old girl who didn't win prom night isn't helping anything either when there are much bigger issues.


People whining about President Trump whining on Twitter...on Twitter.

- Vic


----------



## SUPAH STRONG STYLE

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/14/russ...-that-violates-an-arms-treaty-nyt-report.html 

what a twist


----------



## Headliner

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Should I be wondering why the left wants an investigation of Flynn, but not Hillary?


Should you be wondering why James Comey refused to tell the senate if the FBI was investigating Trump when he put all of Hilary's shit out there?


> "I would never comment on investigations – whether we have one or not – in an open forum like this, so I really can’t answer one way or another,” said Comey, at a hearing into the US intelligence agencies’ conclusion that Russia intervened in the election to benefit Trump.
> 
> Comey’s reticence stunned several senators who pointed to his repeated public discussions of FBI inquiries into Clinton during the campaign.


----------



## FriedTofu

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/831479062992404481
Republicans sure are romantic.


----------



## Miss Sally

Headliner said:


> Unless this current investigation reaches Watergate levels of foolery, I don't see it happening. But this investigation and the possibilities that can stem from it does sound like possible impeachment. Actual removal? Not too sure about that. Depends on how damaging the information is.
> 
> Right now it seems like Ryan and McConnell are just trying to go on about Republican business in hopes that this eventually goes away even though McConnell did say there would be a probe into Flynn. It won't go away though because Trump crapped on the media and that's a huge mistake because the media can and will ruin people's lives. Just see what they've done to celebrities over the years.
> 
> An oddball idea is that Pence, Ryan and McConnell gets tired of the negativity around Trump's administration and formulates some kind of secret plan to get rid of Trump which would make Pence President and possibly Ryan as VP on some House of Cards type of plot. The issue with the idea of Trump's removal or possible impeachment is that it almost guarantees that Democrats take the White House back in 2020 and possibly majority in Congress in 2018. Republicans most likely know this.


Pence taking over would be very bad. The Democrats would get in at 2020 for sure and the Republican party would likely split due to the shady stuff going on right now in the GOP. The neoconservatives want to keep their interests and anti-Trumpers are willing to sabotage their own party to fulfill their personal agendas.

What concerns me is the fact there are shadowy people working together on both sides. It's like their own little private political party. Even more worrying is the fact billionaires and corporations are getting overly involved with politics. 

We could be looking at the emergence of a one party system here soon that won't be good for any side of the spectrum.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Headliner said:


> TheNightmanCometh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should I be wondering why the left wants an investigation of Flynn, but not Hillary?
> 
> 
> 
> Should you be wondering why James Comey refused to tell the senate if the FBI was investigating Trump when he put all of Hilary's shit out there?
> 
> 
> 
> "I would never comment on investigations ? whether we have one or not ? in an open forum like this, so I really can?t answer one way or another,? said Comey, at a hearing into the US intelligence agencies? conclusion that Russia intervened in the election to benefit Trump.
> 
> Comey?s reticence stunned several senators who pointed to his repeated public discussions of FBI inquiries into Clinton during the campaign.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I swear Comey told Congress that he would update them if any new information came to light....And he did when he felt it was prudent to do so.

That being said, my original comment was flippant and has little to do with what is happening now, so I will go back to reading this thread.


----------



## Alco

Trump is looking increasingly bad here. I'm very curious how he'll recover from this, or at the least, how he'll handle this. He's looking for a non-hostile relationship with the Russians, but it looks like Putin is already testing the waters by allegedly firing a cruise missile.


----------



## Beatles123

>THIS WILL BE THE END OF BLUMFT!!!

you people learn nothing. :lmao


----------



## Reaper

He hasn't outright denied it either. Making literally the same statements as the dems. 

Well, if Trump gets impeached (which I'm sure he's not going to since all it is at the moment is a bunch of anon leaks which isn't evidence), the democrats will have to deal with Pence. And guess who's worse than Trump?


----------



## Beatles123

RipNTear said:


> He hasn't outright denied it either. Making literally the same statements as the dems.
> 
> Well, if Trump gets impeached (which I'm sure he's not going to since all it is at the moment is a bunch of anon leaks which isn't evidence), the democrats will have to deal with Pence. And guess who's worse than Trump?


This isn't a denial?? http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...trump-denounces-intelligence-leaks-fake-news/


----------



## Reaper

Beatles123 said:


> This isn't a denial?? http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...trump-denounces-intelligence-leaks-fake-news/


No it isn't. He's forcing everyone's attention towards the leaks themselves and not outright saying that what's in the leaks is wrong.


----------



## Beatles123

RipNTear said:


> No it isn't. He's forcing everyone's attention towards the leaks themselves and not outright saying that what's in the leaks is wrong.


He literally called the stories "Nonsense"...


----------



## Reaper

Beatles123 said:


> He literally called the stories "Nonsense"...


But when it comes to referring to the story about his team being in touch with Russia, he's talking about the illegality of the leaks themselves. There's definitely a lot of nonsense and conspiracy theories out there, but at this point Trump didn't refer to the latest controversy as outright fake.

It could turn out to be nonsense, but till that point it's not something that should be brushed aside. Flynn's resignation is a strong bit of incriminating evidence. 

See, the thing is that a lot of us were sick of this nonsense with the other government already and personally I don't want to give the current government a free pass on the same sort of subject either. It may be an overall better government, but if there's been wrong doing then let it be determined or thrown out. Investigations of allegations go both ways.


----------



## Beatles123

RipNTear said:


> But when it comes to referring to the story about his team being in touch with Russia, he's talking about the illegality of the leaks themselves. There's definitely a lot of nonsense and conspiracy theories out there, but at this point Trump didn't refer to the latest controversy as outright fake.
> 
> It could turn out to be nonsense, but till that point it's not something that should be brushed aside. Flynn's resignation is a strong bit of incriminating evidence.
> 
> See, the thing is that a lot of us were sick of this nonsense with the other government already and personally I don't want to give the current government a free pass on the same sort of subject either. It may be an overall better government, but if there's been wrong doing then let it be determined or thrown out. Investigations of allegations go both ways.


>Flynn fucks up

>He later realizes he fucked up and tells Trump like a man

>Trump let's him go, as he should.


:shrug

it's fucking nothing.


----------



## TeflonDixie

Good old intelligence community, proving to be once again, the last line against traitors, useful idiots and foreign operatives. Looks like they were spot on with the leaked intel of the Russians having something on the Donald.

Hope they continue to fuck up his agenda. Ignore the triggered people in Trump's echo chamber. They're heroes, exposing the treachery despite the internal pressure to make this all go away. Keep those leaks coming.


----------



## Miss Sally

I can see the Neoconservatives and Warhawks in the Republican and Democratic parties getting hardons already. If Trump tries to work with Russia, then he's a Russian puppet! If he goes hard on the Russians it fucks up the entire Syrian and European situation and means more proxy wars or all out war like they wanted. I have a feeling had Bernie won, we'd be seeing the same nonsense popup.


----------



## MrMister

Beatles123 said:


> >Flynn fucks up
> 
> >He later realizes he fucked up and tells Trump like a man
> 
> >Trump let's him go, as he should.
> 
> 
> :shrug
> 
> it's fucking nothing.


This is what spin looks like in case anyone is wondering.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> >Flynn fucks up
> 
> >He later realizes he fucked up and tells Trump like a man
> 
> >Trump let's him go, as he should.
> 
> 
> :shrug
> 
> it's fucking nothing.



If Hillary did this you would be yelling lock her up.

Let's not forget that Yates (before being fired) told the Trump admin about Flynn but did nothing about it.


----------



## samizayn

MrMister said:


> This is what spin looks like in case anyone is wondering.


:lol

It's worse because then the situation you find yourself is wondering, should I believe that you believe yourself and feel sorry for you? Or should I believe that you are intentionally trying to manipulate the narrative to your version of events, and feel annoyed that you tried to do that?

Anyway.


----------



## birthday_massacre

BREAKING: Andrew Puzder, President Donald J. Trump's pick to run the Labor Department, has withdrawn his name from consideration.


http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/pol...ml?s_campaign=bostonglobe:socialflow:facebook


----------



## stevefox1200

Trump's cabinet is falling apart and Mattis is trying to revitalize NATO and is preparing to get the DOD to move troops to Syria to combat ISIS

Two things Trump was explicitly against 

The most qualified members seem to be going rouge on Trump

I don't think Trump has any clue what he is doing at this point and the harder minds of his cabinet have started working on their own projects even if they oppose Trumps platform


----------



## Reaper

stevefox1200 said:


> Trump's cabinet is falling apart and Mattis is trying to revitalize NATO and is preparing to get the DOD to move troops to Syria to combat ISIS
> 
> Two things Trump was explicitly against
> 
> The most qualified members seem to be going rouge on Trump
> 
> I don't think Trump has any clue what he is doing at this point and the harder minds of his cabinet have started working on their own projects even if they oppose Trumps platform


Lolwut. Obama had 3 cabinet members withdraw on him after scandals. Did you think that his cabinet was falling apart too? If you're saying that withdrawals are any basis to determine whether someone doesn't know what they're doing, then that means no president in the history of the states knew what they were doing because as far as I recall and have read, political machinations and "corrections" as I like to call them are a regular feature of power transitions.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Wow. Trump Tower Crumbling Already!

:trump


----------



## CamillePunk

I like Steve Bannon more after watching this.


----------



## deepelemblues

it's so sad that after a month the biggest accomplishment of the resistance is that the nominee for SECRETARY OF LABOR withdrew. :lmao


----------



## CamillePunk

We gave Trudeau a hard time these last couple of days so I'll share this funny tweet I saw: 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/831575882972196864
The last picture. :done


----------



## MrMister

:lmao that is gold


----------



## Reaper

Bannon is 200% correct that Islam is a religion of submission. The world literally means "to submit" and muslims openly claim that "it's a way of life". Every single thing from how you pee (you can't pee standing up), to which hand you should use (you can't use the left hand), to what you eat, to whom you can kill is clearly outlined in the religion.

Islam spread on Mohammad's letters which had 3 clauses:

1. Submit to Allah and convert
2. If you don't submit to Islam then pay tax (it's still submission to the Islamic State). 
3. If you do neither, prepare for an invasion. 

Abu Bakr, Umar, Usman, as well as Muyawia, Yazid and others continued this tradition of expansion through war. India's conquest first came at the hands of Mohammad Bin Qasim and then the Mughals of Afghanistan who ruled for centuries before the British Raj. There was no such thing as peace in Islam. There never was. It was always violent expansion and over-throw of local culture and establishment of their shariah and Islam as a theocracy. 

I may be wrong, but Ali was the only muslim who was not involved in massive expansion through war. However, he was also a soldier with plenty of innocent blood on his hands as well.

Muslims glorify all of their early caliphs and companions of Mohammad through their military conquests.

The ISIS are doing exactly what Mohammad and his Caliphs did. There is literally no difference.


----------



## DesolationRow

Almost humorously some of the smoothest goings-on in the new administration have involved Donald Trump personally interacting with foreign leaders. Today Trump was funny and personable and highly Machiavellian with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. By primarily providing friendship and support, and throwing another verbal grenade toward the Iranians, Trump paved the way for later insisting to Netanyahu, publicly, that the Israelis should, in American eyes, cool it with any greater expansion of settlements. Netanyahu feigned a sense of blanching under Trump's words, as though he could never begin to meet that American stipulation. Trump laughed it off and claimed Netanyahu was just being a good negotiator; the Israeli Prime Minister jokingly said, "That's the _Art of the Deal_," with a laugh and pointing toward Trump.

It was brilliantly executed live and consumable statecraft, establishing for Netanyahu the conditions by which he can approach the right-wing of the Likud Party going forward as, for all of Netanyahu's "hardlinerness" against Palestinian terrorism, he is, back home, something of a moderate on the issue of settlements. The easiest way by which U.S.-Israeli-Palestinian relations could improve once again would be for a return to the pre-Obama policy of allowing the Israelis to continue building of homes in the settlements that have already been constructed while diplomatically leaving it unambiguous that the expansion of settlements is condemned by the Americans. 

Just about perfectly done all around.


----------



## Beatles123

*AWESOME.*

:trump2


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> *AWESOME.*
> 
> :trump2


and Austin has stunned 40% of the people in that pic including Trump.


----------



## Beatles123

birthday_massacre said:


> and Austin has stunned 40% of the people in that pic including Trump.


Did he ever stun Linda? :hmm:


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> Did he ever stun Linda? :hmm:


Yes if you want to call it that


----------



## Lady Eastwood

I used to not think Trudeau was that great looking, but, he's grown on me and I would not kick him outta bed. He's a handsome fuck these days.

I guess I tried to shut the thought out at first because I always thought of his yucky dad.


----------



## FriedTofu

Beatles123 said:


> >Flynn fucks up
> 
> >He later realizes he fucked up and tells Trump like a man
> 
> >Trump let's him go, as he should.
> 
> 
> :shrug
> 
> it's fucking nothing.


Do you think we should lock Flynn up? :troll


----------



## virus21




----------



## FriedTofu

The irony of the Trump team trying to divert their supporters' attention to the legality of the leak instead of what the leaks reveal is pretty amusing so far. Straight out of Hillary's playbook. :lol


----------



## BruiserKC

I like this story and I think this might make a lot of sense to go after first. 

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/02/14/tax-reform-flip-flop-trump-desperately-needs-to-make.html

Right now, the economy has seen a bump with the anticipation that you now have a business-friendly President at the helm. However, businesses are looking at wanting to know when adjustments will be made to the corporate tax code that they feel is necessary to become competitive in the global marketplace. With a GDP that has been sluggish, it would make more sense to tackle this now especially considering that the Dems don't have that fire in the belly regarding tax reform that they do with Obamacare. 

The tax reform can also involve the individual tax code as well, something I can attest to. A couple of weeks ago, I was at my accountant's office getting our taxes done. We had to provide a shitload more paperwork then we ever had to before. I had to provide birth certificates for all three kids, proof that they were on my medical insurance, questions about our taking advantage of child tax credits, etc. I know for most people here, they don't care as they aren't old enough to live on their own or don't have families yet. However, it is a pain in the ass to go through all this. 

Simple solution...if you can tackle tax reform first, you can get companies that will be willing to spend the resources to hire more people. That will get the economy flowing. Then, more people have more money in their pockets to go spend, which will help further. 

I know that people are screaming about dealing with the ACA, some to the point they want everything done right now. What was one of the biggest knocks against it, aside from the government meddling in the health game which is uncalled for? It was the fact it was rushed through without knowing what is in it. If you're going to replace it, wouldn't it make more sense to start working on it now and getting it right? Besides, if you work on tax reform first and get the economy going, you can work on the ACA down the road. By then, it will have probably died and we can start working in earnest on a free-market solution. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now...onto the next part of this, which might put me at odds with some in this thread. However, I said that I will give credit where credit is due and will speak out when I think it needs to happen. And after what has happened over this past week, Trump needs to make some serious adjustments. 

People see him saying one thing, his underlings saying something else, as Trump not knowing what he is doing. Nothing could be further from the truth. He knows exactly what he is doing. It's misdirection at its finest...he wants people to wonder where he stands on all issues. He wants people to guess what he's thinking. Great strategy during the campaign so he didn't have to be pinned down to a certain position. Now, as the leader of the Free World? Not so much. 

Monday night, you have Kellyanne Conway saying "Oh, everything is just butterflies, rainbows, and cupcakes with General Flynn." Obviously it wasn't or Trump would not have asked him for his resignation. Whatever the reasoning was, I won't go into that. It happens in every administration. Trump strikes me as someone who might have the people that work around him on a much shorter leash then other Commander-in-Chiefs. At the same time, why have someone come out and say everything is fine when apparently the opposite was true? That creates head-scratching all around. 

We're seeing this in other areas too. You have Trump one moment saying that he's going to wholeheartedly support Israel no matter what and we're moving the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Next, he is saying that the Israelis really need to consider stopping building further settlements if they want a shot at peace. Two different messages. He talks about being willing to stand by our commitment to NATO. Then, General Mattis comes out and says many of the other nations of this treaty need to step up and pay their fair share. Which is it? Some of the GOP says that we can hit the reset button with the Russians. Then, others are saying that Russia is still our enemy and can't be trusted. 

One of the biggest knocks of the Obama administration was the frustration on wondering where we stood in regards to the world and here at home. I'm seeing the same thing with the Trump administration. It's high time to put an end to that. While I understand Trump wants the US to not be involved everywhere, the world looks to us and wants us to know exactly where we stand. Leaders of other nations are more able to adjust accordingly when they know what the President believes on a certain issue. They can debate all they want. However, at the end of the day, people want to know that President Trump believes this or that and that is the stance the US takes. 

Maybe it's fun to make people guess, Mr. President, but it creates a headache. People look to us and want to know where we stand and that when the President speaks he speaks for America. Time for you to do that now.


----------



## virus21




----------



## Vic Capri

> Bannon is 200% correct that Islam is a religion of submission. The world literally means "to submit" and muslims openly claim that "it's a way of life". Every single thing from how you pee (you can't pee standing up), to which hand you should use (you can't use the left hand), to what you eat, to whom you can kill is clearly outlined in the religion.
> 
> Islam spread on Mohammad's letters which had 3 clauses:
> 
> 1. Submit to Allah and convert
> 2. If you don't submit to Islam then pay tax (it's still submission to the Islamic State).
> 3. If you do neither, prepare for an invasion.
> 
> Abu Bakr, Umar, Usman, as well as Muyawia, Yazid and others continued this tradition of expansion through war. India's conquest first came at the hands of Mohammad Bin Qasim and then the Mughals of Afghanistan who ruled for centuries before the British Raj. There was no such thing as peace in Islam. There never was. It was always violent expansion and over-throw of local culture and establishment of their shariah and Islam as a theocracy.
> 
> I may be wrong, but Ali was the only muslim who was not involved in massive expansion through war. However, he was also a soldier with plenty of innocent blood on his hands as well.
> 
> Muslims glorify all of their early caliphs and companions of Mohammad through their military conquests.
> 
> The ISIS are doing exactly what Mohammad and his Caliphs did. There is literally no difference.


*Sharia Law*: A law that punishes any and all people under it's control if they are not Muslim. It subjects women to torture, disfigurement, rape, and slavery. Calls for the murder of homosexuals and all who disagree with Islamic ideology.

It is the law of tyranny and of a cult that worships terror, death and HELL! So of course, liberals love it.

- Vic


----------



## yeahbaby!

DesolationRow said:


> Almost humorously some of the smoothest goings-on in the new administration have involved Donald Trump personally interacting with foreign leaders. Today Trump was funny and personable and highly Machiavellian with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. By primarily providing friendship and support, and throwing another verbal grenade toward the Iranians, Trump paved the way for later insisting to Netanyahu, publicly, that the Israelis should, in American eyes, cool it with any greater expansion of settlements. Netanyahu feigned a sense of blanching under Trump's words, as though he could never begin to meet that American stipulation. Trump laughed it off and claimed Netanyahu was just being a good negotiator; the Israeli Prime Minister jokingly said, "That's the _Art of the Deal_," with a laugh and pointing toward Trump.
> 
> Just about perfectly done all around.


I'm tempted to call the meeting somewhat romantic the way you've retold it. As if they gave each other shoulder massages after the meeting.

Just interested by your somewhat intimate re-telling as well - did you gleam this from footage of the meeting on the news or some other source?


----------



## yeahbaby!

Vic Capri said:


> *Sharia Law*: A law that punishes any and all people under it's control if they are not Muslim. It subjects women to torture, disfigurement, rape, and slavery. Calls for the murder of homosexuals and all who disagree with Islamic ideology.
> 
> It is the law of tyranny and of a cult that worships terror, death and HELL! So of course, liberals love it.
> 
> - Vic


You're in the wrong thread methinks. This one is about Donald Trump.

Your shot at Islam and Liberals to distract us all from the turmoil in Team Trump will not move us along Good Sir!


----------



## LowRida

Left wing propagandists whine that Trump doesn't want to talk to them


After Likening Trump to Hitler, Journalists Upset They're Not Getting Called on for Questions



Members of the mainstream media were left fuming this afternoon after President Trump refused to call on any of their organizations for the third straight press conference.

Yet many of these same news organizations have likened Trump to the Taliban and Adolf Hitler, floated false rumors about his use of a Russian prostitute, and accused his administration of being pro-slavery.

After Trump avoided calling on MSNBC during today's presser with Benjamin Netanyahu, MSNBC’s Peter Alexander complained that the conservative journalists he did call on didn’t ask “real questions” like he would have.

“What was striking," Alexander said, was that "President Trump, again, called on a series of more conservative leaning news organizations which didn’t allow for any real questions, trying to zero in on this issue of Mike Flynn, the now former national security advisor."

We can't speak for Trump, but one reason he may not be in a rush to give MSNBC more airtime is that they seem intent on using it to liken him to Adolf Hitler.

On Trump's Inauguration Day, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow likened Trump's election to "Hitler's rise." Her colleague Chris Matthews described Trump's inaugural address as "Hitlerian." Matthews also mocked Trump's family, likening them to the Russian imperial family, the Romanovs. He's so fond of this metaphor he now uses it all the time.

CNN reporters were likewise angry at not being called on during today's Trump presser.

"In the last three news conferences, Wolf, all of the questions to the American news media have been handled by conservative press, and I think, Wolf, there’s no other way to describe it but the fix is in," CNN's Jim Acosta vented during a post-press conference interview with Wolf Blitzer. "This White House, this president does not want to answer questions, critical questions, about his associates, his aides’ contacts with the Russians during the course of that campaign just as his national security advisor is being run out of this White House on a rail."

CNN's John King echoed his colleague, complaining that conservative journalists are not asking Trump “tough questions."

“Well, it would be nice — it would be nice if the conservative outlets the president is calling on would ask him tough questions," King lamented. "And instead of actually trying to curry favor with this president, they might do him a favor by letting him answer these questions because until he answers these questions this story is not going to go away."

Why might Trump be ignoring CNN?

Trump himself explained his frustration in an earlier press conference, when he noted that CNN ran a report about a rumor -- since discredited -- that he had used the services of a prostitute during a trip to Moscow. Trump even complimented The New York Times for passing on the story. CNN has since stuck by its decision to publish the uncorroborated report.

ABC's Matthew Dowd went so far as to claim today that Trump is "shutting down" the First Amendment by not calling on liberal media outlets during these press conferences.

“Well, I was struck by — when you look at this, this is two democracies, two important democracies in the world and basically the President of the United States is shutting down the part of the First Amendment by not taking questions that are going to be any way antagonistic in this," Dowd said.

What might Trump have against ABC? Well, Dowd himself has accused Trump of pushing legislation that plays to the racial “fears” of his base. On ABC's political show, "The View," hosts have likened Trump to the Taliban, claimed his administration wants to bring back slavery, and said his approach to the media mirrors a dictatorship.

So who did Trump call on today? The Christian Broadcast Network and Townhall.com. Both of these news organizations have run plenty of negative Trump stories. Townhall's two most well known pundits -- Katie Pavlich and Guy Benson -- were both outwardly opposed to Trump during the Republican primary.

One thing they haven't done? Publish anti-Trump fake news and/or compare him to history's most infamous mass murderers.

https://news.grabien.com/story-after-likening-trump-hitler-journalists-upset-theyre-not-get


----------



## Vic Capri

>


:clap

- Vic


----------



## yeahbaby!

LowRida said:


> Left wing propagandists whine that Trump doesn't want to talk to them
> 
> 
> After Likening Trump to Hitler, Journalists Upset They're Not Getting Called on for Questions
> 
> 
> 
> Members of the mainstream media were left fuming this afternoon after President Trump refused to call on any of their organizations for the third straight press conference.
> 
> Yet many of these same news organizations have likened Trump to the Taliban and Adolf Hitler, floated false rumors about his use of a Russian prostitute, and accused his administration of being pro-slavery.
> 
> After Trump avoided calling on MSNBC during today's presser with Benjamin Netanyahu, MSNBC’s Peter Alexander complained that the conservative journalists he did call on didn’t ask “real questions” like he would have.
> 
> “What was striking," Alexander said, was that "President Trump, again, called on a series of more conservative leaning news organizations which didn’t allow for any real questions, trying to zero in on this issue of Mike Flynn, the now former national security advisor."
> 
> We can't speak for Trump, but one reason he may not be in a rush to give MSNBC more airtime is that they seem intent on using it to liken him to Adolf Hitler.
> 
> On Trump's Inauguration Day, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow likened Trump's election to "Hitler's rise." Her colleague Chris Matthews described Trump's inaugural address as "Hitlerian." Matthews also mocked Trump's family, likening them to the Russian imperial family, the Romanovs. He's so fond of this metaphor he now uses it all the time.
> 
> CNN reporters were likewise angry at not being called on during today's Trump presser.
> 
> "In the last three news conferences, Wolf, all of the questions to the American news media have been handled by conservative press, and I think, Wolf, there’s no other way to describe it but the fix is in," CNN's Jim Acosta vented during a post-press conference interview with Wolf Blitzer. "This White House, this president does not want to answer questions, critical questions, about his associates, his aides’ contacts with the Russians during the course of that campaign just as his national security advisor is being run out of this White House on a rail."
> 
> CNN's John King echoed his colleague, complaining that conservative journalists are not asking Trump “tough questions."
> 
> “Well, it would be nice — it would be nice if the conservative outlets the president is calling on would ask him tough questions," King lamented. "And instead of actually trying to curry favor with this president, they might do him a favor by letting him answer these questions because until he answers these questions this story is not going to go away."
> 
> Why might Trump be ignoring CNN?
> 
> Trump himself explained his frustration in an earlier press conference, when he noted that CNN ran a report about a rumor -- since discredited -- that he had used the services of a prostitute during a trip to Moscow. Trump even complimented The New York Times for passing on the story. CNN has since stuck by its decision to publish the uncorroborated report.
> 
> ABC's Matthew Dowd went so far as to claim today that Trump is "shutting down" the First Amendment by not calling on liberal media outlets during these press conferences.
> 
> “Well, I was struck by — when you look at this, this is two democracies, two important democracies in the world and basically the President of the United States is shutting down the part of the First Amendment by not taking questions that are going to be any way antagonistic in this," Dowd said.
> 
> What might Trump have against ABC? Well, Dowd himself has accused Trump of pushing legislation that plays to the racial “fears” of his base. On ABC's political show, "The View," hosts have likened Trump to the Taliban, claimed his administration wants to bring back slavery, and said his approach to the media mirrors a dictatorship.
> 
> So who did Trump call on today? The Christian Broadcast Network and Townhall.com. Both of these news organizations have run plenty of negative Trump stories. Townhall's two most well known pundits -- Katie Pavlich and Guy Benson -- were both outwardly opposed to Trump during the Republican primary.
> 
> One thing they haven't done? Publish anti-Trump fake news and/or compare him to history's most infamous mass murderers.
> 
> https://news.grabien.com/story-after-likening-trump-hitler-journalists-upset-theyre-not-get


They should introduce a credit system for the journos. Like fake news stories take your score down and you won't get called on, so then you need to fact check and publish some TRUTH in order to build back up and then you get to ask questions again.

I've got just the man to determine what is fake news as well......





















:trump


----------



## FriedTofu

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pres...aign-event-florida-saturday/story?id=45521140



> President Donald Trump took office just weeks ago, but now he is set to travel to Orlando Saturday for what the White House has termed “a campaign event.”
> 
> The event, which is listed on Trump’s campaign website, will take place at a hangar at the Orlando-Melbourne International Airport, the site of a previous Trump campaign rally in September.
> 
> Trump repeatedly took aim at former President Barack Obama for his campaign efforts while in office.
> 
> Asked about the event Wednesday, White House press secretary Sean Spicer called the rally “a campaign event” and said it is “being run by the campaign.”
> 
> On the day of his inauguration, Trump filed paperwork with the Federal Election Committee indicating a possible re-election bid in 2020. Trump wrote that his filing, “does not constitute a formal announcement,” but as a result, he is able to collect donations.
> 
> President Barack Obama didn't file his re-election paperwork until April 2011, 19 months before the 2012 presidential election; President George W. Bush didn't file until May 2003, 18 months before the 2004 election.
> 
> "Many times in the past, what sitting presidents have done in the first two years is really suspend any fundraising activities for their campaign committees," former FEC chair Michael Toner told ABC News in January, adding that the move could help keep the dollars flowing. "It gives them flexibility to raise money for a potential re-election effort."
> 
> In 2011, Trump tweeted that the country was “blowing up” in 2011 while Obama was “out campaigning,” and asking, “Does @BarackObama ever work? He is constantly campaigning and fundraising--on both the taxpayer's dime and time---not fair!”


:hmm


----------



## Art Vandaley

Vic Capri said:


> *Sharia Law*: A law that punishes any and all people under it's control if they are not Muslim. It subjects women to torture, disfigurement, rape, and slavery. Calls for the murder of homosexuals and all who disagree with Islamic ideology.ic


Sharia law treats non muslims, who have to pay a small extra tax but are otherwise allowed to do whatever/worship whatever they want, better than traditional christian law treats non christians, who get "convert or die" ie the spanish inquistion. 

Slavery is legal under traditional Jewish Law, rape under traditional Christian law and both call for the murdering of homosexuals. 

Islam is terrible, Judaism and Christianity are just as bad, there are just fewer religious jews and christian atm.


----------



## Miss Sally

Alkomesh2 said:


> Sharia law treats non muslims, who have to pay a small extra tax but are otherwise allowed to do whatever/worship whatever they want, better than traditional christian law treats non christians, who get "convert or die" ie the spanish inquistion.
> 
> Slavery is legal under traditional Jewish Law, rape under traditional Christian law and both call for the murdering of homosexuals.
> 
> Islam is terrible, Judaism and Christianity are just as bad, there are just fewer religious jews and christian atm.


They are not just as bad because Christian countries do not practice this sort of nonsense anymore while Muslim countries do. You'd have a point if this was 600 years ago. You also forgot the tax was demanded or invasion would happen, also non-Muslims could not testify against Muslims.


----------



## Art Vandaley

Miss Sally said:


> They are not just as bad because Christian countries do not practice this sort of nonsense anymore while Muslim countries do. You'd have a point if this was 600 years ago. You also forgot the tax was demanded or invasion would happen, also non-Muslims could not testify against Muslims.


I'd totally accept that Islam is the religion causing the most problems in 2017.

But I'd put that down to the lack of power other religions have right now, not anything inherent to the belief system itself. 

I mean are there really any christian countries in 2017?

Also re the tax thing I was referring to individuals living in Muslim nations rather than relationships between Muslim nations and other state entities, I would point out too that systems of tribute were pretty much universal until the modern era basically. 

There were restrictions on non jews testifying in courts in biblical israel and on non christians testifying in courts in many medieval christian nations. I mean it was literally illegal to be jewish in England from 1290 to 1753.


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> Sharia law treats non muslims, who have to pay a small extra tax but are otherwise allowed to do whatever/worship whatever they want, better than traditional christian law treats non christians, who get "convert or die" ie the spanish inquistion.
> 
> Slavery is legal under traditional Jewish Law, rape under traditional Christian law and both call for the murdering of homosexuals.
> 
> Islam is terrible, Judaism and Christianity are just as bad, there are just fewer religious jews and christian atm.


Slavery is allowed under the old testament. There are almost no modern christians left that believe in old testament laws. However, Islam is resistant to such reformations and simply cannot be reformed. 

Here are things christians don't do, nor have in their majority countries whereas majority of Muslim countries do:

1. Death penalty for rape
2. Death penalty for adultery
3. Death penalty for homosexuality
4. Death penalty for speaking up against the State (Yes, this is Shariah law). 
5. Death penalty for Blasphemy (the last christian country to execute someone for blasphemy was in 1692)
6. Testimony of a woman is worth half that of a man
7. A woman is entitled to half the inheritance a man is
8. Women are forced to wear the hijab in many muslim countries as a direct consequence of Shariah Law because a full enactment of Shariah Law means that all women have to wear the hijab
9. Death Penalty for apostasy 
10. Death penalty for saying anything negative about Mohammad

At the same time Muslim countries don't have laws for:

1. Majority of Muslim countries have no penalty for spousal rape because it is allowable under Shariah Law
2. Majority of Muslim countries still haven't abolished slavery. Bonded labor and slavery exists in Pakistan (which is supposed to be secular) to this day
3. Majority of Muslim countries do not teach evolution in their schools at all. I turned 30 before I even discovered evolution because apparently my Canadian school didn't teach it either. 

^these are divine laws and they cannot be changed. 

Name a single christian majority country that has anything that is parallel to these laws currently? Christianity had lost its power over people within 1500 years of its establishment. The beginning of Christianity was incredibly peaceful as well. So at most we have a pocket of 1200 years of violence in the name of Christianity. Whereas Islam has been violent and resistant to reformation 1500 years already. For nearly 500 years they have done nothing even remotely similar to what Muslims are still doing in their countries - and Islamic Jurisprudence is anti-liberty and resistant to post-modernism because all of the laws are considered divine and were revealed to Mohammad directly by Allah. 

The laws Mohammad implemented 1500 years ago are still applicable to this day because there is little to no ambiguity when it comes to Islam's social justice. No room for interpretation on many issues. No room for future secularization. They're future proof because they're considered divine. 

Bringing up what christians in the past did or believed in comparison to what muslims continue to practice and believe isn't an argument. Compare what Christians do today to what Muslims do today. Otherwise, why stop there. Why not bring up the mass murders of Stalin and claim that atheists/secularists believe in genocide as well? It's not an argument. 

It's an invalid comparison and is only made by people who have no idea what muslim countries are like and where they actually derive their laws from and why they all seem to have the same kinds of laws and don't want to learn either. It would be like saying that North Korea is just like South Korea because at one point they were one and the same country. Things change over time, and it's intellectually dishonest to refuse to acknowledge those changes.

Lastly, there isn't a single Christian country that has a population of violent Christians so large that they could ever try to bring the old testament ways back whereas every single Muslim country continues to fight with extremists in their own lands and have a very real possibility of having their very weak secular/liberal states overthrown because the populations of "extremists" is so large and continues to grow. There is literally no way you can compare modern Christianity to modern Islam without making ridiculous/reaching arguments. At all.


----------



## Reaper

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...of-flynns-calls-dont-show-criminal-wrongdoing



> *Intelligence Official: Transcripts Of Flynn's Calls Don't Show Criminal Wrongdoing*
> 
> A current U.S. intelligence official tells NPR's Mary Louise Kelly that there is no evidence of criminal wrongdoing in the transcripts of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn's conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, although the official noted that doesn't rule out the possibility of illegal actions.
> 
> The official also says that there are recordings as well as transcripts of the calls, and that the transcripts don't suggest Flynn was acting under orders in his conversations.
> 
> 6 Unanswered Questions After Michael Flynn's Resignation
> POLITICS
> 6 Unanswered Questions After Michael Flynn's Resignation
> Flynn's Departure Adds Fuel As Trump's Russia Problem Smolders
> PARALLELS
> Flynn's Departure Adds Fuel As Trump's Russia Problem Smolders
> Flynn resigned late Monday, after allegations that he discussed U.S. sanctions on Russia with Kislyak and then misled Vice President Pence about the nature of those conversations. Flynn initially denied discussing sanctions at all, but in his resignation Flynn said he "inadvertently" gave Pence "incomplete information" about the conversations.
> 
> NPR's Phil Ewing previously reported that it is not in dispute that Flynn spoke with Kislyak in late December. "The issue is what he said," Phil wrote.
> 
> Depending on the content of the conversations, Flynn could have violated a law called the Logan Act, which bars a private individual from conducting foreign policy without the permission of the U.S. government. For instance, if Flynn told the ambassador the Trump administration would drop the sanctions, that would have been illegal.
> 
> The intelligence official who has personally seen the transcripts told Mary Louise they contained "no evidence" of criminal wrongdoing, although the official said it can't be definitively ruled out.
> 
> The official also said there was "absolutely nothing" in the transcripts that suggests Flynn was acting under instructions "or that the trail leads higher."
> 
> "I don't think [Flynn] knew he was doing anything wrong," the official said. "Flynn talked about sanctions, but no specific promises were made. Flynn was speaking more in general 'maybe we'll take a look at this going forward' terms."
> 
> What Is The Logan Act, And Why Does It Matter?
> POLITICS
> What Is The Logan Act, And Why Does It Matter?
> As NPR's Domenico Montanaro has reported, Flynn could face consequences even if there isn't evidence he violated the Logan Act:
> 
> "The White House is confident Flynn didn't say anything that could have violated the law. Of course, that could be open to interpretation. It would be up to the Jeff Sessions Justice Department to review the transcript and bring a case, if it saw fit. That is seen as unlikely.
> "But there are other ways in which Flynn could be at risk.
> "Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee said Tuesday it's possible that Flynn will be called to testify under oath. More could become known about the specifics of the call before then. The New York Times reports Tuesday evening that the FBI questioned Flynn in the early days of the Trump presidency about his conversations. And investigators believe Flynn "was not entirely forthcoming":
> " 'That raises the stakes of what so far has been a political scandal that cost Mr. Flynn his job. If the authorities conclude that Mr. Flynn knowingly lied to the F.B.I., it could expose him to a felony charge.' "


Well, that clears it up. 

@Beatles123 wasn't spinning things after all. He was merely engaged in optimistic conjecture and turns out he was right to be optimistic.


----------



## Vic Capri

WTF?!!

- Vic


----------



## DOPA

@DesolationRow @CamillePunk @Miss Sally @RipNTear @Alco @Goku @Vic Capri @Pratchett @samizayn

Hello, I haven't messaged here in a couple of days. I was going to post some more about education but seeing as the main story coming around right now is about General Flynn, I guess I have to add my two cents on to this. I apologize if I add nothing that hasn't already been said but I've read a number of different articles surrounding this. 

Firstly of course the main point of contention is the Logan Act and whether or not Flynn violated it. The jury is really still out on that one so I won't make any judgements yet but this article breaks it down pretty nicely: https://mic.com/articles/168546/wha...ian-contacts-may-have-been-illegal#.6RFKrBb8M



> News broke Monday that White House national security adviser Michael Flynn had resigned from his position. The news came after reports that Flynn had spoken to Russian ambassador to the United States Sergey Kislyak on the phone and discussed sanctions against Russia before the inauguration — and then misled senior members of the Trump administration about his contact with Russia.
> 
> In his resignation letter, obtained by CNN, Flynn said that he had "sincerely apologized to the president and the vice president" for, as he put it, "inadvertently" briefing them and others with "incomplete information" about his contact with the Russian ambassador to the U.S. But for many, there are several issues at hand: not only that Flynn misled administration officials about his communication with Russia, but that he even had the calls in the first place, potentially putting him in violation of a 1799 statute called the Logan Act.
> 
> *What is the Logan Act?*
> 
> The Logan Act, meant to prevent private citizens from manipulating foreign affairs without the permission or involvement of the U.S. government, was named after Pennsylvania state legislator George Logan, who, in 1798, took it upon himself to travel to France and try to broker peace amid rising tensions between France and the U.S. over debts, the Washington Post reported in July.
> 
> Logan was successful in his goal — much to the disappointment of the leading Federalist party, which had been pushing for a war with France. So the party passed a law, named for Logan, meant to prevent any other U.S. citizens from involving themselves in foreign affairs without being authorized by the government. The full text of the Logan Act reads as follows:
> 
> _Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
> 
> This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects._
> 
> *Could Flynn really face consequences for violating the Logan Act?*
> 
> It would certainly be unprecedented if he did, because in the entire long history of the law, *no one has ever been found guilty of breaking it, according to the Washington Post.*
> 
> In fact, it's mostly used as "a political weapon for the opposition party to cast doubt on the other party's foreign policies," according to the Washington Post. It gets brought up fairly regularly, including in 2015, when *John Boehner acted without President Barack Obama's approval and invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to Congress*, and in 2016, when then-candidate Donald Trump appeared to invite Russian hackers to spy on his opponent, Hillary Clinton.
> 
> But amid ongoing outrage about Flynn's actions and his abrupt departure from his White House position, it remains to be seen whether or not he will face any legal consequences.


The Logan Act itself is pretty self explanatory which is essentially a US Citizen talking to a foreign government to influence policy without the permission of the United States government. What is more interesting is the fact that no one has ever been found guilty of breaking the law and this is coming from the centre-left Washington Post. Furthermore, the John Boehner case is also interesting in the fact he supposedly lied to Obama in terms of inviting the Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to speak to Congress. The same way in which supposedly Flynn lied to Pence. Now do I think the Boehner case is severe as Flynn's? At least at face value no, but I'd have to read up on it at some point.

But being surprised that no one has been found guilty of breaking the Logan Act, I decided to do some digging and came across an article which whilst it's mostly speculation and nothing to be taken too seriously in my opinion brought up an extremely relevant historical case: https://amgreatness.com/2017/02/13/insiders-attempt-overturn-election-attack-flynn/



> Recall that in 1984 Senator Ted Kennedy approached the Soviet government about aid in defeating Ronald Reagan’s reelection. He offered them diplomatic and arms control concessions if they would help install Walter Mondale in the White House. Not surprisingly, Kennedy gets a pass if not a conspiratorial wink of assent from the guardians of democracy in the press. Naturally, they assume all partisans work with foreign governments to achieve their electoral aims.


This revelation to me is pretty startlingly yet highly unsurprising as well. So a well known Democrat at the time from the Kennedy family no less actually approached the Soviet Union and offered them concessions if they were to help stop Reagan's re-election. Two main points to contend here, firstly once at again it brings about the issue of partisanship and the fact that historically there is some inconsistency in dealing with the enforcing of the Logan Act itself but also the fact this was known and yet Ted Kennedy did not get punished. What does this mean for Flynn? Well it could very well be possible that nothing will come of it for him except obviously his resignation but also puts into question the motivations of the people behind the leaks surrounding his converses with the Russians.

This by the way before the anti-Trump brigade jumps on me does not in any way take away from the fact that what Flynn did was 100% wrong and that he deserved to go. Nor does it mean that I am against him being investigated. Quite the opposite actually, we all need to know what if any wrongdoing Flynn was accustom to and how it has effected policy and the Trump administration going forward.

There is still a lot of unknown quantities to this story at least from what I have seen and there is certainly a lot of questions that need to be answered as well to question the credibility of the reasons why Flynn resigned, Bloomberg really illustrates this well: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-02-14/the-political-assassination-of-michael-flynn



> It's not even clear that Flynn lied. He says in his resignation letter that he did not deliberately leave out elements of his conversations with Ambassador Sergey Kislyak when he recounted them to Vice President Mike Pence. The New York Times and Washington Post reported that the transcript of the phone call reviewed over the weekend by the White House could be read different ways. One White House official with knowledge of the conversations told me that the Russian ambassador raised the sanctions to Flynn and that Flynn responded that the Trump team would be taking office in a few weeks and would review Russia policy and sanctions. That's neither illegal nor improper.
> 
> What's more, the Washington Post reported Monday night that last month Sally Yates, then the acting attorney general, had informed the White House that Flynn discussed sanctions with Kislyak and that he could be susceptible to blackmail because he misled Pence about it. If it was the lie to Pence that sunk Flynn, why was he not fired at the end of January?
> 
> A better explanation here is that Flynn was just thrown under the bus. His tenure as national security adviser, the briefest in U.S. history, was rocky from the start. When Flynn was attacked in the media for his ties to Russia, he was not allowed by the White House to defend himself. Over the weekend, he was instructed not to speak to the press when he was in the fight for his political life. His staff was not even allowed to review the transcripts of his call to the Russian ambassador.
> 
> There is another component to this story as well -- as Trump himself just tweeted. It's very rare that reporters are ever told about government-monitored communications of U.S. citizens, let alone senior U.S. officials. The last story like this to hit Washington was in 2009 when Jeff Stein, then of CQ, reported on intercepted phone calls between a senior Aipac lobbyist and Jane Harman, who at the time was a Democratic member of Congress.
> 
> Normally intercepts of U.S. officials and citizens are some of the most tightly held government secrets. This is for good reason. Selectively disclosing details of private conversations monitored by the FBI or NSA gives the permanent state the power to destroy reputations from the cloak of anonymity. This is what police states do.
> 
> *In the past it was considered scandalous for senior U.S. officials to even request the identities of U.S. officials incidentally monitored by the government (normally they are redacted from intelligence reports). John Bolton's nomination to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations was derailed in 2006 after the NSA confirmed he had made 10 such requests when he was Undersecretary of State for Arms Control in George W. Bush's first term. The fact that the intercepts of Flynn's conversations with Kislyak appear to have been widely distributed inside the government is a red flag.*
> 
> Representative Devin Nunes, the Republican chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, told me Monday that he saw the leaks about Flynn's conversations with Kislyak as part of a pattern. "There does appear to be a well orchestrated effort to attack Flynn and others in the administration," he said. "From the leaking of phone calls between the president and foreign leaders to what appears to be high-level FISA Court information, to the leaking of American citizens being denied security clearances, it looks like a pattern."
> 
> Nunes said he was going to bring this up with the FBI, and ask the agency to investigate the leak and find out whether Flynn himself is a target of a law enforcement investigation. The Washington Post reported last month that Flynn was not the target of an FBI probe.
> 
> The background here is important. Three people once affiliated with Trump's presidential campaign -- Carter Page, Paul Manafort and Roger Stone -- are being investigated by the FBI and the intelligence community for their contacts with the Russian government. This is part of a wider inquiry into Russia's role in hacking and distributing emails of leading Democrats before the election.
> 
> Flynn himself traveled in 2015 to Russia to attend a conference put on by the country's propaganda network, RT. He has acknowledged he was paid through his speaker's bureau for his appearance. That doesn't look good, but it's also not illegal in and of itself. All of this is to say there are many unanswered questions about Trump's and his administration's ties to Russia.
> 
> But that's all these allegations are at this point: unanswered questions. It's possible that Flynn has more ties to Russia that he had kept from the public and his colleagues. It's also possible that a group of national security bureaucrats and former Obama officials are selectively leaking highly sensitive law enforcement information to undermine the elected government.
> 
> Flynn was a fat target for the national security state. He has cultivated a reputation as a reformer and a fierce critic of the intelligence community leaders he once served with when he was the director the Defense Intelligence Agency under President Barack Obama. Flynn was working to reform the intelligence-industrial complex, something that threatened the bureaucratic prerogatives of his rivals.
> 
> He was also a fat target for Democrats. Remember Flynn's breakout national moment last summer was when he joined the crowd at the Republican National Convention from the dais calling for Hillary Clinton to be jailed.
> 
> In normal times, the idea that U.S. officials entrusted with our most sensitive secrets would selectively disclose them to undermine the White House would alarm those worried about creeping authoritarianism. Imagine if intercepts of a call between Obama's incoming national security adviser and Iran's foreign minister leaked to the press before the nuclear negotiations began? The howls of indignation would be deafening.
> 
> In the end, it was Trump's decision to cut Flynn loose. In doing this he caved in to his political and bureaucratic opposition. Nunes told me Monday night that this will not end well. "First it's Flynn, next it will be Kellyanne Conway, then it will be Steve Bannon, then it will be Reince Priebus," he said. Put another way, Flynn is only the appetizer. Trump is the entree.


What is interesting as Bloomberg note, is that this kind of investigation surrounding Flynn is in fact not that common at all and in fact with Bolton in 2006 it cost him the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations role when he made requests to have certain government officials to be monitored. So why is this happening with Flynn and there is no questions surrounding it? Although it is mere speculation at this point there does seem to be ulterior motives here and the idea of neo-conservatives and other hawks wanting to undermine Trump's administration in any way they possibly can to stop a potential change in normal foreign policy seems plausible to me.

This is further backed up by Glenn Greenwald's article where he takes a completely different look into this case, one which very few others have thus far: https://theintercept.com/2017/02/14...mitted-serious-and-wholly-justified-felonies/



> PRESIDENT TRUMP’S NATIONAL security adviser, Gen. Michael Flynn, was forced to resign on Monday night as a result of getting caught lying about whether he discussed sanctions in a December telephone call with a Russian diplomat. The only reason the public learned about Flynn’s lie is because someone inside the U.S. government violated the criminal law by leaking the contents of Flynn’s intercepted communications.
> 
> In the spectrum of crimes involving the leaking of classified information, publicly revealing the contents of SIGINT — signals intelligence — is one of the most serious felonies. Journalists (and all other nongovernmental citizens) can be prosecuted under federal law for disclosing classified information only under the narrowest circumstances; reflecting how serious SIGINT is considered to be, one of those circumstances includes leaking the contents of intercepted communications, as defined this way by 18 § 798 of the U.S. Code:
> 
> _Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates … or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes … any classified information … obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both._
> 
> That Flynn lied about what he said to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak was first revealed by Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, who has built his career on repeating what his CIA sources tell him. In his January 12 column, Ignatius wrote: “According to a senior U.S. government official, Flynn phoned Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak several times on Dec. 29, the day the Obama administration announced the expulsion of 35 Russian officials as well as other measures in retaliation for the hacking.”
> 
> That “senior U.S. government official” committed a serious felony by leaking to Ignatius the communication activities of Flynn. Similar and even more extreme crimes were committed by what the Washington Post called “nine current and former officials, who were in senior positions at multiple agencies at the time of the calls,” who told the paper for its February 9 article that “Flynn privately discussed U.S. sanctions against Russia with that country’s ambassador to the United States during the month before President Trump took office, contrary to public assertions by Trump officials.” The New York Times, also citing anonymous U.S. officials, provided even more details about the contents of Flynn’s telephone calls.
> 
> That all of these officials committed major crimes can hardly be disputed. In January, CNN reported that Flynn’s calls with the Russians “were captured by routine U.S. eavesdropping targeting the Russian diplomats.” That means that the contents of those calls were “obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of [a] foreign government,” which in turn means that anyone who discloses them — or reports them to the public — is guilty of a felony under the statute.
> 
> Yet very few people are calling for a criminal investigation or the prosecution of these leakers, nor demanding the leakers step forward and “face the music” — for very good reason: The officials leaking this information acted justifiably, despite the fact that they violated the law. That’s because the leaks revealed that a high government official, Gen. Flynn, blatantly lied to the public about a material matter — his conversations with Russian diplomats — and the public has the absolute right to know this.
> 
> This episode underscores a critical point: The mere fact that an act is illegal does not mean it is unjust or even deserving of punishment. Oftentimes, the most just acts are precisely the ones that the law prohibits.
> 
> That’s particularly true of whistleblowers — i.e., those who reveal information the law makes it a crime to reveal, when doing so is the only way to demonstrate to the public that powerful officials are acting wrongfully or deceitfully. In those cases, we should cheer those who do it even though they are undertaking exactly those actions that the criminal law prohibits.
> 
> This Flynn episode underscores another critical point: The motives of leakers are irrelevant. It’s very possible — indeed, likely — that the leakers here were not acting with benevolent motives. Nobody with a straight face can claim that lying to the public is regarded in official Washington as some sort of mortal sin; if anything, the contrary is true: It’s seen as a job requirement.
> 
> Moreover, Gen. Flynn has many enemies throughout the intelligence and defense community. The same is true, of course, of Donald Trump; recall that just a few weeks ago, Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer warned Trump that he was being “really dumb” to criticize the intelligence community because “they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.”
> 
> It’s very possible — I’d say likely — that the motive here was vindictive rather than noble. Whatever else is true, this is a case where the intelligence community, through strategic (and illegal) leaks, destroyed one of its primary adversaries in the Trump White House.
> 
> But no matter. What matters is not the motive of the leaker but the effects of the leak. Any leak that results in the exposure of high-level wrongdoing — as this one did — should be praised, not scorned and punished.
> 
> IT IS, OF COURSE, bizarre to watch this principle now so widely celebrated. Over the last eight years, President Obama implemented the most vindictive and aggressive war on whistleblowers in all of U.S. history. As Leonard Downie, one of the editors at the Washington Post during the Watergate investigation, put it in a special report: “The [Obama] administration’s war on leaks and other efforts to control information are the most aggressive I’ve seen since the Nixon administration.”


It is true that nobody has looked at it from the perspective of the leakers breaking the law in order for this all to be revealed. Yet anyone who was in favour of the wikileaks revelations surrounding Hillary Clinton who now opposes this because it deals with Trump's administration would ultimately be a hypocrite. Transparency and knowing what the government is up to considering that the US Citizens fund them and are supposed to be their employers (this never happens in practice :lol ) is of upmost importance.

Greenwald also makes some great points in regarding the political enemies that Flynn has made, no doubt there are people within Washington and the Deep State who wanted this to happen and made damn sure that they got their man. So Trump in reality needs to be careful here because he has also really made some enemies in Washington by refusing to play the game the traditional way.

Whatever the case may be this is a multilayered story with a lot of different developments and issues here which are certainly ones to keep a watch out for.

Finally the Obama crackdown on whistleblowers is also an interesting point, and that it does feel rather weird after years of this happening and people railing against whistleblowers when they revealed the NSA's warrantless searches or the issues of droning that now all of a sudden this news is being celebrated.

I guess that's what happens when you are a partisan hack and have no principles surrounding these types of issues . I was in favour of when leaks came out about Obama's administration and I'm in favour now with Trump at the helm.


----------



## stevefox1200

I will give Trump his due

Alexander Acosta is a good way to pick up the spare for his sectary of labor 

He is Cuban, a group that is largely right wing and also covers some "you be racist" accusations, and has a good background.

He also seems to not run his mouth so that will help

Puzder was an awful pick, he is loud, outspoken and comes across as the stereotypical "Evil boss"


----------



## Beatles123

Trump continuing to keep promises, helping the mining industry!


----------



## Sensei Utero

That conference was hilarious for the wrong reasons.


----------



## Beatles123

InUtero said:


> That conference was hilarious for the wrong reasons.


Im sure.


----------



## deepelemblues

:trump still playing 88D chess with these idiots in the media

That cuck Jewish reporter REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEING over how :trump wouldn't just admit that he's a NAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAZI was so :heston

:trump3


----------



## Sensei Utero

Beatles123 said:


> Im sure.


No matter what anyone's entitled political beliefs are, you do kinda have to laugh at how it turned out :shrug.


----------



## Beatles123

InUtero said:


> No matter what anyone's entitled political beliefs are, you do kinda have to laugh at how it turned out :shrug.


I didn't.

:trump3


----------



## Sensei Utero

Beatles123 said:


> I didn't.
> 
> :trump3


Eh, if a President blowing a gasket and the media losin' their shite too at the same time ain't funny, I don't know what is.

Up there with this for me.


----------



## Beatles123

InUtero said:


> Eh, if a President blowing a gasket and the media losin' their shite too at the same time ain't funny, I don't know what is.
> 
> Up there with this for me.


You call calling out the Lugenpresse blowing a gasket? :nerd:


----------



## Sensei Utero

Beatles123 said:


> You call calling out the Lugenpresse blowing a gasket? :nerd:


He did lose his temper quite a bit during that conference :shrug well, a little bit. Same with the media. Thought it was going to turn into Jeremy Kyle (probably Jerry Springer to Americans) for a bit.

*Separate comment:* Being a left-wing socialist in Northern Ireland, it's obvious through that and past stuff on here that I disagree quite a bit with Trump etc., but even I have to say that a protest against him down 60+ miles in Belfast is absolutely ridiculous fpalm. Considering the issues NI is currently going through...


----------



## yeahbaby!

deepelemblues said:


> :trump still playing 88D chess with these idiots in the media
> 
> That cuck Jewish reporter REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEING over how :trump wouldn't just admit that he's a NAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAZI was so :heston
> 
> :trump3


The simple act of refusing to answer questions from media outlets is playing chess now?

And people say Trump hasn't lowered the bar!


----------



## Beatles123

InUtero said:


> He did lose his temper quite a bit during that conference :shrug well, a little bit. Same with the media. Thought it was going to turn into Jeremy Kyle (probably Jerry Springer to Americans) for a bit.
> 
> *Separate comment:* Being a left-wing socialist in Northern Ireland, it's obvious through that and past stuff on here that I disagree quite a bit with Trump etc., but even I have to say that a protest against him down 60+ miles in Belfast is absolutely ridiculous fpalm. Considering the issues NI is currently going through...


As a socialist, tell me, how do you solve the Calculation Problem?


----------



## Headliner

"Look, I'm intelligent ok? I'm pretty smart. I know a thing or two about this. We got plans to do (insert vague plan without explaining much about it) and it's going to be huge. It's going to be big. Important stuff here guys. We're going to get it done."


----------



## deepelemblues

yeahbaby! said:


> The simple act of refusing to answer questions from media outlets is playing chess now?
> 
> And people say Trump hasn't lowered the bar!


I read the entire transcript, I didn't see any questions that went unanswered.

:trump calls a press conference and controls the agenda the entire time and shits on the press the entire time. It's layups for him from start to finish. They keep falling for it, they can't help themselves. Endless clips of him shitting on their faces for being dishonest fucks that only 8% of the population or whatever trusts. End result is the same, they're BTFO once again. You'd think they'd figure it out after 18 months of him doing it but apparently they just can't get a clue. Every time he speaks with a reporter on camera he runs the show, they look like spineless fools because all he does is toy with them mercilessly before he savages them. It's like watching a barn cat play with a crippled mouse. They don't know what to do with themselves until it's over then they cry on twitter. :heston

:trump is a master wedge-driver and he's going to keep driving that wedge between the press and the public. The public has disliked the press to an astonishing degree for a long time, well now there's finally a president who is most willing to take full advantage of it. They're too arrogant, entitled and stupid to realize what's really happening. They still think they control the agenda and they don't. :trump does. They endlessly write breathless fairy-tale wishing-well stories about how :trump is in big trouble then he comes out and alpha males all over them. 

Politics is optics. :trump dominating the media every time he appears before them, them crying that he's calling on "right-wing" news outlets instead of calling on them, makes them look weak and him look strong.


----------



## Beatles123

MrMister said:


> This is what spin looks like in case anyone is wondering.


You were saying? 0


----------



## Draykorinee

I do not remember a President being quite so ill thought of in the UK, so many memes too.


----------



## Beatles123

And for the record so it doesn't get brought up again, I spin NOTHING. All of those that think I do have not read where I have said a million times: WHEN TRUMP UPSETS ME, I'll call him out.

I can't help it if the rest of you are saps who buy into liberal fear mongering and globalist elite brainwashing. :trump3


----------



## deepelemblues

Headliner said:


> "Look, I'm intelligent ok? I'm pretty smart. I know a thing or two about this. We got plans to do (insert vague plan without explaining much about it) and it's going to be huge. It's going to be big. Important stuff here guys. We're going to get it done."





Barack Obama said:


> We've got shovel-ready projects all across the country.





Nancy Pelosi said:


> But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it.


:heston


----------



## Beatles123

draykorinee said:


> I do not remember a President being quite so ill thought of in the UK, so many memes too.


We don't care. :trump


----------



## Headliner

deepelemblues said:


> :heston


You tried. I'm actually mocking Trump's intelligence. The President of the United States talks like an elementary school student. Dude has half the intellect of any of his recent predecessors.


----------



## Beatles123

Headliner said:


> You tried. I'm actually mocking Trump's intelligence. The President of the United States talks like an elementary school student. Dude has half the intellect of any of his recent predecessors.


Have you read any of his books? Because I think that would educate you on why he uses that tone.


----------



## Headliner

Beatles123 said:


> Have you read any of his books? Because I think that would educate you on why he uses that tone.


No excuses.


----------



## Sensei Utero

Beatles123 said:


> As a socialist, tell me, how do you solve the Calculation Problem?


Do you mean economically or specific countries?


----------



## BruiserKC

Beatles123 said:


> And for the record so it doesn't get brought up again, I spin NOTHING. All of those that think I do have not read where I have said a million times: WHEN TRUMP UPSETS ME, I'll call him out.
> 
> I can't help it if the rest of you are saps who buy into liberal fear mongering and globalist elite brainwashing. :trump3


You have no intention of calling him out ever. You will be that one person who will blindly follow him to the ends of the earth. If he turns out to be someone who believes global warming/climate change/whatever is a threat and decides that all of a sudden we are going to have UHC (remember he said during the campaign that we were all going to have health insurance and the government would pay for it) you will continue to worship him from the shrine you have built for him in your living room. 

And no, I am not one of those aforementioned saps who buy into anything liberal. So far, he's done a few things that impress me but some things make me scratch my head. I have come to accept the fact he's a populist and that he's not going to check off every box that I want him to do so to fully 100% get my undying loyalty. I won't lie, I'm still going to give him the chance but I still don't trust him. 

A healthy bit of skepticism is not a bad thing to have. Just wanted to point that out. If you will follow him regardless, just be honest about it.


----------



## Beatles123

BruiserKC said:


> You have no intention of calling him out ever. You will be that one person who will blindly follow him to the ends of the earth. If he turns out to be someone who believes global warming/climate change/whatever is a threat and decides that all of a sudden we are going to have UHC (remember he said during the campaign that we were all going to have health insurance and the government would pay for it) you will continue to worship him from the shrine you have built for him in your living room.
> 
> And no, I am not one of those aforementioned saps who buy into anything liberal. So far, he's done a few things that impress me but some things make me scratch my head. I have come to accept the fact he's a populist and that he's not going to check off every box that I want him to do so to fully 100% get my undying loyalty. I won't lie, I'm still going to give him the chance but I still don't trust him.
> 
> A healthy bit of skepticism is not a bad thing to have. Just wanted to point that out. If you will follow him regardless, just be honest about it.


Nothing has happened that im upset with him yet over, what do you want me to do, make things up? Then i'd be the Lugenpresse!

Let's see if he gets rid of SS.

I guess not locking up the hildabeast is one. :shrug

and in respect to global warming, you couldn't be further from the truth on what my stance would be...i have to say this assumption is false.



Headliner said:


> No excuses.


it's not one. You see something as a flaw, an error. it isn't.


----------



## Headliner

*Trump:* Except Fox News you're all fake news. Fake news ok? Fake stories, fake journalism, fake everything. You say things that aren't true. The leaks are real, the news is fake. 

*Reporter:* Sir that doesn't make any sense. How can the leaks be real and the news be fake? 

*Trump:* Figure it out genius. You're a smart guy aren't ya? By the way guys, the US murder rate is the highest in 47 years.

*Reporter:* Sir that's false. *Shows true murder rate graph.*

*Trump:* Well that's what I was told, ok? And now it's getting to the point where terrorism isn't being reported.

*Reporter:* Sir that's false. *Shows reporters around the country covering various terrorism attacks including attacks Trump team claims weren't reported.*

*Trump:* Well that's what I was told, ok? By the way guys, I had the biggest Electoral College win since Reagan" 

*Reporter:* That's not true at all sir. *Shows real data*

*Trump:* Well that's what I was told, ok? I don't think there's ever been a president elected who in this short period of time has done what we've done.

*Reporter:* Sir that's not true. *Shows data*

*Trump:* Well that's what I was told, ok? Give me a break. I INHERITED A MESS!

*Reporter:* Sir, the economy is stable, the unemployment rate is the lowest in 10 years, there's a record setting streak of job growth & creation and every incoming President inherits world issues so can you please specify what you inherited that was worse than what your predecessors inherited? 

*Trump:* ........Go fuck yourself. You're fake news. 

*Reporter:* Sir

*Trump:* :trumpout

*Reporter:* WTF


----------



## Beatles123

Headliner said:


> *Trump:* Except Fox News you're all fake news. Fake news ok? Fake stories, fake journalism, fake everything. You say things that aren't true. The leaks are real, the news is fake.
> 
> *Reporter:* Sir that doesn't make any sense. How can the leaks be real and the news be fake?
> 
> *Trump:* Figure it out genius. You're a smart guy aren't ya? By the way guys, the US murder rate is the highest in 47 years.
> 
> *Reporter:* Sir that's false. *Shows true murder rate graph.*
> 
> *Trump:* Well that's what I was told, ok? And now it's getting to the point where terrorism isn't being reported.
> 
> *Reporter:* Sir that's false. *Shows reporters around the country covering various terrorism attacks including attacks Trump team claims weren't reported.*
> 
> *Trump:* Well that's what I was told, ok? By the way guys, I had the biggest Electoral College win since Reagan"
> 
> *Reporter:* That's not true at all sir. *Shows real data*
> 
> *Trump:* Well that's what I was told, ok? I don't think there's ever been a president elected who in this short period of time has done what we've done.
> 
> *Reporter:* Sir that's not true. *Shows data*
> 
> *Trump:* Well that's what I was told, ok? Give me a break. I INHERITED A MESS!
> 
> *Reporter:* Sir, the economy is stable, the unemployment rate is the lowest in 10 years, there's a record setting streak of job growth & creation and every incoming President inherits world issues so can you please specify what you inherited that was worse than what your predecessors inherited?
> 
> *Trump:* ........Go fuck yourself. You're fake news.
> 
> *Reporter:* Sir
> 
> *Trump:* :trumpout
> 
> *Reporter:* WTF


and they say *I* spin? :lmao

(((True))) murder graph...:lol


----------



## Headliner

Beatles123 said:


> and they say *I* spin? :lmao


How is any of that wrong? You going to continue to defend Trump's lies? C'mon.


----------



## yeahbaby!

All falling apart


----------



## BruiserKC

Beatles123 said:


> Nothing has happened that im upset with him yet over, what do you want me to do, make things up? Then i'd be the Lugenpresse!
> 
> Let's see if he gets rid of SS.
> 
> I guess not locking up the hildabeast is one. :shrug
> 
> and in respect to global warming, you couldn't be further from the truth on what my stance would be...i have to say this assumption is false.


I'm saying when something comes up that he needs to be called out on, you won't do it. Whether it happens today, tomorrow, or five years from now. 

Assuming you refer to Social Security...he's not getting rid of that. Does it need a massive overhaul, yes. But he's not getting rid of it. 

HRC...that's a can of worms best left on the shelf and closed. Look at what happened regarding Governor Perry down in Texas when there was a politically-motivated criminal case. If the Dems got back in power, the next time they wouldn't just talk about throwing a GOP presidential candidate in the slammer. They will actually do their damnedest to make it happen. Welcome to the land of unintended consequences. Yes, Hillary Clinton is the spawn of evil, but you don't want to do shit that is done in banana republics. 

You're new to the political game...I get it. I have been in this game for a long time and am extremely skeptical. I applauded this week when the House Freedom Caucus said that they can do the repeal of the ACA exactly like the bill that they offered up in 2015 that was authored by Sanford and Rand Paul. Personally, I would like them to take their time and tackle tax reform first and then come to the ACA afterwards because by then the ACA is DOA. However, the platform is there if the GOP leadership grows a set and pushes it forward. And so far Ryan and McConnell are scared shitless because they realize that now they own this if they fuck it up. I guarantee you that if they basically shuffle a few pages around the ACA and basically call it Trumpcare...I will be howling from the mountaintops.


----------



## Beatles123

yeahbaby! said:


> All falling apart


Falling apart? YOU THINK IM UPSET?? im sitting here laughing, Dundee! try again. :lol 

You lot are the ones shadownegging. To my knowledge i've never done that. Therefore, That only salty ones are you guys it seems like.


Never use the GOAT band for your agenda by the way.


----------



## FriedTofu

That press conference wouldn't look out of place in a Borat movie. :lol

The president got fact-checked on the spot on his wrong information about his election victory while accusing the media of being dishonest and Beatles still defended the press conference. :ha


----------



## Beatles123

BruiserKC said:


> I'm saying when something comes up that he needs to be called out on, you won't do it. Whether it happens today, tomorrow, or five years from now.
> 
> Assuming you refer to Social Security...he's not getting rid of that. Does it need a massive overhaul, yes. But he's not getting rid of it.
> 
> HRC...that's a can of worms best left on the shelf and closed. Look at what happened regarding Governor Perry down in Texas when there was a politically-motivated criminal case. If the Dems got back in power, the next time they wouldn't just talk about throwing a GOP presidential candidate in the slammer. They will actually do their damnedest to make it happen. Welcome to the land of unintended consequences. Yes, Hillary Clinton is the spawn of evil, but you don't want to do shit that is done in banana republics.
> 
> You're new to the political game...I get it. I have been in this game for a long time and am extremely skeptical. I applauded this week when the House Freedom Caucus said that they can do the repeal of the ACA exactly like the bill that they offered up in 2015 that was authored by Sanford and Rand Paul. Personally, I would like them to take their time and tackle tax reform first and then come to the ACA afterwards because by then the ACA is DOA. However, the platform is there if the GOP leadership grows a set and pushes it forward. And so far Ryan and McConnell are scared shitless because they realize that now they own this if they fuck it up. I guarantee you that if they basically shuffle a few pages around the ACA and basically call it Trumpcare...I will be howling from the mountaintops.


There's a difference between something YOU think he does wrong and I. What he needs to be called out on isn't always universal. Now, if he never gets to a full repeal? I'd call him on that.


----------



## Sensei Utero

FriedTofu said:


> That press conference wouldn't look out of place in a Borat movie. :lol
> 
> The president got fact-checked on the spot on his wrong information about his election victory while accusing the media of being dishonest and Beatles still defended the press conference. :ha


#1 Fan.


----------



## Beatles123

FriedTofu said:


> That press conference wouldn't look out of place in a Borat movie. :lol
> 
> The president got fact-checked on the spot on his wrong information about his election victory while accusing the media of being dishonest and Beatles still defended the press conference. :ha


 "Fact checked" :lol


----------



## Beatles123

InUtero said:


> #1 Fan.


Nah, just not a narrative sheep and genuinely like his decisions by and large. :trump


----------



## FriedTofu

InUtero said:


> #1 Fan.


He might come a close second to deepem though because that dude typed out a long post to say Trump was playing 4d chess. :lol



Beatles123 said:


> "Fact checked" :lol


Is this supposed to be funny or a correction? Tell me again did Trump have the largest margin of victory in the electoral collage since Reagan? :troll


----------



## Beatles123

FriedTofu said:


> He might come a close second to deepem though because that dude typed out a long post to say Trump was playing 4d chess. :lol
> 
> Is this supposed to be funny or a correction? Tell me again did Trump have the largest margin of victory in the electoral collage since Reagan? :troll


 You tell ME again, did he? Is that whats going to get the mean old Trump monster impeached so he can go away and stop saying things you dislike? :troll

I enjoy you guys! This is fuckin' fun! :trump


----------



## FriedTofu

Beatles123 said:


> You tell ME again, did he? Is that whats going to get the mean old Trump monster impeached so he can go away and stop saying things you dislike? :troll
> 
> I enjoy you guys! This is fuckin' fun! :trump


Seems like you can't commit to having an honest discussion when you are upset. :lol

Did you even watch the press conference or read the transcripts?






I don't know. I don't know. LOL


----------



## Sensei Utero

Beatles123 said:


> Nah, just not a narrative sheep and genuinely like his decisions by and large. :trump


http://twitter.com/yokoono/status/797187458505080834


----------



## Beatles123

FriedTofu said:


> Seems like you can't commit to having an honest discussion when you are upset. :lol
> 
> Did you even watch the press conference or read the transcripts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know. I don't know. LOL


Where does it come from that I am upset? I just told another of you guys: Im sitting here ginning the biggest smile on my face, and its even bigger now because you STILL don't get Trump or what he did during that exchange, even when its been explained to you by smarter men and woman than I, and now you expect ME to do it! The delusion between you lot, it's just fucking funny! 

and now you're going to say I couldn't provide evidence or a refute. Like i have to. :lol

Oh, Liberalism! NEVER change. The bondfire you're burning in is so wonderful!


@DesolationRow they haven't listened to you at all :lol


----------



## FriedTofu

Beatles123 said:


> Where does it come from that I am upset? I just told another of you guys: Im sitting here ginning the biggest smile on my face, and its even bigger now because you STILL don't get Trump or what he did during that exchange, even when its been explained to you by smarter men and woman than I, and now you expect ME to do it! The delusion between you lot, it's just fucking funny!
> 
> and now you're going to say I couldn't provide evidence or a refute. Like i have to. :lol
> 
> Oh, Liberalism! NEVER change. The bondfire you're burning in is so wonderful!
> 
> 
> @DesolationRow they haven't listened to you at all :lol


You don't understand what he is doing.

I can't explain what he is doing to you but I can list others who can because I am not as smart.

I don't have to provide evidence or anything in a discussion.

I will finish with an adhom attack to seem to have the upper hand to end.

Cool story bro.


----------



## Beatles123

FriedTofu said:


> You don't understand what he is doing.
> 
> I can't explain what he is doing to you but I can list others who can because I am not as smart.
> 
> I don't have to provide evidence or anything in a discussion.
> 
> I will finish with an adhom attack to seem to have the upper hand to end.
> 
> Cool story bro.


You really don't. Sorry to tell you.

I can. Don't want to because others have proven most on the left here are manchildren that don't have the ability to use critical thinking. Classical liberals you are not. Return to those ideals and you will earn that respect from me.

No. You're right. I DON'T have to. I can, if I want to take the time, but as stated above I don't. So, you can hear my opinion and you can suck it, quite frankly. :trump 

Surrender noted. :trump

No problem, Elmer! :nerd:


----------



## FriedTofu

Beatles123 said:


> You really don't. Sorry to tell you.
> 
> I can. Don't want to because others have proven most on the left here are manchildren that don't have the ability to use critical thinking. Classical liberals you are not. Return to those ideals and you will earn that respect from me.
> 
> No. You're right. I DON'T have to. I can, if I want to take the time, but as stated above I don't. So, you can hear my opinion and you can suck it, quite frankly. :trump
> 
> Surrender noted. :trump
> 
> No problem, Elmer! :nerd:


Just admit you can't handle any meaningful discussion and have to hide behind people that can form their own actual individual opinion. :lol

How many times have you tried to play the liberal victim card in this thread about having civil discussion in here? Now you go 180 on it when Trump commit yet another unforced error and try to make the thread into a shithole and then blame liberals for it.

You sound a lot like the regressive liberals in only wanting your opinions heard but shut out free speech. :nerd:


----------



## Art Vandaley

RipNTear said:


> Slavery is allowed under the old testament. There are almost no modern christians left that believe in old testament laws. However, Islam is resistant to such reformations and simply cannot be reformed.
> 
> Here are things christians don't do, nor have in their majority countries whereas majority of Muslim countries do:
> 
> 1. Death penalty for rape
> 2. Death penalty for adultery
> 3. Death penalty for homosexuality
> 4. Death penalty for speaking up against the State (Yes, this is Shariah law).
> 5. Death penalty for Blasphemy (the last christian country to execute someone for blasphemy was in 1692)
> 6. Testimony of a woman is worth half that of a man
> 7. A woman is entitled to half the inheritance a man is
> 8. Women are forced to wear the hijab in many muslim countries as a direct consequence of Shariah Law because a full enactment of Shariah Law means that all women have to wear the hijab
> 9. Death Penalty for apostasy
> 10. Death penalty for saying anything negative about Mohammad
> 
> At the same time Muslim countries don't have laws for:
> 
> 1. Majority of Muslim countries have no penalty for spousal rape because it is allowable under Shariah Law
> 2. Majority of Muslim countries still haven't abolished slavery. Bonded labor and slavery exists in Pakistan (which is supposed to be secular) to this day
> 3. Majority of Muslim countries do not teach evolution in their schools at all. I turned 30 before I even discovered evolution because apparently my Canadian school didn't teach it either.
> 
> ^these are divine laws and they cannot be changed.


You've thoroughly missed the point that countries with an islamic majority are more religious today than countries with a christian majority, most of whom aren't actually christian but are just atheists who describe themselves as culturally christian.

Also in large parts of america (the very religious and generally speaking poorer parts) teaching evolution is illegal. 

And spousal rape is legal under christian law, we only don't enforce that stuff because we're less religious not because there isn't a belief in them.



> Name a single christian majority country that has anything that is parallel to these laws currently? Christianity had lost its power over people within 1500 years of its establishment. The beginning of Christianity was incredibly peaceful as well. So at most we have a pocket of 1200 years of violence in the name of Christianity. Whereas Islam has been violent and resistant to reformation 1500 years already. For nearly 500 years they have done nothing even remotely similar to what Muslims are still doing in their countries - and Islamic Jurisprudence is anti-liberty and resistant to post-modernism because all of the laws are considered divine and were revealed to Mohammad directly by Allah.


In the middle ages when Islamic countries were rich and christian countries poor islamic countries were much less religious and there was far less religious violence.

Now when christian majority countries are richer and islamic majority countries are poorer christian countries tend to be less religious and islamic countries more religious. 

I would put to you that the fundamental difference is economic status and the power of religion derived thereof than anything inherent to the belief system.




> The laws Mohammad implemented 1500 years ago are still applicable to this day because there is little to no ambiguity when it comes to Islam's social justice. No room for interpretation on many issues. No room for future secularization. They're future proof because they're considered divine.


Are you seriously trying to suggest that things religious christian and jews believe aren't considered divine????!

And I appreciate the fact that the only religious education you've ever had is Islamic and you've never studied either christianity or judaism or have any idea how either religions works.

But as someone raised with a jewish religious education who has studied christianity and its beliefs in depth as part of my uni studies, they do believe their religious are divine. 



> Bringing up what christians in the past did or believed in comparison to what muslims continue to practice and believe isn't an argument. Compare what Christians do today to what Muslims do today. Otherwise, why stop there. Why not bring up the mass murders of Stalin and claim that atheists/secularists believe in genocide as well? It's not an argument.
> 
> It's an invalid comparison and is only made by people who have no idea what muslim countries are like and where they actually derive their laws from and why they all seem to have the same kinds of laws and don't want to learn either. It would be like saying that North Korea is just like South Korea because at one point they were one and the same country. Things change over time, and it's intellectually dishonest to refuse to acknowledge those changes.


Things have changed yes, I'm the one acknowledging that and you're one trying to deny not only that but that any change could ever happen in the future, which if you study the history is ridiculous.


----------



## Beatles123

FriedTofu said:


> Just admit you can't handle any meaningful discussion and have to hide behind people that can form their own actual individual opinion. :lol
> 
> How many times have you tried to play the liberal victim card in this thread about having civil discussion in here? Now you go 180 on it when Trump commit yet another unforced error and try to make the thread into a shithole and then blame liberals for it.
> 
> You sound a lot like the regressive liberals in only wanting your opinions heard but shut out free speech. :nerd:


Wow, thats a lot of wrong there. :tommy

I have explained this a million god damn times. Why do I need to go through it again because you don't understand it?

Call me whatever you want, i know what's bullshit, I know what I believe and what facts are. 

You call this shit civil discussion but you have been un-civil this entire time as well with your own snide adhom, now when I do it im a secret nazi and I deserve to be in a wheelchair? :taker Oh, yeah, *I* made the thread it a shithole. :cena Im not a victim, because this shit doesn't phase me. you think you have legit points, i don't think you do. and I think the way you carry yourself and others are not examples of the best of your party the same way you see me for the right.

You can have your opinion tho and there are many libs here i'd love to debate with. You are not one of them.


----------



## FriedTofu

Beatles123 said:


> Wow, thats a lot of wrong there. :tommy
> 
> I have explained this a million god damn times. Why do I need to go through it again becauae you don't understand it?
> 
> Call me whatever you want, i know what's bullshit, I know what I believe and what facts are.
> 
> You call this shit civil discussion but you have been un-civil this entire time as well with your own snide adhom, now when I do it im a secret nazi and I deserve to be in a wheelchair? :taker Oh, yeah, *I* made the thread it a shithole. iper
> 
> You can have your opinion and there are many libs here i'd love to debate with. You are not one of them.


I am going to fact check you here and say you didn't explain this for a million times.


----------



## Beatles123

FriedTofu said:


> I am going to fact check you here and say you didn't explain this for a million times.


about my support of trump? Bullshit I haven't. :trump


----------



## FriedTofu

Beatles123 said:


> about my support of trump? Bullshit I haven't. :trump


I doubt you even have a million posts and private messages in here, let alone a million explanations about your position on Trump.


----------



## Beatles123

FriedTofu said:


> I doubt you even have a million posts and private messages in here, let alone a million explanations about your position on Trump.


Nice bait.


----------



## birthday_massacre

InUtero said:


> That conference was hilarious for the wrong reasons.


Exposed Trump even more what a clown and how stupid he is.




Beatles123 said:


> Trump continuing to keep promises, helping the mining industry!


How is he helping them? He is just killing them and allowing coal industries to pollute the environment and poisoning people from said pollution as well.

You really think its ok for coal industry to pollute rivers and streams?




Headliner said:


> How is any of that wrong? You going to continue to defend Trump's lies? C'mon.


Beatles just listens to ALT FACTS what do you expect?

Trump says in one breath that the leaks are real then calls the news that reports them fake news for reporting the leaks. Trump is such a joke and I don't even know how his supporters can defend him anymore.




Beatles123 said:


> Where does it come from that I am upset? I just told another of you guys: Im sitting here ginning the biggest smile on my face, and its even bigger now because* you STILL don't get Trump or what he did during that exchange,* even when its been explained to you by smarter men and woman than I, and now you expect ME to do it! The delusion between you lot, it's just fucking funny!
> 
> and now you're going to say I couldn't provide evidence or a refute. Like i have to. :lol
> 
> Oh, Liberalism! NEVER change. The bondfire you're burning in is so wonderful!
> 
> 
> @DesolationRow they haven't listened to you at all :lol


its called lying and proves Trump just talks out of his ass. And its sad people like you believe him.

The fact is Trump had one of the lowest EC wins ever 46th of 58.


----------



## FriedTofu

Beatles123 said:


> Nice bait.


Sorry if you can't count.


----------



## DOPA

@DesolationRow @AryaDark @CamillePunk @Miss Sally @Pratchett @RipNTear



> You won't be seeing Sen. Rand Paul, a bottle of fine Kentucky bourbon under his arm, paying a social call on President Donald Trump at the White House anytime soon.
> 
> "You know I don't think I'm going to be invited to their Christmas party next year," Paul told me on Wednesday during an interview for "The Chicago Way," my podcast on WGN radio. "But it's sort of been that way from the very beginning."
> 
> We talked of Trump and bourbon but also about the Constitution and the need for originalist, conservative justices on the Supreme Court to check the power of this and every other president, something liberals trapped in partisan hysteria seem unable to understand.
> 
> But we also talked of Paul's war with the neoconservatives — the brains behind the Republican War Party wing that drove us into the Iraq War — that broke open this week.
> 
> You declared war on the neocons, I said.
> 
> "You interpreted that pretty well correctly," the libertarian-leaning Republican from Kentucky said.
> 
> Paul, a former candidate for president, has kept Trump at arm's length, supporting Trump's talk of tax cuts and cutting government regulations, but breaking with him loudly this week over reports that the president was considering bringing leading neoconservative Elliott Abrams onto his team as deputy secretary of state.
> 
> Abrams worked for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. He was convicted of two counts of "withholding" information from Congress in the Iran-Contra scandal and was pardoned by Bush. The neoconservatives despised Trump for his criticisms of the Iraq War and for their failed "nation building" policy. Many neocons joined the #NeverTrump movement and sought refuge with Hillary Clinton.
> 
> Reports of Abrams being considered for a top Trump administration post baffled and angered Paul, and he publicly went nuclear.
> 
> "One of Elliott Abrams' statements during the campaign was that the chair that Washington and Lincoln both sat in, Trump was not fit to sit in," Paul said on "The Chicago Way." "He was very anti-Trump, but he was also very anti what Trump was saying. … Trump would say the Iraq War was a mistake. Elliott Abrams, (who) was one of the key architects of Iraq, would disagree.
> 
> "And I hope (Abrams' appointment) won't happen. But it is somewhat unnerving that he would be considered for a post when he was viscerally and loudly opposed to most of what Trump brought that was a change in regards to foreign policy," Paul said.
> 
> What's odd about all this was that at the beginning of the Republican presidential primaries, it was Paul who was condemned by the GOP establishment and neocons as something of a dangerous "isolationist." Democrats aren't the only ones who try to shut down debate about what threatens them by demonizing their opponents with alleged sins. But there is another word for isolationist: noninterventionist.
> 
> he American people don't want another war, not in the Middle East, not with Russia, not with anyone. The people aren't crazy about intervening, because they know who bleeds, and it isn't the careerist war architects in Washington. Members of our armed forces are the ones who bleed.
> 
> "I've been unafraid to say that we need to have a foreign policy that's constitutional," Paul said, "that separates the powers, that understands that our Founding Fathers said that Congress shall declare war. One of my biggest pet peeves right now is that we're at war in Yemen and nobody's even talking about it.
> 
> "So I will support Trump when he's against regulations and when he's for balancing the budget or lower taxes, but when he strays and he's for a foreign policy that endangers or threatens to get us involved in more war in the Middle East, I'll have to oppose him," Paul said.
> 
> And so he has.


Death to the Neo-Cons. Get those war hawks Rand and keep holding Trump to account while you're at it!


----------



## Beatles123

FriedTofu said:


> Sorry if you can't count.


If it aint bait you need to re-read what i said


----------



## Beatles123

birthday_massacre said:


> Exposed Trump even more what a clown and how stupid he is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is he helping them? He is just killing them and allowing coal industries to pollute the environment killing the enjoyment and people as well.
> 
> You really think its ok for coal industry to pollute rivers and streams?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beatles just listens to ALT FACTS what do you expect?
> 
> Trump says in one breath that the leaks are real then calls the news that reports them fake news for reporting the leaks. Trump is such a joke and I don't even know how his supporters can defend him anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> its called lying and proves Trump just talks out of his ass. And its sad people like you believe him.
> 
> The fact is Trump had one of the lowest EC wins ever 46th of 58.


:lol if im a Trump shill there's a feild day to be had on dave! :trump 

Oh wait, we already have. :trump


----------



## birthday_massacre

FriedTofu said:


> That press conference wouldn't look out of place in a Borat movie. :lol
> 
> The president got fact-checked on the spot on his wrong information about his election victory while accusing the media of being dishonest and Beatles still defended the press conference. :ha





Beatles123 said:


> :lol if im a Trump shill there's a feild day to be had on dave! :trump
> 
> Oh wait, we already have. :trump





Trump did not even know what the CBC was. Then when the reporter asked if he would include the Congressional Black Caucus (she told him what he stood for) in future dealings with the black community Trump asks her well would you set up the meeting with them for me then asked if she was friends with them WTF

Trump keeps proving how stupid he is. He wants a reporter to set up a meeting for him when its his job to pick up the phone or have one of his staff do it for him, he wants a reporter to do it LOL

I would love to hear Beatles explain this one away.


----------



## FriedTofu

L-DOPA said:


> @DesolationRow @AryaDark @CamillePunk @Miss Sally @Pratchett @RipNTear
> 
> 
> 
> Death to the Neo-Cons. Get those war hawks Rand and keep holding Trump to account while you're at it!


Rand Paul seem too naive to me with those isolationist thoughts. I thought Iraq would have been a clear example of how risky a power vacuum can be. And America isolating itself from the rest of the world would be very similar imo. But in this case I don't mind him standing up to war hawks to make a symbolic gesture.


----------



## Beatles123

birthday_massacre said:


> Trump did not even know what the CBC was. Then when the reporter asked if he would include the Congressional Black Caucus (she told him what he stood for) in future dealings with the black community Trump asks her well would you set up the meeting with them for me then asked if she was friends with them WTF
> 
> Trump keeps proving how stupid he is. He wants a reporter to set up a meeting for him when its his job to pick up the phone or have one of his staff do it for him, he wants a reporter to do it LOL
> 
> I would love to hear Beatles explain this one away.


No you wouldn't! You'd just call me stupid and leave the thread for a month like you did last time. :trump


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> No you wouldn't! You'd just call me stupid and leave the thread for a month like you did last time. :trump


Answer the question. And I got banned from the thread for a month I didn't leave it because only Trump supporters are allowed to Troll in this thread.

So what is your take on Trump not knowing who the CBC was then asking the reporter to set up a meeting.

Do you think this exchange made Trump look smart and informed?


----------



## Beatles123

birthday_massacre said:


> Answer the question. And I got banned from the thread for a month I didn't leave it because only Trump supporters are allowed to Troll in this thread.
> 
> So what is your take on Trump not knowing who the CBC was then asking the reporter to set up a meeting.
> 
> Do you think this exchange made Trump look smart and informed?


It's like you don't know what sarcasm is. :taker

Wait, woah, are you actually blaming the way the thread's run?


----------



## birthday_massacre

BREAKING: A state judge has ordered the office of President Trump's EPA nominee Scott Pruitt to immediately release thousands of his emails, including conversations with various fossil fuel industry contacts, less than 24 hours before his confirmation vote.

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/319999-judge-orders-release-of-epa-nominees-emails


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> It's like you don't know what sarcasm is. :taker


Are you going to answer the question? You said when Trump is wrong you call him out for it, this would be an easy one to call him out. Why are you hesitating? This is a softball.

Or do you think Trump looked good in this exchange?

You can't even have an honest discussion. Whenever Trump looks bad on something and is called all for it, all you can do is troll. You can't be honest and call him on it or you don't even defend your position why you think he looked good on it.


----------



## Beatles123

birthday_massacre said:


> Are you going to answer the question? You said when Trump is wrong you call him out for it, this would be an easy one to call him out. Why are you hesitating? This is a softball.
> 
> Or do you think Trump looked good in this exchange?
> 
> You can't even have an honest discussion.


THAT WAS AN ANSWER!! WHAT THE FLYING MONKEY FUCK?! :lol 

Holy CHRIST! You think he was serious, Tofu thinks I meant a literal million, what is WRONG with you guys? This is why i said debating you isn't worth it and also why i never get upset at you guys anymore. You're going insane before our eyes.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Damn this thread has deteriorated fast.


----------



## Beatles123

yeahbaby! said:


> Damn this thread has deteriorated fast.


Modern Liberalism is a mental disorder. :shrug


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> THAT WAS AN ANSWER!! WHAT THE FLYING MONKEY FUCK?! :lol
> 
> Holy CHRIST! You think he was serious, Tofu thinks I meant a literal million, what is WRONG with you guys? This is why i said debating you isn't worth it and also why i never get upset at you guys anymore. You're going insane before our eyes.


You did not give an answer you refused to answer.

So I will ask again

What is your take on Trump not knowing what the CBC was.Then when the reporter asked if he would include the Congressional Black Caucus (she told him what he stood for) in future dealings with the black community Trump asks her well would you set up the meeting with them for me then asked if she was friends with them.


----------



## FriedTofu

So you are saying Trump wasn't serious when he said he won the electoral college by the widest margin since Reagan. And wasn't serious when his defence when called out on it was he meant Republican president (which was wrong too)?

Modern liberalism must be contagious as you seem to have caught it too.


----------



## Beatles123

birthday_massacre said:


> You did not give an answer you refused to answer.
> 
> So I will ask again
> 
> What is your take on Trump not knowing what the CBC was.Then when the reporter asked if he would include the Congressional Black Caucus (she told him what he stood for) in future dealings with the black community Trump asks her well would you set up the meeting with them for me then asked if she was friends with them.


I did answer you. Im not going to repeat it because you people can't read! :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> I did answer you. Im not going to repeat it because you people can't read! :lol




how is this an answer? Stop trolling and answer the question or link the post that has your answer. 




Beatles123 said:


> No you wouldn't! You'd just call me stupid and leave the thread for a month like you did last time. :trump


----------



## Beatles123

FriedTofu said:


> So you are saying Trump wasn't serious when he said he won the electoral college by the widest margin since Reagan. And wasn't serious when his defence when called out on it was he meant Republican president (which was wrong too)?
> 
> Modern liberalism must be contagious as you seem to have caught it too.


That's not what I was saying to you, no.


----------



## DOPA

FriedTofu said:


> Rand Paul seem too naive to me with those isolationist thoughts. I thought Iraq would have been a clear example of how risky a power vacuum can be. And America isolating itself from the rest of the world would be very similar imo. But in this case I don't mind him standing up to war hawks to make a symbolic gesture.


First of all, it isn't Isolationism that he is promoting. Not wanting to rush into wars does not mean you don't engage with foreign leaders, that you don't negotiate from a position of strength and don't put diplomatic pressure on adversaries. What it does mean is war is the last option, not the first. It means only getting into war through legitimate means, that mainly being attacked (so the initial war in Afghanistan for example which was supposed to be about getting Bin Laden was of course very much legitimate until it became about occupying the region instead) and it also means declaring war through the legislative....meaning Congress declares war through a vote, not through the president which is unconstitutional. He is a *non-interventionist*, the neo-con's always characterize him as an Isolationist because it's easier to do that than to actually debunk anything he is saying.

Secondly that power vacuum you speak of was caused by going into Iraq in the first place. Recent history proves this, when you topple a secular dictator in the middle east, chaos ensues, the region is destabilized and a vacuum is created for radical terrorist groups to emerge. When Iraq was toppled and the Iraqi generals who were loyal to Saddam were not taken under US control, they essentially turned to radical Islamists in order to form ISIS and to try and take back the region from the US. ISIS was formed out of the dust of the Iraq invasion and has since morphed into a group that has significant influence over the middle east. Then you look at when Gaddafi was toppled in Libya, the same thing happened. Chaos ensued, the region was destabilized and now ISIS have a foothold in Libya to this day. Now we're looking at Syria and how much of a mess that civil war has been, with the US funding both sides of the war, with the US arming "moderate rebels" which turned out to be ISIS, Al Qaeda and Al-Nusra. It took Russia intervening and helping the free Syrian army for those groups to even be pushed back from Aleppo. Before then the US was making the civil war worse and essentially the war had been perpetuated to last for a very long time. The US currently stands is still in Afghanistan 16 years later and still in Iraq and is also now involved in Yemen arming the Saudi government. You put that all together and you think it's a bad thing for Rand to be opposing the Neo-Con's who want more war?

As bad as Saddam and Gaddafi were and how bad Assad is, the one thing they provided was relative stability in the region. Toppling them was the worst thing the US could have done because now it has opened up the door and the vacuum for radical terrorist groups to emerge who have gotten stronger every time the US has intervened in the middle east. The US leaving Iraq didn't leave a vacuum, that vacuum was already created by the US invading to begin with and it didn't matter whether the US left then, in 10, 20, 30 years. The conditions had already been met with the toppling of the Iraqi regime and the idea that the US could export Democracy by force to a country that has never heard of the concept or let alone are ready for it. Hence why the Iraqi government of today are still extremely weak.

Opposing the Neo-Con's means having a sensible foreign policy, thinking before you act, declaring war through constitutional means, peace through strength and the option of war being the last on the table and not the first. Everything that is opposite of what the US have done since at least 9/11.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> That's not what I was saying to you, no.


So you admit Trump was lying about it then.


----------



## Beatles123

birthday_massacre said:


> how is this an answer? Stop trolling and answer the question or link the post that has your answer.


Mother FUCK :lol...dave, are you trying something? You have to be smarter than this.

" *It's like you don't know what sarcasm is.*" was my answer, and im inclined to think you knew it.

This is the last freebee im giving you. If you keep on this way you'll only end up hurting your own arguments. Use your brain, please.


----------



## Beatles123

birthday_massacre said:


> So you admit Trump was lying about it then.


Nope.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> Mother FUCK :lol...dave, are you trying something? You have to be smarter than this.
> 
> " *It's like you don't know what sarcasm is.*" was my answer, and im inclined to think you knew it.


How is that an answer to my question about Trump and that reporter?

I asked for your opinion on that exchanged and you have not given it.

Stop trolling and just answer the question.

Is it really that hard to admit that Trump looked bad not knowing who CBC was and that he thought the reporter could set up a meeting for him?




Beatles123 said:


> Nope.


So what is it then? You dont think Trump is right that he won the EC by one of the most ever do you?


----------



## Beatles123

birthday_massacre said:


> How is that an answer to my question about Trump and that reporter?
> 
> I asked for your opinion on that exchanged and you have not given it.
> 
> Stop trolling and just answer the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what is it then? You dont think Trump is right that he won the EC by one of the most ever do you?


My god, you...seriously can't be that confused. fpalm

Do you SERIOUSLY not understand what i said?

Dear Neptune, and these people are running college courses! 

Figure it out.

As for the EC, I could care less. I think he got information from somewhere, obviously. The question is, does it matter? Why should I call him out on an issue that is purely cosmetic?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> Modern Liberalism is a mental disorder. :shrug


And southern conservatives are racist, ignorant, backwards ********. At least liberals are for equal rights of minorities, gays and women.


----------



## stevefox1200

I never want to hear the term "fake news" again

The was unfair to Trump and had clear pro-Hillary slant but HE WON, HE BEAT THEM, ITS OVER 

STOP CALLING PRESS CONFERENCES TO INSULT THEM

In the words of Billy Joel "Haven't they heard we won the war, What do they keep on fighting for?" ("Leningrad" was my favorite song during my high-school years although the last verse is kinda schlocky)

I also discovered I am a Neo-Con, it reminds me of that week where I accidentally became a radical Pentecostal (I recomind everyone to try it for at least two days)


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> My god, you...seriously can't be that confused. fpalm
> 
> Do you SERIOUSLY not understand what i said?
> 
> Dear Neptune, and these people are running college courses!
> 
> Figure it out.


Still not answering the question, because you cant even admit how stupid Trump looked for pretty much all of his press conference. So much for you claiming you call Trump out when he does something wrong or bad. You had an easy opportunity with this but could not even do it. You proved once again you can't be objective with Trump.





stevefox1200 said:


> I never want to hear the term "fake news" again
> 
> The was unfair to Trump and had clear pro-Hillary slant but HE WON, HE BEAT THEM, ITS OVER
> 
> STOP CALLING PRESS CONFERENCES TO INSULT THEM
> 
> In the words of Billy Joel "Haven't they heard we won the war, What do they keep on fighting for?" ("Leningrad" was my favorite song during my high-school years although the last verse is kinda schlocky)


Trump lost all credibility when it comes to fake news when he admitted the leaks were real but then called the news stations that reported the leaks fake news for reporting them.

This whole press conference was an utter disaster for Trump. It just showed how incompetent and petty he is.


----------



## Beatles123

Dave, stop.

Just stop. 

You don't get what sarcasm is. You don't know what it sounds like when I, OR trump, use it. its cool.


----------



## FriedTofu

L-DOPA said:


> First of all, it isn't Isolationism that he is promoting. Not wanting to rush into wars does not mean you don't engage with foreign leaders, that you don't negotiate from a position of strength and don't put diplomatic pressure on adversaries. What it does mean is war is the last option, not the first. It means only getting into war through legitimate means, that mainly being attacked (so the initial war in Afghanistan for example which was supposed to be about getting Bin Laden was of course very much legitimate until it became about occupying the region instead) and it also means declaring war through the legislative....meaning Congress declares war through a vote, not through the president which is unconstitutional. He is a *non-interventionist*, the neo-con's always characterize him as an Isolationist because it's easier to do that than to actually debunk anything he is saying.
> 
> Secondly that power vacuum you speak of was caused by going into Iraq in the first place. Recent history proves this, when you topple a secular dictator in the middle east, chaos ensues, the region is destabilized and a vacuum is created for radical terrorist groups to emerge. When Iraq was toppled and the Iraqi generals who were loyal to Saddam were not taken under US control, they essentially turned to radical Islamists in order to form ISIS and to try and take back the region from the US. ISIS was formed out of the dust of the Iraq invasion and has since morphed into a group that has significant influence over the middle east. Then you look at when Gaddafi was toppled in Libya, the same thing happened. Chaos ensued, the region was destabilized and now ISIS have a foothold in Libya to this day. Now we're looking at Syria and how much of a mess that civil war has been, with the US funding both sides of the war, with the US arming "moderate rebels" which turned out to be ISIS, Al Qaeda and Al-Nusra. It took Russia intervening and helping the free Syrian arming for those groups to even be pushed back from Aleppo. Before then the US was making the civil war worse and essentially the war had been perpetuated to last for a very long time. The US currently stands is still in Afghanistan 16 years later and still in Iraq and is also now involved in Yemen arming the Saudi government. You put that all together and you think it's a bad thing for Rand to be opposing the Neo-Con's who want more war?
> 
> As bad as Saddam and Gaddafi were and how bad Assad is, the one thing they provided was relative stability in the region. Toppling them was the worst thing the US could have done because now it has opened up the door and the vacuum for radical terrorist groups to emerge who have gotten stronger every time the US has intervened in the middle east. The US leaving Iraq didn't leave a vacuum, that vacuum was already created by the US invading to begin with and it didn't matter whether the US left then, in 10, 20, 30 years. The conditions had already been met with the toppling of the Iraqi regime and the idea that the US could export Democracy by force to a country that has never heard of the concept or let alone are ready for it. Hence why the Iraqi government of today are still extremely weak.
> 
> Opposing the Neo-Con's means having a sensible foreign policy, thinking before you act, declaring war through constitutional means, peace through strength and the option of war being the last on the table and not the first. Everything that is opposite of what the US have done since at least 9/11.


What you are saying sounds a lot like what Obama tried to do. But Rand's rhetoric in the past wants to go beyond that which is why I feel he is an isolationist.

I don't disagree that the invasion of Iraq was a mess. It shattered the illusion that America will always remain a friendly superpower. The parties that rose to power with American backing no longer had the moral high ground. It's ironic that America is now experiencing the toppling of the establishment that these middle eastern countries experienced and creating the vacuum for radical white nationalists to gain political power too. 

I don't think it is a bad thing to oppose more wars, I just think Rand's position is either very naive or self-serving politically that I don't feel comfortable with.


----------



## virus21

stevefox1200 said:


> I never want to hear the term "fake news" again
> 
> The was unfair to Trump and had clear pro-Hillary slant but HE WON, HE BEAT THEM, ITS OVER
> 
> STOP CALLING PRESS CONFERENCES TO INSULT THEM
> 
> In the words of Billy Joel "Haven't they heard we won the war, What do they keep on fighting for?" ("Leningrad" was my favorite song during my high-school years although the last verse is kinda schlocky)
> 
> I also discovered I am a Neo-Con, it reminds me of that week where I accidentally became a radical Pentecostal (I recomind everyone to try it for at least two days)


Just stop inviting CNN. They don't deserve to be acknowledged


----------



## Beatles123

stevefox1200 said:


> I never want to hear the term "fake news" again
> 
> The was unfair to Trump and had clear pro-Hillary slant but HE WON, HE BEAT THEM, ITS OVER
> 
> STOP CALLING PRESS CONFERENCES TO INSULT THEM
> 
> In the words of Billy Joel "Haven't they heard we won the war, What do they keep on fighting for?" ("Leningrad" was my favorite song during my high-school years although the last verse is kinda schlocky)
> 
> I also discovered I am a Neo-Con, it reminds me of that week where I accidentally became a radical Pentecostal (I recomind everyone to try it for at least two days)


The Lying press should be called out until CNN, and MSB(B)C are out of busness.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> Dave, stop.
> 
> Just stop.
> 
> You don't get what sarcasm is. You don't know what it sounds like when I, OR trump, use it. its cool.


Trump is not being sarcastic, he is just stupid. You can't seriously think Trump was being sarcastic when he claimed he had one of the biggest EC wins ever, the biggest since Regan. 

And you still have not answered the question, way to keep dodging it because deep down inside you know what a moron Trump is.


----------



## FriedTofu

Beatles123 said:


> My god, you...seriously can't be that confused. fpalm
> 
> Do you SERIOUSLY not understand what i said?
> 
> Dear Neptune, and these people are running college courses!
> 
> Figure it out.
> 
> As for the EC, I could care less.* I think he got information from somewhere, obviously. The question is, does it matter? *Why should I call him out on an issue that is purely cosmetic?


You don't think it matters that the president got the wrong information and relayed it to the world in his official capacity? You sure have a weird way of rationalising 'calling Trump out when he is wrong'.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> The Lying press should be called out until CNN, and MSB(B)C are out of busness.


What exactly is the press lying about? Trump and his admin put out way more fake news than CNN does by far. Most of the things Trump claims is fake news is actually true. 

Kellyann coined the phrase ALT FACTS for when Trump and his admin put out fake news themselves.

Trump lies 66% of the time. During his campaign that number was 70%


----------



## Beatles123

birthday_massacre said:


> Trump is not being sarcastic, he is just stupid. You can't seriously think Trump was being sarcastic when he claimed he had one of the biggest EC wins ever, the biggest since Regan.
> 
> And you still have not answered the question, way to keep dodging it because deep down inside you know what a moron Trump is.


SWEET Georgia brown... you finally got my answer to your question in the top half of your post, gave an answer calling me stupid which i predicted you would, THEN you say i never answered your question?!

Does no body else see this?? :lol Im sitting here laughing hysterically over here!


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> SWEET Georgia brown... you finally got my answer to your question in the top half of your post, gave an answer calling me stupid which i predicted you would, THEN you say i never answered your question?!
> 
> Does no body else see this?? :lol Im sitting here laughing hysterically over here!


Oh so you admit Trump is stupid then and just talks out of his ass. That is your answer then

Good you finally admitted it. I am proud of you.


----------



## Beatles123

FriedTofu said:


> You don't think it matters that the president got the wrong information and relayed it to the world in his official capacity? You sure have a weird way of rationalising 'calling Trump out when he is wrong'.


I didn't say he WAS wrong. I'd say there's two sources conflicting each other. :shrug


----------



## Beatles123

birthday_massacre said:


> Oh so you admit Trump is stupid then and just talks out of his ass. That is your answer then
> 
> Good you finally admitted it. I am proud of you.


No, I said, YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT SARCASM IS! He never actually wanted her to set the meeting up...dave, you last said we're getting dumber, but this isn't even dumb, this is just you willfully baiting now.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> I didn't say he WAS wrong. I'd say there's two sources conflicting each other. :shrug


LOL you can't be serious. There is not two sources conflicting each other, there is one correct answer. Trump has one of the lowest EC wins ever not one of the highest.

You act like there isn't a real answer. You and your ALT FACTS.

Trump could just do a simple google search to see where his EC victory fell. He could not even bother to do that in between this tweets?

Trump talks out of his ass and makes shit up, just like he did with claiming how many people were at his inauguration. its just SAD that you still back Trump on these things.


----------



## FriedTofu

Beatles123 said:


> I didn't say he WAS wrong. I'd say there's two sources conflicting each other. :shrug


But the information he got from his source was proven to be wrong. He was wrong when the he passed that wrong information out. And you don't seem to think it is an issue that the president's source is wrong.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> No, I said, YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT SARCASM IS! He never actually wanted her to set the meeting up...dave, you last said we're getting dumber, but this isn't even dumb, this is just you willfully baiting now.


Trump was not being sarcastic, he was just being stupid. Also why would the president be sarcastic to a serious question by a reporter? People are getting dumber if they think Trump was being sarcastic with her. 

And even if he was being sarcastic what kind of person does that to a serious question when Trump said he wants to be more involved in helping the inner cities. What he would have said was, I will look forward to setting up a meeting with them next time. That is what a real president would say not be a clown like Trump.


----------



## DOPA

FriedTofu said:


> What you are saying sounds a lot like what Obama tried to do. But Rand's rhetoric in the past wants to go beyond that which is why I feel he is an isolationist.


Obama certainly did not try to do that. America is now involved militarily in 7 different countries rather than 2. Instead of full scale wars he instead created proxy wars by arming different groups within the region and arming the Saudi government no less and the results were no better at all. Hundreds of thousands of bombs and drone strikes and special operatives on the ground does not sound like non-intervention to me, the Obama regime was heavily involved in terms of military action and in terms of feeding the military industrial complex. Remember the Libya and Syria wars came under Obama's watch.

Obama certainly in his first campaign rhetoric came across as a non-interventionist but in practice he was nowhere near it. He essentially swapped hard imperialism for a softer version.





FriedTofu said:


> I don't disagree that the invasion of Iraq was a mess. It shattered the illusion that America will always remain a friendly superpower. The parties that rose to power with American backing no longer had the moral high ground. It's ironic that America is now experiencing the toppling of the establishment that these middle eastern countries experienced and creating the vacuum for radical white nationalists to gain political power too.


I don't entirely agree with the white nationalist point :lol but we're in agreement here.



FriedTofu said:


> I don't think it is a bad thing to oppose more wars, I just think Rand's position is either very naive or self-serving politically that I don't feel comfortable with.


In no way is it self-serving, Rand's position on this has been the most consistent in the Senate, perhaps in the entire Congress. He's always been a staunch non-interventionist, opposed to war except for when legitimate American interests are at risk and this is in opposition to both Democrats and Republicans. He was against the Iraq war, voted against the invasions of Libya and Syria, voted against arms deals to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. I think he's more than proven his credentials and his principles when it comes to war.

I don't feel his position is any way naive at all especially given the fact that the power to declare war is solely in the hands of the president when it should be Congress and only Congress who vote on going to war. If as a liberal you fear Trump whilst he is president the first thing you would want is for Congress to re-establish it's Constitutional authority to declare war. Secondly, not getting involved in foreign invasions and civil wars which have nothing to do with the west is what has caused the problems we currently have. Whilst I can understand why Trump would want to take out ISIS and as long as he sticks to that as far as military intervention goes I'll take it, certainly I do not think it is naive but rather common sense to lead foreign policy from a diplomacy angle rather than a military one. If the US had done that, perhaps the mess the US is in right now wouldn't be in an alternative universe.

We'll have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Beatles123

FriedTofu said:


> But the information he got from his source was proven to be wrong. He was wrong when the he passed that wrong information out. And you don't seem to think it is an issue that the president's source is wrong.


On that particular issue? Hardly. 

again, if Trump never gets a good obamacare repeal, that'd be what id call him out on.

Hell, =i'll even call him out on being too tough on the AUS prime minister if thats what you want. :shrug


----------



## Sensei Utero

On a very different matter which many Americans probably won't understand due to certain stuff going on here in Northern Ireland, but I think it's hilarious that Trump could be visiting the country (has apparently been invited - http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/n...tion-from-foster-and-mcguinness-35417872.html) simply due to the fact that no government here (due to the stuff going on) could be there to welcome him :lol.


----------



## Beatles123

birthday_massacre said:


> Trump was not being sarcastic, he was just being stupid. Also why would the president be sarcastic to a serious question by a reporter? People are getting dumber if they think Trump was being sarcastic with her.
> 
> And even if he was being sarcastic what kind of person does that to a serious question when Trump said he wants to be more involved in helping the inner cities. What he would have said was, I will look forward to setting up a meeting with them next time. That is what a real president would say not be a clown like Trump.


You obviously don't listen to people who use sarcasm. :lol

Second:

"A PRESIDENT NEEDS TO ACT THIS WAY! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!"

No, Trump needs to lead how he sees fit and whoever gets angry be damned. He's not out to please everyone. He's here to do a job that none of us here can do.

I voted for him to do certain things, so far Trump has done them.

Stop spouting the talking points CNN thinks we care about.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> "A PRESIDENT NEEDS TO ACT THIS WAY! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!"
> 
> No, Trump needs to lead how he sees fit and whoever gets angry be damned. He's not out to please everyone. He's here to do a job that none of us here can do.
> 
> I voted for him to do certain things, so far Trump has done them.
> 
> Stop spouting the talking points CNN thinks we care about.


yes a president is supposed to act professional and not like a 4 year old. 

And if Trump was being sarcastic to that women, lets say for the sake of argument he was. you really think its ok when he is asked a serious question about something he said he would do, he gives that reporter a sarcastic answer back instead of giving a genuine answer?

You honestly think Trumps "sarcastic" answer to her legit question was appropriate?

If his answer really was sarcastic and not just Trump being stupid that is 100x worse. Especially when the women was respectful in her question.


As for not listening to people with sarcasm, I am fluent in sarcasm, and what Trump did was not sarcasm, it was just him being a buffoon but like I said, if he was really being a dick to her then that is 100x worse.

So you really think it was ok for Trump to treat her that way?

I will give you a pass on thinking it was sarcasm because southerners are not great with sarcasm since most people from the south are not very bright. (and yes that was sarcasm, see)


----------



## FriedTofu

Beatles123 said:


> On that particular issue? Hardly.
> 
> again, if Trump never gets a good obamacare repeal, that'd be what id call him out on.
> 
> Hell, =i'll even call him out on being too tough on the AUS prime minister if thats what you want. :shrug


It doesn't concern you that the president is either making things up or is misinformed on something that can be fact checked by a simple google search?

If something as trivial as electoral margin of victory can hookwink the president, what about the real complicated policy stuff?


----------



## birthday_massacre

FriedTofu said:


> It doesn't concern you that the president is either making things up or is misinformed on something that can be fact checked by a simple google search?
> 
> If something as trivial as electoral margin of victory can hookwink the president, what about the real complicated policy stuff?


just look at how Bannon hoodwinked Trump with the EO that Bannon wrote that put him on the National Security Council. Trump did not even read the EO before signing it. Trump even admitted he did not know signing that EO would promote Bannon.

Trump is just a puppet to the RNC with his EOs.

They write them all for Trump and he does not even read them before signing them.


----------



## FriedTofu

birthday_massacre said:


> just look at how Bannon hoodwinked Trump with the EO that Bannon wrote that put him on the National Security Council. Trump did not even read the EO before signing it. Trump even admitted he did not know signing that EO would promote Bannon.
> 
> Trump is just a puppet to the RNC with his EOs.
> 
> They write them all for Trump and he does not even read them before signing them.


I think the Bannon and National security council stuff is just made up stuff. Trump is incompetent, but not that incompetent to not read what he is signing, or at least not let his legal counsel go through it before signing. 

Trump isn't a puppet to the RNC, just using the EOs to reign in those that do not support him for now. The RNC are sycophants to the president get their agenda pushed through. Think you got that relationship wrong.


----------



## Art Vandaley

FriedTofu said:


> I think the Bannon and National security council stuff is just made up stuff. Trump is incompetent, but not that incompetent to not read what he is signing, or at least not let his legal counsel go through it before signing.


I belive it, he clearly relies a heap on Bannon.

On the other hand if he really cared that much why not just undo it?








@CamillePunk


----------



## birthday_massacre

FriedTofu said:


> I think the Bannon and National security council stuff is just made up stuff. Trump is incompetent, but not that incompetent to not read what he is signing, or at least not let his legal counsel go through it before signing.
> 
> Trump isn't a puppet to the RNC, just using the EOs to reign in those that do not support him for now. The RNC are sycophants to the president get their agenda pushed through. Think you got that relationship wrong.


I disagree. the insider leaks even say Trump does not fully read the EOs. Trump is totally a puppet to the RNC, just look at his cabinet, he was supposed to drain the swap but it's the richest cabinet in history. The RNC are puppets to their rich banks and corp donors, so that is more whom im talking about, all his rich friends he is putting into power. 


Trump even said he just wants his security reports to one page filled with graphs.

Trump's travel ban was signed before it was even finished, and caught most of his admin off guard, most found out it was signed on TV. 

Trump's people may tell him what is in the EOs but they are just telling him the just of it, he missed the Bannon thing, what else is his missing when signing the EOs? Bannon is probably the guy that tells him what is in the EOs and that is how Bannon was able to sneak that in there, he just did not tell Trump.

Anyway you look at it, Trump is super incompetent. Way worse than Bush and that is scary.


----------



## Lodi Lawless

My original goal for this post was to scrutinize Pres. Donald J. Trump's remarks point by point. Unfortunately, Trump's focus wanders so wildly that he never actually finishes any of his points. I think you will notice this in the ensuing discussion. With this post, I hope to reveal the constant tension between centripetal and centrifugal forces of dialogized heteroglossia resulting from Trump's treacheries. But first, I would like to make the following introductory remark: I used to maintain that Trump was a brown-nosing fault-finder. However, after seeing how he wants to fill our children's minds with splenetic and debasing superstitions, I now have an even lower opinion of him. In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that Trump's “brilliant” plan is to have prudish oafs give advice to prudish soi-disant do-gooders on how to deal with prudish paper-pushers. I fail to see how this will result in any sort of non-prudish outcome, but perhaps I'm forgetting that Trump uses himself as the gold standard or benchmark by which to measure all other people. Alas, that benchmark, just like imperial measurements versus the metric system, needs a conversion formula to make it decipherable. Let me help decipher it by pointing out that many of the things that Trump's representatives write make absolutely no sense. For example, what do they mean by, “A richly evocative description of a problem automatically implies the correct solution to that problem?” Maybe reading that sentence backwards reveals a hidden message, or maybe it's simply the case that just as night follows day, Trump will weaken our mental and moral fiber sooner or later. To recapitulate, I am tired of listening to Pres. Donald J. Trump's unpatriotic, rotten bilge.


----------



## Beatles123

Lodi Lawless said:


> My original goal for this post was to scrutinize Pres. Donald J. Trump's remarks point by point. Unfortunately, Trump's focus wanders so wildly that he never actually finishes any of his points. I think you will notice this in the ensuing discussion. With this post, I hope to reveal the constant tension between centripetal and centrifugal forces of dialogized heteroglossia resulting from Trump's treacheries. But first, I would like to make the following introductory remark: I used to maintain that Trump was a brown-nosing fault-finder. However, after seeing how he wants to fill our children's minds with splenetic and debasing superstitions, I now have an even lower opinion of him. In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that Trump's “brilliant” plan is to have prudish oafs give advice to prudish soi-disant do-gooders on how to deal with prudish paper-pushers. I fail to see how this will result in any sort of non-prudish outcome, but perhaps I'm forgetting that Trump uses himself as the gold standard or benchmark by which to measure all other people. Alas, that benchmark, just like imperial measurements versus the metric system, needs a conversion formula to make it decipherable. Let me help decipher it by pointing out that many of the things that Trump's representatives write make absolutely no sense. For example, what do they mean by, “A richly evocative description of a problem automatically implies the correct solution to that problem?” Maybe reading that sentence backwards reveals a hidden message, or maybe it's simply the case that just as night follows day, Trump will weaken our mental and moral fiber sooner or later. To recapitulate, I am tired of listening to Pres. Donald J. Trump's unpatriotic, rotten bilge.


Welcome. I disagree.


----------



## Lodi Lawless

Beatles123 said:


> Welcome. I disagree.


Pres. Donald J. Trump's activities are so rife with ignorance, erroneous information, and poorly conceived notions of jujuism that I hardly know where to begin. Even disregarding obvious errors like his insistence that all any child needs is a big dose of television every day, the fallacies of his claims are glaring to those of us who have educated ourselves about the implications of denominationalism. I assume you already know that he wallows in his delusions, but I have something more important to tell you. Trump presents himself as a disinterested classicist lamenting the infusion of politically motivated methods of pedagogy and analysis into higher education. He is eloquent in his denunciation of modern scholarship, claiming it favors querimonious hooligans. And here we have the ultimate irony because his adulators are tools. Like a hammer or an axe, they are not inherently evil or destructive. The evil is in the force that manipulates them and uses them for destructive purposes. That evil is Donald J. Trump, who wants nothing less than to blacklist his adversaries as terrorist sympathizers or traitors. Comments on the above are welcome, but please think them out first.

Top 5 Beatles Songs According to Me
5. Please Please Me
4. Don't Let Me Down
3. Good Day Sunshine
2. Strawberry Fields
1. In My Life


----------



## Beatles123

Lodi Lawless said:


> Pres. Donald J. Trump's activities are so rife with ignorance, erroneous information, and poorly conceived notions of jujuism that I hardly know where to begin. Even disregarding obvious errors like his insistence that all any child needs is a big dose of television every day, the fallacies of his claims are glaring to those of us who have educated ourselves about the implications of denominationalism. I assume you already know that he wallows in his delusions, but I have something more important to tell you. Trump presents himself as a disinterested classicist lamenting the infusion of politically motivated methods of pedagogy and analysis into higher education. He is eloquent in his denunciation of modern scholarship, claiming it favors querimonious hooligans. And here we have the ultimate irony because his adulators are tools. Like a hammer or an axe, they are not inherently evil or destructive. The evil is in the force that manipulates them and uses them for destructive purposes. That evil is Donald J. Trump, who wants nothing less than to blacklist his adversaries as terrorist sympathizers or traitors. Comments on the above are welcome, but please think them out first.
> 
> Top 5 Beatles Songs According to Me
> 5. Please Please Me
> 4. Don't Let Me Down
> 3. Good Day Sunshine
> 2. Strawberry Fields
> 1. In My Life


Those of you who have educated? Well, thats a bit of a strawman. I'd say that there are plenty educated here that, while perhaps not agreeing with him on everything, can still make the case for a lot of his stances.

I would also argue modern (((scholarship))) a waste of time, doing little more than to put one's self at risk due to the exposure of ecconomic and social practices that have no place in western civilization. 

Further,, i believe that while his detractors aren't necesarily traitors or terrorists, they carry an agenda fulled by globalism, which is not in America's best interests.

On beatles songs:

Mah NiBROTHERa! :trump3 Noboddy ever mentions don't let me down.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> Welcome. I disagree.






And what do you disagree with exactly. Can you ever make a well thought out post that explains what and why you disagree? You know its against the TOS to just say you disagree and not explain why right.





Beatles123 said:


> Those of you who have educated? Well, thats a bit of a strawman. I'd say that there are plenty educated here that, while perhaps not agreeing with him on everything, can still make the case for a lot of his stances.
> 
> I would also argue modern (((scholarship))) a waste of time, doing little more than to put one's self at risk due to the exposure of ecconomic and social practices that have no place in western civilization.
> 
> Further,, i believe that while his detractors aren't necesarily traitors or terrorists, they carry an agenda fulled by globalism, which is not in America's best interests.
> 
> On beatles songs:
> 
> Mah NiBROTHERa! :trump3 Noboddy ever mentions don't let me down.


Ok, so make a case for a lot of his stances and why you agree with them, especially the ones that people on this board point out are not good.


----------



## deepelemblues

Everyone pay attention to Lodi, he is demonstrating a nearly effort-free way to shitpost and apparently it's so old no one has seen it before :lmao


----------



## Beatles123

birthday_massacre said:


> And what do you disagree with exactly. Can you ever make a well thought out post that explains what and why you disagree? You know its against the TOS to just say you disagree and not explain why right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, so make a case for a lot of his stances and why you agree with them, especially the ones that people on this board point out are not good.


i am in no way violating the TOS just because my argument is insufficient to you personally.


----------



## MontyCora

That press conference was... Something. 

At least this is entertaining as hell.


----------



## Reaper

The only thing keeping the MSM relevant at this point is the MSM itself. It's done. The vast majority of americans now don't trust it.


----------



## BruiserKC

Interesting article for people to read...shows exactly what Mexico's immigration laws are in comparison to the United States. The page is back from 2010, but definitely worth a look at how Mexico is much tougher compared to 'Murrica in regards to who gets in. 

https://factreal.wordpress.com/2010...-states-mexican-immigration-laws-are-tougher/


----------



## Vic Capri

> That press conference was... Something.
> 
> At least this is entertaining as hell.


The mainstream media helped cause all the divide in the nation all in the name of ratings then proceeded to report mostly fake news and lies about Donald Trump for the past 18 months. I have no sympathy for them.

- Vic


----------



## Reaper




----------



## virus21

RipNTear said:


>


So Trumpfield? 

But yeah, CNN has pretty much become Hard Copy at this point.


----------



## Miss Sally

BruiserKC said:


> Interesting article for people to read...shows exactly what Mexico's immigration laws are in comparison to the United States. The page is back from 2010, but definitely worth a look at how Mexico is much tougher compared to 'Murrica in regards to who gets in.
> 
> https://factreal.wordpress.com/2010...-states-mexican-immigration-laws-are-tougher/


Me and DROW were discussing this much earlier in the thread. Mexico doesn't allow immigrants to have high positions in office, doesn't allow it's nature populace to ever come close to being replaced. Mexico is very, very tough on it's Southern Border. Meanwhile while happily following it's own rules it seeks to undermine US immigration laws and has helped set up La Raza and other organizations like it which undermine US law, pushes political agenda and has no qualms with telling Mexicans to break US laws and that they have a "right" to be within the US.

Mexico fucking with the US political system and sending it's residents here in order to boost it's own economy is it's own form of a hostile invasion. Yet for some reason the US tolerates these actions again and again. Mexico's immigration laws and part of it's constitution is draconian at best. While several white rich people and celebs virtue signal about Mexico, they'd never move there because Americans have no rights in Mexico, cannot own land in Mexico and would have to deal with a money grubbing political system. Yet they also don't want to go to Canada because Canada has insanely high taxes.

Canada, Mexico and the rich white elite are trying to mold America into some ATM shelter while everyone else keeps their sovereignty at the expense of the American people.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> i am in no way violating the TOS just because my argument is insufficient to you personally.



From TOS

Spam
Spam is classified in a number of ways. It can be:
Useless posts
Reviving a dead topic (something older than a month and on page 3, for instance)
*A short, uneducated reply
A reply agreeing with someone, yet posting no actual opinion*
A post that breaks a rule

You do those way too often. I don't see why you can't post why you agree or disagree with something instead of just saying you agree or disagree and that is it




virus21 said:


> So Trumpfield?
> 
> But yeah, CNN has pretty much become Hard Copy at this point.


So what do you call fox news? Fox news had been tabloid news for years. Fox news is 100x worse than CNN.


----------



## MrMister

I'm not having that big of a problem with Trump's press conference. He was wrong about the electoral win thing. You got him there. 

Most of the rest, aside from his narcissism, wasn't bad. Some was good.


----------



## thunderpeel2

Trump is a Zionist pig:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vcd-yvudYSg


----------



## CamillePunk

Zionist Hitler :done


----------



## MrMister

Zionist Hitler gonna raise Atlantis.


----------



## Reaper

People still believe in the Zionist conspiracy theory? 

:wow


----------



## Hencheman_21

I hear in an attempt to save money while rounding up illegal immigrants Trump wants to use those nice gentlemen who are unemployed and stand outside Lowes and Home Depots looking for jobs. >


----------



## stevefox1200

Looks like I jumped the gun on the Russian connection

Russia's official state sources have been surprisingly butt hurt over Trump lately, Trump got wall to wall coverage when he was first elected there and now they are calling him the worst things since Hitler and war monger for still backing NATO

Mattis flat out said he is not going to work with Russia and has been pushing a massive NATO and US military update and revamp (for those who don't know the US and NATO have not really done a "checklist" update since the 80s and have mostly been using the same designs since then) 

in other news Batko hung himself confused over which man to follow, pics at 11


----------



## Beatles123

stevefox1200 said:


> Looks like I jumped the gun on the Russian connection.


 You and a million others. :trump3

#BeatlesWasRight


----------



## Beatles123

birthday_massacre said:


> From TOS
> 
> Spam
> Spam is classified in a number of ways. It can be:
> Useless posts
> Reviving a dead topic (something older than a month and on page 3, for instance)
> *A short, uneducated reply
> A reply agreeing with someone, yet posting no actual opinion*
> A post that breaks a rule
> 
> You do those way too often. I don't see why you can't post why you agree or disagree with something instead of just saying you agree or disagree and that is it
> .


Because half the time, especially with you, you start spewing lies and twisting my words. I spent a whole fucking page arguing with you because you were so fucking inept you actually thought trump asked a reporter to set up a meeting. 

"(((Uneducated))) replies" are a subjective thing. I think all my replies contain all the "Education" most posts deserve here. If you can't handle me laughing at you, ramp up YOUR post quality and get back to me.


----------



## MrMister

Trump did ask April Ryan to set up a meeting. He might have been sarcastic though if you take the entire more than just a sound bite conversation. He later goes on to say that he's tried to set up meetings, but they never materialize because the other side sees it as "bad politics".


----------



## Beatles123

MrMister said:


> Trump did ask April Ryan to set up a meeting. He might have been sarcastic though if you take the entire more than just a sound bite conversation. He later goes on to say that he's tried to set up meetings, but they never materialize because the other side sees it as "bad politics".


He tried to explain to her why it hadn't been set up, she kept bitching, and he finally said "Do YOU want to set it up?" in an annoyed, patronizing tone as if to show her how stupid her complaint was. Any fucking moron (not talking about anyone here) can see he wasn't asking her to literally do it for him. 

I just..it boggles the mind how this point of discussion is even a thing. :lol

IN OTHER NEWS:









@DesolationRow :mark: its HAPPENIIIIIING!

God would I wouldn't give to see him brought to heel.


----------



## virus21

Elsewhere in government things


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> Because half the time, especially with you, you start spewing lies and twisting my words. I spent a whole fucking page arguing with you because you were so fucking inept you actually thought trump asked a reporter to set up a meeting.
> 
> "(((Uneducated))) replies" are a subjective thing. I think all my replies contain all the "Education" most posts deserve here. If you can't handle me laughing at you, ramp up YOUR post quality and get back to me.


I don't spew lies nor do I twist your words. I just your incorrect logic against you. And Trump was asking the reporter to set up the meaning, it was not sarcasm. So you think he was also being sarcastic when he asked oh are you friends with them, just because she is black?

And again answer the question, even if Trump was being sarcastic, lets pretend he was for the sake of argument, how is that professional of a president when asked a serious question to give a sarcastic remark back when it comes to something this serious?




Beatles123 said:


> He tried to explain to her why it hadn't been set up, she kept bitching, and he finally said "Do YOU want to set it up?" in an annoyed, patronizing tone as if to show her how stupid her complaint was. Any fucking moron (not talking about anyone here) can see he wasn't asking her to literally do it for him.
> 
> I just..it boggles the mind how this point of discussion is even a thing. :lol
> 
> IN OTHER NEWS:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @DesolationRow :mark: its HAPPENIIIIIING!
> 
> God would I wouldn't give to see him brought to heel.


No that is not what happened, you are just making things up thing and you are looking bad defending Trump on this. Trump did not even know who the group was when first asked the question. She had to tell him what the initials stood for.

Trump is stupid and he does not even understand basic questions, they always have to dumb it down for him, its why he always has to have reporters keep rephrasing the questions for him. Trump is easily the dumbest president we have ever had. Much dumber than Bush and that is saying a lot.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*Yesterday's press conference has earned yet another Donkey of The Day for Donald Jackass Trump:





Within 1 month, this is ALREADY the most embarrassing presidential administration of all time. Even ignoring all of the stupid shit that he and his administration have done up until this point, there were 3 glaring red flags to make him look like the biggest idiot to ever run this country.

1. Lying about having the most electoral votes since Reagan, which can be, and WAS easily disproven with a quick google search.

2. Assuming a Black reporter has a direct link to the Congressional Black Caucus, simply because she's Black.

3. "The leaks are absolutely real, but the news is fake." :cornette :what?







*


----------



## Art Vandaley

Claiming that have had the most electoral votes since Reagan when he's actually had the least is some bizarre shit. 

Begs the question of if either:
1. He really believes that even though it can be easily disproven, in which case he is a monumental idiot.
2. He is purposely lying, which is pretty terrifying tbh.

I don't see how you can dance around Trump being either incompetent or evil at this point.



CamillePunk said:


> Zionist Hitler :done


Dude....

Hitler supporting the establishment of the state of Israel is undeniable historical fact.

Hitler didn't _want_ to kill all the jews, he just wanted them out of Germany which he believed was for the German people and that Jewish people could never be German.

Before WW2 started the Nazi were just expelling all the jews from Germany, and they seriously looked at shipping them all off to Israel, the Nazi's and the early zionist organisations worked together on this for a period of time. 

I am not making that up.

I actually saw a documentary on this while in Israel on a pro Israel propaganda tour lol

Reality is stranger than fiction, it's why history is so fascinating.


----------



## Vic Capri

Meanwhile in real news today.

- Vic


----------



## Beatles123

Even to those I disagree with, as for yall ill never rob you of your right to post what you think, in response to BM, Alk and LB. (Even if I SAID BM would act the way he's acting.)

Just over hear listening to an audibook of Orwell's "Animal Farm" :trump


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> Even those I disagree with yall ill never rob you of your right to post what you think, in response to BM and LB.


Who is robbing you of your right to post. I am telling you to post your thoughts instead of just saying oh you agree or disagree and leave it at that.

how is that telling you not to post your thoughts? Only in your backwards logic it must be.

I keep telling you to post why you disagree instead of just saying you disagree but you are too scared to post your opinion because its gets so easily torn apart.


----------



## Beatles123

birthday_massacre said:


> Who is robbing you of your right to post. I am telling you to post your thoughts instead of just saying oh you agree or disagree and leave it at that.
> 
> how is that telling you not to post your thoughts? Only in your backwards logic it must be.
> 
> I keep telling you to post why you disagree instead of just saying you disagree but you are too scared to post your opinion because its gets so easily torn apart.


I never said anyone was :lmao I said I never would!

Jesus. "Twisting my words" again.

Torn apart my opinions? Thats what you think?

Im legit starting to worry about you....


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> U bever said anyone was :lmao I said I never would!
> 
> Jesus.


Stop trolling. Why would you make that comment if you were not implying I and LB were taking away your right.

What exactly was the point of that comment, you were acting like we are telling you not to post your opinion. Now you are playing dumb and the victim like you always do.

And yes I tear apart your views all the time, that is why you said you won't expand upon why you disagree. 

So stop playing your childish little games and your bait posts and post why you disagree with what we are saying.

Explain what you meant by "Even those I disagree with yall ill never rob you of your right to post what you think, in response to BM and LB."

how is that not implying we are robbing you of your right to post what you think


----------



## MontyCora

Vic Capri said:


> Meanwhile in real news today.
> 
> - Vic


That's not a real news channel.


----------



## birthday_massacre

MontyCora said:


> That's not a real news channel.


Some people on this board think Infowars and breitbart are real news channels.





Vic Capri said:


> Meanwhile in real news today.
> 
> - Vic


Serious question, are they really in front of that plane or are they just in front of a green screen? That totally looks fake behind them.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

@birthday_massacre @Beatles123 

You guys are just going around in circles. Both of you may as well just ignore one another if you're just going to play cat and mouse.


----------



## Demandred

The insanity of Trump hate has gone to new levels when I come into this thread for the first time and see a pro-Hitler post.:WTF2


The radical regressive left has become so detached from reality I have no optimism what so ever for our future.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Oda Nobunaga said:


> @birthday_massacre @Beatles123
> 
> You guys are just going around in circles. Both of you may as well just ignore one another if you're just going to play cat and mouse.


Not sure why you never warn him for baiting with his BS, you guys always let him get away with it.
He never debates the issues at hand, 90% of his posts are troll posts or baiting or stupid memes.





TMPRKO said:


> The insanity of Trump hate has gone to new levels when I come into this thread for the first time and see a pro-Hitler post.:WTF2
> 
> 
> The radical regressive left has become so detached from reality I have no optimism what so ever for our future.


But Trump and his supporters are not detached from reality? LOL

You have Trump supporters that think Trump did a good job at the press conference yesterday when it was one of the biggest disasters in recent member for a president. Not even Bush ever had a terrible showing like that.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

birthday_massacre said:


> Not sure why you never warn him for baiting with his BS, you guys always let him get away with it.
> He never debates the issues at hand, 90% of his posts are troll posts or baiting or stupid memes.


If I warned or gave an infraction for all the baiting/trolling/shitposts in this thread (a lot of it is stealthy), hardly anyone would be posting in it right now. That's the truth of it. Political threads are like carrion to vultures. A thread like this is given a measure of leeway, but sometimes, enough is enough. You both are clearly not going to give each other an inch, so just back off and quit replying to each others posts and clogging up the thread.


----------



## Smarkout

birthday_massacre said:


> Not sure why you never warn him for baiting with his BS, you guys always let him get away with it.
> He never debates the issues at hand, 90% of his posts are troll posts or baiting or stupid memes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *But Trump and his supporters are not detached from reality? LOL*
> 
> You have Trump supporters that think Trump did a good job at the press conference yesterday when it was one of the biggest disasters in recent member for a president. Not even Bush ever had a terrible showing like that.


No offense but you have no leg to stand on regarding Beatles' posts. The reason some people cannot stand you is because of stupid posts like the bolded. Sorry that I am detached from reality because the Democratic nominee was fucking awful. 

Kind of embarrassing a person that is going to be a teacher in a couple years just voted for a Republican. But put Warren against Trump and expect it to change!

I honestly don't mind your viewpoints, but if you were a little more respectful about disagreeing with someone you would get a lot more out of conversations. I doubt you act like that in real life.


----------



## virus21

TMPRKO said:


> The insanity of Trump hate has gone to new levels when I come into this thread for the first time and see a pro-Hitler post.:WTF2
> 
> 
> The radical regressive left has become so detached from reality I have no optimism what so ever for our future.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Smarkout said:


> No offense but you have no leg to stand on regarding Beatles' posts. The reason some people cannot stand you is because of stupid posts like the bolded. Sorry that I am detached from reality because the Democratic nominee was fucking awful.
> 
> Kind of embarrassing a person that is going to be a teacher in a couple years just voted for a Republican. But put Warren against Trump and expect it to change!
> 
> I honestly don't mind your viewpoints, but if you were a little more respectful about disagreeing with someone you would get a lot more out of conversations. I doubt you act like that in real life.


So you are not ok with the bolded but you are ok when posters post things like this The radical regressive left has become so detached from reality I have no optimism what so ever for our future..

I always love the hypocrisy on this forum. You honest don't believe both sides have people that are detached from reality? 

We all know Hillary was an awful choice but Trump was a much worse choice and we see why over and over again, just look at yesterday's press conference as a perfect example.

Also I go to the level of the person I am debating with. All i did was turn around what someone said about the left to the right and for some reason you have an issue with what I said but not with the other poster who said the exact same point.

You really don't think that Trump and some of his supporters are detached from reality especially at the shit Trump says on a daily basis? It would be embarrassing if you claimed he wasn't on some level.


----------



## NotGuilty

Look at all the haters. Let the man secure our borders and boost our jobs, you bitch about words focus on his actions which have been in the right direction and which he said he would do since the beginning of the election so not sure why its a shock now :trump2


----------



## Smarkout

birthday_massacre said:


> So you are not ok with the bolded but you are ok when posters post things like this The radical regressive left has become so detached from reality I have no optimism what so ever for our future..
> 
> *I always love the hypocrisy on this forum. You honest don't believe both sides have people that are detached from reality? *
> 
> We all know Hillary was an awful choice but Trump was a much worse choice and we see why over and over again, just look at yesterday's press conference as a perfect example.
> 
> Also I go to the level of the person I am debating with. All i did was turn around what someone said about the left to the right and for some reason you have an issue with what I said but not with the other poster who said the exact same point.
> 
> You really don't think that Trump and some of his supporters are detached from reality especially at the shit Trump says on a daily basis? It would be embarrassing if you claimed he wasn't on some level.


Obviously both sides have people detached from reality, but the reality of the actual situation is that if the 8 years before Trump weren't so awful then Trump never becomes a thing. Obama CREATED Trump. 

No offense to Beatles but he's annoying too with some of his posts, but there's no reason for either of you to stoop to each others levels and argue. 

Of course SOME Trump supporters are detached from reality, just like SOME of the Obama supporters were (and still are) detached from reality. 

The problem with the Democratic party is they lost whatever message they were trying to send. Why should I vote for a Democrat over a Republican? What values does a Democrat hold that is going to help ME personally? I wasn't too impressed with what Obama did.


----------



## rennlc

I'm not against Trump because I'm a "liberal." I'm against Trump because I'm not stupid.


----------



## birthday_massacre

NotGuilty said:


> Look at all the haters. Let the man secure our borders and boost our jobs, you bitch about words focus on his actions which have been in the right direction and which he said he would do since the beginning of the election so not sure why its a shock now :trump2


Secure our borders? There are more illegal Mexicans leaving the US than entering. Those 7 countries that Trump tried to ban refugees from have had ZERO fatal terrorist attacks in the past 40 years in the US, and Obama was the best president creating jobs ever, he had a plus for over 78 weeks.


----------



## Art Vandaley

birthday_massacre said:


> Secure our borders? There are more illegal Mexicans leaving the US than entering. Those 7 countries that Trump tried to ban refugees from have had ZERO fatal terrorist attacks in the past 40 years, and Obama was the best president creating jobs ever, he had a plus for over 78 weeks.


Dude, didn't you hear? The fact the economy went really well under Obama and really badly under Bush is pure coincidence with nothing to do with their policies whatsoever.


----------



## NotGuilty

birthday_massacre said:


> Secure our borders? There are more illegal Mexicans leaving the US than entering. Those 7 countries that Trump tried to ban refugees from have had ZERO fatal terrorist attacks in the past 40 years, and Obama was the best president creating jobs ever, he had a plus for over 78 weeks.


It's been a month give the man time. I am sorry your pal Hillary couldn't abuse her foundations reach enough to secure the electoral votes. :quimby


----------



## birthday_massacre

Smarkout said:


> Obviously both sides have people detached from reality, but the reality of the actual situation is that if the 8 years before Trump weren't so awful then Trump never becomes a thing. Obama CREATED Trump.
> 
> No offense to Beatles but he's annoying too with some of his posts, but there's no reason for either of you to stoop to each others levels and argue.
> 
> Of course SOME Trump supporters are detached from reality, just like SOME of the Obama supporters were (and still are) detached from reality.
> 
> The problem with the Democratic party is they lost whatever message they were trying to send. Why should I vote for a Democrat over a Republican? What values does a Democrat hold that is going to help ME personally? I wasn't too impressed with what Obama did.


The 8 years before Trump were not awful. The only reason why Trump barely won is because of Hillary, if Sanders ran against Trump he would have destroyed Trump. Trump barely even won the EC over Hillary, it was just something like 80k votes over three key states. Not to mention Hillary won the popular vote by 3 million. Trump had one of the lowest EC victories ever. It was in the bottom 10.

The only reason I argue with Beatles if because I try to get him to tell his opinion instead of him just saying I disagree and not give a reason. He instead just trolls. Give me shit all you want at least I post my opinion and give reasoning for it, if you want to agree or not with what I say is s different story but at least I back up my reasoning.

Unless you are rich the democrats are always going to help you more than the republicans. The republicans just lie to you and claim they want to help then fuck you over and help the rich. The corp. democrats problem is, they don't tell you how they are going to help you even though behind the scenes they do way more than republicans do. 

the two biggest reasons why the democrats lost this cycle to Trump are simple. one they fucked over Bernie Sanders who should have won the primary and who, instead of Hillary telling the voters what she was going to do for them, she just said what an awful person Trump was and why people should not vote for him.

And if the democrats are stupid enough, (which it looks like they are) and they try to run Hillary, Kaine or their golden child Booker in 2020 they are going to get destroyed. Its time the fake democrats step said and let the real progressive democrats take over like Ellison, Warren, and Gabbard, as well as Sanders.





NotGuilty said:


> It's been a month give the man time. I am sorry your pal Hillary couldn't abuse her foundations reach enough to secure the electoral votes. :quimby


Everyone knows I hated Hillary LOL Not sure what you are talking about. Please get better informed.



Alkomesh2 said:


> Dude, didn't you hear? The fact the economy went really well under Obama and really badly under Bush is pure coincidence with nothing to do with their policies whatsoever.


It's those pesky conservative ALT FACTS again.

I had a ton of issues with obama, but those three areas were not one of them.


----------



## MontyCora

NotGuilty said:


> It's been a month give the man time. I am sorry your pal Hillary couldn't abuse her foundations reach enough to secure the electoral votes. :quimby


I'm Canadian, so I don't really care about this stuff beyond laughing when Trump straight up lies and gets called on it, like the electoral vote thing. But come on man, what is this? "Your pal Hillary"? Do you really think the extreme partisan condescending achieves anything?


----------



## FriedTofu

stevefox1200 said:


> Looks like I jumped the gun on the Russian connection
> 
> Russia's official state sources have been surprisingly butt hurt over Trump lately, Trump got wall to wall coverage when he was first elected there and now they are calling him the worst things since Hitler and war monger for still backing NATO
> 
> Mattis flat out said he is not going to work with Russia and has been pushing a massive NATO and US military update and revamp (for those who don't know the US and NATO have not really done a "checklist" update since the 80s and have mostly been using the same designs since then)
> 
> in other news Batko hung himself confused over which man to follow, pics at 11


I think Russia is finding out what working with Trump feels like. When your leverage over Trump is something that will also be negative towards you, he will dare you to drag both of you down and most rational thinker will fold and allow Trump to get away with it. So the best solution is not to enter into a partnership with Trump in the first place.

He did it with the banks in the 90's. He did it with selling his names to other developers. He did it with the GOP. Now the Russian is feeling it. What will happen to Russia if they disclose what they have with Trump? Sure Moscow can bring down Trump, but it will also unite Western allies against Russia even more.

I just fear what will happen when his base realise they are not much different than those that Trump has conned into a partnership.


----------



## rennlc

"Our education system needs help," said the 2016 US election results.


----------



## Beatles123

rennlc said:


> "Our education system needs help," said the 2016 US election results.


To what end? Liberalism? Nah.


----------



## Beatles123

Oda Nobunaga said:


> @birthday_massacre @Beatles123
> 
> You guys are just going around in circles. Both of you may as well just ignore one another if you're just going to play cat and mouse.


Sir, I don't wish to carry on after this, but i literally was TRYING to give him "an inch." I don't know what the hell his problem is. I just said "Hey, i'd never rob you of your right to post what you think. He's the one going "WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?? REEEEEEEEE!!!"

Im not trying to fight, I just think I have grounds to say I meant no harm in my post.


----------



## CamillePunk

Wait, what was wrong with that press conference? Seemed like Trump being his usual self to me. :lol


----------



## FriedTofu

Being his usual self is the wrong part. But his base don't care about all the lies and crazy talk so no harm done to Trump. They like to see their champion hitting back. :lol

Imagine if Obama or Hilary had attacked the judges the way the Trump administration have been doing. The right wing media would be crying for blood for excutive overreach. Weren't you the one that said Hilary was more likely to get you nuked in your own country? What would your reaction be if Hilary has talked about Russia and nuclear holocaust like Trump did during that press conference? :lol


----------



## MontyCora

I get supporting his general vague ideologies of wanting to secure borders and all that stuff. I get thinking it's funny to see him say he gave money to all the politicians on stage with him and absolutely SLAUGHTERING loser geeks like Christie and Cruz. What I cannot understand, what I simply cannot fathom is people proudly supporting a man who, I kid you not, could possibly be mentally challenged. He's unquestionably EXTREMELY narcissistic.

If Obama was bragging about how big his win was after the election and talking endlessly about how great he is, and using third grade language and being corrected on his completely fabricated bullshit facts like "I had the most electoral votes since Regan" I would be so so so incredibly curious to see what the Trump supporters reaction to that would be. Why can't a character like Trump be both anti politicians, a populist choice for the people AND actively intelligent?

Oh fuck right Bernie Sanders. You silly Americans and your politics.


----------



## CamillePunk

FriedTofu said:


> Being his usual self is the wrong part.


For you, maybe. :mj 



> But his base don't care about all the lies and crazy talk so no harm done to Trump. They like to see their champion hitting back. :lol


This is absolutely correct. Facts don't matter. 



> Weren't you the one that said Hilary was more likely to get you nuked in your own country? What would your reaction be if Hilary has talked about Russia and nuclear holocaust like Trump did during that press conference? :lol


Why would Trump stressing the importance of two nuclear powers getting along, and expressing his desire to get along with Russia despite everyone who doesn't want that, which is the CONTEXT of those statements, make us less safe from nuclear war? :lol Bizarre interpretation by you. We really are experiencing two different realities.


MontyCora said:


> What I cannot understand, what I simply cannot fathom is people proudly supporting a man who, I kid you not, could possibly be mentally challenged. He's unquestionably EXTREMELY narcissistic.


Maybe your contention that the multi-billionaire who's had success in multiple fields is mentally challenged is incorrect? Food for thought. 



> Why can't a character like Trump be both anti politicians, a populist choice for the people AND actively intelligent?
> 
> Oh fuck right Bernie Sanders. You silly Americans and your politics.


The guy who endorsed Hillary is "anti politician". :banderas

The guy whose solution to every problem is "MORE GOVERNMENT" and couldn't pass a basic economics quiz is actively intelligent. :banderas


----------



## Art Vandaley

How do WF feel about Bill Gate's idea of taxing robots?


----------



## MontyCora

I always love when people point to what a brilliant business person Trump is. Six bankruptcies? "Oh that's normal for rich people!"

Maybe it's Trump who should take the basic economics quiz. I suspect he would fail.


----------



## FriedTofu

CamillePunk said:


> For you, maybe. :mj
> 
> This is absolutely correct. Facts don't matter.
> 
> Why would Trump stressing the importance of two nuclear powers getting along, and expressing his desire to get along with Russia despite everyone who doesn't want that, which is the CONTEXT of those statements, make us less safe from nuclear war? :lol Bizarre interpretation by you. We really are experiencing two different realities.


Only alternative facts matter. :mj

Russia and America not getting along does not mean nuclear war though. There is no upside to bringing that up :troll except to either fearmonger or provide Russia with a justification for a preemptive strike and bringing you closer to a nuclear war. Using the imagery of nuclear holocaust to justify not being tough on Russia is really stretching it. To really believe that makes one not much better than liberal sheeps.

Again, if Hillary did what Trump did during that press conference, would you not be saying she has lost her mind? In what reality was that press conference anything but a disaster to serve as a distraction from the other scandals coming out of the white house in recent days? Maybe we really are experiencing two different realities.


----------



## FriedTofu

Alkomesh2 said:


> How do WF feel about Bill Gate's idea of taxing robots?


Don't like it. I rather the corporations using robots lower their prices due to cost savings.


----------



## Vic Capri

> Obama was the best president














> Wait, what was wrong with that press conference? Seemed like Trump being his usual self to me.


The mainstream media getting butthurt on being called out as dishonest to their faces.

- Vic


----------



## Art Vandaley

FriedTofu said:


> Don't like it. I rather the corporations using robots lower their prices due to cost savings.


But then what are what we gonna do for jobs to be able to afford the now marginally cheaper things?



Vic Capri said:


> The mainstream media getting butthurt on being called out as dishonest to their faces.
> 
> - Vic


Yeah... Except the whole Trump was the one lying thing and the fact that the media were able to show it literally during the conference itself.

Trump ended up looking like an untrustworthy idiot not for the first time.

I mean he admitted that the press were right about the contents of their articles but still called them fake news?

He admitted it was true, but still went on to call it fake?

If its true, how can it be fake?


----------



## yeahbaby!

Quite a convenient technique Trump and his diehards have latched on to:

1. Drone on and on about news outlets being fake media, being unfair, over and over and over
2. Label anything negative on Trump 'fake news' instantly.

THe followers swallow it down


----------



## FriedTofu

Alkomesh2 said:


> But then what are what we gonna do for jobs to be able to afford the now marginally cheaper things?


Taxing robots aren't going to pay for much new jobs anyway.


----------



## Vic Capri

Week 4.




> Yeah... Except the whole Trump was the one lying thing and the fact that the media were able to show it literally during the conference itself.
> 
> Trump ended up looking like an untrustworthy idiot not for the first time.
> 
> I mean he admitted that the press were right about the contents of their articles but still called them fake news?
















































You were saying?

- Vic


----------



## Beatles123

Napoleon would have enslaved all yall commies :trump3


----------



## BruiserKC

Smarkout said:


> Obviously both sides have people detached from reality, but the reality of the actual situation is that if the 8 years before Trump weren't so awful then Trump never becomes a thing. Obama CREATED Trump.
> 
> No offense to Beatles but he's annoying too with some of his posts, but there's no reason for either of you to stoop to each others levels and argue.
> 
> Of course SOME Trump supporters are detached from reality, just like SOME of the Obama supporters were (and still are) detached from reality.
> 
> The problem with the Democratic party is they lost whatever message they were trying to send. Why should I vote for a Democrat over a Republican? What values does a Democrat hold that is going to help ME personally? I wasn't too impressed with what Obama did.


The Democrats have devolved into "hate everything Trump does" territory. Just hating everything someone does is not a long-term winning strategy. The Democrats found that out when contesting against Dubya for 8 years, and the GOP saw the same thing opposing all that Obama did initially. Eventually, when Obama came into being, he put a message out there on what he actually stood for and not just a "Bush is for it so we're against it" stance. The GOP did the same (although their hand was somewhat forced by the rise of the Tea Party) and put out why people should vote for them. Their strategy worked, to the tune of the hundreds of state legislative seats they won as well as gubernatorial elections and now running Congress and the WH. 

Right now, the Democrats are still in that mode of "Blame Trump for everything" mode. There is talk about a liberal version of the Tea Party, but right now just marching and protesting is not a plan. The original Tea Party (of which I was and still is a part of) was well-organized and put together. It wasn't just opposing the control of outrageous Congressional spending (the TP was born during the final days of the Bush administration when he pushed for the TARP/bailout), but they put together what they stood for and what they wanted. They had a message and clearly laid that out. They had no problem with going after and voting out people they felt didn't go along with that. They forced the resignation of Boehner as Speaker of the House, as well as primaried one of his right-hand cohorts in Cantor. 

Trump's rise coincides with that. People have felt for years that the government isn't doing their jobs (October 2016 Gallup poll had Congress' approval rating at 18%). Trump was pushed by many as a "Fuck You" to Congress and establishment politics-as-usual. They know Trump is not a politician, he doesn't conform to the niceties of the political game, and they sent him in to be that bull in the china shop that tears everything down. They are willing to overlook his faults and some of the things he says as most of what he did during the campaign would have buried just about anyone else.


----------



## amhlilhaus

MontyCora said:


> I always love when people point to what a brilliant business person Trump is. Six bankruptcies? "Oh that's normal for rich people!"
> 
> Maybe it's Trump who should take the basic economics quiz. I suspect he would fail.


Businessmen struggling is normal. In the old days, they went to other people or banks to bail them out. Or they lost everything and started over since there wasnt bankruptcy.

Henry ford failed completely several times.

Jay gould was on the brink of collapse several times.

Then theres businessmen who have to reinvent themselves

Cornelius vanderbilt had to become an employee after being very successful because the business climate left him behind.

John jacob astor had to sell the american fur company because the business started dying because of consumer habits.

Isnt the left that celebrates giving everyone multiple chances to make something of themselves? They should celebrate trump in that regard. Or does the left only think second chances apply to vicious criminals?

I loved trumps press conference. He gave a lot of insight into things, and admitted vulnerability. He ripped cnn a new one. 'Im changing it from fake news, really fake news' brilliant.

Is he a narcissist? You betcha.

Guess what though? Hes doing what he promised (except throw hiliary in jail). 

At least he has a reason to be full of himself: billionaire, tv star, pussy grabber of world class women (all willingly i might add. Hes donald trump bitch! He has no need to force himself. Notice after he said hed counter sue those women dropped every charge) and now president.

The previous president was just as full of himself when all he had going for himself was he could give a good speech.


----------



## DOPA

The idea that Obama was the best president ever is utterly absurd just for the reason that he added more debt than every other president combined. His first 4 years alone he added over a trillion dollars of debt a year.

And don't use the Bush excuse either, many of the same elements that led to the 2008 crash are there, there are artificial bubbles in many different areas in the economy, the bonds and derivatives markets especially as well as the housing bubble has been re-inflated. All under Obama.

That isn't to say Trump isn't faultless considering the stock buybacks which are now happening which has seen a huge boom in the stock market artificially created. So that one you can put in the Trump column as there is a bubble in the stock market now which is something both Peter Schiff and Rand Paul have noted. You partisan Democrat hacks however need to stop being ridiculous and look at the facts objectively.

I haven't watched the press conference yet, I probably will either later tonight or tomorrow and comment on it then.


----------



## amhlilhaus

birthday_massacre said:


> Not sure why you never warn him for baiting with his BS, you guys always let him get away with it.
> He never debates the issues at hand, 90% of his posts are troll posts or baiting or stupid memes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But Trump and his supporters are not detached from reality? LOL
> 
> You have Trump supporters that think Trump did a good job at the press conference yesterday when it was one of the biggest disasters in recent member for a president. Not even Bush ever had a terrible showing like that.


You guys still dont get it. Trump was using the press as his foil to talk to those who elected him.

A disaster? Yes it was, for the press. Theyre still painted as the corrupt partisan hacks that they are. Trump was toying with them. Trumps approval was 55% according to rasmussen, and hes got all this headwind to fight against.

Just wait til he forces the tax cuts. By then some of the construction jobs will have started and the regulation relapses will be felt. What happens then?

Democrats strategy of resist everything he does is a massive mistake. Trumps policies will spur economic growth and job creation.

So when the next election comes around, what can the democrats run against? Trumps a fool, racist, sexist, homophobe!vote for us!

And the independants will shrug them off, since theyre doing better and vote trump allies in. In 2018 when republicans gain a 60 seat edge in the senate, the shit hits the fan.

Even for politicians. Trump means what he said. Two things hes said that are getting no attention now, but will be a huge deal in two year will be balanced budget and TERM LIMITS.

Even leftists and anarchists could back that.


----------



## amhlilhaus

Smarkout said:


> No offense but you have no leg to stand on regarding Beatles' posts. The reason some people cannot stand you is because of stupid posts like the bolded. Sorry that I am detached from reality because the Democratic nominee was fucking awful.
> 
> Kind of embarrassing a person that is going to be a teacher in a couple years just voted for a Republican. But put Warren against Trump and expect it to change!
> 
> I honestly don't mind your viewpoints, but if you were a little more respectful about disagreeing with someone you would get a lot more out of conversations. I doubt you act like that in real life.


Its hilarious the idea that someone other than clinton wouldve won.

Democrats who voted did vote. They lost because the dems lost rural whites and urban blacks.

Bernie or warren wouldnt have galvanized either of those groups.

And they wont in 2020 either.

Democrat leadership is old and stale. They have no young fresh leaders. They better focus on that problem.


----------



## amhlilhaus

yeahbaby! said:


> Quite a convenient technique Trump and his diehards have latched on to:
> 
> 1. Drone on and on about news outlets being fake media, being unfair, over and over and over
> 2. Label anything negative on Trump 'fake news' instantly.
> 
> THe followers swallow it down


Is it fake news to characterize his administration as chaotic when hes eased regulations on coal, obamacare mandates, froze federal hiring, stopped regulations, ordered the b9rder wall construction, tried to fill his cabinet, ordered investigations into illegal leaks of classified conversations, met and or talked to the leaders of russia, mexico, canada, india, israel? Tried to institute a moratorium on immigration from 7 countries that are WAR TORN and without effective government?

Whoo! His presidency is in turmoil.

Just wait til he gets his act together


----------



## amhlilhaus

It is fake news when his conversation with mexicos president is faked to claim he was going to send in troops to clean up their drug mess, when in reality he said if mexico needed help he would.

Tottally misrepresenting parts of a CLASSIFIED conversation to buttress a partisan political position is the definition of FAKE.

Trump may well fuck up on his own. Problem is, by 5he time he does no one will believe the media or the foaming at the mouth democrats screaming about it.

After all, trumps already a fascist, nazi, russian puppet whos initiated a saturday night massacre (firing the woman who refused to enforce a executive order) and had his 'watergate' moment with flynn (what did he know, and when did he know it)


----------



## Goku

i didn't watch the press conference (I'm told it was a hoot), but all i'm seeing rn is the media defending the media on the media.

uttahere


----------



## Reaper

There's nothing major in the press conference. The people claiming that it's the scariest thing they've ever seen didn't even watch it.

You think that the same people that have repeatedly been outed for not watching or reading something before making outlandish claims about it are making any honest claims about the press conference?

The "fake" news is most "fake" in the sense that it has been relying on people's laziness to go and check things for themselves and every single person that has some sort of reason to dislike Trump is guilty of zero fact checking themselves and therefore are being played like a fiddle by histrionics created by the outlets they expose themselves to.

Take the whole Pewdiepie thing for example. The press creates a story that he's a Nazi. Then they create another story that he's definitely a Nazi because he wouldn't use their platforms to defend himself. Yeah, because a guy with 53 million subs (who's now getting even more subs) needs _them _more than they need him for their relevance. 

Same thing with the National Guard. First they create a story out of thin air that Trump is going to use the National Guard against immigrants. Then the WH sets the record straight. But then they run a story that the WH "denies" that they're going to us the National Guard. You see what they did there? If you don't, then don't get pissed when you get called out on your intellectual dishonesty. 

If you can't see what's going on right now, then there's really no hope left for you at all and you're destined to be played by someone else for likely the rest of your life.






We've really gotten to a point that these Illuminati conspiracy theorists have enough ammunition to become honest about their reporting. Mark Dice was a HUGE conspiracy theorist at one point (probably still is on some things) but now he no longer has to CREATE theories and news for relevancy and all he has to do is report on the bullshit DNC and their followers are believing. 

The shoe is on the other foot now. The conspiracies are coming out of the DNC and their followers are soaking that shit right up.


----------



## birthday_massacre

amhlilhaus said:


> You guys still dont get it. Trump was using the press as his foil to talk to those who elected him.
> 
> A disaster? Yes it was, for the press. Theyre still painted as the corrupt partisan hacks that they are. Trump was toying with them. Trumps approval was 55% according to rasmussen, and hes got all this headwind to fight against.
> 
> Just wait til he forces the tax cuts. By then some of the construction jobs will have started and the regulation relapses will be felt. What happens then?
> 
> Democrats strategy of resist everything he does is a massive mistake. Trumps policies will spur economic growth and job creation.
> 
> So when the next election comes around, what can the democrats run against? Trumps a fool, racist, sexist, homophobe!vote for us!
> 
> And the independants will shrug them off, since theyre doing better and vote trump allies in. In 2018 when republicans gain a 60 seat edge in the senate, the shit hits the fan.
> 
> Even for politicians. Trump means what he said. Two things hes said that are getting no attention now, but will be a huge deal in two year will be balanced budget and TERM LIMITS.
> 
> Even leftists and anarchists could back that.


It wasn't a disaster for the press, the press made Trump look like the child that he is.
Trump for this whole press conference was rambling, giving out fake news and was incoherent, and would meander off topic in the middle of a thought over and over again.

Trumps approval rating is 40% not 55%, his approval rating keeps dropping. his disapproval rating is what is 55%.

I think its you that does not get it. What Trump is doing is calling everything fake news now , even legit stories that he does not like, to muddy the waters of what is real and what is not. Yes the media has BS stories sometimes but most of the things Trump is claiming is fake news isn't and people are getting confused on what is real and what isnt. Not to mention Trump and the WH themselves put out BS fake news pretending its real. Trump did that to get elected, 70% of the thigns Trump said during his election were not true. 

So maybe its you and Trump supporters than need to wake up to what is going on.

And yes I agree with you on what the next person who runs against Trump needs to do. LIke I said in an early post, they cant run why we should be against Trump that is why HIllary lost. They need to run on what they can do for the American people 

that is why the DNC cant run Hillary again UGH , or run somenoe like Kaine or Booker.

The best pick Ellison, could be a problem because he is Muslim, but Gabbard, Warren or Bernie (if he is still alive) would be great choices. Maybe for Bernie just make him VP fo one of those three.




RipNTear said:


> There's nothing major in the press conference. The people claiming that it's the scariest thing they've ever seen didn't even watch it.
> 
> You think that the same people that have repeatedly been outed for not watching or reading something before making outlandish claims about it are making any honest claims about the press conference?
> 
> The "fake" news is most "fake" in the sense that it has been relying on people's laziness to go and check things for themselves and every single person that has some sort of reason to dislike Trump is guilty of zero fact checking themselves and therefore are being played like a fiddle by histrionics created by the outlets they expose themselves to.
> 
> Take the whole Pewdiepie thing for example. The press creates a story that he's a Nazi. Then they create another story that he's definitely a Nazi because he wouldn't use their platforms to defend himself. Yeah, because a guy with 53 million subs (who's now getting even more subs) needs _them _more than they need him for their relevance.
> 
> Same thing with the National Guard. First they create a story out of thin air that Trump is going to use the National Guard against immigrants. Then the WH sets the record straight. But then they run a story that the WH "denies" that they're going to us the National Guard. You see what they did there? If you don't, then don't get pissed when you get called out on your intellectual dishonesty.
> 
> If you can't see what's going on right now, then there's really no hope left for you at all and you're destined to be played by someone else for likely the rest of your life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've really gotten to a point that these Illuminati conspiracy theorists have enough ammunition to become honest about their reporting. Mark Dice was a HUGE conspiracy theorist at one point (probably still is on some things) but now he no longer has to CREATE theories and news for relevancy and all he has to do is report on the bullshit DNC and their followers are believing.
> 
> The shoe is on the other foot now. The conspiracies are coming out of the DNC and their followers are soaking that shit right up.



The press conference was a disaster, like that has already been pointed out. Trump looked like a fool for most of it. It looked like a parody of what a president should be like.

I love how you keep bringing up this fake news with the media when Trump and his admin put out more fake news than the media does but of course you and Trump supporters just make excuses for then doing that.

Look at the fake news put out by Trump and/or his staff

Bowling green massacre
Trump having the heighest EC win since Regan
ALT FACTS about his inauguration crowd
Tom Cruz father helped murder JFK
Obama is a Muslim and not a US citizen
millions of illegals voted in the election and that is why Trump did not win the popular vote
Scalia was murdered

etc etc

The media did not make up the national guard story, you can't even be honest. There was a memo from the WH talking about it and the news reported on it. 

How is the WH not considering using the national guard when it comes to rounding up immigrants when they had a memo on doing exactly that? 


It wouldn't surprise me if Trump was the one who leaked the memo, just so the news would report on it, then he could call them fake news for leaking a memo on something the WH was thinking of doing but decided not to

You and the Trump supporters are the ones who can't see what is really going on.


----------



## Smarkout

birthday_massacre said:


> The 8 years before Trump were not awful. The only reason why Trump barely won is because of Hillary, *if Sanders ran against Trump he would have destroyed Trump*. Trump barely even won the EC over Hillary, it was just something like 80k votes over three key states. Not to mention Hillary won the popular vote by 3 million. Trump had one of the lowest EC victories ever. It was in the bottom 10.
> 
> The only reason I argue with Beatles if because I try to get him to tell his opinion instead of him just saying I disagree and not give a reason. He instead just trolls. Give me shit all you want at least I post my opinion and give reasoning for it, if you want to agree or not with what I say is s different story but at least I back up my reasoning.
> 
> Unless you are rich the democrats are always going to help you more than the republicans. The republicans just lie to you and claim they want to help then fuck you over and help the rich. The corp. democrats problem is, they don't tell you how they are going to help *you even though behind the scenes they do way more than republicans do. *
> 
> the two biggest reasons why the democrats lost this cycle to Trump are simple. one they fucked over Bernie Sanders who should have won the primary and who, instead of Hillary telling the voters what she was going to do for them, she just said what an awful person Trump was and why people should not vote for him.
> 
> And if the democrats are stupid enough, (which it looks like they are) and they try to run Hillary, Kaine or their golden child Booker in 2020 they are going to get destroyed. Its time the fake democrats step said and let the real progressive democrats take over like Ellison, Warren, and Gabbard, as well as Sanders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone knows I hated Hillary LOL Not sure what you are talking about. Please get better informed.
> 
> 
> 
> It's those pesky conservative ALT FACTS again.
> 
> I had a ton of issues with obama, but those three areas were not one of them.


Sanders was not beating Trump... Whether you want to admit it or not once Trump brings up the term "socialism" at the debates Sanders does not win those coal workers over with that. He also does not win any of these adults over with "free" college. 

The Republicans lie to me and the Democrats don't? I thought healthcare premiums were supposed to DECREASE under him? Liar! 

How do you know about what happens "behind the scenes"?

If the Democrats are stupid enough they'll run Warren. Warren is for the little guy? Isn't she the one who bought all those foreclosed homes and sold them for a profit? That's her decision to do, but let's not act like she's some saint who wants to help me. 

This is why I voted for Trump and if I say something wrong please point me out on it (I'm sure you will lol):

He actually had a plan for education. Hillary literally had no plan for elementary ed on her site besides something like "we need to invest in public schools". Well.... what type of investing? And people make fun of Trump for not having specifics? 

He doesn't want to let thousands of refugees into this country when we have minorities in the inner city who live day to day. These kids go to school hungry, their schools have almost no funding, and despite the work of the teachers it will never be enough to protect them from the "hood" so to speak. 

Is that so ridiculous? The only way I can see myself voting against him in 4 years is if teachers get a big paycut or something insane but that really depends on the district. He's doing everything he said he was going to do and I think some people just need to try and see that the other side isn't so evil after all.


----------



## Reaper

Speaking of education plans, Betsy came out in support of magnet schools as well. If that works out like they're saying it is, I'll be the happiest man in America because fuck public schools. Children have unique talents and unique interests and they deserve education specific to those talents. 

:banderas 

The government finally accepting that people should have a choice with regards to where they want to send their kids to school. Those of us who are better parents than those who make shit life decisions reserve the right to be able to continue to give their kids better opportunities so they are not forced through an assembly line system which corrodes natural talent to a degree where some really promising kids could end up in things like feminist dance therapy.

Considering the quality of discourse from our foreigner friends across the globe, the socialist ideology is clearly a failed system of "education".


----------



## Goku

always knew betsy was a good lass, be sure that it will be an :uphilltask


----------



## birthday_massacre

Smarkout said:


> Sanders was not beating Trump... Whether you want to admit it or not once Trump brings up the term "socialism" at the debates Sanders does not win those coal workers over with that. He also does not win any of these adults over with "free" college.
> 
> The Republicans lie to me and the Democrats don't? I thought healthcare premiums were supposed to DECREASE under him? Liar!
> 
> How do you know about what happens "behind the scenes"?
> 
> If the Democrats are stupid enough they'll run Warren. Warren is for the little guy? Isn't she the one who bought all those foreclosed homes and sold them for a profit? That's her decision to do, but let's not act like she's some saint who wants to help me.
> 
> This is why I voted for Trump and if I say something wrong please point me out on it (I'm sure you will lol):
> 
> He actually had a plan for education. Hillary literally had no plan for elementary ed on her site besides something like "we need to invest in public schools". Well.... what type of investing? And people make fun of Trump for not having specifics?
> 
> He doesn't want to let thousands of refugees into this country when we have minorities in the inner city who live day to day. These kids go to school hungry, their schools have almost no funding, and despite the work of the teachers it will never be enough to protect them from the "hood" so to speak.
> 
> Is that so ridiculous? The only way I can see myself voting against him in 4 years is if teachers get a big paycut or something insane but that really depends on the district. He's doing everything he said he was going to do and I think some people just need to try and see that the other side isn't so evil after all.


Yes Sanders was beating Trump. Sanders already explained the whole socialism thing debates. Sanders would have destroyed Trump in the debates since Sanders would have stuck to the issues.

One of the major reason Trump won is because a good number of sanders supporters voted for Stein and some even Trump, and a lot did not even bother to vote. Sanders would have landslide Trump.

Behind the scenes meaning, they are helping the middle and lower class but do not point it out they just do it and that is the democrats biggest problem. Trump flaunts any little thing he does, the democrats never did that to show how they are helping the American people.

Warren wants to help you way more than Trump does, Trump just lies to you and pretends he wants to help then stabs you in the back. All Trump is doing is going to help the rich and fuck over the middle class and poor. If you want to be ignorant to that be my guest.

Trump has a plan for education? You have to be kidding me. Trump wants to kill public education, that is why he put an unqualified idiot like DeVos in charge. Yeah his plan is to ruin public education. 

Trump is going to funnel tax payer money away from public schools into private ones. 

What is Trump exacting doing for those inner city kids that are hungry. He is not doing shit, when ever he talks about the inner city he has always condescending and talking about how crime ridden they are. They at his press conference he gets asked a serious question by a reporter about working with the CBC and he says well will you set up the meeting for me. When he is the president and that is his job to do so or have someone on his staff do it.

Don't act like Trump gives a shit about public school or the inner cities. All Trump has done so far is help his rich buddies.

How is Trump sides not "evil"? Just look at all the shit they are doing with the environment, and who he is putting into power. You think it's ok for coal miners to put coal dust into water streams polluting them?

Then him killing Obamacare which is going totally fuck over the middle class, lower class, people with pre-existing conditions, and will give some of the richest people in the country a 7 million dollar tax break.

Unless Trump puts in a singer pay option, or keeps Obamacare but also gives another option, his plan will be a disaster and it will go back to like it was under Bush which was shit


----------



## birthday_massacre

RipNTear said:


> Speaking of education plans, Betsy came out in support of magnet schools as well. If that works out like they're saying it is, I'll be the happiest man in America because fuck public schools. Children have unique talents and unique interests and they deserve education specific to those talents.
> 
> :banderas
> 
> The government finally accepting that people should have a choice with regards to where they want to send their kids to school. Those of us who are better parents than those who make shit life decisions reserve the right to be able to continue to give their kids better opportunities so they are not forced through an assembly line system which corrodes natural talent to a degree where some really promising kids could end up in things like feminist dance therapy.
> 
> Considering the quality of discourse from our foreigner friends across the globe, the socialist ideology is clearly a failed system of "education".


Kids already have a choice where to go. Tax payer money should not be going to charter schools at the expense of public schools losing that money. but of course you are ok with hand outs for those schools aren't you. You claim public schools are so bad so you think by taking money away from public schools to give it to charter schools is going to help public schools improve?


She is also against enforcing laws to protect kids with disabilities. but yeah who cares about them right?


----------



## Smarkout

birthday_massacre said:


> Kids already have a choice where to go. Tax payer money should not be going to private/charter schools. but of course you are ok with hand outs for those schools aren't you.
> 
> She is also against enforcing laws to protect kids with disabilities. but yeah who cares about them right?


The teachers employed in public schools aren't the problem, it's more about how they have no freedom to actually work with the kids due to state testing. I went to public schools all my life and I have nothing negative to say about it besides the fact that we don't engage these kids enough early on to make them care. 

I would love to see how your opinion would change if you ever worked with some of the kids in the inner city. Absolutely wonderful kids who break your heart because you know 95% of these kids have no shot in life. They are going to an awful school, living in an awful environment, surrounded by awful people, and DeVos thinks MAYBE, just MAYBE having more competition among schools will provide more support to those kids. 

Public schools like the one I went to or the one I work at now aren't going to be hurt because they are GOOD schools, but schools in the inner city that are terrible will lose students (and rightfully so).


----------



## rennlc

Beatles123 said:


> To what end? Liberalism? Nah.


No, I want more than some made-up set of presumptions called, "liberalism." I want an end where people think, reason, problem-solve, and take actions that will actually help themselves and other people.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Smarkout said:


> The teachers employed in public schools aren't the problem, it's more about how they have no freedom to actually work with the kids due to state testing. I went to public schools all my life and I have nothing negative to say about it besides the fact that we don't engage these kids enough early on to make them care.
> 
> I would love to see how your opinion would change if you ever worked with some of the kids in the inner city. Absolutely wonderful kids who break your heart because you know 95% of these kids have no shot in life. They are going to an awful school, living in an awful environment, surrounded by awful people, and DeVos thinks MAYBE, just MAYBE having more competition among schools will provide more support to those kids.
> 
> Public schools like the one I went to or the one I work at now aren't going to be hurt because they are GOOD schools, but schools in the inner city that are terrible will lose students (and rightfully so).



How do you expect to make public schools better if you are taking away tax payer money from them to give to charter schools which have no regulations or standards? Let's not act like charter schools are all that, they have their issues too.

Instead of making a new charter school that some kids can go to, why not pour more money into improving the current public schools, instead of taking away money from the public school which will hurt them even more and give to to more charter schools. We dont need more choices we just need to fix the choices we have because sure some kids will get to go to those charter schools but how does that help the kids stuck at the public schools that now have less money because those tax payer dollars are going to new charter schools? It's just going to make those schools even worse off and screw over all the kids stuck at that school. You dont think a better idea is to make that school better instead of handicapping it by taking away money from it?

My city just had a vote to either add more charter schools or not. why not let every city put it to a vote and the cities that want more choice can get them and the ones that don't won't. So if a city wants to vote on adding more charter schools for its kids then great add them then, but let the voters of that city decide. 

But there has to be a better way of adding new charter schools than taking away money from other public schools that need more money not less to fix them 


More choice isn't a good solution, making what we have better is a much better one.

And sure maybe I am biased since in my city we have a ton of choice, we have a public school, two vocational schools (a town over) we can choose from nearby, and one of the top charter schools in the state, plus a number of catholc schools to choose from, on in my city and a couple of others in nearby cities.

I do think its funny though how some people in this thread are all about hand outs for charter schools but bash free state college. so ironic.

I would be fine with more charter schools if it was not taking away money from public schools. Just cut spending in the budge and give that money to both charter schools and public schools to better them and eveyone would win.


----------



## Smarkout

birthday_massacre said:


> How do you expect to make public schools better if you are taking away tax payer money from them to give to charter schools which have no regulations or standards? Let's not act like charter schools are all that, they have their issues too.
> 
> Instead of making a new charter school that some kids can go to, *why not pour more money into improving the current public schools, instead of taking away money from the public school* which will hurt them even more and give to to more charter schools. We dont need more choices we just need to fix the choices we have because sure some kids will get to go to those charter schools but how does that help the kids stuck at the public schools that now have less money because those tax payer dollars are going to new charter schools?
> 
> *My city just had a vote to either add more charter schools or not. why not let every city put it to a vote and the cities that want more choice can get them and the ones that don't won't.*
> 
> More choice isn't a good solution, making what we have better is a much better one.


Pouring money into them won't change all the state testing and whatnot though. If we change the guidelines on what we have to teach the kids at public schools you'll see meaningful change. 

I also don't mind if cities put it to a vote, I would be absolutely fine with that. 

You make some good points, I just don't trust the Democrats with education after what they did the last 8 years which was really nothing.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Smarkout said:


> Pouring money into them won't change all the state testing and whatnot though. If we change the guidelines on what we have to teach the kids at public schools you'll see meaningful change.
> 
> I also don't mind if cities put it to a vote, I would be absolutely fine with that.
> 
> You make some good points, I just don't trust the Democrats with education after what they did the last 8 years which was really nothing.


How do you trust DeVos? She does not even have the basic concepts of education down like measuring proficiency vs growth.

There is a lot to fix in public education but Devos was not the answer.


----------



## Smarkout

birthday_massacre said:


> How do you trust DeVos? She does not even have the basic concepts of education down like measuring proficiency vs growth.
> 
> There is a lot of fix in public education but Devos was not the answer.


You could certainly be right, but at this point I am willing to wait and see. 

Trust me I'll be the first one to say something when she affects the kids or me in a negative way, but stopping her from entering a school isn't helping anybody.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Smarkout said:


> You could certainly be right, but at this point I am willing to wait and see.
> 
> Trust me I'll be the first one to say something when she affects the kids or me in a negative way, but stopping her from entering a school isn't helping anybody.


Protesting her in front of the school, I don't have an issue with but I agree they should not be blocking her from entering. Preventing her from going into the school just makes those people a bully and then makes her a victim which hurts their cause.

Good to find common ground on this. I think the best bet would be if a city or town wants a new charter school, let that city have a special vote and if more people vote to add a charter school then they get one. Tax payers of a city should get to say where their tax payer dollars go to.

i am all for adding charter schools as long as its not hurting or taking funding away from public schools.


----------



## MillionDollarProns

yeahbaby! said:


> Quite a convenient technique Trump and his diehards have latched on to:
> 
> 1. Drone on and on about news outlets being fake media, being unfair, over and over and over
> 2. Label anything negative on Trump 'fake news' instantly.
> 
> THe followers swallow it down


Man I'd agree, but I can't even tell what's news anymore. Like when they announced Burger King was selling sex toys, but then you read the fine print and it's like but only at this one Burger King Night Club in Amsterdam. At this point the only thing I really believe is that Elder Vampires have completely taken over the mainstream and indie media.




Alkomesh2 said:


> How do WF feel about Bill Gate's idea of taxing robots?


I don't think it's ever a good idea to tax emergent technologies because it makes companies and organizations less likely to embrace them or develop them. I also believe that automation is a good thing and we should embrace it with open arms. The problem is, people think "robots are going to take our jobs" but what they really should be thinking is "eventually we will live like kings because robots will be the ones mining our coal until they take over the galaxy like fucking Dune"



birthday_massacre said:


> Kids already have a choice where to go. Tax payer money should not be going to charter schools at the expense of public schools losing that money. but of course you are ok with hand outs for those schools aren't you. You claim public schools are so bad so you think by taking money away from public schools to give it to charter schools is going to help public schools improve?


I'm very biased when it comes to this issue because I went through public schooling through for the first half of my K-12 and then charter schooling through the rest. Charter schools do a lot more for students and families while receiving less per-pupil funding. My family had a lot more say in my education at charter than in public, and I was free to explore subjects I had a personal interest in while doing the required curriculum. I was also given a schedule and curriculum that matched my personal goals.

Also, the idea that charter schools take money from public schools is up for debate. And even if it weren't, I feel public schooling is an inferior system and am fine with it being tanked.


----------



## birthday_massacre

MillionDollarProns said:


> *Also, the idea that charter schools take money from public schools is up for debate. And even if it weren't, I feel public schooling is an inferior system and am fine with it being tanked*.


Like I said, as long as they are not taking spending away from public schools to fund new charter schools then I am all for it. Also like I said, just let each state or city vote for what they want to do, if they want to expand charter schools or not. 

There are also a lot of charter schools that don't work, so don't act like its only public schools that have this problem. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-with-charter-schools/?utm_term=.6c239ddb879b

There are pros and cons to both public and charter schools. What needs to happen is to fix the issues with both to make both options a good choice.


----------



## rennlc

"We're going to make SNL great again." - Donald Trump

He has.


----------



## stevefox1200

I went to public school and I would say as a tool to gauge your interests and open your mind to personal study public schools are fine

but then my family always pushed education, my crayon drawings were Mario Bros and US revolutionary war battle with horribly drawn movie poster heads of Washington and Cornwallis above their respective sides (trying to understand that both sides in the Civil war were America almost crippled my young mind), you can thank PBS and a grandmother who did historical reenactment

As a one and done source of "all I need to ever know" education public school is fucking awful and unfortunately many kids (an their parents) have the mindset that school is the only source of education they will ever need 

Even if your public school sucks, if you care you will find a way to educate yourself but if you don't care no school will stop you from being as dumb as a post


----------



## birthday_massacre

stevefox1200 said:


> I went to public school and I would say as a tool to gauge your interests and open your mind to personal study public schools are fine
> 
> but then my family always pushed education, my crayon drawings were Mario Bros and US revolutionary war battle with horribly drawn movie poster heads of Washington and Cornwallis above their respective sides (trying to understand that both sides in the Civil war were America almost crippled my young mind), you can thank PBS and a grandmother who did historical reenactment
> 
> As a one and done source of "all I need to ever know" education public school is fucking awful and unfortunately many kids (an their parents) have the mindset that school is the only source of education they will ever need
> 
> Even if your public school sucks, if you care you will find a way to educate yourself but if you don't care no school will stop you from being as dumb as a post


In this day IMO kids are way better off going to a trade school and learning a skill like electrician, plumber, carpenter, etc etc. because we are always going to need plenty of them. Just having a HS diploma and/or a college degree is pretty worthless these days.


----------



## rennlc

birthday_massacre said:


> In this day IMO kids are way better off going to a trade school and learning a skill like electrician, plumber, carpenter, etc etc. because we are always going to need plenty of them. Just having a HS diploma and/or a college degree is pretty worthless these days.


If people aren't going to pursue a personal education in their free time, this is one of the worst things we could do. We need greater critical thinking skills now more than ever. If we're going to rely on schools for providing us with practice for thinking critically on morally complex and ambiguous topics, we should do anything but focus on a trade skill during school.


----------



## Smarkout

birthday_massacre said:


> In this day IMO kids are way better off going to a trade school and learning a skill like electrician, plumber, carpenter, etc etc. because we are always going to need plenty of them. Just having a HS diploma and/or a college degree is pretty worthless these days.


But I think that is currently the problem with public schools BM. There are kids who show slight interest in these things at a very young age (maybe they're hands on) but we can never gauge that interest until they're 18. Public schooling needs an overhaul in a major way.


----------



## Miss Sally

Public schools are massive indoctrination centers led by underqualified and politically biased faculty who demand more money for no real improvement and get angry at students excelling via other avenues of learning. 

Maybe if the money wasn't frivolously spent there could be more teachers and better learning.

Maybe they wouldn't be overworked if political policies they supported didn't mean tons and tons of children using the Public system and overburdening it.

Maybe if public schools got paid for positive results instead of failing they would have motivation to actually teach better.

Maybe if they spent more time focusing on the kids instead of what benefits their union, they'd not be trying to take away methods for children trying to learn.

Maybe they should focus on teaching facts instead of outrage, feelings and identity politics. Not sure why many schools focus on what to think instead of how to think, that's their actual job. 

Frankly charter schools doing better and lighting a fire under the ass of these teachers would be a good thing. Cannot use the go to everything is someone else's fault or some sort of oppression scheme. 

Parents need to have a choice because this money grubbing Public school system isn't working. When are people going to realize pumping money into something ran by corrupt or uncaring people will not give positive results?


----------



## stevefox1200

birthday_massacre said:


> In this day IMO kids are way better off going to a trade school and learning a skill like electrician, plumber, carpenter, etc etc. because we are always going to need plenty of them. Just having a HS diploma and/or a college degree is pretty worthless these days.


I feel personally that a general education should be seen as valuable

I hated seeing kids in highschool with a "I'll drop out and make tons of money as a wielder" attitude

We as a society have reached the point that the everyone can have a general education that goes beyond a basic "What I need to fit into my role in society" and to roll it back to what is purely "practical" would be a massive loss

It reminds of the USSR where you given a massive amount of education purely on what your role in the "collective" would be and any knowledge outside of that was "dangerous" and "only the greedy would strive to know more than they need"

In my mind education starts with your parents

If they raise you value it, you will become educated 

If they raise you to think its a waste of time and you should just sell drugs than the best private school in the world would not save you


----------



## rennlc

In America, we don't value personal growth as much as we should. If hit our mark only because we aimed low, we failed.


----------



## Miss Sally

rennlc said:


> If people aren't going to pursue a personal education in their free time, this is one of the worst things we could do. We need greater critical thinking skills now more than ever. If we're going to rely on schools for providing us with practice for thinking critically on morally complex and ambiguous topics, we should do anything but focus on a trade skill during school.


What critical thinking? We're already seeing a plethora amount of students getting garbage useless degrees, people trying to force STIM subjects to be "inclusive" over merit. Critical thinking would be good if they allowed it rather than pushing this PC narrative over fact. We need more scientists, doctors, engineers and the whole lot but we won't get them with this identity politicing crap that's going on.

BM is right, not everyone is cut out for hardcore stuff but pushing more trade school for people who aren't interested or not qualified to do hardcore subjects is a good thing. People should have many avenues of education, including trade schools. We need it all.


----------



## stevefox1200

rennlc said:


> In America, we don't value personal growth as much as we should. If hit our mark only because we aimed low, we failed.


When I was in highschool I was asked if I wanted to join the basketball team 

I said no because I am a clumsy motherfucker and a white guy who can't jump

I was told that "it was ok because you don't have to try out and they will just put you on the team"

I still said no because I am a clumsy motherfucker and a white guy who can't jump and I don't want to make the team worse just so I can be on it


----------



## rennlc

Miss Sally said:


> What critical thinking? We're already seeing a plethora amount of students getting garbage useless degrees, people trying to force STIM subjects to be "inclusive" over merit. Critical thinking would be good if they allowed it rather than pushing this PC narrative over fact. We need more scientists, doctors, engineers and the whole lot but we won't get them with this identity politicing crap that's going on.
> 
> BM is right, not everyone is cut out for hardcore stuff but pushing more trade school for people who aren't interested or not qualified to do hardcore subjects is a good thing. People should have many avenues of education, including trade schools. We need it all.


The critical thinking we aren't using when we elect someone like Trump, value interpretations of the Bible over what's strongly supported in science, take our many assumptions as certain fact, etc. There probably aren't any useless degrees that promote critical thinking - only bad uses of degrees that promote critical thinking.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Is education really that bad in America right now? It's still a first world country right? I know there's a big poverty problem that's existed forever but it's still not the USSR in the Cold War where kids need to do 3 units of 'Salt Mine' work every day is it?

Jesus Christ not every damn school is a left wing PC factory. There is plenty of merit in teaching traditional subjects - it teaches kids an appreciation for concepts they haven't been exposed to before. That there is more outside their world, and provides inspiration to get out of their bubble and explore it. How to research and engage scientific method, think for yourself and weigh up pros and cons. Just because some loud opponents latch on to story after story in anti-PC sites, talkback radio, and YT commentators screaming incessantly how leftism is taking over the world causing the sky to fall in doesn't make it so in the wider real world.

There are plenty of young people who are more than capable of thinking for themselves, who maybe even can survive being swept away by the apparent left wing PC tidal wave which is swallowing everything up. Give them some more credit. For every extreme OTT group of kids yelling about Milo Yannopwhathisface - there is a group ten times as large who don't give a fuck because they need to get their assignments in on time.


----------



## Beatles123

Common Core can die.


----------



## Beatles123

birthday_massacre said:


> She is also against enforcing laws to protect kids with disabilities. but yeah who cares about them right?


Uh, yeah, To be fare fam, you libs never cared about us either. Well, at least not since 1935! iper1 

Your shitty Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, which you guys drew up, isn't worth our crippled spit. Sorry to tell you! Oh, wait...no I'm not, because it's shit. :trump3


----------



## Smarkout

Miss Sally said:


> Public schools are massive indoctrination centers* led by underqualified and politically biased faculty who demand more money for no real improvement and get angry at students excelling via other avenues of learning. *
> 
> Maybe if the money wasn't frivolously spent there could be more teachers and better learning.
> 
> Maybe they wouldn't be overworked if political policies they supported didn't mean tons and tons of children using the Public system and overburdening it.
> 
> Maybe if public schools got paid for positive results instead of failing they would have motivation to actually teach better.
> 
> *Maybe if they spent more time focusing on the kids instead of what benefits their union, they'd not be trying to take away methods for children trying to learn.*
> 
> Maybe they should focus on teaching facts instead of outrage, feelings and identity politics. Not sure why many schools focus on what to think instead of how to think, that's their actual job.
> 
> Frankly charter schools doing better and lighting a fire under the ass of these teachers would be a good thing. Cannot use the go to everything is someone else's fault or some sort of oppression scheme.
> 
> Parents need to have a choice because this money grubbing Public school system isn't working. When are people going to realize pumping money into something ran by corrupt or uncaring people will not give positive results?



What types of public schools are you talking about? State colleges, high schools, middle schools, elementary schools, or all of them? 

The teachers tend to be the worst at college level in terms of caring about the students. Most of them try to push their agenda instead of actually teaching us. 

But when you bring up unions and how they focus more on unions rather than students I really hope you aren't talking about the teachers. The amount of work they put into trying to teach these kids something is amazing. It's the higher ups that shoot down everybody's requests to try and switch things up. 

I have not met a teacher at the school I work at that does not care about the students (grades K-5). If we gave them more freedom and less restrictions maybe we would begin to see what they can truly do. 

Once again the last thing we should do is pay schools for results, since results will be determined based on where you live. Do we really expect an inner city public school to do as well as a public school in a good neighborhood where most kids come from a good family? So then the "bad" public school loses funding, when it's not the teachers faults. 

Are there bad teachers who are in it for the summers off and not in it for the students? Absolutely, but the majority of teachers in public schools that I've went to/work at actually care about students.


----------



## Beatles123

Smarkout said:


> What types of public schools are you talking about? State colleges, high schools, middle schools, elementary schools, or all of them?
> 
> The teachers tend to be the worst at college level in terms of caring about the students. Most of them try to push their agenda instead of actually teaching us.
> 
> But when you bring up unions and how they focus more on unions rather than students I really hope you aren't talking about the teachers. The amount of work they put into trying to teach these kids something is amazing. It's the higher ups that shoot down everybody's requests to try and switch things up.
> 
> I have not met a teacher at the school I work at that does not care about the students (grades K-5). If we gave them more freedom and less restrictions maybe we would begin to see what they can truly do.
> 
> Once again the last thing we should do is pay schools for results, since results will be determined based on where you live. Do we really expect an inner city public school to do as well as a public school in a good neighborhood where most kids come from a good family? So then the "bad" public school loses funding, when it's not the teachers faults.
> 
> Are there bad teachers who are in it for the summers off and not in it for the students? Absolutely, but the majority of teachers in public schools that I've went to/work at actually care about students.


In my experience the public school i went to in gradeschool was awfully un responsive to those of us that were falling behind. Almost as if we were lost causes and they just gave up.

There was one kid, poor guy, could barely spell at all. Did the teachers help him? Nope. He became a literal meme in the classroom simply because he couldn't grasp what the rest of us were grasping. It wasn't as if they were even using it as a motivational tool. They just laughed at him for being dumb and would yell at him when he didn't understand what they were teaching. :shrug


----------



## Barack Lesnar

So closing in on one month in office, do I get to sing the "I told you so" song yet?


----------



## Smarkout

Beatles123 said:


> In my experience the public school i went to in gradeschool was awfully un responsive to those of us that were falling behind. Almost as if we were lost causes and they just gave up.
> 
> There was one kid, poor guy, could barely spell at all. Did the teachers help him? Nope. He became a literal meme in the classroom simply because he couldn't grasp what the rest of us were grasping. It wasn't as if they were even using it as a motivational tool. They just laughed at him for being dumb and would yell at him when he didn't understand what they were teaching. :shrug


That sucks and I am sorry you had to go through that and. My experiences growing up were a bit different and is probably the reason why I am going to school for teaching now. 

But that is only one negative thing you said about it (I am sure there are more). 

My experience is that for kids that are falling behind it is awfully tough for teachers to go back and reteach them because of.... STATE TESTS. Nowadays kids get pulled out for roughly 40 minutes every day if they have an area they are struggling with and they will work with a specialty teacher along with 4-5 other kids. 

We also don't have all the information for that student either but if his parents weren't very involved it would explain why he was having such difficulty. 

Realistically how do you expect a teacher to get a child caught up when they have 25 other kids to teach AND the kid get pulled out every day for 40 minutes a day AND the parents simply don't care? It's not as easy as you think.


----------



## DOPA

@DesolationRow @BruiserKC @CamillePunk @Miss Sally @RipNTear @Goku @Alco @samizayn @Vic Capri @AryaDark @Pratchett

Glad the thread has moved back to the topic of education as I was going to make a post on it anyway. There is some real interesting historical context in terms of education and especially the Department of Education. To gauge a better understanding of the situation, I really want to delve into the history of the US education system as well as bring up some key points: https://www.downsizinggovernment.org/education/timeline-growth



> 1787: The Northwest Ordinance provides grants of federal land for the establishment of educational institutions.
> 1862: The Morrill Act provides grants of land to the states, which may be sold and the proceeds used to fund colleges that focus on agricultural and mechanical studies. However, "many states squandered the revenue from this endowment," according to a National Archives report.
> 1867: Congress appropriates $15,000 for the creation of a Department of Education largely in response to lobbying by the National Teachers Association, which later became the National Education Association. The department, which has four employees, acts as a clearing house of data for educators and policymakers.
> 1868: After a bitter fight over federal encroachment in education, Congress downgrades the new department to an Office of Education within the Department of Interior. Education did not regain its separate departmental status until 1979.
> 1890: A second Morrill Act empowers the Office of Education to provide regular funding of the land-grant colleges.
> 1907: The Morrill Acts are amended to add federal funding for vocational education.
> 1911: The State Marine School Act authorizes funding of nautical schools in 11 specified cities.
> 1917: The Smith-Hughes Act funds vocational schools. The Act imposes a range of detailed federal rules on recipient institutions, which is an early precedent of today's flood of top-down regulations on the nation's schools.
> 1930s: The New Deal funds an array of educational activities including school construction and repairs, the hiring of teachers, loans to school districts, and grants to rural schools. These programs create precedents for later permanent education subsidies.
> 1939: The Office of Education is moved to the new Federal Security Agency.
> 1941: Amendments to the Lanham Act of 1940 provide temporary "impact aid" to school districts that host federal defense facilities.
> 1944: The Servicemen's Readjustment Act—the G.I. Bill—is enacted to pay for education costs of World War II veterans. The bill is widely supported, but like most subsidy programs, oversight is poor and there is substantial waste and abuse. A 1951 General Accounting Office report found that substantial G.I. Bill funding is going toward frivolous activities, such as courses on hobby photography.4 Some schools respond to the G.I. Bill by increasing their tuition for veterans, which allow the schools to effectively pocket the subsidies, while other schools resort to outright fraud to garner benefits.
> 1946: The George Barden Act expands vocational education subsidies.
> 1950: Congress approves permanent impact aid for school districts that have a large presence of federal facilities. In the first year, the government distributes $30 million to 1,172 school districts. By 1978, it is disbursing $775 million annually to 4,368 school districts.5
> 1953: The Office of Education is moved to the new Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
> 1956: The Library Services Act provides grants to the states for rural public libraries.
> 1957: The Practical Nurse Training Act provides grants to the states for nurse training.
> 1958: The National Defense Education Act is passed in response to the Soviet Union's launch of Sputnik. The Act funds higher education loans, vocational teacher training, and various courses in the K–12 schools.
> 1963: A series of laws expands federal subsidies for the health professions, vocational education, and higher education facilities.
> 1964: The Civil Rights Act authorizes the federal government to aid schools and higher education institutions to deal with problems related to desegregation.
> 1965: The Office of Education has 2,113 employees and a budget of $1.5 billion.
> 1965: The Elementary and Secondary Education Act creates a huge increase in federal education spending and regulations. The legislation's Title I is supposed to provide aid to K–12 schools in high-poverty areas, but by the end of the 1960s it is providing aid to 60 percent of the nation's school districts. Today, Title I is the largest federal subsidy program for K–12 education. In addition to Title I, the 1965 act creates subsidies for teacher training, educational research, school libraries, textbooks, student literacy, school technology, school safety, and other items. It also beefs up state-level school bureaucracies directly with "grants to strengthen state departments of education."
> 1965: The Higher Education Act is the basis for many of today's postsecondary education subsidies, including student loan and grant programs, college library aid, teacher training programs and fellowships, and many other subsidies.
> 1966: A series of laws creates new subsidies for international studies, adult education, and marine resources education.
> 1972: Amendments to the 1965 education laws add a slew of new subsidy programs for K–12 and higher education, and they create new education bureaus, institutes, and councils. In addition, Title IX is added, which bars gender discrimination in colleges and universities, but generates large bureaucracies of lawyers to administer, enforce, and litigate the complex rules.
> 1975: The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act requires states to ensure free public education to all disabled students, and it spells out the services that school districts are required to provide. The law generates a great deal of legal and bureaucratic activities stemming from battles between parents and schools over whether federal mandates are being met. Today, special education is the second largest federal K–12 program.
> 1976: Presidential candidate Jimmy Carter promises to create a Department of Education, and he is endorsed by the National Education Association. This is first time that the NEA has endorsed a presidential candidate in more than a century of existence.
> 1979: After much opposition, Congress narrowly passes legislation to split off a new Department of Education from the existing Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. The NEA and the American Federation of Teachers provide powerful lobbying support for the creation of the new department. The Department of Education begins operations in 1980 with 6,400 employees.
> 1980: When campaigning for president, Ronald Reagan calls the Department of Education "President Carter's new bureaucratic boondoggle" and promises to abolish it.
> 1981: Reagan's first budget consolidates some education grants into broader block grants and restrains education spending.
> 1982: Reagan crafts a proposal to eliminate the Department of Education, but it goes nowhere on Capitol Hill.
> 1983: A blue-ribbon commission releases the influential report A Nation at Risk, which sharply criticizes the mediocre state of the public schools. The report sets back Reagan's efforts to eliminate the Department of Education and reduce federal intervention in education.
> 1984: The Education for Economic Security Act funds new science and math programs at the K–12 and postsecondary levels.
> 1986: The Drug-Free Schools Act funds various anti-drug initiatives.
> 1990: Reversing Reagan's decentralization efforts, President George H. W. Bush pushes for the creation of "national goals" for the K–-12 schools. Increasingly, the federal government is not just funding education, but trying to micromanage it.
> 1991: A Senate investigation finds that federal student loan programs are "plagued with fraud and abuse at every level," costing taxpayers billions of dollars.9 The investigation accuses the Department of Education of "gross mismanagement, ineptitude, and neglect."10 Annual losses from student loan programs rose from $448 million in 1983 to $2.7 billion in 1990.
> 1993: The Student Loan Reform Act creates federal direct lending for student loans as an alternative to subsidized private loans.
> 1994: The Department of Education admits that it is losing between $3 billion and $4 billion annually to waste, fraud, and loan defaults in its college aid programs. Education Secretary Richard Riley calls the department's financial management "worse than lax."11 One problem is that the department wires billions of dollars each year to obscure trade schools based on undocumented claims about how many students are enrolled on federal scholarships.
> 1994: President Bill Clinton signs into law the Goals 2000: Educate America Act to promote "national education goals," building on ideas proposed by President Bush. Clinton also signs into law the Improving America's Schools Act, which requires states to develop federally approved education plans coordinated with Goals 2000 and to adopt a system of tests to ensure that students make yearly progress. If states do not comply with these and other mandates, they will lose federal subsidies.
> 1996: As in 1980, the Republican Party platform in 1996 includes the promise to abolish the Department of Education. However, the party's presidential candidate, Bob Dole, is a poor salesman for such limited-government reforms.
> 1997: The Taxpayer Relief Act creates various federal income tax credits for education. Today, there are 16 special income tax breaks for education, including breaks for college expenses, education facility bonds, and teachers' classroom expenses.
> 1998: The Reading Excellence Act funds reading classes as well as efforts to reduce classroom sizes in the elementary schools.
> 2000: Congress creates new subsidy programs to pay for school repairs and renovation.
> 2001: The GAO reports that there are $22 billion of student loans in default.
> 2002: A major fraud operation is uncovered in the Department of Education. A career employee forged more than $600,000 of false overtime claims and steals hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of the department's electronics equipment.
> 2002: The No Child Left Behind Act is signed into law by President George W. Bush. It is 650 pages in length and represents a major new federal thrust into the classroom.14 The law triggers a huge expansion in the department's K–12 spending: from $20 billion in 2000 to $37 billion by 2005.15 State officials complain bitterly about the onerous regulations of No Child Left Behind related to such items as student testing, teacher qualifications, Spanish language tests, and after-school tutoring.
> 2005: Federal student loan fraud continues at high levels. In one case, owners of a company called the CSC Institute steal $4.3 million of the $13 million it receives in Pell grants.
> 2007: The America Competes Act creates a range of new science, engineering, and math education programs.
> 2008: Department of Education spending of $68 billion is more than double the level in 2000 of $33 billion.
> 2009: The economic stimulus bill showers college students and state and local governments with $45 billion in extra education funding.


As we see with the timeline as often said, the US except for a brief period (which we will come to), did not have a Department of Education for almost 200 years. As has been shown by me in my previous post on education since the forming of the DOE in 1979 overall education standards have stagnated and have not improved despite several increases in expenditure. There are some real key notes here which need to be repeated:

* 1991: A Senate investigation finds that federal student loan programs are *"plagued with fraud and abuse at every level,"* costing taxpayers billions of dollars. The investigation *accuses the Department of Education of "gross mismanagement, ineptitude, and neglect."*

* 1994: The Department of Education admits that it is *losing between $3 billion and $4 billion annually to waste, fraud, and loan defaults in its college aid programs*. Education Secretary Richard Riley calls the department's financial management *"worse than lax."* One problem is that the *department wires billions of dollars each year to obscure trade schools based on undocumented claims about how many students are enrolled on federal scholarships.*

* 2001: The GAO reports that there are *$22 billion of student loans in default.*

* 2002: A major fraud operation is uncovered in the Department of Education. A career employee *forged more than $600,000 of false overtime claims and steals hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of the department's electronics equipment. Annual losses from student loan programs rose from $448 million in 1983 to $2.7 billion in 1990.*

* 2002: The No Child Left Behind Act is signed into law by President George W. Bush. It is *650 pages in length* and represents a major new federal thrust into the classroom.14 The law triggers a huge expansion in the department's K–12 spending: from *$20 billion in 2000 to $37 billion by 2005.* State officials complain bitterly about the onerous regulations of No Child Left Behind related to such items as student testing, teacher qualifications, Spanish language tests, and after-school tutoring.

* 2005: Federal student loan fraud continues at high levels. In one case, owners of a company called the *CSC Institute steal $4.3 million of the $13 million it receives in Pell grants.*

* 2008: Department of Education spending of *$68 billion is more than double the level in 2000 of $33 billion.*

* 2009: The economic stimulus bill showers college students and state and local governments with *$45 billion in extra education funding.*


There are a few notable consistencies which prop up again and again during this time period:

- Since the establishment of the Department of Education there has been an on going student loan debt crisis which continues to get worse and worse. The bureaucracy of the Department has opened up student loans to huge fraud and abuse, on this issue the Federal government has been riddled with scandals. It is bad enough that the DOE has been a vehicle for more public debt but it's even worse than that because of the gross mismanagement and neglect government bureaucrats have shown in dealing with this issue for decades; whether Republican or Democrat.

- Student loans isn't the only area where the Department of Education has suffered from wasteful spending, fraud and abuse. In many ways it has shown not only government has been incredibly inefficient but has done harm to the progression of education due to how bureaucratic the system is.

- Recently federal spending has dramatically increased more than doubling with little to no effect on education outcomes.

I'll get to what I would do knowing these facts but first I want to share with you some history about the brief period of the first Department of Education because it is truly fascinating stuff. There are also some key insights at the end of this article:



> When Washington’s education bureaucracy comes under political attack, it’s common to pin responsibility for its existence on Jimmy Carter. He signed legislation to establish the Department of Education in 1979, and critics note that this imposed a new department on a country that had gotten along quite well without one for more than 200 years.
> 
> But that’s not quite true. It wasn’t Jimmy Carter who launched the first Department of Education: it was Andrew Johnson, and the year was 1867. The department was small, ambitious and astonishingly short-lived. Congress abolished it and demoted its reformist chief just a year later.
> 
> The Reconstruction Era was different in many ways, and the department got caught in the toxic racial politics of the day. But at a deeper level the demolition of the original DOE was not a random act of political pique. In fact, the department fell victim to an argument that had started long before Johnson and which we’re still having today: What’s the federal government’s role in our schools? Should it be meddling at all?
> 
> America has never been able to answer this question decisively. As a result, our national politics have been especially rancorous when it comes to education. Small policy matters tend to blow up into great philosophical disputes on the nature of government; national bipartisan reforms quickly become political flash points. The issues that inspired the first Education Department didn’t go away, but more than a century would pass before another president would try the same thing.
> 
> As Congress tries to rewrite the No Child Left Behind law this fall, and presidential candidates turn broad-based ideas like accountability and Common Core into highly politicized stump issues, it may seem education is just another punching bag for 2015’s partisan warriors. It’s not. These arguments were all simmering in the America of the 1860s. The story of the first DOE helps show why they’ve been so hard to escape.
> 
> EDUCATION WAS CENTRAL to the American story from the start. For the most part, the Founders were pro-education. “[N]othing is of more importance for the public weal, than to form and train up youth in wisdom and virtue,” said Benjamin Franklin. The young nation’s experiment in democratic self-government depended on citizens with the sense to direct their own affairs and to select good leaders. Widespread education “is favorable to liberty,” said Benjamin Rush. “Without learning, men become savages or barbarians, and where learning is confined to a few people, we always find monarchy, aristocracy and slavery.”
> 
> But that didn’t mean the founders were pro-federal education. Churches and towns had been running schools since the earliest European settlers landed in North America. At a time in world history when public education was a rarity, some American settlements actually required it. Massachusetts’ Old Deluder Satan Act of 1642, for example, directed “every township in this jurisdiction, after the Lord hath increased them to 50 households, shall forthwith appoint one within their town to teach all such children as shall resort to him to write and read, whose wages shall be paid either by the parents or masters of such children, or by the inhabitants in general.” (The remarkable name of the act was a reference to education’s power to counter the devil, who wants humans illiterate and unable to read God’s directions in the Bible.)
> 
> Though American leaders wanted a nation of virtuous, informed citizens, almost nobody saw educating them as the federal government’s job. The Constitution didn’t authorize the federal government to make schools policy. It is not among the enumerated powers in Article I section 8, and the 10th Amendment reserves powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution to the states and the people. For most of the nation’s history, Congress intervened in education only in specific, narrow ways justified by an explicit constitutional provision. The various acts to settle the West almost inevitably required land to be set aside for public schools; Congress had also authorized schools when it chartered the District of Columbia’s government in 1804. (While U.S. president, Thomas Jefferson also was the president of the D.C. school board). The federal government later funded and set up schools on American Indian reservations.
> 
> In the early 19th century, the nation’s first major education-reform movement took off. These “common school” reformers sought to professionalize education, which struck them as too often ad hoc and shoddy. They advocated schooling for all children via government school systems with university-educated schoolmen at the top and teachers trained in the latest pedagogical methods. Children would be improved by learning to read, write and perform basic math; and their character would be bettered by moral instruction. The nation as a whole would benefit through the spread of upright, hygienic youth prepared to find work (boys) and run orderly households (girls).
> 
> When he arrived in D.C. in 1867, Henry Barnard was the nation’s most famous living education reformer. (Horace Mann, the movement’s iconic figure, had died eight years earlier.) Barnard was a wunderkind who graduated Yale with academic honors at age 20; he was appointed schoolmaster of an academy, then served in the Connecticut Legislature. His bill to establish a state school board became law in 1838, and he was seated on it. That same year, he traveled to Washington to ask what national schooling statistics were available. “Not many” was the response. He persuaded the Census Office to include questions on education. He did all this before age 30, and went on to lead the nascent Rhode Island school system, start a teachers training school and publish the American Journal of Education.
> 
> He was an obvious choice for first commissioner of the Department of Education. The idea was the brainchild of Rep. James Garfield, R-Ohio, and other congressmen from northern states who, in the wake of the Civil War, were distressed by widespread illiteracy and the sorry state of many schools.
> 
> President Andrew Johnson signed the Department of Education Act in 1867 reluctantly, after he had been assured it was harmless. It was a meek agency. Congress authorized it to have just four employees – besides Commissioner Barnard, there were three clerks – and limited its powers to “collecting such statistics and facts as shall show the condition and progress of education in the United States.” The DOE also was to publish useful information on the “organization and operation” of school systems and “promote the case of education throughout the country.”
> 
> Even with these limits, many in Congress hated the Department. They saw its existence as an unconstitutional power grab and worried that its data-gathering authority gave Washington a new and dangerous kind of leverage. Rep. Andrew Rogers (D-N.J.) declared: “I am content, sir, to leave this matter of education where our fathers left it, where the history of our country left it, to the schools systems of the different towns, cities and states…[This legislation] proposes to collect such statistics which will give a controlling power over the schools systems of the states.”
> 
> Federal education policy also was a proxy for race politics, which added further fuel. Rep. Garfield and other ardent abolitionists had fought for the department. The Freedmen’s Bureau (established in 1865) had paid northern, Christian missionaries to start schools for blacks in the South. Confederate states, as a condition of readmission to the Union, had to rewrite their constitutions to provide schooling for children, both white and black. The Department of Education would do its part in Reconstruction by tracking the progress to enroll newly emancipated students and increase their literacy rates, and advocating for better schools, all of which struck some in Congress as threatening.
> 
> In 1868, Barnard delivered the first of what would be annual reports to Congress. It had been a busy year. He published a dozen circulars on teacher training, school architecture, education taxes and more. The commissioner requested additional funds. He needed another clerk and he wanted more books and studies that described the school reforms undertaken in Europe. Barnard also wanted the department to publish state education data in cases where state governments lacked funds to do so.
> 
> Instead of backing his ideas, Congress rebuked him. The Department of Education was demoted to an office in the Department of the Interior. To add insult to injury, it also cut Barnard’s salary 25 percent. He got no protection from Johnson, who was generally unsupportive of Reconstruction.
> 
> On March 15, 1870, Henry Barnard resigned as the U.S. commissioner of education. He left Washington and returned to Hartford, Conn., to live out his final 30 years doing what he loved most – studying schooling and advocating for its improvement and expansion to all children. A brief experiment in Washington-driven education reform was over.
> 
> UNTIL THE 1960S, Congress tended to stay within its old constitutional bounds on education issues, jumping them only when the nation imagined it was facing a crisis. The 1917 Smith-Hughes Vocational Education Act was passed due to anxieties over widespread illiteracy, especially among the waves of immigrants who might otherwise be susceptible to the incipient anarchist and communist movements. After the next world war, “as a matter of national security,” Congress passed the 1946 School Lunch Act “to safeguard the health and well-being of the Nation’s children.” The national panic over the Soviet launch of Sputnik, putting the Russians ahead in the space race, inspired Congress to hustle the 1958 National Defense Education Act to the desk of an ambivalent President Dwight Eisenhower. It bolstered high school scientific and foreign-language curricula to build more brainpower to fight the Cold War.
> 
> But in the 1960s, the federal role in schooling expanded dramatically. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act was passed to ameliorate poverty and the destructive effects of segregation. It was the largest education law to date, and its Title I spread federal dollars to nearly every school district in America with low-income students. The ESEA was omnibus legislation. It paid for projectors and technology for classrooms, training and new administrative systems for state education agencies. It even authorized the commissioner to build education-research centers, a power Barnard would have loved to have. Section 604 of the law, of course, forbade “federal control of education.”
> 
> The Department of Education itself didn’t return until the 1970s, when Jimmy Carter claimed the country needed a full-fledged Cabinet department to make federal education programs more efficient and accountable. As in Reconstruction, much of Congress disagreed, and 200 House members voted against the legislation. Critics suggested this was little more than a political payback; Carter was the first presidential candidate endorsed by the National Education Association. Abolishing the department became a plank in Republican presidential platforms for the next 20 years.
> 
> *Today, federal funds are less than 10 percent of elementary and secondary education spending. Localities and states pay the rest. But while federal funding is modest, Washington’s sway is not. Title 20, the corpus of federal education laws, runs more than 1,000 pages. The Department of Education spends $70 billion each year and issues reams of regulations and policy guidance, spelling out in exacting detail what states, localities and schools must do to keep the federal funds flowing. With that leverage, federal education policy has metastasized. The anxiety voiced by Rep. Rogers in 1867 was not unfounded.*
> 
> *No Child Left Behind, signed in 2002, is a case in point. NCLB was a significant retooling of Lyndon Johnson’s landmark education law. The original ESEA, in 1965, was 32 pages long; NCLB is 670 pages.* Its reforms to Title I aimed to remedy the stubborn black-white, rich-poor achievement gap by toughening the conditions of aid to require states to adopt stronger education standards, test students more frequently and demonstrate all children were making “adequate yearly progress.” Schools that failed at these goals would be reorganized, and their students could be freed to attend other public schools. The new requirements had bite, and complaints about “punishing teachers,” “too much testing” and the subsequent rise of Common Core standards erupted from both left and right, with palpable anger about Washington intruding far too much into local schooling.
> 
> The pendulum tends to swing back over time, as the congressional education debates of the past decade have centered on how to reduce federal control of schooling without giving up the goal of educational equity. The Senate overwhelmingly passed a reauthorization of the education law in July, which dials back the federal demands. The House has passed its own bill that reduces the conditions of aid further or, in the words of Education and the Workforce Committee Chairman John Kline (R-Minn.), “helps provide American families the education system they deserve, not the one Washington wants.”
> 
> Perhaps the two chambers will reconcile their differences this autumn and gain President Barack Obama’s signature. If they do, a detente in education policy will set in for a time. But when the argument over education policy restarts, the fight over what business Washington has in the American classroom – an argument Henry Barnard and Andrew Johnson would recognize very well – will start anew.


I have bolded what I think are the important points as far as talking about education today but the article itself is worth reading all the way through. The key points here are firstly that despite the massive increases in spending on the federal level, it is still less than 10% of the funding in schools. What does this mean? Well it means that the state and local areas are more than able to fund and provide education for themselves as again has been shown in the period before the Department of Education was established. Some may argue the opposite and say that it is a call for more spending but spending has increased decade after decade with this department and it has increased dramatically over the last decade and a half to little to no effect. Considering how much debt the US currently is, the student loan debt, social security debt, medicaid debt etc. how much money needs to be spent before you realize money isn't the issue here?

The other real key issue here is the bureaucracy. It has become clear with legislation which has hundreds, sometimes thousands of pages long that the Department of Education has become a monster rippled with fraud, abuse and mismanagement. And the gain isn't nearly worth as much as the cost thus far. Many people on the right, centre and even left recognize for example that the tax code is far too long and complex. The same must be recognized in regards to the legislation and policies of the Department of Education. That needs some serious addressing.

As far as charter schools and spending on public schools are concerned, the evidence thus far though it is not entirely conclusive, shows that on average that public schools for a short period of time do end up spending less money due to the students who move to a new charter school which is only natural because there are less students to educate but on the whole as far as overall spending goes for a lengthy period of time there is not much difference. Not to mention that charter schools and especially private schools have less spending per pupil and are funded less by the state and federal governments. Though in terms of federal spending on public schools I am not entirely worried or convinced that a cut in spending from the federal level will do much damage in terms of educational standards simply for the fact that standards have stagnated despite federal funding more than doubling.

What I think needs to happen more than anything is some serious competition and choice within the education system in the US. As I and @RipNTear have shown, charter schools have done wonders for places like Florida. Competition creates the conditions for schools to step up their game and really make an effort to either maintain or to gain a better reputation, attracting more students and improving standards. As shown by Reaper also in his post on the issue, the fears of ethnic minorities and SEN students being left behind were not only unfounded but the opposite happened. As someone who has worked in schools, I have seen the amount of SEN students especially struggle to cope in mainstream state schools here in the UK, where the government has tried a largely one size fits all system. It doesn't work and is actually a detriment to those students. 

The free schools here in the UK, which is like our version of Charter schools have really done great in terms of taking failing schools and putting them under academies (association of different schools) and have turned them around by allowing schools within a local area to co-operate and come up with their own syllabus away from the dreaded national curriculum. It has especially helped schools in my local area. For this reason I just don't want charter schools to increase where the state or local authority want it, I want all types of schools to whether it be charter, public, private or magnet schools. Let the state and local governments decide what is best for their constituents and let the constituents themselves be as active as possible in that process.

Which is why it is even more important for education to go back to the state and local governments. As someone who believes in localism and decentralization of power it makes sense. If you want those states and local areas to be able to decide what is best for their students, you have to let them have autonomy over the issue. This largely addresses the issue of rural areas too, if a rural area feels that more charter or private schools will not help them then they have the right to make that decision themselves but by the same token those in the inner cities who want more school choice and would benefit from doing so needs all the barriers to be lifted. One thing that needs to be made perfectly clear though, if you want local people who I believe know what is the best policy to implement for their local and state education system the only way to guarantee that this happens without federal overreach, without the fraud and abuse that we have seen, the mismanagement, the bureaucracy and the wasteful spending that has been shown the only way to guarantee this is to *abolish the Department of Education.*

I know the people on the left will disagree, but that is the only way you guarantee that the people of Wyoming have the same autonomy over their state's education as Florida.

Most of all, this will put the power and control over education back to the students and parents themselves. If you give parents the opportunity to choose for their child what type of school they can go to, if you allow them the choice to go to a charter school, or a magnet school or *heaven forbid* allow vouchers to be used for private schools you will see standards on the whole shoot up. Especially if you allow the state and local governments to decide whether they want to have more charter/private/magnet schools or if they want to stick with public schools and further fund them, and to adjust accordingly in terms of what results each individual choice bring.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> In my experience the public school i went to in gradeschool was awfully un responsive to those of us that were falling behind. Almost as if we were lost causes and they just gave up.
> 
> There was one kid, poor guy, could barely spell at all. Did the teachers help him? Nope. He became a literal meme in the classroom simply because he couldn't grasp what the rest of us were grasping. It wasn't as if they were even using it as a motivational tool. They just laughed at him for being dumb and would yell at him when he didn't understand what they were teaching. :shrug


Well your southern state sucks then because in a liberal state where I live, they give all the help you need. I have a learning disability and went to the learning center where I got tons of extra help and even got extra time on test if needed. During my free period, I went to the learning center where I would be tutored in the places I needed assistance. 

there is a reason why southern states rank lowest on the human development index and why 9 of the 10 least educated states are red states.

Maybe if you woke up you would see the republicans want to keep you dumb so they can keep hoodwinking you. Trump even told you to your faces, he loves the uneducated and uninformed and you still voted for him. 


If the red states were run like the blue states when it comes to education you would be much more educated.


----------



## Beatles123

birthday_massacre said:


> Well your southern state sucks then because in a liberal state where I live, they give all the help you need. I have a learning disability and went to the learning center where I got tons of extra help and even got extra time on test if needed. During my free period, I went to the learning center where I would be tutored in the places I needed assistance.
> 
> there is a reason why southern states rank lowest on the human development index and why 9 of the 10 least educated states are red states.
> 
> Maybe if you woke up you would see the republicans want to keep you dumb so they can keep hoodwinking you. Trump even told you to your faces, he loves the uneducated and uninformed and you still voted for him.
> 
> 
> If the red states were run like the blue states when it comes to education you would be much more educated.


Wow...No. Just...no. My school was liberal as all getout with liberal policies out the butthole. Even the same teachers and class types you spoke of. Sorry, you are wrong on that one.

By the way, nice adhom laden, snobby, hollier than thou bait you laced the post with. You really do represent the worst of your ideology and this is why im proud to see classical liberals denounce you modern ones in droves.

Orwell would loath what your party has become.


----------



## Reaper

@L-DOPA 



> Which is why it is even more important for education to go back to the state and local governments. I even like @birthday_massacre 's suggestion of letting the population of a city or town vote on whether they want more charter, private or magnet schools. As someone who believes in localism and decentralization of power it makes sense. If you want those states and local areas to be able to decide what is best for their students, you have to let them have autonomy over the issue. This largely addresses the issue of rural areas too, if a rural area feels that more charter or private schools will not help them then they have the right to make that decision themselves but by the same token those in the inner cities who want more school choice and would benefit from doing so needs all the barriers to be lifted. One thing that needs to be made perfectly clear though, if you want local people who I believe know what is the best policy to implement for their local and state education system the only way to guarantee that this happens without federal overreach, without the fraud and abuse that we have seen, the mismanagement, the bureaucracy and the wasteful spending that has been shown the only way to guarantee this is to abolish the Department of Education.


Voting has nothing to do with choice. That would be like saying "Let's let the townsfolk vote on whether they should allow a wal-mart to open a store in our community". The idea of "letting the people choose through a vote" is completely irrelevant to individual liberty as long as the principles of individual liberty are in place. Voting on the addition of an option seems like a really weird concept to me. Does the community vote on whether someone opens up a new business? Say you wanted to open an insurance company for example. Would you want the community to vote on it? Charter/Magnet schools are businesses (and let it be known that all schools are business just that government run schools are terrible businesses that are allowed to run through government bail outs). The only time taxation gets involved there is parents are given their own tax money back in order to send their kids to a different school. That's it. 

Choice can exist without necessitating a vote.


----------



## DOPA

RipNTear said:


> @L-DOPA
> 
> 
> 
> Voting has nothing to do with choice. That would be like saying "Let's let the townsfolk vote on whether they should allow a wal-mart to open a store in our community". The idea of "letting the people choose through a vote" is completely irrelevant to individual liberty as long as the principles of individual liberty are in place.
> 
> Choice can exist without necessitating a vote.


All very true points. Still it's an idea if certain parts of the country want to do that :lol.


----------



## virus21

I can't speak for everyone else's school experience, but I think I learned more reading books in the library then in class. With that being said, they did have a few trades done in my school. We had a electronics class, journalism, machine shop and a small engines class.


----------



## FriedTofu

Why is the president out campaigning when he inherited a mess? :troll

Why is the president spending another weekend at Mar a Largo at taxpayers expense into his own pockets and mixing work with pleasure again to provide an excuse that he is doing 'work'. As if campaigning one month after inauguration is work. :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> Wow...No. Just...no. My school was liberal as all getout with liberal policies out the butthole. Sorry, you are wrong on that one.
> 
> *By the way, nice adhom laden, snobby, hollier than thou bait you laced the post with. You really do represent the worst of your ideology and this is why im proud to see classical liberals denounce you modern ones in droves.*
> 
> Orwell would loath what your party has become.


What state are you from again?

As for the bolded part, I am just doing the same type of things you do in all of your posts back at you but when you get it back, you melt like a snowflake.

Its funny how you claim someone is baiting with all your baiting post you do. lol


----------



## shutupchico

still can't believe this guy is the president. the only way i can tolerate him is just to not take anything he says seriously, and to imagine his speeches as heel wrestling promos. when i do that, he's not bad.


----------



## birthday_massacre

RipNTear said:


> @L-DOPA
> 
> 
> 
> Voting has nothing to do with choice. That would be like saying "Let's let the townsfolk vote on whether they should allow a wal-mart to open a store in our community". The idea of "letting the people choose through a vote" is completely irrelevant to individual liberty as long as the principles of individual liberty are in place.
> 
> Choice can exist without necessitating a vote.


Its nothing like that since your tax payer money does not go to opening a wal mart. Whats the matter are you afraid to put it to a vote because you most states would shoot down opening even more charter schools at the cost of public schools


----------



## Smarkout

birthday_massacre said:


> Its nothing like that since your tax payer money does not go to opening a wal mart. Whats the matter are you afraid to put it to a vote because you most states would shoot down opening even more charter schools at the cost of public schools


It would really depend where these schools would be opening up. They would need to be placed around the worst performing schools and a vote would EASILY pass. If they place them around good public schools then it will fail. 

Charter schools weren't looked at as a bad thing until Trump and DeVos took over.


----------



## birthday_massacre

FriedTofu said:


> Why is the president out campaigning when he inherited a mess? :troll
> 
> Why is the president spending another weekend at Mar a Largo at taxpayers expense into his own pockets and mixing work with pleasure again to provide an excuse that he is doing 'work'. As if campaigning one month after inauguration is work. :lol


I always love how Trump claims this when Obama was the one who inherited a mess.

Under Obama he cut the deficit in half, Obama created close to 20 million jobs and had jobs added for like 57 weeks in a row, the market doubled under Obama as well. We are way better off now than we were under Bush
talk about a mess look no further than Bush.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> Its nothing like that since your tax payer money does not go to opening a wal mart. Whats the matter are you afraid to put it to a vote because you most states would shoot down opening even more charter schools at the cost of public schools


Charter Schools are Public Schools.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Smarkout said:


> It would really depend where these schools would be opening up. They would need to be placed around the worst performing schools and a vote would EASILY pass. If they place them around good public schools then it will fail.
> 
> Charter schools weren't looked at as a bad thing until Trump and DeVos took over.


Like I said if they put it to a vote and it passed great. But let the state or city its going in vote on it.

And you ae right, there is no point in putting a charter school around a good school but it around a poor performing school but don't take away money from those poor performing schools to make them worse to give to a new charter school.


----------



## birthday_massacre

RipNTear said:


> Charter Schools are Public Schools.


You know what I mean. don't play the semantic game.


----------



## DOPA

A lot of the states that voted Trump as well as the areas with the worst schools in the country, particularly big inner cities would overwhelmingly vote for school choice.

As someone noted, those with good public schools as well as rural areas are more likely to not want more school choice.


----------



## birthday_massacre

L-DOPA said:


> A lot of the states that voted Trump as well as the areas with the worst schools in the country, particularly big inner cities would overwhelmingly vote for school choice.
> 
> As someone noted, those with good public schools as well as rural areas are more likely to not want more school choice.


And what is wrong with that? If people vote for more charter schools then they can open more. Just let the area vote on it and see what happens.

If there is as city that wants to open a charter school, let that city vote on if they open it or not.

We had a question on the ballot in my city about using funds to open more charter schools. So everyone can do that that wants them.


----------



## virus21

Smarkout said:


> Charter schools weren't looked at as a bad thing until Trump and DeVos took over.


Because Trump is behind it.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> You know what I mean. don't play the semantic game.


You don't even know what charter schools and magnet schools are. It's evident from other posts.


----------



## DOPA

birthday_massacre said:


> And what is wrong with that? If people vote for more charter schools then they can open more. Just let the area vote on it and see what happens.


I don't recall saying that there was anything wrong with it? :draper2.


----------



## birthday_massacre

L-DOPA said:


> I don't recall saying that there was anything wrong with it? :draper2.


I was speaking more about reaper who has an issue with voting on it.


----------



## Reaper

L-DOPA said:


> I don't recall saying that there was anything wrong with it? :draper2.


Lol. He's thinking that when I brought up the fact that adding an option and voting on adding an option is completely irrelevant to freedom, he really thinks that I'm afraid that if kids were told that they would now have more agency over their tax as well as a potentially better option for their kids, that they would vote against it. He thinks I'm "afraid" of letting people vote. 

He doesn't understand that freedom isn't something that requires to be voted on. 

Take gay right to marriage for example. Should that be something up for the voters to decide? Of course not. Marriage shouldn't even be under the government's jurisdiction. Same thing with school choice.

Let's let people decide if gays can get married or women can abort and let the mafia that is the government control both those things. :lmao


----------



## birthday_massacre

RipNTear said:


> Lol. He's thinking that when I brought up the fact that adding an option and voting on adding an option is completely irrelevant to voting, he really thinks that I'm afraid that if kids were told that they would now have more agency over their tax as well as a potentially better option for their kids, that they would vote against it. He thinks I'm "afraid" of letting people vote.
> 
> He doesn't understand that freedom isn't something that requires to be voted on.
> 
> Take gay right to marriage for example. Should that be something up for the voters to decide? Of course not. Marriage shouldn't even be under the government's jurisdiction. Same thing with school choice.


Tax payer money does not go to gay marriage. Tax payer money does go to charter schools. 

But keep making false equivalences. Why are you so scared of a vote? If you really believe everyone wants more choice then why not leave it up to the voters? By forcing more charter schools the govt is getting involved. By having a vote you are leaving it up to the people and not the govt. So you are not even making any sense.

How is letting the people of a community deiced to open a charter school or not leaving it up to govt control? Its giving control to the community.

Letting the govt force the schools into those communities is letting the govt take control.

so once again your logic is flawed.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> Tax payer money does not go to gay marriage. Tax payer money does go to charter schools.
> 
> But keep making false equivalences. Why are you so scared of a vote? If you really believe everyone wants more choice then why not leave it up to the voters? By forcing more charter schools the govt is getting involved. By having a vote you are leaving it up to the people and not the govt. So you are not even making any sense.


Yes, because married couples don't get tax benefits and there are no abortions being paid for by the government. In fact, you're an advocate for federally funded abortions. :lmao 

OMG. What do you even know about America? And you've been here far longer than I have.


----------



## FriedTofu

birthday_massacre said:


> I always love how Trump claims this when Obama was the one who inherited a mess.
> 
> Under Obama he cut the deficit in half, Obama created close to 20 million jobs and had jobs added for like 57 weeks in a row, the market doubled under Obama as well. We are way better off now than we were under Bush
> talk about a mess look no further than Bush.


I don't care whether Trump really inherited a mess or not. He and his supporters live in a different reality than the rest of us.

I am just questioning why he is out campaigning when he claims he inherited a mess and have in the past blasted Obama for taking too many vacations. Will the excuse be Trump isn't really vacationing? Or hypocrisy isn't a crime so Trump is doing nothing wrong? Or the administration is such a well oiled machine that Trump don't need to be there? :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

RipNTear said:


> Yes, because married couples don't get tax benefits and there are no abortions being paid for by the government :lmao
> 
> OMG. What do you even know about America? And you've been here far longer than I have.


 Get your facts straight. No tax payer money ever goes to abortions unless the life of the mother is at stake or rape/incest but that is only for medicare. No tax payer money for PP ever goes to abortions. 

Getting tax benefits and giving tax payer money is two totally different things, When you get a tax break for marriage, you are just paying less taxes of your own money, where as charter schools, you are not seeing that money back

but yeah go off topic and keep being a hypocrite where you claim the govt should not get involved, yet you don't want to let the community decide if they want a charter school or not, you think the govt should be able to force it on them.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> Get your facts straight. No tax payer money ever goes to abortions unless the life of the mother is at stake or rape/incest but that is only for medicare. No tax payer money for PP ever goes to abortions.
> 
> Getting tax benefits and giving tax payer money is two totally different things, When you get a tax break for marriage, you are just paying less taxes of your own money, where as charter schools, you are not seeing that money back


See, you really have no understanding of this at all. Parents already pay tax for the public education of their kids. Charter/Magnet schools are public schools where the tax payer that is already paying tax for public schools is simply given the option of using their own tax money for a different school. It is the same as paying tax, but not having a choice. Now they are still paying the same tax and have a choice. What's so complicated about this? 

As someone that's pro-tax and pro-social welfare, your opposition to charter schools which are still public schools is completely contradictory and you don't even realize it. Your opposition is entirely based on a complete lack of understanding of how the charter school/magnet school tax system actually even works. Charter schools already exist. They're not a new concept. They've been around for years, and they've actually been helping more minorities get better education than public schools. You have literally 0 facts on this subject at all.


----------



## birthday_massacre

RipNTear said:


> See, you really have no understanding of this at all. Parents already pay tax for the public education of their kids. Charter/Magnet schools are public schools where the tax payer that is already paying tax for public schools is simply given the option of using their own tax money for a different school. It is the same as paying tax, but not having a choice. Now they are still paying the same tax and have a choice. What's so complicated about this?
> 
> As someone that's pro-tax and pro-social welfare, your opposition to charter schools which are still public schools is completely contradictory and you don't even realize it. Your opposition is entirely based on a complete lack of understanding of how the charter school/magnet school tax system actually even works. Charter schools already exist. They're not a new concept. They've been around for years, and they've actually been helping more minorities get better education than public schools. You have literally 0 facts on this subject at all.



LIke I already said a million times and opening new charter schools, will take money away from the other public schools who need that money and give it to new charter schools. So the schools that are doing shitty are going to be even worse off because they will lose some of their funding to open the new charter school. The money for the new charter school will have to come from somewhere and that is the other schools in that area. I also said if they can find that money somewhere else and not take away money from the other schools in the area then great. 

I also love you are a hypocrite, you are against social welfare but you are for adding more charter schools which you said is social welfare. So I guess you are ok with "handouts" in this case right? That logic works both ways.

I also said I have no issue with charter schools if the community has a vote and the community votes to add more. Not sure why you have an issue with that.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> LIke I already said a million times and opening new charter schools, will take money away from the other public schools who need that money and give it to a new charter schools. So the schools that are doing shitty are going to be even worse off because they will lose some of their funding to open the new charter school. The money for the new charter school will have to come from somewhere and that is the other schools in that area.


Charter schools are not being opened by public money fpalm 

They are opened by non-governmental organizations.


----------



## birthday_massacre

RipNTear said:


> Charter schools are not being opened by public money fpalm
> 
> They are opened by non-governmental organizations.


Tax payer money goes to charter schools. Does it not? The majority of the money charter schools get come from public funds. I never said they are used to open it. Once they are opened that is where tax payer money goes to.

You love to play these little semantic games when you know exactly what I am talking about. It just makes you look disingenuous


----------



## Miss Sally

RipNTear said:


> See, you really have no understanding of this at all. Parents already pay tax for the public education of their kids. Charter/Magnet schools are public schools where the tax payer that is already paying tax for public schools is simply given the option of using their own tax money for a different school. It is the same as paying tax, but not having a choice. Now they are still paying the same tax and have a choice. What's so complicated about this?
> 
> As someone that's pro-tax and pro-social welfare, your opposition to charter schools which are still public schools is completely contradictory and you don't even realize it. Your opposition is entirely based on a complete lack of understanding of how the charter school/magnet school tax system actually even works.


"I support all social programs and taxes unless it's funding the same programs using alternative methods that I don't like."

That's it we need a Ministry of Education, your children should only have one choice and that's Government ran schools.


----------



## virus21

Miss Sally said:


> "I support all social programs and taxes unless it's funding the same programs using alternative methods that I don't like."
> 
> That's it we need a Ministry of Education, your children should only have one choice and that's Government ran schools.


----------



## Beatles123

virus21 said:


>


BASED ORWELL! :nerd:


----------



## Beatles123

Funny, BM claims I melt but he's melting harder in his posts than I ever have :lmao


----------



## birthday_massacre

Miss Sally said:


> "I support all social programs and taxes unless it's funding the same programs using alternative methods that I don't like."
> 
> That's it we need a Ministry of Education, your children should only have one choice and that's Government ran schools.


yeah and the people that are against so called hands outs and social programs, are ok with them when it's something they support.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> Funny, BM claims I melt but he's melting harder in his posts than I ever have :lmao


Go back and play in the kiddie pool where you belong, and don't forget your floaties.


----------



## FriedTofu

Charter schools is a progressive idea in the first place so education can be tailored to children's different learning pace that was co-opted by the conservatives to push forward more religious schools. You guys should be singing kumbaya on this issue. :lol

I'm just shocked that so many WF people are claiming learning disability. Are you sure that's not just an excuse to say you people are not that smart?


----------



## Beatles123

birthday_massacre said:


> Go back and play in the kiddie pool where you belong, and don't forget your floaties.


Baiting again.


----------



## birthday_massacre

FriedTofu said:


> Charter schools is a progressive idea in the first place so education can be tailored to children's different learning pace that was co-opted by the conservatives to push forward more religious schools. You guys should be singing kumbaya on this issue. :lol
> 
> I'm just shocked that so many WF people are claiming learning disability. Are you sure that's not just an excuse to say you people are not that smart?


We pretty much agree on charter schools are good for choice and came to a consensus. the only thing some of us disagree on now if letting the state or community vote if they want to add more charter schools or not.

Which is ironic since charter schools is all about choice and reaper does not think a community should have a choice in the matter if more or added or not.




Beatles123 said:


> Baiting again.


You are the one who baited with your post then when I reply, you play the victim like you always do. Like I said go back in play in the kiddie pool. All you do is shit post in this thread. If you have anything to say about charter schools give your opinion.

Also MRMR said he lets baiting slide in this thread, so if you can do it, then I can do it in reply to your baiting posts.


----------



## Beatles123

birthday_massacre said:


> We pretty much agree on charter schools are good for choice and came to a consensus. the only thing some of us disagree on now if letting the state or community vote if they want to add more charter schools or not.
> 
> Which is ironic since charter schools is all about choice and reaper does not think a community should have a choice in the matter if more or added or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one who baited with your post then when I reply, you play the victim like you always do. Like I said go back in play in the kiddie pool. All you do is shit post in this thread. If you have anything to say about charter schools give your opinion.
> 
> Also MRMR said he lets baiting slide in this thread, so if you can do it, then I can do it in reply to your baiting posts.


I havent baited you. me saying you're melting is not bait. its the truth.

As for charter schools, public schools are ass because your ilk ruined them the way you are ruining the college system telling kids communism works. Id rather charter schools then and hope your cancerous ideology is nowhere near.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> Tax payer money goes to charter schools. Does it not? The majority of the money charter schools get come from public funds. I never said they are used to open it. Once they are opened that is where tax payer money goes to.
> 
> You love to play these little semantic games when you know exactly what I am talking about. It just makes you look disingenuous


:lmao 

And public funding goes into all public schools. If a charter school opens, then it basically depends on admission rates and being able to attract students. If it's a poorly run school, it shuts down. If it's a well run school it gets more students and continues to improve thereby simply moving funds from one failing school to a school that's successful. 

If the public school is better it has fewer students, therefore it doesn't need extra funding and eventually the students move back to the public school and the charter school shuts donw. 

And no, I'm not "afraid" to have people vote on something that doesn't need a vote at all because there is no reallocation of funding going on. There's simply the parents taking their money and putting it elsewhere. There is nothing being reduced because the reduction in number of students means the school needs less money to run anyways. It's simply logic and simple math. The vote is entirely unnecessary and a waste of time and money. The reason why the teacher's union is shitting their pants is because now they actually have to compete with other teachers who actually want to work hard for their salary instead of thousands of teachers that are getting fat and don't have to give a damn about improving their standards. You introduce competition into the school system and it will force people to work harder, work smarter and work better. 

School choice is a Win-Win no matter how many ways you analyse it :lmao


----------



## Beatles123

RipNTear said:


> :lmao
> 
> And public funding goes into all public schools. If a charter school opens, then it basically depends on admission rates and being able to attract students. If it's a poorly run school, it shuts down. If it's a well run school it gets more students and continues to improve thereby simply moving funds from one failing school to a school that's successful.
> 
> If the public school is better it has fewer students, therefore it doesn't need extra funding and eventually the students move back to the public school and the charter school shuts donw.
> 
> And no, I'm not "afraid" to have people vote on something that doesn't need a vote at all because there is no reallocation of funding going on. There's simply the parents taking their money and putting it elsewhere. There is nothing being reduced because the reduction in number of students means the school needs less money to run anyways. It's simply logic and simple math. The vote is entirely unnecessary and a waste of time and money.
> 
> School choice is a Win-Win no matter how many ways you analyse it :lmao


It really is. Makes you wonder why for a party built on people's rights, we sure can't "Choose" much under the modern Left. Everything has to be government run.

I certainly couldn't "Choose" my doctor. 0


----------



## virus21

Beatles123 said:


> It really is. Makes you wonder why for a party built on people's rights, we sure can't "Choose" much under the modern Left. Everything has to be government run.
> 
> I certainly couldn't "Choose" my doctor. 0


Because the left have gone all Communist and crap


----------



## Reaper

Beatles123 said:


> It really is. Makes you wonder why for a party built on people's rights, we sure can't "Choose" much under the modern Left. Everything has to be government run.
> 
> I certainly couldn't "Choose" my doctor. 0


I've paid less money for my non-free medical healthcare in America than I did in Canada and gotten much better service than I ever did in Canada. I even got a 2k discount from the hospital because I didn't have insurance. 

On the flip, I was deeply suicidal 6 years ago and I told my doctor 5 times in 5 different appointments and she never gave me a referral to a psychiatrist (which isn't covered by Canadian insurance anyways but I was willing to pay for it and still didn't get a referral). At the time I was constantly abusing drugs and knocking myself out. I was even cutting myself. No referral no help. I had to leave Canada to go back to Pakistan and was in therapy for 2 years after that - which I still paid out of pocket but had the freedom to go through 3 different psychiatrists before finally settling down with one. 

It was only through the support of my current wife that I survived that one year of hell in Canada. 

Meanwhile, my wife went to her doctor here in America and told him she's depressed and he sent her to a psychiatrist pretty much without her asking for one and she went through half a year of sessions and it helped her tremendously. 

There is really no comparison. Social welfare run systems are by and large a disaster until and unless you are in the midst of an emergency.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> I havent baited you. me saying you're melting is not bait. its the truth.
> 
> As for charter schools, public schools are ass because your ilk ruined them the way you are ruining the college system telling kids communism works. Id rather charter schools then and hope your cancerous ideology is nowhere near.


It is baiting and you got a reaction and now you are whining about it. If you can't take it back then don't start it. So if you can't take it go play in the kiddie pool or put on your big boy pants and deal with it. Or just stop baiting and stick to the topic.

You probably live in a shit state that is why your schools are run like shit. The state I live in is always near the top for best education in the country. Not to mention my state has some of the best colleges in the country. And that is why I have a different view on education than you. 

I still love your backward logic, it's the southern ideology that is the problem not the progressive, especially when the south wants to teach creationism in schools like its science. talk about making people stupid. That is all Trump is doing and you are falling for it. Trump is a science denier. Just look at him and his ignorance on climate change.



Beatles123 said:


> It really is. Makes you wonder why for a party built on people's rights, we sure can't "Choose" much under the modern Left. Everything has to be government run.
> 
> I certainly couldn't "Choose" my doctor. 0


That is because you live in a shit red state that took away your choices. you think its going to get better under Trump?

the states that actually have full ACA/Obamacare have great health coverage but a lot of the red states rejected it and that is why you got fucked over.

We have tons of options in my state, what options do you have in yours? 

so what kind of health care do you want?

Would you be happy with single payer aka medicare for all?


----------



## Smarkout

birthday_massacre said:


> It is baiting and you got a reaction and now you are whining about it. If you can't take it back then don't start it. So if you can't take it go play in the kiddie pool or put on your big boy pants and deal with it. Or just stop baiting and stick to the topic.
> 
> You probably live in a shit state that is why your schools are run like shit. The state I live in is always near the top for best education in the country. Not to mention my state has some of the best colleges in the country. And that is why I have a different view on education than you.
> 
> I still love your backward logic, it's the southern ideology that is the problem not the progressive, especially when the south wants to teach creationism in schools like its science. talk about making people stupid. That is all Trump is doing and you are falling for it. Trump is a science denier. Just look at him and his ignorance on climate change.
> 
> 
> 
> That is because you live in a shit red state that took away your choices. you think its going to get better under Trump?
> 
> the states that actually have full ACA/Obamacare have great health coverage but a lot of the red states rejected it and that is why you got fucked over.
> 
> so what kind of health care do you want?
> 
> Would you be happy with single payer?



I know it's a cool thing to rip on the south but I live in NY and after I graduate college I'm planning on staying home for 2 years to save money and move down south to a state like North Carolina because it's so expensive to live here. 

My aunt and uncle sold their home on Long Island for a little more than $300,000 and bought a bigger, nicer, and 100% brand new house for $230,000. 

These northern states are very expensive to live in and the south is actually really nice. Granted, some of the nicer communities I have been to in NC are full of people that moved from NY. Not surprised. :wink2:


----------



## birthday_massacre

Smarkout said:


> I know it's a cool thing to rip on the south but I live in NY and after I graduate college I'm planning on staying home for 2 years to save money and move down south to a state like North Carolina because it's so expensive to live here.
> 
> My aunt and uncle sold their home on Long Island for a little more than $300,000 and bought a bigger, nicer, and 100% brand new house for $230,000.
> 
> These northern states are very expensive to live in and the south is actually really nice. Granted, some of the nicer communities I have been to in NC are full of people that moved from NY. Not surprised. :wink2:


the south may be nice and cheap to live in but the education sucks and the insurance is way worse than up north or in the blue states, that is what we are talking about here.

The red states have shit insurance because a lot of them did not fully invest in Obamacare, a lot of them did not even accept the medicare expansion. Texas is probably the worst in the country when it comes to insurance.

There is a reason why most republicans don't like Obamacare because their states did not fully implement it. 

The funny thing is Obamacare was based on a Republican plan, Romneycare in MA.

the other funny thing is some republicans that love the ACA don't even know its the same thing as Obamacare and they trash Obamacare claiming they are glad they are not on it because it sucks.


----------



## Reaper

[/IMG]



> MOST NATO MEMBERS SHIRK RESPONSIBILITY FOR COMMON DEFENSE by Kevin Ryan
> 
> In 2006, NATO member countries agreed to commit a minimum of 2% of their GDP to spending on defense. Yet as of 2015, only 6 are of the 28 nations meet their requirement. Defense Secretary Mattis has served notice to NATO that America may modify its participation level if member states continue to ignore their treaty obligation.
> 
> SOURCES: https://www.sipri.org/databases/milex
> http://www.imf.org/external/ns/cs.aspx?id=28
> http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm


Interesting. Surprised to see Germany so low and Greece so high.


----------



## birthday_massacre

RipNTear said:


> [/IMG]
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. Surprised to see Germany so low and Greece so high.


Another chart from last year says its only 5 and the order is a little different and this one is more recent.












http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/15/news/nato-spending-countries/


----------



## DOPA

As a British citizen whose country is under NATO, I 100% support Mattis' position to get the other NATO countries to meet the 2% criteria (Y).


----------



## Beatles123

birthday_massacre said:


> the south may be nice and cheap to live in but the education sucks and the insurance is way worse than up north or in the blue states, that is what we are talking about here.
> 
> The red states have shit insurance because a lot of them did not fully invest in Obamacare, a lot of them did not even accept the medicare expansion. Texas is probably the worst in the country when it comes to insurance.
> 
> There is a reason why most republicans don't like Obamacare because their states did not fully implement it.
> 
> The funny thing is Obamacare was based on a Republican plan, Romneycare in MA.
> 
> the other funny thing is some republicans that love the ACA don't even know its the same thing as Obamacare and they trash Obamacare claiming they are glad they are not on it because it sucks.


My state implemented it fine, and no insurence isn't bad up here. things are getting higher but its way cheaper here than Florida for example.

Stop being racist to red things btw. 0

And no, Id rather not have to go to the hospital if I have a cold and be backed up for weeks if not months.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> Another chart from last year says its only 5 and the order is a little different and this one is more recent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/15/news/nato-spending-countries/


I just asked the page admin to clarify why there's a discrepancy between CNN and their page. Let's see what he says.


----------



## Smarkout

birthday_massacre said:


> the south may be nice and cheap to live in but the education sucks and the insurance is way worse than up north or in the blue states, that is what we are talking about here.
> 
> The red states have shit insurance because a lot of them did not fully invest in Obamacare, a lot of them did not even accept the medicare expansion. Texas is probably the worst in the country when it comes to insurance.
> 
> There is a reason why most republicans don't like Obamacare because their states did not fully implement it.
> 
> The funny thing is Obamacare was based on a Republican plan, Romneycare in MA.
> 
> the other funny thing is some republicans that love the ACA don't even know its the same thing as Obamacare and they trash Obamacare claiming they are glad they are not on it because it sucks.


I don't mean this to be sarcastic but I wasn't aware you have any sort of experience regarding education in the south. From what I have seen in North Carolina it is actually fairly good. My cousin got to go to a totally different school in NC due to her excelling in her original school. They didn't have anything like that in NY. 

Could you expand on why education is so bad down south? I really only have experience up here in NY!


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> My state implemented it fine, and no insurence isn't bad up here. things are getting higher but its way cheaper here than Florida for example.
> 
> Stop being racist to red things btw. 0
> 
> And no, Id rather not have to go to the hospital if I have a cold and be backed up for weeks if not months.


please educate yourself , you dont get backed up under single payer if you need help when you get sick.

The only people that get backed up under single payer are when its cosmetic surgery since the Drs deal with all the real sick people first.


----------



## Beatles123

birthday_massacre said:


> please educate yourself , you dont get backed up under single payer if you need help when you get sick.
> 
> The only people that get backed up under single payer are when its cosmetic surgery since the Drs deal with all the real sick people first.


Tell that to my Canadian pals. 

Or my British ones from London.


----------



## Reaper

L-DOPA said:


> As a British citizen whose country is under NATO, I 100% support Mattis' position to get the other NATO countries to meet the 2% criteria (Y).


But that would increase military spending overall ... And I know you're against that :mj


----------



## Beatles123

Smarkout said:


> I don't mean this to be sarcastic but I wasn't aware you have any sort of experience regarding education in the south. From what I have seen in North Carolina it is actually fairly good. My cousin got to go to a totally different school in NC due to her excelling in her original school. They didn't have anything like that in NY.
> 
> Could you expand on why education is so bad down south? I really only have experience up here in NY!


He hates the south and believes we all marry our cousins down here. Don't waste your time.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Smarkout said:


> I don't mean this to be sarcastic but I wasn't aware you have any sort of experience regarding education in the south. From what I have seen in North Carolina it is actually fairly good. My cousin got to go to a totally different school in NC due to her excelling in her original school. They didn't have anything like that in NY.
> 
> Could you expand on why education is so bad down south? I really only have experience up here in NY!


Because in the south they are trying to put creationism in schools, they white wash their history books, also if you look at top and worst stats for education in the country, the south has 9 of the 10 in the bottom 10.

And NC may be good but SC is one of the worst. It also does not help the south is some of the poorest states in the country and that affects education big time.

Just google the south and education and you will see how bad it is.


----------



## DOPA

RipNTear said:


> But that would increase military spending overall ... And I know you're against that :mj


Only in the US's case .


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> He hates the south and believes we all marry our cousins down here. Don't waste your time.


Well to be fair some marry their sisters as well.


----------



## Beatles123

birthday_massacre said:


> Because in the south they are trying to put creationism in schools, they white wash their history books, also if you look at top and worst stats for education in the country, the south has 9 of the 10 in the bottom 10.
> 
> And NC may be good but SC is one of the worst. It also does not help the south is some of the poorest states in the country and that affects education big time.
> 
> Just google the south and education and you will see how bad it is.


Ohoho, this oughta be rich. How do we white wash history and you don't? :ha


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> Tell that to my Canadian pals.
> 
> Or my British ones from London.


https://www.theatlantic.com/please-...n-waiting-longer-to-see-a-doctor/281614/#seen

Universal Healthcare Doesn't Mean Waiting Longer to See a Doctor
A new report from the Commonwealth Fund shows that people in other industrialized nations get doctors' appointments faster than Americans do.




Beatles123 said:


> Ohoho, this oughta be rich. How do we white wash history and you don't? :ha


We have over this a number of times already, go back into my post history to find it.


----------



## Reaper

L-DOPA said:


> Only in the US's case .


Well yah. I'm sort of souring on the idea of the amount of money America wastes on their military. Not after I read reports that they're claiming that they're going to do nothing about Flint's water problems "because they have no money".

America needs to introduce measures to improve the accountability of its military expenditures and that should reduce spending as a result.


----------



## Beatles123

birthday_massacre said:


> https://www.theatlantic.com/please-...n-waiting-longer-to-see-a-doctor/281614/#seen
> 
> Universal Healthcare Doesn't Mean Waiting Longer to See a Doctor
> A new report from the Commonwealth Fund shows that people in other industrialized nations get doctors' appointments faster than Americans do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have over this a number of times already, go back into my post history to find it.


:ha Oooh, the comonwealth fund! They must be OODLES more credible than the ASSLOADS OF PEOPLE I TALK TO FROM COUNTRIES WITH SINGLE PAYER! iper1

Yes, we have. You were wrong then and you're wrong now. 

You probably think the South's only reason for being pro-slavery was white supremacy and that Lincoln didn't commit the first acts of war.


----------



## birthday_massacre

RipNTear said:


> Well yah. I'm sort of souring on the idea of the amount of money America wastes on their military. Not after I read reports that they're claiming that they're going to do nothing about Flint's water problems "because they have no money".
> 
> America needs to introduce measures to improve the accountability of its military expenditures and that should reduce spending as a result.


Do you agree with Trump the US needs to pump more money into the military? Why do you think he says that? Does the military really need to be bigger?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> :ha Oooh, the comonwealth fund! They must be OODLES more credible than the ASSLOADS OF PEOPLE I TALK TOO FROM COUNTRIES WITH SINGLE PAYER! iper
> 
> Yes, we have. You were wrong then and you're wrong now.
> 
> You probably think the South'd only reason for being pro-slavory was white supremacy and that Lincoln didn't commit acts of war prior to the conflict.


I have proven you wrong over and over again on the facts of the south. I won't embarrass you again by dredging up all of that. but you are living proof of how ignorant and uneducated people from the south are on American history. This is a Trump thread anyways so just move on already.


----------



## Beatles123

birthday_massacre said:


> I have proven you wrong over and over again on the facts of the south. I won't embarrass you again by dredging up all of that. but you are living proof of how ignorant and uneducated people from the south are on American history. This is a Trump thread anyways so just move on already.


Do you even know where Fort Sumter is located without googling? You call ME ignorant, What did Lincoln say in his first inaugurational speech?

People like YOU have done the whitewashing here. Sorry, you don't get to openly disgrace my people so easily.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> Do you even know where Fort Sumter is located without googling? You call ME ignorant, What did Lincoln say in his first congressional speech?
> 
> People like YOU have done the whitewashing here. Sorry, you don't get to openly disgrace my people so easily.


You don't even know what white washing is do you LOL

You further prove my point. 

stop embarrassing yourself.


----------



## virus21

> LaBeouf, Rönkkö & Turner’s ‘HE WILL NOT DIVIDE US’ livestream brought international attention to a unique presidential protest project, where artist Shia LaBeouf was frequently at the frontline. But after allegations of too much aggression between protestors of differing political views, the Museum of the Moving Image shut the exhibit down 0n February 10.
> 
> But the team is planning a return, and this time they’re moving across the country. In a joint statement released on Feb. 18, the trio revealed that they will be setting up camp at the El Rey Theater in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The provocative statement also reveals that the MOMI lawyer who informed LaBeouf, Rönkkö & Turner that the exhibit was closing also represents President Trump, implying that conflicting interests were behind the decision.
> 
> READ MORE: Shia LaBeouf’s ‘HE WILL NOT DIVIDE US’: Here’s What It’s Like To Peacefully Exorcise Trump’s Bad Vibes
> 
> Read LaBeouf, Rönkkö & Turner’s full statement, originally posted to the project’s website, below:
> 
> On February 10, 2017, The Museum of the Moving Image abandoned HEWILLNOTDIVIDE.US. Their evident lack of commitment to the project is damning.
> 
> From the outset, the museum failed to address our concerns about the misleading framing of our piece as a political rally, rather than as a participatory performance artwork resisting the normalisation of division.
> 
> In fact, the museum demonstrated a spectacular lack of judgement—and courtesy to us as artists—by neglecting to consult us when they staged a political rally at the site of our artwork on January 29, 2017.
> 
> On numerous occasions, we voiced serious concerns to the museum about hate speech occurring at the site of our project, and requested that the museum act responsibly in moderating this and providing the public a means of reporting such incidents. Our requests were not even acknowledged, let alone acted upon.
> 
> Nonetheless, there had been no incidents of physical violence at the site of our project that we are aware of, nor that we had been informed of at any stage by the museum.
> 
> It is our understanding that the museum bowed to political pressure in ceasing their involvement with our project. We were only informed of the museum’s capitulation in an email from their attorney, Brendan O’Rourke—a lawyer who we note also represents the current president.
> 
> It is clear, therefore, that the Museum of the Moving Image is not fit to speak of our intent as artists.
> 
> As of February 18, 2017, we are proud to be continuing HEWILLNOTDIVIDE.US at the El Rey Theater, Albuquerque.


http://www.indiewire.com/2017/02/shia-labeouf-he-will-not-divide-us-livestream-trump-protest-new-location-1201784956/

Sooo, how long before this one gets shut down?


----------



## Beatles123

birthday_massacre said:


> You don't even know what white washing is do you LOL
> 
> You further prove my point.
> 
> stop embarrassing yourself.


No, YOU don't know what it is. You clearly just follow revisionist history that champions Lincoln as a slave lover and claims that every state that participated in the confederacy was being a white supremacist state.


----------



## DOPA

birthday_massacre said:


> https://www.theatlantic.com/please-...n-waiting-longer-to-see-a-doctor/281614/#seen
> 
> Universal Healthcare Doesn't Mean Waiting Longer to See a Doctor
> A new report from the Commonwealth Fund shows that people in other industrialized nations get doctors' appointments faster than Americans do.


Beatles is correct about the UK, the average waiting times here are extremely bad. That commonwealth study I debunked earlier in the thread, it is riddled with faults. For example, it only measures health outcomes in one area and the NHS finished 2nd to dead last. It also only studies 11 countries, mostly on cost efficiency and cost effectiveness. Even then it is biased towards single payer systems, it does not measure the relationship between cost and performance which is the most important aspect of healthcare.

The Euro Health Index extensively studies European healthcare systems, 37 in total and the NHS as a universal single payer healthcare model falls incredibly short in quality compared to private insurance based models like the Netherlands and the Swiss. It is also behind many mixed healthcare systems such as France, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg and Belgium.

https://www.theguardian.com/society...-14th-in-europe-wide-survey-on-health-systems



> The NHS is only the 14th best health system in Europe and is delivering mediocre results in too many areas of care, including patient survival, a new continent-wide survey has claimed.
> 
> The findings conflict with those of the influential Commonwealth Fund thinktank, which two years ago said the UK offered the best overall health provision out of 11 western nations it studied.
> 
> The experts behind the new study praise the NHS for some successes, such as cutting the number of people dying from a heart attack, stroke or traffic accident.
> 
> But the 2015 Euro Health Consumer Index (ECHI) concludes that its performance is inadequate in so many important areas that it ranks just above healthcare in Slovenia, Croatia and Estonia.
> 
> *Too many patients wait too long to see a GP, for treatment in A&E and to have a CT scan within a week for something serious like suspected cancer, the report says.*
> 
> *It also accuses the UK of denying cancer patients access to drugs that might extend their lives and of failing to deliver improvements in quality of care made by many other European nations.*
> 
> But the fact that the UK comes 28th out of the 35 European countries studied for the number of doctors for every 100,000 of population may help explain some of the negative findings.
> 
> The index, produced by a Sweden-based private company of health analysts called Health Consumer Powerhouse, ranked the Netherlands as the best-performing health system of the 35. After assessing each one by 48 different criteria, it gave the Netherlands 916 points. Switzerland was a close second on 894 points and Norway third on 854. The UK was ranked 14th, with 736 points.
> 
> The report points out that in the 11 years in which it has been assessing European countries, “the UK healthcare system has never made it into the top 10 of the ECHI, mainly due to poor accessibility – together with Poland and Sweden the worst among European healthcare systems – and an autocratic top-down management culture.”
> 
> What the NHS needs: just EU average funding – and a pinch of dynamite
> Polly Toynbee
> Polly Toynbee Read more
> The ECHI also claims that so-called Bismarck health systems, based on citizens taking out insurance from a range of providers that do not provide healthcare, delivers much better results than “Beveridge systems” like the NHS has been since its inception in 1948, were one body funds and provides all the care.
> 
> “The largest Beveridge countries – the UK, Spain and Italy – keep clinging together in the middle of the index”, the report states.
> 
> Prof Arne Björnberg, chair of HCP, said: “The NHS has been doing pretty much as well since the start [of the surveys] in 2005, which is mediocre. Problems are: autocratic management of a very skilled profession, resulting in [overly long] waiting times [for treatment] [and] mediocre treatment results.”
> 
> He added that in cancer care there are “too few radiation treatment facilities (expensive) and meanness on cancer drugs (expensive), resulting in mediocre survival rates”.
> 
> Björnberg and co-collaborator Prof Johan Hjertqvist gave the UK a lot of yellow scores, denoting merely average performance in many areas.
> 
> H C P has traditionally received much of its funding from the drugs industry, though they paid for this latest report themselves from reserves and received a small grant from the Institute for Direct Democracy in Europe in Brussels, Björnberg said.
> 
> The Department of Health defended the NHS and said it was providing more care than ever before, including tests, operations and other treatments.
> 
> “In 2014 the NHS was ranked the best and most efficient in the world by the independent Commonwealth Fund, and waiting times for patients continue to be stable despite the NHS doing a million more operations a year than in 2010,” a spokeswoman said.
> 
> “We’re making sure it continues to be the best in the world by investing £10bn more every year by 2020, raising the NHS budget to the highest level in its history – as the NHS itself asked.”



As you can see with the study, people are waiting too long to see a GP and are waiting over a week to get important cancer CT scans. There are many cases where people have to wait 6 months or over to get important operations like hip or knee replacements. That is common here in the UK. I've heard cases up to 18 months. You never hear these cases in the US or in other countries with a significant amount of private healthcare.

Here is an article as recently as two years ago on the subject: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/09/nhs-hospital-waiting-time-figures



> The number and proportion of NHS hospital patients in England waiting more than 18 weeks to begin treatment have risen to their highest levels in almost seven years, official statistics show.
> 
> In February, nearly *40,000 admitted patients did not start consultant-led treatment within 18 weeks of referral, and more than 13,000 waited more than 26 weeks. The target is for 90% to receive treatment within 18 weeks but only 87% did so.*
> 
> The only worse performance – for both percentage and absolute number – since records began in March 2008 was in April of that year when 86.7% began treatment within 18 weeks. That meant just over 40,000 were kept waiting beyond that period.
> 
> *The figures show that the median waiting time reached a record 10 weeks in February, up from 8.4 weeks at the time of the last election.*
> 
> The shadow health secretary, Andy Burnham, accused the Tories of breaking their promises on the NHS. “David Cameron promised to keep waiting times low but today’s figures show his plan for the NHS has failed,” he said. “His reorganisation dragged the NHS down to the point where it can no longer meet waiting time targets despite inheriting lists at a record low.”
> 
> At the time of the last election, 92.9% of hospital patients were beginning consultant-led treatment within 18 weeks of referral, meaning just over 20,000 were kept waiting beyond that period.
> 
> The NHS is also supposed to ensure that 95% of outpatients start treatment within 18 weeks of referral, but in February the figure was 94.7%, the lowest since June 2008. Nearly 45,000 were still waiting after 18 weeks, a lower number than in both October and November last year.
> 
> An NHS England spokesman said: “In February the NHS made further strides in cutting long waits, with the number of patients who waited over a year slashed from over 5,000 three years ago to being in the hundreds now, and with the average wait for an operation being just 10 weeks.”


Waiting times are a frequent problem here, there's another article from 2013 from the Telegraph detailing that the waiting times have been the worst in 5 years and so on.

It is clear that single payer universal systems at least in terms of the UK vs other systems have longer waiting times. The Guardian especially are very pro NHS, they have no reason to lie about it and yet they cover it because they have no choice to. The facts show what they show.

The one area you cannot argue with me on is single payer universal healthcare, especially in terms of the NHS and the bogus study you shared. I live here, I know more about the NHS than pretty much every other person in this thread. It is not the paradise system Bernie Sanders is selling, you have no idea how much hell it has brought to the UK. We are in the middle of a winter crisis that isn't going away. Bed blocking, short staff, short of beds to the point people are sleeping outside of medical rooms, people taking 4 hours to be moved from an ambulance, people working close to 20 hour shifts because they can't cope with the numbers and the little support they are getting. Government policy has ruined our healthcare and with the state owning a monopoly on the sector, there is no other choice me or the vast majority of other citizens have as an alternative. You honestly have no idea what you are asking for, you have been sold a book of goods by someone who has no idea what they are talking about.

And until you live through it and see it for yourself, neither I'm afraid will you.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> No, YOU don't know what it is. You clearly just follow revisionist history that champions Lincoln as a slave lover and every state that participated in the confederacy white supremacist.


Its the south that does the revisions, they are the one who down play slavery and the KKK in America, as well as Jim Crowe.

It's the south that pretends the civil war was not mostly about wanting to keep slavery around, and who don't think the confederate flag is a symbol of racism.

Everything you are doing right now proves my point. Thanks for making it too easy as always with you. Like I said go back to the kiddy pool where you believe. you cant play with the adults.


----------



## birthday_massacre

L-DOPA said:


> Beatles is correct about the UK, the average waiting times here are extremely bad. That commonwealth study I debunked earlier in the thread, it is riddled with faults. For example, it only measures health outcomes in one area and the NHS finished 2nd to dead last. It also only studies 11 countries, mostly on cost efficiency and cost effectiveness. Even then it is biased towards single payer systems, it does not measure the relationship between cost and performance which is the most important aspect of healthcare.
> 
> The Euro Health Index extensively studies European healthcare systems, 37 in total and the NHS as a universal single payer healthcare model falls incredibly short in quality compared to private insurance based models like the Netherlands and the Swiss. It is also behind many mixed healthcare systems such as France, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg and Belgium.
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/society...-14th-in-europe-wide-survey-on-health-systems
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see with the study, people are waiting too long to see a GP and are waiting over a week to get important cancer CT scans. There are many cases where people have to wait 6 months or over to get important operations like hip or knee replacements. That is common here in the UK. I've heard cases up to 18 months. You never hear these cases in the US or in other countries with a significant amount of private healthcare.
> 
> Here is an article as recently as two years ago on the subject: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/09/nhs-hospital-waiting-time-figures
> 
> 
> Waiting times are a frequent problem here, there's another article from 2013 from the Telegraph detailing that the waiting times have been the worst in 5 years and so on.
> 
> It is clear that single payer universal systems at least in terms of the UK vs other systems have longer waiting times. The Guardian especially are very pro NHS, they have no reason to lie about it and yet they cover it because they have no choice to. The facts show what they show.
> 
> The one area you cannot argue with me on is single payer universal healthcare, especially in terms of the NHS and the bogus study you shared. I live here, I know more about the NHS than pretty much every other person in this thread. It is not the paradise system Bernie Sanders is selling, you have no idea how much hell it has brought to the UK. We are in the middle of a winter crisis that isn't going away. Bed blocking, short staff, short of beds to the point people are sleeping outside of medical rooms, people taking 4 hours to be moved from an ambulance, people working close to 20 hour shifts because they can't cope with the numbers and the little support they are getting. Government policy has ruined our healthcare and with the state owning a monopoly on the sector, there is no other choice me or the vast majority of other citizens have as an alternative. You honestly have no idea what you are asking for, you have been sold a book of goods by someone who has no idea what they are talking about.
> 
> And until you live through it and see it for yourself, neither I'm afraid will you.


What system do you think would be better? If the studies I am looking at are flawed then thank you for pointing that out. If its not everything its cracked up to be, then I want something better. Is a two tiered system the way to go


----------



## Beatles123

L-DOPA said:


> Beatles is correct about the UK












:trump3


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Some of you are right, and some of you are wrong, but I don't care because I get a kick out of watching you all go back and forth. Good arguments, good debates, good piles of information. This thread totally destroys all other wrestling message boards that have a political section...by far.


----------



## Beatles123

birthday_massacre said:


> What system do you think would be better? If the studies I am looking at are flawed then thank you for pointing that out. If its not everything its cracked up to be, then I want something better. Is a two tiered system the way to go










"_*Pssst...The answer lays within THE FREE MARKET...*_"


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> "_*The answer lays inTHE FREE MARKET..*_"


the free market is not the answer. All that will happen with that is, all the insurance companies will go to the state with the least regulations and cover , set up shop there and fuck over everyone on insurance and they will cover the bare minimum the need to. Your premiums may be super low but your out of pocket expenses if you get sick or need surgery will be sky high and bankrupt you.

Free Market for healthcare would be a disaster.

You think insurance companies fuck you over now, it would be way worse with free market.


----------



## Beatles123

birthday_massacre said:


> the free market is not the answer. All that will happen with that is, all the insurance companies will go to the state with the least regulations and cover , set up shop there and fuck over everyone on insurance and they will cover the bare minimum the need to. Your premiums may be super low but your out of pocket expenses if you get sick or need surgery will be sky high and bankrupt you.
> 
> Free Market for healthcare would be a disaster.
> 
> You think insurance companies fuck you over now, it would be way worse with free market.


Health savings accounts and vouchers would do WONDERS over here, I dunno what YOU'RE readin' :lol


----------



## DOPA

birthday_massacre said:


> What system do you think would be better? If the studies I am looking at are flawed then thank you for pointing that out. If its not everything its cracked up to be, then I want something better. Is a two tiered system the way to go


Two tiered system is better but the best system in Europe is the Dutch system, they have a very competitive private insurance based system. The main differences between the Dutch system and the US system is twofold: The Dutch system has a regulatory framework which essentially is the basis of universal coverage: everyone is covered in the Dutch system by law and the US system of course does not have that.

At the same time however it is a very competitive system, there is no individual mandates like with Obamacare, it is less regulatory than the US system and more cost effective. Prices on the whole are cheaper, those who can't afford it through their own pocket are subsidized through taxation. A lot of insurance is done through employment or through what Rand Paul has suggested which is allowing individuals to join through associations.

The US from what I see have the joint problem of not having a regulatory framework to cover people and at the same time being incredibly cost inefficient due to over regulation and too much government interference. The Dutch have been specifically been praised for getting government bureaucrats out of the way and not getting too involved: http://www.healthpowerhouse.com/images/stories/press_release_general.pdf



> “As the Netherlands [is] expanding [its] lead among the best performing countries, the [Euro Health Consumer] Index indicates that the Dutch might have found a successful approach. It combines competition for funding and provision within a regulated framework. There are information tools to support active choice among consumers. The Netherlands [has] started working on patient empowerment early, which now clearly pays off in many areas. And politicians and bureaucrats are comparatively far removed from operative decisions on delivery of Dutch healthcare services!”


With the US especially with costs being too high, I personally think the last thing needed is more government spending, especially as medicare is 30-40 trillion in the hole.

I know you won't like my answer but I'm giving it to you straight here, the evidence I've seen points to a private insurance model being better. Where the US fails really is that it has made it's system way too bureaucratic and complicated, which is part of the reason why the insurance model is so distorted. The last thing you need is a universal single payer system, if it doesn't work for 70 million it won't work for 300+ million that I am sure of. 

I have a feeling that the plan Rand Paul for example is trying to push through won't get through and will either be ignored or will be watered down. And if we get to that scenario then yes the Republican plan will be bad and may exasperate the problems with Obamacare.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> Health savings accounts and vouchers would do WONDERS over here, I dunno what YOU'RE readin' :lol


Voucher systems don't work and it bankrupt you if you get really sick or need major surgery. Voucher systems are only good if you never get sick and just make routine dr visits to your PCP


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> What system do you think would be better? If the studies I am looking at are flawed then thank you for pointing that out. If its not everything its cracked up to be, then I want something better. Is a two tiered system the way to go


I don't want to get into too much detail, but instead of mandated taxation that over-burdens the economy and shrinks employment, we need to encourage more philanthropy, help NGO's as individuals instead of relying on the government which isn't as good with money allocation as they pretend that they are. 

For example, in Pakistan we have dozens of voluntary public funded hospitals that provide free healthcare from everything to free cancer treatments to organ replacements to the poorest of the poor and none of them were created or funded by our poor as fuck government, but are propped up by charitable individuals. Knowing that extreme poverty exists is the best way to get people to become charitable. It encourages social responsibility and doesn't even need the governments' involvement. 

America has similar levels of philanthropy but they can do better and be more charitable which I believe can be achieved through lower taxes and not higher. 

The thing is that taxation comes with the caveat of providing low quality care, but since care exists people don't fully recognize just how bad things are for the poor so that prevents people from being charitable. In social welfare states with higher tax burdens people become less charitable therefore it degrades the quality of care that the poor can receive. In less social welfare states, especially where people recognize that there are needy people, they collect together to form NGO's that do a better job than the government because they're specialized. 

Private charity + some public funding + insurance + competition + choice. It has to be a very well multi-layered system.


----------



## Beatles123

RipNTear said:


> I don't want to get into too much detail, but instead of mandated taxation that over-burdens the economy and shrinks employment, we need to encourage more philanthropy, help NGO's as individuals instead of relying on the government which isn't as good with money allocation as they pretend that they are.
> 
> For example, in Pakistan we have dozens of voluntary public funded hospitals that provide free healthcare from everything to free cancer treatments to organ replacements to the poorest of the poor and none of them were created or funded by our poor as fuck government, but are propped up by charitable individuals. Knowing that extreme poverty exists is the best way to get people to become charitable. It encourages social responsibility and doesn't even need the governments' involvement.
> 
> America has similar levels of philanthropy but they can do better and be more charitable which I believe can be achieved through lower taxes and not higher.
> 
> The thing is that taxation comes with the caveat of providing low quality care, but since care exists people don't fully recognize just how bad things are for the poor so that prevents people from being charitable. In social welfare states with higher tax burdens people become less charitable therefore it degrades the quality of care that the poor can receive. In less social welfare states, especially where people recognize that there are needy people, they collect together to form NGO's that do a better job than the government because they're specialized.
> 
> Private charity + some public funding + insurance + competition + choice. It has to be a very well multi-layered system.


So basically Trump's FREE MARKET plan! :trump2


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> So basically Trump's FREE MARKET plan! :trump2


No not even close to a free market plan lol

Trumps plan was tried and was a disaster. A mess. it was SAD


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...4ab630851e8_story.html?utm_term=.d15b5a8bae19


----------



## Reaper

Beatles123 said:


> So basically Trump's FREE MARKET plan! :trump2


Not quite. The American system is at the moment too broken to be deregulated without disasterous results. Deregulation has to be done carefully and over a period of decades otherwise there would be far too many people that will be left behind without any kind of healthcare at all.


----------



## ElTerrible

Best in the World and Donald Trump. CM Punk is not aging well.


----------



## Beatles123

RipNTear said:


> Not quite. The American system is at the moment too broken to be deregulated without disastrous results. Deregulation has to be done carefully and over a period of decades otherwise there would be far too many people that will be left behind without any kind of healthcare at all.


I don't think he'll do that. I think the changes will work in conjunction with his other policies. The Economy, VA, and other things will factor in and he'll deregulate incrementally accordingly.

Scary to think our govt. has got so bloated we even need to do that, isn't it? :trump

SMALL government! _FUNCTIONAL_ Small government! It isn't that hard!


----------



## Reaper

Beatles123 said:


> I don't think he'll do that. I think the changes will work in conjunction with his other policies. The Economy, VA, and other things will factor in and he'll deregulate incrementally accordingly.


I honestly haven't looked too deeply into Trump's health plan, but I'm of the mindset without research that the federal welfare system (medicaid) doesn't really help a lot of people. 

I do know that the government collected $3 billion from middle to upper-middle class Americans who didn't have insurance by deducting from their tax returns. 

I am annoyed as fuck however that the Trump government has refused to say anything at all about the mandate penalty when that was one of the major reasons why many people voted him. If his government collects the penalty like Obama's government did, for me that's going to be a deal-breaker with regards to my support for Trump. *Note that the penalty I'm talking about refers to the one his government stands to collect in 2018, not 2017 because at the moment the system is legally in place. However, the government seems silent on that issue at the moment. But it could be because I haven't been paying attention.


----------



## Beatles123

RipNTear said:


> I honestly haven't looked too deeply into Trump's health plan, but I'm of the mindset without research that the federal welfare system (medicaid) doesn't really help a lot of people.
> 
> I do know that the government collected $3 billion from middle to upper-middle class Americans who didn't have insurance by deducting from their tax returns.
> 
> I am annoyed as fuck however that the Trump government has refused to say anything at all about the mandate penalty when that was one of the major reasons why many people voted him. If his government collects the penalty like Obama's government did, for me that's going to be a deal-breaker with regards to my support for Trump. *Note that the penalty I'm talking about refers to the one his government stands to collect in 2018, not 2017 because at the moment the system is legally in place. However, the government seems silent on that issue at the moment. But it could be because I haven't been paying attention.


Oh yeah, medicaid is royally fucked. But I can tell you a way Trump can start to unfuck it...

When I was in need of a new wheelchair after years of working with the company that had helped with me since I was two years old, we found that the healthcare laws now forbade the guy we worked with to get my chairs through medicade, to do business in my area because his company lost the bid. Now! If TRUMP had anything to say about it, eliminating the artificial lines would have allowed him to order the best chair for me in my area. This is Trump's point: These companies as yet cannot compete with each other and let their clients choose. This outfit was with me since TWO! Age, *TWO!* and now I am no longer able to be covered under them. Trump Recognizes this problem.


----------



## Reaper

Beatles123 said:


> Oh yeah, medicaid is royally fucked. But I can tell you a way Trump can start to unfuck it...
> 
> When I was in need of my new wheelchair after some years of working with the company that worked with me since I was two years old, we found that the healthcare laws now forbade him to do business in my area because his company lost the bid. Now! If TRUMP had anything to say about it, eliminating the artificial lines would have allowed him to order the best chair for me in my area. This is Trump's point: These companies as yet cannot compete with each other and let their clients choose. This outfit was with me since TWO! Age, *TWO!* and now I am no longer able to be covered under them. Trump Recognizes this problem.


This is another reason why I'm sort of vary of state governments as well. Just government in general fuck shit up basically.


----------



## virus21

RipNTear said:


> This is another reason why I'm sort of vary of state governments as well. Just government in general fuck shit up basically.


The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.


----------



## FriedTofu

Just putting this out there as I don't really see the difference between philanthropy funded and tax funded healthcare. People are still funding it one way or the other.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-su...etween-taxes-and-charitable-giving-1450062191

I think the difference is the mindset of people from different ideology. Conservatives in Americas largely feel their tax dollars are being wasted, while the liberals there feel the tax dollars should be used to help the poor more. Similarly, I feel like conservatives think government is bound to fail and don't work at improving government while liberals feel the government has a duty to work for the people and try to make it too pervasive when sometimes government is not needed.

:shrug


----------



## Pratchett

RipNTear said:


> I honestly haven't looked too deeply into Trump's health plan, but I'm of the mindset without research that the federal welfare system (medicaid) doesn't really help a lot of people.
> 
> I do know that the government collected $3 billion from middle to upper-middle class Americans who didn't have insurance by deducting from their tax returns.
> 
> I am annoyed as fuck however that the Trump government has refused to say anything at all about the mandate penalty when that was one of the major reasons why many people voted him. If his government collects the penalty like Obama's government did, for me that's going to be a deal-breaker with regards to my support for Trump. *Note that the penalty I'm talking about refers to the one his government stands to collect in 2018, not 2017 because at the moment the system is legally in place. However, the government seems silent on that issue at the moment. But it could be because I haven't been paying attention.


The penalty is one of the biggest pieces of shit in the whole of Obamacare, and I for one agree it needs to go (and should never have been put in there in the first place - but I get political paybacks and all that...). I don't know if they'll be able to drop that one part of it though. Remember this whole Obamacare plan is around 11,000 pages long. I don't want to even imagine what kind of legal doublespeak is sitting among all those pages. I think it is likely that the only way to get rid of that one provision is to scrap the whole thing, because if they try to change one thing there will be all kinds of lawyers showing up to say why they can't because sub-clause such and such and sub-sub-clause right here. It is like a holy shrine to bureaucracy and Trump is going to have a difficult time getting something done about it. Especially because good luck getting enough politicians all on the same page to work together with him to actually get this done.


----------



## Reaper

FriedTofu said:


> Just putting this out there as I don't really see the difference between philanthropy funded and tax funded healthcare. People are still funding it one way or the other.


One is voluntary, the other isn't. Philanthropy has a much greater chance of reaching people directly without having to go through the hands of potentially corrupt middle-men. The government can change priorities on a whim while philanthropy is focused and directed. Government is centralized and while people might physically want to donate $10 would end up giving $2 bucks (which realistically happens actually). There's no control over people's tax money once they've given it. Government simply pretends that they can manage it but they really can't. 

There's plenty of difference between voluntary donations and taxation. Plenty.

Just look at the success of Crowdfunding despite the fact that people feel like they're already over-taxed. Thousands of individuals in America are getting cancer (and other) treatments through crowdfunding alone while Medicaid (a government program) does not cover it fully. 

Before Canadians chime in with "muh free healthcare", they really need to realize that their healthcare costs are as high as Americans and they pay for it through an under-performing economy and under-employment of over-qualified people working shit jobs living overall worse lifestyles than they could. Canada has a much greater inflow of immigrants and workers to America looking for opportunity than the other way round. In fact, a lot of people get their immigration to Canada and come down here to work ... far, far more than the other way around.


----------



## Beatles123

FriedTofu said:


> Just putting this out there as I don't really see the difference between philanthropy funded and tax funded healthcare. People are still funding it one way or the other.
> 
> https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-su...etween-taxes-and-charitable-giving-1450062191
> 
> I think the difference is the mindset of people from different ideology. Conservatives in Americas largely feel their tax dollars are being wasted, while the liberals there feel the tax dollars should be used to help the poor more. Similarly, I feel like conservatives think government is bound to fail and don't work at improving government while liberals feel the government has a duty to work for the people and try to make it too pervasive when sometimes government is not needed.
> 
> :shrug


Its not that we want no government. We just want it to have as little influence in people's lives as possible while still being able to function. To be an aid, while not a crutch. 

I've said it before: The government is a safety net. NOT a candy machine.


----------



## Reaper

Beatles123 said:


> Its not that we want no government. We just want it to have as little influence in people's lives as possible while still being able to function. To be an aid, while not a crutch.
> 
> I've said it before: The government is a safety net. NOT a candy machine.


I for one actually want no government :draper2 

But it's a pipe-dream so I'll vote for the government that at least has more right-libertarians than the one that is full of socialists and isn't even educated on libertarianism.



Pratchett said:


> The penalty is one of the biggest pieces of shit in the whole of Obamacare, and I for one agree it needs to go (and should never have been put in there in the first place - but I get political paybacks and all that...). I don't know if they'll be able to drop that one part of it though. Remember this whole Obamacare plan is around 11,000 pages long. I don't want to even imagine what kind of legal doublespeak is sitting among all those pages. I think it is likely that the only way to get rid of that one provision is to scrap the whole thing, because if they try to change one thing there will be all kinds of lawyers showing up to say why they can't because sub-clause such and such and sub-sub-clause right here. It is like a holy shrine to bureaucracy and Trump is going to have a difficult time getting something done about it. Especially because good luck getting enough politicians all on the same page to work together with him to actually get this done.


Repubs have a LOT of tax and spend people in there as well no doubt so I don't see them giving up this source of funds either easily.


----------



## CamillePunk

FriedTofu said:


> Just putting this out there as I don't really see the difference between philanthropy funded and tax funded healthcare. People are still funding it one way or the other.


It's the difference between rape and consensual sex.


----------



## Art Vandaley

Its the difference between people who need help getting help or people who need help maybe possibly getting help if someone much richer felt like being nice that year.

Anyway putting aside the moral arguments (which are gonna get no where lol, you're mostly greedy heartless monsters and as long a system looks after you couldn't give two shits about how anyone else is going) and looking at it from a purely economic perspective healthy people who more efficiently that unhealthy people. We end up richer overall as a society if we provide healthcare to people who can't afford it, and economically, it is mistake to leave that healthcare up to chance.


----------



## CamillePunk

Alkomesh2 said:


> Its the difference between people who need help getting help or people who need help maybe possibly getting help if someone much richer felt like being nice that year.


Need justifies neither rape or theft.


----------



## Beatles123

RipNTear said:


> I for one actually want no government :draper2
> 
> But it's a pipe-dream so I'll vote for the government that at least has more right-libertarians than the one that is full of socialists and isn't even educated on libertarianism.
> 
> 
> 
> Repubs have a LOT of tax and spend people in there as well no doubt so I don't see them giving up this source of funds either easily.


The thing is, the reason you want no government in the first place is because we fuck over the concept so much. :lmao 

It's supposed to be small by way of it's original implementation into the US. It was never designed to have even close to the power it does now. But, yknow! They see an area they can exploit within the constitution and they be like:










:vince7

I mean, there is, literally, no grounds for the IRS to exist.


----------



## Art Vandaley

CamillePunk said:


> Need justifies neither rape or theft.


We fundamentally disagree on the theft point haha

That said, if I believed taxation was theft I'd agree with you. But I don't and I don't.


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> Its the difference between people who need help getting help or people who need help maybe possibly getting help if someone much richer felt like being nice that year.


If a person with less income than yours breaks into your house and takes all your food, does that make it not theft because he's needier than you are?


----------



## Art Vandaley

RipNTear said:


> If a person with less income than yours breaks into your house and takes all your food, does that make it not theft because he's needier than you are?


I support welfare systems that mean people don't need to thieve.

In NSW at least it's 40k to keep someone on welfare and 80k to keep someone in jail.

If someone is stealing simply because they have no food to eat and no way to legitimately earn food to eat, then, yes it is theft, but I wouldn't be angry at that person.


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> I support welfare systems that mean people don't need to thieve.


Doesn't make it not theft. 



> In NSW at least it's 40k to keep someone on welfare and 80k to keep someone in jail.


Doesn't make it non-theft. 



> If someone is stealing simply because they have no food to eat and no way to legitimately earn food to eat, then, yes it is theft, but I wouldn't be angry at that person.


So again, how is taxation not theft? 

I'll make the concept of voluntary vs involuntary tax slightly simpler to understand. If people were given the choice to pay absolutely no tax and give money to the charities of their choosing, they would pay no tax. This is why any tax rate at any level is always involuntary.


----------



## CamillePunk

RipNTear said:


> So again, how is taxation not theft?


THE MAGIC OF BELIEF 

no it's not religious at all like omg how could you even go there


----------



## Art Vandaley

RipNTear said:


> Doesn't make it not theft.
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't make it non-theft.
> 
> 
> 
> So again, how is taxation not theft?




Oh ok, I didn't realise you were making a taxation is theft argument lol

Go reread my arguments from much earlier in this thread, but I'm not starting from scratch on that one again.


----------



## Beatles123

I don't fucking know how one DOESN'T believe modern taxation isn't theft! :booklel


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> Oh ok, I didn't realise you were making a taxation is theft argument lol
> 
> Go reread my arguments from much earlier in this thread, but I'm not starting from scratch on that one again.


Does it have anything to do with voluntary vs involuntary? 

What if you wanted to pay tax, but your neighbor was given the choice to never pay any tax. Would you live and let live and ignore the fact that your neighbor enjoys a better lifestyle than you at the same income level because he doesn't pay for your roads but you do?



Beatles123 said:


> I don't fucking know how one DOESN'T believe modern taxation isn't theft! :booklel


Personal Story time: When I was first introduced to the concept that taxation is theft or that society could function without a government, all of my arguments were the same as the ones we see in this thread :lol 

I had to defeat myself in a several year long personal debate before I finally convinced myself that taxation is theft. It's funny because the State creates public schools that teach children the benefits of government right from day 1. You have to exit the school system entirely to even get exposed to anti-federalist literature. 

And yes, I went to northern schools  In fact, I was fully indoctrinated into Social Welfare Statism.:tripsscust


----------



## Goku

Alkomesh2 said:


> We fundamentally disagree on the theft point haha
> 
> That said, if I believed taxation was theft I'd agree with you. But I don't and I don't.


what are your thoughts on making tax optional, where the government has to make its case and convince people to donate money to its functioning (as well as to fund all the welfare schemes and whatnot)? Do you think it would make any difference?

as an implementation technique, one might simply reduce the mandatory tax rates and make only the additional donations optional but I'm less interested in implementation than the premise.


----------



## Beatles123

I don't care if Dick Everyman blows all his life's savings in a drunken stupor one night at the Cabana Club and has to pay child support for his wife's son. Why the fuck should I lose the money I bust my ass to earn in order to pay for his gambling addiction? :vince4


----------



## Art Vandaley

RipNTear said:


> Does it have anything to do with voluntary vs involuntary?
> 
> What if you wanted to pay tax, but your neighbor was given the choice to never pay any tax. Would you live and let live and ignore the fact that your neighbor enjoys a better lifestyle than you at the same income level because he doesn't pay for your roads but you do?


As long as he wasn't allowed to use literally anything that public money had ever been put in. 

Ie he can't use the roads, police etc then sure it wouldn't bother me.

Australia has a couple of principalities where people don't pay tax and you can go live if you feel that way and their existence doesn't bother me in the slightest.

Conversely if someone was really poor and simply couldn't afford to pay tax, or as much as me, I wouldn't mind them having access the services because they have contributed what they could according to their means. 



> Personal Story time: When I was first introduced to the concept that taxation is theft or that society could function without a government, all of my arguments were the same as the ones we see in this thread :lol
> 
> I had to defeat myself in a several year long personal debate before I finally convinced myself that taxation is theft.


I was far more right when I was younger, I never would have been taxation is theft right wing, but I supported Bush over Gore in 2000 for example. 

I've grown more left wing as I've gotten older and realised that the world isn't that simple, and not all people are poor because there is something wrong them, but rather its basically just a fuck tonne of luck, and more based on where/how you were born than anything else.



Goku said:


> what are your thoughts on making tax optional, where the government has to make its case and convince people to donate money to its functioning (as well as to fund all the welfare schemes and whatnot)? Do you think it would make any difference?
> 
> as an implementation technique, one might simply reduce the mandatory tax rates and make only the additional donations optional but I'm less interested in implementation than the premise.


I don't support making tax optional, its too important and people are too greedy, however I do very much support making a certain percentage of your tax, say 30% for the sake of argument optional to the extent you can reserve its use for certain things, say healthcare, or the military and the gov being bound to spend that 30% as directed.


----------



## Beatles123

RipNTear said:


> Does it have anything to do with voluntary vs involuntary?
> 
> What if you wanted to pay tax, but your neighbor was given the choice to never pay any tax. Would you live and let live and ignore the fact that your neighbor enjoys a better lifestyle than you at the same income level because he doesn't pay for your roads but you do?
> 
> 
> Personal Story time: When I was first introduced to the concept that taxation is theft or that society could function without a government, all of my arguments were the same as the ones we see in this thread :lol
> 
> I had to defeat myself in a several year long personal debate before I finally convinced myself that taxation is theft. It's funny because the State creates public schools that teach children the benefits of government right from day 1. You have to exit the school system entirely to even get exposed to anti-federalist literature.
> 
> And yes, I went to northern schools  In fact, I was fully indoctrinated into Social Welfare Statism.


Here's a riddle for you: How can you tell a Socialist/Communist from an Anti-Socialist/Communist?

Answer: The ones that are for it have read Marx/Lenin, and the ones against it *UNDERSTAND* Marx/Lenin! :trump3



Alkomesh2 said:


> I was far more right when I was younger, I never would have been taxation is theft right wing, but I supported Bush over Gore in 2000 for example.
> 
> I've grown more left wing as I've gotten older and realised that the world isn't that simple, and not all people are poor because there is something wrong them, but rather its basically just a fuck tonne of luck, and more based on where/how you were born than anything else.


No no, you were right the first time actually. :nerd:


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> As long as he wasn't allowed to use literally anything that public money had ever been put in.
> 
> Ie he can't use the roads, police etc then sure it wouldn't bother me.


And you just made the strongest argument against taxation and why taxation is theft :lol 

I didn't really lead you into making such an assertion, but by wanting to "possess" the fruits of your taxes and deny access to someone else is actually an argument for private property because now you view the results of your taxes as your private property and want to deny it to your neighbor. This is exactly why the government needs to make taxation involuntary and why taxation is theft. 

You can continue to have a taxation system, but there is no argument against it being anything but theft.


----------



## Goku

Alkomesh2 said:


> I don't support making tax optional, its too important and people are too greedy, however I do very much support making a certain percentage of your tax, say 30% for the sake of argument optional to the extent you can reserve its use for certain things, say healthcare, or the military and the gov being bound to spend that 30% as directed.


if people are greedy, why would you entrust them with everyone's money to serve society?


----------



## Beatles123

Thank you, magic moderator man! :banderas:


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> Oh yeah, medicaid is royally fucked. But I can tell you a way Trump can start to unfuck it...
> 
> When I was in need of a new wheelchair after years of working with the company that had helped with me since I was two years old, we found that the healthcare laws now forbade the guy we worked with to get my chairs through medicade, to do business in my area because his company lost the bid. Now! If TRUMP had anything to say about it, eliminating the artificial lines would have allowed him to order the best chair for me in my area. This is Trump's point: These companies as yet cannot compete with each other and let their clients choose. This outfit was with me since TWO! Age, *TWO!* and now I am no longer able to be covered under them. Trump Recognizes this problem.


Trump would only make it worse what he wants to do was already tried and it was an utter disaster. 

Also why arent you paying for your own wheel chair with your own money? I thought you dont like hand outs? Why should my tax payer money go to paying for your wheel chair?

And no sorry, but Trumps plan would not allow you to get the best chair , you would get the shittest chair because you would get the bare minimum that would be required. All Trumps plan will do is have all the companies go to the states with the least regulations, set up shop and everyone will get shit insurance for cheap and it won't cover anything




Goku said:


> what are your thoughts on making tax optional, where the government has to make its case and convince people to donate money to its functioning (as well as to fund all the welfare schemes and whatnot)? Do you think it would make any difference?
> 
> as an implementation technique, one might simply reduce the mandatory tax rates and make only the additional donations optional but I'm less interested in implementation than the premise.


So if you dont pay taxes does that mean the police and fire dept dont have to come help you if you ever need them? does that mean you would not get mail or trash service either? Will you also be willing to pay for K-12 schools since you are not paying taxes?


----------



## Beatles123

Anyway, when you win Who Wants To Be A Millionaire and it all become's next to nothing after taxes (IE, John Carpernter), i'm pretty sure that's theft! :ha


----------



## Art Vandaley

RipNTear said:


> And you just made the strongest argument against taxation and why taxation is theft :lol
> 
> I didn't really lead you into making such an assertion, but by wanting to "possess" the fruits of your taxes and deny access to someone else is actually an argument for private property because now you view the results of your taxes as your private property and want to deny it to your neighbor. This is exactly why the government needs to make taxation involuntary and why taxation is theft.
> 
> You can continue to have a taxation system, but there is no argument against it being anything but theft.


I'm gonna duck off after this so don't expect a reply anytime soon haha

But needless to say if you're getting worth for your money and emigration is legal then taxation isn't theft anymore than say club dues are. 



Beatles123 said:


> Here's a riddle for you: How can you tell a Socialist/Communist from an Anti-Socialist/Communist?
> 
> Answer: The ones that are for it have read Marx/Lenin, and the ones against it *UNDERSTAND* Marx/Lenin! :trump3
> 
> No no, you were right the first time actually. :nerd:


You don't really think there is something inherently wrong with people who are less well off do you?



Goku said:


> if people are greedy, why would you entrust them with everyone's money to serve society?


That's why I support the separation of powers doctrine, the division of powers doctrine and an elected representative government itself governed by a constitution.


----------



## Beatles123

birthday_massacre said:


> Also why arent you paying for your own wheel chair with your own money? I thought you dont like hand outs? Why should my tax payer money go to paying for your wheel chair?
> 
> And no sorry, but Trumps plan would not allow you to get the best chair , you would get the shittest chair because you would get the bare minimum that would be required. All Trumps plan will do is have all the companies go to the states with the least regulations, set up shop and everyone will get shit insurance for cheap and it won't cover anything


It shouldn't. iper1

But YOU were the ones that made the damn system. :cena2

and basically you're saying it'd be no worse for me than right now. :booklel


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> It shouldn't. iper1
> 
> But YOU were the one that made the damn system. :cena2
> 
> and basically you're saying it'd be no worse for me than right now. :booklel


You don't like the system so stop whining you did not get a handout since you are so against them. Just pay for it out of your own pocket.

Under Trumps system you would be much worse off, especially because you have a pre-existing condition. You better hope Trump does not implement his current plan.


----------



## Goku

Alkomesh2 said:


> That's why I support the separation of powers doctrine, the division of powers doctrine and an elected representative government itself governed by a constitution.


...made by and made up of greedy people

:armfold


----------



## Beatles123

birthday_massacre said:


> You don't like the system so stop whining you did not get a handout since you are so against them. Just pay for it out of your own pocket.


Fix the shitty law your party made so i can! :cena5



Alkomesh2 said:


> You don't really think there is something inherently wrong with people who are less well off do you?


 No. Im saying there is something inherently wrong with most people staying worse off. :vince5


Edit: HEY GUYS!!!! I DID IT!! I DID THE THING!! :sodone:


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> So if you dont pay taxes does that mean the police and fire dept dont have to come help you if you ever need them? does that mean you would not get mail or trash service either? Will you also be willing to pay for K-12 schools since you are not paying taxes?


The government doesn't do any of those things. It gives them money and it outsources contracts to private entities to do everything except fire and police and guess what, pretty much all private entities actually show lower costs than government run facilities. Post is already semi-privatized as you pay for your packages and your mail. It's just subsidized. Since the 70's, education, fire and safety have all continued to go up whereas groceries and clothing (both have actually gone down adjusted for dollar value), electricity, gas, water and oil haven't increased as much as the other government run facilities. 

What communities can do is outsource the police and fire of their locality to private companies (like electricity and gas) and those companies can bill you. Since there isn't a single person in America that doesn't pay for power, water and gas, pretty sure everyone will willingly pay for police, fire and roads in an itemized manner as well. 

But now we're getting into highly theoretical concepts. In theory and in practice (in many necessity product industries) privatization works and has continued to work in many of life's other necessities so the same ideology can be extended to fire and police as well.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> Fix the shitty law your party made so i can! :cena5


Your party is the one who made Obamacare but you are too uninformed to even know that. Obamcare is just based on Romneycare a republican healthcare plan. So if you want to bash anyone for Obamacare it should be the republicans.


----------



## Beatles123

birthday_massacre said:


> Your party is the one who made Obamacare but you are too uninformed to even know that. Obamcare is just based on Romneycare a republican healthcare plan. So if you want to bash anyone for Obamacare it should be the republicans.


Who said im talking about Obamacare? :vince5


----------



## birthday_massacre

RipNTear said:


> The government doesn't do any of those things. It gives them money and it outsources contracts to private entities to do everything except fire and police and guess what, pretty much all private entities actually show lower costs than government run facilities. What communities can do is outsource the police and fire of their locality to private companies (like electricity and gas) and those companies can bill you. Since there isn't a single person in America that doesn't pay for power, water and gas, pretty sure everyone will willingly pay for police, fire and roads in an itemized manner as well.
> 
> But now we're getting into highly theoretical concepts. In theory and in practice (in many necessity product industries) privatization works and has continued to work in many of life's other necessities so the same ideology can be extended to fire and police as well.


That is where our tax payer money goes to. Don't even try to pretend it does not. You are talking about not paying taxes, if you are not paying taxes then you have no right to those services. We pay gas and electric separate that is not paid for by our taxes. That is why we got monthly bills for those services. We dont get a monthly bill for police, fire, roads , bridges or all those other things our tax payer dollars do.


----------



## Beatles123

birthday_massacre said:


> roads


>Tfw He said it :booklel


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> That is where our tax payer money goes to. Don't even try to pretend it does not. You are talking about not paying taxes, if you are not paying taxes then you have no right to those services. We pay gas and electric separate that is not paid for by our taxes. That is why we got monthly bills for those services. We dont get a monthly bill for police, fire, roads , bridges or all those other things our tax payer dollars do.


Yah. I had a feeling this is much too complicated for you to understand but you were going to respond anyways.

PS. I can see where the confusion is. The government doesn't do anything means that they aren't _providing _you with fire and police. They are _paying _for it. _Performing _a service isn't the same as _paying _for it. This is why you can realistically privatize fire and police as well. There's a difference, but I can see why it would be confusing.


----------



## Beatles123

RipNTear said:


> Yah. I had a feeling this is much too complicated for you to understand but you were going to respond anyways.


NO NO.

YOU HAVE TO ANSWER ME THIS......
































Who'll build them? :troll :ha


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> >Tfw He said it :booklel


You know who killed civilians overseas right?









You know who opposes the legalization of pot? Republicans, there are way too many people in jail for pot, you know a victimless crime.

And the replicas are the ones who want to put the middle class and poor into debt.

I love how you just posted a meme against republicans lol 

Go back and play in the kiddie pool.


----------



## Reaper

Beatles123 said:


> NO NO.
> 
> YOU HAVE TO ANSWER ME THIS......
> Who'll build them? :troll :ha


Yah ... I'm so far on the bottom right and BM is so far on the top left in terms of economic policy that perhaps the ideological gap is too much to overcome.

Even @L-DOPA doesn't agree with my stance on the privatization of police :mj2 

Sooo ronery down here.


----------



## Beatles123

birthday_massacre said:


> You know who opposes the legalization of pot? Republicans, there are way too many people in jail for pot, you know a victimless crime.


:ha NOT THE WAY MY FAMILY USES IT. :troll


----------



## Beatles123

RipNTear said:


> Yah ... I'm so far on the bottom right and BM is so far on the top left in terms of economic policy that perhaps the ideological gap is too much to overcome.
> 
> Even @L-DOPA doesn't agree with my stance on the privatization of police :mj2
> 
> Sooo ronery down here.


Not me, man! I like Rand Paul and had I been able and gave a shit then, i'd have voted for Ron! :sk


----------



## birthday_massacre

RipNTear said:


> Yah ... I'm so far on the bottom right and BM is so far on the top left in terms of economic policy that perhaps the ideological gap is too much to overcome.
> 
> Even @L-DOPA doesn't agree with my stance on the privatization of police :mj2
> 
> Sooo ronery down here.


Im sure if we worked at it we could find some compromise ,maybe.


----------



## Reaper

Beatles123 said:


> Not me, man! I like Rand Paul and had I been able and gave a shit then, i'd have voted for Ron! :sk


Well, there's good news. Rand Paul's replacement act just got a thumbs up from the Freedom Caucus :trump2


birthday_massacre said:


> Im sure if we worked at it we could find some compromise ,maybe.


There's always going to be some agreement, but not a lot. We'll end up disagreeing on 90%+ of issues.

There's legalization of marijuana. I'm pro-legalization 100% so we can always have that. I also agree with the idea that the drug war impacts minorities significantly disproportionately (but we might disagree on the reasons).


----------



## Beatles123

birthday_massacre said:


> Im sure if we worked at it we could find some compromise ,maybe.


Do you mean an actual compromise or a Sanders-esque im-going-to-just-pretend-im-agreeable-but-i-secretly-hate-you-oh-by-the-way-look-I-renamed-a-post-office-please-love-me-vermont compromise? :mj


----------



## Beatles123

RipNTear said:


> Well, there's good news. Rand Paul's replacement act just got a thumbs up from the Freedom Caucus :trump2
> 
> 
> There's always going to be some agreement, but not a lot. We'll end up disagreeing on 90%+ of issues.


So it goes to the house? :O


----------



## birthday_massacre

RipNTear said:


> Well, there's good news. Rand Paul's replacement act just got a thumbs up from the Freedom Caucus :trump2
> 
> 
> There's always going to be some agreement, but not a lot. We'll end up disagreeing on 90%+ of issues.
> 
> There's legalization of marijuana. I'm pro-legalization 100% so we can always have that. I also agree with the idea that the drug war impacts minorities significantly disproportionately (but we might disagree on the reasons).


Well two things off the bat I bet we can go agree on when it comes to healthcare would be, we should allow the import of medicine to keep the cost of prescriptions down. And its also probably safe to assume we would agree if someone does not want insurance they should not get that stupid fine.

I bet we could also agree that hospitals should not be able to artificially jack up the price of a hospital room, to inflate insurance cost. When I had my surgery, on the bill it said 10k for the hospital room for one night. Insurance covered all of it, but there is no way it really costs that much. So if they would actually charge insurance companies what the real cost was then insurance probably would not be so high. I cant imagine not having insurance and having to pay that and that was just for the room, not even including the cost of the surgery

so starting there could easily cut the cost of insurance. 

Even if you can't afford insurance, getting sick should not bankrupt anyone.


----------



## MrMister

There are so many posts ITT that we'll need to reboot the thread pretty soon.

Are we sick of all the winning yet?


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

MrMister said:


> There are so many posts ITT that we'll need to reboot the thread pretty soon.
> 
> Are we sick of all the winning yet?


4 months and 6,000+ posts. Amazing, tbh. :trump3


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> Well two things off the bat I bet we can go agree on when it comes to healthcare would be, we should allow the import of medicine to keep the cost of prescriptions down. And its also probably safe to assume we would agree if someone does not want insurance they should not get that stupid fine.


Competition is healthy so I'll agree. Now that you agree on the notion that one mandated tax should go, I think you should start thinking in terms of other mandated taxes as well and other people's point of view and start expanding the list of all other taxes that we can do away with. 



> I bet we could also agree that hospitals should not be able to artificially jack up the price of a hospital room, to inflate insurance cost. When I had my surgery, on the bill it said 10k for the hospital room for one night. Insurance covered all of it, but there is no way it really costs that much. So if they would actually charge insurance companies what the real cost was then insurance probably would not be so high. I cant imagine not having insurance and having to pay that and that was just for the room, not even including the cost of the surgery


Yup. The partnership between insurance companies, hospitals and the government has created a completely broken system. 



> so starting there could easily cut the cost of insurance.


However, government regulations won't do that job. Artificial price controls in other industries have led to disastrous results as well so in principle regulations don't work. If the government says "you can't sell X for more than $10 and only make $2 on it", the capitalists' response to this is "Well, then I'll sell Y instead because Y allows me to make $4 for every $10 I spend. This hospital business isn't for me. See ya later". This is kind of literally what happened with Obabacare. Government regulations tend to have the opposite effect to what they're going for because they're usually too short-sighted to see the impact of their regulations. That and forcing people to buy insurance gave the insurance companies the perfect chance to dictate the prices and options available. It created a mini-monopoly in the system that was fully exploited by the insurance companies. 



> Even if you can't afford insurance, getting sick should not bankrupt anyone.


Agreed. But the solution to that isn't to continue to keep adding more money (i.e. universal healthcare type of policies, or even increasing welfare) and therefore create an artificial supply of money because since the money exists in the system, there's no incentive for anyone to reduce their prices. The only solution is to dregulate the industry entirely (minus the stuff that's related to safety) and let the market determine the equilibrium. 

Trust me, the free market is the best way to reduce prices. There's no other solution.


----------



## Beatles123

Another thing we can do about taxes?

Audit the fed! :trump (We need a Rand Smiley! )

Seriously...how is the IRS a thing? ITS NOT EVEN A GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION! :wtf


----------



## FriedTofu

RipNTear said:


> One is voluntary, the other isn't. Philanthropy has a much greater chance of reaching people directly without having to go through the hands of potentially corrupt middle-men. The government can change priorities on a whim while philanthropy is focused and directed. Government is centralized and while people might physically want to donate $10 would end up giving $2 bucks (which realistically happens actually). There's no control over people's tax money once they've given it. Government simply pretends that they can manage it but they really can't.
> 
> There's plenty of difference between voluntary donations and taxation. Plenty.
> 
> Just look at the success of Crowdfunding despite the fact that people feel like they're already over-taxed. Thousands of individuals in America are getting cancer (and other) treatments through crowdfunding alone while Medicaid (a government program) does not cover it fully.
> 
> Before Canadians chime in with "muh free healthcare", they really need to realize that their healthcare costs are as high as Americans and they pay for it through an under-performing economy and under-employment of over-qualified people working shit jobs living overall worse lifestyles than they could. Canada has a much greater inflow of immigrants and workers to America looking for opportunity than the other way round. In fact, a lot of people get their immigration to Canada and come down here to work ... far, far more than the other way around.


You are assuming NGOs aren't susceptible to the same corruption that plague bureaucracy of government. Clinton foundation? :troll You have to weigh the risks too as there is little safety net if these NGOs are not reputable. Also crowdfunding and philanthropy driven healthcare provider can't handle all the healthcare needs taxation are serving. The link showed that lower taxes does not necessarily mean higher philanthropy donations.



Beatles123 said:


> Its not that we want no government. We just want it to have as little influence in people's lives as possible while still being able to function. To be an aid, while not a crutch.
> 
> I've said it before: The government is a safety net. NOT a candy machine.


Sounds like entitlement to me. You want the safety net to be there, but not willing to contribute to it unless you need it. A question, do you want churches to have more influence in people's lives or as little influence as possible?



CamillePunk said:


> It's the difference between rape and consensual sex.


Dang, I didn't know you view church tithes as performing rapes for centuries.


----------



## BruiserKC

MrMister said:


> There are so many posts ITT that we'll need to reboot the thread pretty soon.
> 
> Are we sick of all the winning yet?





Oda Nobunaga said:


> 4 months and 6,000+ posts. Amazing, tbh. :trump3


Crazy idea here, and maybe something you mods and @Headliner should look into...I wonder if it would make more sense to put the Political discussions into a separate section. Or, make it a subsection, like the Classic Wrestling section is compared to General WWE, for example.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Trump's first month*

I'm missing a few days because I couldn't find anything eventful.



> January 20th - Signed executive halting Obamacare and housing premiums (Day 1)
> 
> January 21st - Spoke to the CIA (Day 2)
> 
> January 22nd - Swears in Cabinet members. Bombs ISIS. (Day 3)
> 
> January 23rd - Signed the US out of TPP. federal freeze hiring (except military), and reinstated the Mexico City policy on abortion funding. Met with union leaders. (Day 4)
> 
> January 24th - Orders the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines to be built (Day 5)
> 
> January 25th - Dow Jones hits 20,000! (Day 6)
> 
> January 26th - Blocked Obama's $221 million gift to Palestine. Ignored the dishonest press before flight. (Day 7)
> 
> January 27th - Had a meeting with British Prime Minister Theresa May. Signs order to vet Muslims and build The Wall. (Day 8)
> 
> January 28th - Made weekly address. (Day 9)
> 
> January 29th - Signed executive orders on ISIS, lobbying, and the National Security Council. He instructed the military to come up with a strategy for defeating ISIS; enacted a 5-year lobbying ban for administration officials; and signed off on a plan to reorganize the National Security Council. (Day 10)
> 
> January 30th - Called Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to express his condolences over the shooting, (Day 11)
> 
> January 31st - Agrees to keep Barack Obama's executive order on LGBT worker protections. Chooses Neil Gorsuch for Supreme Court seat. (Day 12)
> 
> February 2nd - Disagreed with the Australian Prime Minister after learning of Obama's deal with them with refugees. (Day 14)
> 
> February 3rd - Dow closes above 20,000 on news of easing regulations, tax cuts, jobs. (Day 15)
> 
> February 4th - Attended the 60th Annual Red Cross gala. (Day 16)
> 
> February 5th - Picked the Patriots to win the Superbowl again. (Day 17)
> 
> February 6th - Betsy DeVos was confirmed for Education Secretary. (Day 18)
> 
> February 7th - Met with police chiefs from across the country. (Day 19)
> 
> February 8th - Made a deal with Brian Krzanich, CEO of Intel, to invest $7 BILLION in a new semiconductor factory in Chandler, Arizona that will create 10,000 long term jobs. (Day 20)
> 
> February 9th - Signed three executive orders Thursday aimed at bolstering law enforcement and targeting violent crime and criminal drug cartels. (Day 21)
> 
> February 10th - Indicates he may sign a new travel ban. Met with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe (Day 22)
> 
> February 11th - Gave warning to North Korea after their missile test. Honors One China policy. (Day 23)
> 
> February 13th - Met with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (Day 25)
> 
> February 14th - Linda McMahon is sworn as the Secretary of the Small Business Administration. (Day 26)
> 
> February 15th - Slams intel community after Russia report (Day 27)
> 
> February 16th - Signs bill undoing Obama coal mining rule. Ripped into the media during press conference. (Day 28)
> 
> February 17th - Unveiled new Boeing airplane. (Day 29)
> 
> February 18th - held a rally at Orlando-Melbourne International Airport (Day 30)


- Vic


----------



## DOPA

RipNTear said:


> Yah ... I'm so far on the bottom right and BM is so far on the top left in terms of economic policy that perhaps the ideological gap is too much to overcome.
> 
> Even @L-DOPA doesn't agree with my stance on the privatization of police :mj2
> 
> Sooo ronery down here.


You always have @CamillePunk, The Anarcho-Capitalist fa-....brother to support you :lol  .

(You know I'm messing with you CP  ).




Beatles123 said:


> Another thing we can do about taxes?
> 
> Audit the fed! :trump (We need a Rand Smiley! )
> 
> Seriously...how is the IRS a thing? ITS NOT EVEN A GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION! :wtf


 @AryaDark @DesolationRow @CamillePunk

Quick, one of you make a Rand smiley, we need one! :mark:

I don't know how to make one :lol.


----------



## Goku

L-DOPA said:


> You always have @CamillePunk , The Anarcho-Capitalist fa-....brother to support you :lol  .
> 
> (You know I'm messing with you CP  ).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @AryaDark @DesolationRow @CamillePunk
> 
> Quick, one of you make a Rand smiley, we need one! :mark:
> 
> I don't know how to make one :lol.


----------



## it's squezzy bitch

how pathetic is trump, once again making up false terrorism, this time supposedly in sweden.

hey guess what a bunch of neo-nazis have just gone around the whole of england today killing babies, it must be true because i said it is, the ironic thing is if even if neo nazis going around killing babies was actually true the trump supporters would still kick up less fuss over something like this than over one of trump's made up islamic/migrant terrorist plots.


----------



## Reaper

it's squezzy bitch said:


> how pathetic is trump, once again making up false terrorism, this time supposedly in sweden.


The sad part is that he made that statement in my hometown of all places which is already a depraved hub of poorly informed folk that are pretty far removed from reality as is fpalm

There's already so much Islamist terrorism happening globally anyways that him and his administration just need to compile a real list everyday instead of having to create shit.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Trump May Move Mexico Forward on a Plan to Hit U.S. Farmers Where It Hurts

http://fortune.com/2017/02/17/trump-mexico-corn-farmers/

Reuters
Feb 17, 2017
Mexico's attempts to diversify its supplies of corn could threaten a crucial market for U.S. farmers who are increasingly dependent on exports to unload record stockpiles that are depressing prices.
Mexico buys nearly all its corn imports from the United States - shipments that totaled 13.603 million tonnes in the year ending Aug. 31, 2016. The sales account for about 28% of total U.S. corn exports, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
But now Mexico wants to lessen that dependence as U.S. President Donald Trump threatens to upend trade between the countries. On Thursday, Mexico's agriculture minister revealed plans to visit Argentina and Brazil to buy yellow corn.
A grain buyer at a corn mill in Mexico told Reuters in an email on Thursday he had already asked for price quotes from Brazilian and Argentine exporters for corn shipments to Mexico.
Mexico tends to import grain from South America or countries other than the United States only when it is cheaper or supplies are tight.
U.S. corn prices of around $190 per ton are about $10 to $15 lower than South American grain delivered to Mexico, trade sources said.
"The extent to which there is any switching that takes place (by Mexico) to South America frankly all depends on price. At the moment it doesn't work so there would have to be something else that triggers it," Soren Schroder, chief executive of grain trader Bunge, said on a call with analysts on Wednesday.
U.S. farmers are concerned that the new administration's early maneuvering on trade threatens exports, which are a rare bright spot in an agricultural economy where farm income could fall to its lowest since 2002 in inflation-adjusted terms.
Trump, who was supported by many Midwest grain states when he won the presidential election in November, has already withdrawn the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal. He has raised the prospect of renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico, which food producers say has quadrupled U.S. agricultural exports in the region during the past two decades."We are concerned that growing rhetoric is creating an environment in which Mexican buyers feel they need to look at alternate suppliers, which could affect U.S. market share," the U.S. Grains Council, a trade group that develops export markets for corn and other grains, said in an email to Reuters.


----------



## Vic Capri

> how pathetic is trump, once again making up false terrorism, this time supposedly in sweden.


There was a recent attack in Sweden.

Nice try. 

- Vic


----------



## MrMister

BruiserKC said:


> Crazy idea here, and maybe something you mods and @Headliner should look into...I wonder if it would make more sense to put the Political discussions into a separate section. Or, make it a subsection, like the Classic Wrestling section is compared to General WWE, for example.


I don't think that is necessary. It's really just this one thread.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Vic Capri said:


> There was a recent attack in Sweden.
> 
> Nice try.
> 
> - Vic


Oh please that is not what Trump was talking about. Trump said in Sweden last night in his speech and there was no terrorist attack the day before, plus Trump was implying it was by refugees like in the other countries he mentioned. the attack you are talking about was not caused by refugees, refugees were attacked


----------



## Draykorinee

birthday_massacre said:


> Oh please that is not what Trump was talking about. Trump said in Sweden last night in his speech and there was no terrorist attack the day before, plus Trump was implying it was by refugees like in the other countries he mentioned. the attack you are talking about was not caused by refugees, refugees were attacked


He was being sarcastic.

Trump doesn't count white people when it comes to terrorism.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> Do you mean an actual compromise or a Sanders-esque im-going-to-just-pretend-im-agreeable-but-i-secretly-hate-you-oh-by-the-way-look-I-renamed-a-post-office-please-love-me-vermont compromise? :mj


Or like the kind of compromises people in the south make

http://img.memecdn.com/*******-randal_c_339303.jpg


----------



## Vic Capri

> Oh please that is not what Trump was talking about.


Oh please, I didn't know you were psychic. This is why nobody takes you seriously on here, bro.

- Vic


----------



## birthday_massacre

Vic Capri said:


> Oh please, I didn't know you were psychic. This is why nobody takes you seriously on here, bro.
> 
> - Vic


This is why Trump supporters cannot be taken seriously, because Trump lies and makes shit up and you still find ways to defend him.

You can't even make a case for your example since it did not happen the day before like Trump claimed. it happened over a week ago. So even that logic does not fit. And it again the refugees were not the issue like Trump was saying, the refugees were attacked.

it would be like Trump saying oh blacks cause all this crime in Chicago, and just look at the incident last night, then nothing happened the night before, but a week before you had a bunch of KKK people attacking blacks and pointing that out to say SEE Trump was right

Trump once again made up a terrorist attack. He was saying refugees attacked Sweden last night when they did not. You have zero credibility trying to defend this.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> This is why Trump supporters cannot be taken seriously, because Trump lies and makes shit up and you still find ways to defend him.
> 
> You can't even make a case for your example since it did not happen the day before like Trump claimed. it happened over a week ago. So even that logic does not fit. And it again the refugees were not the issue like Trump was saying, the refugees were attacked.
> 
> it would be like Trump saying oh blacks cause all this crime in Chicago, and just look at the incident last night, then nothing happened the night before, but a week before you had a bunch of KKK people attacking blacks and pointing that out to say SEE Trump was right
> 
> Trump once again made up a terrorist attack. He was saying refugees attacked Sweden last night when they did not. You have zero credibility trying to defend this.


This is where Bannon weakens Trump's administration significantly.

While the MSM definitely is shit and the op-eds full of crap, it doesn't mean that the MSM isn't reporting actual events. Their reporting on global terrorism is much better than the alternative media can ever hope to reproduce. 

I have to admit that in their war on the MSM as a whole instead of keeping perspective is resulting in an administration that setting itself up for these kinds of gaffes. And yes. In a world which has real terrorists and real terrorism, making shit up is abhoring. 

Obviously it bugs me because no amount of misinformation is justifiable to me.


----------



## MrMister

Trump is just giving the press tough love. He's calling them out to do their fucking jobs because they haven't done their jobs in decades.

:trump


----------



## deepelemblues

> While the MSM definitely is shit and the op-eds full of crap, it doesn't mean that the MSM isn't reporting actual events. Their reporting on global terrorism is much better than the alternative media can ever hope to reproduce.


:heston

Are you serious? Because that's hilarious.

The MSM's reporting on terrorism is bottom of the barrel garbage.


----------



## Beatles123

RipNTear said:


> This is where Bannon weakens Trump's administration significantly.
> 
> While the MSM definitely is shit and the op-eds full of crap, it doesn't mean that the MSM isn't reporting actual events. Their reporting on global terrorism is much better than the alternative media can ever hope to reproduce.
> 
> I have to admit that in their war on the MSM as a whole instead of keeping perspective is resulting in an administration that setting itself up for these kinds of gaffes.


I disagree! I'd rather listen to most youtube media (Cenk and his cuck crew don't count :trump2) than any MSM because they DO cover it more accurately. I havent seen them cover the fucking Civil WAR going on in paris for example. You know why? Because a certain Globalist agenda would take a massive hit if they did, Just like if they reported on THIS:


----------



## virus21

MrMister said:


> Trump is just giving the press tough love. He's calling them out to do their fucking jobs because they haven't done their jobs in decades.
> 
> :trump





deepelemblues said:


> :heston
> 
> Are you serious? Because that's hilarious.
> 
> The MSM's reporting on terrorism is bottom of the barrel garbage.


Pretty much. Sargon did a video about the MSM that pretty much points it out. Edit: Which Beatles123 just posted


----------



## Reaper

deepelemblues said:


> :heston
> 
> Are you serious? Because that's hilarious.
> 
> The MSM's reporting on terrorism is bottom of the barrel garbage.


Yes. Their coverage is fine. Their promotion isn't. It's buried under op-eds. 


Beatles123 said:


> I disagree! I'd rather listen to most youtube media (Cenk and his cuck crew don't count :trump2) than any MSM because they DO cover it more accurately. I havent seen them cover the fucking Civil WAR going on in paris for example. You know why? Because a certain Globalist agenda would take a massive hit if they did, Just like if they reported on THIS:


All the outlets are reporting it. They're just burying it under their anti-Trump hysteria.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> I disagree! I'd rather listen to most youtube media (Cenk and his cuck crew don't count :trump2) than any MSM because they DO cover it more accurately. I havent seen them cover the fucking Civil WAR going on in paris for example. You know why? Because a certain Globalist agenda would take a massive hit if they did, Just like if they reported on THIS:


What do you watch for online news ?




MrMister said:


> Trump is just giving the press tough love. He's calling them out to do their fucking jobs because they haven't done their jobs in decades.
> 
> :trump


The most ironic thing is Trump calling the news media make news when Trump and his admin put out fake news all the time lol


----------



## deepelemblues

RipNTear said:


> Yes. Their coverage is fine. Their promotion isn't. It's buried under op-eds.


No, their coverage is awful. As evidenced by, oh, the coverage of every single terrorist attack ever since their mugging by reality on September 11th wore off. In their rush to get a scoop in the immediate aftermath of an attack they report numerous things that turn out to be wrong; in the medium and long-term aftermath their reporting is tailored to back up their political leanings.

One example being "Omar Mateen was secretly gay." And the speculation that the attack might have been truly caused by... right-wing homophobic rhetoric! 

Nope. The MSM reported the whole Omar Mateen was secretly gay thing endlessly. FBI found zero evidence that he was gay, secretly or otherwise. Bible thumpers had precisely jack and shit to do with it. He killed 49 gay people because he was an Islamic terrorist, not because of opposition to transgender bathroom policies. 

The most egregious example probably being their coverage after the terrorist attack on the offices of Charlie Hebdo and the kosher grocery. Completely slanted to fit their political leanings which tell them it's our fault for being attacked. Oh that mean Charlie Hebdo publishing mean things about Islam, how terrible they are. This slaughter is an opportunity for us to imply that they kinda sorta deserved to be massacred and how free speech is dangerous and should be discouraged when it is employed to take a smack at our sacred cows. 

Or the apparently irresistible urge to speculate that terrorist attacks where the identity of the attackers is not known yet were possibly, with the implication being probably, carried out by sinister white conservatives. They did it with Orlando, they did it with San Bernardino. They just can't help themselves. They just KNOW that right-wing death squads are gonna inevitably pop up and confirm their preconceived prejudices against conservatives, yet when the facts come out the right-wing death squads disappear into the ether from whence they came. At least journalists usually keep such speculation to their twitter accounts.

Or the mass shooting where Gabby Giffords got shot, or the guy who flew a plane into an IRS building in Texas... this was back when Obama's presidency was fairly new so it was probably those evil Tea Party folks with their hateful rhetoric turning into violent action! Oops, Jared Loughner was nuttier than a fruitcake and politics had absolutely nothing to do with his rampage, and the guy in Texas wrote a manifesto littered with quotes from various Communist thinkers. Journalists rarely let the facts come out before pontificating, after all if they did that would squander the opportunity to pontificate!

The press has taken the position that it is a special, protected class, with more rights and privileges than anybody else in society. Criticizing them is an assault on democracy OMG! Calling them liars like they are is fascism descending on America! It's finally happening. Some journalists got called liars, the concentration camps can't be far off now! A free press can't operate freely if politicians are saying MEAN THINGS about journalists, bah Gawd it just shakes any decent doubleplusgood thinking person right to their core.


----------



## MrMister

Civil war in Paris lol

This the same nation the storms Bastilles and cuts off everyone's head. 

This is just a Wednesday in Paris.


----------



## DOPA

Goku said:


>


YAAAAAS!







:mark:


----------



## Sensei Utero

Since I'm only hearing this now, someone catch me up. What is all this shite about Trump and Sweden? Actual accuracy too, please.


----------



## birthday_massacre

InUtero said:


> Since I'm only hearing this now, someone catch me up. What is all this shite about Trump and Sweden? Actual accuracy too, please.


Trump was talking about why they need to ban refugees then made this comment

“You look at what’s happening,” he told his supporters. “We’ve got to keep our country safe. You look at what’s happening in Germany, you look at what’s happening last night in Sweden. Sweden, who would believe this?”

he also said

“Sweden,” he said. “They took in large numbers. They’re having problems like they never thought possible. You look at what’s happening in Brussels. You look at what’s happening all over the world. Take a look at Nice. Take a look at Paris. We’ve allowed thousands and thousands of people into our country and there was no way to vet those people. There was no documentation. There was no nothing. So we’re going to keep our country safe.”


There was no terrorist attack by refugees in Sweden the night before. So Trump lied.

you can also google it, and find a number of articles on it.

The only attack that happened in Sweden was by Neo-Nazis on a refugee camp back in January. But that was a month ago (not the night before) and it was not the refugees doing the attacking. And Trump was speaking to terrorist acts by refugees.


----------



## Sensei Utero

birthday_massacre said:


> Trump was talking about why they need to ban refugees then made this comment
> 
> “You look at what’s happening,” he told his supporters. “We’ve got to keep our country safe. You look at what’s happening in Germany, you look at what’s happening last night in Sweden. Sweden, who would believe this?”
> 
> he also said
> 
> “Sweden,” he said. “They took in large numbers. They’re having problems like they never thought possible. You look at what’s happening in Brussels. You look at what’s happening all over the world. Take a look at Nice. Take a look at Paris. We’ve allowed thousands and thousands of people into our country and there was no way to vet those people. There was no documentation. There was no nothing. So we’re going to keep our country safe.”
> 
> 
> There was no terrorist attack by refugees in Sweden the night before. So Trump lied.
> 
> you can also google it, and find a number of articles on it.







Yet again, this is hilarious for the wrong reasons.


----------



## Beatles123

EDIT: jumped the gun on that, not yet 

working on confirming this one, @L-DOPA!


----------



## KO Bossy

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/833299979708014592

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/833269177519579140

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/833306046810771456

I heard about this whole debacle on the radio, and they mentioned these tweets in particular, so I had to post them. Way too funny not to.


----------



## Beatles123

InUtero said:


> Yet again, this is hilarious for the wrong reasons.


Thats because you're listening to the anti-trump version.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> Thats becauae you're listing to the anti-trump version.


How is that the anti Trump version?

Its the truth.


True or false.

Was there a terrorist attack in Sweden by refugees the night before Trump made that speech liked he claimed?

If there was a terrorist attack by refugees in Sweden the night before, please show us the evidence.


----------



## deepelemblues

MrMister said:


> Civil war in Paris lol
> 
> This the same nation the storms Bastilles and cuts off everyone's head.
> 
> This is just a Wednesday in Paris.


It's true, a hundred cars being burned on a particular night in Paris? Parisians call that "Wednesday." 

The MSM is now trying to claim that there is no rape crisis in Sweden, so feminist of these people to explain away the explosion in the rate of rape since they started taking in refugees. My favorite one is that you see Sweden just defines rape more broadly than other countries... yet the rate of rapes in Sweden was not dissimilar from the rest of Western Europe before they started bringing in thousands of refugees from the Middle East. Oh, and Denmark has a similarly expansive legal definition of rape... yet Denmark has a rate of rape about 8-10 times lower than Sweden's. Denmark has taken in much much less Mideast refugees than Sweden...

HMMMM.

More fake news from the lying MSM.


----------



## Beatles123

birthday_massacre said:


> How is that the anti Trump version?
> 
> Its the truth.
> 
> 
> True or false.
> 
> Was there a terrorist attack in Sweden by refugees the night before Trump made that speech liked he claimed?


 NONE OF WHAT YOU SAID is the answer. You're laughing at a time inaccuracy, while the bigger story is the point trump was making. Those attacks happened no matter the date, and we have to combat them. Now in laughing at him, you still were baited into confronting the actual attacks and talking about them.

I'll bet you wouldn't have known about Paris otherwise. Stop acting like a gaffe is more important than the attacks.

Also, what happened? You were getting along last night and now you turned back into a cuck. :trump don't relapse!


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> NONE OF WHAT YOU SAID is the answer. You're laughing at a time inaccuracy, while the bigger story is the point trump was making. Those attacks happened no matter the date, and we have to combat them. Now in laughing at him, you still were baited into confronting the actual attacks and talking about them.
> 
> I'll bet you wouldn't have known about Paris otherwise
> 
> Also, what happened? You were getting along last night and now you turned back into a cuck. :trump don't relapse!


yes it is the answer. The question was, what is this about Trump and a terrorist attack by refugees on Sweden the night before he made that speech. 

But those attacks did not happen in Sweden. So you admit that Trump just made up the attack right? So how was I wrong and how was it anti-Trump?

As for the Paris attacks, if Trump wants to get people to talk about them, he should bring it up and not make up a story, just to get people to talk about Paris. And that is not what Trump is even doing, Trump is just lying and people like you just believe him as well as other uninformed supporters.


----------



## Beatles123

birthday_massacre said:


> yes it is the answer. The question was, what is this about Trump and a terrorist attack by refugees on Sweden the night before he made that speech.
> 
> But those attacks did not happen in Sweden. So you admit that Trump just made up the attack right? So how was I wrong and how was it anti-Trump?


My god. you literally ignored everything I said just to play "Gotcha" with Trump over whether or not theres a small discrepancy.

Thats actually terrifying. Now go back to YOUR Kiddypool and THINK before you post.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> My god. you literally ignored everything I said just to play "Gotcha" with Trump over whether or not theres a small discrepancy.
> 
> Thats actually terrifying. Now go back to YOUR Kiddypool and THINK before you post.


Its not a small discrepancy, its a huge one. Trump lied about a terrorist attack that did not happen. How is that a small discrepancy?

And dude you really need to be more original, you are not even being clever by just saying what I already said to you about the kiddie pool. 

As for thinking before you post, you claimed my post was anti-trump yet you admit that he lied about a terrorist attack and you called it a small discrepancy LOL

This is now TWO fake terrorist attacks the Trump admin has put out there. And you think that is ok?


----------



## Beatles123

birthday_massacre said:


> Its not a small discrepancy, its a huge one. Trump lied about a terrorist attack that did not happen. How is that a small discrepancy?
> 
> And dude you really need to be more original, you are not even being clever by just saying what I already said to you about the kiddie pool.
> 
> As for thinking before you post, you claimed my post was anti-trump yet you admit that he lied about a terrorist attack and you called it a small discrepancy LOL


You need serious reading comprehension help. Once again you have no clue what the fuck i said.

THE TIME OF THE ATTACK DOES NOT MATTER!!!


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> You need serious reading comprehension help.
> 
> THE TIME OF THE ATTACK DOES NOT MATTER!!!


There was no attack at all by refugees in Sweden in the recent past. Talk about reading comprehension help. 

Trump made it up. Keep defending him, you just keep proving my point about Trump supporters. Even Reaper did not defend Trump on this.

You cant even admit when Trump does something wrong.


----------



## Beatles123

birthday_massacre said:


> There was no attack at all by refugees in Sweden in the recent past. Talk about reading comprehension help.
> 
> Trump made it up. Keep defending him, you just keep proving my point about Trump supporters. Even Reaper did not defend Trump on this.
> 
> You cant even admit when Trump does something wrong.


WHAT??? No attack in sweden in the past?! are you fucking high?? Have you not read a thing about sweden the last few months? Its a shit hole FILLED with terror crimes. As for making a point you've not made a single valid point throughout this thread.. You are the worst representative of your opinion. Everyone in here knows it and you even admitted it triggers you.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> WHAT??? No attack in sweden in the past?! are you fucking high?? Have you not read a thing about sweden the last few months? Its a shit hole FILLED with terror crimes.


In the recent past, do you know what recent means right? Like a few weeks or even a month. Just admit Trump made up the attack and move on, you keep making yourself look bad for defending his lie.

The reason probably thought there was an attack the night before is because he was watching fox news and saw the Tucker Carlson segment

But on go supporting Trump lies, its why you have no credibility. You prove over and over again about most of Trump supporters and how they don't live in reality.


----------



## Crasp

Well, there was a Neo-Nazi-orchestrated bomb attack on a refugee center last month (nobody died but one person was injured). That was an attempted attack _by_ 3 native Swedes _against _refugees, rather than the other way around though, which is pretty representitive of most of the trouble taking place there.


----------



## Beatles123

birthday_massacre said:


> In the recent past, do you know what recent means right? Like a few weeks or even a month. Just admit Trump made up the attack and move on, you keep making yourself look bad for defending his lie.
> 
> The reason probably thought there was an attack the night before is because he was watching fox news and saw the Tucker Carlson segment
> 
> But on go supporting Trump lies, its why you have no credibility. You prove over and over again about most of Trump supporters and how they don't live in reality.


"Oh nooooo the lone liberal who believes in fake news doesn't agree with me, my credibility is so shot!" :lol

You once again miss the point. Trump was referencing a PROBLEM, IN SWEDEN, THAT EXISTS! Even IF a terror attack did not happen literally last night, it had no business being as big a news story as the fact that HE IS CORRECT! TERROR IS HAPPENING IN THESE PLACES!

by the way, if he saw it from the Carlson segment, you do realize thats not proof of a lie, right? Misinformed maybe, not a LIE.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> "Oh nooooo the lone liberal who believes in fake news doesn't agree with me, my credibility is so shot!" :lol
> 
> You once again miss the point. Trump was referencing a PROBLEM, IN SWEDEN, THAT EXISTS! Even IF a terror attack did not happen litterally last night, it had no business being as big a news story as the fact that HE IS CORRECT! TERROR IS HAPPENING IN THESE PLACES!


You posts show you have no credibility. You can't even admit Trump lied. You just make up an excuse for him lying. you are all about oh fake news for the MNM yet when it comes to Trumps fake news you dont seem to care and make up excuses for him. That is why you have no credibility. 

It does have business being a huge story when the president of the US claims there was a terror attack in Sweden last night when this wasn't. He is the president. When you are president, you need to make everything you say is true, you don't just go making up things especially when it comes to terrorist attacks. 

How can you not see a problem with this? This is not the first time Trump or his admin has made up terrorist attacks, it's a pattern now of them making up attacks. That is a huge issue.


----------



## Beatles123

birthday_massacre said:


> You posts show you have no credibility. You can't even admit Trump lied. You just make up an excuse for him lying. you are all about oh fake news for the MNM yet when it comes to Trumps fake news you dont seem to care and make up excuses for him. That is why you have no credibility.
> 
> It does have business being a huge story when the president of the US claims there was a terror attack in Sweden last night when this wasn't. He is the president. When you are president, you need to make everything you say is true, you don't just go making up things especially when it comes to terrorist attacks.
> 
> How can you not see a problem with this? This is not the first time Trump or his admin has made up terrorist attacks, it's a pattern now of them making up attacks. That is a huge issue.


Like i said, at the very worst, he was misinformed or misspoke and I can agree that is something he needs to correct. However, a lie is an entirely different accusation and one you cannot prove.

A gaffe should not EVER be made a bigger story than the main point he was making: Terror is happening in sweden. He is correct on that and you would do well to acknowledge that.


----------



## Vic Capri

Because nobody's had a freudian slip before.






- Vic


----------



## Beatles123

Remember: Every time Trump states incorrect info, he is a liar. :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> Like i said, at the very worst, he was misinformed or misspoke and I can agree that is something he needs to correct. However, a lie is an entirely different accusation and one you cannot prove.
> 
> A gaffe should not EVER be made a bigger story than the msin point he was making: Terror is happening in sweden. He is correct on that and you would do well to acknowledge that.


No at the very worse he lied, at best he was misinformed but that is a huge problem as well since Trump is "misinformed" all the time and again that is a huge issue when you are president.

So what happens when Trump is misinformed about a fake terrorist attack and because of that he starts a war. Will it still be not a big deal then? 

Like I said this is a pattern with Trump, its not the first time this has happened. 

You need to stop calling this a gaffe, its not. He claimed there was a terror attack the night before. If you are not 100% sure if it's true or not you don't say it. 

And if Trump is not lying or just talking out of his ass and is indeed just misinformed that is 100x worse because it shows how incompetent he is as president. When you are president of any country you dont just say things you are not 100% certain of.

So by you keep harping oh all these things Trump keeps saying that are wrong he is just misinformed that makes him look even worse.


----------



## Beatles123

birthday_massacre said:


> No at the very worse he lied, at best he was misinformed but that is a huge problem as well since Trump is "misinformed" all the time and again that is a huge issue when you are president.
> 
> So what happens when Trump is misinformed about a fake terrorist attack and because of that he starts a war. Will it still be not a big deal then?
> 
> Like I said this is a pattern with Trump, its not the first time this has happened.
> 
> You need to stop calling this a gaffe, its not. He claimed there was a terror attack the night before. If you are not 100% sure if it's true or not you don't say it.
> 
> And if Trump is not lying or just talking out of his ass and is indeed just misinformed that is 100x worse because it shows how incompetent he is as president. When you are president of any country you dont just say things you are not 100% certain of.
> 
> So by you keep harping oh all these things Trump keeps saying that are wrong he is just misinformed that makes him look even worse.


Except you just claimed an entirely different position. You said trump is a liar. Now either provide evidence he factually knew there was no terror attack and said there was with the clear intention of deception, or we can call this what it is: The media overhyping s time discrepancy instead of what trump was actually referencing: THE PROBLEM OF TERROR IN SWEDEN, WHICH IS A FACT.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> Except you just claimed an entirely different position. You said trump is a liar. Now either provide evidence he factually knew there was no terror attack and said there was with the clear intention of disception, or we can call this what it is: The media overhyping s time discrepancy instead of what trump was actually referencing: THE PROBLEM OF TERROR IN SWEDEN, WHICH IS A FACT.


You even admitted Trump was trying to deceive people to bait them into talking about the other attacks




Beatles123 said:


> NONE OF WHAT YOU SAID is the answer. You're laughing at a time inaccuracy, while the bigger story is the point trump was making. Those attacks happened no matter the date, and we have to combat them. *Now in laughing at him, you still were baited into confronting the actual attacks and talking about them.*
> 
> I'll bet you wouldn't have known about Paris otherwise. Stop acting like a gaffe is more important than the attacks.




You are admitting Trump was lying just to get people to talk about the other attacks.

And its easy to prove Trump is lying because Trump has a pattern of lying all the time on other issues as well.

Trump made a point to say look at the attack last night while with all the other examples, he just said look at what was going on. 

This is the 3rd fake attack Trump and his admin have talked about. Its lying since they keep doing it.

So either Trump and his admin are liars or they are the most incompetent president and admin in our life time.

So which is it? Are they liars or just incompetent?


----------



## Beatles123

birthday_massacre said:


> You even admitted Trump was trying to deceive people to bait them into talking about the other attacks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are admitting Trump was lying just to get people to talk about the other attacks.
> 
> And its easy to prove Trump is lying because Trump has a pattern of lying all the time on other issues as well.
> 
> Trump made a point to say look at the attack last night while with all the other examples, he just said look at what was going on.
> 
> This is the 3rd fake attack Trump and his admin have talked about. Its lying since they keep doing it.
> 
> So either Trump and his admin are liars or they are the most incompetent president and admin in our life time.
> 
> So which is it? Are they liars or just incompetent?


No, you can't say just because you think he was lying in the past that he's lying now. In critical thinking we call that a confirmation bias. Yes, one might be able to establish certain behavioral patterns, but to call someone a liar you need hard evidence and you have none. what you have is a series of assumptions wich you are using to draw the conclusion you want.

And yes, you WERE baited. This fact has no bearing on whether Trump was lying because even if he was correct you still would have been forced to talk about an issue you had previously ignored. The fact remains that you are now discussing what Trump wants you to.

As for being incompetent, well, thats just, like, your opinion man. :trump3 he's done everything I could have asked for thus far.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> No, you can't say just because you think he was lying in the past that he's lying now. In critical thinking we call that a confirmation bias. Yes, one might be able to establish certain behavioral patterns, but to call someone a liar you need hard evidence and you have none. what you have is a series of assumptions wich you are using to draw the conclusion you want.
> 
> And yes, you WERE baited. This fact has no bearing on whether Trump was lying because even if he was correct you still would have been forced to talk about an issue you had previously ignored. The fact remains that you are now discussing what Trump wants you to.
> 
> As for being incompetent, well, thats just, like, your opinion man. :trump3 he's done everything I could have asked for thus far.


Trump has a behavior pattern of lying, 70% of the things he said during the election process were not true. So yes can you make a case that Trump is lying about the terrorist attack. But that is giving him too much credit. Because Trump is also incompetent, as well as most of his admin. But I do have evidence, past evidence of all his lies. But this whole thing is just semantics because Trump was not being truthful with what he said. What he said was false , it did not happen. So call it what ever name you want. 

So sure, I won't call him a liar on this, I'll just call him incompetent. Its actually not an opinion Trump and his admin is incompetent, its pretty much a fact with all the evidence. 

http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...cial-team-trump-incompetence-is-unprecedented


----------



## Beatles123

birthday_massacre said:


> Trump has a behavior pattern of lying, 70% of the things he said during the election process were not true. So yes can you make a case that Trump is lying about the terrorist attack. But that is giving him too much credit. Because Trump is also incompetent, as well as most of his admin. But I do have evidence, past evidence of all his lies. But this whole thing is just semantics because Trump was not being truthful with what he said. What he said was false , it did not happen. So call it what ever name you want.
> 
> So sure, I won't call him a liar on this, I'll just call him incompetent. Its actually not an opinion Trump and his admin is incompetent, its pretty much a fact with all the evidence.
> 
> http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...cial-team-trump-incompetence-is-unprecedented


Believe what you want :shrug you have provided no hard evidence he was lying on this specific occasion. Anything about behavior in the past is just an assumption. It may be an accurate one depending, but there'd be no way you can really prove that. 

I would argue that most of these displays of incompetence as you describe them are inconsequential and petty, including this one. No matter the time, or the date, Trump was referencing a factual problem and that is at present more important than his sense of time being off.

At least, "IN MOOOOYYY view!" - Sanders.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> Believe what you want :shrug you have provided no hard evidence he was lying on this specific occasion. Anything about behavior ib the past is just an assumption. It may be an accurate one depending, but there'd no way you can really prove that.
> 
> I would argue that most of these displays of incompetence as you describe them are inconsequential, including this one. No matter the time, or the date, Trump was referencing a factual problem and that is at present more important than his sense of time being off
> 
> "IN MOOOOYYY view!" - Sanders.



You are so against fake news when it comes to the MSM but when Trump does all his fake news, you just brush it off to oh no big deal. You can't even be unbiased. But like Trump said he loves the poorly educated, the people he is talking about is you.

Try being unbiased for once in your life and when Trump and his admin give fake news, bash them as hard as you bash the MSM for it.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Jesus Christ what a climate that has mutated and sprouted up to cover Trump's many gaffes and alternate truths.

It's at the point now when according to recent explanations of Trump's less than entirely true statements we need to consider any of the following whenever he says anything:

1. He could've been joking and teaching the media a lesson
2. He could've been sarcastic for whatever reason
3. He was making an overall point and just misspoke about the details, such as, the date of events (which let's face it, isn't important)
4. Alternate Facts
5. The big bad media has twisted his words.
6. He didn't mean it literally (this time) he was making a point figuratively.


At this point we don't know what to believe, what to take literally or figuratively, what is a joke or not etc etc until his spinsters get a hold of his speech. And this guy is some master communicator?


----------



## Beatles123

birthday_massacre said:


> You are so against fake news when it comes to the MSM but when Trump does all his fake news, you just brush it off to oh no big deal. You can't even be unbiased. But like Trump said he loves the poorly educated, the people he is talking about is you.
> 
> Try being unbiased for once in your life.


see, now you're just resorting to "YEAH, WELL, YOU'RE A DOODY-HEAD!" style arguments. You wait all this time to try and have a one on one, and you went there first. huh...

Funny you mention fake news. You never did hear who it was I watch...who happen to in large part be a classically liberal news source.


----------



## birthday_massacre

yeahbaby! said:


> Jesus Christ what a climate that has mutated and sprouted up to cover Trump's many gaffes and alternate truths.
> 
> It's at the point now when according to recent explanations of Trump's less than entirely true statements we need to consider any of the following whenever he says anything:
> 
> 1. He could've been joking and teaching the media a lesson
> 2. He could've been sarcastic for whatever reason
> 3. He was making an overall point and just misspoke about the details, such as, the date of events (which let's face it, isn't important)
> 4. Alternate Facts
> 5. The big bad media has twisted his words.
> 6. He didn't mean it literally (this time) he was making a point figuratively.
> 
> 
> At this point we don't know what to believe, what to take literally or figuratively, what is a joke or not etc etc until his spinsters get a hold of his speech. And this guy is some master communicator?


Its pretty laughable the lengths some Trump supporters go through to defend his actions. If Hillary Clinton did any of those, or Bernie Sanders these Trump supporters would be all over Clinton or Sanders bashing the hell out of them, but since its Trump they make up excuse after excuse.

I think Bush was bad but Trump takes it to a whole new level.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> see, now you're just resorting to "YEAH, WELL, YOU'RE A DOODY-HEAD!" style arguments. You wait all this time to try and have a one on one, and you went there first. huh...
> 
> Funny you mention fake news. You never did hear who it was I watch...who happen to in large part be a classically liberal news source.


What did I say that was untrue in that quoted post?

You do bash fake news but you dont do the same thing to Trump and his admin when they post fake news. How is that wrong exactly? You just make up excuses for when ever Trump or his admin post fake news.

So how about speaking to that?


----------



## Beatles123

birthday_massacre said:


> Its pretty laughable the lengths some Trump supporters go through to defend his actions. If Hillary Clinton did any of those, or Bernie Sanders these Trump supporters would be all over Clinton or Sanders bashing the hell out of them, but since its Trump they make up excuse after excuse.
> 
> I think Bush was bad but Trump takes it to a whole new level.


I think im sitting here with you having a pretty honest dialog in terms of what i think, to be fair. I already said that he should clean up having those mistakes, I just don't think it detracts from his point. Terror in sweden has happened a lot as of late. It's a thing.


----------



## Beatles123

birthday_massacre said:


> What did I say that was untrue in that quoted post?
> 
> You do bash fake news but you dont do the same thing to Trump and his admin when they post fake news. How is that wrong exactly? You just make up excuses for when ever Trump or his admin post fake news.
> 
> So how about speaking to that?


answered above.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> I think im sitting here with you having a pretty honest dialog in terms of what i think, to be fair. I already said that he should clean up having those mistakes, I just don't thin it detracts from his point. Terror in sweden has happened a lot as of late. It's a thing.


It does distract from his point when he is making up fake terrorist attacks. When you tell an untruth about something on an issue you are trying to make, it always weakens your argument. If Trump thinks its so important to point out real terror attacks, he should not need to make ones up to make his point.




Beatles123 said:


> answered above.


No you really did not, its not just about this one fake terror attack Trump made up. Its about everytime he does saying something that is not true, or does something bad. You always make up excuses for him and give him a pass, but when fake news comes out, you are all over it bashing it saying the MSM can't be trusted yet they are doing exactly what Trump is doing and you downplaying it when Trump does it.

You need to start being consistent. This is my last post on this topic of the Sweden thing.


----------



## Beatles123

birthday_massacre said:


> It does distract from his point when he is making up fake terrorist attacks. When you tell an untruth about something on an issue you are trying to make, it always weakens your argument. If Trump thinks its so important to point out real terror attacks, he should not need to make ones up to make his point.


Again, you talk under the assumption that he told a lie. something he would have to specifically be proven on. Most likely in the scenario that Trump is wrong, he was given misinformation or spoke out of turn. In this instance i find no real consequence from it.

Now, since you assume I won't call out trump on anything where his lack of clarity could be a problem, If he were to for example order a bomb strike in the wrong village when he meant for it to be in another, thats something Id call him out on. I already said that he can do a better job of avoiding these things, but this gaffe, as with most the media has been nitpicking, doesn't matter to me as a voter. What matters to me are his laws and carrying out what I expect him to do. So far, he has. Again, this notion that I can't critique Trump is silly. I can't yell at someone if they haven't disappointed me yet.

We'll see what he does in terms of backing/changing Rand's bill.


----------



## MrMister

yeahbaby! said:


> Jesus Christ what a climate that has mutated and sprouted up to cover Trump's many gaffes and alternate truths.
> 
> It's at the point now when according to recent explanations of Trump's less than entirely true statements we need to consider any of the following whenever he says anything:
> 
> 1. He could've been joking and teaching the media a lesson
> 2. He could've been sarcastic for whatever reason
> 3. He was making an overall point and just misspoke about the details, such as, the date of events (which let's face it, isn't important)
> 4. Alternate Facts
> 5. The big bad media has twisted his words.
> 6. He didn't mean it literally (this time) he was making a point figuratively.
> 
> 
> At this point we don't know what to believe, what to take literally or figuratively, what is a joke or not etc etc until his spinsters get a hold of his speech. And this guy is some master communicator?


he has the best words so it cant be his fault


----------



## Beatles123

MrMister said:


> he has the best words so it cant be his fault


I can understand him fine :trump3


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> I can understand him fine :trump3


That is because Trump speaks on a 4th-grade level. Of course you can. that is why the poorly educated and south loves Trump.


----------



## Beatles123

birthday_massacre said:


> This is my last post on this topic of the Sweden thing.












Hey, guys, I did that debating thing you said I never do! :trump3

:shrug You walked away, not me.


----------



## Oxidamus

birthday_massacre said:


> That is because Trump speaks on a 4th-grade level. Of course you can. that is why the poorly educated and south loves Trump.


Dave I gotta wonder, do you ever watch TV shows where a presenter, like say, Tucker Carlson or even Bill Maher, asks a question and instead of getting a "yes" or a "no" answer there's an awful lot of beating around the bush?

I've started to realise no matter where you go in the world, that is how politicians speak. It's a lot of the reason why people like Trump. Maybe his answers aren't good but at least they are fucking answers. No dancing around the question, trying to absolve the self of hypocrisy.


----------



## Beatles123

Oxi X.O. said:


> Dave I gotta wonder, do you ever watch TV shows where a presenter, like say, Tucker Carlson or even Bill Maher, asks a question and instead of getting a "yes" or a "no" answer there's an awful lot of beating around the bush?
> 
> I've started to realise no matter where you go in the world, that is how politicians speak. It's a lot of the reason why people like Trump. Maybe his answers aren't good but at least they are fucking answers. No dancing around the question, trying to absolve the self of hypocrisy.


To be fair, when he said what he said about illegal mexicans, I knew straight away in what context he meant it. he only had to clarify when the media lost their shit. Same thing with grab her by the pussy :shrug


----------



## yeahbaby!

Oxi X.O. said:


> Dave I gotta wonder, do you ever watch TV shows where a presenter, like say, Tucker Carlson or even Bill Maher, asks a question and instead of getting a "yes" or a "no" answer there's an awful lot of beating around the bush?
> 
> I've started to realise no matter where you go in the world, that is how politicians speak. It's a lot of the reason why people like Trump. *Maybe his answers aren't good but at least they are fucking answers. *No dancing around the question, trying to absolve the self of hypocrisy.


Yeah but the problem is when those answers are at least partially untrue or just complete fabrications. That notion pretty much cancels out the appeal of providing answers as the antidote to regular politician spin. 

If you can't trust explicitly what the guy says because he could be joking, sarcastic, misspeaking, or speaking literally in order to make a point figuratively then what are you left with?


----------



## 3MB4Life

birthday_massacre said:


> Its not a small discrepancy, its a huge one. Trump lied about a *terrorist attack* that did not happen. How is that a small discrepancy?


Trump never said "terrorist attack." Hate to use the term but you're spreading fake news. The direct quote is "you look at what's happening last night in Sweden. Sweden, who would believe this? Sweden. They took in large numbers [of refugees]. They're having problems like you wouldn't believe." Not once does he ever mention a terrorist incident in Sweden.

The most likely scenario considering the fact that Trump is known for going off-script when he speaks is that he saw that Tucker Carlson report last night and mispoke. He meant to say something more along the lines of "I saw last night what's happening in Sweden" but it didn't come out the way he meant. When you don't heavily script yourself in front of large crowds of people, it happens. This is why people support Trump. He makes mistakes, he's not the type of politician who's gonna have a team of ten guys write his speeches for him so he can pander and come across as a progressive nice guy. He says what he thinks and what he means. And yeah, sometimes he fucks up and misspeaks. So what? We all do it. He's a fucking human, not the face of the establishment coming out to spout their script word for word. I don't think world leaders need to be perfect, they just need to be get results and be accountable to the people when they don't. I'd rather have a leader who mispeaks sometimes but does what the people want and gets things done rather than a leader who delivers eloquent speeches while never actually achieving anything and disregarding the public who voted him in.

He also brings up the fact that when refugees were accepted en masse into Sweden, incidences of gun crime and sexual violence shot up. And rather than addressing the problem, the Swedish government is covering up crimes and Swedish citizens are refusing to state the race of criminals because they don't want to seem racist for implicating a refugee. That's a problem that needs addressing. So once again, rather than actually addressing the real issue, you've turned a man slipping over his words into the biggest problem on the planet to avoid having to ask the really tough question. Screw women getting raped in Sweden, Trump made a mistake, that's what we really need to talk about!

You guys really don't have the greatest grasp on world issues, do you?


----------



## FriedTofu

Everything is a cover-up. That's the gist of the defence of Trump's word against official statistics these days.


----------



## Beatles123

3MB4Life said:


> Trump never said "terrorist attack." Hate to use the term but you're spreading fake news. The direct quote is "you look at what's happening last night in Sweden. Sweden, who would believe this? Sweden. They took in large numbers [of refugees]. They're having problems like you wouldn't believe." Not once does he ever mention a terrorist incident in Sweden.
> 
> The most likely scenario considering the fact that Trump is known for going off-script when he speaks is that he saw that Tucker Carlson report last night and mispoke. He meant to say something more along the lines of "I saw last night what's happening in Sweden" but it didn't come out the way he meant. When you don't heavily script yourself in front of large crowds of people, it happens. This is why people support Trump. He makes mistakes, he's not the type of politician who's gonna have a team of ten guys write his speeches for him so he can pander and come across as a progressive nice guy. He says what he thinks and what he means. And yeah, sometimes he fucks up and misspeaks. So what? We all do it. He's a fucking human, not the face of the establishment coming out to spout their script word for word. I don't think world leaders need to be perfect, they just need to be get results and be accountable to the people when they don't. I'd rather have a leader who mispeaks sometimes but does what the people want and gets things done rather than a leader who delivers eloquent speeches while never actually achieving anything and disregarding the public who voted him in.
> 
> He also brings up the fact that when refugees were accepted en masse into Sweden, incidences of gun crime and sexual violence shot up. And rather than addressing the problem, the Swedish government is covering up crimes and Swedish citizens are refusing to state the race of criminals because they don't want to seem racist for implicating a refugee. That's a problem that needs addressing. So once again, rather than actually addressing the real issue, you've turned a man slipping over his words into the biggest problem on the planet to avoid having to ask the really tough question. Screw women getting raped in Sweden, Trump made a mistake, that's what we really need to talk about!
> 
> You guys really don't have the greatest grasp on world issues, do you?


I'll be damned. No WONDER! I knew i should have heard the actual soundbite! :lol The ONE time i trust the headlines!

Could have ended my discussion even quicker. :trump


----------



## birthday_massacre

3MB4Life said:


> Trump never said "terrorist attack." Hate to use the term but you're spreading fake news. The direct quote is "you look at what's happening last night in Sweden. Sweden, who would believe this? Sweden. They took in large numbers [of refugees]. They're having problems like you wouldn't believe." Not once does he ever mention a terrorist incident in Sweden.
> 
> The most likely scenario considering the fact that Trump is known for going off-script when he speaks is that he saw that Tucker Carlson report last night and mispoke. He meant to say something more along the lines of "I saw last night what's happening in Sweden" but it didn't come out the way he meant. When you don't heavily script yourself in front of large crowds of people, it happens. This is why people support Trump. He makes mistakes, he's not the type of politician who's gonna have a team of ten guys write his speeches for him so he can pander and come across as a progressive nice guy. He says what he thinks and what he means. And yeah, sometimes he fucks up and misspeaks. So what? We all do it. He's a fucking human, not the face of the establishment coming out to spout their script word for word. I don't think world leaders need to be perfect, they just need to be get results and be accountable to the people when they don't. I'd rather have a leader who mispeaks sometimes but does what the people want and gets things done rather than a leader who delivers eloquent speeches while never actually achieving anything and disregarding the public who voted him in.
> 
> He also brings up the fact that when refugees were accepted en masse into Sweden, incidences of gun crime and sexual violence shot up. And rather than addressing the problem, the Swedish government is covering up crimes and Swedish citizens are refusing to state the race of criminals because they don't want to seem racist for implicating a refugee. That's a problem that needs addressing. So once again, rather than actually addressing the real issue, you've turned a man slipping over his words into the biggest problem on the planet to avoid having to ask the really tough question. Screw women getting raped in Sweden, Trump made a mistake, that's what we really need to talk about!
> 
> You guys really don't have the greatest grasp on world issues, do you?


He was speaking about terrorist attacks in the countries by refugees. It was implied. Was he not talking about attacks from refugees in those countries? There was nothing done by refugees the night before. Trump just made up the incident. It was clear what Trump was implying, when he ws giving examples from the other countries.




Oxi X.O. said:


> Dave I gotta wonder, do you ever watch TV shows where a presenter, like say, Tucker Carlson or even Bill Maher, asks a question and instead of getting a "yes" or a "no" answer there's an awful lot of beating around the bush?
> 
> I've started to realise no matter where you go in the world, that is how politicians speak. It's a lot of the reason why people like Trump. Maybe his answers aren't good but at least they are fucking answers. No dancing around the question, trying to absolve the self of hypocrisy.


Trump does not even give an answer, he just rambles on incoherently. And that is why a yes or no answer is better. Like was there an attack/incident by refugees on Sweden the night before Trumps speech.

The only answer you need is NO.


----------



## 3MB4Life

FriedTofu said:


> Everything is a cover-up. That's the gist of the defence of Trump's word against official statistics these days.


People from inside the Swedish police force have openly spoken about having to cover refugee assaults, rapes and murders because higher-ups told them to. This isn't a Trump thing, this seems to be a big problem in police forces in left-leaning European countries where protecting refugess who commit crimes get better treatment than your own citizens who are the victims of said crimes. Similar things have happened in Germany and are surely happening in other countries. I'm sure I've seen stories of police in other countries covering up refugee crimes but I can't pull them up of the top of my head.



birthday_massacre said:


> He was speaking about terrorist attacks in the countries by refugees. It was implied. Was he not talking about attacks from refugees in those countries? There was nothing done by refugees the night before. Trump just made up the incident. It was clear what Trump was implying, when he ws giving examples from the other countries.


He talks about keeping the country safe. He never directly mentions Sweden and terrorist attacks. If that's what you heard, it's because you were listening for it. That's what you wanted to hear but that isn't what he was saying.

And are you really saying that Trump mispeaking, that thing that every human being on the planet does, is less likely than Trump intentionally lying about terrorism in a country while suffering more scrutiny than any other President in recent memory? I know you don't like Trump but you have to give him more credit than that. He's not that stupid. There is no way he is intentionally lying in front of the media when they pick him apart even when he tells the truth. He may use the wrong words, he may ramble but he is not that dumb.


----------



## yeahbaby!

3MB4Life said:


> The most likely scenario considering the fact that Trump is known for going off-script when he speaks is that he saw that Tucker Carlson report last night and mispoke. He meant to say something more along the lines of "I saw last night what's happening in Sweden" but it didn't come out the way he meant. When you don't heavily script yourself in front of large crowds of people, it happens. This is why people support Trump. He makes mistakes, he's not the type of politician who's gonna have a team of ten guys write his speeches for him so he can pander and come across as a progressive nice guy. He says what he thinks and what he means. And yeah, sometimes he fucks up and misspeaks. So what? We all do it. He's a fucking human, not the face of the establishment coming out to spout their script word for word. I don't think world leaders need to be perfect, they just need to be get results and be accountable to the people when they don't. I'd rather have a leader who mispeaks sometimes but does what the people want and gets things done rather than a leader who delivers eloquent speeches while never actually achieving anything and disregarding the public who voted him in.


Personally I would prefer not to have to continually lower the bar to accommodate a man who speaks off script all the time / i.e. a loudmouth who has no regard for accuracy or details.

They don't need to be perfect as you say - but it's not going OTT to expect something like some accuracy when saying 'This happened in Sweden last night and this illustrates my point'. No. It didn't happen like that. You're wrong. Again.

This is not an issue because he misspeaks 'sometimes'. It happens all the fucking time and for the Prez of the USA it's just not on. *It's his job to be accurate and his supporters should most of all be expecting accuracy over everyone else*.


----------



## birthday_massacre

3MB4Life said:


> People from inside the Swedish police force have openly spoken about having to cover refugee assaults, rapes and murders because higher-ups told them to. This isn't a Trump thing, this seems to be a big problem in police forces in left-leaning European countries where protecting refugess who commit crimes get better treatment than your own citizens who are the victims of said crimes. Similar things have happened in Germany and are surely happening in other countries. I'm sure I've seen stories of police in other countries covering up refugee crimes but I can't pull them up of the top of my head.


So because that is happening, it makes it ok for Trump to make up an incident that never happened?


----------



## amhlilhaus

MrMister said:


> he has the best words so it cant be his fault


Really really great words. Phenomenal


----------



## Miss Sally

Don't know if he went off script or what happened. 

He never mentioned a terrorist attack so anybody saying he did is lying. 

He could have been meaning that he was checking up on the current issue of Sweden last night, no idea. 

I would have just mentioned look at Sweden as a whole, the massive rapes, the lack of punishment for rapists, the car burnings, no-go zones popping up. Sweden is in chaos and their Government controlled media cannot cover it up.


Though since some people love Government programs and the Government running everything, how would people feel about a US Government ran media?


----------



## Oxidamus

yeahbaby! said:


> Yeah but the problem is when those answers are at least partially untrue or just complete fabrications. That notion pretty much cancels out the appeal of providing answers as the antidote to regular politician spin.
> 
> If you can't trust explicitly what the guy says because he could be joking, sarcastic, misspeaking, or speaking literally in order to make a point figuratively then what are you left with?


So? You should consider it a good thing if you don't like him. He's transparent. He's not beating around the bush giving half answers or half truths. He's saying what he thinks whether it's right or wrong, and if he is wrong it's easier to point him out for it.


----------



## 3MB4Life

yeahbaby! said:


> Personally I would prefer not to have to continually lower the bar to accommodate a man who speaks off script all the time / i.e. a loudmouth who has no regard for accuracy or details.
> 
> They don't need to be perfect as you say - but it's not going OTT to expect something like some accuracy when saying 'This happened in Sweden last night and this illustrates my point'. No. It didn't happen like that. You're wrong. Again.
> 
> This is not an issue because he misspeaks 'sometimes'. It happens all the fucking time and for the Prez of the USA it's just not on. *It's his job to be accurate and his supporters should most of all be expecting accuracy over everyone else*.


I'm not gonna hold Trump up for getting his words mixed up. That's my standard for any world leader. You can have different standards to me on that and that's fine. I'm judging Trump on my standard and slightly mispeaking when you aren't following a script isn't a big deal to me. It wouldn't be a big deal to me if Hillary did it or Bernie did it or Wilders did it. If you expect more, that's fine, I'm just acknowledging that Trump's human and doesn't have the kind of media training that most politicians have when addressing these subjects.



birthday_massacre said:


> So because that is happening, it makes it ok for Trump to make up an incident that never happened?


Did you ignore the entire last paragraph of my post that you quoted? Why would he be making shit up when the MSM will pull him apart, even when he has facts on his side? Why are you pulling up a man for not getting his words right when for the last 4 pages of this thread, you've been completely misquoting him?


----------



## yeahbaby!

3MB4Life said:


> I'm not gonna hold Trump up for getting his words mixed up. That's my standard for any world leader. You can have different standards to me on that and that's fine. I'm judging Trump on my standard and slightly mispeaking when you aren't following a script isn't a big deal to me. It wouldn't be a big deal to me if Hillary did it or Bernie did it or Wilders did it. If you expect more, that's fine, I'm just acknowledging that Trump's human and doesn't have the kind of media training that most politicians have when addressing these subjects.


Okay. That's perfectly reasonable. 

IMO What isn't reasonable is when Trump happens to 'misspeak' or lie/exaggerate/joke/speaks sarcastically several times a week and ends up painting an inaccurate picture which he then is going to use to create policy.

To me it's more than misspeaking, it's a disregard for accuracy. It builds up to create a picture of a man I wouldn't trust to walk my dog.

But that's just me I guess.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Oxi X.O. said:


> So? You should consider it a good thing if you don't like him. He's transparent. He's not beating around the bush giving half answers or half truths. He's saying what he thinks whether it's right or wrong, and if he is wrong it's easier to point him out for it.


SO it's okay if he's just plain wrong about things that come out of his mouth? The 'leader of the free world'? He's going to use false narratives to create policy, and with a Repub majority there is no one to stop him.

And yes yes, I know plenty of previous administrations have done the same, that doesn't make it right now.


----------



## Smarkout

To be quite honest I could not care less whether or not Trump misspoke about Sweden. It seems like a slip up and Democrats getting bent out of shape like this is exactly the reason he won. 

I am worried about the economy. 
I am worried about education. 
I am worried about the inner cities. 

I am NOT worried about Trump mixing up words in a sentence. That's what a normal American probably thinks as well.


----------



## 3MB4Life

yeahbaby! said:


> Okay. That's perfectly reasonable.
> 
> IMO What isn't reasonable is when Trump happens to 'misspeak' or lie/exaggerate/joke/speaks sarcastically several times a week and ends up painting an inaccurate picture which he then is going to use to create policy.
> 
> To me it's more than misspeaking, it's a disregard for accuracy. It builds up to create a picture of a man I wouldn't trust to walk my dog.
> 
> But that's just me I guess.


I can understand that and I can see why it might make you see him as untrustworthy. I'm just willing to wait to judge him on policy rather than him making mistakes in speeches. That's more important to me but I'd rather he be good at both.

I don't want you to think I'm one of those people who forgives Trump for everything bad he does. For example, I think him wanting to build a literal wall is a dumb idea and it isn't really gonna solve any problems. I'm not just doing this because I think Trump's perfect. I'd just rather criticise people where I feel it matters, especially when they're facing flack for the smallest thing from so many people.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Smarkout said:


> To be quite honest I could not care less whether or not Trump misspoke about Sweden. It seems like a slip up and Democrats getting bent out of shape like this is exactly the reason he won.
> 
> I am worried about the economy.
> I am worried about education.
> I am worried about the inner cities.
> 
> I am NOT worried about Trump mixing up words in a sentence. That's what a normal American probably thinks as well.


Fair enough :smile2:


----------



## Oxidamus

yeahbaby! said:


> SO it's okay if he's just plain wrong about things that come out of his mouth? The 'leader of the free world'? He's going to use false narratives to create policy, and with a Repub majority there is no one to stop him.
> 
> And yes yes, I know plenty of previous administrations have done the same, that doesn't make it right now.


Okay or not is irrelevant. It's just principle. Like not liking what a politician stands for but being able to respect their consistency and standing by their beliefs as opposed to changing because their party said so. You know what I mean?

If all politicians were straightforward and didn't undermine the intelligence of everyone they speak to, we would be much better off. Even politicians I like, or you like, are guilty of dancing around the subject to provide the least damaging answer possible.


----------



## Beatles123

FriedTofu said:


> Everything is a cover-up. That's the gist of the defence of Trump's word against official statistics these days.


Not true. L-DOPA pointed out statistics that favor trump's view and does all the time, same as @DesolationRow


----------



## birthday_massacre

3MB4Life said:


> I'm not gonna hold Trump up for getting his words mixed up. That's my standard for any world leader. You can have different standards to me on that and that's fine. I'm judging Trump on my standard and slightly mispeaking when you aren't following a script isn't a big deal to me. It wouldn't be a big deal to me if Hillary did it or Bernie did it or Wilders did it. If you expect more, that's fine, I'm just acknowledging that Trump's human and doesn't have the kind of media training that most politicians have when addressing these subjects.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you ignore the entire last paragraph of my post that you quoted? Why would he be making shit up when the MSM will pull him apart, even when he has facts on his side? Why are you pulling up a man for not getting his words right when for the last 4 pages of this thread, you've been completely misquoting him?


Trump was referring to terrorist attacks in the other countries then he lumped in what happened last night in Sweden, so you don't think he was claiming there was a terrorist attack in Sweden by refugees? That is all Trump every talks about is terrorist attacks by refugees but this one time he was not? You can't be serious. 

Trump did not slightly misspeak, he made something up, just like his admin did with terror attack on Atlanta and the whole Bowling Green Massacre. Oh did they Misspeak on those too? 

I love how people making excuses for Trump when he lies or does not tell the truth or makes shit up. Its pathetic the lengths you go to to defend Trump.


----------



## Mister Abigail

These new invisible terrorists are really scary. We need to watch out for Invisirists.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Oxi X.O. said:


> Okay or not is irrelevant. It's just principle. Like not liking what a politician stands for but being able to respect their consistency and standing by their beliefs as opposed to changing because their party said so. You know what I mean?
> 
> If all politicians were straightforward and didn't undermine the intelligence of everyone they speak to, we would be much better off. Even politicians I like, or you like, are guilty of dancing around the subject to provide the least damaging answer possible.


I'm sorry are we talking about the same things? I'm talking about Trump flat out lying, or at the very nicest being inaccurate with some of his statements or, being even nicer, 'misspeaking'. 

I'm not talking about towing party lines or standing by beliefs, not sure why you brought that up. I'm talking about being truthful when you make explicit statements - E.g. 'This event happened last night.' It either did or it didn't. It's pretty black and white isn't it?


----------



## 3MB4Life

birthday_massacre said:


> Trump was referring to terrorist attacks in the other countries then he lumped in what happened last night in Sweden, so you don't think he was claiming there was a terrorist attack in Sweden by refugees? That is all Trump every talks about is terrorist attacks by refugees but this one time he was not? You can't be serious.


When did Trump explicitly referring to terrorist attacks in the other places. He mentioned Germany, that could be to do with the truck attack but it could also be to do with the massive outbreak of sex attacks and assaults in Germany after they accepted a huge amount of refugees. Why does Trump have to have been referring exclusively to terrorism? Why can't he just be referring to problems caused by mass immigration in Europe? This is your problem when you listen to Trump, you seem to have already assumed what he's saying. He isn't explicitly referring to terrorism, he doesn't even say the word. You've assumed what he meant and are using that to draw conclusions and to be using your guess work to launch accusations at someone is not the sturdiest ground to be standing on.



> Trump did not slightly misspeak, he made something up, just like his admin did with terror attack on Atlanta and the whole Bowling Green Massacre. Oh did they Misspeak on those too?


I think everyone can agree that Sean Spicer has been an utter flop as Press Secretary and Communications Director. His entire job is public speaking and he's awful at it. No idea who put him up for the job but he's awful. That Atlanta mishap was an incident of him mispeaking when he meant to say Orlando. When your whole job is about talking, you shouldn't be fucking up like that.

And I'll criticise Conway for the Bowling Green thing all day long. She went on the news and made up a story about a massacre that didn't happen and seemed to be talking out of her arse. If you're going to be interviewed on the news, especially when you're part of a campaign that is under heavy scrutiny from the media, go prepared and don't start spouting bullshit. Of course I wasn't OK with that.



> I love how people making excuses for Trump when he lies or does not tell the truth or makes shit up. Its pathetic the lengths you go to to defend Trump.


As I already said, when Trump does something legitmately stupid, I'll call him out for it and have done. But when there are genuine things like building an actual wall to pull him up on, you're doubling down on shit like this. You do realise that just because you don't like him, everything he does doesn't have to be the worst thing in human history. He mispoke in a press conference. People mispeak all the time yet you're here claiming that Trump is inventing terror attacks with no real evidence to suggest that except your perception of him.


----------



## birthday_massacre

OH look Trump fired someone that disagreed with him LOL 

All Trump wants around him are yesmen. 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/senior-trump-appointee-fired-critical-comments-45596126
Senior Trump appointee fired after critical comments

Craig Deare, whom Trump appointed a month ago to head the National Security Council's Western Hemisphere division, was on Friday escorted out of the Executive Office Building, where he worked in Washington.

A senior White House official confirmed that Deare is no longer working at the NSC and has returned to the position he previously held at the National Defense University. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss an incident not otherwise made public, and provided no further details.

White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Sunday that Deare "was sent back to his original position." Asked if government employees should be concerned that they could be fired for criticizing the president, she said: "I don't think any person that is there in order to carry out the president's agenda should be against the president's agenda."

Current and former administration officials say Deare's termination was linked to remarks he made Thursday at a private talk at the Wilson Center, a Washington think tank. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter.

According to one person who attended the discussion, Deare slammed the Trump administration for its policies on Latin America, specifically its rocky start to relations with Mexico. That person spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss a private event.

Trump signed an order in the first week of his presidency to build a border wall with Mexico, jumpstarting a campaign promise. The move prompted Mexico's President Enrique Pena Nieto to cancel his trip to Washington in late January.

The person who attended the Wilson Center discussion also said that Deare openly expressed frustration over being cut out of most of the policy discussions about Mexico, saying that members of Trump's inner circle, including chief strategist Steve Bannon and Trump's son-in-law and adviser, Jared Kushner, have not consulted with NSC directorates as the White House formulates policy.

Deare has been on the faculty of National Defense University in Washington since 2001. He joined the university's College of International Security Affairs in 2010 and most recently served as dean of administration.

The person who attended the Wilson Center talk also noted that Deare made several remarks about how attractive Trump's daughter, Ivanka Trump, appeared, remarks that person described as "awkward."

Deare did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Officials with the Wilson Center also declined a request for information, saying the discussion was off the record.

Deare is the second senior NSC official to leave in under a week. On Monday, Trump's national security adviser, retired Gen. Michael Flynn, resigned after revelations that he discussed sanctions with a Russian diplomat before Trump was sworn in, then misled Vice President Mike Pence about the nature of those conversations.


----------



## birthday_massacre

3MB4Life said:


> When did Trump explicitly referring to terrorist attacks in the other places. He mentioned Germany, that could be to do with the truck attack but it could also be to do with the massive outbreak of sex attacks and assaults in Germany after they accepted a huge amount of refugees. Why does Trump have to have been referring exclusively to terrorism? Why can't he just be referring to problems caused by mass immigration in Europe? This is your problem when you listen to Trump, you seem to have already assumed what he's saying. He isn't explicitly referring to terrorism, he doesn't even say the word. You've assumed what he meant and are using that to draw conclusions and to be using your guess work to launch accusations at someone is not the sturdiest ground to be standing on.
> 
> 
> 
> I think everyone can agree that Sean Spicer has been an utter flop as Press Secretary and Communications Director. His entire job is public speaking and he's awful at it. No idea who put him up for the job but he's awful. That Atlanta mishap was an incident of him mispeaking when he meant to say Orlando. When your whole job is about talking, you shouldn't be fucking up like that.
> 
> And I'll criticise Conway for the Bowling Green thing all day long. She went on the news and made up a story about a massacre that didn't happen and seemed to be talking out of her arse. If you're going to be interviewed on the news, especially when you're part of a campaign that is under heavy scrutiny from the media, go prepared and don't start spouting bullshit. Of course I wasn't OK with that.
> 
> 
> 
> As I already said, when Trump does something legitmately stupid, I'll call him out for it and have done. But when there are genuine things like building an actual wall to pull him up on, you're doubling down on shit like this. You do realise that just because you don't like him, everything he does doesn't have to be the worst thing in human history. He mispoke in a press conference. People mispeak all the time yet you're here claiming that Trump is inventing terror attacks with no real evidence to suggest that except your perception of him.


yeah I have no real evidence except Trumps actual words LOL Ignore what Trump was saying in his own words. Trump is always spouting off about keep America safe from terrorist hiding as refugees, and he was speaking about terrorists refugee attacks when he made up the Sweden thing. Stop playing dumb and pretending you dont know exactly what he was talking about. And he did not misspeak, he knew exactly what he was doing. But he knows Trump supporters will fall for it like you and you let him get away with it. everyone that reported on it, took it exactly the same way as most people, he was speaking about a terrorist attack by reguees. Keep making excuses all you want.


----------



## Oxidamus

yeahbaby! said:


> I'm sorry are we talking about the same things? I'm talking about Trump flat out lying, or at the very nicest being inaccurate with some of his statements or, being even nicer, 'misspeaking'.
> 
> I'm not talking about towing party lines or standing by beliefs, not sure why you brought that up. I'm talking about being truthful when you make explicit statements - E.g. 'This event happened last night.' It either did or it didn't. It's pretty black and white isn't it?


:kobe

"Standing by beliefs" was an example of *principle*. The same as a person answering questions straightforwardly.

If Trump says what he believes, it's straightforward. If it's a lie, it's straightforward. Regardless of what he says, it's straightforward. Unlike politicians from virtually any country in the world who dance around the answer.


----------



## Art Vandaley

Oxi X.O. said:


> :kobe
> 
> "Standing by beliefs" was an example of *principle*. The same as a person answering questions straightforwardly.
> 
> If Trump says what he believes, it's straightforward. If it's a lie, it's straightforward. Regardless of what he says, it's straightforward. Unlike politicians from virtually any country in the world who dance around the answer.



Is a straightforward lie better than the complex truth?


----------



## Oxidamus

Alkomesh2 said:


> Is a straightforward lie better than the complex truth?


If the truth has to be complex then it's not the real truth. Straightforward lie is good for the opposition. Easy to point out, easy to disregard.


----------



## Beatles123

Alkomesh2 said:


> Is a straightforward lie better than the complex truth?


Considdering the Truth is what is censored by most media id say they prefer it.


----------



## 3MB4Life

birthday_massacre said:


> yeah I have no real evidence except Trumps actual words LOL Ignore what Trump was saying in his own words. Trump is always spouting off about keep America safe from terrorist hiding as refugees, and he was speaking about terrorists refugee attacks when he made up the Sweden thing. Stop playing dumb and pretending you dont know exactly what he was talking about. And he did not misspeak, he knew exactly what he was doing. But he knows Trump supporters will fall for it like you and you let him get away with it. everyone that reported on it, took it exactly the same way as most people, he was speaking about a terrorist attack by reguees. Keep making excuses all you want.


I didn't know you could read minds but you seem to have done a number on Trump. You know exactly what he's thinking, that's incredible. Can you tell us if he knew anything about the Russian hacking? Or about the pissing prostitutes? Can you read mine, what am I thinking right now? I'll give you a hint, it's something sarcastic.

The fact you're claiming Trumps words are your evidence and then you proceed to use your own interpretation of them as evidence is honestly reaching laughable levels of intellectual dishonesty. Unless you can provide me any shred of solid evidence that Trump suggested a terrorist attack occured in Sweden the day before his speech deliberately, you're launching baseless accusations.


----------



## Vic Capri

Oh, hey look at that. The Fox News story about Sweden:








> I love how people making excuses for Trump when he lies or does not tell the truth or makes shit up. Its pathetic the lengths you go to to defend Trump.












If you weren't outraged when Obama lied or did not tell the truth or made shit up then you have no room to talk.

- Vic


----------



## Miss Sally

Vic Capri said:


> Oh, hey look at that. The Fox News story about Sweden:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you weren't outraged when Obama lied or did not tell the truth or made shit up then you have no room to talk.
> 
> - Vic


Trump is going to build a wall to keep Illegal Mexicans out, Obama armed cartels with military hardware. If Obama was doing the same shit as Trump i think there would be a lot less complaining.:grin2:


----------



## Reaper

TBH, "mis-speaking" is not a valid defense when you're the leader of the free world. I expect more, and I expect better. Bringing up Obababa's Lies is not a valid defense either. You should all expect better. 

There's plenty of truths about muslim crime that are actually happening in Sweden. By making shit up, Trump is undoing the work apostates and hundreds of people have put in trying to get the word out because a fabrication coming from the President makes that effort harder given the current climate.


----------



## DOPA

Rand opposing big government Republicans since day one


----------



## Vic Capri

> Bringing up Obababa's Lies is not a valid defense either.


Oh, so its okay to lie or be a hypocrite?

Not a single burst of outrage from liberals when Obama was violating The Constitution, restricting travel from people from terrorist nations, wanted a Mexican barrier, deporting people, careless spending tax payer on vacations, awarded people who gave large campaign donations to the party, and acting like a tyrant. You know the same things The Left is hating Trump for?

- Vic


----------



## Alco

Vic Capri said:


> Oh, so its okay to lie or be a hypocrite?
> 
> Not a single burst of outrage from liberals when Obama was violating The Constitution, restricting travel from people from terrorist nations, deporting people, careless spending on vacations, and acting like a tyrant. You know the same things The Left is hating Trump for?
> 
> - Vic


He never said it was okay? 

He's 100% correct that any "Guy A did it, it's okay when Guy B does it" defense is weak and invalid. 

In any case, it's not okay to be a liar and a hypocrite. It's not okay to use, or misuse, false or partially incomplete information to base political oneliners on either.


----------



## Reaper

Vic Capri said:


> Oh, so its okay to lie or be a hypocrite?


It's simply irrelevant.


----------



## sesshomaru

I don't know why the Trump administration seems to be trying so hard to 'rock the boat' as it were. When Canada got a majority Conservitive Goverment, they waited a while before passing key legislation, and they seemed to hold back with using their majority advantage to push legislation through.

This just seems like they are just pissing everyone off (mostly the left), and once Demos are back in power we'll be going through this shit again as they repeal all the Repub legislation.


----------



## Vic Capri

> It's simply irrelevant.


Were you outraged by what he did? Yes or no?

- Vic


----------



## Reaper

Vic Capri said:


> Were you outraged by what he did? Yes or no?
> 
> - Vic


Again, it's irrelevant. 

I'm far more anti-Obaba than I am pro-Trump. But why am I on trial here? You're diving into some seriously irrelevancies here in order to try to deflect focus from Trump's statement that was wrong. It's ok for someone to make mistakes. It's not ok for his supporters to hold him to a lower standard just because they support him. This isn't a good way to debate. It's borderline apologist.


----------



## Miss Sally

RipNTear said:


> TBH, "mis-speaking" is not a valid defense when you're the leader of the free world. I expect more, and I expect better. Bringing up Obababa's Lies is not a valid defense either. You should all expect better.
> 
> There's plenty of truths about muslim crime that are actually happening in Sweden. By making shit up, Trump is undoing the work apostates and hundreds of people have put in trying to get the word out because a fabrication coming from the President makes that effort harder given the current climate.


Agreed, it was either you and me or me and DROW but we were discussing Trump's speaking. I brought up when he was still in debates that his plain speak was his greatest asset but he needed to be very clear and on point as the MSM, NeoCons and Democrats will be waiting for any fuck up to justify their inane nonsense.

Sweden is a hot bed of violence, rapes, Islamic propaganda and a clear example of what an insane hard Left Government could be responsible for when it controls the media and won't control the immigration or integration of said people.

Obama had luxuries Trump does not and Trump must be aware of this and must be direct. The more time is wasted on this nonsense the more dug in the NeoCons get and the more bolder the Democrats become. He has people undermining him from within so he needs to be certain when he speaks it's plain, to the point and accurate. 

The only way he keeps control is by having these shady Republicans by the balls, culling the leaks from within and making sure the Democrats have no ammo for even the dumbest thing.


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> Sweden is a hot bed of violence, rapes, Islamic propaganda and a clear example of what an insane hard Left Government could be responsible for when it controls the media and won't control the immigration or integration of said people.


There's denial amongst Sweden's own citizenry and the ones on the left that are in denial are now the ones that are the focus of the media (and other leftists) because from what I have observed Trump's statement deepened the echo chambers on both sides instead of converging on the reality. 

There are people who outright deny the events of Malmo which are actually real and this just gives everyone far too much ammunition. Something they've become deeply reliant on.

The analogy here is that if Trump says "there were mass rapes in Germany in 2016", when the real mass rapes were in 2015 it shifts the reality based narrative to a fake one and that's bad for everybody.


----------



## Vic Capri

> I'm far more anti-Obaba than I am pro-Trump. But why am I on trial here? You're diving into some seriously irrelevancies here in order to try to deflect focus from Trump's statement that was wrong. It's ok for someone to make mistakes. It's not ok for his supporters to hold him to a lower standard just because they support him. This isn't a good way to debate. It's borderline apologist.





President Trump said:


> Here's the bottom line, we've got to keep our country safe. You look at what's happening. We've got to keep our country safe. You look at what's happening in Germany, you look at what's happening last night in Sweden. Sweden, who would believe this. Sweden. They took in large numbers. They're having problems like they never thought possible. You look at what's happening in Brussels, you look at what's happening all over the world. Take a look at Nice, take a look at Paris.


Nowhere did he say there was a "terror attack", but that didn't stop hundreds of fake news outlets from claiming he did hence why the mainstream media continues to be the enemy of the American people.

- Vic


----------



## Reaper

Vic Capri said:


> Nowhere did he say there was a "terror attack", but that didn't stop hundreds of fake news outlets from claiming he did hence why the mainstream media continues to be the enemy of the American people.
> 
> - Vic


Spin. 



> We've got to keep our country safe. You look at what's happening in Germany, *you look at what's happening last night in Sweden.*


He was clearly referring to a specific event. An event that didn't happen. Even if something did happen, when you claim a specific time and place for something to have happened you need to specify what happened as well. 

Or maybe you can tell me what he was referring to because this is not a generalized statement. This is not mis-speaking either. He had a specific event/thing in his head when he made that statement.


----------



## Vic Capri

> He was clearly referring to a specific event. An event that didn't happen. Even if something did happen, when you claim a specific time and place for something to have happened you need to specify what happened as well.
> 
> Or maybe you can tell me what he was referring to because this is not a generalized statement. This is not mis-speaking either. He had a specific event/thing in his head when he made that statement.


Now, you're assuming and that, my friend, is irrelevant. 

- Vic


----------



## Reaper

Vic Capri said:


> Now, you're assuming and that, my friend, is irrelevant.
> 
> - Vic


Nah Vic. A date and a time was specified for an event. It's obvious he had some specific event in his mind and not a plethora of events otherwise the statement would have been generalized as it was for Germany. Context is key.

There's plenty of things to pick apart leftist hypocrisy. This one from Trump is not defensible :draper2 

Example: 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/833665920442757120


----------



## Miss Sally

RipNTear said:


> Nah Vic. A date and a time was specified for an event. It's obvious he had some specific event in his mind and not a plethora of events otherwise the statement would have been generalized as it was for Germany. Context is key.
> 
> There's plenty of things to pick apart leftist hypocrisy. This one from Trump is not defensible :draper2
> 
> Example:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/833665920442757120


Keep it general or keep it specific, cannot have both!

If it was a fizzle on his part and he meant to generalize then he needs to be sure it doesn't happen again.

LMAO it doesn't surprise me that the call to prayer is respected but the Christian prayer is bad. Are these people not self aware?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Vic Capri said:


> Nowhere did he say there was a "terror attack", but that didn't stop hundreds of fake news outlets from claiming he did hence why the mainstream media continues to be the enemy of the American people.
> 
> - Vic






3MB4Life said:


> I didn't know you could read minds but you seem to have done a number on Trump. You know exactly what he's thinking, that's incredible. Can you tell us if he knew anything about the Russian hacking? Or about the pissing prostitutes? Can you read mine, what am I thinking right now? I'll give you a hint, it's something sarcastic.
> 
> The fact you're claiming Trumps words are your evidence and then you proceed to use your own interpretation of them as evidence is honestly reaching laughable levels of intellectual dishonesty. Unless you can provide me any shred of solid evidence that Trump suggested a terrorist attack occured in Sweden the day before his speech deliberately, you're launching baseless accusations.


I have already given you the evidence but you just ignore it. Trump was talking about terror attacks that went on in Paris, and Brussels then said look what happened in Sweden last night. So how was he not making a claim about a terror attack in Sweden when the other places he was talking about did? 

Its funny how pretty much everyone but you sees he was making a false claim about a terror attack in Sweden. The mental gymnastics you go through to defend Trump is astounding.

If someone was talking about mass shootings and said llook at what happened at Columbine, Orlando, and Sandy Hook then said or what happened last night in NYC and there was no mass shooting in NYC are you really going to make the claim that person is not saying there was a mass shooting in NYC just because he did not say and look at the mass shooting in NYC?

Of course not since that person is clearly making a claim a mass shooting happened in NYC last night because that is what happened at the first three locations.


----------



## birthday_massacre

RipNTear said:


> Nah Vic. A date and a time was specified for an event. It's obvious he had some specific event in his mind and not a plethora of events otherwise the statement would have been generalized as it was for Germany. Context is key.
> 
> There's plenty of things to pick apart leftist hypocrisy. This one from Trump is not defensible :draper2
> 
> Example:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/833665920442757120


You really think the left would be ok if someone got up and started to recite a full Muslim prayer? Also saying Allahu Akbar is pretty much like saying God Bless and president do that all the time and no one takes issue with it. She said a full prayer which she should not have. If she said a full Muslim prayer that would be wrong too. And dont act like if Obama for example said a Muslim prayer that the right would not be up in arms over it.

There should be no prayer at all for anything, anyone that is ok with one but not the other is a hypocrite for sure. 

But Allahu Akbar and God Bless are pretty close. Muslims say Allahu Akbar like Christians say God Bless. And when they said oh respect Allahu Akbar they are talking about civilian not politicians saying it at press conferences and saying a full Muslim prayer. 

God should never be brought up in any political platform because of separation of church and state. There are hypocrites on both sides of this, dont act like its just the left the right is even worse something your buddy PJW never mentions because he is a huge hypocrite.

But even if Trump (not Obama) read a Muslim prayer, do you think people would not have an issue with it especially on the right?


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> You really think the left would be ok if someone got up and started to recite a full Muslim prayer? Also saying Allahu Akbar is pretty much like saying God Bless and president do that all the time and no one takes issue with it. She said a full prayer which she should not have. If she said a full Muslim prayer that would be wrong too. And dont act like if Obama for example said a Muslim prayer that the right would not be up in arms over it.
> 
> There should be no prayer at all for anything, anyone that is ok with one but not the other is a hypocrite for sure.
> 
> But Allahu Akbar and God Bless are pretty close. Muslims say Allahu Akbar like Christians say God Bless. And when they said oh respect Allahu Akbar they are talking about civilian not politicians saying it at press conferences and saying a full Muslim prayer.
> 
> God should never be brought up in any political platform because of separation of church and state. There are hypocrites on both sides of this, dont act like its just the left the right is even worse something your buddy PJW never mentions because he is a huge hypocrite.
> 
> But even if Trump (not Obama) read a Muslim prayer, do you think people would not have an issue with it especially on the right?


You are trying to teach me about Allahu Akber. 

Just let that sink in. An American Atheist is now trying to teach an ex-muslim about the meaning of Allahu Akbar and how it's used .. Let that sink in. This man is trying to tell me how AllahuAkbar is used when I've used it for 30 years of my life and lived around millions of people who used it for various things without even bothering to look up what it even means. :lmao 

I'm not even going to tell you what it means right away. Because I like it when you pull things out of your ass and then have to post a retraction since it just repeatedly shows that all you ever have on this site are triggered knee-jerk reactions to anything remotely critical of your side - even when it's in response to a post where I'm criticizing the right wing for being apologists for Trump :lmao 

The very least you could have done is looked up the literal meaning before this long-winded response and then look up the context and why Muslims use it and also what the call of prayer literally means. 

But again, you've taken the whole Islam is ok thing to heart and aren't thinking like a normal atheist anymore either. Because if you were, then you'd spend even a little bit of time learning the meaning of the word you're trying to teach an ex-Muslim. You've lost it. Completely and utterly lost it. You're turning into an SJW type of atheist and that's just sad. 

Anyways, for the benefit of those who are also ignorant of what the Muslim Call to Prayer really means, here's the translation:



> Allah is the Greatest!
> 
> Praise and glory be to You, O Allah.
> Blessed be Your Name, exalted be Your Majesty and Glory.
> There is no god but You.
> 
> I seek Allah's shelter from Satan, the condemned.
> 
> In the Name of Allah, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful.
> 
> Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Universe,
> the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful!
> Master of the Day for Judgment!
> You alone do we worship and You alone do we call on for help.
> *Guide us along the Straight Path,
> The path of those whom You have favored,
> Not the path of those who earned Your anger, nor of those who went astray. Amen.
> *
> (Recitation of an additional Chapter of the Holy Qur'an)
> 
> Glorified is my Lord, the Great.
> 
> Allah listens to those who praise Him.
> 
> Our Lord, praise be for You only.
> 
> Glorified is my Lord, the Exalted.
> 
> O my Lord, forgive me and have Mercy on me.
> 
> All our oral, physical and monetary ways of worship are only for Allah. Peace, mercy and blessing of Allah be on you, O Prophet.
> May peace be upon us and on the devout servants of Allah.
> I testify that there is no god but Allah and I testify that Muhammad is His servant and messenger.
> 
> O Allah, send Your mercy on Muhammad and his posterity as you sent Your mercy on Abraham and his posterity. You are the Most Praised, the Most Glorious.
> 
> O Allah, send Your Blessings on Muhammad and his posterity as you sent Your blessings on Abraham and his posterity. You are the Most Praised, the Most Glorious.
> 
> Our Lord, grant us the good in this world and that of the Hereafter and save us from the torture of Hell.
> 
> Peace and Mercy of Allah be on you. Peace and Mercy of Allah be on you.


The call to prayer has an inbuilt insult and a supremacist message directed at the stupid people who were sitting there listening to it like the sheep that they are. But sheep gonna sheep because it's "just exotic chanting" to them :lmao . 

I can't stop them from it. I can just point out the hypocrisy because that's what it is. Can you imagine that? They are literally sitting there listening to being told that they have been led astray and smiling at it. That's like me calling an American an "ulloo ka patha" or a "gora" and he'd just blankly smile back at me :lmao 

AllahuAkbar means :Allah is the Greatest. It does not mean "God Bless you". It's pure veneration of Allah and that's it. There's no human context in the use of AllahuAkbar at all. The only thing close to God Bless You in Islam is AssalamoAlaikum. 

AllahuAkbar is also a word consistently invoked by terrorists before they kill people. You know before you become a full on #iamamuslimtoo , you should spend some serious time researching what you're fucking defending.

Dude, if you can't even look up the meaning of the word that you're defending to an ex-Muslim do you really think you have any credibility whatsoever to compare Christianity with Islam that you so openly claim are one and the same :lmao


----------



## birthday_massacre

RipNTear said:


> You are trying to teach me about Allahu Akber.
> 
> Just let that sink in. An American Atheist is now trying to teach an ex-muslim about the meaning of Allahu Akbar without even bothering to look up what it actually means. I'm not even going to tell you what it means. Because I like it when you pull things out of your ass and then have to post a retraction since it just repeatedly shows that all you ever have on this site are triggered knee-jerk reactions to anything remotely critical of your side - even when it's in response to a post where I'm criticizing the right wing for being apologists for Trump :lmao
> 
> The very least you could have done is looked up the literal meaning before this long-winded response and then look up the context and why Muslims use it and what the call of prayer literally means.
> 
> But again, you've taken the whole Islam is ok thing to heart and aren't thinking like a normal atheist anymore either. Because if you were, then you'd spend even a little bit of time learning the meaning of the word you're trying to teach an ex-Muslim. You've lost it. Completely and utterly lost it.




Extremist use Allahu Akbar is a different way than the casual Muslim does. When the causal Muslim says Allahu Akbar it does not mean they want to go kill someone. It's a saying like oh my god, or god bless. Its an expression as well.

Am I wrong is saying that Muslims use the Allahu Akbar casually like as well? If I am wrong on that then thank you for better informing me on the true meaning and not causal. I always understood it to mean god is great. but like you said you are the expert. And you would def. know better than me. 

I never said Islam is ok, I hate all religion, I even said in my post no religion should be spoken by politicians but if course you ignored that part.

You also did not answer my question. Do you really think people would be ok if Trump or Obama got up in recited a full Muslim prayer before one of their speeches?


----------



## 3MB4Life

birthday_massacre said:


> I have already given you the evidence but you just ignore it. Trump was talking about terror attacks that went on in Paris, and Brussels then said look what happened in Sweden last night. So how was he not making a claim about a terror attack in Sweden when the other places he was talking about did?


He mentioned Brussels and Paris after he brought up Sweden. The first explicit reference of terrorism he makes is about Nice. That's after he mentions Sweden. He wasn't talking about terrorism exclusively, he was talking about incidents involving refugees. Some of those were terrorist attacks, some of them weren't.

Have you actually seen the press conference or have you just rearranged the order in your head because it makes Trump seem worse?


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> I know what it means, but it's the same difference when Americans say god bless or something like that.


So you're wrong, but you won't even admit you're wrong and just doubling down fpalm 



> Its not like its a full prayer like Melinda did. So its not even close to the same thing as saying a full prayer and just saying Allahu Akbar or something like God Bless or thank god.


I didn't say it wasn't wrong but you don't ever understand the context of it. I said that Non-Muslims sat back and listened to the Muslim call of prayer because it's in arabic so they don't even fucking realize that they're actually being lambasted within the prayer. This is also the worst part of cultural appropriation where idiots listen to shit in other people's langauge and pretend that it's just all meaningless crap. The Muslim call to prayer is a supremacist, insulting to non-muslim veneration of Allah so that Muslims can gather and continue to do the same. Do you know the content of the prayers? Did you even know the verses that Muslims recite while in prayer? Do you know anything at all? 

The Muslim call to prayer isn't some lame chant that people can listen to and pretend that there was nothing bad in it. If I called you multiple things in my language, I would hope that your first reaction would be to go and find out what I actually even said instead of sitting there like a sheep and thinking that I said nothing bad to you. 

Here's another context that you obviously know nothing about. The first Muslim call to prayer (and the most celebrated) was given by Bilal (an ex-slave) after the conquest of Mecca where Muslims looted and destroyed all other gods in the Ka'aba and forced mass conversions to Islam. This is why I keep saying that it's a supremacist, insulting to non-Muslim veneration of Allah and idiots just sat there dumb-faced listening to "meaningless holy chant". Fuck it. 

But of course, expecting you to understand the context of anything related to Islam is just a bit too much. You have no clue about Islam. None at all. 



> I never said Islam is ok, I even said in my post no religion should be spoken by politicians but if course you ignored that part.


You don't understand the irony of what you're saying at all do you? 



> Extremist use Allahu Akbar is a different way than the casual Muslim does. When the causal Muslim says Allahu Akbar it does not mean they want to go kill someone. Its also a saying like oh my god, or god bless or those other terms.





> Am I wrong is saying that Muslims use the Allahu Akbar casually like as well?


Yeah, and there are people who casually say "Heil Hitler" too but you want that to be defined as hate speech and criminalized. 

And I'm hoping against hope that you understand the context of this argument. 

I have no problems with people saying AllahuAkbar. I have problems with people like you pretending to know what it means and then lecturing ex-muslims. As far as you're concerned, listening to you on Islam would be like expecting a dog to meow. You just don't have the depth of knowledge and understanding to comment in this regard. You really don't. If you had exhibited any such knowledge (like others do on this site) I would not have given you such a hard time but you deserve it for trying to speak up on an issue and a term that you never even bothered to look up what it means and how it's used. You just have these same old talking points that you want to toss out and have no idea who you're actually even talking to. You may be able to bullshit your friends with this "allahukbar means god bless you crap" but trying to pull this crap with an actual ex-muslim is just offensive - and I'm rarely offended. 




> You also did not answer my question. Do you really think people would be ok if Trump or Obama got up in recited a full Muslim prayer before one of their speeches?


Of course they won't be. It doesn't negate the fact that idiots sate down and took it up the butt when the muslim call to prayer was said in front of them which they didn't even know what it means. For a group of people who are ready to jump down the throats of musicians, comedians and anyone that disagrees with them, this group is proving its hypocrisy by becoming apologists for Islam. And you know that that's happening so stop pretending that it's not.


----------



## birthday_massacre

RipNTear said:


> So you're wrong, but you won't even admit you're wrong and just doubling down fpalm
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say it wasn't wrong but you don't ever understand the context of it. I said that Non-Muslims sat back and listened to the Muslim call of prayer because it's in arabic so they don't even fucking realize that they're actually being lambasted within the prayer. This is also the worst part of cultural appropriation where idiots listen to shit in other people's langauge and pretend that it's just all meaningless crap. The Muslim call to prayer is a supremacist, insulting to non-muslim veneration of Allah so that Muslims can gather and continue to do the same. Do you know the content of the prayers? Did you even know the verses that Muslims recite while in prayer? Do you know anything at all?
> 
> The Muslim call to prayer isn't some lame chant that people can listen to and pretend that there was nothing bad in it. If I called you multiple things in my language, I would hope that your first reaction would be to go and find out what I actually even said instead of sitting there like a sheep and thinking that I said nothing bad to you.
> 
> Here's another context that you obviously know nothing about. The first Muslim call to prayer (and the most celebrated) was given by Bilal (an ex-slave) after the conquest of Mecca where Muslims looted and destroyed all other gods in the Ka'aba and forced mass conversions to Islam. This is why I keep saying that it's a supremacist, insulting to non-Muslim veneration of Allah and idiots just sat there dumb-faced listening to "meaningless holy chant". Fuck it.
> 
> But of course, expecting you to understand the context of anything related to Islam is just a bit too much. You have no clue about Islam. None at all.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand the irony of what you're saying at all do you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, and there are people who casually say "Heil Hitler" too but you want that to be defined as hate speech and criminalized.
> 
> And I'm hoping against hope that you understand the context of this argument.
> 
> I have no problems with people saying AllahuAkbar. I have problems with people like you pretending to know what it means and then lecturing ex-muslims. As far as you're concerned, listening to you on Islam would be like expecting a dog to meow. You just don't have the depth of knowledge and understanding to comment in this regard. You really don't. If you had exhibited any such knowledge (like others do on this site) I would not have given you such a hard time but you deserve it for trying to speak up on an issue and a term that you never even bothered to look up what it means and how it's used. You just have these same old talking points that you want to toss out and have no idea who you're actually even talking to. You may be able to bullshit your friends with this "allahukbar means god bless you crap" but trying to pull this crap with an actual ex-muslim is just offensive - and I'm rarely offended.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they won't be. It doesn't negate the fact that idiots sate down and took it up the butt when the muslim call to prayer was said in front of them which they didn't even know what it means. For a group of people who are ready to jump down the throats of musicians, comedians and anyone that disagrees with them, this group is proving its hypocricy by becoming apologists for Islam. And you know that that's happening so stop pretending that it's not.


Thank you for setting me straight, I only had a causal understanding of it, and was wrong. You posted a lot of good info to better inform me. I apperciate it. The term a lot worse than I understood it to be. Id def need to get more well versed in that next time. I was ignorant of most of the stuff you talked about.


----------



## birthday_massacre

3MB4Life said:


> He mentioned Brussels and Paris after he brought up Sweden. The first explicit reference of terrorism he makes is about Nice. That's after he mentions Sweden. He wasn't talking about terrorism exclusively, he was talking about incidents involving refugees. Some of those were terrorist attacks, some of them weren't.
> 
> Have you actually seen the press conference or have you just rearranged the order in your head because it makes Trump seem worse?


Of course he was talking about terrorism exclusively. All those locations had terrorist attacks but the one he made up in Sweden. 

Yes I saw the full speech, and I quoted it in one of my earlier post. Him mentioning Sweden in the middle even further shows he was talking about a terror attack. 

He mentioned the terrorist attack in Germany first then he mentioned what happened in Sweden but oh he was not talking about terrorism there but then he switches back to terrorist attacks in Brussels and Paris where he was. LOL 

So using your logic only the middle part he was not talking about a terrorist attack but the ones before and after he was? You can't be serious. He lumped all of those together as terrorist attack.

It seems like only you can't see that.


----------



## Reaper

BTW @birthday_massacre --- I apologise for my tone. 

Anyways, in further context to AllahuAkbar since I feel like I've piqued your interest to know more a little bit. AllahuAkbar since the days of Mohammad has been their battle-cry before, during and after battles. This tradition has continued for centuries. Muslims believe that by chanting AllahuAkbar, Allah will give them strength to carry on. 

Muslims do use AllahuAkbar, but it is primarily used as a rallying cry to give themselves spiritual strength in competition and mostly battle. The words that Muslims most casually use are 

Subhan-Allah - Glory be to God (this is the more casual use to praise Allah and be thankful for something good that has happened)
MahShallah - God Willed It (this is mostly used in Pakistan by muslims who want to invoke allah's protection after someone's beauty or brilliance has been praised as a way to acknowledge that it was only because of Allah that it happened)
Asteghfarullah - Way of invoking Allah's forgiveness for a sin or something. 

In my experience, AllahuAkbar rarely came into casual conversation mainly because it is more closely associated to war, jihad and competition. You'll hear it at rallies and marches. It's not a casually used term in everyday conversation like the above three though. It has a casual use, but it's actually very uncommon and with its growing association with terrorists and terrorism, I've noticed fewer and fewer liberal muslims use it. I've never heard my parents use it. They will and can use it, but they don't because nothing they do warrants it.

Never forget when you feel like defending Muslims that while many of them are not supremacists themselves, Islam is an arab supremacist religion. Even amongst Muslims the Arabs consider themselves the most superior of all Muslims and surprisingly many muslims actually acknowledge this themselves. Ultimately, it's about religious and ideological supremacy so while you can have the odd family of Muslims here and there that aren't supremacists themselves, but when given the chance to become the majority will always vote in favor of all of Islam's archaic social policies. 

I don't hate Muslims. But Islam is the worst ideology _currently _in existence. It doesn't deserve the liberals' support at all.


----------



## 3MB4Life

birthday_massacre said:


> Of course he was talking about terrorism exclusively. All those locations had terrorist attacks but the one he made up in Sweden.
> 
> Yes I saw the full speech, and I quoted it in one of my earlier post. Him mentioning Sweden in the middle even further shows he was talking about a terror attack.
> 
> He mentioned the terrorist attack in Germany first then he mentioned what happened in Sweden but oh he was not talking about terrorism there but then he switches back to terrorist attacks in Brussels and Paris where he was. LOL
> 
> So using your logic only the middle part he was not talking about a terrorist attack but the ones before and after he was? You can't be serious. He lumped all of those together as terrorist attack.
> 
> It seems like only you can't see that.


So when he says "you look at what's happening in Germany", that's referring to a single incident? He never exclusively mentions a single terrorist attack in Germany, he just mentions Germany in reference to how it's been affected by the large number of migrants they let in. Does that include terrorist attacks? Yes. Does that also include the rise in sexual assaults, rapes and violent crimes? Yes. Is it more likely he was trying to refer to Sweden, a country with a very similar relationship with migrant crime, in the same context? Why when he refers to specific terrorist attacks in Paris, Brussels and Nice does he name them by city but name Sweden and Germany as countries? He's referring to the nationwide effect that the large volume of migrants allowed into both countries has had on the security of their citizens compared to Nice, Paris and Brussels which were individual acts of terrorism and were referred to as such.

As I said, did you actually watch the fucking press conference?


----------



## birthday_massacre

RipNTear said:


> BTW @birthday_massacre --- I apologise for my tone.
> 
> Anyways, in further context to AllahuAkbar since I feel like I've piqued your interest to know more a little bit. AllahuAkbar since the days of Mohammad has been their battle-cry before, during and after battles. This tradition has continued for centuries. Muslims believe that by chanting AllahuAkbar, Allah will give them strength to carry on.
> 
> Muslims do use AllahuAkbar, but it is primarily used as a rallying cry to give themselves spiritual strength in competition and mostly battle. The words that Muslims most casually use are
> 
> Subhan-Allah - Glory be to God (this is the more casual use to praise Allah and be thankful for something good that has happened)
> MahShallah - God Willed It (this is mostly used in Pakistan by muslims who want to invoke allah's protection after someone's beauty or brilliance has been praised as a way to acknowledge that it was only because of Allah that it happened)
> Asteghfarullah - Way of invoking Allah's forgiveness for a sin or something.
> 
> In my experience, AllahuAkbar rarely came into casual conversation mainly because it is more closely associated to war, jihad and competition. You'll hear it at rallies and marches. It's not a casually used term in everyday conversation like the above three though. It has a casual use, but it's actually very uncommon and with its growing association with terrorists and terrorism, I've noticed fewer and fewer liberal muslims use it. I've never heard my parents use it. They will and can use it, but they don't because nothing they do warrants it.


Your tone was fine, you were just frustrated because I only had a basic understanding and that was not even really right on that. Your tone worked right LOL 

Thank you for better explaining it to me so I can be better informed, this after all is what debates are for right? 

Also just to be clear, maybe I am not clear enough on this since you seem to think I defend Islam and this could be my fault by how I post.

I don't like Islam at all, I think its a terrible religion, just like Chrisanitity, I dislike all religion, I think it just breeds hate and intolerance, and like you say in Islams case death even now. 

What I do defend are Muslims that are not extremist that don't push their religion onto anyone. Just because someone is Muslim does not mean they agree with all of Islam. Some Christians are the same way with Christianity. I am fine with Christians that don't try to ban gay marriage, or are for not hiring someone or serving them because they are gay. Those are the Christians I am against, just like I am against the Extremist Muslims.

Just because someone was born in a Muslim country does not mean they are bad, if those same people were born in the US they probably would have been Christians or Jews.


----------



## birthday_massacre

3MB4Life said:


> So when he says "you look at what's happening in Germany", that's referring to a single incident? He never exclusively mentions a single terrorist attack in Germany, he just mentions Germany in reference to how it's been affected by the large number of migrants they let in. Does that include terrorist attacks? Yes. Does that also include the rise in sexual assaults, rapes and violent crimes? Yes. *Is it more likely he was trying to refer to Sweden, a country with a very similar relationship with migrant crime, in the same context?* Why when he refers to specific terrorist attacks in Paris, Brussels and Nice does he name them by city but name Sweden and Germany as countries? *He's referring to the nationwide effect that the large volume of migrants allowed into both countries has had on the security of their citizens compared to Nice, Paris and Brussels which were individual acts of terrorism and were referred to as such.*
> 
> As I said, did you actually watch the fucking press conference?


I already told you I watched it. Can't you read?

Like with beatels, this is the last time I am mentioning Sweden with you. I think its funny you ask if im a mind reader than claim the following (see bold) 

All those places listed had terrorist attacks, but the one Trump made up in Sweden last night. Trump got caught once again making something up or if you want to be kind misinformed, which is even worse since he is the president and when you say something, especially when it comes to something like this, you need to be 100% sure.

Its funny how almost everyone but you knows Trump was talking about a terror attack in Sweden. Just admit Trump was wrong and move on.

Im done with you on this topic.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> What I do defend are Muslims that are not extremist that don't push their religion onto anyone. Just because someone is Muslim does not mean they agree with all of Islam. Some Christians are the same way with Christianity. I am fine with Christians that don't try to ban gay marriage, or are for not hiring someone or serving them because they are gay. Those are the Christians I am against, just like I am against the Extremist Muslims.
> 
> Just because someone was born in a Muslim country does not mean they are bad, if those same people were born in the US they probably would have been Christians or Jews.


I'm ok with that totally. Obviously, I actually have Muslim family and my and dad, brother and sister, niece and nephews are all Muslims so how can I possibly not defend their right to exist as peaceful muslims. However, at the same time I acknowledge that even my family is homophobic (maybe not my mom, sister and niece aren't but all the men are). The thing I'm trying to get at in terms of protecting western society from muslims however is this: 










And then once they get into the secular state and establish their roots they will again start voting for the religious because in Islam there is much less room for secularization than any other religion in the world. Christianity has lost its power in the West. I'm gonna do simple math based on some real facts so you can get a clearer picture of why I am anti-refugee as well (I'm not anti-Muslim immigration overall, but only to the extent of bringing in poorly vetted vast numbers at the same time) and it's because of this dilemma 

Say you have a random American city with the following demographic:

Pro-gay marriage Secularists, non-religious people and Christians: 55% (55K people)
Anti-gay marriage Christians: 45% (45k people) 

At this point, if gay marriage goes to a vote, the secularists win the vote. 

Now say the governor of that State decides that he's going to resettle just 10,000 voting age muslims. From statistics we know that the vast majority of Muslims (around 90%+) from all currently impacted regions of the Muslim world are homophobic and believe that homosexuality is immoral. 

The re-settlement happens and now you have a different demographic. 

The total population of that city now is 110k but there is now a significant reduction in the percentage of people that would vote in favor of gay marriage so it now becomes a contentious issue in that city. 

It's a very difficult situation we find ourselves in. We want to help. But in the end, we've struggled for centuries to make some real progress in our own social values. Tipping that balance can have disastrous results on the liberties of already marginalized people in the States. 

The problem with identity politics is that everyone that's a minority is automatically assumed to be marginalized. 

However, look at my example: Homophobic Muslims + Homophobic Christians combined created an ideological majority despite being labeled as physical minorities. Now the idea that homosexuals should have a right to marry is marginalized by a grouping of marginalized people with the same values. Social progress lost in the end despite the fact that we were so kind and good by bringing in so many Muslims to help. 

The anti-refugee position is very complex. It's not a simple matter of xenophobia and islamophobia.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Vic Capri said:


> Oh, so its okay to lie or be a hypocrite?
> 
> Not a single burst of outrage from liberals when Obama was violating The Constitution, restricting travel from people from terrorist nations, wanted a Mexican barrier, deporting people, careless spending tax payer on vacations, awarded people who gave large campaign donations to the party, and acting like a tyrant. You know the same things The Left is hating Trump for?
> 
> - Vic


I always love these kind of arguments. Both sides have hypocrites. The right was always complaining about Obama using EO yet now are ok when Trump uses them, the right is all pissy because the democrats are holding up the confirmation of some of Trumps cabinet yet the right held up the SCOTUS pick for over a year and did not even give him a hearing. 

And sorry but a lot of real liberals were bitching and complaining when Obama was doing that stuff. The establishment wasn't, but the establishment republicans are exactly the same way

so stop acting like only the left does these things when the right does them just as much


----------



## birthday_massacre

RipNTear said:


> I'm ok with that totally. Obviously, I actually have Muslim family and my and dad, brother and sister, niece and nephews are all Muslims so how can I possibly not defend their right to exist as peaceful muslims. However, at the same time I acknowledge that even my family is homophobic (maybe not my mom, sister and niece aren't but all the men are). The thing I'm trying to get at in terms of protecting western society from muslims however is this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And then once they get into the secular state and establish their roots they will again start voting for the religious because in Islam there is much less room for secularization than any other religion in the world. Christianity has lost its power in the West. I'm gonna do simple math based on some real facts so you can get a clearer picture of why I am anti-refugee as well (I'm not anti-Muslim immigration overall, but only to the extent of bringing in poorly vetted vast numbers at the same time) and it's because of this dilemma
> 
> 
> Say you have a random American city with the following demographic:
> 
> 
> Pro-gay marriage Secularists, non-religious people and people of other religions: 55% (55K people)
> Anti-gay marriage Christians: 45% (45k people)
> 
> 
> At this point, if gay marriage goes to a vote, the secularists win the vote.
> 
> 
> Now say the governor of that State decides that he's going to resettle just 10,000 voting age muslims. From statistics we know that the vast majority of Muslims (around 90%+) from all currently impacted regions of the Muslim world are homophobic and believe that homosexuality is immoral.
> 
> 
> The re-settlement happens and now you have a different demographic.
> 
> 
> The total population of that city now is 110k but there is now a significant reduction in the percentage of people that would vote in favor of gay marriage so it now becomes a contentious issue in that city.
> 
> 
> It's a very difficult situation we find ourselves in. We want to help. But in the end, we've struggled for centuries to make some real progress in our own social values. Tipping that balance can have disastrous results on the liberties of already marginalized people in the States.
> 
> 
> The problem with identity politics is that everyone that's a minority is automatically assumed to be marginalized. However, homophobic muslims + homophobic christians create an ideological majority despite being labeled as physical minorities. See the complexity of the anti-refugee argument?


I have a few Muslim friends but we never really talk religion. But they are against all the extremist and don't agree with all of Islam. 

As for putting gay marriage up for a vote that would never and should never happen since marriage is a right. It would be like putting up interracial marriage for a vote. 

But that being said I see the point you are trying to make and it is a good one. Identity politics is a pretty complicated thing when you put it the way you do.


----------



## Miss Sally

Seems a Russian Ambassador died in the US, think it was the work of some sort of Russian conspiracy?


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> I have a few Muslim friends but we never really talk religion. But they are against all the extremist and don't agree with all of Islam.
> 
> As for putting gay marriage up for a vote that would never and should never happen since marriage is a right. It would be like putting up interracial marriage for a vote.
> 
> But that being said I see the point you are trying to make and it is a good one. Identity politics is a pretty complicated thing when you put it the way you do.


Exactly, a lot of things that go up for votes should never go up for votes anyways. Majorities deciding on our liberty is ironically the anti-thesis of liberty. This is why many countries have bullshit laws that infringe upon core liberties without even leaving any room for discussions of morality. 

We need to simply define what liberty is and establish it through our legal system. The government essentially takes rights away and then gives it back and pretends that they gave people freedoms that they should have always already had :lol 

As for Muslims who denounce extremism. They are very selective. It's easy to condemn someone committing a terrorist attack or murder or even someone throwing a gay off a building. In any case, Muslims in America are liberal. Many have come from countries with poor records of liberty anyways so they're more liberal. However, an influx that's poorly vetted will likely not be. 

Also, it's easier still to go into a voting booth and check NO to gay marriage. See the problem?


----------



## birthday_massacre

RipNTear said:


> Exactly, a lot of things that go up for votes should never go up for votes anyways. Majorities deciding on our liberty is ironically the anti-thesis of liberty. This is why many countries have bullshit laws that infringe upon core liberties without even leaving any room for discussions of morality.
> 
> We need to simply define what liberty is and establish it through our legal system. The government essentially takes rights away and then gives it back and pretends that they gave people freedoms that they should have always already had :lol
> 
> As for Muslims who denounce extremism. They are very selective. It's easy to condemn someone committing a terrorist attack or murder or even someone throwing a gay off a building. In any case, Muslims in America are liberal. Many have come from countries with poor records of liberty anyways so they're more liberal. However, an influx that's poorly vetted will likely not be.
> 
> Also, it's easier still to go into a voting booth and check NO to gay marriage. See the problem?


I think the difference is I just know American Muslims where as you lived in countries where Islam is the main religion and that is where the huge disconnect is. You have way more experience than I do so that is why our views are so different. I am sure if I lived in Muslim countries like you and had your experiences, I would think more like you on this topic.

also when I say the Muslims I know denounce extremist, I also mean all the crazy shit in the Quran


----------



## 3MB4Life

birthday_massacre said:


> All those places listed had terrorist attacks, but the one Trump made up in Sweden last night. Trump got caught once again making something up or if you want to be kind misinformed, which is even worse since he is the president and when you say something, especially when it comes to something like this, you need to be 100% sure.
> 
> Its funny how almost everyone but you knows Trump was talking about a terror attack in Sweden. Just admit Trump was wrong and move on.
> 
> Im done with you on this topic.


You can keep saying that he's referring to a terrorist attack in Sweden but until you actually provide any solid evidence of that, you're chatting shit. You're disregarding the wording when talks about Germany yet you're so hung up on the wording when he talks about Sweden. Does wording not matter when he mentions Germany? When he refers to "what's happening" in Germany, is he referring to a single event that happened a while ago even thought that's in no way similar to what he said? Can we ignore that because it doesn't make you right?

Oh wait, I'm sorry, you're done aren't you? I guess we'll just leave it on you being intellectually dishonest to prove a point.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> I think the difference is I just know American Muslims where as you lived in countries where Islam is the main religion and that is where the huge disconnect is. You have way more experience than I do so that is why our views are so different. I am sure if I lived in Muslim countries like you and had your experiences, I would think more like you on this topic.


That and combine that with the fact that a lot of western Muslims intentionally and unintentionally practice Taqqiya (lying to protect their views and project their religion in a more positive light), and you've got the perfect explanation for why Islamist Radicals like Linda Sarsour (who has ties to CAIR which has ties to Muslim Brotherhood) have managed to completely hoodwink SJW's and somehow become a positive influence on how people view shariah. She's an ideological terrorist nothing more. 

My point was that your friends will probably openly tell you that they support gay marriage, but if they ever get closer to Islam (which a lot of Muslims do as they age) they're much more likely to change their position in the voting booth. I know for a fact that while my father openly preaches "live and let live" when it suits him, he will definitely never vote in favor of Gay Marriage. And my dad's as close to a liberal muslim as you can get imo. He lets me call Mohammad a Pedophile to his face without batting an eyelash and just laughs it off. Muslims can be liberals and everything and that's fine, but what are they going to vote in favor of remains a mystery because typically they keep their real views to themselves and within their own circles of trusted people (other muslims)


----------



## birthday_massacre

RipNTear said:


> That and combine that with the fact that a lot of western Muslims intentionally and unintentionally practice Taqqiya (lying to protect their views and project their religion in a more positive light), and you've got the perfect explanation for why Islamist Radicals like Linda Sarsour (who has ties to CAIR which has ties to Muslim Brotherhood) have managed to completely hoodwink SJW's and somehow become a positive influence on how people view shariah. She's an ideological terrorist nothing more.
> 
> *My point was that your friends will probably openly tell you that they support gay marriage, but if they ever get closer to Islam (which a lot of Muslims do as they age) they're much more likely to change their position in the voting booth.* I know for a fact that while my father openly preaches "live and let live" when it suits him, he will definitely never vote in favor of Gay Marriage. And my dad's as close to a liberal muslim as you can get imo.


I see what you are saying but that is true for anyone really. They can openly claim they are pro gay marriage but secretly hate it. But it's a fair point for sure.


----------



## Miss Sally

RipNTear said:


> That and combine that with the fact that a lot of western Muslims intentionally and unintentionally practice Taqqiya (lying to protect their views and project their religion in a more positive light), and you've got the perfect explanation for why Islamist Radicals like Linda Sarsour (who has ties to CAIR which has ties to Muslim Brotherhood) have managed to completely hoodwink SJW's and somehow become a positive influence on how people view shariah. She's an ideological terrorist nothing more.
> 
> My point was that your friends will probably openly tell you that they support gay marriage, but if they ever get closer to Islam (which a lot of Muslims do as they age) they're much more likely to change their position in the voting booth. I know for a fact that while my father openly preaches "live and let live" when it suits him, he will definitely never vote in favor of Gay Marriage. And my dad's as close to a liberal muslim as you can get imo. He lets me call Mohammad a Pedophile to his face without batting an eyelash and just laughs it off. Muslims can be liberals and everything and that's fine, but what are they going to vote in favor of remains a mystery because typically they keep their real views to themselves and within their own circles of trusted people (other muslims)


It's clever, by accepting Islam and trying to defend it, the "Left" has become more conservative in nature as Islam is completely religiously conservative. These people are a lot more intelligent than the SJws.


----------



## Sensei Utero

I see some pro-Trump rally speaker claimed that Donald was responsible for the death of Fidel Castro. Like...wat? fpalm. I know this isn't about Trump himself, who's kinda nothing to do with it, but y'know...:wow. Didn't know where else to post this so here will do.

Fidel :mj2.


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> It's clever, by accepting Islam and trying to defend it, the "Left" has become more conservative in nature as Islam is completely religiously conservative. These people are a lot more intelligent than the SJws.


Islam evolved in a region of dozens of religions. It ruled over 90% of the civilized world back then. It has assimilated and overcome every single method of countering criticism. It may still be barbaric but it has resisted change for 1500 years. It is like AIDS. Maybe worse.

The SJWs never had a chance. The only way sjws had a chance if they had actually had professors teach them the real history of the world which we all know they didn't. You know the crap they teach in colleges now.


----------



## yeahbaby!

InUtero said:


> I see some pro-Trump rally speaker claimed that Donald was responsible for the death of Fidel Castro. Like...wat? fpalm. I know this isn't about Trump himself, who's kinda nothing to do with it, but y'know...:wow. Didn't know where else to post this so here will do.
> 
> Fidel :mj2.


He wasn't responsible, that's ridiculous.

The Russian prostitutes errr, ex former Miss World Contestants that Trump paid to spend an evening with Mr Castro however..... Let's just say there were lots of fluids involved but no drinking games.


----------



## birthday_massacre

InUtero said:


> I see some pro-Trump rally speaker claimed that Donald was responsible for the death of Fidel Castro. Like...wat? fpalm. I know this isn't about Trump himself, who's kinda nothing to do with it, but y'know...:wow. Didn't know where else to post this so here will do.
> 
> Fidel :mj2.


That is pretty ridiculous, just like when Trump claimed Ted Cruz's dad held killed JFK.


----------



## stevefox1200

Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster is a good choice for national securoity

He has a PHD, was well liked by his troops and wrote a book on the difficulties of politicians and military to get on the same page during the Vietnam war (which I will likely pick up soon)

On the other hand his skill seems to be counter insurgency which is more of DOD thing than a Homeland security thing


----------



## Beatles123

InUtero said:


> Fidel :mj2.


If you hate Putin you should loath everything Fidel stood for.

On this subject, allow me to present something for your consideration, all of you:

@DesolationRow @CamillePunk @RipNTear @yeahbaby! @birthday_massacre @Miss Sally @3MB4Life @L-DOPA @BruiserKC

George Orwell, a former Trotsky devotee turned Democratic Socialist, may actually also be one of the most important writers for the case of Libertarian principles. He was known perhaps most famously for his eye-opening look into the then-distant future with his best selling dystopian novel *Nineteen Eighty-Four* (1949) which I don't doubt most of you have read or at least seen the movie of by now. (If not, do! I plan to do both in their entirety shortly myself.)

While it is undoubtedly a masterpiece, something many tend to forget about Orwell is that he was first praised for other works, such as the much earlier *Homage to Catalonia* (1938) and *The Road to Wigan Pier* (1937)

Within both of these works, we see Orwell give accounts of his time spent in different political climates. So much so that over the periods in which these early books were written, his ideology would change. Largely due to his experiences over the course of six months partaking the Spanish Cival War. in which he was wounded while fighting on the side of the Left-Republican government. Serving under an Anti-Stalinist unit, He described the period as an "awakening", which would end up leading him to depart from his former Totalitarian leanings. It would become the theme of all his following works. In fact, it is perhaps the most transparently illustrated in what would become the precursor to Nineteen Eighty-Four:










*Animal Farm* (1945, first edition pictured.)

"Animal Farm: A Fairy Story" As it was first known, was Orwell's first attempt to consciously blend fictional humor with a political, sometimes dark undertone. Written as a critique of Stalinist Communism (Or more accurately, Soviet Socialism) We enter the tale of the inhabitants of Manor Farm, who secretly begin a plot to overthrow their human oppressors in much the same way the Russian Revolution was carried out. The story then focuses on the fallout from those events as the animals seek to rebuild society around the farm in the image of "Animalism" and its principals. 

While I don't want to give anything away on the off chance there are those of you that haven't read it, I will say this: While *Nineteen Eighty-Four* is perhaps more well known due to it's creepily accurate depictions of the present day and where we are headed from here, *Animal Farm* is gripping in that I believe it describes what is happening *NOW* (whether you are pro-Trump or Anti-Trump.) At times, I was chilled reading certain chapters. The slow burn of events leading up to the ending should serve as a warning to Trump Supporters and detractors alike that centralized government (or any like that under Castro or his ilk, for that matter) DOES. NOT. WORK. Small government is and always will be the key.

If anyone is interested, you may feel free to listen to the story in audio book form for free here:






Enjoy!


----------



## virus21

Beatles123 said:


> If you hate Putin you should loath everything Fidel stood for.
> 
> On this subject, allow me to present something for your consideration, all of you:
> 
> @DesolationRow @CamillePunk @RipNTear @yeahbaby! @birthday_massacre @Miss Sally @3MB4Life @L-DOPA @BruiserKC
> 
> George Orwell, a former Trotsky devotee turned Democratic Socialist, may actually also be one of the most important writers for the case of Libertarian principles. He was known perhaps most famously for his eye-opening look into the then-distant future with his best selling dystopian novel *Nineteen Eighty-Four* (1949) which I don't doubt most of you have read or at least seen the movie of by now. (If not, do! I plan to do both in their entirety shortly myself.)
> 
> While it is undoubtedly a masterpiece, something many tend to forget about Orwell is that he was first praised for other works, such as the much earlier *Homage to Catalonia* (1938) and *The Road to Wigan Pier* (1937)
> 
> Within both of these works, we see Orwell give accounts of his time spent in different political climates. So much so that over the periods in which these early books were written, his ideology would change. Largely due to his experiences over the course of six months partaking the Spanish Cival War. in which he was wounded while fighting on the side of the Left-Republican government. Serving under an Anti-Stalinist unit, He described the period as an "awakening", which would end up leading him to depart from his former Totalitarian leanings. It would become the theme of all his following works. In fact, it is perhaps the most transparently illustrated in what would become the precursor to Nineteen Eighty-Four:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Animal Farm* (1945, first edition pictured.)
> 
> "Animal Farm: A Fairy Story" As it was first known, was Orwell's first attempt to consciously blend fictional humor with a political, sometimes dark undertone. Written as a critique of Stalinist Communism (Or more accurately, Soviet Socialism) We enter the tale of the inhabitants of Manor Farm, who secretly begin a plot to overthrow their human oppressors in much the same way the Russian Revolution was carried out. The story then focuses on the fallout from those events as the animals seek to rebuild society around the farm in the image of "Animalism" and its principals.
> 
> While I don't want to give anything away on the off chance there are those of you that haven't read it, I will say this: While *Nineteen Eighty-Four* is perhaps more well known due to it's creepily accurate depictions of the present day and where we are headed from here, *Animal Farm* is gripping in that I believe it describes what is happening *NOW* (whether you are pro-Trump or Anti-Trump.) At times, I was chilled reading certain chapters. The slow burn of events leading up to the ending should serve as a warning to Trump Supporters and detractors alike that centralized government (or any like that under Castro or his ilk, for that matter) DOES. NOT. WORK. Small government is and always will be the key.
> 
> If anyone is interested, you may feel free to listen to the story in audio book form for free here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Enjoy!


All (insert this group) are equal. But some (insert this group) are more equal then others.


----------



## Beatles123

virus21 said:


> All (insert this group) are equal. But some (insert this group) are more equal then others.


Shhhhhh, spoilers! :trump3


----------



## virus21

Beatles123 said:


> Shhhhhh, spoilers! :trump3


Not really a spoiler since the book in almost 80 years old


----------



## Beatles123

virus21 said:


> Not really a spoiler since the book in almost 80 years old


I was merely jesting. 

Even so, it's still essential anti-communist/big government reading! :quite To any that haven't, check it out!


----------



## DOPA

Road to Wigan Pier is on my to read list. I have read both Animal Farm and 1984. I wouldn't say they were life changing as I've been learning about totalitarian states my whole life but it definitely showed me some mirroring between what is in those books and what has and still is happening in real life. Definitely worth while material on the road to becoming a libertarian .


----------



## Beatles123

L-DOPA said:


> Road to Wigan Pier is on my to read list. I have read both Animal Farm and 1984. I wouldn't say they were life changing as I've been learning about totalitarian states my whole life but it definitely showed me some mirroring between what is in those books and what has and still is happening in real life. Definitely worth while material on the road to becoming a libertarian .


Haha, im just getting into reading books like these myself. I gotta admit Libertarian seems like something I can get behind...dunno enough yet to decide. :hmm


----------



## DOPA

Beatles123 said:


> Haha, im just getting into reading books like these myself. I gotta admit Libertarian seems like something I can get behind...dunno enough yet to decide. :hmm


Read Milton Friedman, Fredich Hayek, Ludwig Von Mises, Murray Rothbard (though he is a dirty an-cap  ) and Thomas Sowell to start.

Peter Schiff is good for economics as well. Many others you could read that I could name.

Though considering your views on the war on drugs I doubt you'd become one .


----------



## CamillePunk

For clarification, an an-cap is a libertarian that doesn't carve out magical exceptions for their principles based on their own consequentialist fears. (Y)


----------



## Beatles123

L-DOPA said:


> Read Milton Friedman, Fredich Hayek, Ludwig Von Mises, Murray Rothbard (though he is a dirty an-cap  ) and Thomas Sowell to start.
> 
> Peter Schiff is good for economics as well. Many others you could read that I could name.
> 
> Though considering your views on the war on drugs I doubt you'd become one .


Interesting, how do my views conflict?



CamillePunk said:


> For clarification, an an-cap is a libertarian that doesn't carve out magical exceptions for their principles based on their own consequentialist fears. (Y)


Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh








Could you run that by a newbie in English?


----------



## FriedTofu

A libertarian is just a communist that don't like to share.


----------



## Beatles123

FriedTofu said:


> A libertarian is just a communist that don't like to share.


SHUT UP, IM TRYING TO LEARN DAMN IT! :surprise:

But, to be fair, a communist only makes you THINK you're sharing. :nerd:


----------



## DOPA

FriedTofu said:


> A libertarian is just a communist that don't like to share.


I see you trying to bait there  .


----------



## yeahbaby!

I thought most people read Animal Farm before grade 6.


'I love animals and farms, believe me, I have all the best animal farms. I love those pigs, so enterprising, they're doing all the best business, believe me, I've done great business with them, they're fantastic, they're great.'


----------



## birthday_massacre

yeahbaby! said:


> I thought most people read Animal Farm before grade 6.


They do just not in the south


----------



## Beatles123

yeahbaby! said:


> I thought most people read Animal Farm before grade 6.


We have a college system that teaches Marxism as a good thing, so apparently not enough.



> They do just not in the south


Or Modern Liberals that believe in government being a cure-all answer.


----------



## FriedTofu

I don't think the book was just anti-communism or anti-big government. It was more anti-authoritarian and anti-dogma which applies to both side of the political spectrum.

One could argue the book was criticising your beliefs that small government is the cure-all answer too.


----------



## Beatles123

FriedTofu said:


> I don't think the book was just anti-communism or anti-big government. It was more anti-authoritarian and anti-dogma which applies to both side of the political spectrum.
> 
> One could argue the book was criticising your beliefs that small government is the cure-all answer too.


I believe it's really against any form of totalitarian rule. As I stated it applies to both sides of course as too much of anything is bad. Specifically the book is a satire on the downfall of Stalinism, however.

However, on the second part, I feel inclined to disagree. As it pertained to the book, the beginnings of life for the animals started out well when everyone was on the same page. As the story goes, the first harvest post-revolution was a fruitful one. No one stole, there were as yet no rules (government) in place yet beyond that of a few key ideas, and they could not remember a time they felt happier.

It was only when the pigs seized the first product of their labor (the cows' milk) for themselves that the first sign of foul (fowl? :nerd: ) play became apparent. Even then, this wouldn't have been a problem in itself if it hadn't have lead Napoleon to privately seized more means of power (recruiting his own dog hit squad, ETC) I'd argue it's a case for the idea that all means of production should not go to a single ruling entity as a whole.

Of course, theres more to having an effective government than simply being small, but it's a requirement. The original laws they had in place could have helped them avoid such a pitfall and manage it at the size they had, had they not eventually dumbed them down for the ease and convenience of the populace. (Four Legs Good, Two Legs Bad)

That's just my take. :quite


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

I own 12 copies of Animal Farm. It's my most favorite book and I make it a point to read it at least once a year. When I have kids I will read it to them.


----------



## Beatles123

TheNightmanCometh said:


> I own 12 copies of Animal Farm. It's my most favorite book and I make it a point to read it at least once a year. When I have kids I will read it to them.


Its a bit scary for kids by the end!  Still, gotta start em young, I suppose!


----------



## FriedTofu

Beatles123 said:


> I believe it's really against any form of totalitarian rule. As I stated it applies to both sides of course as too much of anything is bad. Specifically the book is a satire on the downfall of Stalinism, however.
> 
> However, on the second part, I feel inclined to disagree. As it pertained to the book, the beginnings of life for the animals started out well when everyone was on the same page. As the story goes, the first harvest post-revolution was a fruitful one. No one stole, there were as yet no rules (government) in place yet beyond that of a few key ideas, and they could not remember a time they felt happier.
> 
> It was only when the pigs seized the first product of their labor (the cows' milk) for themselves that the first sign of foul (fowl? :nerd: ) play became apparent. Even then, this wouldn't have been a problem in itself if it hadn't have lead Napoleon to privately seized more means of power (recruiting his own dog hit squad, ETC) I'd argue it's a case for the idea that all means of production should not go to a single ruling entity as a whole.
> 
> Of course, theres more to having an effective government than simply being small, but it's a requirement. The original laws they had in place could have helped them avoid such a pitfall and manage it at the size they had, had they not eventually dumbed them down for the ease and convenience of the populace. (Four Legs Good, Two Legs Bad)
> 
> That's just my take. :quite


You misunderstand. It didn't take a stand on whether more government is good or bad. It was more of a critique of people stuck in their beliefs even when things are turning bad and allowing a small group of people to get out of control. The animals were listening to one side of the story, and believe things were better just because they weren't under the control of man. Similar to how partisans on both sides in the US believe things are better just because the label next to the president is either a democrat or a republican.

Curious you didn't critique the similarities of Trump's adminstratio and how he won the election (and therefore power) to how the bad pig gained power in the book and only saying Trump supporters should be careful.

Don't listen to them, listen to me. They lie, I tell the truth. That's awfully similar. :troll


----------



## CamillePunk

Report: More than 100 employees fired for participating in 'Day Without Immigrants' protest

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...loyees-fired-for-participating-in-day-without



> More than 100 employees across the country were fired after participating in the “Day Without Immigrants” protest last week, NBC News reported.
> 
> Employees working at restaurants and day cares in New York, Florida, Tennessee and Oklahoma, among other states, were fired after they did not show up to work to participate in the demonstration.
> 
> The nationwide strike on Thursday was aimed at President Trump's executive order on immigration and refugees. About 20 employees were fired at Bradley Coatings Inc., in Nolensville, Tenn., after participating in the protest. NBC News reported a statement from the company’s attorney said the employees knew they were risking termination by participating in the protest.
> 
> "Regretfully, and consistent with its prior communication to all its employees, BCI had no choice but to terminate these individuals. The reason these employees missed work — to engage in peaceful demonstrations — had nothing to do with BCI's decision to terminate them,” attorney Robert Peal wrote in a statement.
> 
> Twenty-five workers at Ben’s Kosher Delicatessen Restaurant & Caterers in Long Island, N.Y., were fired as well. There, police escorted the workers from the restaurant after they returned from the protests.
> Plans for the protest came after Trump signed a controversial executive order temporarily barring visitors from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the U.S. It also put a indefinite halt on refugees from war-torn Syria from entering the country and a temporary suspension of the entire refugee resettlement program.
> 
> A federal appeals court has since halted the order as a lawsuit against it proceeds. Trump has said he will issue a revised executive order this week.


:banderas


----------



## Beatles123

FriedTofu said:


> You misunderstand. It didn't take a stand on whether more government is good or bad. It was more of a critique of people stuck in their beliefs even when things are turning bad and allowing a small group of people to get out of control. The animals were listening to one side of the story, and believe things were better just because they weren't under the control of man. Similar to how partisans on both sides in the US believe things are better just because the label next to the president is either a democrat or a republican.
> 
> Curious you didn't critique the similarities of Trump's adminstratio and how he won the election (and therefore power) to how the bad pig gained power in the book and only saying Trump supporters should be careful.
> 
> Don't listen to them, listen to me. They lie, I tell the truth. That's awfully similar. :troll


 I agree in general. A few points:

- Im pretty sure it DID take a stand on overpowered government, seeing as how the entire point of the book was to speak out against Russia's method of seeing the world. That way being that if we could juuuuuust push our idea further, we can reach a Utopian state VIA the size of our government. That all you have to do is trust in our five year plan, and we can use Socialism as a springboard unto Communism. A good idea in theory. This is symbolized within the story by the windmill they attempt to build - a great idea that never materializes because the goal posts keep moving and the government keeps expanding. 

- More specifically as for being two sides of the same coin; it's worth nothing the character of Snowball in the story is a direct reference to Trotsky, who seemed good natured enough. His charismatic and compassionate appeal to the animals about the windmill and it's uses win over the populace--and to his credit, unlike Napoleon, his intentions are portrayed as far less self serving. He spends night and day drawing up the plans for it, how to complete it, how to execute it the right way. It's only when Napoleon feels Snowball is a threat that his betrayal happens. We don't ever see if Snowball's approach could have worked for their benefit or not, and this is more than likely Orwell's way of telling us that Stallin killed what Socialism COULD have been like in his view had Trotsky not been caught in the Great Purge. If we apply this story to Trump, certainly it could be seen either way. The question boils down to, then, do we believe he will be as Snowball or as Napoleon? If we compare Trump directly to Napoleon's character, yes, there are similarities, as with Snowball. However: I myself see a difference between Trump and Napoleon in that Trump is actually producing results so far that do not just serve his own needs as Napoleon did. Of course, then we can discuss what is and isn't propaganda in his favor and then the debate starts. As I said what will determine Trump's success for me is doing the things I vote for him to do, and unlike in the book, we have the ability to form our own opinions on it. Give me the wall, give me my healthcare, continue deporting people who have no right to be here, keep the theater of war from US soil, etc. and we shall see. Again I reiterate, I am not using the book as a pro Trump or anti-Trump analogy. He could just as easily turn out to be Napoleon. 

We ARE however talking about the issue of government, and size. I think that in the book the first governmental problem was that they first essentially took what was a good law structure and made it far too broad and simple for the benefit of the community. They lowered the standard so that they could understand the law, but through this broader scope allowed for bending of the rules. I think this is an issue today, of course. We see it within our constitution and this is why we have the whole debate about Trump's EO. However: If they had not progressively lowered the standard, much in the same way we have, they would have been saved in all likelihood. Government should not be allowed to change the constitution on a whim the same way the pigs shouldn't have had the power to change Animalism. That only happened becayse their influence was large enough. 

Second, the two pigs, much like the two parties we have today, could not agree on a set direction to take in implementing those laws. When should we retire? What innovations in technology are useful? all these things are mirrored in our world by things like "What is and isn't a human life?" or "What should our taxes be used for?" In this way they represent the human condition. We're always going to be butting heads over what our ancestors wanted or if what they wanted is even right, much the same as they. When the Government is large enough to make those decisions for us, we have a problem. This is why, even though I say we need small government, it needs a stability to be run effectively and as @RipNTear has said, if we just go in and slash away at the government without a system in place, we'll just have more uncertainty and risk chaos. Indeed, this is what the crux of being conservative is: How can one "Conserve" andimplement slow, steady, incremental change when you have a society that wants a government to be active and quick to action? :hmm 

I suppose that's why im in no rush for an obamacare repeal. I want Rand and Co. to have their shit together before we scrap the thing. 

Huh. All this over one book...:quite Sorry if I rambled off there, its late as fuck. 



CamillePunk said:


> Report: More than 100 employees fired for participating in 'Day Without Immigrants' protest
> 
> http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...loyees-fired-for-participating-in-day-without
> 
> 
> :banderas


:lol priceless! Hope it was worth it~ :tommy


I DID THE MULTIQUOTE! :bryan


----------



## rennlc

Donald Trump is the offspring of Americans who have lost their patriotism. We've had a war on drugs, a war on terror, and now a war on the sanctity of American values and the purity of our country's soul.


----------



## Art Vandaley

Animal Farm and 1984 are great books, but Brave New World is far more relevant today than either of them.

Also Idiocracy is well worth a watch. 

If we're heading down a dystopic path it'll be one of those two that comes true.


----------



## FriedTofu

Beatles123 said:


> I agree in general. A few points:
> 
> - Im pretty sure it DID take a stand on overpowered government, seeing as how the entire point of the book was to speak out against Russia's method of seeing the world. That way being that if we could juuuuuust push our idea further, we can reach a Utopian state VIA the size of our government. That all you have to do is trust in our five year plan, and we can use Socialism as a springboard unto Communism. A good idea in theory. This is symbolized within the story by the windmill they attempt to build - a great idea that never materializes because the goal posts keep moving and the government keeps expanding.


It was a stand against having blind faith in a system. Orwell was a fan of socialism that was upset that communism was corrupted by the people in charge hence the satire. The windmill to me symbolises a great dream that wasn't popular initially that was co-opted by the villain after it became popular. Similar to how spending is bad when the other party is doing the spending but spending is OK if it is your party doing the spending. 



> - More specifically as for being two sides of the same coin; it's worth nothing the character of Snowball in the story is a direct reference to Trotsky, who seemed good natured enough. His charismatic and compassionate appeal to the animals about the windmill and it's uses win over the populace--and to his credit, unlike Napoleon, his intentions are portrayed as far less self serving. He spends night and day drawing up the plans for it, how to complete it, how to execute it the right way. It's only when Napoleon feels Snowball is a threat that his betrayal happens. We don't ever see if Snowball's approach could have worked for their benefit or not, and this is more than likely Orwell's way of telling us that Stallin killed what Socialism COULD have been like in his view had Trotsky not been caught in the Great Purge. If we apply this story to Trump, certainly it could be seen either way. The question boils down to, then, do we believe he will be as Snowball or as Napoleon? If we compare Trump directly to Napoleon's character, yes, there are similarities, as with Snowball. However: I myself see a difference between Trump and Napoleon in that Trump is actually producing results so far that do not just serve his own needs as Napoleon did. Of course, then we can discuss what is and isn't propaganda in his favor and then the debate starts. As I said what will determine Trump's success for me is doing the things I vote for him to do, and unlike in the book, we have the ability to form our own opinions on it. Give me the wall, give me my healthcare, continue deporting people who have no right to be here, keep the theater of war from US soil, etc. and we shall see. Again I reiterate, I am not using the book as a pro Trump or anti-Trump analogy. He could just as easily turn out to be Napoleon.


Snowball resemble Bernie more than Trump though. Too idealistic. Trump not serving his own needs so far? His companies have reached deals that were in long stalemate for years in Argentina and China after he won the elections. He has visited Mar-a-Largo that puts money into his pockets for 3 weekends in a row since his inauguration. If he continues at this pace he could in theory spend more taxpayers money on 'business' vacations in two years than Obama did for vacations in his two terms. He is proposing tax cuts that benefit him directly and his proposed budget requires the rosiest of rosy numbers to be feasible. 

You are using the book to say it is against big government when it is more aptly against the ruthless ambitions of individuals corrupting the system and the danger of the cult of personality which is very similar to how Trump has been behaving. How Trump attack his opponents within the GOP and scapegoat others for the bad things that happen under his command while projecting himself as the hero that will save the day is eerily similar to Napoleon. (and Putin)



> We ARE however talking about the issue of government, and size. I think that in the book the first governmental problem was that they first essentially took what was a good law structure and made it far too broad and simple for the benefit of the community. They lowered the standard so that they could understand the law, but through this broader scope allowed for bending of the rules. I think this is an issue today, of course. We see it within our constitution and this is why we have the whole debate about Trump's EO. However: If they had not progressively lowered the standard, much in the same way we have, they would have been saved in all likelihood. Government should not be allowed to change the constitution on a whim the same way the pigs shouldn't have had the power to change Animalism. That only happened becayse their influence was large enough.
> 
> Second, the two pigs, much like the two parties we have today, could not agree on a set direction to take in implementing those laws. When should we retire? What innovations in technology are useful? all these things are mirrored in our world by things like "What is and isn't a human life?" or "What should our taxes be used for?" In this way they represent the human condition. We're always going to be butting heads over what our ancestors wanted or if what they wanted is even right, much the same as they. When the Government is large enough to make those decisions for us, we have a problem. This is why, even though I say we need small government, it needs a stability to be run effectively and as @RipNTear has said, if we just go in and slash away at the government without a system in place, we'll just have more uncertainty and risk chaos. Indeed, this is what the crux of being conservative is: How can one "Conserve" andimplement slow, steady, incremental change when you have a society that wants a government to be active and quick to action? :hmm


But changing on a whim is exactly what most Trump supporters voted for him isn't it? Most of the angry supporters of Trump and Bernie wanted immediate changes instead of incremental changes. Also, aren't voter ID laws changed and rules bent to push forward an agenda of disenfranchising a demographic that tend to lean Democratic under the guise of guarding against non-existent voter fraud issues? Different documentations were required for certain people each time they tried to get registered to vote. Similar to the pigs changing their constitution to fit their change in behaviour. Was that a result of big government or a result of bad government?

You seem to be advocating for an authoritarian government then since one party can agree on a set of directions more readily. :shrug You realise if the government isn't deciding those things, religious organisations will still be deciding it for the vast majority of the population?



> I suppose that's why im in no rush for an obamacare repeal. I want Rand and Co. to have their shit together before we scrap the thing.
> 
> Huh. All this over one book...:quite Sorry if I rambled off there, its late as fuck.


I thought you wanted the ACA gone ASAP because it hurt YOUR healthcare. Why the sudden change of heart?


----------



## Sensei Utero

Beatles123 said:


> If you hate Putin you should loath everything Fidel stood for.


Lol no. Although I don't agree with everything Fidel ever done, the guy was a socialist hero. For all socialists, the revolution of Cuba certainly provides hope for everyone. Always served his people well in most cases, and it's no wonder a load of Cuba's population love him. Reading a book on him at the moment (http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1757027.My_Life) and it's really quite a fascinating insight into a fantastic leader.

...but let's not argue about Fidel as this is the Trump thread , and we'll probably be at it for a while. Not denying you'd have some points though, because as I've said, I don't agree with everything he done, despite the fact I kinda look up to him.

*EDIT:* To add to the last bit, look at the musician Sid Vicious. Guy potentially killed his girlfriend (not proven, and I doubt it ever will be - so it's all speculation), was a drug addict (nothing against drug addicts - I've fallen victim to certain drugs in the past to cope with my situation in life, and I do believe more here in Northern Ireland/the UK needs to be done to help drug addicts, rather than just arrest them, let them out, and then let the cycle continue - no idea what it's like in the U.S. of A.), killed a cat, wore Nazi shirts for 'shock value', couldn't play bass for shite etc., and yet I still look up to him as a punk icon :quimby.


----------



## Reaper

InUtero said:


> Lol no. Although I don't agree with everything Fidel ever done, the guy was a socialist hero. For all socialists, the revolution of Cuba certainly provides hope for everyone. Always served his people well in most cases, and it's no wonder a load of Cuba's population love him. Reading a book on him at the moment (http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1757027.My_Life) and it's really quite a fascinating insight into a fantastic leader.


Dictators run everything therefore the news they put out is full of lies. Trust me, I know I lived under 2 dictators and my parents grew up idolizing another. 

They all lied about how good they were to their little subjects while creating nothing but pomp and spectacle through a crafty web of propaganda and lies ... Many of those lies still hold today and that is true across the world. 

No dictator is every going to say that he was evil with evil intentions. You have to look at their actions and Castro was a mass murderer.


----------



## Sensei Utero

RipNTear said:


> Dictators run everything therefore the news they put out is full of lies. Trust me, I know I lived under 2 dictators and my parents grew up idolizing another.
> 
> They all lied about how good they were to their little subjects while creating nothing but pomp and spectacle through a crafty web of propaganda and lies ... Many of those lies still hold today.


Eh, facts and figures from that time period don't lie, though. Look at how Fidel got rid of illiteracy (for example), and actually brought Cuba forward whilst escaping the grasp of American officials, and eventually went out on his own terms.

But again, let's not argue on Fidel as we'll be at this for weeks, and this is the Trump thread  (only mentioned him in the first place because of the pro-Trump rally speaker praising Trump for getting rid of Fidel, even though Trump has feck all to do with it and Fidel went out on his own terms fpalm). If someone makes a Cuba or Fidel thread or whatever, I'll happily post whatever, but it is really worth it? :quimby. This is what that Reddit site is pretty much for. As I've said to Beatles, I don't agree with everything he done though.

*EDIT: *However, for the good parts, he was pretty much a hero to all socialists, including myself. It was a dark day for socialism when he passed away.


----------



## Reaper

InUtero said:


> Eh, facts and figures from that time period don't lie, though. Look at how Fidel got rid of illiteracy (for example), and actually brought Cuba forward whilst escaping the grasp of American officials, and eventually went out on his own terms.


Lie: This is achieved through twisting what literacy means. Dictators count anyone who can sign their name as literate and that is a complete bastardization of literacy. As far as actual educational output is concerned Cuba is completely and utterly stunted otherwise you'd see their brilliance in their own isolated country and you don't. You see shanty towns, poverty, broken down hospitals, low-ranked colleges and institutions, lack of scientific innovation and technology, outdated architecture and just immense poverty on the ground. Literacy doesn't mean anything at all. It's a bullshit statistic thrown out to hoodwink people. Remember, I lived in a similar communist country myself so I know exactly how pro-government propaganda works. 

Forward: How? Cuba had much better economic potential as a capitalist country. He achieved only nominal GDP growth (with decades of decline), but in comparison to other fully capitalist countries Cuba is poor as fuck. 



> But again, let's not argue on Fidel as we'll be at this for weeks, and this is the Trump thread  (only mentioned him in the first place because of the pro-Trump rally speaker praising Trump for getting rid of Fidel, even though Trump has feck all to do with it and Fidel went out on his own terms fpalm). If someone makes a Cuba or Fidel thread or whatever, I'll happily post whatever, but it is really worth it? :quimby. This is what that Reddit site is pretty much for. As I've said to Beatles, I don't agree with everything he done though.


Let's argue because debunking the myth of Castro is something that needs to be done.

You really should look up actual pictures and videos of the real conditions in Cuba. You should find some American Cubans to talk to. Cuba has nothing and hasn't offered the world a single piece of tech, medicine, scientific breakthrough. It's not a socialist paradise. It's a sinkhole of depravity and poverty full of doting citizens who haven't seen better lives. It's like asking a blind man to describe the sunset.

Here's simple litmus test:

1. Name a single mega pharmaceutical run and owned by Cubans that are contributing medicine to the world
2. Name a single Cuban University that Americans and people from the First World are flocking to to get their degrees
3. Name a single Cuban technology company that has put out competitive electronics in the rest of the world
4. Name a single Cuban furniture company that everyone wants to buy from
5. Name a single Cuban industrial machinery that people are using in their factories

The list is huge. You won't be able to name a single competitive, innovative Cuban company. Not 1. There is no science, no medicine, no furniture, no industrial machinery, no new tech, nothing coming out of Cuba. It's like outside the realm of praising Castro Cuba doesn't actually exist :draper2


----------



## virus21

CamillePunk said:


> Report: More than 100 employees fired for participating in 'Day Without Immigrants' protest
> 
> http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...loyees-fired-for-participating-in-day-without
> 
> :banderas


Well that was predictable. When are people going to learn that it isn't the 60s anymore and this type of protesting doesn't work. Can't wait for when the women pull this crap in a couple of weeks>



Alkomesh2 said:


> Animal Farm and 1984 are great books, but Brave New World is far more relevant today than either of them.
> 
> Also Idiocracy is well worth a watch.
> 
> If we're heading down a dystopic path it'll be one of those two that comes true.


Yep. Brave New World especially considering all the crap that SJWs spew out.


----------



## RenegadexParagon

InUtero said:


> Lol no. Although I don't agree with everything Fidel ever done, the guy was a socialist hero. For all socialists, the revolution of Cuba certainly provides hope for everyone. Always served his people well in most cases, and it's no wonder a load of Cuba's population love him. Reading a book on him at the moment (http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1757027.My_Life) and it's really quite a fascinating insight into a fantastic leader.


Speak for yourself. I'm a socialist and have no love for Castro, his cult of personality, or the nonsense of vanguardism that Leninists desire.


----------



## Sensei Utero

RipNTear said:


> Lie: This is achieved through twisting what literacy means. Dictators count anyone who can sign their name as literate and that is a complete bastardization of literacy. As far as actual educational output is concerned Cuba is completely and utterly stunted otherwise you'd see their brilliance in their own isolated country and you don't. You see shanty towns, poverty, broken down hospitals, low-ranked colleges and institutions, lack of scientific innovation and technology, outdated architecture and just immense poverty on the ground. Literacy doesn't mean anything at all. It's a bullshit statistic thrown out to hoodwink people. Remember, I lived in a similar communist country myself so I know exactly how pro-government propaganda works.
> 
> Forward: How? Cuba had much better economic potential as a capitalist country. He achieved only nominal GDP growth (with decades of decline), but in comparison to other fully capitalist countries Cuba is poor as fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> Let's argue because debunking the myth of Castro is something that needs to be done.
> 
> You really should look up actual pictures and videos of the real conditions in Cuba. You should find some American Cubans to talk to. Cuba has nothing and hasn't offered the world a single piece of tech, medicine, scientific breakthrough. It's not a socialist paradise. It's a sinkhole of depravity and poverty full of doting citizens who haven't seen better lives. It's like asking a blind man to describe the sunset.
> 
> Here's simple litmus test:
> 
> 1. Name a single mega pharmaceutical run and owned by Cubans that are contributing medicine to the world
> 2. Name a single Cuban University that Americans and people from the First World are flocking to to get their degrees
> 3. Name a single Cuban technology company that has put out competitive electronics in the rest of the world
> 4. Name a single Cuban furniture company that everyone wants to buy from
> 5. Name a single Cuban industrial machinery that people are using in their factories
> 
> The list is huge. You won't be able to name a single competitive, innovative Cuban company. Not 1. There is no science, no medicine, no furniture, no industrial machinery, no new tech, nothing coming out of Cuba. It's like outside the realm of praising Castro Cuba doesn't actually exist :draper2


I won't respond but due to reasons stated (that, and I really need to shower/get changed haha!), I won't.

Let's get the Fidel Thread started goddammit, so I can. :bahgawd I'm saying that because in this particular thread, it'll be endless, endless stuff, and I really don't want to put the mods through any 'ffs fpalm' moments when this thread is specifically meant to be about Donald Trump. Don't mean to appear like I'm backing out of a debate and admitting you're completely right etc., but surely you understand? Although, we can have this debate when we're in the CBox together next time? Deal? Cbox Life 4 Life *fist bump*.


----------



## Reaper

InUtero said:


> I won't respond but due to reasons stated (that, and I really need to shower/get changed haha!), I won't.
> 
> Let's get the Fidel Thread started goddammit, so I can. :bahgawd I'm saying that because in this particular thread, it'll be endless, endless stuff, and I really don't want to put the mods through any 'ffs fpalm' moments when this thread is specifically meant to be about Donald Trump. Don't mean to appear like I'm backing out of a debate and admitting you're completely right etc., but surely you understand? Although, we can have this debate when we're in the CBox together next time? Deal? Cbox Life 4 Life *fist bump*.


Mods in this thread are very lenient :draper2 

But it's ok if you'd rather not debate. I'm not that pushy. If someone wants to back off for whatever reason that their call. 

----


> Was Trump right about Sweden after all? Riot breaks out in the Stockholm suburb the President was ridiculed for referring to in speech about immigration dangers
> 
> 
> Rioters began setting fire to cars, throwing stones at police and looting shops in the Rinkeby district of Stockholm
> Suburb, north of central Stockholm, has a population of 75 per cent immigrants
> Donald Trump made his confusing remarks about immigration in Sweden at his Florida rally on Saturday
> 
> Riots have broken out in the Swedish suburb that Donald Trump referred to in his speech about immigration problems.
> Police were forced to fire warning shots after a group of rioters began setting fire to cars, throwing stones at police and looting shops in the Rinkeby district of Stockholm on Monday night.
> A police officer was injured during the clashes, Swedish public service broadcaster SVT reported.
> Donald Trump made his confusing remarks about immigration in Sweden at his Florida rally on Saturday.
> Trump was initially thought to be talking about terrorism when he warned of 'what's happening last night in Sweden'.
> Riots have broken out in the Swedish suburb that Donald Trump referred to in his speech about immigration problems
> +9
> Riots have broken out in the Swedish suburb that Donald Trump referred to in his speech about immigration problems
> Donald Trump made his confusing remarks about immigration in Sweden at his Florida rally
> +9
> Donald Trump made his confusing remarks about immigration in Sweden at his Florida rally
> But he later claimed he was talking about an edition of Fox News' Tucker Carlson Tonight about immigrant crime in the Scandinavian country.
> Trump was mocked widely for his Florida speech, in which he said: 'You look at what's happening in Germany, you look at what's happening last night in Sweden.
> 'Sweden. Who would believe this? Sweden. They took in large numbers. They're having problems like they never thought possible.'
> He later clarified on Twitter that he was denying 'fake news' claims that 'large scale immigration in Sweden is working out just beautifully.'
> Police said in a statement that at least seven or eight cars were burned in the district, which has one of the largest immigrant populations in Stockholm, during Monday's disorder.
> A police officer was injured during the clashes, according to Swedish public service broadcaster SVT
> +9
> A police officer was injured during the clashes, according to Swedish public service broadcaster SVT
> Police said in a statement that at least seven or eight cars were burned in the district, which has one of the largest immigrant populations in Stockholm
> +9
> Police said in a statement that at least seven or eight cars were burned in the district, which has one of the largest immigrant populations in Stockholm
> Police later said they suspected that cars had been set on fire to lure them to the scene.
> A photographer from the Dagens Nyheter newspaper also claimed that he spent a night in hospital after he was assaulted by a group of 15 people in Rinkeby as he attempted to report the unrest.
> 'I was hit with a lot of punches and kicks both to my body and my head. I have spent the night in hospital,' he said.
> A shopkeeper was also reportedly beaten while trying to protect his store, while another person was also beaten, with both taken to hospital for treatment.
> Police later said they suspected that cars had been set on fire to lure them to the scene
> +9
> Police later said they suspected that cars had been set on fire to lure them to the scene
> Police said between 30 and 50 young men were involved in the violence, which saw two civilians and a police officer taken to hospital
> +9
> Police said between 30 and 50 young men were involved in the violence, which saw two civilians and a police officer taken to hospital
> The disorder reportedly broke out after police arrested a wanted person, believed to be a drug dealer, at the subway station in Rinkeby at about 8pm that night.
> 'It happened in connection with an intervention near the metro station, the officers were to detain a person, our colleagues got stones thrown at them' Eva Nilsson at the police regional command center in Stockholm told Aftonbladet.
> While it was initially reported that police had fired warning shots, national public broadcaster SVT later said that the officers, in fact, fired directly at the rioters.


----------



## Sensei Utero

RipNTear said:


> Mods in this thread are very lenient :draper2
> 
> But it's ok if you'd rather not debate. I'm not that pushy. If someone wants to back off for whatever reason that their call.
> 
> ----


I got banned once from the thread and don't want it happening again incase things would get heated, because in a debated conversation about Fidel, Cuba, and let's say someone like Ernesto 'Che' Guevara (of course I'd have to mention him) it probably would, and I don't want that/bans occurring :mj2.

Another time, dude. Another time. Let's just concentrate on the Donald in this thread.


----------



## Reaper

Mark Dice is starting to grow on me. Fuck. I guess I'm getting brainwashed and indoctrinated now.


----------



## Vic Capri

Mark Dice is The Man!

- Vic


----------



## birthday_massacre

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...83fce42fb61_story.html?utm_term=.ec61e63d8797


I didn’t think I’d ever leave the CIA. But because of Trump, I quit. - Edward Price 


Edward Price worked at the CIA from 2006 until this month, most recently as the spokesman for the National Security Council.

Nearly 15 years ago, I informed my skeptical father that I was pursuing a job with the Central Intelligence Agency. Among his many concerns was that others would never believe I had resigned from the agency when I sought my next job. “Once CIA, always CIA,” he said. But that didn’t give me pause. This wouldn’t be just my first real job, I thought then; it would be my career.

That changed when I formally resigned last week. Despite working proudly for Republican and Democratic presidents, I reluctantly concluded that I cannot in good faith serve this administration as an intelligence professional.

This was not a decision I made lightly. I sought out the CIA as a college student, convinced that it was the ideal place to serve my country and put an otherwise abstract international- relations degree to use. I wasn’t disappointed.

Opinions newsletter
Thought-provoking opinions and commentary, in your inbox daily.
Sign up
[Anyone home in Trumpville?]

The CIA taught me new skills and exposed me to new cultures and countries. More important, it instilled in me a sense of mission and purpose. As an analyst, I became an expert in terrorist groups and traveled the world to help deter and disrupt attacks. The administrations of George W. Bush and Barack Obama took the CIA’s input seriously. There was no greater reward than having my analysis presented to the president and seeing it shape events. Intelligence informing policy — this is how the system is supposed to work. I saw that up close for the past three years at the White House, where I worked on loan from the CIA until last month.

As a candidate, Donald Trump’s rhetoric suggested that he intended to take a different approach. I watched in disbelief when, during the third presidential debate, Trump casually cast doubt on the high-confidence conclusion of our 17 intelligence agencies, released that month, that Russia was behind the hacking and release of election-related emails. On the campaign trail and even as president-elect, Trump routinely referred to the flawed 2002 assessment of Iraq’s weapons programs as proof that the CIA couldn’t be trusted — even though the intelligence community had long ago held itself to account for those mistakes and Trump himself supported the invasion of Iraq.

Trump’s actions in office have been even more disturbing. His visit to CIA headquarters on his first full day in office, an overture designed to repair relations, was undone by his ego and bluster. Standing in front of a memorial to the CIA’s fallen officers, he seemed to be addressing the cameras and reporters in the room, rather than the agency personnel in front of them, bragging about his inauguration crowd the previous day. Whether delusional or deceitful, these were not the remarks many of my colleagues and I wanted to hear from our new commander in chief. I couldn’t help but reflect on the stark contrast between the bombast of the new president and the quiet dedication of a mentor — a courageous, steadfast professional — who is memorialized on that wall. I know others at CIA felt similarly.


See what President Trump has been doing since taking office
View Photos	The new president’s tumultuous first weeks have been marked by controversial executive orders and conflicts with the media.
The final straw came late last month, when the White House issued a directive reorganizing the National Security Council, on whose staff I served from 2014 until earlier this year. Missing from the NSC’s principals committee were the CIA director and the director of national intelligence. Added to the roster: the president’s chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, who cut his teeth as a media champion of white nationalism.

The public outcry led the administration to reverse course and name the CIA director an NSC principal, but the White House’s inclination was clear. It has little need for intelligence professionals who, in speaking truth to power, might challenge the “America First” orthodoxy that sees Russia as an ally and Australia as a punching bag. That’s why the president’s trusted White House advisers, not career professionals, reportedly have final say over what intelligence reaches his desk.

[The Trump White House is already cooking the books]

To be clear, my decision had nothing to do with politics, and I would have been proud to again work under a Republican administration open to intelligence analysis. I served with conviction under President George W. Bush, some of whose policies I also found troubling, and I took part in programs that the Obama administration criticized and ended. As intelligence professionals, we’re taught to tune out politics. The river separating CIA headquarters in Langley, Va., from Washington might as well be a political moat. But this administration has flipped that dynamic on its head: The politicians are the ones tuning out the intelligence professionals.

The CIA will continue to serve important functions — including undertaking covert action and sharing information with close allies and partners around the globe. If this administration is serious about building trust with the intelligence community, however, it will require more than rallies at CIA headquarters or press statements. What intelligence professionals want most is to know that the fruits of their labor — sometimes at the risk of life or limb — are accorded due deference in the policymaking process.

Until that happens, President Trump and his team are doing another disservice to these dedicated men and women and the nation they proudly, if quietly, serve.


----------



## Smarkout

Even though I do not support letting all these refugees into the country that we cannot properly vet I thought this was a really nice video to share about a hockey team teaching the refugees how to skate:http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/we-like-...292320#_gus&_gucid=&_gup=twitter&_gsc=m1NfToi


I feel awful for the kids and parents that are stuck there, I wish there was something better that could be done.


----------



## Reaper

Smarkout said:


> I feel awful for the kids and parents that are stuck there, I wish there was something better that could be done.


There is. Leave them alone and let them learn how to skate on their own :mj
Also, recognize that regular westerners don't deserve to be guilted into having any moral obligation to save the rest of the world from the war crimes of their governments. What westerners have a responsibility to is to ensure that neo-conservatives aren't elected into power. That's where our responsibility ends.


----------



## Vic Capri

President Trump brings awareness about Sweden's immigration problem. Gets mocked for it. Oh hey, look! More riots. Trump was right again.






- Vic


----------



## yeahbaby!

Vic Capri said:


> President Trump brings awareness about Sweden's immigration problem. Gets mocked for it. Oh hey, look! More riots. Trump was right again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Vic












Your spin cycle appears to be a little stuck on this.


But hey, Good on Trump for bringing awareness to Sweden's plight, he's so generous in that way and giving.

Maybe he'll get the date right on this one.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Vic Capri said:


> President Trump brings awareness about Sweden's immigration problem. Gets mocked for it. Oh hey, look! More riots. Trump was right again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Vic


How was Trump right? He made up an attack that did not happen.

Also where is the evidence an immigrant did this rioting? It happened in an immigrant neighborhood. From some reports it looks like a drug arrest could have started the riot. 

http://time.com/4677559/stockholm-sweden-rinkeby-riots-drug-arrest/
http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-sweden-immigrant-suburb-riots-20170221-story.html


Finally Trump is exaggerating Swedish Crimes. 


http://www.factcheck.org/2017/02/trump-exaggerates-swedish-crime/


----------



## Beatles123

Never did I think society would be so...easily changed, that people would be lead to Idolize Castro, a man that's actually what most modern libs accuse Trump of being. :lol


----------



## Beatles123

FriedTofu said:


> It was a stand against having blind faith in a system. Orwell was a fan of socialism that was upset that communism was corrupted by the people in charge hence the satire. The windmill to me symbolises a great dream that wasn't popular initially that was co-opted by the villain after it became popular. Similar to how spending is bad when the other party is doing the spending but spending is OK if it is your party doing the spending.
> 
> Snowball resemble Bernie more than Trump though. Too idealistic. Trump not serving his own needs so far? His companies have reached deals that were in long stalemate for years in Argentina and China after he won the elections. He has visited Mar-a-Largo that puts money into his pockets for 3 weekends in a row since his inauguration. If he continues at this pace he could in theory spend more taxpayers money on 'business' vacations in two years than Obama did for vacations in his two terms. He is proposing tax cuts that benefit him directly and his proposed budget requires the rosiest of rosy numbers to be feasible.
> 
> You are using the book to say it is against big government when it is more aptly against the ruthless ambitions of individuals corrupting the system and the danger of the cult of personality which is very similar to how Trump has been behaving. How Trump attack his opponents within the GOP and scapegoat others for the bad things that happen under his command while projecting himself as the hero that will save the day is eerily similar to Napoleon. (and Putin)
> 
> But changing on a whim is exactly what most Trump supporters voted for him isn't it? Most of the angry supporters of Trump and Bernie wanted immediate changes instead of incremental changes. Also, aren't voter ID laws changed and rules bent to push forward an agenda of disenfranchising a demographic that tend to lean Democratic under the guise of guarding against non-existent voter fraud issues? Different documentations were required for certain people each time they tried to get registered to vote. Similar to the pigs changing their constitution to fit their change in behaviour. Was that a result of big government or a result of bad government?
> 
> You seem to be advocating for an authoritarian government then since one party can agree on a set of directions more readily. :shrug You realise if the government isn't deciding those things, religious organisations will still be deciding it for the vast majority of the population?
> 
> I thought you wanted the ACA gone ASAP because it hurt YOUR healthcare. Why the sudden change of heart?


I'll respond to the rest in time because the discussion would get derailed if we kept focusing on the book, but i'll say no, Its not that we wanted sudden change. It was the only option we felt we had left. I would have easily voted for Rand as well if i felt he had a realistic shot. 

As for serving his own interests, I mean to say that Trump has already implemented things that cam help Americans (Though we'll disagree on that) Napoleon never actually fulfilled his promises in that regard.

True, looking at it that way, Sanders can play snowball. As can anyone who people feel has a level head by contrast to who they feel is Napleon. :sk

As for healthcare. I do! I want it gone ASAP. Let us not forget what the "AP" stands for tho. :nerd:


----------



## DOPA

Yes, Trump messed up by saying in his speech that the night before there was trouble in Sweden. He made a gaffe. But there are certainly problems there that shouldn't be ignored.


----------



## Smarkout

RipNTear said:


> There is. Leave them alone and let them learn how to skate on their own :mj
> Also, recognize that regular westerners don't deserve to be guilted into having any moral obligation to save the rest of the world from the war crimes of their governments. What westerners have a responsibility to is to ensure that neo-conservatives aren't elected into power. That's where our responsibility ends.


I get that, but it doesn't mean I can't feel bad for some of the people over there. You only have one life and it sucks that they drew a bad card. I've said time and time again though that the worry should be on the inner city kids here and not the refugees.


----------



## birthday_massacre

here is the real truth about Sweden

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-trump-crime-sweden/story?id=45610077

“It’s very judgmental,” Nicklas Lund, a press officer at the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention, said of the claims. The council is an agency in Sweden’s Ministry of Justice that conducts research on the judicial system.

Sweden has 15 suburbs with high crime rates, he said, but the recent influx of refugees doesn’t explain the problem. Rinkeby is one of these 15 areas.
*
“In 2015 a big number of refugees came to Sweden, and these were problem areas before that,” he told ABC News.

In fact, the number of reported crimes in those 15 areas decreased from 2014 to 2015. In 2015, 19,092 crimes were reported in those 15 areas — a decline from 19,576 in 2014. In 2012 the number of reported crimes in these areas was over 20,200, according to data from the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention. Numbers for 2016 are not yet available.*


http://www.vox.com/world/2017/2/20/14669572/sweden-trump-immigrant-crime

1) There is no immigrant crime wave in Sweden
In the past decade, there’s been a spike in immigration to Sweden. In 1990, 9.2 percent of Sweden’s population was foreign-born. That figure was 11.3 percent in 2000, and 15.4 percent in 2012.

Immigrant rates have grown even further in recent years, owing in large part to the global refugee crisis. In 2014, Sweden admitted more asylum seekers, per capita, than any other country on Earth. Many Swedish immigrants today hail from war-torn Muslim-majority countries like Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

Some people assumed this would produce a major uptick in the rates of violent crime in Sweden. Historically, immigrants to Sweden do commit crimes at higher rates than the native-born, though children of immigrants commit crimes at basically the same rate as children of native-born Swedes (controlling for income).

However, there’s no evidence of a massive crime wave. Here is an official Swedish government tally of the rates of six different types of crime directed at persons — fraud, assault, threats, harassment, sexual violence, and mugging. (Homicide is excluded because the rate is tiny; in 2014, there were 87 murders in the entire country of roughly 10 million.)

As you can see, there is no significant uptick in any of the crime categories alongside the rise in immigration. The most recent official report available in English, covering 2015, is not incorporated into that chart — but it concludes that the rates of these crimes are at “approximately the same level as in 2005.” That’s a slight increase over the 2014 rate, but hardly evidence of a crime wave — let alone one committed by migrants or refugees.

Sweden does not publish official data on the race or ethnic identity of criminals, which is actually common among European countries. Anti-immigration publications like Breitbart have used this fact to accuse Swedish authorities of covering up the truth about immigrant crime.

It’s true that this lack of public data makes it hard to assess the precise impact of immigration on crime rates. It’s possible there’s a small one that doesn’t show up in the aggregate data.

But we can say, without a doubt, that the large numbers of immigrants entering Sweden do not appear to be affecting the overall crime rate in a major way, despite the large number of them entering the country. There is no Swedish crime wave.



2) There is no rape epidemic in Sweden
If you spend any time in the conservative media, particularly alt-right or anti-Islam sites, there’s a more specific narrative about Sweden than the one about crime in general. It’s about rape — specifically, that Muslim immigrants are raping Swedish women in unprecedented numbers.

Breitbart has published an enormous number of pieces in recent years on the alleged immigrant rape crisis in Sweden, focusing on cities like Malmö with large Muslim immigrant populations. Representative headlines include “Police warn of child rape epidemic in migrant-occupied Malmö” and “Migrants jailed after woman abducted at gun point, gang-raped in hookah bar basement.”

So to be fair to Trump, we need to look at rape rates specifically — to see if there’s any evidence that rape, specifically, has gone up as a result of immigration. So what do the official statistics say?

First, the rape rate in Sweden is baseline higher than in other European countries. This is mostly because of a change in Swedish law in 2005 that expanded the definition of rape (including having sex with someone while they’re sleeping) and started counting each instance of sexual violence as a separate attack. Klara Selin, a sociologist at Sweden’s National Council for Crime Prevention, explained what this means in a 2012 interview with the BBC:

So, for instance, when a woman comes to the police and she says my husband or my fiance raped me almost every day during the last year, the police have to record each of these events, which might be more than 300 events. In many other countries it would just be one record — one victim, one type of crime, one record.
This expanded definition, together with a growing feminist movement in the country aimed at holding perpetrators accountable, has led to an increase in reported rape after the law’s passage. But the underlying rate of attacks likely didn’t actually change much.

“The major explanation is partly that people go to the police more often, but also the fact that in 2005 there has been reform in the sex crime legislation, which made the legal definition of rape much wider than before,” Selin told the BBC.

So if there had been a huge surge in sexual assault, this would show up in the overall stats given the huge number of immigrants coming into the country and the relatively large number of Swedish women who report being abused. But that has not happened.

“What we’re hearing is a very, very extreme exaggeration based on a few isolated events, and the claim that it’s related to immigration is more or less not true at all,” Jerzy Sarnecki, a criminologist at Stockholm University, told the Globe and Mail’s Doug Saunders.

The publicly available data backs up Sarnecki. In 2014, there were 6,700 reported rapes. That figure declined to 5,920 in 2015 and then went back up to 6,560 in 2016 (according to preliminary Swedish government data).

So there’s been mass immigration in the past three years from Muslim-majority countries — but the number of reported rapes has remained steady and even declined slightly in 2015


----------



## Reaper

Smarkout said:


> I get that, but it doesn't mean I can't feel bad for some of the people over there. You only have one life and it sucks that they drew a bad card. I've said time and time again though that the worry should be on the inner city kids here and not the refugees.


Never said you shouldn't feel bad. Simply said that north americans shouldn't be guilted into making their lives worse just to clean up the mess of the neoconservatives and the media industrial complex. 

The only moral obligation we should feel is bringing the neocons to justice and reigning in their power through the only means we have and that is voting anti-war politicians into office.


----------



## nucklehead88

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/833713400865767424
Cmon Trumpkins. Even you have to admit this is extreme.


----------



## BruiserKC

RipNTear said:


> That and combine that with the fact that a lot of western Muslims intentionally and unintentionally practice Taqqiya (lying to protect their views and project their religion in a more positive light), and you've got the perfect explanation for why Islamist Radicals like Linda Sarsour (who has ties to CAIR which has ties to Muslim Brotherhood) have managed to completely hoodwink SJW's and somehow become a positive influence on how people view shariah. She's an ideological terrorist nothing more.
> 
> My point was that your friends will probably openly tell you that they support gay marriage, but if they ever get closer to Islam (which a lot of Muslims do as they age) they're much more likely to change their position in the voting booth. I know for a fact that while my father openly preaches "live and let live" when it suits him, he will definitely never vote in favor of Gay Marriage. And my dad's as close to a liberal muslim as you can get imo. He lets me call Mohammad a Pedophile to his face without batting an eyelash and just laughs it off. Muslims can be liberals and everything and that's fine, but what are they going to vote in favor of remains a mystery because typically they keep their real views to themselves and within their own circles of trusted people (other muslims)





birthday_massacre said:


> I see what you are saying but that is true for anyone really. They can openly claim they are pro gay marriage but secretly hate it. But it's a fair point for sure.


Look at the 2008 election, especially in regards to Proposition 8 in California which put same-sex marriage on the ballot. Many groups blamed the Catholic and Mormon Churches for pushing for the ban, but completely overlooked the fact that many African-Americans who voted for Obama voted to defeat Proposition 8. Traditionally, African-Americans are among the most conservative when it comes to social issues. 

That also is the truth regarding other issues...especially this past election. There were many people who just flat out wouldn't talk to pollsters and survey takers on who they were voting for. They were concerned about being vilified about their choice, etc. So, they kept it to themselves or among those most trusted. 




Beatles123 said:


> If you hate Putin you should loath everything Fidel stood for.
> 
> On this subject, allow me to present something for your consideration, all of you:
> 
> @DesolationRow @CamillePunk @RipNTear @yeahbaby! @birthday_massacre @Miss Sally @3MB4Life @L-DOPA @BruiserKC
> 
> George Orwell, a former Trotsky devotee turned Democratic Socialist, may actually also be one of the most important writers for the case of Libertarian principles. He was known perhaps most famously for his eye-opening look into the then-distant future with his best selling dystopian novel *Nineteen Eighty-Four* (1949) which I don't doubt most of you have read or at least seen the movie of by now. (If not, do! I plan to do both in their entirety shortly myself.)
> 
> While it is undoubtedly a masterpiece, something many tend to forget about Orwell is that he was first praised for other works, such as the much earlier *Homage to Catalonia* (1938) and *The Road to Wigan Pier* (1937)
> 
> Within both of these works, we see Orwell give accounts of his time spent in different political climates. So much so that over the periods in which these early books were written, his ideology would change. Largely due to his experiences over the course of six months partaking the Spanish Cival War. in which he was wounded while fighting on the side of the Left-Republican government. Serving under an Anti-Stalinist unit, He described the period as an "awakening", which would end up leading him to depart from his former Totalitarian leanings. It would become the theme of all his following works. In fact, it is perhaps the most transparently illustrated in what would become the precursor to Nineteen Eighty-Four:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Animal Farm* (1945, first edition pictured.)
> 
> "Animal Farm: A Fairy Story" As it was first known, was Orwell's first attempt to consciously blend fictional humor with a political, sometimes dark undertone. Written as a critique of Stalinist Communism (Or more accurately, Soviet Socialism) We enter the tale of the inhabitants of Manor Farm, who secretly begin a plot to overthrow their human oppressors in much the same way the Russian Revolution was carried out. The story then focuses on the fallout from those events as the animals seek to rebuild society around the farm in the image of "Animalism" and its principals.
> 
> While I don't want to give anything away on the off chance there are those of you that haven't read it, I will say this: While *Nineteen Eighty-Four* is perhaps more well known due to it's creepily accurate depictions of the present day and where we are headed from here, *Animal Farm* is gripping in that I believe it describes what is happening *NOW* (whether you are pro-Trump or Anti-Trump.) At times, I was chilled reading certain chapters. The slow burn of events leading up to the ending should serve as a warning to Trump Supporters and detractors alike that centralized government (or any like that under Castro or his ilk, for that matter) DOES. NOT. WORK. Small government is and always will be the key.
> 
> If anyone is interested, you may feel free to listen to the story in audio book form for free here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Enjoy!


As someone who has read both books...Orwell told a story in both about what happens when his utopia was hijacked and turned into something else. He was a socialist who became disillusioned when he saw what he loved turned into something else twisted and distorted thanks to Stalin. 

The book 1984 seems to be just as appropriate today with the way the media has become, both on the left and the right. While we've been almost accustomed to the MSM with their spin, we are now starting to really see this on the right with sites like Breitbart and Fox News. They now put their own version of spin on the day's events, and the end result is we now have no way to really know what's truth and what's not. We also have people that lap anything up depending on which side of the aisle they get their news from. They used to be about being more centered and honest with the news, but now they spin it so that the other side looks bad. Propaganda from all sides is not doubleplusgood. 

Now, you are right in the idea of limited government is the way to go, it does work. However, how do you go about it when you have elected a leader who is a populist? Let's face it, the last few Presidents we have elected have not been about limited government and more personal freedom. Trump is a populist, which means he is not necessarily attached to one specific type of government approach. What do we do in order to try to lead the government down that path when they don't seem to want to go down that road?


----------



## virus21

nucklehead88 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/833713400865767424
> Cmon Trumpkins. Even you have to admit this is extreme.


It amuses me how rich liberals think they're some kind of resistance. Also, kind of hypocritical to clam Trump is going to hang journalists when all he did was point out how full of crap they are and at the same time any non-left leaning news source is vilified and their journalists are attacked.


----------



## Reaper

BruiserKC said:


> Look at the 2008 election, especially in regards to Proposition 8 in California which put same-sex marriage on the ballot. Many groups blamed the Catholic and Mormon Churches for pushing for the ban, but completely overlooked the fact that many African-Americans who voted for Obama voted to defeat Proposition 8. Traditionally, African-Americans are among the most conservative when it comes to social issues.


Yup as I explained in the posts preceding this one (not sure if you read that or not), but minorities can combined to become an ideological/voting majority and by and large almost all minorities are predominantly socially conservative hence the minority based on physical appearance needs to simply not be counted at all in the sense that when it comes to social issues, it's all about ideas and attitudes, not about what you look like.


----------



## birthday_massacre

virus21 said:


> It amuses me how rich liberals think they're some kind of resistance. Also, kind of hypocritical to clam Trump is going to hang journalists when all he did was point out how full of crap they are and at the same time any non-left leaning news source is vilified and their journalists are attacked.


yeah but the fact is most of the Trump claims is fake news is actually true and most of the Trump claims is a lie. No one is more full of crap than Trump. 70% of the things he said during the election were not even true.


----------



## DesolationRow

yeahbaby! said:


> I'm tempted to call the meeting somewhat romantic the way you've retold it. As if they gave each other shoulder massages after the meeting.
> 
> Just interested by your somewhat intimate re-telling as well - did you gleam this from footage of the meeting on the news or some other source?


Saw it live while eating. Pardon the tardy response time.


----------



## HandsomeRTruth

Do any of you really want to see Little Jimmy's parents deported.


----------



## sesshomaru

birthday_massacre said:


> yeah but the fact is most of the Trump claims is fake news is actually true and most of the Trump claims is a lie. No one is more full of crap than Trump. 70% of the things he said during the election were not even true.


This is true.

However, even though Hilary Clinton led a significantly "honest" life (especially compared to Trump), she had 2 things that made her lose:

1. Her shitty 'political' way of speaking in an election whose narrive was about polititions being currupt (Sanders is also responsible for pushing this narritive)

2. Wikileaks revealing every unscrupulous thing Clinton did, which turned away critical votes in favor of Trump, who lied but spoke like a regular person which made him SEEM honest.


----------



## Beatles123

HandsomeRTruth said:


> Do any of you really want to see Little Jimmy's parents deported.


If law breaking? Yup. :nerd:


----------



## Vic Capri

> Yes, Trump messed up by saying in his speech that the night before there was trouble in Sweden. He made a gaffe. But there are certainly problems there that shouldn't be ignored.


Sweden had their immigration problem for a long time, but it fell on deaf ears until Trump brought awareness to it.

- Vic


----------



## Reaper

HandsomeRTruth said:


> Do any of you really want to see Little Jimmy's parents deported.


Do you feel bad for the thousands of children whose parents commit crimes and go to jail despite being citizens? Were the parents really that caring about Little Jimmy when they broke the law and crossed the border? Are the parents really thinking about the consequences of their actions on Little Jimmy when they abused him as an anchor baby? And yeah, treating your child as an anchor baby is child abuse because ultimately your immoral action hurts him more. So for his sake, the parents should have worked hard in their own country.


----------



## samizayn

virus21 said:


> It amuses me how rich liberals think they're some kind of resistance. Also,* kind of hypocritical to clam Trump is going to hang journalists* when all he did was point out how full of crap they are and at the same time any non-left leaning news source is vilified and their journalists are attacked.


How is it hypocritical when no one has ever done anything like that? More to the point, where do you see the claim "Trump is going to hang journalists" in that?


----------



## Vic Capri

President Donald J. Trump’s First Month: Achieving Results for the American People said:


> *Jump starting Job Creation: President Trump is looking out for American workers that Washington has left behind.*
> 
> 
> 
> Signed a Presidential Memorandum ordering the United States to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations and agreement. (January 23rd)
> 
> Hosted the CEO of Intel to announce Intel’s plan to invest $7 billion in a United States factory that will create 10,000 American jobs. (February 8th)
> 
> Signed a Presidential Memorandum to clear roadblocks to construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline. (January 24th)
> 
> Signed a Presidential Memorandum declaring that the Dakota Access Pipeline serves the national interest and initiating the process to complete construction. (January 24th)
> 
> Signed a Presidential Memorandum ordering that all new pipeline construction and repair work use materials and equipment from the United States. (January 24th)
> 
> Signed legislation, House Joint Resolution 38, to block the burdensome Stream Protection Rule from causing further harm to the coal industry.(February 16th)
> 
> Signed legislation, House Joint Resolution 41, to eliminate a costly regulation that threatened to put domestic extraction companies and their employees at an unfair disadvantage. (February 14th)
> 
> 
> 
> *Saving Taxpayers Money: President Trump is fighting to save Americans’ hard-earned tax dollars.*
> 
> Saved Americans $700 million on a new batch of F-35 fighters. (January 23rd)
> 
> Capped the cost of Boeing’s next-generation Air Force One fleet at millions below that which was agreed to by the Obama administration. (January 17th)
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Restoring Public Safety: President Trump will work to reduce the threats of crime and illegal immigration to public safety.*
> 
> Signed an Executive Order to enhance the safety and security of the United States by, among other things, constructing a wall on the southern border. (January 27th)
> 
> Signed an Executive Order to make sure Federal immigration laws are faithfully enforced throughout the country and that Americans’ tax dollars do not go to jurisdictions that obstruct the enforcement of immigration laws. (January 25th)
> 
> Signed an Executive Order that directs the Attorney General to develop a strategy to more effectively prosecute people who engage in crimes against law enforcement officers. (February 9th)
> 
> Signed an Executive Order that establishes a task force, led by the new Attorney General, to reduce crime and restore public safety in communities across America. (February 9th)
> 
> Signed an Executive Order that re-focuses the Federal Government’s energy and resources on dismantling transnational criminal organizations, such as drug cartels. (February 9th)
> 
> 
> 
> *Getting Government Out of the Way: President Trump understands that excessive regulations stifle job-creation and harm our businesses.*
> 
> Signed an Executive Order instructing Federal agencies “to minimize the burden” of the Affordable Care Act Required that for every new Federal regulation, two existing regulations be eliminated. (January 20th)
> 
> Directed the Commerce Department to streamline Federal permitting processes for domestic manufacturing and to reduce regulatory burdens on domestic manufacturers. (January 24th)
> 
> Signed an Executive Order expediting the environmental review and approval processes for domestic infrastructure projects. (January 24th)
> 
> 
> 
> *An America First Foreign Policy: The President’s first priority is the safety and security of the American people.*
> 
> Department of the Treasury sanctioned 25 entities and individuals involved in Iran’s ballistic missile program. (February 3rd)
> 
> Signed a Presidential Memorandum directing the Secretary of Defense to work with other Cabinet members to develop a plan to defeat ISIS. (January 28th)
> 
> Called or met with more than 30 foreign leaders.
> 
> 
> 
> *Draining the Swamp: President Trump has taken action to ensure that all members of his Administration are working for the American people.*
> 
> Signed an Executive Order establishing new ethics commitments for all Executive branch appointees, putting in place a five-year lobbying ban and a permanent ban on lobbying for foreign governments, so appointees serve the American people instead of their own interests. (January 29th)
> 
> Put in place a hiring freeze for Federal civilian employees to stop the growth of a bloated government. (January 23rd)
> 
> 
> 
> *Keeping His Promise to Defend the Constitution: President Trump promised a Supreme Court justice in the mold of the late Justice Antonin Scalia.*
> 
> Nominated Judge Neil M. Gorsuch to the Supreme Court because of his consistent record defending the Constitution. (January 31st)
> 
> 
> 
> *Helping Women Succeed in Business: President Trump knows the country cannot reach its potential unless every American has a chance to prosper.*
> 
> Launched the United States-Canada Council for Advancement of Women Entrepreneurs and Business Leaders. (February 13th)
> 
> 
> 
> President Trump has spent the last 30 days fulfilling promises and helping the American people. He’s looking forward to the many more successful months and years of action to come.


- Vic


----------



## birthday_massacre

Vic Capri said:


> - Vic




yeah like Obama did not do a lot for jobs in the US, he added over 11 million jobs and had a record of 75 weeks in a row of jobs added. 

The only people Trump will save money is rich people. He already fucked over first time home owners by taking away their tax break.

As for his Restoring Public Safety, yeah lets build a wall so keep the illegals from leaving the country. More illegals are leaving the country to Mexico than coming in. Building a wall will just keep them in the country. If he really wanted to RestorePublic Safety he should how about better gun control since shooting deaths are a huge issue in the US. 

OH yeah excessive regulations that save the environment and make work environments safer Trump undoing those is helping us? How is is a good thing Trump is allowing coal companies to dump coal dust into fresh water streams again? 


As for the ACA the ACA saves most Americans money, and repealing it will just fuck over teh middle and lower class and at teh same time give the richest of the rich a 7 million dollar tax break. 

And LOL at Draining the Swamp, Trump has the richest cabinet in history and they are not even qualified for those positions in most cases. How did Trump drain the swap exactly?



Only stupid Trump supporters think he is helping the American people, he is just helping himself and his rich buddies.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> yeah like Obama did not do a lot for jobs in the US, he added over 11 million jobs and had a record of 75 weeks in a row of jobs added.


I know a lot of Obama supporters like to post this as some sort of victory for Obama but I'm interested in the mechanics of how Obama and his policies and not capitalism itself that created the jobs. 

How does the *government **create *jobs and how is it not the existing system of capitalism and spirit of entrepreneurship that does it?


----------



## birthday_massacre

RipNTear said:


> I know a lot of Obama supporters like to post this as some sort of victory for Obama but I'm interested in the mechanics of how Obama and his policies and not capitalism itself that created the jobs.
> 
> How does the *government **create *jobs and how is it not the existing system of capitalism and spirit of entrepreneurship that does it?


Then you can't give Trump credit for jobs either. But of course you will say the president should not get credit because if jobs start to fall under Trump then you won't have to blame him. But if jobs grow under Trump I dont want to see you or any Trump supporter giving him credit.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> Then you can't give Trump credit for jobs either. But of course you will say the president should not get credit because if jobs start to fall under Trump then you won't have to blame him. But if jobs grow under Trump I dont want to see you or any Trump supporter giving him credit.


I'm not. And I'm not going to. I'm a pro-lassez faire capitalism libertarian remember. I think that *all *government intervention is flat out bad for job creation. But, this counter is evading my question. 

How did Obama and his government create jobs?


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/834490080857354241
These people are fucking mad. fpalm


----------



## virus21

samizayn said:


> How is it hypocritical when no one has ever done anything like that? More to the point, where do you see the claim "Trump is going to hang journalists" in that?


The context that Cuban seems to be making is that Trump is creating a world were journalists will be hanged due to one of supporters wearing that shirt, because of course they'll blame him. Its hypocritical because of how the left leaning media of which Cuban is apart of vilify right wingers to the point of Inquisition levels


----------



## birthday_massacre

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...n-campaign-us-security-services-a7592526.html

Donald Trump's claims his team did not contact Russia during campaign contradicted by Kremlin officials

Donald Trump’s claims his team had no contact with Russian authorities during the presidential election campaign have been cast into doubt after Kremlin officials admitted they had been in touch with members of his staff.

The US President has repeatedly denied his team were in contact with representatives of the Russian state during a campaign in which Moscow is accused of using cyber attacks to try to influence the election outcome.

“I have nothing to do with Russia”, Mr Trump said during a White House press conference last week. “To the best of my knowledge, no person that I deal with does.”




That claim, which has been repeated several times by different members of Mr Trump’s team, appears to contradict statements made by senior Russian officials.

*Two days after Mr Trump’s election victory, the Russian deputy foreign minister, Sergei Ryabkov, said his government had been in touch with Mr Trump’s advisers during the campaign.

“I cannot say that all, but a number of them maintained contacts with Russian representatives”, Mr Ryabkov told the Interfax news agency. Mr Trump’s team immediately denied the claims.*

The controversial orders Donald Trump has already issued
10
show all
Then, earlier this month, the Russian ambassador to the US, Sergey Kislyak, said he had been in frequent contact during the election campaign with Michael Flynn, a senior adviser to Mr Trump who was appointed as the President’s national security adviser before being forced to resign last week over his links to Russia.

*Ms Kislyak told media he had exchanged text messages with Mr Flynn during the campaign and had spoken to him on the phone and in person, according to the Washington Post.

“It’s something all diplomats do”, he said.
*



In response, Sarah Sanders, a White House spokeswoman, said: “This is a non-story because to the best of our knowledge, no contacts took place, so it’s hard to make a comment on something that never happened.”

The New York Times reported earlier this month that transcripts from conversations intercepted by US agencies revealed contact between Russian officials and a number of unnamed members of Mr Trump’s top team.



0:00
/
0:27

Donald Trump says 'the leaks are real, the news is fake' in response to Michael Flynn resignation
It is not unusual for foreign governments to make contact with US presidential candidates in the hope of building relationships and gaining influence with the next occupier of the Oval Office.

What is unusual in Mr Trump’s case is that, at the time conversations are said to have taken place, Russia was being investigated by US security services over suspicions it was involved in hacking Democratic National Committee computers in an attempt to influence the election outcome.



Mr Trump’s repeated denials of contact between his team and Russia add an extra element of intrigue to a mystery that continues to deepen.


----------



## virus21

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/834490080857354241
> These people are fucking mad. fpalm


On that note of insanity


----------



## yeahbaby!

Regarding the 90 day ban that's going on / not going on / held up in the courts.... What are the next steps, is this just getting held up forever now until they go the next level of court of something?


Also I'm interested to know what Team Trump (the White House that is) was going to do in the 90 day ban to make America safer. I mean, what specifically were they going to do that they can't do now because their policy is held up? Anyone have any ideas?


----------



## DesolationRow

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/834490080857354241
> These people are fucking mad. fpalm


:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao 

Robert Reich was always good for a laugh at Cal Berkeley but he has outdone himself here.

@yeahbaby! evidently Trump's people have instituted somewhat tougher screening and vetting procedures but the administration believes they still need a pause of a few months to truly overhaul the system in terms of stronger vetting. This appears likely to keep dragging out for months, however. 

Where the courts were with Obama's nineteen institutions of immigration restrictions remains a mystery, haha.


----------



## yeahbaby!

DesolationRow said:


> :
> 
> 
> @yeahbaby! evidently Trump's people have instituted somewhat tougher screening and vetting procedures but the administration believes they still need a pause of a few months to truly overhaul the system in terms of stronger vetting. This appears likely to keep dragging out for months, however.
> 
> *Where the courts were with Obama's nineteen institutions of immigration restrictions remains a mystery, haha*.


Well you may make a good point about Obama if you're being serious that is. But were his restrictions so hastily released and apparently 'not thought out' as evidenced by all the hoo-ha of people ending up in limbo at airports and security staff having no idea how to enforce anything? Trump brought his own heat on himself IMO on an EO that was completely disorganised.


----------



## DesolationRow

Well the executive order is evidently being cleaned up, though why it needs to be remains questionable. There were over one hundred groups or families of people directly inconvenienced by it, with some individuals with green cards held up for several days. For government work that is a rather stunningly efficacious track record considering everything. It's why some of us want the government involved in as few realms of life as possible. 

The "indefinite moratorium" on Syrian refugees is being removed from the executive order, and numerous other changes are being made as well reportedly.

The nineteen number for Obama is indeed literal, haha.


----------



## CamillePunk

Persuasion Advice For African Americans, by Scott Adams

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/157533827741/persuasion-advice-for-african-americans



> President Obama’s presidency did a lot to diminish racial bias simply because he was a black president who – in the opinion of many, including me – did a good job. As a role model, he was exceptional. But all the factors that made him a great role model are the same factors that prevented him from doing much for the African-American community. It would have looked like favoritism if he had focused too much in that area. The resistance from the right would have been ferocious. And it would have ruined Obama’s brand. People loved Obama in part because he didn’t focus on his race. The country needed that.
> 
> Now we have President Trump. You might not realize it yet, but this is an extraordinary opportunity for the African-American community to make some gains. In the standard 2D view of the world, Trump is a typical Republican who you expect to do little or nothing for minority interests. But in the 3D world of persuasion, the door of opportunity for African-Americans just swung wide open. If that is still invisible to you, let me draw a picture.
> 
> President Obama didn’t need to deliver any special improvements to the African-American community. His existence was the change. But Trump is in a deep “Hitler hole” that his opponents dug for him. He needs a way out.
> 
> And that opens the door.
> 
> If the African-American community has a specific set of proposals that Trump can sell to Republicans, this is the time to do it. He needs the black community more than they need him. That’s the perfect negotiating situation.
> 
> The African-American community is mostly aligned with the anti-Trumpers of every type. Their interests are getting lost in the noise. What they need is a simple, bold plan that they can sell to the President, and he can sell to the country. Remember, President Trump needs the help. This is the perfect time to negotiate.


Adams goes on to describe a hypothetical example, which would be free college for college-bound African Americans and loan forgiveness for everyone else. Interesting read.


----------



## LowRida

Do not have near the time to explore this massive, out of control thread to see if this has already been posted.

No more forced boys in drag in school restrooms, very good.

A bit disappointed with this, Obama apparently showed the president has the authority to allow this deviancy at the federal level, then Trump should have had the authority to ban it. Instead, left to individual states and even school districts [which of course, means business as usual for CA]

``````````


Trump SCRAPS Obama's transgender bathroom rules: Order which told public schools to let trans students use the bathroom of their gender identity or risk their funding is axed 

The Trump administration lifted the federal guidelines on Wednesday
Guidelines had allowed transgender students to use public school bathrooms matching their chosen gender identity 
Trump's decision is a reversal of the Obama-era directive issued in May last year
It will now be up to states and school districts to interpret whether federal sex discrimination law applies to gender identity 
Education department sent a letter home nationwide on Wednesday saying earlier directive caused confusion and lawsuits over how to be applied 


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nsgender-bathroom-guidance.html#ixzz4ZT7Fc1fW


----------



## birthday_massacre

LowRida said:


> Do not have near the time to explore this massive, out of control thread to see if this has already been posted.
> 
> No more forced boys in drag in school restrooms, very good.
> 
> A bit disappointed with this, Obama apparently showed the president has the authority to allow this deviancy at the federal level, then Trump should have had the authority to ban it. Instead, left to individual states and even school districts [which of course, means business as usual for CA]
> 
> ``````````
> 
> 
> Trump SCRAPS Obama's transgender bathroom rules: Order which told public schools to let trans students use the bathroom of their gender identity or risk their funding is axed
> 
> The Trump administration lifted the federal guidelines on Wednesday
> Guidelines had allowed transgender students to use public school bathrooms matching their chosen gender identity
> Trump's decision is a reversal of the Obama-era directive issued in May last year
> It will now be up to states and school districts to interpret whether federal sex discrimination law applies to gender identity
> Education department sent a letter home nationwide on Wednesday saying earlier directive caused confusion and lawsuits over how to be applied
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nsgender-bathroom-guidance.html#ixzz4ZT7Fc1fW


Trump showing how he is full of shit once again, so much for Trump being for LBGT rights.

Trump taking away American rights once again.

Lets not forget that more GOP lawmakers have been arrested for sexual assaults in bathrooms than trans people.


----------



## Smarkout

CamillePunk said:


> Persuasion Advice For African Americans, by Scott Adams
> 
> http://blog.dilbert.com/post/157533827741/persuasion-advice-for-african-americans
> 
> Adams goes on to describe a hypothetical example, which would be free college for *college-bound African Americans* and loan forgiveness for everyone else. Interesting read.


Not going to see the amount that should be going to college as long as those inner city schools are awful and the inner cities in general aren't cleaned up.


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> Trump showing how he is full of shit once again, so much for Trump being for LBGT rights.
> 
> Trump taking away American rights once again.
> 
> *Lets not forget that more GOP lawmakers have been arrested for sexual assaults in bathrooms than trans people.*


Did you just assume their genders?


----------



## FriedTofu

DesolationRow said:


> Well the executive order is evidently being cleaned up, though why it needs to be remains questionable. There were over one hundred groups or families of people directly inconvenienced by it, with some individuals with green cards held up for several days. For government work that is a rather stunningly efficacious track record considering everything. It's why some of us want the government involved in as few realms of life as possible.
> 
> The "indefinite moratorium" on Syrian refugees is being removed from the executive order, and numerous other changes are being made as well reportedly.
> 
> The nineteen number for Obama is indeed literal, haha.


It needs cleaning up because the authors don't even know whether to exclude green cards holder until it went active. You are excluding people who were currently working overseas but are planning to move to America in the near future who had to worry about their future plans being in limbo because embassies couldn't answer their queries amid the confusion.

Disappointed you are rationalising the utter failure of the EOs trying to Kellyanne Conway us with a 'look at Obama' statement.


----------



## yeahbaby!

FriedTofu said:


> It needs cleaning up because the authors don't even know whether to exclude green cards holder until it went active. You are excluding people who were currently working overseas but are planning to move to America in the near future who had to worry about their future plans being in limbo because embassies couldn't answer their queries amid the confusion.
> *
> Disappointed you are rationalising the utter failure of the EOs trying to Kellyanne Conway us with a 'look at Obama' statement*.


I'm disappointed too we didn't get a history lesson of why Obama and Trump's orders were reminiscent of something Jefferson and Washington did. >


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> Did you just assume their genders?



LOL at you trying to deflect. Is that statement true or false?


The answer is true.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

I don't think the solution to the case of "white privilege" is black privilege, in the form of free college tuitiom, so in that respect I disagree with Scott Adams and I usually don't.

I'm white, took $30k out in loans to help pay for school. I'm currently a substitute teacher. When I started school my income was less than $15k a year. The solution for me isn't to demand that the gov pays for my school or forgive my loan. It'd be nice, but it's not the American taxpayers job to fund my education or to forgive my debt. I wanted something and I accepted that I'd have to pay the loans off after graduation. I knew what I was getting myself into.


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> LOL at you trying to deflect. Is that statement true or false?
> 
> 
> The answer is true.


It isn't deflecting, just pointing out the lefts logic and using it against you. It's funny how people are pro womens rights, yet transgender bathroom bills kind of ... infringes on that in a way. What use to be sexual harassment for men exposing themselves to women in say a change room is now become acceptable if he just says "well I'm a woman". Which, btw men are actually getting away with because of that. Ultimately, the bill wouldn't get enforced unless its obvious some guy is trying to perv on women or children, but the bill ends up helping those types. Again, not saying trans are "pervs" or "weirdos" or whatever, but the bill does allow men to get away with what used to be sexual harassment 

Then there was that guy who claimed to be transgender to avoid spending time in a male prison, only to be transfered to a womens prison and having sex with the women inside . No one talks about that though


----------



## CamillePunk

TheNightmanCometh said:


> I don't think the solution to the case of "white privilege" is black privilege, in the form of free college tuitiom, so in that respect I disagree with Scott Adams and I usually don't.
> 
> I'm white, took $30k out in loans to help pay for school. I'm currently a substitute teacher. When I started school my income was less than $15k a year. The solution for me isn't to demand that the gov pays for my school or forgive my loan. It'd be nice, but it's not the American taxpayers job to fund my education or to forgive my debt. I wanted something and I accepted that I'd have to pay the loans off after graduation. I knew what I was getting myself into.


It's a little more complicated than that due to how the government has inflated the cost of higher education through student loans and grants in the first place. In any case, I don't think Scott Adams' self-described hypothetical example meant purely to describe the scope of the article's main point requires analysis or debate.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> It isn't deflecting, just pointing out the lefts logic and using it against you. It's funny how people are pro womens rights, yet transgender bathroom bills kind of ... infringes on that in a way. What use to be sexual harassment for men exposing themselves to women in say a change room is now become acceptable if he just says "well I'm a woman". Which, btw men are actually getting away with because of that. Ultimately, the bill wouldn't get enforced unless its obvious some guy is trying to perv on women or children, but the bill ends up helping those types. Again, not saying trans are "pervs" or "weirdos" or whatever, but the bill does allow men to get away with what used to be sexual harassment
> 
> Then there was that guy who claimed to be transgender to avoid spending time in a male prison, only to be transfered to a womens prison and having sex with the women inside . No one talks about that though


How exactly do trans rights infringe on women's rights? 

And show me examples of trans people exposing themselves in womens bathrooms. Show me all the examples. How many trans people have been arrested for this? And no if a man exposed himself in a womens bathroom would not get away with just saying I am a women, especially if there was never any evidence of that person identity as a woman.


The person you are talking about did not claim he was a women just to go to a female prision to have sex with women. He was a trans person who was a murderer and they put them in a female prison, once that person started having sex with women they moved them out.

Dont act like they were not trans before going to jail and don't act like people don't have sex in prison. Are you really going to claim men dont have sex with men in prision?

And you proved how dishonest you are with pretending this person pretended to be female just to go to a female prison just to have sex with women.

You can't even be honest with this stuff like all conservatives. 

Your deflection on this was totally SAD, as Trump would say

The saddest part is trans people have been using the bathrooms they identify with for decades and you ever even noticed.


----------



## samizayn

Trump coming for transgender people's throats? Okay... Doesn't seem worth it but I feel like he traded a favour.


----------



## yeahbaby!

samizayn said:


> Trump coming for transgender people's throats? Okay... Doesn't seem worth it but I feel like he traded a favour.


Well someone has to stop the tidal wave of pervy men dressed as women going into women's toilets.


----------



## CamillePunk

He's leaving it up to states to decide. What's wrong with that? :kobe Why do we need a federal mandate about BATHROOM LAWS? It's the left that made this into a national topic by passing laws about something that had never even been an issue, causing a backlash from conservatives who don't want grown dudes in the bathroom with their young daughters. 

Trump already said during the campaign this wasn't an issue for him.


----------



## nucklehead88

CamillePunk said:


> He's leaving it up to states to decide. What's wrong with that? :kobe Why do we need a federal mandate about BATHROOM LAWS? It's the left that made this into a national topic by passing laws about something that had never even been an issue, causing a backlash from conservatives who don't want grown dudes in the bathroom with their young daughters.
> 
> *Trump already said during the campaign this wasn't an issue for him*.


Did he?


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/742771576039460864
The T in LGBT doesn't stand for Trump.


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> He's leaving it up to states to decide. What's wrong with that? :kobe Why do we need a federal mandate about BATHROOM LAWS? It's the left that made this into a national topic by passing laws about something that had never even been an issue, causing a backlash from conservatives who don't want grown dudes in the bathroom with their young daughters.
> 
> Trump already said during the campaign this wasn't an issue for him.


Since when has the "Left" recently not supported massive Government and infringing on everything else to "protect" people they couldn't care less about?

They love the federal Government controlling everything. States deciding stuff? Pfft who needs that! Unless it's California of course.


----------



## CamillePunk

nucklehead88 said:


> Did he?
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/742771576039460864
> The T in LGBT doesn't stand for Trump.


:lol Yeah, you people are insane. We have people trying to get into this country by the tens of thousands whose ideology says to kill gays (and gays are treated horrifically in Muslim majority countries) and you're worried about trannies getting to use whichever bathroom they please. Jesus fucking Christ the left has lost all perspective. 

He said during the campaign he didn't think the ****** bathroom thing was a big deal and it should be left alone (which does NOT mean a federal mandate forcing all states to allow trannies in whichever bathroom they want to use). 

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-...ts/2016/04/trump-transgender-bathrooms-222257


----------



## Alco

Can't businesses etc decide for themselves how they manage their restrooms?


----------



## Oxidamus

Some doofus on Facebook just said Trump has spent 10 million dollars on golfing. Can someone explain how the fuck someone is taught this supposed info?


----------



## Art Vandaley

Just the first stab of many Trump will take against the LGBT community. 

When he said he supported them he lied.

When he said this wasn't an issue for him, he lied. Clearly, as he has taken action.

I see people trying to characterise him doing something as him not doing something, and that is nonsense.


----------



## rennlc

Oxi X.O. said:


> Some doofus on Facebook just said Trump has spent 10 million dollars on golfing. Can someone explain how the fuck someone is taught this supposed info?


It's okay to teach that because it's an alternative fact.


----------



## Vic Capri

Just a few days ago, The Huffing Glue Post was mocking him for it. Lie and deny until after having to eat crow afterwards without even issuing an apology. How mainstream media operates, guys.

Trump is absolutely right about Sweden.




> Some doofus on Facebook just said Trump has spent 10 million dollars on golfing. Can someone explain how the fuck someone is taught this supposed info?


My reaction:










http://obamagolfcounter.com/

They weren't complaining then.




> Just the first stab of many Trump will take against the LGBT community.
> 
> When he said he supported them he lied.


He kept the executive order on LGBT worker protections so you're talking out of your ass as usual.




> Did he?
> 
> The T in LGBT doesn't stand for Trump.







You were saying?

- Vic


----------



## DOPA

The Transgender bathroom issue is such a non-issue to begin with it's ridiculous. Nobody cared or gave a damn until some stupid North Carolina law was enforced to blanket ban transgender people from using whatever bathroom they wanted. Now it's become a politicized issue. It's ridiculous, the government shouldn't be involved much like the issue of marriage. I don't care if it's left or right, let individual businesses decide, there is no need for government of any size to involved whether for or against transgender people. Leave the damn issue alone.

This is why it's hard to be a Libertarian sometimes when both Liberals and Conservatives are so retarded on issues like this.

To quote the smartest person on this issue thus far:



Alco said:


> Can't businesses etc decide for themselves how they manage their restrooms?


I hope we aren't alone on this buddy .


----------



## FriedTofu

Oxi X.O. said:


> Some doofus on Facebook just said Trump has spent 10 million dollars on golfing. Can someone explain how the fuck someone is taught this supposed info?


Washington Post gave an estimate of the costs of Trump's visit to Mar A Largo. The cost is mostly due to the costs needed to provide security to the President more than anything. It is also a potentially huge conflict of interests as he owns the place and some of the money spent is going into his pockets.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...cee7ce475fc_story.html?utm_term=.1b51c4ebdb08



> Trump’s three Mar-a-Lago trips since the inauguration have probably cost the federal treasury about $10 million, based on figures used in an October government report analyzing White House travel, including money for Coast Guard units to patrol the exposed shoreline and other military, security and staffing expenses associated with moving the apparatus of the presidency.
> 
> Palm Beach County officials plan to ask Washington to reimburse tens of thousands of dollars a day in expenses for deputies handling added security and traffic issues around the cramped Florida island whenever Trump is in town.


----------



## virus21

Well I guess the Democrats just love to lose


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> How exactly do trans rights infringe on women's rights?
> 
> And show me examples of trans people exposing themselves in womens bathrooms. Show me all the examples. How many trans people have been arrested for this? And no if a man exposed himself in a womens bathroom would not get away with just saying I am a women, especially if there was never any evidence of that person identity as a woman.
> 
> 
> The person you are talking about did not claim he was a women just to go to a female prision to have sex with women. He was a trans person who was a murderer and they put them in a female prison, once that person started having sex with women they moved them out.
> 
> Dont act like they were not trans before going to jail and don't act like people don't have sex in prison. Are you really going to claim men dont have sex with men in prision?
> 
> And you proved how dishonest you are with pretending this person pretended to be female just to go to a female prison just to have sex with women.
> 
> You can't even be honest with this stuff like all conservatives.
> 
> Your deflection on this was totally SAD, as Trump would say
> 
> The saddest part is trans people have been using the bathrooms they identify with for decades and you ever even noticed.


You're not listening at all to what I'm saying, its sad that I have to explain further because you got triggered. You can call me liar, but how can I be a liar when you can't even comprehend what I said? I wasn't talking about trans people exposing themselves. I was talking about giving perverted heterosexual men an outlet to harass or sexual assault women. As I said, this wasn't to enforce against trans people but rather more so against regular men but you didn't want to listen but thats fine. I simply do not care

"Paris Green" the man who murdered someone didn't have their gender re-assignment surgery, and was initially ordered to a mens prison before requesting to goto a womens prison. But isn't it odd to you how a person who was born a man claims to be a woman but was having sex with women while using their male genitalia? At least "Paris Green" is in a male prison now. It's also quite hysterical when leftists refuse to talk about combat sports when men are actually being allowed to beat up on women and get paid for it. 

You're still on this "deflection" thing? I was being sarcastic by using the lefts own argument against you but clearly that went over your head


----------



## Beatles123

TheNightmanCometh said:


> I don't think the solution to the case of "white privilege" is black privilege, in the form of free college tuitiom, so in that respect I disagree with Scott Adams and I usually don't.
> 
> I'm white, took $30k out in loans to help pay for school. I'm currently a substitute teacher. When I started school my income was less than $15k a year. The solution for me isn't to demand that the gov pays for my school or forgive my loan. It'd be nice, but it's not the American taxpayers job to fund my education or to forgive my debt. I wanted something and I accepted that I'd have to pay the loans off after graduation. I knew what I was getting myself into.


I can tell ya this: Being white sure as hell hasn't helped my life any. In fact these days it seems like it's something more people dislike. :troll


----------



## Vic Capri

Tenth Amendment of the United States Bill Of Rights

*Undelegated Powers Kept by the States and the People*

_The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people._

- Vic


----------



## Reaper

Alco said:


> Can't businesses etc decide for themselves how they manage their restrooms?


I knew I liked you Alco. 

And now start extending this to everything in society and pretty soon you'll be an anarchist :trump2

Over-extension of powers is the very reason why the religion of Islam is the way that it is. In the past Christianity was also barbaric simply because of extension of powers and restriction of liberty. Now the over-growing Federal Government is essentially the post-modern replacement of a modernized theocracy in many ways. It's not as violent towards its subjects but in specific cases it is very theocratic. 

The commandments of modern government sound pretty theocratic if you word them as such:

Thou shalt not question the state 
Thou shalt not smoke marijuana
Thou shalt not own guns
Thou shalt not marry who you want to marry
Thou shalt not get an abortion
Thou shalt not speak ill of marginalized groups 
Thou shalt use such and such bathrooms 
Thou shalt not borrow library books and fail to return them on time 

When do we start realizing that many people are actually supporters of a very theocratic society (where the government itself is god and is used to infringe upon many liberties) even though it claims itself to be secular? In the past people used to invoke god in order to restrict liberty based on what they personally liked or disliked. Now they want their government to do the same based on their personal likes and dislikes. Where is the real difference?


----------



## rennlc

Thou shalt not run a theocratic government.
Thou shalt appreciate the irony of the above commandment.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> You're not listening at all to what I'm saying, its sad that I have to explain further because you got triggered. You can call me liar, but how can I be a liar when you can't even comprehend what I said? I wasn't talking about trans people exposing themselves. I was talking about giving perverted heterosexual men an outlet to harass or sexual assault women. As I said, this wasn't to enforce against trans people but rather more so against regular men but you didn't want to listen but thats fine. I simply do not care
> 
> "Paris Green" the man who murdered someone didn't have their gender re-assignment surgery, and was initially ordered to a mens prison before requesting to goto a womens prison. But isn't it odd to you how a person who was born a man claims to be a woman but was having sex with women while using their male genitalia? At least "Paris Green" is in a male prison now. It's also quite hysterical when leftists refuse to talk about combat sports when men are actually being allowed to beat up on women and get paid for it.
> 
> You're still on this "deflection" thing? I was being sarcastic by using the lefts own argument against you but clearly that went over your head


There are already laws about perverted heterosexual men who harass or sexual assault women. Are there not? If anyone is not comprehending somethingit's you.

This whole trans law is nothing but bigotry by conservatives. And again you are lying the law is a law against trans people, its to prevent them from using the bathroom they identify with. Also the people that are for this law don't even use their brain. 

You really think if this person went to the womens bathroom because he was born a woman it would not cause more issues than if he went into the mens room?














This is the type of shit that will happen with this stupid repeal as well.






A women who was born a women getting kicked out of a women's room.

As for Paris Green some straight men have sex in jail with other men just like some straight women in jail end up having sex with straight women. You act like Paris Green pretended to be a women just to go to jail to haev sex with women.

People have sex in jail with other inmates all the time.

This is what happens more ofter than not when you put a trans women in a male prision

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/re...n/news-story/a6da09f95a36857eeee95f16028b06eb

They get raped over 2000 times

Yes people get raped in jail but not like this and she was raped because she was a trans women in a male prision.

You were not using any argument against me, your argument does not even make sense since like I said there are already laws on the books about perverted men sexually assaulting people.


----------



## Reaper

I have serious question. How many people are stupid enough to let their vulnerable children go to the bathroom without supervision in the first place? I think the only place where I'd be comfortable letting a kid use the washroom by himself/herself is in already protected environments and in a retail setting I would never let my kid go into the washroom by himself/herself anyways till they're at least a teenager and even then pretty sure my kid by then would know how to use a mace or a rape whistle or something like that. Preferably a gun :draper2 

Maybe I'm just old-fashioned that way.


----------



## birthday_massacre

RipNTear said:


> I have serious question. How many people are stupid enough to let their vulnerable children go to the bathroom without supervision in the first place? I think the only place where I'd be comfortable letting a kid use the washroom by himself/herself is in already protected environments and in a retail setting I would never let my kid go into the washroom by himself/herself anyways till they're at least a teenager and even then pretty sure my kid by then would know how to use a mace or a rape whistle or something like that. Preferably a gun :draper2
> 
> Maybe I'm just old-fashioned that way.


They don't, that is why conservatives on this issue have no leg to stand on, its just then being bigots against the trans community. Plus if a father is with his daughter and she has to go pee, he just takes her into the men's room and no one freaks out about that.


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> There are already laws about perverted heterosexual men who harass or sexual assault women. Are there not? If anyone is not comprehending somethingit's you.
> 
> This whole trans law is nothing but bigotry by conservatives. And again you are lying the law is a law against trans people, its to prevent them from using the bathroom they identify with. Also the people that are for this law don't even use their brain.
> 
> You really think if this person went to the womens bathroom because he was born a woman it would not cause more issues than if he went into the mens room?
> 
> As for Paris Green some straight men have sex in jail with other men just like some straight women in jail end up having sex with straight women. You act like Paris Green pretended to be a women just to go to jail to haev sex with women.
> 
> People have sex in jail with other inmates all the time.
> 
> This is what happens more ofter than not when you put a trans women in a male prision
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/re...n/news-story/a6da09f95a36857eeee95f16028b06eb
> 
> They get raped over 2000 times
> 
> Yes people get raped in jail but not like this and she was raped because she was a trans women in a male prision.
> 
> You were not using any argument against me, your argument does not even make sense since like I said there are already laws on the books about perverted men sexually assaulting people.


You're right, there are laws in place, however Like I showed in the video men can simply claim to be women and get away with it. That's my issue , not trans going to whatever bathroom they believe they should use, but rather heterosexual men abusing a law but you wont to make this something that it isn't so I simply do not care to continue arguing.

Stop trying to defend Paris Green from using a loophole. He claims to be a woman, got into a women's prison and had sex using his *male genitalia with women*. Not to mention that this guy has been in prison since 2013 and was warned multiple times to stop having sex with female inmates. It wasn't until 2017 that they put him back into a male prison. Sorry, but this isn't "man on man" or "woman on woman" nor was it rape either, stop trying to claim it is. Stop trying to clean up what this piece of shit was doing, he tortured and killed someone and got laid as "punishment". And before you try to claim it, no I'm not saying all trans are pieces of shit, but this guy specifically is.

I'll ask this, do you think it would be a good idea for a pre-op woman to be put in a mans jail?


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> They don't, that is why conservatives on this issue have no leg to stand on, its just then being bigots against the trans community. Plus if a father is with his daughter and she has to go pee, he just takes her into the men's room and no one freaks out about that.


Well, a lot of conservatives just want the government to not legislate anything and that's fair. The government has no business putting its nose into something that hasn't ever been an issue. 

However, the OMG my daughter could get raped is a BS argument imo. In fact, from what I've read transmen and cross-dressers are far more likely to get beat up in men's washrooms than trans raping little girls in women's bathrooms. If you've ever seen a woman's bathroom it's fucking full all the time. There's no way any kind of hanky panky can go on in there. It's literally a revolving door of people going back and forth. 

Pedophilia and rape happens in privacy, late at night or in situations where people are more trusting anyways. People are always suspicious of criminal activity in washrooms so they're careful anyways. I doubt any rapist predates on girls in washrooms anyways until and unless it's a shady bar or abandoned truck stop. Definitely not a Target or Wal-Mart washroom. 

The government however shouldn't be involved in this. Pro-tans retail outlets should simply create unisex washrooms. The problem here is that the leftists brought this issue up into the national consciousness. It's a low priority issue and the feds have no business ruling on it.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> You're right, there are laws in place, however Like I showed in the video men can simply claim to be women and get away with it. That's my issue , not trans going to whatever bathroom they believe they should use, but rather heterosexual men abusing a law but you wont to make this something that it isn't so I simply do not care to continue arguing.
> 
> Stop trying to defend Paris Green from using a loophole. He claims to be a woman, got into a women's prison and had sex using his *male genitalia with women*. Not to mention that this guy has been in prison since 2013 and was warned multiple times to stop having sex with female inmates. It wasn't until 2017 that they put him back into a male prison. Sorry, but this isn't "man on man" or "woman on woman" nor was it rape either, stop trying to claim it is. Stop trying to clean up what this piece of shit was doing, he tortured and killed someone and got laid as "punishment". And before you try to claim it, no I'm not saying all trans are pieces of shit, but this guy specifically is.
> 
> I'll ask this, do you think it would be a good idea for a pre-op woman to be put in a mans jail?


So you found one example of someone getting away with it but that kind of thing never really happens, you act like its happening all the time when its not. If a perverted man is going to try to get into a womens bathroom or changing room they will try it regardless of this trans law or not. So because a few perverted men are going to pretend to be woman should ruin it for all trans people? 

No, again there are already laws against this, so if they are caught doing anything they get arrested.

Making trans people use the bathroom of the gender they were born with and not identify with will cause way more problems. I love how you ignored my question about the person in the picture in my other post.

If that person walked into a women's room, you don't think women and kids would freak out a man is in their bathroom?


I defend Paris Green with logic and facts not a loophole. Just because I destroyed your argument, don't melt like a snowflake and get triggered.

To answer your question, if a women identifies as a man then that person belongs is a male prison.

I can go on destroying you on this topic all day if you want.


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> So you found one example of someone getting away with it but that kind of thing never really happens, you act like its happening all the time when its not. If a perverted man is going to try to get into a womens bathroom or changing room they will try it regardless of this trans law or not. So because a few perverted men are going to pretend to be woman should ruin it for all trans people?
> 
> No, again there are already laws against this, so if they are caught doing anything they get arrested.
> 
> Making trans people use the bathroom of the gender they were born with and not identify with will cause way more problems. I love how you ignored my question about the person in the picture in my other post.
> 
> If that person walked into a women's room, you don't think women and kids would freak out a man is in their bathroom?
> 
> 
> I defend Paris Green with logic and facts not a loophole. Just because I destroyed your argument, don't melt like a snowflake and get triggered.
> 
> To answer your question, if a women identifies as a man then that person belongs is a male prison.
> 
> I can go on destroying you on this topic all day if you want.


You can't find me quoting that this "happens all the time". You wont find a quote of me saying "trans shouldn't have any rights or use whatever bathroom" because simply put, that isn't how I think. You want me to because of how you feel and I simply do not care about how you feel. There's no real way to enforce the bill , certainly not against someone who actually went through operation and looks like their preferred gender. However it does stop people like Christopher Hambrook who gained access to a womens shelter and assaulted multiple women. Does that mean I think the bill should pass? Not necessarily but that could have been prevented. 

The guy in the video I posted didn't phsycically assault women by forcing himself on them. He exposed himself and got undressed because he was in a womens change room. Doing somethign like that used to be considered sexual assault, thats my point but seeing as he could claim to be a woman he didn't get punished for it. This wasn't about actual rape, I never claimed that so no you're wrong. 

You defend Paris Green on the basis of feelings not facts. He is factually a biological male. He factually has a functioning male genitalia. He factually had consensual sex with women for 3 years after he was convicted and sentenced for having tortured and killed a man. Factually, he was told to stop multiple times and didn't. He was then sent back to a male prison. This wasn't rape, this wasn't gay sex either. Sorry, but you're wrong on this one. 

You're okay with throwing a fully functioning female into an all male prison with men who haven't had sex with women in years? If that's not advocating for women to be raped, I don't know what is. If this your definition of "destroying" then by all means go right ahead but you're the one who will continue to make up stuff to make an argument.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> You can't find me quoting that this "happens all the time". You wont find a quote of me saying "trans shouldn't have any rights or use whatever bathroom" because simply put, that isn't how I think. You want me to because of how you feel and I simply do not care about how you feel. There's no real way to enforce the bill , certainly not against someone who actually went through operation and looks like their preferred gender. However it does stop people like Christopher Hambrook who gained access to a womens shelter and assaulted multiple women. Does that mean I think the bill should pass? Not necessarily but that could have been prevented.
> 
> The guy in the video I posted didn't phsycically assault women by forcing himself on them. He exposed himself and got undressed because he was in a womens change room. Doing somethign like that used to be considered sexual assault, thats my point but seeing as he could claim to be a woman he didn't get punished for it. This wasn't about actual rape, I never claimed that so no you're wrong.
> 
> You defend Paris Green on the basis of feelings not facts. He is factually a biological male. He factually has a functioning male genitalia. He factually had consensual sex with women for 3 years after he was convicted and sentenced for having tortured and killed a man. Factually, he was told to stop multiple times and didn't. He was then sent back to a male prison. This wasn't rape, this wasn't gay sex either. Sorry, but you're wrong on this one.
> 
> You're okay with throwing a fully functioning female into an all male prison with men who haven't had sex with women in years? If that's not advocating for women to be raped, I don't know what is. If this your definition of "destroying" then by all means go right ahead but you're the one who will continue to make up stuff to make an argument.


That is what you keep implying.

So since GOP conservatives sexually assault more people in bathrooms than trans people, guess we should just ban all conservatives from using bathrooms then right? I mean we should be scared when using a bathroom a conservative may sexually assault us. How about a law for that?

I defend Paris Green on facts. 

Is it not a fact that men have sex with men in prison?
is it not a fact that women have sex with women in prison? 

You act like this is the only time someone had sex in prison. 

You are the one who is wrong on this, sex is sex. 

If a person defines as a man then let them go to a male prison.

The same thing happens with a man who identifies and looks like a woman gets put into a male prison, like I posted above

Also rape happens all the time in jail. Don't act like men don't get raped by men and women don't get raped by women.

are you going to pretend that does not happen?

what exactly did I make up? I just showed the facts and you are getting triggered by them.

i also love how you keep dodging my simple question.

What would cause more of an issue this person going into the mens or womens room










We all know the answer, you just ignoring it, proves you know I am right


----------



## MillionDollarProns

This thread is shocking to me because I've realized I'm the only one here who was allowed to pee by themselves when they were like 8?


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> That is what you keep implying.
> 
> So since GOP conservatives sexually assault more people in bathrooms than trans people, guess we should just ban all conservatives from using bathrooms then right? I mean we should be scared when using a bathroom a conservative may sexually assault us. How about a law for that?
> 
> I defend Paris Green on facts.
> 
> Is it not a fact that men have sex with men in prison?
> is it not a fact that women have sex with women in prison?
> 
> You act like this is the only time someone had sex in prison.
> 
> You are the one who is wrong on this, sex is sex.
> 
> If a person defines as a man then let them go to a male prison.
> 
> The same thing happens with a man who identifies and looks like a woman gets put into a male prison, like I posted above
> 
> Also rape happens all the time in jail. Don't act like men don't get raped by men and women don't get raped by women.
> 
> are you going to pretend that does not happen?
> 
> what exactly did I make up? I just showed the facts and you are getting triggered by them.


I never once said trans are sexual assaulters, I clearly stated multiple times my issue are with heterosexual men. I made an obvious sarcastic remark that you took literally and you continue to do so because you've fully committed and its impossible for you to admit you could have been wrong about something. You don't care about the truth but would rather lie 

The Paris Green situation had nothing to do with anything you brought up to defend him on. He isn't a gay man having sex with men, he wasn't being raped or raping women either. Every one your talking points had nothing to do with the situation what so ever. It was *consensual sex* and he was told multiple times to stop over the course of 3 full years. You continue to ignore it because you have nothing to defend this situation with. You're trying to justify a biological man with a fully functioning penis having sex with women by bringing up scenarios completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. 

This is my last post on this because I simply do not care to argue with someone who will continue to lie and get triggered as easily as you do. You don't want any real discussion , you just want to accuse people of being a bigot of whatever kind so you can sit on your high horse pretending to be "better" than anyone you think disagrees with you.


----------



## Vic Capri

The Huffington Post ended up deleting that article (This is why that company is a joke! :lol) so here you go.










- Vic


----------



## birthday_massacre

When people claim there is a crime issue in Sweden by immigrants or refugees why won't they ever post the stats to back up that claim? Oh that is right because the stats should the opposite like I posted a few pages back.


----------



## downnice

birthday_massacre said:


> When people claim there is a crime issue in Sweden by immigrants or refugees why won't they ever post the stats to back up that claim? Oh that is right because the stats should the opposite like I posted a few pages back.


http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/02/21/sweden-cars-torched-looting-riots/

http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...edens-multicultural-utopia-massively-failing/

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/09/23/sweden-violent-somali-moving-back/


----------



## DELETE

holy shit. I cannot believe it but its been a whole month since trumps "reign of terror" started and america hasnt died yet.


----------



## birthday_massacre

downnice said:


> http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/02/21/sweden-cars-torched-looting-riots/
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...edens-multicultural-utopia-massively-failing/
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/09/23/sweden-violent-somali-moving-back/


So where are the stats exactly that show the percent of crimes in Sweden committed by immigrants? I am still waiting for that. You gave me three articles that showed a couple of incidents of immigrants. You could do the same for crimes committed by non-immigrants in Sweden.

Show me stats like the one I showed that shows only 1% of crimes in Sweden are by refugees.

Show me hard stats not just a couple of incidents.


*1) There is no immigrant crime wave in Sweden*
In the past decade, there’s been a spike in immigration to Sweden. In 1990, 9.2 percent of Sweden’s population was foreign-born. That figure was 11.3 percent in 2000, and 15.4 percent in 2012.

Immigrant rates have grown even further in recent years, owing in large part to the global refugee crisis. In 2014, Sweden admitted more asylum seekers, per capita, than any other country on Earth. Many Swedish immigrants today hail from war-torn Muslim-majority countries like Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

*Some people assumed this would produce a major uptick in the rates of violent crime in Sweden. Historically, immigrants to Sweden do commit crimes at higher rates than the native-born, though children of immigrants commit crimes at basically the same rate as children of native-born Swedes (controlling for income).
*
*However, there’s no evidence of a massive crime wave. Here is an official Swedish government tally of the rates of six different types of crime directed at persons — fraud, assault, threats, harassment, sexual violence, and mugging. (Homicide is excluded because the rate is tiny; in 2014, there were 87 murders in the entire country of roughly 10 million.)
*









*As you can see, there is no significant uptick in any of the crime categories alongside the rise in immigration. The most recent official report available in English, covering 2015, is not incorporated into that chart — but it concludes that the rates of these crimes are at “approximately the same level as in 2005.” That’s a slight increase over the 2014 rate, but hardly evidence of a crime wave — let alone one committed by migrants or refugees.*

Sweden does not publish official data on the race or ethnic identity of criminals, which is actually common among European countries. Anti-immigration publications like Breitbart have used this fact to accuse Swedish authorities of covering up the truth about immigrant crime.

It’s true that this lack of public data makes it hard to assess the precise impact of immigration on crime rates. It’s possible there’s a small one that doesn’t show up in the aggregate data.

But we can say, without a doubt, that the large numbers of immigrants entering Sweden do not appear to be affecting the overall crime rate in a major way, despite the large number of them entering the country. There is no Swedish crime wave.

*2) There is no rape epidemic in Sweden*
If you spend any time in the conservative media, particularly alt-right or anti-Islam sites, there’s a more specific narrative about Sweden than the one about crime in general. It’s about rape — specifically, that Muslim immigrants are raping Swedish women in unprecedented numbers.

Breitbart has published an enormous number of pieces in recent years on the alleged immigrant rape crisis in Sweden, focusing on cities like Malmö with large Muslim immigrant populations. Representative headlines include “Police warn of child rape epidemic in migrant-occupied Malmö” and “Migrants jailed after woman abducted at gun point, gang-raped in hookah bar basement.”

So to be fair to Trump, we need to look at rape rates specifically — to see if there’s any evidence that rape, specifically, has gone up as a result of immigration. So what do the official statistics say?

*First, the rape rate in Sweden is baseline higher than in other European countries. This is mostly because of a change in Swedish law in 2005 that expanded the definition of rape (including having sex with someone while they’re sleeping) and started counting each instance of sexual violence as a separate attack. Klara Selin, a sociologist at Sweden’s National Council for Crime Prevention, explained what this means in a 2012 interview with the BBC:*

So, for instance, when a woman comes to the police and she says my husband or my fiance raped me almost every day during the last year, the police have to record each of these events, which might be more than 300 events. In many other countries it would just be one record — one victim, one type of crime, one record.
This expanded definition, together with a growing feminist movement in the country aimed at holding perpetrators accountable, has led to an increase in reported rape after the law’s passage. But the underlying rate of attacks likely didn’t actually change much.

“The major explanation is partly that people go to the police more often, but also the fact that in 2005 there has been reform in the sex crime legislation, which made the legal definition of rape much wider than before,” Selin told the BBC.

*So if there had been a huge surge in sexual assault, this would show up in the overall stats given the huge number of immigrants coming into the country and the relatively large number of Swedish women who report being abused. But that has not happened.
*
“What we’re hearing is a very, very extreme exaggeration based on a few isolated events, and the claim that it’s related to immigration is more or less not true at all,” Jerzy Sarnecki, a criminologist at Stockholm University, told the Globe and Mail’s Doug Saunders.

The publicly available data backs up Sarnecki. In 2014, there were 6,700 reported rapes. That figure declined to 5,920 in 2015 and then went back up to 6,560 in 2016 (according to preliminary Swedish government data).

So there’s been mass immigration in the past three years from Muslim-majority countries — but the number of reported rapes has remained steady and even declined slightly in 2015.

3) The way Trump got his information is very questionable

Accusations of a crime wave by dark-skinned migrants are, historically, deeply questionable. White people panicking about migrant criminality, particularly stemming from rape or drugs, is a common way that racial panic about immigrant manifests.

So when we’re dealing with accusations of rampant criminality by nonwhite immigrants, the burden of proof should be on the people making these accusations. Do they have good evidence that these immigrants are causing a massive crime wave?

The answer, judging by official statistics, is clearly no. This is supercharged in the case of Trump’s accusations. His source, Tucker Carlson’s guest Ami Horowitz, is in deep hot water over journalistic ethics.

Carlson’s segment begins with a clip from Horowitz’s most recent film, Stockholm Syndrome. In the clip, two Swedish police officers, Anders Göranzon and Jacob Ekström, sound what appear to be warnings about high levels of criminality by immigrants. But in fact, as the officers told the Swedish publication Dagens Nyheter, they were talking about crime in general, without any specific reference to crime by immigrants.

“We answered a different question. We don’t stand behind what he says. He is a madman,” Göranzon said on their behalf. “He has edited the answers. We were answering completely different questions in the interview.”

Horowitz denies this, telling the Guardian that “the officers are probably under a lot of pressure because of what they said.” He could be right; it’s hard to know who’s telling the truth here unless Horowitz releases the unedited footage.

But this controversy hammers home the bizarreness of Trump’s comments. The president of the United States said something clearly inaccurate, which turned out to be based on a Fox News segment filled with faulty references to statistics and a dubiously edited documentary clip.

This is one way the president of the United States gets his information today.


----------



## downnice

birthday_massacre said:


> So where are the stats exactly that show the percent of crimes in Sweden committed by immigrants? I am still waiting for that. You gave me three articles that showed a couple of incidents of immigrants. You could do the same for crimes committed by non-immigrants in Sweden.
> 
> Show me stats like the one I showed that shows only 1% of crimes in Sweden are by refugees.
> 
> Show me hard stats not just a couple of incidents.












http://www.motherjones.com/files/blog_crime_immigrants_sweden_2.jpg


face it Sweden and the EU have shit vetting and let scumbags in their country and here are the charts


----------



## birthday_massacre

downnice said:


> http://www.motherjones.com/files/blog_crime_immigrants_sweden_2.jpg
> 
> 
> face it Sweden and the EU have shit vetting and let scumbags in their country and here are the charts


are you really using stats that end in 2001? LOL


----------



## Vic Capri

> Can't businesses etc decide for themselves how they manage their restrooms?


That's how its supposed to work, but Democrats think the federal government should be involved in everything.

- Vic


----------



## downnice

birthday_massacre said:


> are you really using stats that end in 2001? LOL


Do you have stats that show that those stats are out of date? I bet you don't because it would show that it increased

and you going to ignore those other chart entirely?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Vic Capri said:


> That's how its supposed to work, but Democrats think the federal government should be involved in everything.
> 
> - Vic


No that is not how its supposed to work.

So it would be ok if work places started to segregate black and whites again for bathrooms and if the did they the govt should not get involved?




downnice said:


> Do you have stats that show that those stats are out of date? I bet you don't because it would show that it increased
> 
> and you going to ignore those other chart entirely?


I already posted up to date stats


----------



## Sensei Utero

Eh, I've obviously missed a few pages of stuff, but what I'll say is that this assumption that Sweden is some sorta rape capital due to migrants is false. Rape records unfortunately went up in 2005 or so (before migrants trying to escape hell came over), when Sweden changed criterias etc. of what counts as 'rape'.

Nonetheless, heart goes out to any victims of rape throughout the World. Can't imagine how it must even feel dealing with it all.


----------



## downnice

birthday_massacre said:


> So where are the stats exactly that show the percent of crimes in Sweden committed by immigrants? I am still waiting for that. You gave me three articles that showed a couple of incidents of immigrants. You could do the same for crimes committed by non-immigrants in Sweden.
> 
> Show me stats like the one I showed that shows only 1% of crimes in Sweden are by refugees.
> 
> Show me hard stats not just a couple of incidents.
> 
> 
> *1) There is no immigrant crime wave in Sweden*
> In the past decade, there’s been a spike in immigration to Sweden. In 1990, 9.2 percent of Sweden’s population was foreign-born. That figure was 11.3 percent in 2000, and 15.4 percent in 2012.
> 
> Immigrant rates have grown even further in recent years, owing in large part to the global refugee crisis. In 2014, Sweden admitted more asylum seekers, per capita, than any other country on Earth. Many Swedish immigrants today hail from war-torn Muslim-majority countries like Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
> 
> *Some people assumed this would produce a major uptick in the rates of violent crime in Sweden. Historically, immigrants to Sweden do commit crimes at higher rates than the native-born, though children of immigrants commit crimes at basically the same rate as children of native-born Swedes (controlling for income).
> *
> *However, there’s no evidence of a massive crime wave. Here is an official Swedish government tally of the rates of six different types of crime directed at persons — fraud, assault, threats, harassment, sexual violence, and mugging. (Homicide is excluded because the rate is tiny; in 2014, there were 87 murders in the entire country of roughly 10 million.)
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *As you can see, there is no significant uptick in any of the crime categories alongside the rise in immigration. The most recent official report available in English, covering 2015, is not incorporated into that chart — but it concludes that the rates of these crimes are at “approximately the same level as in 2005.” That’s a slight increase over the 2014 rate, but hardly evidence of a crime wave — let alone one committed by migrants or refugees.*
> 
> *Sweden does not publish official data on the race or ethnic identity of criminals*, which is actually common among European countries. Anti-immigration publications like Breitbart have used this fact to accuse Swedish authorities of covering up the truth about immigrant crime.
> 
> It’s true that this lack of public data makes it hard to assess the precise impact of immigration on crime rates. It’s possible there’s a small one that doesn’t show up in the aggregate data.
> 
> But we can say, without a doubt, that the large numbers of immigrants entering Sweden do not appear to be affecting the overall crime rate in a major way, despite the large number of them entering the country. There is no Swedish crime wave.
> 
> *2) There is no rape epidemic in Sweden*
> If you spend any time in the conservative media, particularly alt-right or anti-Islam sites, there’s a more specific narrative about Sweden than the one about crime in general. It’s about rape — specifically, that Muslim immigrants are raping Swedish women in unprecedented numbers.
> 
> Breitbart has published an enormous number of pieces in recent years on the alleged immigrant rape crisis in Sweden, focusing on cities like Malmö with large Muslim immigrant populations. Representative headlines include “Police warn of child rape epidemic in migrant-occupied Malmö” and “Migrants jailed after woman abducted at gun point, gang-raped in hookah bar basement.”
> 
> So to be fair to Trump, we need to look at rape rates specifically — to see if there’s any evidence that rape, specifically, has gone up as a result of immigration. So what do the official statistics say?
> 
> *First, the rape rate in Sweden is baseline higher than in other European countries. This is mostly because of a change in Swedish law in 2005 that expanded the definition of rape (including having sex with someone while they’re sleeping) and started counting each instance of sexual violence as a separate attack. Klara Selin, a sociologist at Sweden’s National Council for Crime Prevention, explained what this means in a 2012 interview with the BBC:*
> 
> So, for instance, when a woman comes to the police and she says my husband or my fiance raped me almost every day during the last year, the police have to record each of these events, which might be more than 300 events. In many other countries it would just be one record — one victim, one type of crime, one record.
> This expanded definition, together with a growing feminist movement in the country aimed at holding perpetrators accountable, has led to an increase in reported rape after the law’s passage. But the underlying rate of attacks likely didn’t actually change much.
> 
> “The major explanation is partly that people go to the police more often, but also the fact that in 2005 there has been reform in the sex crime legislation, which made the legal definition of rape much wider than before,” Selin told the BBC.
> 
> *So if there had been a huge surge in sexual assault, this would show up in the overall stats given the huge number of immigrants coming into the country and the relatively large number of Swedish women who report being abused. But that has not happened.
> *
> “What we’re hearing is a very, very extreme exaggeration based on a few isolated events, and the claim that it’s related to immigration is more or less not true at all,” Jerzy Sarnecki, a criminologist at Stockholm University, told the Globe and Mail’s Doug Saunders.
> 
> The publicly available data backs up Sarnecki. In 2014, there were 6,700 reported rapes. That figure declined to 5,920 in 2015 and then went back up to 6,560 in 2016 (according to preliminary Swedish government data).
> 
> So there’s been mass immigration in the past three years from Muslim-majority countries — but the number of reported rapes has remained steady and even declined slightly in 2015.
> 
> 3) The way Trump got his information is very questionable
> 
> Accusations of a crime wave by dark-skinned migrants are, historically, deeply questionable. White people panicking about migrant criminality, particularly stemming from rape or drugs, is a common way that racial panic about immigrant manifests.
> 
> So when we’re dealing with accusations of rampant criminality by nonwhite immigrants, the burden of proof should be on the people making these accusations. Do they have good evidence that these immigrants are causing a massive crime wave?
> 
> The answer, judging by official statistics, is clearly no. This is supercharged in the case of Trump’s accusations. His source, Tucker Carlson’s guest Ami Horowitz, is in deep hot water over journalistic ethics.
> 
> Carlson’s segment begins with a clip from Horowitz’s most recent film, Stockholm Syndrome. In the clip, two Swedish police officers, Anders Göranzon and Jacob Ekström, sound what appear to be warnings about high levels of criminality by immigrants. But in fact, as the officers told the Swedish publication Dagens Nyheter, they were talking about crime in general, without any specific reference to crime by immigrants.
> 
> “We answered a different question. We don’t stand behind what he says. He is a madman,” Göranzon said on their behalf. “He has edited the answers. We were answering completely different questions in the interview.”
> 
> Horowitz denies this, telling the Guardian that “the officers are probably under a lot of pressure because of what they said.” He could be right; it’s hard to know who’s telling the truth here unless Horowitz releases the unedited footage.
> 
> But this controversy hammers home the bizarreness of Trump’s comments. The president of the United States said something clearly inaccurate, which turned out to be based on a Fox News segment filled with faulty references to statistics and a dubiously edited documentary clip.
> 
> This is one way the president of the United States gets his information today.


THe fact that Sweden and most of the EU do not release that is because they know for a fact there is a uptick in refugee crime. If there was no problem they would release the stats but they do not. 

Same reason Germany lies about the infomation as well. And I like how you attack Breitbart but you do not go after the left when they literally commit character assassination aganist people they do not like.


----------



## birthday_massacre

downnice said:


> THe fact that Sweden and most of the EU do not release that is because they know for a fact there is a uptick in refugee crime. If there was no problem they would release the stats but they do not.
> 
> Same reason Germany lies about the infomation as well. And I like how you attack Breitbart but you do not go after the left when they literally commit character assassination aganist people they do not like.


Do you even know how to read charts? Most of the crimes on that chart are on a down tick after the influx of immigrants. So if immigrants were causing this huge crime wave those lines would be going way up but they did not. Most went down.

So what you are saying is wrong about this huge immigrant crime wave or rape wave.

You need to stop lying, I attacked the MSM all the time when they lie. So stop making up shit, it just shows you have no leg to stand on


----------



## downnice

birthday_massacre said:


> Do you even know how to read charts? Most of the crimes on that chart are on a down tick after the influx of immigrants. So if immigrants were causing this huge crime wave those lines would be going way up but they did not. Most went down.
> 
> So what you are saying is wrong about this huge immigrant crime wave or rape wave.
> 
> You need to stop lying, I attacked the MSM all the time when they lie. So stop making up shit, it just shows you have no leg to stand on


That chart you are using is worthless because the Swedish government admits they do not show crime done by refugees. For all we know that stat is excluding them from the picture.

Explain this

https://www.bra.se/bra/brott-och-statistik/valdtakt-och-sexualbrott.html

http://www.bra.se/download/18.744c0...4718780/2011_5_dodliga_valdets_utveckling.pdf

https://acidmuncher.wordpress.com/2017/02/20/no-fox-news-trump-arent-lying-about-sweden/

That chart your using is lying simple as that

Also how was I lying?


----------



## birthday_massacre

downnice said:


> That chart you are using is worthless because the Swedish government admits they do not show crime done by refugees. For all we know that stat is excluding them from the picture.
> 
> Explain this
> 
> https://www.bra.se/bra/brott-och-statistik/valdtakt-och-sexualbrott.html
> 
> http://www.bra.se/download/18.744c0...4718780/2011_5_dodliga_valdets_utveckling.pdf
> 
> https://acidmuncher.wordpress.com/2017/02/20/no-fox-news-trump-arent-lying-about-sweden/
> 
> That chart your using is lying simple as that


Or your chart is lying and since I dont read Swedish and have never heard of those websites, I cannot comment.

What website is that?

If its the infowars of Sweden I would not put any stock into it. How legit is the website? Where did the stats come from?


----------



## Stinger Fan

^Video by The "Angry Foreigner" . a Swede who talks about Sweden and the crime by migrants 

https://plus.google.com/u/0/115882621804840468235/posts/VUgiMxDYJuX
^His citations of the crime in Sweden by migrants


----------



## downnice

birthday_massacre said:


> Or your chart is lying and since I dont read Swedish and have never heard of those websites, I cannot comment.
> 
> What website is that?
> 
> If its the infowars of Sweden I would not put any stock into it. How legit is the website? Where did the stats come from?


SO my chart contradicts your MSM chart, and since it is too hard for you to use Google Translate it means that my chart is BS and you just use the Info Wars cop out.........


----------



## birthday_massacre

downnice said:


> SO a chart contradicts your MSM chart and since it is too hard for you to use Google Translate it means that my chart is BS and you just use the Info Wars cop out.........


You are the one posting stats that contradict, is it that difficult to say where they come from and what the website is. If the question is really that difficult to answer then the stats must be BS or the site is not legit.

Are you that scared to stand by your stats?


----------



## downnice

birthday_massacre said:


> You are the one posting stats that contradict, is it that difficult to say where they come from and what the website is. If the question is really that difficult to answer then the stats must be BS or the site is not legit.
> 
> Are you that scared to stand by your stats?


I am standing by my statistics and I posted multiple links to where my stats come from.

Where did you get your chart, are you too afraid to say where you got them from?


----------



## birthday_massacre

downnice said:


> I am standing by my statistics and I posted multiple links to where my stats come from.
> 
> Where did you get your chart, are you too afraid to say where you got them from?


Keep deflecting.


----------



## downnice

birthday_massacre said:


> Keep deflecting.


All I did was ask you a question and yet you refuse to answer it.

You sure are pulling out all the classic liberal tactics, claim stats that you do not like are "Fake News" and then not actually answering the question that is asked.

Give me the link to where you got your chart


----------



## birthday_massacre

downnice said:


> All I did was ask you a question and yet you refuse to answer it.
> 
> You sure are pulling out all the classic liberal tactics, claim stats that you do not like are "Fake News" and then not actually answering the question that is asked.
> 
> Give me the link to where you got your chart


I asked you the question first and again its not in English. You can't post the English version to show exactly what the chart is saying?

And no I am not going to go through the work of translating it all. Show the chart in English.


----------



## downnice

birthday_massacre said:


> I asked you the question first and again its not in English. You can't post the English version to show exactly what the chart is saying?
> 
> And no I am not going to go through the work of translating it all. Show the chart in English.


So you are too lazy to use google translate....... Also I think a chart that actually comes from the country in question is better than some chart you got from some left wing website

I rest my case


----------



## birthday_massacre

downnice said:


> So you are too lazy to use google translate.......
> 
> I rest my case


You posted the stats, it's your job to translate if you want to claim the stats I posted are not correct.

But I'm done with you, you can't even debate honestly.

The chart I posted did come from the Swedish Crime Survey, you know the country in question.


----------



## downnice

birthday_massacre said:


> You posted the stats, it's your job to translate if you want to claim the stats I posted are not correct.
> 
> But I'm done with you, you can't even debate honestly.


YOUR the joke here.....

Sorry liberal I have to go to work so yeah bye


----------



## virus21




----------



## yeahbaby!

virus21 said:


>


I'm sorry but as soon as I see anything still using that ridiculous 'cuck' term like the ultimate insult it loses the argument. It's ridiculous and childish.


----------



## Miss Sally

Stinger Fan said:


> ^Video by The "Angry Foreigner" . a Swede who talks about Sweden and the crime by migrants
> 
> https://plus.google.com/u/0/115882621804840468235/posts/VUgiMxDYJuX
> ^His citations of the crime in Sweden by migrants


I linked this in another thread, one of his older videos explains how Sweden banned all statics of crime done by people with their nationality being known. It's also not uncommon when something happens to describe the perps as "Swedish" regardless if they're Swedes or not. The Swedish media is shady as fuck, the only thing worse is their handing out light punishments for rape.


----------



## DOPA

@birthday_massacre @downnice

https://www.bra.se/bra/brott-och-statistik/valdtakt-och-sexualbrott.html



> *Rape and sexual offenses
> *
> 
> In 2015, reported *18,100 sexual offenses, of which 5920 was classed as rape.* The National Crime Survey says 1.7 per cent that they were subjected to sexual crimes during 2015.


The chart is in that link, I tried getting the image from the link but couldn't, so instead I saved it and have linked it myself, have a look.










As you can see clearly since 2012, the number of rapes have doubled. The numbers did go down in 2014 but spiked right back up during the height of the migrant crisis the following year. The evidence claimed in terms of rapes going down was cherry picked from the chart I have shown, it does not show the entire picture as the chart here shows.

The other statistics from articles I am posting comes directly from Swedish media and I will be translating the articles into English here. These are some of the things the left media are not telling you, for example in 2014-2015 there was an increase in lethal violence by 29%: http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/dodligt-vald-och-bedragerier-okar/



> *Lethal violence and fraud increases*
> 
> The deadly violence has increased in Sweden.
> National Crime Prevention Council's figures also show that the number of reported frauds increases exponentially.
> - I felt like an idiot, says Gerd Olsson, 86, in Värmland who got the bank account länsat of con artists.
> 
> On Thursday released the National Council, the National Council, the final crime statistics for last year.
> It shows that the cases of lethal violence has *increased to 112 pieces, an increase of 25 cases, or nearly 29 percent since 2014.*
> Behind the figures conceal including the hugely acclaimed murder of Skovde girl Lisa Holm and Ida Johansson in Upplands Väsby.
> - The murder case that stands out. However, we have not seen any particular increase in lethal violence in our area, but it's probably more in metropolitan areas where there has been a lot of shootings, said police commissioner Lars Johansson, who led Lisa Holm-investigation.
> 
> Lisa Holm
> In June last year ringed his investigation team in the now convicted murderer Nerijus Bilevicius, 36, after Lisa Holm encountered during the largest sökpådraget in Swedish criminal history.
> The Lithuanian migrant workers have until April 15 to seek review of life imprisonment at the High Court.
> - For us, the case is not completed until the Supreme Court has taken a decision, says Lars Johansson.
> The notified fraud and forgery crimes while continuing to increase by 19 percent to a new record level: 198 626 pieces. A hit is Gerd Olsson, 86th
> - It was a Friday. I was waiting for home care services and had not locked the door. Then I saw a shadow in the apartment, says Gerd Olsson who lives in a retirement home in Värmland Årjäng.
> "The Shadow"
> "Shadow" was a 17-year-old who had stolen her cell phone and wallet containing 3,000 crowns. He belonged to a traveling trio of men, and after the theft in August last year called one of them Gerd and pretended to be a police officer.
> - He said that my debit card had been stolen and that they needed the code to block it.
> Since the company made ATM withdrawals from Gerd Olsson's account and purchased goods for just under 53 000 in some shops.
> The Court of Appeal struck in March solid judgment: a man in his 40s was given four months in prison, his 17-year-old son was sentenced to 60 hours of youth service and another 17-year-old had a minor.
> - They go the old-timers like me. It's bad, but I have learned to lock the front door, says Gerd Olsson.


On the side of the article they detail what the figures are and the source they got it from:



> • In 2015 reported more than 1.5 million crimes, which is an increase of 55,700 crimes, or 4 percent compared with the year before.
> • In 2015 was more than 1.5 million crimes hand-laid, which is an increase of 64,400 crimes (+ 4%) compared to 2014. Hand Scheduled means that police, prosecutors or investigating authority has taken a decision on the notification.
> • For nearly half (49%) of the hand-laid crimes had an investigation conducted. There is a reduction of 2 percentage points compared with 2014.
> Source: National Crime Prevention Council, the National Council


Gun violence in Sweden over the last 9 years has also dramatically gone up by 84% over the last 9 years: http://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/skjutningarna-okar-dramatiskt-i-sverige



> *The shootings increased dramatically in Sweden*
> 
> In nine years, the number of reported murder, manslaughter, attempted murder and attempted manslaughter with a firearm involved increased by 84 percent.
> - There are more guns in the day. And when sooner or fired warning shots to the legs, it is today the issue of clean executions, says criminologist Camila Salazar Atias.
> 
> Criminals are increasingly arming themselves is a growing problem.
> 
> Anyone who keys in the correct parameters in BRÅ database may soon reach a troubling upward curve. Murder, manslaughter, attempted murder and attempted manslaughter with a firearm involved has increased 84 percent in 2007.
> 
> "Creates a hopelessness"
> Camila Salazar Atias, a criminologist at Fryshuset, describes a paradoxical development. The shootings will be more - while crime among young people is falling. The truly dangerous are few, but a threat to society. Especially as many shootings remain unsolved.
> 
> - It creates a hopelessness in the affected areas, a sense of "when we are murdered, it is not as important to solve." As soon as a murder seen as expected in such an area.
> 
> One of the victims of armed violence is Robin, who just could be 15 years before was shot to death outside his gate in Akalla. Read his mother Carolinas story here .


From Aftonbladet, a Swedish media outlet, there are also statistics showing a recent rise in murder rates since around 2015: http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/krim/a/x2az8/trendbrottet-morden-i-sverige-okar



> *Trend crime: murders in Sweden increases*
> 
> Criminology: A gigantic social problem
> 
> 105 people fell victim to deadly force during in 2016.
> At the same time the murders - for the first time since the 1990s.
> - We have had a decrease in 25 years, but the trend is about to be broken against more murder, says Mikael Rying, a criminologist at the Police National Operations Department.
> Ever since 1990 the trend has been to the deadly violence decreased. Between 1990-94 the figure was an average of 107 cases per year. Then it dropped continuously every five years. 2010-2014, the number of victims of lethal force by an average of 83 per year.
> But *the last two years, the level remained well above a hundred.*
> 
> *First increase in 25 years*
> 
> *In 2015, killed 112 people according to official statistics.* Aftonbladet's summary indicates that the number of *admittedly fell by seven cases in 2016, but the number remained still over a hundred.*
> It suggests that the downward trend begins to break - and that murders increased for the first time in 25 years.
> How the change in that case explained?
> Michael Rying have hypothesized that "spirits generation" has died out. "Fill Murders" which was the majority of the 1970s and 80s has decreased due to changes in drinking habits.
> Now, instead of gangster shootings increased sharply over the past two years. They can explain the rise.
> - Some say: They shoot each other to death, making it so much? It does so because it creates a wild western society that no one is served by. It creates insecurity. And it gets these circles to believe that they can keep this up.
> "Not just a problem for the police"
> Michael Rying mean that it is therefore particularly relevant situation that difficult to investigate shootings cleared up. He points out that nine people since 2009 victims in settlements, although they did not have to do with anything. Among other things, there has been pure confusion as in the case of Nässjö in 2013, in which an elderly couple were shot at home in their own home.
> Rying want to emphasize that the problem of the increasing number of criminal dealings in the foundation is not merely for the police.
> - I feel that it is only discussed police emergency and police inability to solve these crimes. But it is a giant social policy social problem.



Not only this but Norway and Denmark are having similar problems as outlined in two articles from those countries:

https://www.svd.se/brottslighet-bland-invandrare-borde-oroa-alla-partier



> *Crime among immigrants should worry all parties*
> 
> "One in five immigrants from Iraq and Somalia captured the crime." It trumpeted in Dagbladet, one of Norway's major newspapers (17/6). Statistics Norway, the Norwegian equivalent of the SCB, has for the first time made a thorough compilation of crime statistics broken down on the descent, and there will be some headlines.
> 
> The absolute majority of all crimes committed by Norwegians. 90 percent of the perpetrators of the crimes committed during the measured period, 2001-2004, was a native Norwegians. There are, however, certain immigrant groups over-represented in crime statistics that arouses interest. 6.1 percent of all Norwegians committed any crime during the measurement period. Immigrants from Nordic countries, Western Europe and North America committed crimes in lower grade than that. But 10.4 percent of immigrants from Eastern Europe, 13.6 percent in Asia, 13.8 percent from Central and South America and 17.8 per cent of immigrants from Africa were recorded during the same period for the offense. Although immigrant children had higher criminal activity than the norskättade, the report shows.
> 
> Source countries with the highest percentage of offenders were *Morocco (18.1), Iran (19.4), Somalia (21.8) and Iraq (23.6 percent).* On the other side of the spectrum are countries of origin such as China (5.9) and the Philippines (4.7 percent).
> 
> Norway is no stranger to the question of the origin and crime. Oslo police have for years presented rape statistics in that way - and found that all the rapes of known offenders in the past five years has been committed by immigrants - but the new study therefore covers all registered crimes committed by residents throughout Norway for several years. The result weighs heavily in other words, and is not dependent on any individual crimes occasions or people. What, for example, "one in five" means in actual numbers, you can get an idea of ​​when you consider that in Norway live around 17,000 Somalis and 19,000 Iraqis. Property crimes and violent crimes are the categories with the highest gaps between immigrants and norskättade. The proportion of offenders are 2.3 times as large in theft crimes (18.7 to 8.4 per 1000 inhabitants) and 2.1 times greater in violent crime (9.5 against 4.5).
> 
> Whether employment or housing conditions given much explanatory power of the report. However, if one takes into account gender and age - immigrants are largely young men, just as the perpetrators often - explained between 20 and 45 percent of over-representation. Other explanations are trying to report the authors do not. But the material is rich, and raises many questions. A common notion - that the trauma of civil war creates lawlessness - seems contradicted by the results. Immigrants from Somalia are considerably more registered crimes than the same war-affected immigrants from Sri Lanka (9.7 per cent), to take one example. It appears therefore that Norway has much the same problems as Sweden image. Crime Prevention Council two reports (1996: 2 and 2005: 17) regarding crime among people born in Sweden and abroad have given similar, if not worse, results. In the previous report, for example, had 26.9 percent of migrants from North Africa have been reasonably suspected of crimes during the measurement period, and the latter was measured corresponding to 24.1 percent.
> 
> In Sweden, one can rather make headlines on the "one in four" than "one in five", in other words.
> 
> The recent Swedish survey showed that over-representation of recorded crime for the foreign born was 2.5. Even higher when it comes to serious crimes: the over-representation was 4.2 in the category of lethal violence and attempted murder and manslaughter, and 5.0 for rape and attempted rape. In terms of the number of offenses, in all categories, which were committed during the measurement period were born abroad and children born abroad to a total of 40 percent, according to the good. Knowledge State is thus quite good. It is difficult for politicians to know how to act on the knowledge. What may look like simple solutions are often very complicated when they will be transformed into concrete action.
> 
> A first thought may be, for now just take something out of the air, is to expel all criminal immigrants. Deportation is seen in many cases impossible - for example, the situation in Somalia or Iraq considered too chaotic. In Denmark, the proposal is about to become a reality, but the government should probably expect to be thoroughly criticized for possibly violating international conventions. And then the Government has exempted the obvious questionable penalty cases. Another idea might be to cut down on refugee immigration, which of course is highly characterized by disordered conditions. Even where governments consider themselves to be linked to international agreements. But even if you managed to reinterpret the meaning of the agreements, it is not certain that the cuts would hit the right. There is a big difference between refugees from Burma and Afghanistan, for example. A third immediate thought, of course, concerns the integration policy. Helping jobs and adequate housing may solve the problem?
> 
> Judging by the Norwegian investigation does not help the more than marginally. Thus, there are few easy answers, and furthermore the price may be high for the politicians who choose to make suggestions (in Sweden was, for example, former MP Mauricio Rojas, more or less bullied), why it seems to take time to get to work. The voters see, however, does not seem to want to wait for the leading parties resolve the knots. Increasingly, people vote for parties that put immigration issues primarily, and that the strength of opposition parties rarely have to bother about their simple solutions are feasible or not.
> 
> It can lead to injury. It would be best if the leading parties took voters' concerns more seriously. Unless the crime itself is enough to get started politicians, strange as it may sound, ought at least the fear of political turmoil it be?


http://www.mx.dk/nyheder/danmark/story/15585293



> *Every three convicted of rape is an immigrant*
> 
> 212 out of the 615 convicted for rape the last decade are either immigrants or descendants. "Important figures. Some immigrants do not understand Danish gender culture, "says cultural anthropologist.
> 
> Immigrants and their descendants are in general clearly overrepresented in the number of people where a Danish court has declared them guilty of rape.
> 
> More precisely, it is 34.5 percent or 212 of the 615 with a rape conviction in the period 2004 to 2013 that are either immigrants or descendants. It is more than three times as large a share as a group generally represents the population.
> 
> Cultural Sociologist and immigrant researcher Mehmet Ümit Necef SDU calls it 'important' to these numbers will appear.
> 
> - New Danes are clearly overrepresented among those convicted of rape. Some immigrants do not know and do not understand Danish gender culture. The fact that a Danish woman is drunk home at night does not mean that she is lettilgænglig, he says.
> 
> Both Norwegians and Swedes living in Denmark count, but the period is not convicted of a single rape
> 
> The figures are backed up by new research from the University of Southern Denmark, which examined 296 reported rapes in eastern Jutland. In 40 percent of cases, the perpetrator of another ethnicity than Danish.
> 
> According to the report "Rape declared" foreigners are particularly over-represented when it comes to assault rapes.
> 
> - It's violent. It provides food for thought and probably we will have to put in with information operations, says legal integration spokesperson Sofie Carsten Nielsen (R).
> 
> The same attitude has DFS Group Chairman Peter Skaarup.
> 
> - We will have to deal with the overrepresentation of immigrants among rape men, he says.


The last study done that actually takes into account ethnic minorities in the reporting of crime was done in 2005. That's the last full extensive report which is outdated but the reason for this is because the Swedish authorities stopped carrying out those statistics since then. There has been a number of reports on Sweden covering up sex crimes done by migrants for example. Here is the left wing paper the Guardian covering one particular story:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ccused-cover-up-sex-attacks-refugees-festival



> Sweden’s prime minister has condemned a “double betrayal” of women after allegations that police covered up sexual harassment by recent immigrants at a music festival in Stockholm. Meanwhile, reports have emerged of attacks on women in Malmö on New Year’s Eve.
> 
> Groups of refugees molested concertgoers at We Are Stockholm, Europe’s largest youth festival, in the summer of 2014, according to internal police memos obtained by Dagens Nyheter, a daily newspaper.
> 
> “These are so-called refugee youths, specifically from Afghanistan. Several of the gang were arrested for sexual molestation,” one police memo said.
> 
> Yet the official police report on the five-day festival attended by 170,000 young people aged mainly 13-19 made no mention of sexual harassment or assaults.
> 
> The prime minister, Stefan Löfven, said this amounted to a double betrayal since no one was prosecuted for the crimes and the police did not make them public.
> 
> The reports come as police in Cologne, Germany, investigate hundreds of claims of assaults on women on New Year’s Eve. Officials say nearly all of the suspects in the attacks were “people with an immigrant background”. Police and the media have been accused of deliberately under-reporting the events in order not to encourage anti-immigrant sentiment.
> 
> In the Stockholm case, an anti-immigrant website linked to the far right Sweden Democrats, Nyeter Idag, claimed that Dagens Nyheter itself received reports about the assaults very soon after the festival but did not publicise them because they might benefit the far-right party, who campaign to stop immigration. Dagens Nyheter vehemently denied the claim, producing a full rebuttal on their website.
> 
> The festival took place a month before general elections in which the Sweden Democrats came third.
> 
> During the 2014 festival, organisers picked up on rumours of a new phenomenon, said Roger Ticoalu, head of events at the Stockholm city administration.
> 
> “It was a modus operandi that we had never seen before: large groups of young men who surround girls and molest them,” Ticoalu said. “In the cases where we were able to apprehend suspects, they were with a foreign background, newly arrived refugees aged 17-20, who had come to Sweden without their families.”
> 
> He said festival organisers did not have enough facts at the time to say anything definitive, and it would have been “totally irresponsible on our side to make anything public”. After the festival the organisers launched a programme with police and NGOs to encourage girls and young women to report harassment and to identify culprits, he said.
> 
> There were 20 reports of assault or harassment at the festival in 2015, Ticoalu said, but no evidence of any ethnic dimension to the attackers.
> 
> A spokesperson for the festival organisers, who wished to remain anonymous, said: “We have seen different waves of this sort of violence over time. Sexual harassment is something that happens in society, so everything that is happening in society will definitely happen there.”
> 
> The national police commissioner, Dan Eliasson, promised a full investigation into the 2014 festival. The Sweden Democrats said the police had been “paralysed by political correctness”.
> 
> Björn Söder, one of the party’s MPs, told Expressen: “It is a scandal without equal. Could this have happened at several locations in the country, but they don’t tell you certain things because it could ‘play into the hands’ [of the Sweden Democrats]’?”
> 
> Ticoalu said he had not heard reports of similar assaults happening at Sweden’s other big music festivals, but he “would not be shocked” if they had. Stockholm police did not respond to requests for comment.
> 
> Separately, police in Malmö, Sweden’s third city, said that on New Year’s Eve gangs of young men surrounded women and molested them.
> 
> A couple of hundred men, described as “unaccompanied from Afghanistan”, were involved in what was “a new phenomenon”, a police spokesperson told the Sydsvenskan newspaper. No women made a formal complaint, police said.
> 
> Susanna Udvardi, director of the South-east Skåne Women’s Shelter, who has also led volunteer efforts to help refugees integrate in southern Sweden, said: “Vulgar and demeaning treatment of women, including serious harassment, is far from the preserve of immigrant men from the Middle East.
> 
> “I am dismayed by how simplistic the climate of debate in Sweden has become. Most refugees have enormous respect for women.”
> 
> The pattern of harassment was repeated at the festival in 2015, but the police and organisers were prepared for it and intervened to prevent it, according to Varg Gyllander, a spokesperson for Stockholm police. It is police policy not to comment on the ethnic background of perpetrators, he said.
> 
> The number of reports of harassment in 2015, around 15, had to be viewed in the context of 170,000 people each day in an open access area with no control over people coming and going. “Of course it was serious: 15 cases is still too many, but it is also not very much,” Gyllander said.
> 
> The failure to make the incidents public was not an organised cover-up, he said, but rather “self censorship” on the part of individual officers. “There are police employees that are afraid of talking about these things in the context of the immigration debate today,” he said.


Here is another article from the Guardian surrounding the statistics and Swedish authorities trying to cover up the extent of migrants criminal activities: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/13/sex-assaults-sweden-stockholm-music-festival



> The news that the Swedish authorities covered up widespread sexual assaults by immigrant gangs on teenage girls at a Stockholm music festival, and possibly other incidents too, is immensely damaging for race relations in Sweden because it conforms so precisely to two stereotypes.
> 
> The first, widely believed in nationalist circles, is that immigrants to Sweden are responsible for the huge rise in reported rapes in recent years. The second, more true, and much more widely believed, is that you cannot trust respectable Swedish opinion to be honest about the bad effects of immigration.
> 
> It has been quite clearly established that there has been an increase in violent crime, and in reported rape, over the last 40 years in Sweden. *In 1995, the first year for which statistics are easily available on the Crime Agency’s website, there were 179 murders in Sweden, of which 29 involved guns; in 2014 there were 317, of which 74 involved guns.
> *
> Some of the violence is closely linked to the appearance of gangs of Balkan and Middle Eastern origin among refugee groupings who fight for control of the drugs trade, among other things. There were around *40 unsolved gang murders on police files at the end of last year.*
> 
> Rape statistics are harder to judge.* The raw figures suggest a huge rise in reports, from 1,707 in 1995 to 6,697 in 2014.* But, as the Julian Assange case showed, there is perhaps less stigma about reporting the crime than elsewhere, and the Swedish legal definition of rape is wider than in other countries. In any case, *the police do not record the ethnicity of either criminals or victims, and the press is extremely constrained over reporting identifying details about either the victims or the perpetrators of crimes.*
> 
> *So it is impossible either to prove or to disprove, from official statistics*, the nationalist claim that the rapists are disproportionately young male migrants. Yet that claim is repeated as a fact in racist and xenophobic parts of the internet. What is certain is that you would hardly ever find it mentioned, even to refute, in the reputable Swedish media – until last week.
> 
> This is the really damaging effect of the Stockholm scandal – and it is worth noting that only one of the reported assaults at the festival was classed as rape: most were mob gropings, which are still terrifying and criminal violations.
> 
> The Swedish political and media establishment decided to deal with the threat of a nationalist and xenophobic party, the Sweden Democrats, by ignoring them and hoping they would go away. This policy was fuelled partly by wishful thinking, partly by principle and partly by self-righteousness. It ended disastrously.
> 
> The Sweden Democrats broke into parliament in 2010 and now hold the balance of power there, although all of the other parties have combined to vote so as to neutralise them. The result of that, again predictably, has been that their support has risen to unprecedented levels – 20% in the last poll I saw. The recent clampdown on immigration can only strengthen them further.
> 
> The Social Democrats, and their newspaper, Aftonbladet, appear to have been particularly keen on the posture of suppression and denial, because the great majority of the Sweden Democrats’ voters had been Social Democrats, rather than traditional rightwingers.
> 
> It is absolutely clear – with the publication of internal memos by the newspaper Dagens Nyheter – that the Stockholm police failed to report the sex assaults at the festival for fear of worsening ethnic tensions. And it was understood by all parties that this would lead to an electoral advantage for the Sweden Democrats.
> 
> The organisers, who also allegedly knew what was going on, were concerned for the success of the festival and did not want to frighten away the teenagers who were its target audience.
> 
> So teenage girls were systematically assaulted and robbed by gangs of young foreign men because too many powerful people found their suffering was inconvenient. The result of this cover-up will be far more damaging than the truth could have been.


The writer of this article is correct, the raw data does show a huge uptick, particularly in terms of rape over the last few years at the very least. Like he says, Sweden does not record what ethnicity the criminal is and therefore it is difficult to really get true numbers. But if liberal Sweden as they say do not have a massive problem with migrants, why are they hiding the data on it? Why are they not even recording it? These are very relevant questions to ask. If there truly is a problem the best way for them to debunk it is to start recording the ethnicity of the criminals again like every other modern country. This is why it is called into question about the impact of the immigration to Sweden comes from.

What is clear is that the liberal media portrayal of there being no problems whatsoever in Sweden is vastly dishonest but at the same time it cannot be proved what is causing the uptick in rape and violent crime until the Swedish authorities start recording the crimes more honestly and releasing them. The link which downnice has shown does have the author claim that Sweden stopped recording the ethnicity of the criminals because they did not like the results but unfortunately I cannot open the article fully. It requires subscription and I'm not paying money to subscribe to read 1 or 2 articles :lol.


----------



## birthday_massacre

L-DOPA said:


> @birthday_massacre @downnice
> 
> https://www.bra.se/bra/brott-och-statistik/valdtakt-och-sexualbrott.html
> 
> 
> 
> The chart is in that link, I tried getting the image from the link but couldn't, so instead I saved it and have linked it myself, have a look.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see clearly since 2012, the number of rapes have doubled. The numbers did go down in 2014 but spiked right back up during the height of the migrant crisis the following year. The evidence claimed in terms of rapes going down was cherry picked from the chart I have shown, it does not show the entire picture as the chart here shows.
> 
> The other statistics from articles I am posting comes directly from Swedish media and I will be translating the articles into English here. These are some of the things the left media are not telling you, for example in 2014-2015 there was an increase in lethal violence by 29%: http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/dodligt-vald-och-bedragerier-okar/
> 
> 
> 
> On the side of the article they detail what the figures are and the source they got it from:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun violence in Sweden over the last 9 years has also dramatically gone up by 84% over the last 9 years: http://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/skjutningarna-okar-dramatiskt-i-sverige
> 
> 
> 
> From Aftonbladet, a Swedish media outlet, there are also statistics showing a recent rise in murder rates since around 2015: http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/krim/a/x2az8/trendbrottet-morden-i-sverige-okar
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not only this but Norway and Denmark are having similar problems as outlined in two articles from those countries:
> 
> https://www.svd.se/brottslighet-bland-invandrare-borde-oroa-alla-partier
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.mx.dk/nyheder/danmark/story/15585293
> 
> 
> 
> The last study done that actually takes into account ethnic minorities in the reporting of crime was done in 2005. That's the last full extensive report which is outdated but the reason for this is because the Swedish authorities stopped carrying out those statistics since then. There has been a number of reports on Sweden covering up sex crimes done by migrants for example. Here is the left wing paper the Guardian covering one particular story:
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ccused-cover-up-sex-attacks-refugees-festival
> 
> 
> 
> Here is another article from the Guardian surrounding the statistics and Swedish authorities trying to cover up the extent of migrants criminal activities: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/13/sex-assaults-sweden-stockholm-music-festival
> 
> 
> 
> The writer of this article is correct, the raw data does show a huge uptick, particularly in terms of rape over the last few years at the very least. Like he says, Sweden does not record what ethnicity the criminal is and therefore it is difficult to really get true numbers. But if liberal Sweden as they say do not have a massive problem with migrants, why are they hiding the data on it? Why are they not even recording it? These are very relevant questions to ask. If there truly is a problem the best way for them to debunk it is to start recording the ethnicity of the criminals again like every other modern country. This is why it is called into question about the impact of the immigration to Sweden comes from.
> 
> What is clear is that the liberal media portrayal of there being no problems whatsoever in Sweden is vastly dishonest but at the same time it cannot be proved what is causing the uptick in rape and violent crime until the Swedish authorities start recording the crimes more honestly and releasing them. The link which downnice has shown does have the author claim that Sweden stopped recording the ethnicity of the criminals because they did not like the results but unfortunately I cannot open the article fully. It requires subscription and I'm not paying money to subscribe to read 1 or 2 articles :lol.


Thanks for the great break down of all the info. It is interesting how the info can be different depending on who is doing it.

I agree there should be full transparency when it comes to getting this info. People should not be afraid of what the real info shows. Nothing will ever get fixed if we don't get all the info.

No one should be hiding any data, I think everyone can agree on that


----------



## birthday_massacre

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-twitter-staffer-235263


President Donald Trump’s former campaign staffers claim they cracked the code for tamping down his most inflammatory tweets, and they say the current West Wing staff would do well to take note.

The key to keeping Trump’s Twitter habit under control, according to six former campaign officials, is to ensure that his personal media consumption includes a steady stream of praise. And when no such praise was to be found, staff would turn to friendly outlets to drum some up — and make sure it made its way to Trump’s desk.

*"If candidate Trump was upset about unfair coverage, it was productive to show him that he was getting fair coverage from outlets that were persuadable," said former communications director Sam Nunberg. "The same media that our base digests and prefers is going to be the base for his support. I would assume the president would like to see positive and preferential treatment from those outlets and that would help the operation overall."*

Staff members had one advantage as they aimed to manage candidate Trump’s media diet: He rarely reads anything online, instead preferring print newspapers — especially his go-to, The New York Times — and reading material his staff brought to his desk. Indeed, his media consumption habits were on full display during his roller-coaster news conference this past Thursday, when he continually remarked on what the media would write “tomorrow,” even as print outlets’ websites already had posted stories about his remarks.

The White House did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

Trump is also, however, a near-nonstop consumer of cable news, and his staff’s efforts were not always enough to keep Trump from tweeting on topics that were far from his campaign’s core message. Throughout the campaign, whatever messaging the candidate’s staff had planned was continually accompanied — and often overshadowed — by a string of feuds that played out both on and off Twitter.

But his team believed that its strategies would keep Trump from taking to his preferred social media outlet to escalate his personal or political conflicts.

*For example, when Trump engaged in a Twitter war with Khizr Khan, the father of a slain Muslim U.S. soldier in Iraq, the team set up a meeting with Gold Star Mothers of Florida and made sure to plant the story in conservative media. Breitbart also wrote stories about Khan's relationships with the Democratic Party. "We made sure that conservative media was aware of it, they connected the echo chamber," the former official said.*


During another damage-control mission, when former Miss Universe Alicia Machado took to the airwaves to call out Trump for calling her "Miss Piggy" and "Miss Housekeeping," the communications team scrambled to place a story in conservative-friendly outlets like Fox News, the Washington Examiner, the Daily Caller and Breitbart.

A former senior campaign official said Nunberg and his successor, former communications director Jason Miller, were particularly skilled at using alternative media like Breitbart, Washington Examiner, Infowars and the Daily Caller to show Trump positive coverage.

And once they got the stories published, campaign officials with large numbers of Twitter followers would tweet them out.

*They would also go to media amplifiers like Fox News hosts and conservative columnists to encourage them to tweet out the story so that they could print out and show a two-page list of tweets that showed that they were steering the message. While Trump still couldn't contain his Twitter-rage with Machado, and ended up tweeting about a mystery sex-tape of the Hillary Clinton surrogate, aides say they dialed back even more posts.*

"He saw there was activity, so he didn't feel like he had to respond," the former campaign official said. "He sends out these tweets when he feels like people aren't responding enough for him."

*The in-person touch is also important to keeping Trump from running too hot. One Trump associate said it’s important to show Trump deference and offer him praise and respect, as that will lead him to more often listen. And if Trump becomes obsessed with a grudge, aides need to try and change the subject, friends say. Leaving him alone for several hours can prove damaging, because he consumes too much television and gripes to people outside the White House.*

Part of the current problem is Trump is still adjusting to his new circumstances and has plenty of time to stew over negative reviews as he spends time alone in the evenings and early mornings as his wife, Melania Trump, continues living in New York while his youngest son, Barron, finishes the school year.


That alone time played a factor in Trump’s response to revelations that his Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, had criticized attacks on the judiciary days after Trump attacked a “so-called” judge for blocking his administration’s travel ban.

White House officials anticipated that Gorsuch would distance himself from Trump’s attack and thought the planned comments would help the nominee’s bid, said a person with knowledge of the conversations.

The problem: Trump himself didn't like Gorsuch’s "disheartening" and "demoralizing" critique. He fired off a tweet criticizing Sen. Richard Blumenthal, the Connecticut Democrat who repeated the comments, digging up a controversy over the senator’s military record and accusing him of incorrectly characterizing Gorsuch’s comments. Afterward, Blumenthal and other Democrats criticized Trump and said the president’s comments would hurt his nominee's chances.

Asked whether aides and advisers liked the tweet, one White House official said sarcastically: "What do you think?"

Josh Dawsey contributed to this report.


----------



## yeahbaby!

L-DOPA said:


> [MENTION=223857]
> What is clear is that the liberal media portrayal of there being no problems whatsoever in Sweden is vastly dishonest but at the same time it cannot be proved what is causing the uptick in rape and violent crime until the Swedish authorities start recording the crimes more honestly and releasing them. The link which downnice has shown does have the author claim that Sweden stopped recording the ethnicity of the criminals because they did not like the results but unfortunately I cannot open the article fully. It requires subscription and I'm not paying money to subscribe to read 1 or 2 articles :lol.


What is the motivation for media agencies not reporting such an uptake in crimes do you think? I mean even the most leftie liberal news rag - I can't imagine the mindset for actively ignoring reporting on more rapes and violent crimes etc. - Who or what are they afraid of?

Is it even as bad as rightists say or is it somewhere in the middle?


----------



## birthday_massacre

yeahbaby! said:


> What is the motivation for media agencies not reporting such an uptake in crimes do you think? I mean even the most leftie liberal news rag - I can't imagine the mindset for actively ignoring reporting on more rapes and violent crimes etc. - Who or what are they afraid of?
> 
> Is it even as bad as rightists say or is it somewhere in the middle?


Just playing devils advocate but what if the stats show immigrants are not committing the rapes and it's the native people of the country, that could be a reason the cops want to hide that too. 

This is why I think we can all agree they should report on those stats to get the real story.


----------



## yeahbaby!

birthday_massacre said:


> Just playing devils advocate but what if the stats show immigrants are not committing the rapes and it's the native people of the country, that could be a reason the cops want to hide that too.
> 
> This is why I think we can all agree they should report on those stats to get the real story.


Sure that's a possibility - and it's the easiest thing in the world to blame domestic problems on a soft target boogeyman of immigrants. Sometimes it can be too simple an answer to a complex problem.


----------



## DOPA

yeahbaby! said:


> What is the motivation for media agencies not reporting such an uptake in crimes do you think? I mean even the most leftie liberal news rag - I can't imagine the mindset for actively ignoring reporting on more rapes and violent crimes etc. - Who or what are they afraid of?
> 
> Is it even as bad as rightists say or is it somewhere in the middle?


If what was claimed about the authorities not liking the results from the last 2005 study on the criminal activities of migrants is true then there is a real chance what the right wing are saying is indeed true. I reckon it is at least very true on the sexual assault angle. Not so sure on the violence angle. Could be somewhere in the middle overall.

I think the motivation is that they don't want immigrants to be demonized due to the fact they want to create a tolerate and diverse society. That might sound insane but I can't think of any other reason to not report on it other than protect certain groups of people.


----------



## yeahbaby!

L-DOPA said:


> If what was claimed about the authorities not liking the results from the last 2005 study on the criminal activities of migrants is true then there is a real chance what the right wing are saying is indeed true. I reckon it is at least very true on the sexual assault angle. Not so sure on the violence angle. Could be somewhere in the middle overall.
> 
> I think the motivation is that they don't want immigrants to be demonized due to the fact they want to create a tolerate and diverse society. That might sound insane but I can't think of any other reason to not report on it other than protect certain groups of people.


Yeah it is a bit insane because when you're ignoring crimes from a certain group for any reason, you're doing so to the detriment of the victims and potential victims.

I think the problem as usual comes from the extremist commentators who want to blame EVERYTHING on the out group, while the other extreme end won't hear anything bad about the same out group in a twisted retaliation circle jerk. Being extreme about these things has become the only way to get paid however so he who shouts the loudest wins.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

> *White House expects Justice crackdown on legalized marijuana*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: length
> 
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department will step up enforcement of federal law against recreational marijuana, White House spokesman Sean Spicer said Thursday, offering the Trump administration's strongest indication to date of a looming crackdown on the drug, even as a solid majority of Americans believe it should be legal.
> 
> "I do believe you'll see greater enforcement of it," Spicer said in response to a question during a news conference. But he offered no details about what such enforcement would entail. President Donald Trump does not oppose medical marijuana, he added, but "that's very different than recreational use, which is something the Department of Justice will be further looking into."
> 
> A renewed focus on recreational marijuana in states that have legalized pot would present a departure from the Trump administration's statements in favor of states' rights. A day earlier, the administration announced that the issue of transgender student bathroom access was best left to states and local communities to decide.
> 
> Enforcement would also shift away from marijuana policy under the Obama administration, which said in a 2013 memo that it would not intervene in state's marijuana laws as long as they keep the drug from crossing state lines and away from children and drug cartels.
> 
> But the memo carried no force of law and could be rewritten by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who has consistently said he opposes legal marijuana but has not indicated what he might do.
> 
> Eight states and Washington, D.C., have legalized marijuana for recreational use. The Justice Department has several options available should it decide to enforce the law, including filing lawsuits on the grounds that state laws regulating pot are unconstitutional because they are pre-empted by federal law. Enforcement could also be as simple as directing U.S. attorneys to send letters to recreational marijuana businesses letting them know they are breaking the law.
> 
> Washington's attorney general, Bob Ferguson, said he and Gov. Jay Inslee, both Democrats, requested a meeting with Sessions about his approach to legal, regulated marijuana. Ferguson led the states in fighting off Trump's executive order on immigration in court and said Thursday he's prepared to lead the way in defending legal marijuana, too.
> 
> "We will resist any efforts to thwart the will of the voters in Washington," Ferguson said.
> 
> Kevin Sabet, head of the group Smart Approaches to Marijuana, said pot enforcement is needed for public safety and Spicer's comments made him hopeful.
> 
> "The current situation is unsustainable," Sabet said in a statement. "This isn't an issue about states' rights, it's an issue of public health and safety for communities."
> 
> Spicer's comments came the same day as a Quinnipiac poll said 59 percent of Americans think marijuana should be legal and 71 percent would oppose a federal crackdown.
> 
> Pot advocates said they hoped Spicer's prediction would not come to pass.
> 
> "It is hard to imagine why anyone would want marijuana to be produced and sold by cartels and criminals rather than tightly regulated, taxpaying businesses," said Mason Tvert, communications director for the Marijuana Policy Project.
> 
> States have been flouting the U.S. Controlled Substances Act since at least 1996, when California voters approved marijuana for sick people, a direct conflict with federal guidelines barring the use of marijuana for medical purposes.
> 
> And presidents since Bill Clinton have said the federal government unequivocally rejects a state's ability to modify federal drug law.
> 
> However, three presidents over the last 20 years have each concluded that the limited resources of the U.S. Department of Justice are best spent pursuing large drug cartels, not individual users of marijuana.
> 
> Nevada state Senate Majority Leader Aaron Ford said in a statement Thursday that meddling in recreational pot laws would be federal overreach and harm state coffers that fund education.
> 
> In Washington state, sales at licensed pot shops now average nearly $4.4 million per day — with little evidence of any negative societal effects. That's close to $1 billion in sales so far for the fiscal year that began last July, some $184 million of which is state tax revenue.





> *Sessions signals support for private prisons, rescinds memo meant to phase out their use*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: length
> 
> 
> 
> Attorney General Jeff Sessions signaled his support Thursday for the federal government to continue to use private prisons, rescinding a memo under President Obama meant to phase out their use.
> 
> Sessions issued a new memo to replace the one issued last August by former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates.
> 
> The previous memo told the the Bureau of Prisons to begin reducing, and ultimately end its use of privately run prisons.
> 
> Yates said at the time the facilities were less well run than those managed by the Bureau of Prisons, and were less necessary given declines in the overall prison population.
> 
> In his memo Thursday, Sessions said that Yates' directive contradicted longstanding Justice Department policy and "impaired the Bureau's ability to meet the future needs of the federal correctional system."
> 
> The Bureau of Prisons has 12 private prison contracts, which house approximately 21,000 inmates.
> 
> The latest memo — issued just two weeks after Sessions was sworn in as attorney general — could be part of a more expansive rollback of criminal justice policies enacted by the Obama administration Justice Department, including directives against seeking mandatory minimum punishments for nonviolent drug offenders.
> 
> The private prison industry has been a major contributor to Republican political campaigns, particularly in recent years.
> 
> As a candidate, President Donald Trump said he supported the use of private prisons, and the shares of the major companies — including Geo Group and CoreCivic Co., formerly Corrections Corporation of America — jumped after the election amid anticipation that the incoming administration would again turn to them.
> 
> "I do think we can do a lot of privatizations and private prisons. It seems to work a lot better," Trump told MSNBC in March.
> 
> The federal government started to rely on private prisons in the late 1990s because of overcrowding. Many of the federal prison inmates in private facilities are foreign nationals who are being held on immigration offenses. The Yates policy did not extend to prisons used by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which hold tens of thousands of immigrants awaiting deportation.
> 
> Immigration and human rights advocates have long complained about conditions in privately run prisons. An inspector general audit from last August said problems at private prisons in recent years included property damage, injuries and the death of a corrections officer.


Looks like the administration is ramping up the war on drugs. States' rights means so much until it's something they don't like, like legal weed. Private prisons support means more lobbying for stiffer sentences since they need to fill cells to make money. Plus, the President seems to support asset forfeiture without convictions.

Wonderful fpalm


----------



## DOPA

yeahbaby! said:


> Yeah it is a bit insane because when you're ignoring crimes from a certain group for any reason, you're doing so to the detriment of the victims and potential victims.
> 
> I think the problem as usual comes from the extremist commentators who want to blame EVERYTHING on the out group, while the other extreme end won't hear anything bad about the same out group in a twisted retaliation circle jerk. Being extreme about these things has become the only way to get paid however so he who shouts the loudest wins.


Unfortunately, I think because in this case we don't have the proper breakdown of criminal activity of the different nationalities/ethnic groups we're going to have the speculative commentary for a while whether it be people claiming there are no problems (which clearly isn't true) and those who blame all the problems on migrants (not likely to be true either overall).

The biggest losers in all of this though are the Swedish authorities and politicians themselves. By not accurately reporting what is going on including in some really bad and extreme cases (like the Guardian reported on) they are ultimately failing the citizens themselves which is about the worst thing possible in this situation.


----------



## samizayn

https://twitter.com/Caitlyn_Jenner/status/834935434144731136



Had it coming.


----------



## birthday_massacre

L-DOPA said:


> If what was claimed about the authorities not liking the results from the last 2005 study on the criminal activities of migrants is true then there is a real chance what the right wing are saying is indeed true. I reckon it is at least very true on the sexual assault angle. Not so sure on the violence angle. Could be somewhere in the middle overall.
> 
> I think the motivation is that they don't want immigrants to be demonized due to the fact they want to create a tolerate and diverse society. That might sound insane but I can't think of any other reason to not report on it other than protect certain groups of people.


why wouldn't authorities like the results? If all these cops are wanting to quit because of crimes by immigrants, wouldn't they want the stats showing they are committing crimes and not hide those stats if that is true




samizayn said:


> https://twitter.com/Caitlyn_Jenner/status/834935434144731136
> 
> 
> 
> Had it coming.







Trump said leave it the way it is. Let the people use the bathroom they want to. And he admitted there has no been many incidents at all.

He said Jenner can use any bathroom she wants.

but now Trump went back on this.


----------



## Stinger Fan

yeahbaby! said:


> What is the motivation for media agencies not reporting such an uptake in crimes do you think? I mean even the most leftie liberal news rag - I can't imagine the mindset for actively ignoring reporting on more rapes and violent crimes etc. - Who or what are they afraid of?
> 
> Is it even as bad as rightists say or is it somewhere in the middle?


Political correctness. You can look at the UK and the Rotherham child abuse scandal where for about 15 years over 1400 children were kidnapped , raped and trafficked by British-Pakistani Muslim men that went unreported and in some cases covered up for fear of giving fuel to Islamaphobia.


----------



## DOPA

birthday_massacre said:


> why wouldn't authorities like the results? If all these cops are wanting to quit because of crimes by immigrants, wouldn't they want the stats showing they are committing crimes and not hide those stats if that is true


Sweden's whole premise with their immigration policies has been about multiculturalism, diversity and tolerance. I know because it's the same thing the UK was sold under Tony Blair. If the results rather than showing assimilation and peace instead shows that there is a high level of immigrant crime that has come with the policies and aims in which they are driven by then it undermines what they have been saying about how a high level of immigration and open borders are a good thing for the country. Not to mention as mentioned, they would want to protect these groups of people due to political correctness and not wanting to come across as bigoted or racist.

This is of course however just speculation on why they decided to not have the complete breakdown on crime with ethnicity and nationality. Either way we agree it is not a good course to take and should be reversed.


----------



## birthday_massacre

L-DOPA said:


> Sweden's whole premise with their immigration policies has been about multiculturalism, diversity and tolerance. I know because it's the same thing the UK was sold under Tony Blair. If the results rather than showing assimilation and peace instead shows that there is a high level of immigrant crime that has come with the policies and aims in which they are driven by then it undermines what they have been saying about how a high level of immigration and open borders are a good thing for the country.* Not to mention as mentioned, they would want to protect these groups of people due to political correctness and not wanting to come across as bigoted or racist.*
> 
> This is of course however just speculation on why they decided to not have the complete breakdown on crime with ethnicity and nationality. Either way we agree it is not a good course to take and should be reversed.


but if you are reporting facts, its not really bigoted or racist. Its only bigoted or racists if they were to make up stats like that White Supremacist meme that claimed blacks kill 97% of blacks and blacks klll 81% of whites.


----------



## DOPA

birthday_massacre said:


> but if you are reporting facts, its not really bigoted or racist. Its only bigoted or racists if they were to make up stats like that White Supremacist meme that claimed blacks kill 97% of blacks and blacks klll 81% of whites.


You would think that wouldn't you? 

These are really questions to ask the Swedes themselves, I really don't understand it but I have seen situations here in the UK like the Rotherham rape gangs where instances of crime were deliberately covered up out of fear of being branded racist, which is both wholly insane and sad...


----------



## yeahbaby!

Stinger Fan said:


> Political correctness. You can look at the UK and the Rotherham child abuse scandal where for about 15 years over 1400 children were kidnapped , raped and trafficked by British-Pakistani Muslim men that went unreported and in some cases covered up for fear of giving fuel to Islamaphobia.


Well I'm not exactly willing to accept that at face value. There are plenty of reasons why hideous crimes and events can go unreported and it isn't always PC related. I'd want to do some research.

We all know that there's horrible things and crimes going on all the time in Africa for example but it's never really reported much on the regular cycle. Why? I can't think of any PC reason why.


----------



## Art Vandaley

http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/donald-trump-reverses-barack-obama-ban-on-private-prisons-1662943 - So Trump is reversing the ban on private prisons. 

lol reminds me of time an elected Judge was caught giving children who had been caught littering and had a maximum sentence of a small fine up to 6 months in jail because his election campaigns were funded by the local private prison. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/walter...ence-for-prison-kickback-scheme/#531426be4aef


Here is a good article on why private prisons are fucked


> Private Prisons Embrace Corruption to Boost Profits
> By David Yankovich
> 330
> 2015-09-16-1442399142-1368943-2800787747_f0e12d5fdc.jpg
> 
> It seems like something out of a bleak novel. A dark police state where prisons are run by major corporations whose sole source of income is occupancy. This would be a story where nobody listens because the people crying foul are being seen as weak on crime and in defense of prisoners who have had their right of freedom taken from them.
> 
> Let’s start with this. In the United States of America there are companies that profit if you go to jail. They want you to go to jail. These business spent over $45 million in lobbying to make sure when you get sent to jail, you go to their jails. They are so good at this that there was a 37% increase of private prisoners between 2002-2009. They are currently outpacing state and federally funded prisons.
> 
> There is no evidence that there is any savings in the use of private prisons.
> 
> And I am not talking about violent prisoners who get long sentences. On the contrary, many people are in jail for non-violent offenses.
> 
> This is not just adult prisoners either, many of these private prisons are housing youth offenders. The stories of abuse and terror at some of these facilities are shocking.
> 
> This is an entire industry that lobbies politicians for more funding to fill their walls. An industry with little oversight, who makes money per prisoner, regardless of how little they pay yearly for this prisoner’s well-being.
> 
> Remember this is a business, this is for-profit. In the end, this is a debt that can never be paid by most people... if they miss their payment day, their license will be suspended and additional fees will be incurred.
> 
> Here it is in its simplest of terms.
> 
> More prisoners incarcerated= more income for business. That is a very dangerous grey area of morality to be walking for the government.
> 
> Prisons in Arizona receive a guaranteed income of 100% occupancy at $49.03 per day.
> 
> Total Paid Per Prisoner: $1500 monthly
> 
> Inmate meals cost prisoners $3 a day
> 
> Many inmates receive dollar store items such as a tube of toothpaste that is expired. My source claimed it was from 2005 (in 2012). A Bar of state soap, thumb toothbrush, 1 bendable comb, toilet paper once weekly, 5 Kotex and 5 tampons.
> 
> Doctors cost inmates $5 per visit and $5 per prescription.
> States with private prisons have been observed to dole out sentences double the time of state-run prisons.
> 
> Does this put judges in danger of incarcerating people who otherwise wouldn’t have been sent to prison because of the lobbying of lawmakers? Does this $3.3 billion mean corruption and forced sentences, kickbacks, and other increases in illegal prosecution?
> 
> The answer is yes.
> 
> A prison in this scenario is a business, and when you are sent there... well, if you can’t afford a bar of soap, you will get it added to your account. If you can’t afford a meal, it will be tacked onto your account. When you finally pay your debt to society with time, you owe more in prison restitution. How do you get on your feet?
> 
> You don’t.
> 
> For-Profit Prisons make money on repeat offenses. There will be no money for treatment because their income is based on the number of prisoners they have. Just like a hotel makes money on occupancy.
> 
> The prison workers are lower paid than state workers. They are trained more poorly, and work with limited oversight, not by the government, but by individual corporations. The training found in one prison will be completely different in another... as well as the living conditions.
> 
> Now you are seeing what many private prisons in the United States are run like.
> 
> 2015-09-16-1442398867-2081924-rCALIFORNIAPRISONOVERCROWDINGlarge570.jpg
> 
> Except- Private Prisons could be bribing judges for more inmates. There is evidence that this is occurring regularly. That kind of corruption means that your DUI could turn into a maximum sentence.
> 
> When people think of prisons, there is a conservative mindset of great food, workout equipment, entertainment, and a bunch of criminals with a lot of time on their hands having an easy life. Nothing could be further from the truth. Even the least notorious private-prisons are rife with inequality, dangers, and misery. A young, first time offender is often placed right next to a career criminal.
> 
> There is a need for private prisons to have better oversight and regulations, if not be outright banned for the corruption it causes.
> 
> With privatization we have seen a strong lobbyist presence, insider deals, and fraud. Florida itself currently has 7 privately operated prisons. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the number of prisoners being added to privately run jails is outpacing the overall prison population by 17 percent.
> 
> Again, the higher the occupancy the more profit.
> 
> When you see a court document, it doesn’t say “Big Prison Corporation vs Defendant” it says “The State vs Defendant.” There is an obligation to ensure that prisoners are safe, that the populations around prisoners are safe and justice is served. In the end, we need to know that our government is in charge of our prisons and not the highest bidder.
> 
> Justice should be not-for-profit.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-yankovich/be-careful-private-prison_b_8144860.html

Yet another WOAT idea from the WOAT President.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Alkomesh2 said:


> http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/donald-trump-reverses-barack-obama-ban-on-private-prisons-1662943
> 
> lol reminds me of time an elected Judge was caught giving children who had been caught littering and had a maximum sentence of a small fine up to 6 months in jail because his election campaigns were funded by the local private prison.
> 
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/walter...ence-for-prison-kickback-scheme/#531426be4aef
> 
> 
> Here is a good article on why private prisons are fucked
> 
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-yankovich/be-careful-private-prison_b_8144860.html
> 
> Yet another WOAT idea from the WOAT President.


Creating more jobs for prisons! :trump


----------



## birthday_massacre

Alkomesh2 said:


> http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/donald-trump-reverses-barack-obama-ban-on-private-prisons-1662943 - So Trump is reversing the ban on private prisons.
> 
> lol reminds me of time an elected Judge was caught giving children who had been caught littering and had a maximum sentence of a small fine up to 6 months in jail because his election campaigns were funded by the local private prison.
> 
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/walter...ence-for-prison-kickback-scheme/#531426be4aef
> 
> 
> Here is a good article on why private prisons are fucked
> 
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-yankovich/be-careful-private-prison_b_8144860.html
> 
> Yet another WOAT idea from the WOAT President.


This is why Trump and the GOP dont want to make pot legal, so they can stick more blacks in jail for smoking pot, and of course most whites will get a slap on the wrist for the same offense.

Then Trump can say SEE look at all the blacks in jail, they are bad dudes.


----------



## Stinger Fan

yeahbaby! said:


> Well I'm not exactly willing to accept that at face value. There are plenty of reasons why hideous crimes and events can go unreported and it isn't always PC related. I'd want to do some research.
> 
> We all know that there's horrible things and crimes going on all the time in Africa for example but it's never really reported much on the regular cycle. Why? I can't think of any PC reason why.


The police literally said it was due to political correctness


----------



## DOPA

:lmao This was too funny not to post :lmao.


----------



## Miss Sally

Attacking weed is silly, if anything I should be able to pick up weed from.the local grocery store along with a bottle of wine.


----------



## asdf0501

Well, i was just passing by and i saw a conversaton about numbers, so i wanted to offer a different perspective.


I will start saying that there is a serious difference between reading raw data and trying to extrapolate conclussions from it, numbers normally dont show as much as we would like to see in them


L-DOPA said:


> @birthday_massacre @downnice
> 
> https://www.bra.se/bra/brott-och-statistik/valdtakt-och-sexualbrott.html
> 
> 
> 
> The chart is in that link, I tried getting the image from the link but couldn't, so instead I saved it and have linked it myself, have a look.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see clearly since 2012, the number of rapes have doubled. The numbers did go down in 2014 but spiked right back up during the height of the migrant crisis the following year. The evidence claimed in terms of rapes going down was cherry picked from the chart I have shown, it does not show the entire picture as the chart here shows.


It's important to show that the rape rates in that chart are breaked by genre. And you see a spike in all categories without being one to behave different from the others. More over, the graffic doesn't seem to insinuate that rape among women behave differently than those among men across the spike.

This is important in a thesis of refugiees being the cause of the increase, because if that was the case, the increase in women rape should behave differently and break at an even bigger rate than the other genres. That or you have to accept that Religion is not a fact at all in refugiees being more propense to comitee rape, but that would mean that all immigrants are propense to this and not just reufigees.

This among other things is why we should not asume inmediately that a correlation is causation....

Also, can we agree that in a country where there is a little more than 100 murders a year, Murder rates are practically non-issues in reality no?



L-DOPA said:


> The other statistics from articles I am posting comes directly from Swedish media and I will be translating the articles into English here. These are some of the things the left media are not telling you, for example in 2014-2015 there was an increase in lethal violence by 29%: http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/dodligt-vald-och-bedragerier-okar/


There is a difference between raw data and relative data in statistics and is important to use both when you analyze things.

Yeah, 29% seems like a big number, until you see that you're talking about 26 cases because the total is 112. the number is so small that maybe there is no statistical difference between both numbers and lethal violence could be flat, even if the number was significative 26 cases could just be a normal growth given the growth in population from year to year, even more, what you see here is a reduction of violence instead of a increase, because population is increasing at a larger rate than crime.... 

percentages are relative numbers not raw and using them is good if you also report the absolute numbers they are talking about

Just to do a comparison, the same statistics in USA is 15,696 cases for 2015
https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/latest-crime-statistics-released

If i take this numbers just in raw it show that Sweden is at light years of American in crime rates and in reality no one would argue that, unless we take on account the penitenciary industry in America and that's another entire issue


The bigger data show increases of 4% in normal crime and financial issues. Which is particularly normal, specially because the last two yeas are showing and increase in crime across the world. Outside of the rape data, and i'm going to touch that later, there is nothing in te article showing a worrying increase in crime and/or violence




L-DOPA said:


> Gun violence in Sweden over the last 9 years has also dramatically gone up by 84% over the last 9 years: http://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/skjutningarna-okar-dramatiskt-i-sverige


Same thing, this article is more disingenous because they don't mention raw numbers, but whatever.

I did the calculations myself

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/sweden

In Sweden, annual deaths resulting from firearms total


2014: 154 
2013: 125 
2012: 141 
2011: 135
2010: 138
2009: 157 
2008: 138 
2007: 135
2006: 139 
2005: 137
2004: 156
2003: 141 
2002: 192
2001: 164
2000: 169
1999: 188
1998: 167
1997: 169
1996: 177

If you project this to the 184 of 2016, your 84% is equivalent to 49 cases in total and an average of 5.8 cases by year. Let also mention, again, that this increase is far behind the growth of population... only 2016 shows a partial increase in crime which could also be a global tendency but yeah.




L-DOPA said:


> Not only this but Norway and Denmark are having similar problems as outlined in two articles from those countries:
> 
> https://www.svd.se/brottslighet-bland-invandrare-borde-oroa-alla-partier


This article is particularly painful

There is not link of the sources, there is never a mention of where the statistics are obtained from or how, for example if the numbers are for 1000 inhabitans of general population or by population of migrants, if it's the second the comparisons made in the article aren't valids, and that's just one example. This without even mentioning this little gem:

"Oslo police have for years presented rape statistics in that way - *and found that all the rapes of known offenders in the past five years has been committed by immigrants* -"

LOL, like, seriously? gimme a break....





L-DOPA said:


> http://www.mx.dk/nyheder/danmark/story/15585293



And in this case the number is irrelevant.

first of all, the number is spread across the last ten years which means that if the argument is about the recent influx in migration you're inflating the statistics to acomodate your argument. Even greater, the statistic is until 2013, which mean that is paritcularly irrelevant.

Two, again, there is no break in the number. And there is a particular bias, let's say just for the sake of argument that in those ten years the total numbers of migrants in denmark is one third of the native population, then the propensity is similar. Not to mention the fact that you need to break by year to understand why you obtain that number...

I'm no gonna touch the articles of The Guardian because casual evidence and blah blah. But yes, let's talk about rape numbers




L-DOPA said:


> The writer of this article is correct, the raw data does show a huge uptick, particularly in terms of rape over the last few years at the very least. Like he says, Sweden does not record what ethnicity the criminal is and therefore it is difficult to really get true numbers. But if liberal Sweden as they say do not have a massive problem with migrants, why are they hiding the data on it? Why are they not even recording it? These are very relevant questions to ask. If there truly is a problem the best way for them to debunk it is to start recording the ethnicity of the criminals again like every other modern country. This is why it is called into question about the impact of the immigration to Sweden comes from.


Nop, the data does not show a huge stick outside of rape like we been discussing before. 

And i'm gonna argue something different. You know why Sweden is so discussed? precissely because it does what you're saying. There is no conclusive literature in the relation between migration and crime basically because is almost impossible to prove causality. The most significant case is america, where researchers have shown that immigration don't contribute to crime or reduces it basically because migrants are more respectful of the law in fear of being deported.

Sweden is a perfect target basically because there is no relation to make between race and crime therefore it facilitate interpreations like the ones the articles you cite does.

But for example, why no one says nothing about bosnian migration for example? in the cleansening war over Yugoslavia, Sweden took over 100.000 bosnians, which by the way are in majority muslims, which is more than double the number of refugiees than the ones they have been taking from Syria and no one seems to discussed crime on those times. Ask yourself why this happens ....


But yeah, rape numbers....


I already said it at your graph, but it show not particular change in tendencies over increase by genre (the changes are basically for the baselines...) which completely desmantles, preliminary, the idea of migrants being a culprit of it or that the rapes are comitted by a specific religion, unless of course muslims are equally interested in raping men....

Moreover, Denmark and Sweden have had a higher rate of rape than the rest of Europe by at least 14 years not only in these 3 or four years. That is because both countries have introduced legislation that expand the meaning, definitions and circunstances that constitute rape and have continue to do it, as far as i know, just in 2013 sweden introduced like 10 news categories of rape and started to do it as early as 2004-2005.

And this also shows something special, comparing rape rates between countries is idiotic because every country not only has different definitions under the law of what constitute rape, they also have differents definitions of basic things like age of consent....



L-DOPA said:


> What is clear is that the liberal media portrayal of there being no problems whatsoever in Sweden is vastly dishonest but at the same time it cannot be proved what is causing the uptick in rape and violent crime until the Swedish authorities start recording the crimes more honestly and releasing them. The link which downnice has shown does have the author claim that Sweden stopped recording the ethnicity of the criminals because they did not like the results but unfortunately I cannot open the article fully. It requires subscription and I'm not paying money to subscribe to read 1 or 2 articles :lol.


Sweden does surveys on the perception of crimes and declaration of them.

Guess what, over the last 10 years all the categories of crime has stayed flat, yes, even rape...

https://www.bra.se/bra/brott-och-statistik/statistik/utsatthet-for-brott/ntu.html


There is a issue of bad research or bad sources for data that is painful to see. And i'm not talking about conservative sources but sources in general, people should found research in general instead of citing blogs or youtubers

Some examples of this "political" mis-understanding and use of crime rates to justify this vision of immigration is showed here

https://debunkingdenialism.com/2015/12/12/how-anti-immigration-activists-misuse-rape-statistics/


----------



## Goku

hey asdf, still at it ey?


----------



## asdf0501

bleh, from time to time i still read here, so why not?

I also had nothing more to do today


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/834940370148536323
:lol


----------



## yeahbaby!

Stinger Fan said:


> The police literally said it was due to political correctness


Okay well that's pretty damning evidence! Maybe just say that in the first place and/or better yet post a source?


----------



## FriedTofu

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/3...ords-shooting-as-reason-not-to-hold-town-hall


> Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) invoked the 2011 shooting of former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz.) at a constituent event this week as a reason not to hold a public town hall.
> 
> "At this time there are groups from the more violent strains of the leftist ideology, some even being paid, who are preying on public town halls to wreak havoc and threaten public safety," Gohmert said Tuesday in a statement.
> 
> "Threats are nothing new to me and I have gotten my share as a felony judge. However, the House Sergeant at Arms advised us after former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords was shot at a public appearance, that civilian attendees at Congressional public events stand the most chance of being harmed or killed—just as happened there."
> 
> Gohmert said he could communicate with thousands of constituents through tele-town hall meetings, arguing even more people will be able to participating in town hall meetings held this way.
> 
> "This technology allows the inclusion of our disabled and more elderly seniors who have opinions but who could not otherwise come to an actual town hall meeting and ask questions," he said.
> 
> "Then, when the threat of violence at town hall meetings recedes, we can go back to having the civil town hall meetings I’ve had in the past to supplement the masses reached in our telephone town halls. "
> 
> Giffords survived being shot in the head at a constituent meeting in 2011. The shooting in Tucson left six people dead and several more wounded.
> 
> Republican lawmakers have been faced recently with hoards of protesters when holding town halls.
> 
> President Trump earlier this week referred to the protesters as "so-called angry crowds."
> 
> "The so-called angry crowds in home districts of some Republicans are actually, in numerous cases, planned out by liberal activists. Sad!" Trump tweeted Tuesday.


:wtf


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/834497332314046470
*This administration continues to embarrass itself with blatant lies, excuse me, "alternative facts", that can easily be disproven with a google search.*


----------



## CamillePunk

Legit BOSS said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/834497332314046470
> *This administration continues to embarrass itself with blatant lies, excuse me, "alternative facts", that can easily be disproven with a google search.*


That tweet doesn't disprove anything though. How do we know the ACA and the private sector job growth had anything to do with each other? 


Steve Bannon was extremely impressive at CPAC. His interview alongside Reince Priebus below:


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

CamillePunk said:


> That tweet doesn't disprove anything though. How do we know the ACA and the private sector job growth had anything to do with each other?


*
So you're going with the "Oh you can't prove they're related" argument, while simultaneously allowing Pence to throw out baseless accusations with no proof whatsoever? It's been proven that millions of jobs were created during Obama's administration. The recession ended under Obama. There's nothing to indicate that Obamacare is a job killer. Pence is talking out of his ass to justify the boneheaded move of canceling the ACA with no real backup plan.*


----------



## Miss Sally

Legit BOSS said:


> *
> So you're going with the "Oh you can't prove they're related" argument, while simultaneously allowing Pence to throw out baseless accusations with no proof whatsoever? It's been proven that millions of jobs were created during Obama's administration. The recession ended under Obama. There's nothing to indicate that Obamacare is a job killer. Pence is talking out of his ass to justify the boneheaded move of canceling the ACA with no real backup plan.*


The Health Care industry did cut back on jobs due to Obamacare, where I worked cut several nurses, laid off many part timer employees and started hiring for jobs that would keep people under part time hours so they didn't have to offer insurance. I have no clue if this was industry wide or simply my state that did this. i really won't comment on the job issue as I've not looked at it enough to really give an objective opinion.


----------



## Reaper

@birthday_massacre - I'm still waiting on you to explain the mechanics of how President Obama created jobs. This is a HUGE pro-Obama talking point and regarded as one of his achievements. I need an explanation as to how he was directly responsible for it. Either give me an explanation or concede that those jobs weren't created by Obama.


----------



## Alco

Fun fact: Presidents don't create jobs.


----------



## Miss Sally

Alco said:


> Fun fact: Presidents don't create jobs.


Ahem! I'll have you know as the President of the Cesaro fan club I created two jobs! Unpaid and volunteer but still jobs!


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> Ahem! I'll have you know as the President of the Cesaro fan club I created two jobs! Unpaid and volunteer but still jobs!


See, I want to become a job creator too, but minimum wage requirements are a barrier :draper2 I have a good business idea but it involves hiring and I may not have the cash flow to meet their salaries. 

Now imagine if someone wanted to create a startup but had limited funds initially. What are they going to do? Look for cheaper labor that's willing to take money under the table (potentially illegal immigrants) or simply not start a business or over-work themselves trying to make the business succeed on their own. And there you have the makings of a depressed economy (especially in small towns) and the creation of the illegal immigrant job market.


----------



## Stinger Fan

yeahbaby! said:


> Okay well that's pretty damning evidence! Maybe just say that in the first place and/or better yet post a source?


I misread the report. The report states that it was because of it, not the actual police admitting to it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...buse-scandal-council-not-fit-for-purpose.html


----------



## birthday_massacre

RipNTear said:


> @birthday_massacre - I'm still waiting on you to explain the mechanics of how President Obama created jobs. This is a HUGE pro-Obama talking point and regarded as one of his achievements. I need an explanation as to how he was directly responsible for it. Either give me an explanation or concede that those jobs weren't created by Obama.


Every decision a president makes has an impact on job creation, from taxes to the choices they make to stimulate the economy all have an effect on job creation. 

Of course you are going to claim presidents don't create jobs because job creation usually under republicans is much lower than under democrats.

So using your logic that presidents don't create jobs is Trump lying when he said he is creating jobs?




Miss Sally said:


> The Health Care industry did cut back on jobs due to Obamacare, where I worked cut several nurses, laid off many part timer employees and started hiring for jobs that would keep people under part time hours so they didn't have to offer insurance. I have no clue if this was industry wide or simply my state that did this. i really won't comment on the job issue as I've not looked at it enough to really give an objective opinion.






Alco said:


> Fun fact: Presidents don't create jobs.





Miss Sally said:


> Ahem! I'll have you know as the President of the Cesaro fan club I created two jobs! Unpaid and volunteer but still jobs!


Gotta love the hypocrisy here. Miss Sally you can't have it both ways. You agree that presidents don't create jobs yet you claim because of ACA the health care industry had to cut back on jobs?

If the president's choices don't create jobs that means they can't lose jobs either.


Anyone who thinks a president choices don't create or lose jobs for the country is just being dishonest.

Because we all know right this second you hear Trump supporters claiming oh look at all the jobs Trump is creating or is going to create.

Everything a president does when it comes to the economy affects jobs either positive or negative. 

It just so happens jobs usually do better under democrats than reps and that is why all the conservatives on here want to claim oh a president doesn't create jobs.

If presidents dont have an effect on jobs what was all this hoopla with the coal miners then?


----------



## Vic Capri

> This administration continues to embarrass itself with blatant lies, excuse me, "alternative facts", that can easily be disproven with a google search.


http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/17/obamacare-killing-jobs-in-new-york-area-executives-tell-federal-reserve-survey.html

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelcannon/2016/02/04/obamacare-is-destroying-jobs-and-heres-the-evidence/#19bca0421332

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelcannon/2016/09/16/new-survey-suggests-obamacare-killing-jobs/#447045976542





























You were saying?

- Vic


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> Every decision a president makes has an impact on job creation, from taxes to the choices they make to stimulate the economy all have an effect on job creation.


Which decisions. Which policies. What are the mechanics? How do those mechanics work. I'm talking about specifics here.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Vic Capri said:


> https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelcannon/2016/02/04/obamacare-is-destroying-jobs-and-heres-the-evidence/#19bca0421332
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were saying?
> 
> - Vic


And Obamacare was a republican healthcare plan based on Romneycare and Republicans loved it when it was called Romneycare

Obamacare was first a conservative idea even before Romneycare.


----------



## birthday_massacre

RipNTear said:


> Which decisions. Which policies. What are the mechanics? How do those mechanics work. I'm talking about specifics here.


Already answered your question, dont have to go into the fine details. Just admit you are wrong and move on.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> Already answered your question, dont have to go into the fine details. Just admit you are wrong and move on.


I didn't even make an assertion so how can I be wrong? 

I asked you to explain the specific mechanics. Considering that you make 1000 word posts on dozens of subjects, you should be able to fully explain and expound upon how presidents create jobs if you know how they do it. Go ahead.


----------



## birthday_massacre

RipNTear said:


> I didn't even make an assertion so how can I be wrong?
> 
> I asked you to explain the specific mechanics. Considering that you make 1000 word posts on dozens of subjects, you should be able to fully explain and expound upon how presidents create jobs if you know how they do it. Go ahead.


I will answer the question one last time since you ignored it the first. 

*Every decision a president makes has an impact on job creation, from taxes to the choices they make to stimulate the economy all have an effect on job creation. *

Like someone already posted putting in the ACA created millions of jobs. So that is one example right there.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> *Every decision a president makes has an impact on job creation, from taxes to the choices they make to stimulate the economy all have an effect on job creation. *


Could you be more specific. 

For example, decision A led to consequence B led to consequence C led to creating jobs and how.

I don't care about someone else's op-ed, or column. I care about how *you *know that Obama created more jobs.


----------



## birthday_massacre

RipNTear said:


> Could you be more specific.
> 
> For example, decision A led to consequence B led to consequence C led to creating jobs and how.
> 
> I don't care about someone else's op-ed, or column. I care about how *you *know that Obama created more jobs.


You and your little games. I'm done. I already answered your question.


----------



## birthday_massacre

http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...e&tse_id=INF_8f372d30faa311e6a22fa5876bd4fd44

Border Patrol Agents Stop Domestic Travelers at New York Airport

Passengers of a domestic Delta flight from San Francisco to New York were told to show their identity documents to uniformed agents of the Customs and Border Protection agency upon their arrival at John F. Kennedy airport on Wednesday evening.
RELATED

Why Trump's Immigration Policy Is a Legal Mess
Experts explain that the administration appears to have overlooked several crucial details
CBP officers are border agents, whose statutory authority is generally limited to international arrivals.
CBP agents inspected passenger identifications on the jetbridge by the door of the aircraft. A CBP spokesman insisted to Rolling Stone that this action is "nothing new" and that there is "no new policy." But the unusual – and legally questionable – search of domestic travelers comes days after the Department of Homeland Security outlined its plans to implement President Trump's sweeping executive order targeting millions of "removable aliens" for deportation.
Upon deplaning from Delta Flight 1583 in New York, passenger Anne Garrett tweeted, "We were told we couldn't disembark without showing our 'documents.'"

Another passenger, Matt O'Rourke, snapped a similar picture. O'Rourke tells Rolling Stone that the Delta flight attendant alerted passengers, "You'll need to show your papers to agents waiting outside the door."
"She was weirded out by it," he says. The agents, O'Rourke says, said nothing to him, but took his ID and scrutinized it for nearly 30 seconds before letting him pass. He describes the experience as "a little bit alarming." Only later did O'Rourke find himself asking, "Why is a customs agent doing this search? The flight didn't enter from another country."
In a statement to Rolling Stone, a spokesperson for CBP said the agency had been asked "to assist in locating an individual possibly aboard Delta flight 1583" who had been "ordered removed by an immigration judge." The spokesman added that CBP agents "requested identification from those on the flight" but that ultimately "[t]he individual was determined not to be on the flight."
Rolling Stone asked CBP to point to its statutory authority to stop and examine the identity documents of deplaning domestic passengers. The spokesman sent a link to a document titled CBP Search Authority. The document refers to CBP's authority to inspect international arrivals. Specifically, it cites 19 C.F.R. 162.6, which states, "All persons, baggage and merchandise arriving in the Customs territory of the United States from places outside thereof are liable to inspection by a CBP officer." The CBP document adds: "CBP has the authority to collect passenger name record information on all travelers entering or leaving the United States." (Emphasis added.)
Asked to clarify CBP's authority over domestic passengers, the spokesman replied that "at this time this is all I have."
Rolling Stone asked CBP to clarify whether the CBP document search was truly a "request" – or instead a legally binding demand by the agents. The spokesman again could not clarify CBP's legal authority, warning only, "It is always best to cooperate with law enforcement, so as to expedite your exiting the airport in a timely manner."
Rolling Stone asked the New York Civil Liberties Union for its understanding of the law in this incident. NYCLU Staff Attorney Jordan Wells writes that "CBP does not have carte blanche to refuse to let people off a domestic flight until they show ID." His advice: "While one may choose to produce identity documents to avoid further hassle, it is important to remember that in the United States people have a constitutionally protected right to remain silent."


----------



## Miss Sally

birthday_massacre said:


> Every decision a president makes has an impact on job creation, from taxes to the choices they make to stimulate the economy all have an effect on job creation.
> 
> Of course you are going to claim presidents don't create jobs because job creation usually under republicans is much lower than under democrats.
> 
> So using your logic that presidents don't create jobs is Trump lying when he said he is creating jobs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gotta love the hypocrisy here. Miss Sally you can't have it both ways. You agree that presidents don't create jobs yet you claim because of ACA the health care industry had to cut back on jobs?
> 
> If the president's choices don't create jobs that means they can't lose jobs either.
> 
> 
> Anyone who thinks a president choices don't create or lose jobs for the country is just being dishonest.
> 
> Because we all know right this second you hear Trump supporters claiming oh look at all the jobs Trump is creating or is going to create.
> 
> Everything a president does when it comes to the economy affects jobs either positive or negative.
> 
> It just so happens jobs usually do better under democrats than reps and that is why all the conservatives on here want to claim oh a president doesn't create jobs.
> 
> If presidents dont have an effect on jobs what was all this hoopla with the coal miners then?


That's what they told us that Obamacare was the reason for the cutback of workers and hours. I did mention that I don't know enough about it to give an objective opinion. I'm simply going by what the higher ups at the hospital told us all. Maybe they were lying, maybe it was true? I have no idea. But Obamacare was the reason for losses of jobs in some companies and as I said, I have zero clue as if that was the case or an excuse to do cutbacks.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> You and your little games. I'm done. I already answered your question.


Expecting someone to explain something they believe isn't a game. It's simply asking them to explain something they believe. 

You know, "I don't know exactly how" is something that people can admit to. No one is expected to know everything. But when someone doesn't know anything, tossing out vague BS like you did isn't the answer because it's an insult to people who actually do understand how things work. 

I don't know how to build an engine of a car, but saying that "you put a bunch of whatzits together and screw things to things and glue shit to shit" isn't a valid answer. Generally that's kind of what happens, but how much do you now know about how much I know about how to build an engine?


----------



## birthday_massacre

RipNTear said:


> Expecting someone to explain something they believe isn't a game. It's simply asking them to explain something they believe.
> 
> You know, "I don't know exactly how" is something that people can admit to. No one is expected to know everything. But when someone doesn't know anything, tossing out vague BS like you did isn't the answer because it's an insult to people who actually do understand how things work.
> 
> I don't know how to build an engine of a car, but saying that "you put a bunch of whatzits together and screw things to things and glue shit to shit" isn't a valid answer. Generally that's kind of what happens, but how much do you now know about how much I know about how to build an engine?


I did answer and you pretended I did not, that is your little game. And nothing I said was vague. 

And sorry but if someone asks you what runs the car and you say the engine, you don't need to explain how the engine works to explain the engine is why the car is running.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> I did answer and you pretended I did not, that is your little game. And nothing I said was vague.
> 
> And sorry but if someone asks you what runs the car and you say the engine, you don't need to explain how the engine works to explain the engine is why the car is running.


No but if you were asked to explain how the engine works you need to give specifics. You can look them up. Understand how it works and give an elaborate answer. I can do that in 5 minutes if I was asked for the specifics. 

I asked you for specifics. You didn't give any since you don't know and you don't even know how to find out.

You'll avoid answering this question because you don't know the specifics and don't want to admit that you don't know.


----------



## birthday_massacre

RipNTear said:


> No but if you were asked to explain how the engine works you need to give specifics. You can look them up. Understand how it works and give an elaborate answer. I can do that in 5 minutes if I was asked for the specifics.
> 
> I asked you for specifics. You didn't give any since you don't know and you don't even know how to find out.
> 
> You'll avoid answering this question because you don't know the specifics and don't want to admit that you don't know.


I gave you the broad answer and I was right. I dont need to get into specifics because even if I did then you would want to get even more specifics and so on and so on.

You know the president has an effect on jobs but you just don't want to admit it.

As for admitting I don't know? I do know the president creates (or loses jobs) like I posted above, but do I have a in-depth knowledge, no but that doesn't mean my broad knowledge isnt enough.

Go back to the car example. I know the engine runs the car, but I don't have to know how the engine works specifically to know the engine runs the car.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*OH look the republicans being hypocrites again
So much for leaving it up to the states
*

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...al-marijuana-is-legal/?utm_term=.1b808e160994

Spicer: Feds could step up enforcement against marijuana use in states


White House press secretary Sean Spicer said Thursday that he expects states to be subject to “greater enforcement” of federal laws against marijuana use, a move that could undercut the growing number of jurisdictions moving to legalize the drug for recreational purposes.

Spicer, speaking at a White House press briefing, said that President Trump sees “a big difference” between use of marijuana for medical purposes and for recreational purposes.

“The president understands the pain and suffering that many people go through who are facing, especially terminal diseases, and the comfort that some of these drugs, including medical marijuana, can bring to them,” Spicer told reporters.

Spicer said that state’s allowance of marijuana for recreational purposes “ is something the Department of Justice, I think, will be further looking into.”

[Bannon: Trump administration is in unending battle for ‘deconstruction of the administrative state’]

The Department of Justice declined to comment on Spicer’s remarks on Thursday afternoon following the briefing.

As of the beginning of the year, seven states and the District had adopted laws legalizing marijuana for recreational use.

In 2013 — as states took up the issue of legalizing marijuana — then-Deputy Attorney General James Cole issued a memo reiterating that the Justice Department would continue to enforce federal drug laws.

But Cole said that in places that legalized marijuana, federal officials should look to the regulatory systems of states to determine whether they should intervene.

In states with robust systems, Cole wrote, federal officials should continue to leave the matter to local law enforcement. But states without such systems might face challenges from the federal government, he said.

Cole said the federal government’s priorities would include preventing distribution of marijuana to children and preventing cartels from getting their hands on revenue from marijuana sales.

Advocates of liberal marijuana laws have eyed the arrival of Attorney General Jeff Sessions with unease. The former Republican senator from Alabama has a long track record of speaking out against marijuana use.

In his confirmation hearings, Sessions acknowledged that disrupting states marijuana markets by enforcing federal marijuana laws could create a strain on federal resources. But he said he “won’t commit to never enforcing the law.”

Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson, whose state was among the first to authorize recreational use of marijuana, said in a statement Thursday that he was “deeply disappointed” to hear Spicer’s comments and noted his earlier call for a meeting with Sessions to discuss the matter.

“My office will use every tool at our disposal to ensure that the federal government does not undermine Washington’s successful, unified system for regulating recreational and medical marijuana,” he said.

In explaining the rationale of greater enforcement of federal marijuana laws, Spicer cited growing problems with other illicit drug use.

"I think that when you see something like the opioid addiction crisis blossoming in so many states around this country, the last thing we should be doing is encouraging people," Spicer said. There is still a federal law that we need to abide by."

In a statement Thursday afternoon, the National Cannabis Industry Association took issue with that argument.

"Science has discredited the idea that marijuana serves as any kind of gateway drug, and the addiction and death rates associated with opioids simply do not occur in any way with cannabis," said Aaron Smith, the organization's executive director.

Today's WorldView
What's most important from where the world meets Washington
Sign up
He also argued that the current state programs are well-regulated and operating well.

In a separate statement Thursday, the Marijuana Policy Project pointed to polling showing a strong majority of voters opposed to the government enforcing federal prohibition laws in states where marijuana is legal for medical or adult use.

“The vast majority of Americans agree that the federal government has no business interfering in state marijuana laws,” said Mason Tvert, the group’s communications director. “This administration is claiming that it values states’ rights, so we hope they will respect the rights of states to determine their own marijuana policies.”

An array of marijuana industry executives also spoke out against Spicer's comments, including Danny Davis, managing partner of Convectium.

"We are hopeful that Mr. Spicer’s comments are not representative of the entire administration," Davis said. "Many of the states who helped elect President Trump just voted to also support recreational marijuana; it is hard to imagine that he would push an agenda with the support ratings where they are."


----------



## Vic Capri

> That's what they told us that Obamacare was the reason for the cutback of workers and hours. I did mention that I don't know enough about it to give an objective opinion. I'm simply going by what the higher ups at the hospital told us all. Maybe they were lying, maybe it was true? I have no idea. But Obamacare was the reason for losses of jobs in some companies and as I said, I have zero clue as if that was the case or an excuse to do cutbacks.


Obamacare is killing jobs because it requires employers to offer health insurance to their full-time workers, which costs businesses more money. That forces them to either fire people and cut hours (the full-timers become part-timers forcing them to work two jobs in order to make ends meet) to still make a profit and/or stay within budget.

Anybody who is still able to work one full-time job at 40 hours a week should thank their lucky stars.

- Vic


----------



## birthday_massacre

Vic Capri said:


> Obamacare is killing jobs because it requires employers to offer health insurance to their full-time workers, which costs businesses more money. That forces them to either fire people and cut hours (the full-timers become part-timers forcing them to work two jobs in order to make ends meet) to still make a profit and/or stay within budget.
> 
> Anybody who still is able to work one full-time job at 40 hours a week should thank their lucky stars.
> 
> - Vic


Full-time workers should get insurance.


----------



## Reaper

Vic Capri said:


> Anybody who still is able to work one full-time job at 40 hours a week should thank their lucky stars.
> 
> - Vic


Understanding the economy is pretty much the only reason why my wife continues to stay in her job.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> And Obamacare was a republican healthcare plan based on Romneycare and Republicans loved it when it was called Romneycare
> 
> Obamacare was first a conservative idea even before Romneycare.


There's the spin. I remember when the ACA passed and I remember the Dems and Obama being very happy, but now that problems have arisen it's, "Don't blame us, we didn't do it. It was those evil Republicans."


----------



## Vic Capri

> And Obamacare was a republican healthcare plan based on Romneycare and Republicans loved it when it was called Romneycare
> 
> Obamacare was first a conservative idea even before Romneycare.


Who changed the tax laws to force it on everbody nationwide? 










- Vic


----------



## downnice

birthday_massacre said:


> I gave you the broad answer and I was right. I dont need to get into specifics because even if I did then you would want to get even more specifics and so on and so on.
> 
> You know the president has an effect on jobs but you just don't want to admit it.
> 
> As for admitting I don't know? I do know the president creates (or loses jobs) like I posted above, but do I have a in-depth knowledge, no but that doesn't mean my broad knowledge isnt enough.
> 
> Go back to the car example. I know the engine runs the car, but I don't have to know how the engine works specifically to know the engine runs the car.


Looks like you dodgeball again. Once again it seems you refuse to answer a question properly and then play games to try to make you look like the winner.

Sad sad sad


----------



## deepelemblues

> And Obamacare was a republican healthcare plan based on Romneycare and Republicans loved it when it was called Romneycare
> 
> Obamacare was first a conservative idea even before Romneycare.


Republicans loved it so much that Mitt Romney was the only Republican governor who did it.

Mitt Romney is such a mainstream Republican that millions of Republican voters did not vote in the 2012 election because they couldn't bring themselves to vote for him as their candidate.

An individual mandate for health insurance was an idea that came from the Heritage Foundation before Bill Clinton beat George H.W. Bush. It was not widely supported in either the Republican Party or conservative intellectual circles. The Heritage Foundation dropped it within a year of proposing it as Clinton started pushing for Hillarycare and conservatives strenuously objected to the Clinton plan and other government-enlarging health insurance initiatives. The Heritage Foundation has not supported an individual mandate for health insurance for 25 years now. 

The whole Romneycare! And it was a conservative idea! thing is a shamefully stupid lie. The Heritage Foundation is not representative of the Republican Party or conservatives, it is a single conservative think tank that disagrees with other conservatives at times and has other conservatives disagree with it at times. An idea proposed by a conservative that 98% of other conservatives reject is not a conservative idea, sorry. Mitt Romney is certainly not representative of either the Republican Party or conservatives. Maybe if this were 1956 and the Northeast establishment still ran the GOP and the conservative movement he would be, but it isn't 1956.


----------



## Vic Capri

President Trump signed an Executive Order that will help scrap job-killing regulations on American businesses.

CNN, the New York Times, the LA Times, POLITICO, and BuzzFeed were also blocked from today's White House media briefing. Karma's a bitch huh? :lol

- Vic


----------



## birthday_massacre

Vic Capri said:


> President Trump signed an Executive Order that will help scrap job-killing regulations on American businesses.
> 
> CNN, the New York Times, the LA Times, POLITICO, and BuzzFeed were also blocked from today's White House media briefing. Karma's a bitch huh? :lol
> 
> - Vic


So much for free speech by republicans eh?

if you did not need anymore proof what a fascist Trump is.

Trump is acting like a dictator, we dont live in north korea. 

Guess the GOP needed a safe space so the don't melt and get asked real questions.

Any Trump supporter that agrees with them getting banned from the press briefing is a hypocrite.

So lets see all the Trump supporters admit Trump is wrong to do this.


----------



## Warlock

birthday_massacre said:


> So much for free speech by republicans eh?
> 
> if you did not need anymore proof what a fascist Trump is.


Note - I don't think he's preventing them from saying anything.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Sweenz said:


> Note - I don't think he's preventing them from saying anything.


So blocking them from asking questions is not preventing them from saying anything? 











Are you ok with the WH doing this?


----------



## Warlock

birthday_massacre said:


> So blocking them from asking questions is not preventing them from saying anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you ok with the WH doing this?


No - it is not preventing them from saying whatever they like. The law is to protect people from not being allowed to speak. It does not mean that it can force someone else to listen.


----------



## deepelemblues

birthday_massacre said:


> So much for free speech by republicans eh?
> 
> if you did not need anymore proof what a fascist Trump is.
> 
> Trump is acting like a dictator, we dont live in north korea.
> 
> Guess the GOP needed a safe space so the don't melt and get asked real questions.
> 
> Any Trump supporter that agrees with them getting banned from the press briefing is a hypocrite.
> 
> So lets see all the Trump supporters admit Trump is wrong to do this.


can you point to the case law where the first amendment was construed as conferring the right to be present at a press conference or to conduct an interview

under your understanding of the constitution no government official could refuse to answer a question or refuse to give an interview ever. anyone could demand it not just journalists. 

there is nothing preventing the publication of anything these fake news organizations wish to publish so there is no free speech or free press issue. the first amendment does not confer the right to compel behavior or the right to attend someone else's question and answer session. it confers the right to speak without government interference. there is no government interference with the speech of these fake news organizations. they are free to speak as they will. they are not free to act as if privileges and entitlements are rights. well, they are, but that does not obligate anyone else to act as if they are rights instead of privileges and entitlements. 

there is no right to attend a government set up event where journalists ask questions of a member of government. if it wanted to the government could simply stop holding press conferences altogether. there is no right to compel the government to hold press conferences and no right to attend one simply because you wish to and you have in the past.

the entire MSM is a structure built on privileges that it has come to believe are its god-given rights. that is not the case. the press somehow managed to be free before there were press conferences. they have not existed since the beginning of the republic. if they disappeared tomorrow, the press would somehow manage. 

what is really at issue is the press's sense of importance and entitlement, which takes a blow and makes their widdle egos hurt when they don't get what they wrongly think of as theirs by right.


----------



## virus21




----------



## birthday_massacre

deepelemblues said:


> can you point to the case law where the first amendment was construed as conferring the right to be present at a press conference or to conduct an interview
> 
> under your understanding of the constitution no government official could refuse to answer a question or refuse to give an interview ever. anyone could demand it not just journalists.
> 
> there is nothing preventing the publication of anything these fake news organizations wish to publish so there is no free speech or free press issue. the first amendment does not confer the right to compel behavior or the right to attend anything. it confers the right to speak without government interference. there is no government interference with the speech of these fake news organizations. they are free to speak as they will. they are not free to act as if privileges and entitlements are rights. well, they are, but that does not obligate anyone else to act as if they are rights instead of privileges and entitlements.
> 
> there is no right to attend a government set up event where journalists ask questions of a member of government. if it wanted to the government could simply stop holding press conferences altogether. there is no right to compel the government to hold press conferences and no right to attend one simply because you wish to and you have in the past.
> 
> the entire MSM is a structure built on privileges that it has come to believe are its god-given rights. that is not the case.


This is why people like you are a fraud. You are so against censorship when it comes to Milo or republicans but you are ok when it comes to censorship and keeping the media out of a press briefing. 

Just shows what hypocrites conservatives are.


----------



## Warlock

Trying to punish someone and forcing them to change what they say(actual free speech infraction) is not the same as not allowing someone into an event where they are still free to say and write whatever they like.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Sweenz said:


> Forcing someone to change what they say(actual free speech infraction) is not the same as not allowing someone into an event.


Both are censorship


----------



## deepelemblues

Was the press unfree before the advent of the press conference? The first formal presidential press conference was held by Woodrow Wilson in 1913. Was the press unfree before 1913? 

Yes or no.

By the way at that press conference only reporters were allowed in the room with Wilson, he did not allow them to quote him and all his remarks at the event were off the record. What horrible horrible unfreedom of the press right.


----------



## CamillePunk

Legit BOSS said:


> *
> So you're going with the "Oh you can't prove they're related" argument, while simultaneously allowing Pence to throw out baseless accusations with no proof whatsoever? It's been proven that millions of jobs were created during Obama's administration. The recession ended under Obama. There's nothing to indicate that Obamacare is a job killer. Pence is talking out of his ass to justify the boneheaded move of canceling the ACA with no real backup plan.*


I don't remember commenting on Pence's tweet. I don't care about the effects of Obamacare. The government shouldn't be involved with healthcare, period. If the government decided tomorrow that all romantic relationships will be arranged by them, I don't care if this somehow eliminates loneliness and everyone ended up happier. It'd still be wrong.


----------



## deepelemblues

> Originally Posted by Legit BOSS View Post
> 
> So you're going with the "Oh you can't prove they're related" argument, while simultaneously allowing Pence to throw out baseless accusations with no proof whatsoever? It's been proven that millions of jobs were created during Obama's administration. The recession ended under Obama. There's nothing to indicate that Obamacare is a job killer. Pence is talking out of his ass to justify the boneheaded move of canceling the ACA with no real backup plan.


Shit jobs concentrated in low wage industries like food service. As clearly shown in labor data.

Labor force participation rate lowest in decades. 

Shift to part-time work clearly demonstrated in labor data.

Try harder Obamacare shill. There's reams and reams of data disproving every thing you say here.


----------



## Vic Capri

> So much for free speech by republicans eh?
> 
> if you did not need anymore proof what a fascist Trump is.


Freedom of the press, like freedom of speech, is not absolute. There should be more cases of litigation involving libel and slander in the media. Anybody should be free to report on facts and opinions, but when they report false information (FAKE NEWS!) and pretend that it is true that is a problem and "journalists" need to be held accountable.

P.S.: Were you bitching when Obama spied on the Associated Press and when Eric Holder wanted to throw James Risen in jail for exposing Operation Fast & Furious?

- Vic


----------



## Warlock

birthday_massacre said:


> Both are censorship


Sure, i guess. But one is not legal, and the other is. So falsely equating.

Censorship is not necessarily illegal. Parents censor what their kids watch/do. TV Networks censor their content for their audience. Both of those are commonplace and fully legal.

Firing a gun is not illegal. If firing the gun in an illegal way(shooting someone), then its illegal. Censorship is not illegal, censoring in an illegal way(forcing news organizations to publish or not publish content, or enacting actual punishment for speech), then its illegal.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Vic Capri said:


> Freedom of the press, like freedom of speech, is not absolute. There should be more cases of litigation involving libel and slander in the media. Anybody should be free to report on facts and opinions, but when they report false information and pretend that it is true that is a problem and "journalists" need to be held accountable.
> 
> P.S.: Were you bitching when Obama spied on the Associated Press and when Eric Holder wanted to throw James Risen in jail for exposing Operation Fast & Furious?
> 
> - Vic


No one puts out more fake news than Trump and the white house LOL. Trump is cracking because the MSM is exposing his corruption and he cannot handle it. This whole thing is to bully the media into not calling Trump on his BS , lies and corruption. 

The MSM needs to double down and keep exposing Trump. 

I dont know why you keep thinking I was an Obama fan, I keep telling you I wasn't a huge fan, and I always called him out for his BS and him being a fake progressive. I do give him credit for the things he did right.



Sweenz said:


> Sure, i guess. But one is not legal, and the other is. So falsely equating.
> 
> Censorship is not necessarily illegal. Parents censor what their kids watch/do. TV Networks censor their content for their audience. Both of those are commonplace and fully legal.
> 
> Firing a gun is not illegal. If firing the gun in an illegal way(shooting someone), then its illegal. Censorship is not illegal, censoring in an illegal way(forcing news organizations to publish or not publish content, or enacting actual punishment for speech), then its illegal.


As long as you admit the WH is censored those media outlets. That is all that matters. AT least you can admit the WH is censoring.


----------



## Warlock

As long as you admit its not a constitutional "free speech" issue like you originally tried to cite it as.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Sweenz said:


> As long as you admit its not a constitutional "free speech" issue like you originally tried to cite it as.


Fair enough, I should have used censorship from the beginning instead of free speech.


----------



## Sensei Utero

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/f...on-trumps-transgender-action-fuck-off-w468560

Good insight by Laura Jane Grace, vocalist of American punk rock band 'Against Me!', who is an open transgender. Shame on Donald Trump for taking away the civil rights of transgenders in America. So much for 'keeping to his promises'.


----------



## Reaper

They have the right to ban whomever they want. But they shouldn't have. It just gives them another opportunity to reaffirm their spin.


----------



## Sensei Utero

Equality for the LGBTQ+ community in America just takes another hit. It sounds as bad as it is in Northern Ireland.


----------



## birthday_massacre

InUtero said:


> Equality for the LGBTQ+ community in America just takes another hit. It sounds as bad as it is in Northern Ireland.


Its always funny how the GOP/conservatives say the GOVT should not get involved but then when it comes to things like getting same-sex marriage banned again, banning abortions, or making a law where trans people can't use the bathroom they identify with then its ok.

The only times the conservatives ever want to get involved is when it comes to human rights. Go figure


----------



## Vic Capri

> Good insight by Laura Jane Grace, vocalist of American punk rock band 'Against Me!', who is an open transgender. Shame on Donald Trump for taking away the civil rights of transgenders in America. So much for 'keeping to his promises'.


Deciding which bathroom to use = first world issue

- Vic


----------



## deepelemblues

Using the bathroom that corresponds to your genitalia is literally worse than Hitler.


----------



## Sensei Utero

birthday_massacre said:


> Its always funny how the GOP/conservatives say the GOVT should not get involved but then when it comes to things like getting same-sex marriage banned again, banning abortions, or making a law where trans people can't use the bathroom they identify with then its ok.
> 
> The only times the conservatives ever want to get involved is when it comes to human rights. Go figure


It's also funny that I was basically laughed at in this thread ages ago when I stated that Trump poses a massive threat to the likes of women's rights and LGBTQ+ community. Look what's happened. Shameful.


----------



## Sensei Utero

Vic Capri said:


> Deciding which bathroom to use = first world issue
> 
> - Vic


No. It's a civil right for transgenders to use whichever public toilet (I'd use 'bathroom' or 'restroom', but I don't get American slang ) they'd like.

If America is anywhere here like Northern Ireland (the most homophobic place in the 'West') in terms of inequality to the LGBTQ+ community, my heart goes out to anyone who is a victim of that based on the topic.

Also, feck religion. Just thought I'd add that in there (considering the hit against the LGBTQ+ community in NI is basically due to Christianity. No clue if that's the same in the U.S of A.). #MakeAgnosticAtheismGreatAgain


----------



## Vic Capri

> No. It's a civil right for transgenders to use whichever public toilet (I'd use 'bathroom' or 'restroom', but I don't get American slang ) they'd like.












- Vic


----------



## Lariat From Hell

InUtero said:


> _It's also funny that I was basically laughed at in this thread ages ago when I stated that Trump poses a massive threat to the likes of women's rights and LGBTQ+ community._ Look what's happened. Shameful.


Well, dare I say it, most of them don't actually care about women's rights and the LGBT community; when the Great Leader says that he will protect them, they will come out and laugh at any skeptics. When stuff is (as expected) reeled back, they show their real colors again.


----------



## deepelemblues

InUtero said:


> It's also funny that I was basically laughed at in this thread ages ago when I stated that Trump poses a massive threat to the likes of women's rights and LGBTQ+ community. Look what's happened. Shameful.


What threat to women's rights has materialized under the :trump administration

None? Oh.

Bathrooms are separated by gender to recognize the right of each gender to privacy in the intimate bodily functions of dropping a load and taking a piss. As a man I don't want to be at the urinal, dick in hand, and have a woman walk in. Or be in the stall destroying the toilet in regular man fashion and have a woman come in and hear me right when I'm playing the climax of the 1812 Overture with my ass.

I understand that transgenders feel just as uncomfortable using a bathroom that does not correspond to their gender identity. I doubt a male who identifies as female really wants to go into the men's room where there are men standing around with dicks in hand any more than a non-trans woman would. I don't want them to feel that way. But I and the vast majority shouldn't have to be put in a situation where we could be made to feel quite uncomfortable just so an infinitesimally small minority doesn't get put in situations where its members feel quite uncomfortable.

Build trans bathrooms, problem solved. A trans male and a trans female bathroom. Seeing as how transgenders are incredibly incredibly small in numbers they wouldn't need to be as large as male or female bathrooms. A single sink and stall in the female one and a single sink, stall, and urinal in the male one would be sufficient for the vast majority of locations. In places where there are more transgenders, build them bigger.

People who identify as Q or any of the + are flat out insane and public accommodations shouldn't be catering to people who are flat out insane. Their identity doesn't correspond to any kind of unique sexual or other behavior or unique physical characteristic or even identity construct, unless being a screeching extremely unpleasant person is a unique behavior to those who identify as Q or one of the +. And it isn't. Anyone can be a screeching asshole.


----------



## The RainMaker

So it's my birthday today. Anddddd I got my Make America Great Again hat! It's Lit!


----------



## El Dandy

Vic Capri said:


> - Vic


I guess we're narrow minded bigots who need to die :lmao

Trannies have the temerity to put their bathroom struggle on the level of 1960's Civil Rights... but we're the assholes here?


----------



## deepelemblues

Vic Capri said:


> - Vic


to be fair i don't want anyone who goes out in public with that kind of body wearing those kind of clothes using any multi-person public bathroom 

or even being allowed out in public at all

there's some discrimination for ya.


----------



## Draykorinee

El Dandy said:


> but we're the assholes here?


You don't need that question mark.


----------



## deepelemblues

draykorinee said:


> You don't need that question mark.


but it's not being an asshole to make others feel uncomfortable at having a dick in the girl's room or a vagina in the boy's room

why have gendered bathrooms at all, make em all unisex. anyone can go into any bathroom any time. problem solved right?


----------



## Warlock

deepelemblues said:


> Build trans bathrooms, problem solved. A trans male and a trans female bathroom. Seeing as how transgenders are incredibly incredibly small in numbers they wouldn't need to be as large as male or female bathrooms. A single sink and stall in the female one and a single sink, stall, and urinal in the male one would be sufficient for the vast majority of locations. In places where there are more transgenders, build them bigger.


I've seen this as a suggested solution(one that usually does not appeal to trans people as all btw, cause it still puts a spotlight on them, but going to ignore that for the moment). 

So my question is... Who pays for that? Buildings have been outfitted for centuries with two multiple occupancy bathrooms, one for male and one for female(or in pairs of one female and one male), cause that was how it was supposed to be when it was built and/or bought. For this to be universally accepted, then all these buildings would need to be updated. Who pays for all those changes?


----------



## deepelemblues

Sweenz said:


> I've seen this as a suggested solution(one that usually does not appeal to trans people as all btw, cause it still puts a spotlight on them, but going to ignore that for the moment).
> 
> So my question is... Who pays for that? Buildings have been outfitted for centuries with two multiple occupancy bathrooms, one for male and one for female(or in pairs of one female and one male), cause that was how it was supposed to be when it was built and/or bought. For this to be universally accepted, then all these buildings would need to be updated. Who pays for all those changes?


the businesses leasing the space do, or the building owners. or the taxpayers. if it's decided that something Must Be Done then it Must Be Done regardless of how fair it might be to those who Must Do It. just the way the world works sometimes. to most people being forced to spend money is less unfair than other methods.

i don't see anything wrong with being trans so 'it would put a spotlight on them' holds no water with me. anybody who harasses anybody for any reason in a private place that is open to the public like a store, or a public place with rules for entry like a park, should be dealt with by being kicked the fuck out.

the choice that seems to be preferred is to make ever-increasing physical accommodations to the put-upon minority when really the solution is to change what is seen as socially acceptable by the majority. if trans people get shit in public for being trans it is largely because the people giving them shit don't get shit themselves for their behavior. informal (non-legal, non-government, largely spontaneous when it goes into action) social pressure is the most effective way of changing the general behavior. 

would trans people have taken up this bathroom thing as so important to them if they felt more accepted by society in less consequential and more common public social interactions than going into a multiple person public bathroom? like going to school? standing in line at the gas station? just walking down the street? i do not think this bathroom thing would be so important to them if they felt more accepted during those very basic activities. i know what it's like to feel like everybody on the street or at the mcdonald's or whatever is looking at you like what are you doing here get the fuck out whether they actually are or not. it's not a good time. 

considering the swiftly changing attitudes about LGBT people in this country over the last 15 years, i dont think its necessary for the kind of top-down heavy-handed stuff that WAS necessary to get whites to stop shitting on blacks in public the way they did. i think that persuading people who do not like LGBT people to see their common decency and humanity would be better than contriving endless culture war battles. it worked on gay marriage. gays went through a really swift normalization, took less than ten years really for public opinion on homosexuality and gay marriage to massively change.

creating situations where people butt heads over and over and over again is not the only way to fight. that's part of the reason the anti-gay marriage side lost, it just kept trying to pass laws and constitutional referendums and stuff and didn't really have a personal argument on the matter, while the pro-gay marriage side made a concerted effort to get the public to see homosexuals as regular people.


----------



## stevefox1200

Here is how you solve the bathroom problem

don't say shit

In the men's room we don't go around showing each other our cocks so unless you act like a weird fuck no one should notice and being a weird fuck is not acceptable in any public restroom

If a customer complains take it up on a case by case basis so you can cover your ass and someone to point at and say "they brought it up" if it goes to shit

Personally I keep it biological to make Taxes and the census easier 

as for prison, solitary for everyone fuckers, the sun is overrated


----------



## Draykorinee

Whichever side youre on, this punk is pretty funny.

http://www.thepoke.co.uk/2017/02/24...gs-guy-just-pulled-off-epic-anti-trump-stunt/


----------



## Warlock

deepelemblues said:


> the businesses leasing the space do, or the building owners. or the taxpayers. if it's decided that something Must Be Done then it Must Be Done regardless of how fair it might be to those who Must Do It. just the way the world works sometimes. to most people being forced to spend money is less unfair than other methods.
> 
> i don't see anything wrong with being trans so 'it would spotlight on them' holds no water with me. anybody who harasses anybody for any reason in a private place that is open to the public like a store, or a public place with rules for entry like a park, should be dealt with by being kicked the fuck out.


So now the businesses(no matter the size) are forced to make structural changes to their buildings to make these accommodations. What if they don't have the room and/or money to do that? Some buildings literally have no room for 2 new single-unit bathrooms. 

You may not see anything wrong with being trans... but many, many trans don't want it to be known they are trans, but solely the identity the identify with. That is their problem with using the "other" bathroom now, and would continue to be the issue with a tran specific bathroom. The rest of your 2nd statement could be applied to individuals using the bathroom of their choosing as well.


----------



## Sensei Utero

deepelemblues said:


> What threat to women's rights has materialized under the :trump administration
> 
> None? Oh.
> 
> Bathrooms are separated by gender to recognize the right of each gender to privacy in the intimate bodily functions of dropping a load and taking a piss. As a man I don't want to be at the urinal, dick in hand, and have a woman walk in. Or be in the stall destroying the toilet in regular man fashion and have a woman come in and hear me right when I'm playing the climax of the 1812 Overture with my ass.
> 
> I understand that transgenders feel just as uncomfortable using a bathroom that does not correspond to their gender identity. I doubt a male who identifies as female really wants to go into the men's room where there are men standing around with dicks in hand any more than a non-trans woman would. I don't want them to feel that way. But I and the vast majority shouldn't have to be put in a situation where we could be made to feel quite uncomfortable just so an infinitesimally small minority doesn't get put in situations where its members feel quite uncomfortable.
> 
> Build trans bathrooms, problem solved. A trans male and a trans female bathroom. Seeing as how transgenders are incredibly incredibly small in numbers they wouldn't need to be as large as male or female bathrooms. A single sink and stall in the female one and a single sink, stall, and urinal in the male one would be sufficient for the vast majority of locations. In places where there are more transgenders, build them bigger.
> 
> People who identify as Q or any of the + are flat out insane and public accommodations shouldn't be catering to people who are flat out insane. Their identity doesn't correspond to any kind of unique sexual or other behavior or unique physical characteristic or even identity construct, unless being a screeching extremely unpleasant person is a unique behavior to those who identify as Q or one of the +. And it isn't. Anyone can be a screeching asshole.




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/823769591860133892
None? Oh. :hmm

What a complete load of ignorance too. I'm scared of that amount of ignorance. In this particular case you've used, the transgender is no longer a woman. I think that's pretty obvious. That is transgenderism, when a person's gender no longer corresponds with their birth sex. Also, I wouldn't call 1.6 million people (who're transgender in America) as an overall small minority. They matter too. Building a bathroom for transgender is like building a bathroom for black people. What planet are you on?

'Flat out insane'? Also more ignorance, and a complete lack of respect.



Diamond Taurus said:


> Well, dare I say it, most of them don't actually care about women's rights and the LGBT community; when the Great Leader says that he will protect them, they will come out and laugh at any skeptics. When stuff is (as expected) reeled back, they show their real colors again.


Basically this. The previous comment I've just quoted basically showcases that on the LGBTQ+ community.


----------



## stevefox1200

draykorinee said:


> Whichever side youre on, this punk is pretty funny.
> 
> http://www.thepoke.co.uk/2017/02/24...gs-guy-just-pulled-off-epic-anti-trump-stunt/


Are we sure it wasn't a defective French flag flown sideways or a Dutch flag that someone just fucked up when making


----------



## Vic Capri

> Whichever side youre on, this punk is pretty funny.


I encourage more Trump supporters to hold up the Russian flag. It will be our way to counter the pussy hats.

Empowerment like we did with the Deplorables term.

- Vic


----------



## deepelemblues

InUtero said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/823769591860133892
> None? Oh. :hmm


And what are they signing there? I vaguely remember it but not the details.



> What a complete load of ignorance too. I'm scared of that amount of ignorance.


You shouldn't get scared so easy.



> In this particular case you've used, the transgender is no longer a woman.


According to you.

According to me, I'm not psychic so I don't know that it's a transgender male.



> I think that's pretty obvious.


Because all transgenders are easily identifiable at a glance because of some particular physical characteristic, right?

Who's the transgenderist now HMMMM. 



> That is transgenderism, when a person's gender no longer corresponds with their birth sex.


And?



> Also, I wouldn't call 1.6 million people (who're transgender in America) as an overall small minority.


There are not 1.6 million transgender people in America. That would a much larger proportion of the total number of LGBT people than is the case.



> They matter too.


Not to the point of violating fundamental privacies of tens of millions of people unless those people change their minds to be okay with it.



> Building a bathroom for transgender is like building a bathroom for black people. What planet are you on?


So is building a separate bathroom for men and women like building a separate bathroom for black people? Because it is exactly the same as building a separate bathroom for transgender people. It's all division based on physical characteristics. According to you there when they identify as male or female then they are male or female period. No more division. So how is division between male and female okay? You can apply the same principles against the entire male/female division. Some people in academia do just that. Be careful, you might be making a bigoted argument that could be employed in an argument against letting use transgenders use the bathroom by the gender they identify as in your response here about the propriety of the male/female division. You're so inclusive but you're also operating on the only real division being male and female. What about those who identify as neither, or both, or a combination of three or more genders that may or may not include male and female or both. There is literally no end to the rabbit hole you jump into once you go past LGBT. It veers off into the territory of ideological construct. That is why instead of the identity being defined by thousands of years of human experience, they are defined originally and almost exclusively through ideological academese of very recent advent. It is absurd. 



> 'Flat out insane'? Also more ignorance, and a complete lack of respect.


I know quite a bit about the Q+ portions of the spectrum, they are decadent ideological mass delusions. They have no basis in the history of human identity. As opposed to LGBT which have all clearly existed from the start. Look at history and the myths and legends and stories from our past, gay and lesbian and bisexual and transgender themes are present from the beginning. Genderqueer genderfluid intersex whatever, nope. Notta. They're creations of ideologues of the last generation and a half.



> Basically this. The previous comment I've just quoted basically showcases that on the LGBTQ+ community.


Well that's bullshit.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Can anyone explain to me how giving states the right to decide on this trans bathroom situation is somehow fascist? Seems like it's the opposite of that.


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Can anyone explain to me how giving states the right to decide on this trans bathroom situation is somehow fascist? Seems like it's the opposite of that.


Fascism- extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or* intolerant views or practice*.

Making a law against trans people is not an intolerant view?

Its also bigoted as well.


----------



## Warlock

Bigotry exists on both sides of this issue.


----------



## virus21




----------



## birthday_massacre

Sweenz said:


> Bigotry exists on both sides of this issue.


I'd love to hear how being for trans rights is bigotry, Do tell

that is like saying being for equal rights of blacks makes you a racist lol


----------



## Warlock

birthday_massacre said:


> I'd love to hear how being for trans rights is bigotry, Do tell
> 
> that is like saying being for equal rights of blacks makes you a racist lol


Ah phrasing. " Id love to hear how maintaining non-trans rights is bigatory. Are you against rights of those that arent trans?"

Different subject discussed, but point remains the same.

http://www.youngcons.com/cartoon-explains-the-ironic-hypocrisy-of-liberal-tolerance-perfectly/


----------



## birthday_massacre

Sweenz said:


> Ah phrasing. " Id love to hear how maintaining non-trans rights is bigatory. Are you against rights of those that arent trans?"
> 
> Different subject discussed, but point remains the same.
> 
> http://www.youngcons.com/cartoon-explains-the-ironic-hypocrisy-of-liberal-tolerance-perfectly/


If you are against same sex marriage you are a bigot, if you don't want to marry someone of the same sex then don't.

That is like saying someone saying they dont think blacks should have teh same rights as whites but they are not racist.

If you want to be a bigot then own it. 

You keep proving why conservatives are such a joke.


----------



## Warlock

Holy missing the point batman!

Im out.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Sweenz said:


> Holy missing the point batman!
> 
> Im out.


I totally destroyed your point and that is why you are out.

Only conservatives think being for equal rights is bigoted.


----------



## Warlock

birthday_massacre said:


> I totally destroyed your point and that is why you are out.
> 
> Only conservatives think being for equal rights is bigoted.


Im out cause its the weekend and i dont feel like being your dictionary. 

My point was about bigotry, not either gay marriage or trans rights. You look foolish with your "destroyed your point" comments when you entirely missed the point. 

Look up the word bigot(or try rereading my link that had the definition it it and an example of exactly my bigotry point), cause if you think only conservatives can be bigoted or are the only ones being so on the issue, you have no idea what it actually means.

Edit.. now im actually out.


----------



## Beatles123

Trump was amazing at C-pac. really wish he'd start opening the libel laws on these rat bastards.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Sweenz said:


> Im out cause its the weekend and i dont feel like being your dictionary.
> 
> My point was about bigotry, not either gay marriage or trans rights. You look foolish with your "destroyed your point" comments when you entirely missed the point.
> 
> Look up the word bigot(or try rereading my link that had the definition it it and an example of exactly my bigotry point), cause if you think only conservatives can be bigoted or are the only ones being so on the issue, you have no idea what it actually means.
> 
> Edit.. now im actually out.


It's not bigotry when you are fighting against someone being intolerant. 

That is what racists and bigots say to make themselves feel better. But of course a bigoted conservative is going to say that. 

Its just another thing that makes conservatives a joke when they claim things like this.


----------



## Warlock

:lmao :done


----------



## Stinger Fan

InUtero said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/823769591860133892
> None? Oh. :hmm
> 
> What a complete load of ignorance too. I'm scared of that amount of ignorance. In this particular case you've used, the transgender is no longer a woman. I think that's pretty obvious. That is transgenderism, when a person's gender no longer corresponds with their birth sex. Also, I wouldn't call 1.6 million people (who're transgender in America) as an overall small minority. They matter too. Building a bathroom for transgender is like building a bathroom for black people. What planet are you on?
> 
> 'Flat out insane'? Also more ignorance, and a complete lack of respect.


I've said in the past that I don't quite know what to think about "transgenderism" , I don't really have a real definitive opinion about it. However, you cannot say gender "changes" the moment you decide to get a surgery or decide to claim you're of the opposite gender. You're either biologically male or female and nothing can change that no matter how much you want to say it does. 

What truly is ignorance is to completely ignore/disregard biology and science on the basis of "feeling" and not fact. It's also incredibly dangerous to do so as well. Before you try to claim that I'm "transphobic" this isn't about if people are "weirdos" or not, people can do what they like in their private life thats up to them but you don't get to redefine science, biology and gender on the basis of feelings.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> Fascism- extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or* intolerant views or practice*.
> 
> Making a law against trans people is not an intolerant view?
> 
> Its also bigoted as well.


You think giving the states the right to do what they want is making a law against trans people? Really?


----------



## BruiserKC

Sweenz said:


> So now the businesses(no matter the size) are forced to make structural changes to their buildings to make these accommodations. What if they don't have the room and/or money to do that? Some buildings literally have no room for 2 new single-unit bathrooms.
> 
> You may not see anything wrong with being trans... but many, many trans don't want it to be known they are trans, but solely the identity the identify with. That is their problem with using the "other" bathroom now, and would continue to be the issue with a tran specific bathroom. The rest of your 2nd statement could be applied to individuals using the bathroom of their choosing as well.


To be fair, there are places that have single bathrooms, like small gas stations. Quite a few other large buildings, like malls and arenas, have single and/or family bathrooms. 

I'll be honest, I don't care whether you're straight, gay, bi, whatever...but I really didn't care about who used what bathroom. It's something the government needs to stay out of. Only sign I really care about on a bathroom door is if it says "out of order."


----------



## Dr. Middy

I don't really care when he/she has packing downstairs, nor do I really care what they choose to identify as. To me, you're a human being and I'll treat you with respect. In my eyes, why should the government put them heads in this sort of an issue? Would it be so bad just to leave the LGBTQs alone? 

The bathroom thing doesn't really seem like a big deal to me either. The majority of people could give two shits really who's in the bathroom with them, they're there to do their business and leave, not to hang around and drink cocktails. Seems like a lot of fear mongering stuff to me, like the random things I've heard about how having a trans woman in a female restroom is suddenly gonna lead to rape or some outlandish thing.

However, one of the main areas of the HB2 thing that I wasn't a fan of was that they were going to remove employees’ right to claim in state court that they were fired for discriminatory reasons. I heard they amended that part way back when though, so I assume that amendment of the bill is still in place? Or was it removed?


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> Fascism- extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or* intolerant views or practice*.
> 
> Making a law against trans people is not an intolerant view?
> 
> Its also bigoted as well.


Yah because the left has never once done anything bad to people lets just ignore the fact that Pol Pot , Mao, Hitler and Stalin were on the left wing spectrum. The left is becoming increasingly against Israel and demanding that the Palestinians are given their land back. Let's also ignore the "Red Bridages" of Italy or the "Red Army Faction" of Germany. 

The problem is that the left seems to never take responsibility for the crap they do and blame the right because that's just easier. The left needs to stop blaming anyone who is on the right, as a bigot of some kind. Things really are not that "black and white". Stop calling others racists, bigots, sexists, homophobes , transphobes or whatever word you like to insert because that simply does not help to bring people together but only creates more division.


----------



## Oxidamus

Alco said:


> Fun fact: Presidents don't create jobs.


Do you mean the decision isn't theirs, to make governmental bodies, or increase their workforces?
Or do you mean they simply can't force the private sector?


----------



## Art Vandaley

Stinger Fan said:


> The problem is that the left seems to never take responsibility for the crap they do and blame the right because that's just easier. The left needs to stop blaming anyone who is on the right, as a bigot of some kind. Things really are not that "black and white". Stop calling others racists, bigots, sexists, homophobes , transphobes or whatever word you like to insert because that simply does not help to bring people together but only creates more division.


If people support racist and bigoted policies why is it wrong to call them racists and bigots?


----------



## Warlock

BruiserKC said:


> To be fair, there are places that have single bathrooms, like small gas stations. Quite a few other large buildings, like malls and arenas, have single and/or family bathrooms.
> 
> I'll be honest, I don't care whether you're straight, gay, bi, whatever...but I really didn't care about who used what bathroom. It's something the government needs to stay out of. Only sign I really care about on a bathroom door is if it says "out of order."


Indeed. I do think this would have been less of an issue had goverment stayed out of it. As many said, people were using the identified bathroom for years without issue. Most the time noone was any the wiser. The order put it to the forfront and now trans people who would have never had to deal with the issue are now having to deal with it. 

Im fairly in the middle (which is why i recognize the bigotry of both sides).

I was of the position early on that we just make everything universal and have individual stalls that were entirely closed off(i was told at the time thats how some european countries do it anyway). But was also presented the same issue with who the cost falls on. Some say if the goverment is going to suddenly mandate it, they should help fund it, but that still falls back on the taxpayers. Plus ignores changing rooms and other environments that i hadnt considered. 

Theres an issue, but the only solutions presented gives a proverbial middle finger to the people who feel(or are) negatively affected by the other, and dont feel like their own rights are being considered. People are so dug in on their side without considering the other side at all, that few are even looking for solutions in the middle (like you did) and ways to make those work. They just say "this is what i want and you lot just have to deal with it". Happening on both sides.


----------



## BruiserKC

Sweenz said:


> Indeed. I do think this would have been less of an issue had goverment stayed out of it. As many said, people were using the identified bathroom for years without issue. Most the time noone was any the wiser. The order put it to the forfront and now trans people who would have never had to deal with the issue are now having to deal with it.
> 
> Im fairly in the middle (which is why i recognize the bigotry of both sides).
> 
> I was of the position early on that we just make everything universal and have individual stalls that were entirely closed off(i was told at the time thats how some european countries do it anyway). But was also presented the same issue with who the cost falls on. Some say if the goverment is going to suddenly mandate it, they should help fund it, but that still falls back on the taxpayers. Plus ignores changing rooms and other environments that i hadnt considered.
> 
> Theres an issue, but the only solutions presented gives a proverbial middle finger to the people who feel(or are) negatively affected by the other, and dont feel like their own rights are being considered. People are so dug in on their side without considering the other side at all, that few are even looking for solutions in the middle (like you did) and ways to make those work. They just say "this is what i want and you lot just have to deal with it". Happening on both sides.


Throughout Europe many cities have single-user bathrooms on many a street corner. I remember one I went to in Berlin's Tiergarten (their version of Central Park) where you did your business and when you were done and out it did a massive power clean for the person to use. 

Another thing to take into consideration is parents with younger kids. When my daughters were young, I'd have those situations. If I had to go in a store, for example, they were way too young to leave outside to wait. Likewise, if they had to go, they weren't old enough yet to go into the ladies' room by themselves and obviously my going into said room with them was out of the question. It meant I had to take them with me into the men's room. Most men didn't bat an eye, but I know there were a few that were uncomfortable with it.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> Yah because the left has never once done anything bad to people lets just ignore the fact that Pol Pot , Mao, Hitler and Stalin were on the left wing spectrum. The left is becoming increasingly against Israel and demanding that the Palestinians are given their land back. Let's also ignore the "Red Bridages" of Italy or the "Red Army Faction" of Germany.
> 
> The problem is that the left seems to never take responsibility for the crap they do and blame the right because that's just easier. The left needs to stop blaming anyone who is on the right, as a bigot of some kind. Things really are not that "black and white". Stop calling others racists, bigots, sexists, homophobes , transphobes or whatever word you like to insert because that simply does not help to bring people together but only creates more division.


YOu are so full of shit its not even funny

Are you really going to claim that we don't denounce Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pot? They are all dictators and pretty everyone is against the stuff they did. Are you really going to claim that is not the cause? 


And sorry but if someone is a bigot or racist its ok to call them on it. The only defense snow flakes like you have is crying that we call racists racists and bigots bigots. Like I said if you want to be one then own it. Stop crying when you get called out on it. 

And yes those issues are black and white. I won't stop calling people those things if that is what they are. 

Those are the people that dont want to bring everyone together not the ones who are fighting for equal rights and pointing out the bigotry.

I love how you claim the people trying to stop the division are the ones causing it by pointing it out.

Your logic is just so awful.


----------



## Warlock

Having a different opinion != bigotry or racism. Being completely intollerant of their different opinion actually makes you a bigot yourself.

Can they corelate? Sure. But the left definately falsely equates these to people/decisions/situations as it is some sort of trump card when its not actually true(nor proof provided as such). It is quickly losing its effect cause it is so overused, that when actual racist and bigotted actions happen, people have a hard time recognizing it.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Sweenz said:


> Having a different opinion != bigotry or racism. Being completely intollerant of their different opinion actually makes you a bigot yourself.
> 
> Can they corelate? Sure. But the left definately falsely equates these to people/decisions/situations as it is some sort of trump card when its not actually true(nor proof provided as such). It is quickly losing its effect cause it is so overused, that when actual racist and bigotted actions happen, people have a hard time recognizing it.



You keep proving what a joke bigots like you are. yeah someone that is against bigotry makes them a bigot LOL 

And its not losing its effect since its true. Bigots and racists just like to claim that so they stop getting called out for it but ist not working and it won't stop.

The reason why bigots and racist keep claiming that is because they are the ones who are losing the battle when it comes to trying to take away equal rights of others.

You may think because of Trump the closeted racist and bigots can now speak freely and openly be racist or bigoted but that shit won't fly and they will get called out on it.


----------



## Warlock

birthday_massacre said:


> You keep proving what a joke bigots like you are. yeah someone that is against bigotry makes them a bigot LOL
> 
> And its not losing its effect since its true. Bigots and racists just like to claim that so they stop getting called out for it but ist not working and it wont stop.
> 
> The reason why bigots and racist keep claiming that is because they are the ones who are losing the battle when it comes to trying to take away equal rights of others.


Explain how im a bigot. 

Lets see if you are being unintentionally or purposefully obtuse.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Sweenz said:


> Explain how im a bigot.
> 
> Lets see if you are being unintentionally or purposefully obtuse.


I am using you as a general term.

Like if *you *are against trans rights then you are a bigot


----------



## Warlock

So unintentionally. And you may have meant to use it generally, but you were not. That was directed at me.

And "if you are against (insert group here) rights then you are a bigot.". 

There is actually no difference. Intollerance of any group, by definition, is bigotry. You are attempting (poorly) at political wordplay.


----------



## CamillePunk

birthday_massacre said:


> Bigots and racists just like to claim that so they stop getting called out for it but *ist *not working and it won't stop.


holy shit BM exposed as a secret Nazi


----------



## Sensei Utero

deepelemblues said:


> And what are they signing there? I vaguely remember it but not the details.


http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...est-reproductive-abortion-developing-contries



> You shouldn't get scared so easy.


I unfortunately do when there is so much injustice and discrimination to certain people throughout the World. We live in troubled times.



> According to you.
> 
> According to me, I'm not psychic so I don't know that it's a transgender male.


After the operation, that's it. My mother's friend had a sex change in the past from male to female. They once described the operation to me. Once the operation is done and the full process has been finished, that's it. Don't like it? Tough.



> Because all transgenders are easily identifiable at a glance because of some particular physical characteristic, right?
> 
> Who's the transgenderist now HMMMM.


...what? fpalm I clearly stated that once the progress is done, they're now a different sex. I didn't state anything about glances or the like.



> There are not 1.6 million transgender people in America. That would a much larger proportion of the total number of LGBT people than is the case.


Worded that a bit wrongly (my bad), the figure is actually higher. My point still stands.

http://www.vox.com/identities/2017/1/12/14251580/survey-lgbtq-population-us



> Not to the point of violating fundamental privacies of tens of millions of people unless those people change their minds to be okay with it.


:lol how the hell is it violating fundamental privacies of tens of millions of people? Is it any wonder suicide rates amongst the LGBTQ+ community is at a high when the mindset of people is like this? Awful.



> So is building a separate bathroom for men and women like building a separate bathroom for black people? Because it is exactly the same as building a separate bathroom for transgender people. It's all division based on physical characteristics. According to you there when they identify as male or female then they are male or female period. No more division. So how is division between male and female okay? You can apply the same principles against the entire male/female division. Some people in academia do just that. Be careful, you might be making a bigoted argument that could be employed in an argument against letting use transgenders use the bathroom by the gender they identify as in your response here about the propriety of the male/female division. You're so inclusive but you're also operating on the only real division being male and female. What about those who identify as neither, or both, or a combination of three or more genders that may or may not include male and female or both. There is literally no end to the rabbit hole you jump into once you go past LGBT. It veers off into the territory of ideological construct. That is why instead of the identity being defined by thousands of years of human experience, they are defined originally and almost exclusively through ideological academese of very recent advent. It is absurd.


The only bigoted thing I see here is discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community. Compelling argument, however.



> I know quite a bit about the Q+ portions of the spectrum, they are decadent ideological mass delusions. They have no basis in the history of human identity. As opposed to LGBT which have all clearly existed from the start. Look at history and the myths and legends and stories from our past, gay and lesbian and bisexual and transgender themes are present from the beginning. Genderqueer genderfluid intersex whatever, nope. Notta. They're creations of ideologues of the last generation and a half.


If you actually research a lot about the Q+ bit, it's a lot to do with people questioning or identifying with the 'queer' word. That's what I was getting at. Not what you've mentioned. Unless it means something different in America. In that case, blame different cultures etc.



> Well that's bullshit.


How is it when you've used the term 'flat out insane'?



birthday_massacre said:


> YOu are so full of shit its not even funny
> 
> Are you really going to claim that we don't denounce Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pot? They are all dictators and pretty everyone is against the stuff they did. Are you really going to claim that is not the cause?
> 
> 
> And sorry but if someone is a bigot or racist its ok to call them on it. The only defense snow flakes like you have is crying that we call racists racists and bigots bigots. Like I said if you want to be one then own it. Stop crying when you get called out on it.
> 
> And yes those issues are black and white. I won't stop calling people those things if that is what they are.
> 
> Those are the people that dont want to bring everyone together not the ones who are fighting for equal rights and pointing out the bigotry.
> 
> I love how you claim the people trying to stop the division are the ones causing it by pointing it out.
> 
> Your logic is just so awful.





Alkomesh2 said:


> If people support racist and bigoted policies why is it wrong to call the racists and bigots?


Both of these comments ring the word 'truth' quite a lot.



Stinger Fan said:


> I've said in the past that I don't quite know what to think about "transgenderism" , I don't really have a real definitive opinion about it. However, you cannot say gender "changes" the moment you decide to get a surgery or decide to claim you're of the opposite gender. You're either biologically male or female and nothing can change that no matter how much you want to say it does.
> 
> What truly is ignorance is to completely ignore/disregard biology and science on the basis of "feeling" and not fact. It's also incredibly dangerous to do so as well. Before you try to claim that I'm "transphobic" this isn't about if people are "weirdos" or not, people can do what they like in their private life thats up to them but you don't get to redefine science, biology and gender on the basis of feelings.


I personally disagree. As I've stated above, my mother's friend had a sex change and explained the operation etc. to me. Once the operation is done, that's it. Respect it. That's who they are now. How low it is for a person not to do that.

Bottom bit can be applied to 'Christians' and the like who rubbish science out the window when it comes to Christianity/science etc., yet use science as an excuse for things like this. :shrug


----------



## Miss Sally

birthday_massacre said:


> YOu are so full of shit its not even funny
> 
> Are you really going to claim that we don't denounce Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pot? They are all dictators and pretty everyone is against the stuff they did. Are you really going to claim that is not the cause?
> 
> 
> And sorry but if someone is a bigot or racist its ok to call them on it. The only defense snow flakes like you have is crying that we call racists racists and bigots bigots. Like I said if you want to be one then own it. Stop crying when you get called out on it.
> 
> And yes those issues are black and white. I won't stop calling people those things if that is what they are.
> 
> Those are the people that dont want to bring everyone together not the ones who are fighting for equal rights and pointing out the bigotry.
> 
> I love how you claim the people trying to stop the division are the ones causing it by pointing it out.
> 
> Your logic is just so awful.


Well you have a point but the fact is that everyone who doesn't confine exactly to the Left's views are considered bigots or racists. The "Left" likes to call facts and statistics they don't like racist instead of fixing the problems at hand. 

Basically opposing anything is technically bigoted and I'm quite sure you're not down with everything.

The holier than thou routine is a bit tired and been done already by Religious nuts, don't need to turn Politics into a Religion now and trying to adopt "snowflake" for your own use is pretty silly, it doesn't work. Snowflake is used to show an attempt at uniqueness and you're using it a completely wrong context. 

Let's just call a spade a spade, being "Left" doesn't make you any less of a bigot or a racist than someone on the Right. You can pretend it does but it really doesn't. There are bigots and racists on both sides pushing their agendas while pretending that what they say and do isn't that way, it's just always hidden behind words like "Morality" "Social Justice" and "Activism".

Quite frankly most of us probably wish the hard Left and Right would meet on a battlefield and kill each other so the rest of us moderates could actually do real change and be left alone. 

Without Religious zealots, racists, identity politicing crybabies, special snowflakes, oppression Olympic gold medalists and closed minded Lefties and Righties who are pretty much the same thing it would be a wonderful world!


----------



## deepelemblues

if you want to see actual racism and bigotry i'd suggest reading the comments thread of a post on a site like zerohedge

it's funny until you remember they actually believe the comments they're posting


----------



## birthday_massacre

Miss Sally said:


> Well you have a point but the fact is that everyone who doesn't confine exactly to the Left's views are considered bigots or racists. The "Left" likes to call facts and statistics they don't like racist instead of fixing the problems at hand.
> 
> Basically opposing anything is technically bigoted and I'm quite sure you're not down with everything.
> 
> The holier than thou routine is a bit tired and been done already by Religious nuts, don't need to turn Politics into a Religion now and trying to adopt "snowflake" for your own use is pretty silly, it doesn't work. Snowflake is used to show an attempt at uniqueness and you're using it a completely wrong context.
> 
> Let's just call a spade a spade, being "Left" doesn't make you any less of a bigot or a racist than someone on the Right. You can pretend it does but it really doesn't. There are bigots and racists on both sides pushing their agendas while pretending that what they say and do isn't that way, it's just always hidden behind words like "Morality" "Social Justice" and "Activism".
> 
> Quite frankly most of us probably wish the hard Left and Right would meet on a battlefield and kill each other so the rest of us moderates could actually do real change and be left alone.
> 
> Without Religious zealots, racists, identity politicing crybabies, special snowflakes, oppression Olympic gold medalists and closed minded Lefties and Righties who are pretty much the same thing it would be a wonderful world!


This has nothing to do with leftist views.

If you are against equal rights for blacks, you are racist. It does not matter what party affiliation you have.
If you are against equal rights fo LBGTQ then you are a bigot , your party affiliation does not matter.

This has nothing to do with a left or right view it has to do with what is right. And equal rights is right. 

I also dont see how wanting equal rights for LBGTQ is acting holier than thou its called acting like a human being.

I agree being left or right does not make someone a bigot, but it does seem its the right who in these cases are the ones tryiong to make laws against LBGTQ, that is just the facts. Is it not? Is it the left or the right trying to infringe upon LBGTQ rights?


----------



## deepelemblues

It has everything to do with the leftist compulsion to define racism and bigotry down until the terms are cheapened and meaningless, and to corrode civil society and retard progress towards the goal of ending racism and bigotry by setting people against each other by cavalierly calling people racists and bigots when they are not. It is no coincidence that the perception of race relations and progress began to sour when people start getting called racist and bigots for holding opinions that are neither. Good job on making it worse.

In 1958 4% of people polled approved of interracial marriage. In 2013 87% did. There are countless other examples of the retreat of racism in American society. Yet some people have no problem labeling a portion of that 87% as racist because bullshit reasons. Then when you spout more bullshit to justify the ridiculous presumption of racism all you accomplish is make more people decide to stop listening to you; why should they listen to someone who lies about them to call them horrible people?


----------



## Stinger Fan

Alkomesh2 said:


> If people support racist and bigoted policies why is it wrong to call the racists and bigots?


That's not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is simply labeling the opposing party as racists and bigots simply for existing or voting Republican is incredibly ignorant and divisive. Simply voting for them or being one doesn't make them a bigot, this as I said isn't as black and white as people are tryign to portray. The suggestion that only one party could possibly have bigoted views is a load of crap



InUtero said:


> I personally disagree. As I've stated above, my mother's friend had a sex change and explained the operation etc. to me. Once the operation is done, that's it. Respect it. That's who they are now. How low it is for a person not to do that.
> 
> Bottom bit can be applied to 'Christians' and the like who rubbish science out the window when it comes to Christianity/science etc., yet use science as an excuse for things like this. :shrug


And you'd be wrong.

Personally I do not give a shit about your mothers friend . Sorry if that sounds harsh but the fact remains that her friends biology doesn't change just because they reference themselves as the opposite gender. 

Religion has nothing to do with this topic, stop grasping at straws for your argument. You don't get to insult people by claiming everyone who is a Christian ignores science, then go ahead and ignore science yourself. Sorry but your argument doesn't work 



birthday_massacre said:


> YOu are so full of shit its not even funny
> 
> Are you really going to claim that we don't denounce Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pot? They are all dictators and pretty everyone is against the stuff they did. Are you really going to claim that is not the cause?
> 
> 
> And sorry but if someone is a bigot or racist its ok to call them on it. The only defense snow flakes like you have is crying that we call racists racists and bigots bigots. Like I said if you want to be one then own it. Stop crying when you get called out on it.
> 
> And yes those issues are black and white. I won't stop calling people those things if that is what they are.
> 
> Those are the people that dont want to bring everyone together not the ones who are fighting for equal rights and pointing out the bigotry.
> 
> I love how you claim the people trying to stop the division are the ones causing it by pointing it out.
> 
> Your logic is just so awful.


You were the one who was claiming Hitler was a right winger when in actuality he was a socialist leftist. Denouncing them by claiming they're of the opposing political party is not actually denouncing them. Especially with the Democratic party and their horrible racist past with the KKK, Jim Crow,and segregation where people like you blame the republicans for it and completely change history because Democrats are playing identity politics. My point stands

You've been calling everyone who votes Republican or leans right as a bigot with no proof most of the time . This isn't about which policies people support or not, this has been a trend of yours for a very long time in this thread. My issue isn't about calling actual racist people out for being racist(they should), my problem is you labeling anyone who is even remotely leaning right, as a bigot. Your "rise up against fascism" attitude without knowing a damn thing about living under fascist rule. It's incredibly stupid and you don't see how divisive you actually are being. You literally cannot see it and you say that I'm full of shit?


----------



## deepelemblues

Stinger Fan said:


> It's incredibly stupid and you don't see how divisive you actually are being. You literally cannot see it and you say that I'm full of shit?


Oh no he can see it, he just doesn't care because he's surrounded by an impenetrable suit of armor of his own bigotry and presumption.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> That's not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is simply labeling the opposing party as racists and bigots simply for existing or voting Republican is incredibly ignorant and divisive. Simply voting for them or being one doesn't make them a bigot, this as I said isn't as black and white as people are tryign to portray. The suggestion that only one party could possibly have bigoted views is a load of crap
> 
> 
> And you'd be wrong.
> 
> Personally I do not give a shit about your mothers friend . Sorry if that sounds harsh but the fact remains that her friends biology doesn't change just because they reference themselves as the opposite gender.
> 
> Religion has nothing to do with this topic, stop grasping at straws for your argument. You don't get to insult people by claiming everyone who is a Christian ignores science, then go ahead and ignore science yourself. Sorry but your argument doesn't work
> 
> 
> You were the one who was claiming Hitler was a right winger when in actuality he was a socialist leftist. Denouncing them by claiming they're of the opposing political party is not actually denouncing them. Especially with the Democratic party and their horrible racist past with the KKK, Jim Crow,and segregation where people like you blame the republicans for it and completely change history because Democrats are playing identity politics. My point stands
> 
> You've been calling everyone who votes Republican or leans right as a bigot with no proof most of the time . This isn't about which policies people support or not, this has been a trend of yours for a very long time in this thread. My issue isn't about calling actual racist people out for being racist(they should), my problem is you labeling anyone who is even remotely leaning right, as a bigot. Your "rise up against fascism" attitude without knowing a damn thing about living under fascist rule. It's incredibly stupid and you don't see how divisive you actually are being. You literally cannot see it and you say that I'm full of shit?


yes you are totally full of shit

And you keep proving it over and over again with every post


----------



## rennlc

Modern American politics is two groups of voters who agree on ~70% of matters insulting, fighting, dehumanizing, and confirmation biasing our way through the ~30% of matters we disagree on.


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> yes you are totally full of shit
> 
> And you keep proving it over and over again with every post


The lefts tactic, can't refute someone so resort to curses


----------



## birthday_massacre

deepelemblues said:


> It has everything to do with the leftist compulsion to define racism and bigotry down until the terms are cheapened and meaningless, and to corrode civil society and retard progress towards the goal of ending racism and bigotry by setting people against each other by cavalierly calling people racists and bigots when they are not. It is no coincidence that the perception of race relations and progress began to sour when people start getting called racist and bigots for holding opinions that are neither. Good job on making it worse.
> 
> In 1958 4% of people polled approved of interracial marriage. In 2013 87% did. There are countless other examples of the retreat of racism in American society. Yet some people have no problem labeling a portion of that 87% as racist because bullshit reasons. Then when you spout more bullshit to justify the ridiculous presumption of racism all you accomplish is make more people decide to stop listening to you; why should they listen to someone who lies about them to call them horrible people?


There you go again LOL

The only thing that is retarding progress is when the right tries to ban gay marriage again, make it so its ok to discriminate against LBGTQ community, fear monger when it comes to muslims but ignore all the fucked up shit white Christians do especially when it comes to things like mass shootings. 

You can keep claiming these things we are talking about is not bigotry but it does not change the fact it is.




Only people like you think fighting for equal rights is regarding progress when in fact what is retarding progress is not giving them their equal rights.

And using your interracial marriage example, yeah its more accepted now because people fought for equal rights and called out the bigots against it. But figting for interracial marriage did not retard america did it

You totally contradicted what you said by bringing that up but you are too ignorant to even realize it.




Stinger Fan said:


> The lefts tactic, can't refute someone so resort to curses


I already totally tore you to shreds You are just going in circles at this point. You are the one who keeps making strawmen and I just don't even bother giving them the time of day.


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> I already totally tore you to shreds You are just going in circles at this point.


Saying and doing are quite different. You didn't refute anything, you just said I was wrong. There's a reason why you completely ignored my post and said I was full of shit, with zero proof behind it. That's not tearing to shreds, thats running away


----------



## Warlock

Bm regularly claims victories(both here and other threads) with little to back it up. "Destroying points" usually means he voiced disagreement with little support, ignoring counterpoints and deciding to declare himself the winner. His valid points however (and he does have several) gets lost in the shuffle and kneejerk name calling.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> Saying and doing are quite different. You didn't refute anything, you just said I was wrong. There's a reason why you completely ignored my post and said I was full of shit, with zero proof behind it. That's not tearing to shreds, thats running away





Sweenz said:


> Bm regularly claims victories(both here and other threads) with little to back it up. "Destroying points" usually means he voiced disagreement with little support, ignoring counterpoints and deciding to declare himself the winner. His valid points however (and he does have several) gets lost in the shuffle and kneejerk name calling.


Little to back up my point LOL 

If you are against equal rights of blacks, you are a racist.
If you are against equal rights of LGBTQ you are a bigot 

both are facts


Is it D or R in the US who are trying to make laws aginst the LBGTQ community, that would be the R, which is also a fact.

Anyone who claims otherwise is just wrong or they are lying.

So how is any of that little support when its all factual

You guys can continue to have your circle jerk and pretend people supporting equal rights are bigots but it just makes you look even more ignorant than you already are.


----------



## Warlock

Example a. Made a counterpoint to the "of you are against x rights, then you are a bigot", where you can put any group in x (trans, black, men, women, babies, elderly, anyone with an opposing position) and do the same thing. Those are facts you cannot dispute. Your point is now destroyed. 

Noone is questioning someone should have equal rights. They are questioning of those rights pertain to certain areas.

Noone is disputing that "Rs" are making the changes.. these are strawman points that continue to make you look silly. Though the actuality of it was recinding a pro trans law, not actually creating a anti trans one. But i know you dont see the difference.

Calling a racist a racist. Noone disputes that. What they do dispute is the validity they are actually a racist before being able to call them as such.

These are points you ignored, but continue to live in your bubble.





birthday_massacre said:


> You guys can continue to have your circle jerk and pretend people supporting equal rights are bigots but it just makes you look even more ignorant than you already are.


You still have no clue what bigotry is. You can be against the bigotry of one group and actually a bigot of another.

You can be anti racism for one group, and actually racist to another.

You can be anti fascist, yet actually be fascist in your attempt to protest it.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Sweenz said:


> Example a. Made a counterpoint to the "of you are against x rights, then you are a bigot", where you can put any group in x (trans, black, men, women, babies, elderly, anyone with an opposing position) and do the same thing. Those are facts you cannot dispute. Your point is now destroyed.
> 
> Noone is questioning someone should have equal rights. They are questioning of those rights pertain to certain areas.
> 
> Calling a racist a racist. Noone disputes that. What they do dispute is the validity they are actually a racist before being able to call them as such.
> 
> These are points you ignored, but continue to live in your bubble.


You are a bigot if you are against the equal rights of trans, blacks, men, women, etc etc).

Are you going to claim that person isn't? 

Equal rights are equal rights, you don't get what cherry pick which rights a certain group should get and which ones they shouldn't. 

Why do you think its ok to cherry pick what equal rights a certain group gets , once you start doing that they dont have equal rights anymore.

are you really claiming you think it's ok to infringe upon certain groups equal rights depending on what that right is?


----------



## Warlock

birthday_massacre said:


> You are a bigot if you are against the equal rights of trans, blacks, men, women, etc etc).
> 
> Are you going to claim that person isn't?
> 
> Equal rights are equal rights, you don't get what cherry pick which rights a certain group should get and which ones they shouldn't.
> 
> Why do you think its ok to cherry pick what equal rights a certain group gets , once you start doing that they dont have equal rights anymore.


Exactly. Im not cherry picking. Im trying to see both sides and determine a good solution. You are trying and only considering the one side(thus yourself cherry picking against, say, christians rights). And are abhorent to anyone trying to consider the other side. The very definition of bigotry.

Equal rights mean we have to consider the rights of the OTHER people too. Not just the side wanting a change. THATs where you fall way short.


----------



## FriedTofu

So what are the thoughts of Trump's continued attack on establishment media? Feels very dictatorial like to me. It feels like what authoritarian governments we have in Asia do more than what we are used to in America.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Sweenz said:


> Exactly. Im not cherry picking. Im trying to see both sides and determine a good solution. You are trying and only considering the one side(thus yourself cherry picking against, say, christians rights). And are abhorent to anyone trying to consider the other side. The very definition of bigotry.
> 
> Equal rights mean we have to consider the rights of the OTHER people too. Not just the side wanting a change. THATs where you fall way short.


I don't think you understand what equal rights means. 

There is only one side when it comes to equal rights. 

What exactly are Christian rights? Oh Christians say gays should not get married you think that is a side LOL If you are a Christian and don't want to marry someone of the same sex then don't. How is it infringing on Christians to let gays get married? Its not. No one is forcing Christians to get married to someone of the same sex. And no one is forcing churches to marry gays

Equal rights means gays should be able to marry like straight people, that is equal rights.

Equal rights to blacks, how was it ok for whites and blacks to have separate bathrooms> That is not either equal rights. How is it infringing upon whites when blacks are getting the same rights as them?

Stop acting like when a group like blacks , women, LBGTQ get equal rights as other groups that its infringing on someone else, Its not. that's why your reasoning makes no sense of, oh what about Christians, why shouldnt they be able to infringe upon gays its not fair to Christians. GTFO with that shit.


Equal rights has NOTHING to do with considering the rights of the OTHER people too, it has to do with making sure everyone group is created equally. 

You are not making any sense. How is blacks getting equal rights as whites taking away equal rightws of whites? Its not its putting them equal.

It makes you sound ignorant the way you are thinking.





FriedTofu said:


> So what are the thoughts of Trump's continued attack on establishment media? Feels very dictatorial like to me. It feels like what authoritarian governments we have in Asia do more than what we are used to in America.


Like I said before Trump is turning America into N Korea.


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> Little to back up my point LOL
> 
> If you are against equal rights of blacks, you are a racist.
> If you are against equal rights of LGBTQ you are a bigot
> 
> both are facts
> 
> 
> Is it D or R in the US who are trying to make laws aginst the LBGTQ community, that would be the R, which is also a fact.
> 
> Anyone who claims otherwise is just wrong or they are lying.
> 
> So how is any of that little support when its all factual
> 
> You guys can continue to have your circle jerk and pretend people supporting equal rights are bigots but it just makes you look even more ignorant than you already are.


big·ot
?bi??t/
noun
noun: bigot; plural noun: bigots
a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.

The more you post , the more you fall into that category.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> big·ot
> ?bi??t/
> noun
> noun: bigot; plural noun: bigots
> a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
> 
> The more you post , the more you fall into that category.


yeah so anyone against people who are racist are bigots, you really want to go with that LOL

Only on the Trump thread do you hear claims like this lol I cant even take you seriously anyone.

You don't have to be tolerant against other people's intolerance.

I am so done with this topic because people like you are just getting silly with you reasoning now. Just when I thought I heard it all lol


----------



## FriedTofu

birthday_massacre said:


> Like I said before Trump is turning America into N Korea.


:lol Way to go hypebole on that. America's institution has ways to go before they even reach N.Korea levels.

But what Trump is attempting to do is comparable to the likes of Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore and Russia.


----------



## Warlock

birthday_massacre said:


> I don't think you understand what equal rights means.
> 
> There is only one side when it comes to equal rights.


For it or against it right? So anyone against it is bad. 

How am i doin so far?

What about when granting said rights to one group infringes on anothers rights. 



> What exactly are Christian rights? Oh Christians say gays should not get married you think that is a side LOL If you are a Christian and don't want to marry someone of the same sex then don't. How is it infringing on Christians to let gays get married? Its not. No one is forcing Christians to get married to someone of the same sex. And no one is forcing churches to marry gays
> 
> Equal rights means gays should be able to marry like straight people, that is equal rights.


Strawman. Not talking about marriage.



> Equal rights to blacks, how was it ok for whites and blacks to have separate bathrooms> That is not either equal rights. How is it infringing upon whites when blacks are getting the same rights as them?


Another strawman.. but going to comment anyway.

It wasnt. Especially when the separate but equal was never equal. This was heavily agreagious. And dont try to twist my words into saying that i think it was. 



> Stop acting like when a group like blacks , women, LBGTQ get equal rights as other groups that its infringing on someone else, Its not. that's why your reasoning makes no sense of, oh what about Christians, why shouldnt they be able to infringe upon gays its not fair to Christians. GTFO with that shit.
> 
> 
> Equal rights has NOTHING to do with considering the rights of the OTHER people too, it has to do with making sure everyone group is created equally.


It has everything to do with it. The reason trans want to go to the bathroom they identify with is cause a) they want to go somewhere they feel comfortable in those moments or b) essentially want to assimilate into the gender of their preference and going to the wrong bathroom would work against that (and possibly bullying, tho the end goal is acceptance of these people, so eventually this should not matter?) Feel free to add something i have missed, but otherwise i feel pretty good about their reasons.

On the other side, hardcore christians(and other faiths) have very strict rules on the opposite sex seeing their bodies in various stages of undress. (There are some that wont wear anything but skirts, no coed swimming, hijabs, etc) They have actual religous issues with this. And have a right to that as well. Those are infringed on, weather you agree with it or not. There is also a comfortablitity thing with those that are just prudish. But also their right to be so. And, as you mentioned earlier.. if you are against equal rights (of these groups) then you must be on the wrong side.



> You are not making any sense. How is blacks getting equal rights as whites taking away equal rightws of whites? Its not its putting them equal.
> 
> It makes you sound ignorant the way you are thinking.


And right on cue.. name calling.

A line has to be drawn somewhere. Currently its your birth gender (or what on your birth certificate). If we let people choose what bathroom based on some intangible criteria, we may as well not even have gendered/separate bathrooms at all (my universal bathroom i mentioned earlier) but has its own logistic issues as well as holes. 

Like i said, you make good points sometimes, but when you just start spouting off opinions as facts, dont consider others opinions and statements, using strawmans to argue a point never made (forgot this one earlier) then degenerate to name calling, saying things are proving your point when they dont, and self victory announcements, you lose it.


----------



## Warlock

You also seem to imply that i think making anything equal makes something worse for another group. That was never implied. You are flat out wrong with that angle.

I also see you finally read the definition of bigot but have decided to use your own made up definition of it anyway.

However whenever a specific rights equality action actually does infringe on someone elses rights.. im going to say something.


----------



## deepelemblues

FriedTofu said:


> So what are the thoughts of Trump's continued attack on establishment media? Feels very dictatorial like to me. It feels like what authoritarian governments we have in Asia do more than what we are used to in America.


Journalists need to sack up if getting called liars - which is what they are - by the president repeatedly makes them shit themselves so much that they can't continue to freely publish whatever they like since no one is stopping them. Everyone has the freedom of speech even if it makes some journalists get the bad feelz. They should get some GRAPEFRUITS in their pants like :vince


----------



## Martins

Stinger Fan said:


> You were the one who was claiming Hitler was a right winger when in actuality he was a socialist leftist.


A'wha'?

Relations to production weren't altered, as in no workers' control over the means of production nor abolition of private property. In fact there was widespread privatization of various services in the public sector in Nazi Germany, after Hitler became Chancellor. Nor did he envisage building toward proletarian internationalism, which is comprehensible, since why would a man with ideas of Aryan racial superiority wish to aid non-Aryan workers, which he had no love lost for, break free from the capitalist mode of production, which he was not opposed to? Plus, y'know, the imprisoning and murdering of socialists/communists. I dare say the Nazis' hatred for socialism was almost as great as the Americans' 

"Socialism" was a very popular idea among the working classes in Germany in the 1920's, which is why the Nazi Party's original rhetoric was favourable towards it; this later proved to be nothing more than just that, rhetoric. Many parties in Europe today call themselves Socialist, when in fact they are not. 

Yes, there was state ownership of various sectors of industry, but this does not necessarily correlate with it being a "socialist economy", obviously. German economy really wasn't that much "out there", I think.


----------



## FriedTofu

deepelemblues said:


> Journalists need to sack up if getting called liars - which is what they are - by the president repeatedly makes them shit themselves so much that they can't continue to freely publish whatever they like since no one is stopping them. Everyone has the freedom of speech even if it makes some journalists get the bad feelz. They should get some GRAPEFRUITS in their pants like :vince


What makes you think they aren't 'sacking up'? They have been pretty defiant to the lies this white house has been spreading. If anyone is whining because they get the bad feelz from the first amendment, it is Trump.

Where is this outrage when Trump has repeatedly and freely tweet whatever lies he like about the former president or his opponent in the elections? Is the defence the same as Sean Hannity's 'THIS IS TWITTER' so it doesn't count?

You do realise you are saying Trump should censor journalists that say bad things about him? Do Trump need his safe space so he can't see or hear bad things said about him so his feelings don't get hurt? He has yet to explain why is the news fake but the leaks is real.


----------



## deepelemblues

Martins said:


> A'wha'?
> 
> Relations to production weren't altered, as in no workers' control over the means of production nor abolition of private property. In fact there was widespread privatization of various services in the public sector in Nazi Germany, after Hitler became Chancellor. Nor did he envisage building toward proletarian internationalism, which is comprehensible, since why would a man with ideas of Aryan racial superiority wish to aid non-Aryan workers, which he had no love lost for, break free from the capitalist mode of production, which he was not opposed to? Plus, y'know, the imprisoning and murdering of socialists/communists. I dare say the Nazis' hatred for socialism was almost as great as the Americans'
> 
> "Socialism" was a very popular idea among the working classes in Germany in the 1920's, which is why the Nazi Party's original rhetoric was favourable towards it; this later proved to be nothing more than just that, rhetoric. Many parties in Europe today call themselves Socialist, when in fact they are not.
> 
> Yes, there was state ownership of various sectors of industry, but this does not necessarily correlate with it being a "socialist economy", obviously. German economy really wasn't that much "out there", I think.


That is incorrect, google Gleichshaltung and come back. Federations of private companies - such as the Federation of German Industries and the Langnam Verein, the federation for representing private industrial interest in the Rhineland and Westphalia - were taken over by Nazi commissars, and commissars were also assigned to any businesses the Nazi Party decided should have one, with ultimate authority over that business that could be (and in many cases was) exercised whenever the Party saw fit.

Hitler's socialism was a racial socialism more than an economic socialism even though the Nazi ideology contained economically socialist elements that remained even after the purge of the left wing of the party in 1934. But the Nazis sought to bend every organization completely towards the will of the Party and if the Nazis had survived and continued to rule it's very likely that all organized entities in their territory including corporations and other businesses would have eventually been put under the direct control of either the State or Party.



FriedTofu said:


> What makes you think they aren't 'sacking up'? They have been pretty defiant to the lies this white house has been spreading. If anyone is whining because they get the bad feelz from the first amendment, it is Trump.
> 
> Where is this outrage when Trump has repeatedly and freely tweet whatever lies he like about the former president or his opponent in the elections? Is the defence the same as Sean Hannity's 'THIS IS TWITTER' so it doesn't count?
> 
> You do realise you are saying Trump should censor journalists that say bad things about him? Do Trump need his safe space so he can't see or hear bad things said about him so his feelings don't get hurt? He has yet to explain why is the news fake but the leaks is real.


They're whining that what he is saying is a threat to their freedom which is patently ridiculous. Being 'defiant to the lies the White House has been spreading' is not the same thing as not being whiny bitches crying about how the president calling them liars is a sure sign that he intends to curtail the freedom of the press. If calling the press liars is a threat to a free press then the American public is a far greater threat seeing as how a majority of that public has expressed no trust in them for 10+ years now.

I'm not sure what relevance your talk about outrage has, as any such outrage is free for people to express or not express as they feel like. Absolutely no one in the government is preventing them from doing so.

I am most certainly not saying :trump should censor journalists that say bad things about him, I do not know where you got that idea from.


----------



## Warlock

I think reaper said it best but cant find the post. So paraphrasing.

Trump not inviting certain news outlets to a press conference was not illegal. My local newspaper probably wasnt invited and probably could not have gotten in either. 

However, its bad optics to not include the major news outlets that he's essentially been feuding with. Doesnt instill confidence in the american people, at the very least, and likely the opposite. He needs to be trying to reach out to the other side, not pushing them further away.


----------



## FriedTofu

Sweenz said:


> I think reaper said it best but cant find the post. So paraphrasing.
> 
> Trump not inviting certain news outlets to a press conference was not illegal. My local newspaper probably wasnt invited and probably could not have gotten in either.
> 
> However, its bad optics to not include the major news outlets that he's essentially been feuding with. Doesnt instill confidence in the american people, at the very least, and likely the opposite. He needs to be trying to reach out to the other side, not pushing them further away.


If the only point is based on a technicality, it reveals the weakness of his argument.


----------



## Genking48

birthday_massacre said:


> Little to back up my point LOL
> 
> If you are against equal rights of *blacks*, you are a racist.
> If you are against equal rights of LGBTQ you are a bigot
> 
> both are facts


Thinks that you are a racist only if you don't support the rights of blacks and none of the other races...racist.

The only bigot here is you as you seem unable to accept the viewpoint of people unless they fit your opinion, which coincidentally is part of being a bigot 



> a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices


People like you are what drives Trump supporters and might in the end make more people support Trump, because people are tired of being called a racist just because they might not be for taking in an unreasonably amount of refugees, and called a bigot for not wanting a bathroom to be build for any gender that might sprout up. You hate this new America that is coming since Trump won? You hate the fact that he won? Then take a look in the mirror.

I get so depressed when I enter this thread and see a reply by you, because before all of this, during the elections I was pretty much on board, but ever since then for every one of your replies my opinion on you and whatever cause you are trying to stand up for have really soured.

Most people, also in this thread I'd wager even the people you seem to be on a holy crusade to bash, are for equality within reason. You need to fix your attitude mate, because it's people that engages other people such as yourself, with fascist attitudes in regards to the opinions of others, that are the cause of the lashing back against these movements.


----------



## Beatles123

I really, really want to respond @Oda Nobunaga ...

Help. :taker

p)


----------



## Martins

deepelemblues said:


> That is incorrect, google Gleichshaltung and come back. Federations of private companies - such as the Federation of German Industries and the Langnam Verein, the federation for representing private industrial interest in the Rhineland and Westphalia - were taken over by Nazi commissars, and commissars were also assigned to any businesses the Nazi Party decided should have one, with ultimate authority over that business that could be (and in many cases was) exercised whenever the Party saw fit.
> 
> Hitler's socialism was a racial socialism more than an economic socialism even though the Nazi ideology contained economically socialist elements that remained even after the purge of the left wing of the party in 1934. But the Nazis sought to bend every organization completely towards the will of the Party and if the Nazis had survived and continued to rule it's very likely that all organized entities in their territory including corporations and other businesses would have eventually been put under the direct control of either the State or Party.


Then a state-directed, but still privately-owned economy might be a better description. I'm not denying the extensive role of the state apparatus in the German economy of the Third Reich; yet the control that was exercised over these industries was not to serve the purpose of actual expropriation or a break with the capitalist system. Even if at times through coercion, the industrial bourgeoisie was still allied to the state, and in no way was that state building towards the overthrowing of that same bourgeoisie by the working class. Not to mention the fact that the Gleichschaltung also included the suppression of trade unions. Therefore, I'd say it really is a stretch to call Hitler (himself having admitted to this fondness for private initiative) or Nazi Germany "socialist".


----------



## deepelemblues

Martins said:


> Then a state-directed, but still privately-owned economy might be a better description. I'm not denying the extensive role of the state apparatus in the German economy of the Third Reich; yet the control that was exercised over these industries was not to serve the purpose of actual expropriation or a break with the capitalist system. Even if at times through coercion, the industrial bourgeoisie was still allied to the state, and in no way was that state building towards the overthrowing of that same bourgeoisie by the working class. Not to mention the fact that the Gleichschaltung also included the suppression of trade unions. Therefore, I'd say it really is a stretch to call Hitler (himself having admitted to this fondness for private initiative) or Nazi Germany "socialist".


Nazism did not have as much time as it needed to become as economically collectivist as it was collectivist in other areas. I would almost put Nazism in a category all its own, but one of its goals was the complete submission of everything and all in society to the will of the Party. Hitler also said, "common use must take precedence over individual use." Does that mean something different from what the Communists meant, or is it the same? It's the same and not the same. Western liberalism says the ideal is government chosen and constituted by the people. Communism says that in its final stage there will be no government at all because it won't be needed; that is their ideal. Nazism's ideal was a Master Race of Aryans ruling over everyone else in the world they suffered to allow to continue living, who would toil as slaves at whatever task the Master Race decided. The Party was conceived as something very close to God. There would be nothing tolerated in society from anyone, Aryan or not, that the Party did not approve of. Capitalism, private property and the bourgeoisie of any stripe as we understand them cannot exist under such a system for long. What Nazism shares with left-wing systems like communism is the total State, the complete lack of the rule of law, the resulting precariousness and essentially total lack of any rights of any of the people including property rights, the great lengths went to for the purpose of achieving a future with total ideological uniformity, and the extension of ideology into nearly every matter of human behavior and opinion. 

And yes Gleichshaltung dissolved all the executive committees of the trades unions and replaced them with Nazi committees but again it was all towards the same goal which was to bend all opinion and action in the country to the will of the Party and whatever it might tell the country its goals would be.


----------



## Beatles123

Hitler's original ideas weren't even that awful TBH.

And the rest of you will read that and look at me like:


----------



## BruiserKC

FriedTofu said:


> So what are the thoughts of Trump's continued attack on establishment media? Feels very dictatorial like to me. It feels like what authoritarian governments we have in Asia do more than what we are used to in America.


It's six of one and one half dozen of another. 

The media has pounded Trump, their thing is they want to hold him accountable for what he does, says, etc. I have no problem with that, we need to make sure our President is held accountable for whatever he says he intends to do, etc. 

At the same time, where was this media during the Obama years holding him to the same standard? Here in the States, they tended to give him a free pass more often than not and at times their coverage of him bordered on swooning and eye-batting. Like the way a guy might describe the girl of his dreams who could do no wrong. Very rarely (such as the Fast and Furious scandal) was he held to the same level of accountability that no doubt the media is going to do to Trump and his administration. 

The funny thing is that the media helped elevate Trump to this point. They gave him all the free publicity he wanted during the campaign. He was seen initially as a side show, a joke, but he gave them a good story. When he won the nomination, then the media turned on him viciously. They did the same during the McCain and Romney campaigns in the previous two elections. They took two good people and made them out to look like monsters. Obama is a good person, too, but they went way over the top with how they showed their favoritism. Only near the end (the UN abstain vote on Israel and Palestinian settlements, e.g.) did the media even start to question his judgment in a way the media should be. 

At the same time, Trump's obsession with the media needs to stop. All he is doing is pushing the media to double down on watching his every move. Again, the media does not get a free pass for just pounding him ruthlessly but Trump referring to them as "the enemy of the people" doesn't help his cause or make them back off anytime soon. When he is at a press conference, I want to know what the latest is on the replacement of the ACA or what his tax plan will do for the economy. I don't want to hear a ten-minute rant about how CNN is treating him badly. 

Yet, there is a method to Trump's madness. By pounding on the media like this, he is insulating himself so that when a major scandal does erupt (it happens in every presidential administration inevitably) and the media is doing their job, he can say, "The media is trying to distort this and they are just out to get me! They don't care about anything else!" So, these rants aren't the work of a mentally deranged maniac as some are trying to portray. Trump knows exactly what he is doing. 





Beatles123 said:


> Hitler's original ideas weren't even that awful TBH.
> 
> And the rest of you will read that and look at me like:


That's because his being responsible for the murdering of millions of Jews, Christians, gays, Slavs, Roma, etc...tends to negate any alleged positives to his economic plans for Germany. When you are one of the most evil people that ever lived on this Earth, the cards tend to fall that way.


----------



## virus21

> Donald Trump’s presidency has cast a pall over the nation, so now witches are casting a spell against him.
> 
> A document making its rounds among the witch community is asking people who practice the craft to perform a monthly binding ritual until the president is removed from office.
> 
> In order to work, the mass spell must be performed at midnight EST on every waning crescent moon.
> 
> The first one is happening on Friday and will be followed by similar spell cast events on March 26, April 24 and May 23 and beyond.
> 
> Unless, of course, Trump is cast out of office before then.
> 
> Michael M. Hughes, who writes about the paranormal, posted the spell at ExtraNewsFeed last week.
> 
> He stressed that a binding spell is different than a curse or hex.
> 
> “It’s a restraint, not harm,” Hughes told The Huffington Post. “I see it as self-defense.”
> 
> Hughes said he heard that two separate witch groups were planning the spells and asked if he could take it to a wider audience.
> 
> The spell instructions have gone viral, and there is a group on Facebook dedicated to answering all the questions people may have.
> 
> Performing the spell takes a good deal of dedication, including amassing the following:
> 
> Unflattering photo of Trump
> Tower tarot card
> Tiny stub of an orange candle or orange carrot
> A pin or small nail (to inscribe candle)
> White candle (any size), representing the element of Fire
> Small bowl of water, representing elemental Water
> Small bowl of salt, representing elemental Earth
> Feather (any), representing the element of Air
> Matches or lighter
> Ashtray or dish of sand
> Practitioners are supposed to prepare for by writing “Donald J. Trump” on the orange candle stub with a pin or nail. They then arrange the other items in a circle and lean the Tower card against something so that it’s standing up.
> 
> Hughes suggests reading the 23rd Psalm aloud before beginning the spell by lighting a white candle.
> 
> The complete spell can be read here, but some of the lines include:
> 
> “Hear me, oh spirits
> Of Water, Earth, Fire, and Air
> Heavenly hosts
> Demons of the infernal realms
> And spirits of the ancestors
> (Light inscribed orange candle stub)
> I call upon you
> To bind
> Donald J. Trump
> So that he may fail utterly
> That he may do no harm
> To any human soul
> Nor any tree
> Animal
> Rock
> Stream
> or Sea”
> 
> 
> Next, practitioners are supposed to burn the photo with the orange candle, chanting “So mote it be.” But if that sounds a little too “witchy,” Hughes says a simple “You’re fired!” will also work. The spell is completed by burying the candle stub or carrot, or discarding it in running water.
> 
> When the ceremony is over, Hughes says it’s crucial to ground yourself by laughing loud and hearty since, “Trump hates people laughing at him.”
> 
> He admits the spell has a satirical element, but insists that “doesn’t invalidate it.”
> 
> “I’m OK with people calling it a stunt,” he said. “The spell can still be effective. I think it’s already working. Some Christian groups are calling for a day of prayer to counteract the spell. That’s magic, right there. When people do a ritual, that’s changing consciousness.”
> 
> Kevin Ambrose, a writer at Christian Nationalism, suggests people protesting the spell recite the 23rd Psalm, coincidentally the same biblical passage recommended by Hughes.
> 
> As satisfying as a mass spell might seem for Trump detractors, proving it has an effect is another thing altogether.
> 
> After all, any bad luck Trump experiences after the spell can be attributed to the spell without being disproven.
> 
> Hughes concedes that but think the actual ritual is therapeutic in and of itself.
> 
> “If people feel more empowered and less beaten down, that’s valid,” he said.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-spell-cast_us_58af3de7e4b0780bac27692a

You know its stories like this that make the Onion's stories look realistic


----------



## Reaper

Beatles123 said:


> Hitler's original ideas weren't even that awful TBH.
> 
> And the rest of you will read that and look at me like:


Hitler was inconsistent. He believed in a great many things from many different schools of thoughts and philosophies much like a self-proclaimed anointed Prophet would. From whatever I've read it seems like he thought he was borrowing and improving upon every single political and philosophical thought he was exposed to. However, his ultimate goal was german superiority at all costs and that resulted in a perversion of pretty much every idea he read to twist it into finding ways to make Germans the overlords of the earth and that included believing in germans having a divine right to superiority. 

Of course, when you want to implement something that you believe to be inherently good you will on accident or by design still do some good things for those close to you, however, he had to make sure he made everyone else submit in order to achieve that goal because you can't simply elevate your race without destroying others. It's not even a matter of looking at it from the perspective of isolating the good from the bad. You simply cannot do it because what was intended was never good. Not from the day he started railing about Zionist conspiracies to implementing his methods of ethnic genocide.


----------



## Miss Sally

BruiserKC said:


> It's six of one and one half dozen of another.
> 
> The media has pounded Trump, their thing is they want to hold him accountable for what he does, says, etc. I have no problem with that, we need to make sure our President is held accountable for whatever he says he intends to do, etc.
> 
> At the same time, where was this media during the Obama years holding him to the same standard? Here in the States, they tended to give him a free pass more often than not and at times their coverage of him bordered on swooning and eye-batting. Like the way a guy might describe the girl of his dreams who could do no wrong. Very rarely (such as the Fast and Furious scandal) was he held to the same level of accountability that no doubt the media is going to do to Trump and his administration.
> 
> The funny thing is that the media helped elevate Trump to this point. They gave him all the free publicity he wanted during the campaign. He was seen initially as a side show, a joke, but he gave them a good story. When he won the nomination, then the media turned on him viciously. They did the same during the McCain and Romney campaigns in the previous two elections. They took two good people and made them out to look like monsters. Obama is a good person, too, but they went way over the top with how they showed their favoritism. Only near the end (the UN abstain vote on Israel and Palestinian settlements, e.g.) did the media even start to question his judgment in a way the media should be.
> 
> At the same time, Trump's obsession with the media needs to stop. All he is doing is pushing the media to double down on watching his every move. Again, the media does not get a free pass for just pounding him ruthlessly but Trump referring to them as "the enemy of the people" doesn't help his cause or make them back off anytime soon. When he is at a press conference, I want to know what the latest is on the replacement of the ACA or what his tax plan will do for the economy. I don't want to hear a ten-minute rant about how CNN is treating him badly.
> 
> Yet, there is a method to Trump's madness. By pounding on the media like this, he is insulating himself so that when a major scandal does erupt (it happens in every presidential administration inevitably) and the media is doing their job, he can say, "The media is trying to distort this and they are just out to get me! They don't care about anything else!" So, these rants aren't the work of a mentally deranged maniac as some are trying to portray. Trump knows exactly what he is doing.


If the media actually acted like journalists instead of fanfict writers, fanbois and shippers they'd not be in this mess. They had one job and they cannot even do that correctly without either acting like a 12 year old boy in an FPS, swearing, spouting hate, acting like tools or swooning over a Politician and jizziing themselves like they just seen a pair of tits for the first time. 

The MSM acts like immature children who cannot distinguish reality and their own narrative fiction. There's plenty of need for opinions, political comedy and debates but when your whole Empire is based on sensationalized garbage and lies eventually it's going to come crashing around you.


----------



## Reaper

Excluding media isn't the same as suppressing it. It's punishing them for being douchebags.

They can still go back to their newsrooms and still publicly post about how much they want Trump to die or be assassinated :shrug


----------



## Miss Sally

RipNTear said:


> Excluding media isn't the same as suppressing it. It's punishing them for being douchebags.
> 
> They can still go back to their newsrooms and still publicly post about how much they want Trump to die or be assassinated :shrug


Didn't you hear? It's like North Korea now, can still tweet about how much you hate the President, Comedians are still making fun of Trump but I tell you what, the media being excluded? Fucking fascist! Our rights! Our rights! I bet Trump's SS is dismantling CNN as we speak...

Oh they're not? :laugh:


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> Didn't you hear? It's like North Korea now, can still tweet about how much you hate the President, Comedians are still making fun of Trump but I tell you what, the media being excluded? Fucking fascist! Our rights! Our rights! I bet Trump's SS is dismantling CNN as we speak...
> 
> Oh they're not? [emoji23]


I've been part of actual suppressed media in 2007. They sent the army to sieze our broadcast equipment and I remember my own boss having to smuggle tapes around incognito. 

We had about 400 journalists in jail at one point just from our TV channel because our boss was pro free media. The government took the channel off air for months where many of us ended up not getting paid till he was overthrown. Our bosses were working for free for at least 3 months but thankfully us underlings were paid most of our salaries though they used to be weeks late.

How many journalists has Trump jailed or sued so far?


----------



## Miss Sally

RipNTear said:


> I've been part of actual suppressed media in 2007. They sent the army to sieze our broadcast equipment and I remember my own boss having to smuggle tapes around incognito.
> 
> We had about 400 journalists in jail at one point just from our TV channel because our boss was pro free media. The government took the channel off air for months where many of us ended up not getting paid till he was overthrown. Our bosses were working for free for at least 3 months but thankfully us underlings were paid most of our salaries though they used to be weeks late.
> 
> How many journalists has Trump jailed or sued so far?


Oh but it's coming though! You just wait! Sound like those crazy white people that thought Obama was going to take all the guns and take away our freedoms.. 

Wait is it the same crazy white people as before but this time it's about Trump?


----------



## BruiserKC

Miss Sally said:


> If the media actually acted like journalists instead of fanfict writers, fanbois and shippers they'd not be in this mess. They had one job and they cannot even do that correctly without either acting like a 12 year old boy in an FPS, swearing, spouting hate, acting like tools or swooning over a Politician and jizziing themselves like they just seen a pair of tits for the first time.
> 
> The MSM acts like immature children who cannot distinguish reality and their own narrative fiction. There's plenty of need for opinions, political comedy and debates but when your whole Empire is based on sensationalized garbage and lies eventually it's going to come crashing around you.


Agreed but why give them the chance to make themselves into martyrs? I am all for calling them out but to overdo it gives them martyrdom they don't deserve


----------



## virus21

BruiserKC said:


> Agreed but why give them the chance to make themselves into martyrs? I am all for calling them out but to overdo it gives them martyrdom they don't deserve


Doubtful that they would get to martyrdom considering the majority of people understandably don't trust the MSM. When you produce yellow journalism and start resembling something like Hard Copy, people tend to stop believing you.


----------



## Reaper

BruiserKC said:


> Agreed but why give them the chance to make themselves into martyrs? I am all for calling them out but to overdo it gives them martyrdom they don't deserve


The only group that matters to are the independents and there's a lot going on there for them to be swayed either way. 

Independents generally are a more rational group anyways so they'll dig deeper on this issue like other issues too and I doubt they'll switch to democrats on the account of children throwing tantrums (which most already realize is what the MSM is doing) being disciplined :draper2


----------



## Sensei Utero

Stinger Fan said:


> Personally I do not give a shit about your mothers friend . Sorry if that sounds harsh but the fact remains that her friends biology doesn't change just because they reference themselves as the opposite gender.
> 
> Religion has nothing to do with this topic, stop grasping at straws for your argument. You don't get to insult people by claiming everyone who is a Christian ignores science, then go ahead and ignore science yourself. Sorry but your argument doesn't work


What complete ignorance. Time to make transphobic people scared again, I think.

I just brought it up because a lot of people here seem to identify with 'Christianity', yet always seem to bring up science. The science doesn't matter here with transgender-ism. Yes, that person was born either a female or male, but after the operation, they are the opposite.



> You were the one who was claiming Hitler was a right winger when in actuality he was a *socialist leftist*. Denouncing them by claiming they're of the opposing political party is not actually denouncing them. Especially with the Democratic party and their horrible racist past with the KKK, Jim Crow,and segregation where people like you blame the republicans for it and completely change history because Democrats are playing identity politics. My point stands


Hitler a socialist? :HA :lmao


----------



## Goku

InUtero said:


> Hitler a socialist? :HA :lmao


how can the leader of the national *socialist* german workers' party possibly be a *socialist*?

makes no sense to me :armfold


----------



## Sensei Utero

Goku said:


> how can the leader of the national *socialist* german workers' party possibly be a *socialist*?
> 
> makes no sense to me :armfold


That was not true socialism or 'left-wing socialism' at all. National socialism isn't socialism.

This debunks any myth.

http://europeanhistory.about.com/od...r-a-Socialist-Debunking-a-Historical-Myth.htm


----------



## Goku

InUtero said:


> That was not true socialism or 'left-wing socialism' at all. National socialism isn't socialism.
> 
> This debunks any myth.
> 
> http://europeanhistory.about.com/od...r-a-Socialist-Debunking-a-Historical-Myth.htm


oh i see, it wasn't "true" socialism.

:armfold


----------



## Sensei Utero

Goku said:


> oh i see, it wasn't "true" socialism.
> 
> :armfold


If you actually read the link...

"The National Socialist German Worker’s Party

While it does look like a very socialist name, the problem is that ‘National Socialism’ is not socialism, but a different, fascist ideology. Hitler had originally joined when the party was called the German Worker’s Party, and he was there as a spy to keep an eye on it. It was not, as the name suggested, a devotedly left wing group, but one Hitler thought had potential, and as Hitler’s oratory became popular the party grew and Hitler became a leading figure.

At this point ‘National Socialism’ was a confused mishmash of ideas with multiple proponents, arguing for nationalism, anti-Semitism, and yes, some socialism. The party records don’t record the name change, but it’s generally believed a decision was taken to rename the party to attract people, and partly to forge links with other ‘national socialist’ parties. The meetings began to be advertised on red banners and posters, hoping for socialists to come in and then be confronted, sometimes violently: the party was aiming to attract as much attention and notoriety as possible. But the name was not Socialism, but National Socialism and as the 20s and 30s progressed, this became an ideology Hitler would expound upon at length and which, as he took control, ceased to have anything to do with socialism."


----------



## Goku

InUtero said:


> If you actually read the link...
> 
> "The National Socialist German Worker’s Party
> 
> While it does look like a very socialist name, the problem is that ‘National Socialism’ is not socialism, but a different, fascist ideology. Hitler had originally joined when the party was called the German Worker’s Party, and he was there as a spy to keep an eye on it. It was not, as the name suggested, a devotedly left wing group, but one Hitler thought had potential, and as Hitler’s oratory became popular the party grew and Hitler became a leading figure.
> 
> At this point ‘National Socialism’ was a confused mishmash of ideas with multiple proponents, arguing for nationalism, anti-Semitism, and yes, some socialism. The party records don’t record the name change, but it’s generally believed a decision was taken to rename the party to attract people, and partly to forge links with other ‘national socialist’ parties. The meetings began to be advertised on red banners and posters, hoping for socialists to come in and then be confronted, sometimes violently: the party was aiming to attract as much attention and notoriety as possible. But the name was not Socialism, but National Socialism and as the 20s and 30s progressed, this became an ideology Hitler would expound upon at length and which, as he took control, ceased to have anything to do with socialism."


:HA :lmao


----------



## Sensei Utero

Goku said:


> :HA :lmao


When folk try to twist things but fail :armfold


----------



## Hencheman_21

I do not know about you all but I can not wait for Trump's book on how his 12 year reign as President was the best in the first 500 years of the country and how it lead to prosperity that has never been seen in the existence of mankind. I wish it would come out this year but I am guessing he will wait till next year so he can use the ad line "2 0 1 8, Making America Great".


----------



## stevefox1200

Listen, I am a conservative and the Nazi's were right wing, there is no shame in admitting that 

Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao and their boyz were all left wing 

anything is bad if taken too far



RipNTear said:


> Hitler was inconsistent. He believed in a great many things from many different schools of thoughts and philosophies much like a self-proclaimed anointed Prophet would. From whatever I've read it seems like he thought he was borrowing and improving upon every single political and philosophical thought he was exposed to. However, his ultimate goal was german superiority at all costs and that resulted in a perversion of pretty much every idea he read to twist it into finding ways to make Germans the overlords of the earth and that included believing in germans having a divine right to superiority.
> 
> Of course, when you want to implement something that you believe to be inherently good you will on accident or by design still do some good things for those close to you, however, he had to make sure he made everyone else submit in order to achieve that goal because you can't simply elevate your race without destroying others. It's not even a matter of looking at it from the perspective of isolating the good from the bad. You simply cannot do it because what was intended was never good. Not from the day he started railing about Zionist conspiracies to implementing his methods of ethnic genocide.


Hitler loved the militancy and organization of the communists but hated that they were loyal to the Soviet Union (at the time the typical communist rhetoric was that the USSR was the best nation ever, that it would be a good thing if Stalin invaded and took over their nation and that the current society and history must be torn down to make a more fair one). Hitler wanted people who thought like that but not for a hostile foreign nation


----------



## DOPA

A sane voice on the Transgender bathroom issue.


----------



## SureUmm

L-DOPA said:


> A sane voice on the Transgender bathroom issue.


Nailed it. Case by case basis is always better than sweeping policy when it's feasible, and the small population of transgender students makes that possible.


----------



## Sensei Utero

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/835488569850494976
Burned.

*EDIT:* That video posted previously had some good points.


----------



## FriedTofu

BruiserKC said:


> It's six of one and one half dozen of another.
> 
> The media has pounded Trump, their thing is they want to hold him accountable for what he does, says, etc. I have no problem with that, we need to make sure our President is held accountable for whatever he says he intends to do, etc.
> 
> At the same time, where was this media during the Obama years holding him to the same standard? Here in the States, they tended to give him a free pass more often than not and at times their coverage of him bordered on swooning and eye-batting. Like the way a guy might describe the girl of his dreams who could do no wrong. Very rarely (such as the Fast and Furious scandal) was he held to the same level of accountability that no doubt the media is going to do to Trump and his administration.
> 
> The funny thing is that the media helped elevate Trump to this point. They gave him all the free publicity he wanted during the campaign. He was seen initially as a side show, a joke, but he gave them a good story. When he won the nomination, then the media turned on him viciously. They did the same during the McCain and Romney campaigns in the previous two elections. They took two good people and made them out to look like monsters. Obama is a good person, too, but they went way over the top with how they showed their favoritism. Only near the end (the UN abstain vote on Israel and Palestinian settlements, e.g.) did the media even start to question his judgment in a way the media should be.
> 
> At the same time, Trump's obsession with the media needs to stop. All he is doing is pushing the media to double down on watching his every move. Again, the media does not get a free pass for just pounding him ruthlessly but Trump referring to them as "the enemy of the people" doesn't help his cause or make them back off anytime soon. When he is at a press conference, I want to know what the latest is on the replacement of the ACA or what his tax plan will do for the economy. I don't want to hear a ten-minute rant about how CNN is treating him badly.
> 
> Yet, there is a method to Trump's madness. By pounding on the media like this, he is insulating himself so that when a major scandal does erupt (it happens in every presidential administration inevitably) and the media is doing their job, he can say, "The media is trying to distort this and they are just out to get me! They don't care about anything else!" So, these rants aren't the work of a mentally deranged maniac as some are trying to portray. Trump knows exactly what he is doing.


Was the treatment McCain and Romney receive any worse than what the media did to Obama or Hilary or even John Kerry? Many of the criticisms thrown at Obama can be applied to Trump right now but are largely ignored by conservatives all over. No doubt the media helped Trump during the elections by holding his opponents to a higher standard. Can you imagine Romney or McCain's surrogates getting away with what people like Katrina Pierson said last year on CNN? One of the head of one of the MSM literally said Trump may not be good for America but good for CBS.

Obama tried to silence Fox News early on in his run too so the left isn't a saint in this either. But the difference from my perspective is a lot of the early stuff they did on Obama was made-up or presented misleadingly. Trump's early criticism of the media thus far is made up mostly of them exposing his misleading comments and he doesn't like it. And he conflate that with the real misleading stuff to blast all of it together to discredit valid criticisms. 

The funniest thing I read so far about Trump's 'war on media' is his aides attempts to hide the number of times he has played golf since his inauguration. Because of the stupid criticisms about presidents playing golf the right has harped on and on and on during Obama's presidency.

Just today Trump tweeted these trying to claim credit when he hasn't even presented his budget yet


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/835479283699224576

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/835481237879926784
He can rightfully claim some credit on the markets reacting favourably to his victory. But tweeting that along with the budget claim seems bordering on ignorance or purposefully misleading his sheeps that the media isn't reporting on something that has nothing to do with him. How should the media react to this? It's almost like Trump wants a safe space for himself from all the criticisms.


----------



## birthday_massacre

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/...for-debt-reduction-driven-by-normal-cash-flow

Trump Wants Credit for Cutting the National Debt. Economists Say Not So Fast



President Donald Trump asked on Twitter why the media hasn’t reported that the national debt has dropped since his inauguration. One explanation, some economists said: Trump couldn’t have had anything to do with it.

“Anything that has happened to the debt has been on autopilot since Obama left," said Laurence Kotlikoff, an economics professor at Boston University. “If anything, he is taking credit for something Obama did." 

The president took to Twitter on Saturday morning to say that the national debt declined by $12 billion in his first month in office compared with a $200 billion increase in Barack Obama’s first month in office. The tweet followed a Fox News segment on which former presidential candidate Herman Cain made the same statement.

Keep up with the best of Bloomberg Politics.
Get our newsletter daily.
Sign Up
Trump’s numbers are accurate. The national debt of $19.9 trillion did decrease $12 billion -- six-hundredths of 1 percent -- from his first day in office until his 30th. It’s also true the debt fluctuates by billions of dollars each day, and the current spending and tax revenue levels that drive those short-term variances were set by the last administration. Trump hasn’t had a chance in his first weeks to change the level of revenue collected through higher taxes or cut federal spending through a new budget.

The $14.4 billion in debt held by the public, rather than as securities in government trust funds, was $94 million lower on Feb. 21 than on Jan. 20, when Trump was inaugurated. But the following day, the debt level popped back up more than $1 billion due to regular changes in spending and revenue. 

“We applaud the president for focusing on the debt as an important metric of success and economic health, but would point out that the improvement this early in his term has to do with normal fluctuations in spending and revenues rather than new policies he has implemented," said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

A White House spokesman wasn’t immediately available for comment.

Read more on Trump’s budget quandary

Former President Barack Obama took office during the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression. Tax revenue was falling and the U.S. was taking on debt to try to get the economy out of a tailspin, Kotlikoff said.

Trump said this week that his team has “enormous work to do” to assemble a federal budget that will bring down deficits and deliver on priorities such as a military buildup, public infrastructure investments, expansion of immigration enforcement and tax cuts.

His administration is also working on a tax plan that it has said would be revealed by early March that will revamp business taxes. Trump may give further details on both in his joint address to Congress Tuesday. 

While it is too soon to project Trump’s impact on the debt, the Council on Foreign Relations expects the debt will grow under Trump given his pledge not to cut entitlements, to increase spending on defense and infrastructure, and to cut corporate taxes.


----------



## Beatles123

I love how Socialists always claim every bad example of socialism isn't real socialism...:shrug


----------



## Art Vandaley

The "National Socialists" was just a name, they didn't believe in socialism, they believed in fascism.

But yeah of course none of you believe the Nazi's were fascist, that would require reading a book or having basic understanding of history.

And I guess you all also believe the Democratic Peoples Republic of North Korea is a democracy? I meant it has democracy in its name right?


----------



## Beatles123

Alkomesh2 said:


> The "National Socialists" was just a name, they didn't believe in socialism, they believed in fascism.
> 
> But yeah of course none of you believe the Nazi's were fascist, that would require reading a book or having basic understanding of history.


 All I said on the subject of the Nazi's was that *SOME* of Hitler's basic intentions were at the very least not awful in concept: The idea that every race should be mindful of preserving itself, lest it be eventually lost to time - The idea that certain societies cannot gel easily with one another and to take precautions when allowing them to merge together en masse -- Those are not awful ideas. His solutions and the way he went about them were. Nowhere in my post was I defending the Nazi's.

Anyway, Natsoc is right wing, yeah. Communism is Left-wing. :shrug


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/835610917568200705









@Beatles123 @CamillePunk @RipNTear @L-DOPA @DesolationRow @Goku :trump3


----------



## FriedTofu

Beatles123 said:


> All I said on the subject of the Nazi's was that *SOME* of Hitler's basic intentions were at the very least not awful in concept: The idea that every race should be mindful of preserving itself, lest it be eventually lost to time - The idea that certain societies cannot gel easily with one another and to take precautions when allowing them to merge together en masse -- Those are not awful ideas. His solutions and the way he went about them were. Nowhere in my post was I defending the Nazi's.
> 
> Anyway, Natsoc is right wing, yeah. Communism is Left-wing. :shrug


Nazi wasn't wanting to preserve 'race' to prevent it from being lost to time but creating the superman by improving the Aryan race which they believe to be superior to other races. You do realise it would have been seen as being the decent act to kill people with disabilities than try to integrate them into society under the Nazis 'basic intentions'? 



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/835610917568200705
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @Beatles123 @CamillePunk @RipNTear @L-DOPA @DesolationRow @Goku :trump3


:lol savage troll.


----------



## Draykorinee

Beatles123 said:


> I love how Socialists always claim every bad example of socialism isn't real socialism...:shrug


Just the same way when people try to claim the Nazis were socialists, its an absurd notion.



FriedTofu said:


> He can rightfully claim some credit on the markets reacting favourably to his victory. But tweeting that along with the budget claim seems bordering on ignorance or purposefully misleading his sheeps that the media isn't reporting on something that has nothing to do with him. How should the media react to this? It's almost like Trump wants a safe space for himself from all the criticisms.


Obama started in an economic depression, Trump is taking over from all of his work and taking the glory...dam, talk about fake news. The guys a fucking idiot at times.


----------



## CamillePunk

draykorinee said:


> Obama started in an economic depression, Trump is taking over from all of his work and taking the glory...dam, talk about fake news. The guys a fucking idiot at times.


Let's say you're right that Obama is responsible for taking our country out of a depression and achieving "glory". How, exactly, would it be idiotic for Trump to take credit for such a thing? Isn't that precisely what politicians do all the time to make themselves look good, take credit for things they had little to do with (or possibly worked against)?


----------



## BruiserKC

FriedTofu said:


> Was the treatment McCain and Romney receive any worse than what the media did to Obama or Hilary or even John Kerry? Many of the criticisms thrown at Obama can be applied to Trump right now but are largely ignored by conservatives all over. No doubt the media helped Trump during the elections by holding his opponents to a higher standard. Can you imagine Romney or McCain's surrogates getting away with what people like Katrina Pierson said last year on CNN? One of the head of one of the MSM literally said Trump may not be good for America but good for CBS.
> 
> Obama tried to silence Fox News early on in his run too so the left isn't a saint in this either. But the difference from my perspective is a lot of the early stuff they did on Obama was made-up or presented misleadingly. Trump's early criticism of the media thus far is made up mostly of them exposing his misleading comments and he doesn't like it. And he conflate that with the real misleading stuff to blast all of it together to discredit valid criticisms.
> 
> The funniest thing I read so far about Trump's 'war on media' is his aides attempts to hide the number of times he has played golf since his inauguration. Because of the stupid criticisms about presidents playing golf the right has harped on and on and on during Obama's presidency.
> 
> Just today Trump tweeted these trying to claim credit when he hasn't even presented his budget yet
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/835479283699224576
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/835481237879926784
> He can rightfully claim some credit on the markets reacting favourably to his victory. But tweeting that along with the budget claim seems bordering on ignorance or purposefully misleading his sheeps that the media isn't reporting on something that has nothing to do with him. How should the media react to this? It's almost like Trump wants a safe space for himself from all the criticisms.


Personally, I could care less whether a President plays golf, just don't be doing it if the country is in the midst of a major crisis. For me, the timing of Obama was not the fact he was out on the links, but there were times where the President was needed behind the desk. Trust me, if Trump is out on the links at the time when the shit in this country is about to hit the fan or already there, I will be saying his ass needs to get back to work. With my job, there are times where I need to be reached outside of business hours...but of course my job allows me time to be at a fishing hole or playing at the park with the kids once in a while. 

The media loved Trump as a story as he gave them a good story. He made their jobs easier and people thought he was just a carnival act there for the lolz. But, yes...Trump does want to shield himself from criticism. It's easy to do when you're the CEO of a company, you can blame an underling if something goes wrong. The media needs to make sure they present the facts, period. Don't exaggerate, don't overinflate, just say this is what's going on and let us decide the rest. I don't want to turn the media into martyrs. While many people right now are reasonable to understand that the media has some work to do in being trusted again, I am not a fan of Trump's over-the-top criticisms. 

Believe me, the media took Trump to task on what Pierson said, especially after he won the nomination.


----------



## Beatles123

FriedTofu said:


> Nazi wasn't wanting to preserve 'race' to prevent it from being lost to time but creating the superman by improving the Aryan race which they believe to be superior to other races. You do realise it would have been seen as being the decent act to kill people with disabilities than try to integrate them into society under the Nazis 'basic intentions'?
> 
> 
> 
> :lol savage troll.


What I stated was true though: The notion of protecting one's race from being phased out isn't a bad thing in theory. His Sollution, IE, creating a master race/dumping all those deemed unworthy into a camp, that's where hos ideas went awry. No one here is saying Hitler was right to do what he did in the mannor he did it. What I AM saying is that the man had a basic concern that in some ways had merit. 

I better stop there or people may assume I believe some very untrue things if this is how this is gonna go. :mj2



draykorinee said:


> Just the same way when people try to claim the Nazis were socialists, its an absurd notion.


At least most people can admit National Socialism doesn't work. :trump3


----------



## FriedTofu

BruiserKC said:


> Personally, I could care less whether a President plays golf, just don't be doing it if the country is in the midst of a major crisis. For me, the timing of Obama was not the fact he was out on the links, but there were times where the President was needed behind the desk. Trust me, if Trump is out on the links at the time when the shit in this country is about to hit the fan or already there, I will be saying his ass needs to get back to work. With my job, there are times where I need to be reached outside of business hours...but of course my job allows me time to be at a fishing hole or playing at the park with the kids once in a while.
> 
> The media loved Trump as a story as he gave them a good story. He made their jobs easier and people thought he was just a carnival act there for the lolz. But, yes...Trump does want to shield himself from criticism. It's easy to do when you're the CEO of a company, you can blame an underling if something goes wrong. The media needs to make sure they present the facts, period. Don't exaggerate, don't overinflate, just say this is what's going on and let us decide the rest. I don't want to turn the media into martyrs. While many people right now are reasonable to understand that the media has some work to do in being trusted again, I am not a fan of Trump's over-the-top criticisms.
> 
> Believe me, the media took Trump to task on what Pierson said, especially after he won the nomination.


I think most people don't care whether the President plays golf. But people will also bash Trump with it because of what Trump has said over the years about golfing and the presidency. It is the selective outrage when Obama played golf that went overboard. What crisis required Obama's attention while he was out golfing? At least Obama was honest about golfing to relax, while Trump tried to hide his golfing exploits with Mcllory which probably wouldn't help him relax after golfing. Didn't Trump go golfing the weekends before and after Flynn resigned? He conducted interviews for Flynn's replacement at his country club. Trump is already campaigning one month after winning the elections and nary a criticism from his base about either of that.



Beatles123 said:


> What I stated was true though: The notion of protecting one's race from being phased out isn't a bad thing in theory. His Sollution, IE, creating a master race/dumping all those deemed unworthy into a camp, that's where hos ideas went awry. No one here is saying Hitler was right to do what he did in the mannor he did it. What I AM saying is that the man had a basic concern that in some ways had merit.
> 
> I better stop there or people may assume I believe some very untrue things if this is how this is gonna go. :mj2
> 
> 
> 
> At least most people can admit National Socialism doesn't work. :trump3


Dude you just justified racism.


----------



## Stinger Fan

Alkomesh2 said:


> The "National Socialists" was just a name, they didn't believe in socialism, they believed in fascism.
> 
> But yeah of course none of you believe the Nazi's were fascist, that would require reading a book or having basic understanding of history.
> 
> And I guess you all also believe the Democratic Peoples Republic of North Korea is a democracy? I meant it has democracy in its name right?


It wasn't just in name and typically, you wouldn't join a political party if you didn't believe in some of it. 

Hitler believed in strict gun control 
Hitler was anti-capitalist 
Hitler was in favor of free health care
Hitler was in favor of abortion
Hitler increased taxes
Hitler implemented welfare programs


And plenty more examples out there that would suggest that yes, he was indeed a socialist.


----------



## Sensei Utero

Folk not reading my link to debunk the myth and the absurd thought and belief fpalm. Hitler actually hated communism, and left-wing socialism.

Anyway...


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/834775472370130945

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/834775697046458369


----------



## Beatles123

FriedTofu said:


> I think most people don't care whether the President plays golf. But people will also bash Trump with it because of what Trump has said over the years about golfing and the presidency. It is the selective outrage when Obama played golf that went overboard. What crisis required Obama's attention while he was out golfing? At least Obama was honest about golfing to relax, while Trump tried to hide his golfing exploits with Mcllory which probably wouldn't help him relax after golfing. Didn't Trump go golfing the weekends before and after Flynn resigned? He conducted interviews for Flynn's replacement at his country club. Trump is already campaigning one month after winning the elections and nary a criticism from his base about either of that.
> 
> 
> 
> Dude you just justified racism.


Not at all. All races should have a respect for their race and it is entirely possible to advocate it's preservation without doing what Hitler did, or claiming superiority in doing so.


----------



## Goku

InUtero said:


> Hitler actually hated communism, and left-wing socialism.


but what about right-wing socialism? :armfold


----------



## Vic Capri

Week 5. Look at him talking positively about black Americans. What a racist!



> Obama started in an economic depression, Trump is taking over from all of his work and taking the glory...dam, talk about fake news. The guys a fucking idiot at times.


You mean like when Obama took credit for everything?

*#YouDidntBuildThat*




> At least Obama was honest about golfing to relax


He sure was!

*Re: Transgender Bathroom*






This is what happens when you open Pandora's Box.

- Vic


----------



## Stinger Fan

Vic Capri said:


> You mean like when Obama took credit for everything?
> 
> 
> - Vic


And subsequently blamed everyone else when things went bad


----------



## Reaper

http://nypost.com/2017/02/25/the-next-womens-march-is-co-organized-by-a-terrorist/


> *Meet the terrorist behind the next women’s march
> *
> Here’s the left’s next great idea for bringing down President Trump: another women’s march. Which means another public instance of Trump haters shouting slogans to one another and mistaking it for constructive politics. What progressives need to defeat Trump is outreach, but all they have is outrage.
> 
> On March 8, organizers seem to be aiming for a different vibe than the librarians-in-pussy-hats element that made the first women’s march after Trump’s inauguration so adorable.
> 
> Instead of milling around Washington, organizers have in mind a “general strike” called the Day without a Woman. In a manifesto published in The Guardian on Feb. 6, the brains behind the movement are calling for a “new wave of militant feminist struggle.” That’s right: militant, not peaceful.
> 
> The document was co-authored by, among others, Rasmea Yousef Odeh, a convicted terrorist. Odeh, a Palestinian, was convicted in Israel in 1970 for her part in two terrorist bombings, one of which killed two students while they were shopping for groceries. She spent 10 years in prison for her crimes. She then managed to become a US citizen in 2004 by lying about her past (great detective work, INS: Next time, use Google) but was subsequently convicted, in 2014, of immigration fraud for the falsehoods. However, she won the right to a new trial (set for this spring) by claiming she had been suffering from PTSD at the time she lied on her application. Oh, and in her time as a citizen, she worked for a while as an ObamaCare navigator.
> 
> 
> Rasmea Yousef Odeh spent 10 years in prison for her part in two terrorist bombings.AP
> You can see why she’s a hero to the left. Another co-author, Angela Davis, is a Stalinist professor and longtime supporter of the Black Panthers. Davis is best known for being acquitted in a 1972 trial after three guns she bought were used in a courtroom shootout that resulted in the death of a judge. She celebrated by going to Cuba.
> 
> A third co-author, Tithi Bhattacharya, praised Maoism in an essay for the International Socialist Review, noting that Maoists are “on the terrorist list of the US State Department, Canada, and the European Union,” which she called an indication that “Maoists are back in the news and by all accounts they are fighting against all the right people.” You know you’re dealing with extremism when someone admits to hating Canada.
> 
> The International Women’s Strike is meant to be a grass-roots affair, with womensmarch.com promising more information about how to participate in local protests across the US. Women around the country are being urged to walk off their jobs and join a demonstration near them.
> 
> 
> Angela DavisGetty Images
> According to The Guardian piece, women should spend their day “blocking roads, bridges, and squares, abstaining from domestic, care and sex work” and “boycotting” pro-Trump businesses. Also every woman is supposed to wear red in solidarity.
> 
> The bristling tone of the manifesto and its call for a “militant” uprising are yet another indicator that liberals are increasingly willing to justify violence in the name of opposing Trump. After the Berkeley campus erupted in flames and violence to protest the planned appearance of Milo Yiannopoulos, many progressive activists took to Twitter to cheer them on. Hollywood stars Debra Messing and Sarah Silverman both tweeted their support, with Messing saying, “RESISTANCE WORKS” and Silverman ranting: “WAKE UP & JOIN THE RESISTANCE. ONCE THE MILITARY IS W US FASCISTS GET OVERTHROWN. MAD KING & HIS HANDLERS GO BYE BYE.”
> 
> Progs are equally enthusiastic about the idea that it’s OK to punch people as long as you hate them: “Stranger Things” star David Harbour said at the Screen Actors Guild awards, “We will, as per Chief Jim Hopper [the character he played on the show], punch some people in the face when they seek to destroy the weak and the disenfranchised and the marginalized.” Nice liberal Democrats should be aware that this newer, angrier cohort is just as hostile to their own party. “I have problems with the Democratic Party that is just as linked to the corporate capitalist structure as the Republican party,” Davis said at a rally last year.
> 
> Anti-Trump activism seems to have little to do with the political arts required to win elections — finding common ground, forging alliances, making friends. Instead all of these demonstrations are about denouncing enemies, and making yourself feel better about the November defeat by gathering publicly with those who share your rage. This sort of thinking leads to such self-defeating acts as interrupting traffic in places like New York City (where Trump got 18 percent of the vote) or San Francisco (9 percent).
> 
> If you want to persuade working-class Trump voters in Wisconsin to join your cause, annoying rich liberal Democrats trying to get to work a thousand miles away is a strange way to go about it.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

So the DNC has decided to have their head honcho be a pencil-necked establishment geek that colluded with Hilldog against Bernie. And as the cherry on top, said geek nominated his closest competition, a noted Farrakhan and NOI fan, which the fuckwits unanimously approved. :lol

Spoiler alert: Here's the DNC's foreseeable future...












FriedTofu said:


> :lol savage troll.


Truly one of the greatest trolls in the history of our industry. :trump2


----------



## Sensei Utero

Goku said:


> but what about right-wing socialism? :armfold


Hitler was not a socialist in any sense, and was more of a far-right extremist. Once again, I'd recommend clicking on that link I'd previously posted and reading through it, which pretty much explains it. It's not difficult to do.

http://europeanhistory.about.com/od...r-a-Socialist-Debunking-a-Historical-Myth.htm

Outside of that link, my own comments would be that he used the National Socialist Party as a stepping stone to power. Once he got that power, he had many in the Socialist Party murdered, ala 'Night of the Long Knives'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/night-of-the-long-knives

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/nazi-germany/the-night-of-the-long-knives/

Hitler moved against the SA and Ernst Röhm (its leader) as Hitler was beginning to see the independence of the SA, and the fear of a 'socialist revolution' against his newly gained political powers. Alongside that, he also feared Röhm's public support for a 'socialist revolution' to redistribute wealth (Röhm had previously stated that the appointment of Hitler as German Chancellor had accomplished the 'nationalistic' revolution, but had left unfilfilled the 'socialistic' motive in National Socialism, and had been his suspicions on Hitler and whether he held socialist views in any sense). Hitler also wanted to conciliate certain leaders of the 'Reichswehr' IIRC (may be worth checking up - I'm trying to remember everything from one of the very few GCSE exams I actually took as History was a favourite subject of mine, particularly learning about WWII, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam War etc. - though I'm going off-topic here  but there is a chance this bit could be shite), who were the German military who pretty much hated the SA, and Röhm himself as Röhm wanted to merge the Reichswehr and the SA together.

Aside, you can't put too much emphasis and topic on a name or a word ('Socialist', in this case) alone. East Germany described themselves as 'socialist', but were called the Deutsche Demokratische Republik ('German Democratic Republic' in English). As someone else previously mentioned, North Korea is about as far from being 'democratic' as you could possibly get (they're called the Democratic People's Republic of Korea).

It must get to you though Goku that I'm a socialist because you seem to quote me when I bring it up, and you bring it up in the chatbox at any chance you can get. :hmm :armfold Personally, I don't mind so in the thread (I mean, I've pretty much asked for it at times), but even in the chatbox, I try to get on with anyone no matter their political views and opinions (it'd be pretty boring if we all thought the same, right?), which everyone is respectfully entitled to. Going off-topic a bit, but I think it's worth mentioning. I'd like to think I get on with some people even in this thread in the chatbox, and I think they're pretty cool folk and I respect them, and don't dislike them at all despite our different views, politically (unless it's extreme to the total max, such as supporting ISIS etc.). Hell, my brother (my best friend) loves Nigel Farage, but even we get on so much. Just thought it was worth mentioning, because I've got that sense with you.


----------



## Vic Capri

Pepperidge Farm Remembers

- Vic


----------



## Arya Dark

*I love me some Dusty :lol





*


----------



## CamillePunk

Hey here's a great post on Hitler, Nazism, fascism, and socialism by Professor @DesolationRow himself, from a previous incarnation of this thread:

http://www.wrestlingforum.com/63466554-post9318.html

It seems terribly hyperbolic and inaccurate to me to say Hitler was in no way a socialist. There were definitely some socialist aims and policies in Nazi Germany. It would be fair to say he wasn't wholly concerned with the principles of socialism so much as he was driven by irrational hatred of certain groups which played a large role in his vision. I'd put him somewhere near the center, obviously on the authoritarian side of the political chart.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> So the DNC has decided to have their head honcho be a pencil-necked establishment geek that colluded with Hilldog against Bernie. And as the cherry on top, said geek nominated his closest competition, a noted Farrakhan and NOI fan, which the fuckwits unanimously approved. :lol
> 
> Spoiler alert: Here's the DNC's foreseeable future...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truly one of the greatest trolls in the history of our industry. :trump2


And the DNC broke its own rules by not recording the votes. And since it was so close, im sure the DNC rigged it again like they did the primary against Sanders.

the DNC will never learn


----------



## MrMister

Why are discussing Hitler being a socialist or not? Are we defending socialism? Are we saying Trump isn't a socialist/Hitler? the opposite of that?

edit: My point is to make a new thread about Hitler and socialism, or bring the discussion back to TRUMP in some way.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/835610917568200705
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @Beatles123 @CamillePunk @RipNTear @L-DOPA @DesolationRow @Goku :trump3


Trump is right, Perez makes Trump and the GOPs job that much easier. The DNC never learns from their mistakes. And if they decide to run Hillary, Kaine or Michelle Obama in 2020 the GOP will win easily.


----------



## CamillePunk

MrMister said:


> Why are discussing Hitler being a socialist or not? Are we defending socialism? Are we saying Trump isn't a socialist/Hitler? the opposite of that?
> 
> edit: My point is to make a new thread about Hitler and socialism, or bring the discussion back to TRUMP in some way.


Because Trump is literally Hitler.


----------



## MrMister

So Hitler was clearly not a socialist then. Case closed.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

birthday_massacre said:


> And the DNC broke its own rules by not recording the votes. And since it was so close, im sure the DNC rigged it again like they did the primary against Sanders.
> 
> the DNC will never learn


Considering Ellison was either the first or second major political figure to support Bernie during his run, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if they decided to humble him for doing so.



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump is right, Perez makes Trump and the GOPs job that much easier. The DNC never learns from their mistakes. And if they decide to run Hillary, Kaine or Michelle Obama in 2020 the GOP will win easily.


:evans at the prospect of Kaine or Michelle running. The DNC only have one applicable theme song for the foreseeable future:






:trips9


----------



## virus21

No, the DNC them should be this


----------



## CamillePunk

FAKE NEWS: New York Times Caught MAKING-UP False Quote From Trump’s CPAC Speech

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...caught-making-false-quote-trumps-cpac-speech/

I wonder why Trump doesn't want to cozy up with the New York Times???


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> FAKE NEWS: New York Times Caught MAKING-UP False Quote From Trump’s CPAC Speech
> 
> http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...caught-making-false-quote-trumps-cpac-speech/
> 
> I wonder why Trump doesn't want to cozy up with the New York Times???


They did not make up any fake quote, you are just being disingenuous.


Do you even understand how quotes work, apparently not.


here is what Trump said

"We are also going to save countless American lives. As we speak today, immigration offers [officers] are finding the gang members, the drug dealers and the criminal aliens and throwing them the hell out of our country."

NYT posted this

His speech also included a promise to throw undocumented immigrants “the hell out of the country” and a recitation of his law-and-order campaign promises.

the only part they quoted was “the hell out of the country” , they just shortened gang members, the drug dealers and the criminal aliens to undocumented immigrants.

Are you really going to pretend those people Trump are talking about are not undocumented?

The NYT also did not put undocumented in the quotes.

So stop acting like they made up a quote.

And like Trump supporters like you always love to say well all undocumented immigrants are criminals because they are breaking the law by being in the country.

The NYT should have just posted the full quote but dont act like they made up a quote when they did not.


----------



## CamillePunk

birthday_massacre said:


> They did not make up any fake quote, you are just being disingenuous.
> 
> 
> Do you even understand how quotes work, apparently not.
> 
> 
> here is what Trump said
> 
> "We are also going to save countless American lives. As we speak today, immigration offers [officers] are finding the gang members, the drug dealers and the criminal aliens and throwing them the hell out of our country."
> 
> NYT posted this
> 
> His speech also included a promise to throw undocumented immigrants “the hell out of the country” and a recitation of his law-and-order campaign promises.
> 
> the only part they quoted was “the hell out of the country” , they just shortened gang members, the drug dealers and the criminal aliens to undocumented immigrants.
> 
> Are you really going to pretend those people Trump are talking about are not undocumented?
> 
> The NYT also did not put undocumented in the quotes.
> 
> So stop acting like they made up a quote.
> 
> And like Trump supporters like you always love to say well all undocumented immigrants are criminals because they are breaking the law by being in the country.
> 
> The NYT should have just posted the full quote but dont act like they made up a quote when they did not.


Oh hey you CAN see my posts! :lol You should respond to my repeated requests in the transgender thread to explain which posts you were talking about as evidence for all conservatives being hypocrites. You kind of look like an utter fool in there right now by refusing to do so. :lol 

I'm glad you accept that undocumented immigrants are breaking the law by being in the country, and that the NYT should have posted the full quote. Looks like we're in full agreement here.


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> Oh hey you CAN see my posts! :lol You should respond to my repeated requests in the transgender thread to explain which posts you were talking about as evidence for all conservatives being hypocrites. You kind of look like an utter fool in there right now by refusing to do so. :lol
> 
> I'm glad you accept that undocumented immigrants are breaking the law by being in the country, and that the NYT should have posted the full quote. Looks like we're in full agreement here.


I am only talking about the conservatives, that are against trans using the bathrooms they identify with then at the same time think this person should have wrestled the boys


----------



## yeahbaby!

Vic Capri said:


> *Re: Transgender Bathroom*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what happens when you open Pandora's Box.
> 
> - Vic


Dude honestly?

This is proof of the sky falling in if we let people go to different bathrooms?

What else is going to happen????


----------



## Dr. Middy

I'm just here to lighten the mood.


----------



## Beatles123

InUtero said:


> It must get to you though Goku that I'm a socialist because you seem to quote me when I bring it up, and you bring it up in the chatbox at any chance you can get. :hmm :armfold Personally, I don't mind so in the thread (I mean, I've pretty much asked for it at times), but even in the chatbox, I try to get on with anyone no matter their political views and opinions (it'd be pretty boring if we all thought the same, right?), which everyone is respectfully entitled to. Going off-topic a bit, but I think it's worth mentioning. I'd like to think I get on with some people even in this thread in the chatbox, and I think they're pretty cool folk and I respect them, and don't dislike them at all despite our different views, politically (unless it's extreme to the total max, such as supporting ISIS etc.). Hell, my brother (my best friend) loves Nigel Farage, but even we get on so much. Just thought it was worth mentioning, because I've got that sense with you.


well, I mean, that's what you get for believing in an ecconomic ideology that has almost no record of working in non-piss-ant countries. :trump3 

(Not baiting you bro. I respect you more than most shitlibs in here :trump2)

Hard mode: Don't mention...

>Muh Sweeden

>Muh Denmark

>Muh Norway

etc.

Those are not good examples of societies we want to live like here in the US. I :ha at the notion every time Col. Sanders brings them up. :nerd:

The best argument you can make is that socialism in it's best form hasn't been tried yet TBH :quite

Edit: You should listen to your brother. :trump3


----------



## Reaper

There isn't a single socialist country in Europe. The Scandinavian countries are all Capitalist countries with Nanny States. Literal Nanny States that have hoodwinked their people into thinking that they're idiots with their money. 

Nothing up there is "Free". You just pay more for it through taxes and believe that you pay less because you're paying the middle man who pays another middle man instead of paying for what you need directly where the middle-men continue to drive up costs for everybody but people are not smart enough to realize that. Direct transaction with the service provider always lower costs. This is literally what happened in the cosmetic surgery industry in America as the costs have gone down significantly over the years. This is why you'll notice that socialists will NEVER argue economics with you and will try to constantly and consistently appeal to emotion through calls for "equal and fair treatment" and then call you selfish when you try to talk to them about practical costs. 

It's literally how they show in mobster movies where thugs walk up to a store and say "pay to protect yourself from me".


> The best argument you can make is that *socialism in it's best form *hasn't been tried yet TBH :quite


It hasn't happened because it doesn't exist. It's like hoping for diamonds to fall from the sky. Or more closely, an imaginary garden of Eden on Earth.


----------



## CamillePunk

birthday_massacre said:


> I am only talking about the conservatives, that are against trans using the bathrooms they identify with then at the same time think this person should have wrestled the boys


This is what you posted:



birthday_massacre said:


> I love the hypocrisy of the right wingers* in this thread* and it just prove what a fraud they are.
> 
> *They say when it comes to bathroom rights trans people should use the bathroom of the gender they were born but now in this case they are getting their wish where a trans person who was born a female was forced to wrestle other girls and they are bitching* oh they should be wrestling the gender they are transing to.
> 
> It just shows how the people saying this have no credibility


But nobody in the thread was doing this. So what the hell were you on about exactly? Perhaps you are the one with no credibility because you make stuff up, like you were clearly doing here?


----------



## yeahbaby!

:trump


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

virus21 said:


> No, the DNC them should be this


How can they dare to be stupid when they already are? :trump3


----------



## Alco

Oxi X.O. said:


> Do you mean the decision isn't theirs, to make governmental bodies, or increase their workforces?
> Or do you mean they simply can't force the private sector?


Unless the federal government starts employing by the tens of thousands on top of what they already employ, Presidents do not create jobs.

They are always subject to the economic cycle, on which they only have a minor influence. Policies have worked and failed in the past, it's almost impossible to tell which ones truly had a net positive or net negative effect. 

Btw, we're still talking about the non-issue of the bathroom laws? Seriously?


----------



## BruiserKC

I'm not like many in the echo chamber that are ready to throw dirt on the Democratic Party with the electing of former Secretary of Labor Tom Perez as their chair. First of all, they dodged a bullet with almost electing a man who believes 9/11 was an inside job and that the Bush family had help from Israel to do it, plus Ellison has a mentor in the racist Rev. Farrakhan that makes the Rev. Jeremiah Wright look like a Boy Scout in comparison. Perhaps Ellison does represent the progressive group that wants to push the Dems even further to the left, but he would not be person to do that. I won't judge there, I've been saying for years the GOP needs to move further to the right. 

The bottom line comes down to the fact that Trump and the GOP needs to deliver bigly on all that they have promised. If they don't, and the Democrats can find a way to get back on the same page and unite...it could spell trouble for the Republican Party. Keep in mind, in 2008 many were saying that the GOP was done as Obama took office with huge majorities in both houses of Congress and in control across the country among state legislatures. Look where we are now eight years later. Politics is a fickle game, folks...many of you haven't been involved in it that long to see that now, but I've seen this happen over the years quite often. If Trump doesn't deliver, we could be singing a different tune 4-8 years from now.


----------



## Sensei Utero

Beatles123 said:


> well, I mean, that's what you get for believing in an ecconomic ideology that has almost no record of working in non-piss-ant countries. :trump3
> 
> (Not baiting you bro. I respect you more than most shitlibs in here :trump2)
> 
> Hard mode: Don't mention...
> 
> >Muh Sweeden
> 
> >Muh Denmark
> 
> >Muh Norway
> 
> etc.
> 
> Those are not good examples of societies we want to live like here in the US. I :ha at the notion every time Col. Sanders brings them up. :nerd:
> 
> The best argument you can make is that socialism in it's best form hasn't been tried yet TBH :quite
> 
> Edit: You should listen to your brother. :trump3


Ha, we shall agree to disagree here, dude. No hate on you at all, either. As a fellow Beatles lover, I respect you too. I think some good points are brought up now and again by right-wing leaning people here when it comes to the American issues and such, even British/Irish issues etc. The last part too, is also a good argument that can be said, as you've pointed out.

Also, let's not get on about my brother. :lol He's not really that political, anyway. He loves Farage, yet also Fidel Castro and Jeremy Corbyn (two folk I obviously do like, well...Castro to an extent) which is confusing but ...eh :shrug. Yet you'd probably agree with him that this Canadian PM guy is in my brother's words 'needs a slap on the head'. Admittedly though, I should probably take his views on Trump. Whilst he doesn't agree with a lot of his policies, he's stated that he believes Americans (we have distant American relatives on my mother's side, see - I have Yank blood! :lol random fact) on all sides just need to calm down a bit, co-operate, and whilst some decisions may be tough and viewed as harsh, just to get the best out of things. 'No point complaining and being angry. It's not like that Bush guy'. Eh, maybe I should listen to him on some points! :lol


----------



## Reaper

BruiserKC said:


> Look where we are now eight years later. Politics is a fickle game, folks...many of you haven't been involved in it that long to see that now, but I've seen this happen over the years quite often. If Trump doesn't deliver, we could be singing a different tune 4-8 years from now.


I don't think it's a matter of fickleness as much as it's a matter of people realizing that government fails, but blaming the government and wanting to replace the government with another one without realizing that perhaps what we really need is no government at all :draper2 

All governments are always failures. There's no such thing as a successful government. What we have is metrics that look relatively better in comparison to each other, but what we never realize is that due to government interference pretty much every sector is under-performing.

Changing governments to fix problems is like trying to make food less salty by adding more of another kind of salt. Though from a libertarian perspective, I'd rather have governments that keep changing and undoing each others' work because that limits the damage that government can actually do over lengthy periods of time.


----------



## Alco

RipNTear said:


> I don't think it's a matter of fickleness as much as it's a matter of people realizing that government fails, but blaming the government and wanting to replace the government with another one without realizing that perhaps what we really need is no government at all :draper2
> 
> All governments are always failures. There's no such thing as a successful government. What we have is metrics that look relatively better in comparison to each other, but what we never realize is that due to government interference pretty much every sector is under-performing.
> 
> Changing governments to fix problems is like trying to make food less salty by adding more of another kind of salt. Though from a libertarian perspective, I'd rather have governments that keep changing and undoing each others' work because that limits the damage that government can actually do over lengthy periods of time.


I like that salt metaphor. I'm gonna use that one day.

However, I do believe there is a significant portion of people that just want to be led. They'll prefer handing off any sort of decision making power to someone else (elected or not) because they don't want the responsibility or because they inherently like to position themselves in a submissive position. Even in the animal kingdom, there are numerous examples of individuals and groups willingly submitting to a (strong) leader, who makes decisions in their place. 

In our case, we have evolved towards a system that has a government take that position of "alpha (fe)male". I too want to see less government, especially in my social welfare state. But I question whether you'd even get a majority of people agreeing with you on the point.


----------



## Oxidamus

Beatles123 said:


> well, I mean, that's what you get for believing in an ecconomic ideology that has almost no record of working in non-piss-ant countries. :trump3


The only reason capitalism works, is because governments have to step in and set limits and restrictions, as well as implement socialist ideas like welfare. :trump3

Also stop typing like you're on pol. :side:


----------



## Reaper

Alco said:


> I like that salt metaphor. I'm gonna use that one day.
> 
> However, I do believe there is a significant portion of people that just want to be led. They'll prefer handing off any sort of decision making power to someone else (elected or not) because they don't want the responsibility or because they inherently like to position themselves in a submissive position. Even in the animal kingdom, there are numerous examples of individuals and groups willingly submitting to a (strong) leader, who makes decisions in their place.
> 
> In our case, we have evolved towards a system that has a government take that position of "alpha (fe)male". I too want to see less government, especially in my social welfare state. But I question whether you'd even get a majority of people agreeing with you on the point.


There are more libertarians than is widely known. It's simply because being libertarian and wanting to be the government are so at odds with each other that you can never have a libertarian government. All you can get is individuals who believe that they can go in and find ways to reduce certain powers and influence. 

As for being led is concerned, you can have community leadership without government and you see that in countries with shittier governments than ours. While the government "works" simply because it's designed to work but it doesn't work _well_. Its claims about its achievements are always exaggerated and while they have taken over things like public schools and healthcare, they've stayed out of other industries which have all shown that less government interference makes everything better. 

We need to start looking at necessity industries that are currently operating without the government to realize whether we need government in things that they've taken over completely or not to realize that leadership is in and itself no longer a requirement. 

- Utilities: By and large utilities around the world are not government owned and operated. They are also a necessity. There isn't a single power leader that has control. The infrastructure is like an interweb with multiple providers who simply want to serve (and earn profit) so they take care of the infrastructure and reach to individuals. Utilities remain low cost. 
- Gas (Petrol for you brits): Millions of gas stations around the world and barely any are government owned and operated. Yet everyone that can afford a car buys gas without any government interference at all. The costs fluctuate, but by and large remain affordable
- Food: You never hear about anyone wanting the government involved in the food industry and say that "everyone has a right to free food therefore government will feed everyone". This is the greatest single bit of evidence of requiring no leadership and no centralized body taking care of anyone's food needs. Since we KNOW that no one has free food, we cover the gap by becoming altruistic in provision of food. Hardly anyone ever dies of starvation these days because there's always someone willing to pay for someone else without the government forcing you to do so. Also, the cost of eating is actually very low. With some prudent planning and couponing a family of 4 in America can feed itself under 300 bucks. Far more people die of over-eating (obesity) than they do of starvation and that should tell you something about how great the food industry is in keeping costs low. It's a perfectly competitive environment where market forces control the price and we have no such thing as over-priced food that's too costly for anyone to buy.
- Internet: Look at how BADLY the governments around the world want to control and tax the internet but they simply cannot. And then look at all the advancements and conveniences we have achieved in such a short time WITHOUT any government interference or involvement at all. E-Commerce is the greatest success story that is the single most damaging argument against any government-controlled industry at all. 
- IT and Computer development: One of the primary reasons why we have the kind of tech we do today is that unanimously several governments decided at the turn of the century that they need fewer and fewer controls and intervention in that industry. Major governments around the world started programs of tax breaks and that led to silicon valleys around the world. This drove the costs of computers down to becoming incredibly affordable. Now we have enough power in our pockets for less than a few hundred dollars than NASA used to have in the 60's in their space programs.

And so on and so forth. Many necessity industries provide for people without any involvement from the government at all. The same by extension will work for things that the government has taken over because there's no proof that it won't work without the government. The only proof we have of needing the government in healthcare and education is that the government itself tells us that we need it. But the counter is the survival of several necessity commodity industries that continue to provide necessities to people without the government. 

The entire concept of capitalism is to fill needs. Find a need. Fill that need. (This is why Robots is my favorite animated kids' movie of all time as it was the first to acknowledge capitalism and the spirit of innovation without thumbing its nose at it in the process). The profit motive is secondary, nor primary unlike what the communists and socialists will have you falsely believe. 

In Capitalism, if you can't fill a need, you simply won't or can't exist at all and therefore no profits. Government reduces profits and therefore keeps entrepreneurs from innovating and reducing costs and ultimately creates a situation where a need cannot be filled because of all the disastrous government intervention. That is the crux of the problem of communism and socialism. That is why socialism will ALWAYS fail. Always. Leadership is related to this. Leadership creates situations where individuals and not market forces control things and individuals are generally ignorant and create scenarios that collapse markets. Therefore we should shy away from venerating leaders and leadership as well.


----------



## FriedTofu

Utilities by and large are heavily subsidised by government or government owned. Utilities have been low cost but are increasing in costs due to the need to replace infrastructure that were put in place decades or even hundreds of years ago in many areas.

Gas is heavily subsidised in many countries to keep it affordable to allow commerce to take place.

Agriculture is a heavily subsidised industry in many countries that keep food prices low to compete with each other.

Advances of IT/internet is also one reason why Trump and many populist are suddenly winning because the disruption caused to many industries in a short period of time displaced many traditional jobs.


----------



## Reaper

BTW, I stand corrected in claiming that there are industries that exist without government subsidies. That was a good point. However:



FriedTofu said:


> Utilities by and large are heavily subsidised by government or government owned. Utilities have been low cost but are increasing in costs due to the need to replace infrastructure that were put in place decades or even hundreds of years ago in many areas.


Reducing prices artificially results in a net negative impact on innovation and move towards alternate sources as it makes them uncompetitive. While we enjoy low energy/utility costs thanks to subsidies, we could be enjoying even lower costs if industries are allowed to innovate and compete without government interference. While the subsidies keep the costs low, it also interferes with competition more and that still has an impact on prices remaining at higher levels than market equilibrium could achieve. 



> Gas is heavily subsidised in many countries to keep it affordable to allow commerce to take place.


It also creates a dependence which again stunts innovation into alternate fuel sources. Government subsidies stifles the creation of a true substitute because artificial price controls creates an unfair advantage and forces a non-competitive environment. 



> Agriculture is a heavily subsidised industry in many countries that keep food prices low to compete with each other.


There's an opposite to this as well. While we're at a level where food prices are very low for us, in those countries that heavily subsidize agriculture in developing countries with the goal of keeping costs low actually force those countries to remain dependent on importing from wealthy countries as the local producers actually have a harder time competing because of their own low price controls. They end up with lower margins and hence cannot continue to expand, hence why the disparity in import/export exists in those countries.

Every government action that's designed to have a positive outcome has a negative reaction as well. 



> Advances of IT/internet is also one reason why Trump and many populist are suddenly winning because the disruption caused to many industries in a short period of time displaced many traditional jobs.


Old jobs that die but new ones are created. For example, when the great railway boom ended and was replaced by aviation and automotive travel, it created new jobs in the latter two fields. Take the entire situation with Uber vs Taxi lobbyists. If the government decides to favor cabs, Uber which is a much better service could potentially die and we're back to the shit service that shouldn't even exist since a much better service now actually exists. If a company can no longer fill a need and has been replaced, then it needs to be allowed to die so the better service can replace it. 

It's really a matter of personal responsibility and self-improvement at this point. There will always be natural unemployment as there's declines in industries and booms in others and the government simply cannot control that. The _best _way the government can actually create jobs is by reducing its interference. I.E. Tax breaks and not favoring certain industries over others. 

The government cannot control or create jobs. I've already had this discussion with someone else on this site and anyone that thinks that the government can create jobs without taking its nose out of industries is simply wrong.


----------



## Beatles123

Oxi X.O. said:


> The only reason capitalism works, is because governments have to step in and set limits and restrictions, as well as implement socialist ideas like welfare. :trump3
> 
> Also stop typing like you're on pol. :side:


>Implying this entire section isn't just a low-key version of 4chan :nerd:

Also, I would say we rely on crony capitalism moreso than the smaller, less goverment heavy form we need to rely on.

I don't even WANT welfare in the US as we use it now, so thanks for confirming another shit thing socialism invented. :trump3


----------



## asdf0501

Beatles123 said:


> The best argument you can make is that socialism in it's best form hasn't been tried yet TBH :quite


I'm gonna do this because well, people here seems to love youtube arguments






You can have your opinion about failed policies in those states, which i would say are a lot, and many are failed projects which amount less than anecdotes. (note to myself before someone said so, no i'm not advocating for some of them but i think that the commune and the spanish revolution are amazing)

But seriously, do research, is not that difficult.......


----------



## Reaper

asdf0501 said:


> I'm gonna do this because well, people here seems to love youtube arguments
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can have your opinion about failed policies in those states, which i would say are a lot, and many are failed projects which amount less than anecdotes. (note to myself before someone said so, no i'm not advocating for some of them but i think that the commune and the spanish revolution are amazing)
> 
> But seriously, do research, is not that difficult.......


Instead of posting an obviously agenda driven film, why don't you debate the economics of socialism vs capitalism to ascertain why one is superior to the other? I'm talking market dynamics of both socialism and capitalism in terms of wealth creation, sustaining the wealth etc. That would be a more rational debate because it would exclude the propaganda of popular, but failed socialists.


----------



## asdf0501

Because a) i'm not advocating for any of those systems and b) i'm not interested in a failed debate about failed systems from the perspective of "look, this is better: la la la"

I must also add, is pretty disingenous to make a debate in terms of one of the systems you're advocating for. For example socialism is not interested in the creation or acummulation of wealth, so is completely ridiculous to put that as an objective value per se in a debate between both systems, and as an objective vaue in general to be honest.


----------



## Reaper

asdf0501 said:


> Because a) i'm not advocating for any of those systems and b) i'm not interested in a failed debate about failed systems from the perspective of "look, this is better: la la la"
> 
> I must also add, is pretty disingenous to make a debate in terms of one of the systems you're advocating for. For example socialism is not interested in the creation or acummulation of wealth, so is completely ridiculous to put that as an objective value per se in a debate between both systems, and as an objective vaue in general to be honest.


Creation is how you feed people. Creating wealth isn't to be confused with accumulation of wealth although they're obviously intrinsically linked.

The entire capitalism vs socialism debate hinges upon superiority of either system.

These are systems both claiming their benefits to the society. One is intrinsically superior than the other as there is no such thing as equality in systems of governance.

Debating that is the only way to put an end to the advocacy of one of these systems. 

If you'd rather not debate then that's fine. I'll take that as a concession and move on. Most people love to argue philosophy because it's low hanging fruit. But when it comes to numbers and economics I've noticed that there is much less of a debate.


----------



## Vic Capri

Ryan Clayton of the Huffing Glue Post was the one passing out the Trump Russian flags at CPAC and they wonder why they got banned from the White House media briefing.

- Vic


----------



## virus21

Vic Capri said:


> Ryan Clayton of the Huffing Glue Post was the one passing out the Trump Russian flags at CPAC and they wonder why they got banned from the White House media briefing.
> 
> - Vic


Then they got what they deserved.


----------



## virus21




----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39090334

Fucking morons. Seems they haven't gotten the memo that meme magic is leagues beyond their flabby and sick incantations. :trump2


----------



## Dr. Middy

https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald...lion-increase-in-military-spending-1488210593

Not really a fan of this, especially when you're gonna cut money from the EPA (which along with Trump appointing Pruitt, makes me believe that Trump gives two shits about the EPA at all) along with other non-defense agencies, I question some things. There is a lot of things you can do with $54 billion that need addressing, like our crumbling infrastructure for example. 

I mean, we already has a COLOSSAL defense budget to begin with. Maybe we can better allocate the money they already have instead of just shoveling more money from other areas?


----------



## Reaper

Dr. Middy said:


> https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald...lion-increase-in-military-spending-1488210593
> 
> Not really a fan of this, especially when you're gonna cut money from the EPA (which along with Trump appointing Pruitt, makes me believe that Trump gives two shits about the EPA at all) along with other non-defense agencies, I question some things. There is a lot of things you can do with $54 billion that need addressing, like our crumbling infrastructure for example.
> 
> I mean, we already has a COLOSSAL defense budget to begin with. Maybe we can better allocate the money they already have instead of just shoveling more money from other areas?


Isn't military part of a nations' infrastructure?

Not that I'm defending the defense budget and re-allocation towards it.

BTW, Trump has given extensive details on infrastructure spending as well. I think I posted the entire list in here a few weeks ago.


----------



## Dr. Middy

RipNTear said:


> Isn't military part of a nations' infrastructure?
> 
> Not that I'm defending the defense budget and re-allocation towards it.
> 
> BTW, Trump has given extensive details on infrastructure spending as well. I think I posted the entire list in here a few weeks ago.


Well... I guess _technically _that is correct. :lol

I'm still curious if they really need that money to be allocated at all though. I just think that with all the money already in the defense budget, maybe it should be looked over and the money already present should be used better. That would go to every agency pretty much.

But it just seems questionable with how large the defense budget is already you know?


----------



## Art Vandaley

“I have to tell you, it’s an unbelievably complex subject,” he said, about plans to repeal the Affordable Care Act. “Nobody knew that healthcare could be so complicated.”
- https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/27/trumps-budget-54-billion-increase-defense-spending?

Except for you know, everybody. Literally everybody. 

Seriously who voted for this retard?


----------



## glenwo2

^ A bunch of people who didn't want HELL-ary Clinton as President? :shrug


----------



## Reaper

Dr. Middy said:


> Well... I guess _technically _that is correct. [emoji38]
> 
> I'm still curious if they really need that money to be allocated at all though. I just think that with all the money already in the defense budget, maybe it should be looked over and the money already present should be used better. That would go to every agency pretty much.
> 
> But it just seems questionable with how large the defense budget is already you know?


They do. While America's relative budget is high it's mainly because the cost of maintaining America's military are high mainly because its primary opponents' costs are lower to maintain the same levels of military. In terms of ground forces the rest of the world especially potential aggressors maintain larger forces through lowered military costs something that is only possible for them because their soldiers will fight for peanuts while ours won't. 

I've already posted in depth the breakdowns of America's military and why it's considered depleted needing the renewed boost before. 

I determined that outside of the Air Force, the US military is under equipped to face any sustained ground combat in case it is required. The stimulus is required to overcome the infantry and ground arsenal shortfalls.


----------



## stevefox1200

Dr. Middy said:


> Well... I guess _technically _that is correct. :lol
> 
> I'm still curious if they really need that money to be allocated at all though. I just think that with all the money already in the defense budget, maybe it should be looked over and the money already present should be used better. That would go to every agency pretty much.
> 
> But it just seems questionable with how large the defense budget is already you know?


The US's military budget is very tricky 

The US funds the vast majority of the UN's peacekeepers, pays for maintaining NATO members military and completely covers the entire alliances' air power, arms their allies with modern front line equipment and funds space and biological research even for non-miltiary purpose (NASA gets airforce funding for example) 

The US has also not really updated its military since the 1980s and largely uses upgraded 20 year old variants 

Russia and China don't fund research that often, do very little for the UN and ship their "allies" 50 year old weapons because most are weird North Korea style closed nations and as such their military budget goes much farther 

Russia and China also don't spend nearly as much on international aid so they can just dump cash into new tanks and fighters and just ship the shit to Africa or the Middle East if it ends up sucking while the US actually has to have a return on investment 

The US has a "family" to take care of while its rivals "live alone"


----------



## birthday_massacre

RipNTear said:


> They do. While America's relative budget is high it's mainly because the cost of maintaining America's military are high mainly because its primary opponents' costs are lower to maintain the same levels of military. In terms of ground forces the rest of the world especially potential aggressors maintain larger forces through lowered military costs something that is only possible for them because their soldiers will fight for peanuts while ours won't.
> 
> I've already posted in depth the breakdowns of America's military and why it's considered depleted needing the renewed boost before.
> 
> I determined that outside of the Air Force, the US military is under equipped to face any sustained ground combat in case it is required. The stimulus is required to overcome the infantry and ground arsenal shortfalls.


The US total military budget is bigger than the next 12 combined if they are still under equipped someone needs to be fired and better manage all that money. There is zero reason for the US military to be that large yet claim oh yeah we can't help Americans with insurance.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> The US total military budget is bigger than the next 12 combined if they are still under equipped someone needs to be fired and better manage all that money. There is zero reason for the US military to be that large yet claim oh yeah we can't help Americans with insurance.


US ground forces are depleted compared to Russia and China.

I'm not pro military expenditure but the economics of military expenditures are different from the economics of insurance or health care. 

The US definitely needs to improve how they spend the money. 

In a utopia you wouldn't even need a military but that's a pipe dream.


----------



## amhlilhaus

BruiserKC said:


> I'm not like many in the echo chamber that are ready to throw dirt on the Democratic Party with the electing of former Secretary of Labor Tom Perez as their chair. First of all, they dodged a bullet with almost electing a man who believes 9/11 was an inside job and that the Bush family had help from Israel to do it, plus Ellison has a mentor in the racist Rev. Farrakhan that makes the Rev. Jeremiah Wright look like a Boy Scout in comparison. Perhaps Ellison does represent the progressive group that wants to push the Dems even further to the left, but he would not be person to do that. I won't judge there, I've been saying for years the GOP needs to move further to the right.
> 
> The bottom line comes down to the fact that Trump and the GOP needs to deliver bigly on all that they have promised. If they don't, and the Democrats can find a way to get back on the same page and unite...it could spell trouble for the Republican Party. Keep in mind, in 2008 many were saying that the GOP was done as Obama took office with huge majorities in both houses of Congress and in control across the country among state legislatures. Look where we are now eight years later. Politics is a fickle game, folks...many of you haven't been involved in it that long to see that now, but I've seen this happen over the years quite often. If Trump doesn't deliver, we could be singing a different tune 4-8 years from now.


100 % correct.

Pre election, the gop was doom and gloom

Post election, premature euphoria

Trump has to get the shit heads to help him, that might be a big task


----------



## stevefox1200

birthday_massacre said:


> The US total military budget is bigger than the next 12 combined if they are still under equipped someone needs to be fired and better manage all that money. There is zero reason for the US military to be that large yet claim oh yeah we can't help Americans with insurance.


Almost all of the US's small arms are pre-2000s designs, most from the 80s

Almost all of the US's armor are 80s designs with the exceptions of the ones that have been modified to fight insurgency

China and Russia have both issued complete new armor in 2000s with Russia planning on upgrading AGAIN before the US has upgraded once

China has developed a completely new line of small arms in the time it has taken the US to standardize a few new weapons for test use

The US still rules the sky and sea and aggressively maintains control of them but on the ground they have been completely revamped to fight insurgents and not big wars which is unacceptable when that is the entire focus of your rivals

Edit:

Here are some pics of the Iraqi Armed Forces



















The US is currently paying for a military for a military that could rival most Eastern European nations for one of their of their secondary two-bit allies halfway around the world, that is why the budget is high and that's the benefit of being a US ally


----------



## Dr. Middy

RipNTear said:


> They do. While America's relative budget is high it's mainly because the cost of maintaining America's military are high mainly because its primary opponents' costs are lower to maintain the same levels of military. In terms of ground forces the rest of the world especially potential aggressors maintain larger forces through lowered military costs something that is only possible for them because their soldiers will fight for peanuts while ours won't.
> 
> I've already posted in depth the breakdowns of America's military and why it's considered depleted needing the renewed boost before.
> 
> I determined that outside of the Air Force, the US military is under equipped to face any sustained ground combat in case it is required. The stimulus is required to overcome the infantry and ground arsenal shortfalls.





stevefox1200 said:


> The US's military budget is very tricky
> 
> The US funds the vast majority of the UN's peacekeepers, pays for maintaining NATO members military and completely covers the entire alliances' air power, arms their allies with modern front line equipment and funds space and biological research even for non-miltiary purpose (NASA gets airforce funding for example)
> 
> The US has also not really updated its military since the 1980s and largely uses upgraded 20 year old variants
> 
> Russia and China don't fund research that often, do very little for the UN and ship their "allies" 50 year old weapons because most are weird North Korea style closed nations and as such their military budget goes much farther
> 
> Russia and China also don't spend nearly as much on international aid so they can just dump cash into new tanks and fighters and just ship the shit to Africa or the Middle East if it ends up sucking while the US actually has to have a return on investment
> 
> The US has a "family" to take care of while its rivals "live alone"


Both of you make good points. I do get the sheer importance of our military and defense in the grand scheme of things for not just our country as a whole, but for many countries around the world as mentioned with the UN peacekeepers, NATO, and the like. I also get how not all the funding may be directly towards military purposes like NASA (which I do support increased funding for). And yes, considering just how big a superpower the US is, they should be using top line technology and be one of the leaders in innovation and the like.

Regardless however, I still think that they should go through the budget and make sure that the money is actually needed, or could it be "created" through tightening elements of the current defense/military budget. And I'm still not a fan of taking money out of other organizations like the EPA which has been hurt already by the recent hiring freeze. 

Or, maybe there could be a scenario created where the money will be allocated should there be a reason in the future where the increase is needed _immediately_. For example, maybe when tensions between us and another country increase, or when there is a threat where the military will need to take action.

Also, given the current main threat in ISIS and how they are ground based, perhaps they could allocate funds from the navy and air force and put that towards the modernization of our military technology? Stevefox I read you mentioned that. 



birthday_massacre said:


> The US total military budget is bigger than the next 12 combined if they are still under equipped someone needs to be fired and better manage all that money. There is zero reason for the US military to be that large yet claim oh yeah we can't help Americans with insurance.


I want them to manage their money better too, but I'm also aware that because of just how large and significant the US is worldwide, a high military budget is expected. I actually found a chart that showed the current military budget (as of 2015) based on GDP, which paints a less bloated, but still very large figure.


----------



## Reaper

Dr. Middy said:


> Regardless however, I still think that they should go through the budget and make sure that the money is actually needed, or could it be "created" through tightening elements of the current defense/military budget. And I'm still not a fan of taking money out of other organizations like the EPA which has been hurt already by the recent hiring freeze.


At the same time however, you have to remember that VA benefits, soldier and family salaries and benefits and the like all come from the military budget as well. Military families have some of the best healthcare in the country and much of the bloat simply comes from that. The costs are not exclusively in development. The largest chunk of the huge budget goes to "labor" like it does in all industries. Each soldier makes 1400 odd a month plus bonuses and benefits. That's probably 10 times more than it costs China and Russia their soldiers. (I don't remember now but I did the math once and I think the numbers were about 10 times). The only real way to compare dollar spent is to make the US soldier make as much as a Chinese or Russian soldier and there's no way to do that. We'd never have any enlistment and end up in a nasty draft situation. And if you're in the 20's, you should be VERY worried about that because you've already consented to get drafted the minute you got your drivers' license. 

The entire cost to equip a chinese soldier is USD 1400 while the same for a US soldier is USD 17k. One would say that means our military is over-priced which would be valid, but at the same time you still have to take economies of scale into account. The pie is larger in the US and people want more money overall for doing the same things that cost next to nothing in China. We simply cannot compete. 



> Or, maybe there could be a scenario created where the money will be allocated should there be a reason in the future where the increase is needed _immediately_. For example, maybe when tensions between us and another country increase, or when there is a threat where the military will need to take action.


That's going to happen, but that would mean throwing the budget out of whack and increasing debt even more. However, if the military isn't up to standard and a war breaks out, we're at the moment not conflict ready. This is also why Trump's idea of trying to maintain peaceful relations with Russia and China are so important in tandem with still preparing for the worst. I'm not anti-adjustment of what's already being spent, but like most every layman I'm also not privy to the overall budget expenditures (as this is not a transparent expenditure), so I can't simply look at a huge budget and claim that it's too much simply because the number happens to be big. 

It takes Hollywood $150-200 million these days to make a great blockbuster. How much of that money is wasted and how much that money is well spent? Do we question the fact that we go to consume this movie that cost so much and say that we should stop making big budget movies just because they're big budget movies and the entrepreneur instead of making a big budget movie should simply donate that money to charity. No. We want our blockbusters to show that there was indeed a lot of money spent. 



> I want them to manage their money better too, but I'm also aware that because of just how large and significant the US is worldwide, a high military budget is expected. I actually found a chart that showed the current military budget (as of 2015) based on GDP, which paints a less bloated, but still very large figure.


On top of that, you have to remember that the majority of US forces are involved in peace-keeping around the world - something our opponents simply do not involve themselves in. Cutting down on our bloat could have far-reaching consequences around the world. What I think needs to happen is that other countries should be convinced to pool resources better as well as reduce their dependence on America. That's probably going to be the best way to reduce our costs. We simply can't reduce our costs by cutting down on our military or decreasing the benefits of the families in the armed forces.


----------



## stevefox1200

Dr. Middy said:


> Both of you make good points. I do get the sheer importance of our military and defense in the grand scheme of things for not just our country as a whole, but for many countries around the world as mentioned with the UN peacekeepers, NATO, and the like. I also get how not all the funding may be directly towards military purposes like NASA (which I do support increased funding for). And yes, considering just how big a superpower the US is, they should be using top line technology and be one of the leaders in innovation and the like.
> 
> Regardless however, I still think that they should go through the budget and make sure that the money is actually needed, or could it be "created" through tightening elements of the current defense/military budget. And I'm still not a fan of taking money out of other organizations like the EPA which has been hurt already by the recent hiring freeze.
> 
> Or, maybe there could be a scenario created where the money will be allocated should there be a reason in the future where the increase is needed _immediately_. For example, maybe when tensions between us and another country increase, or when there is a threat where the military will need to take action.
> 
> Also, given the current main threat in ISIS and how they are ground based, perhaps they could allocate funds from the navy and air force and put that towards the modernization of our military technology? Stevefox I read you mentioned that.
> 
> 
> 
> I want them to manage their money better too, but I'm also aware that because of just how large and significant the US is worldwide, a high military budget is expected. I actually found a chart that showed the current military budget (as of 2015) based on GDP, which paints a less bloated, but still very large figure.


Saudi's cost is largely due to the ever looming threat of an uprising and Israel has to prepare to fight all their neighbors at once 

When you put into that context Russia's % being close to Israel while not having to fund any major allies is pretty damn worrying for NATO


----------



## Reaper

stevefox1200 said:


> Saudi's cost is largely due to the ever looming threat of an uprising and Israel has to prepare to fight all their neighbors at once
> 
> When you put into that context Russia's % being close to Israel while not having to fund any major allies is pretty damn worrying for NATO


You need to educate me on why America fears Russia in the first place. Weren't the Russians our allies in WWII. What changed?


----------



## virus21

RipNTear said:


> You need to educate me on why America fears Russia in the first place. Weren't the Russians our allies in WWII. What changed?


The Cold War. And we were allies out of convenience as Hitler was the bigger threat


----------



## Reaper

virus21 said:


> The Cold War. And we were allies out of convenience as Hitler was the bigger threat


Cold War first ended in the 60's and then it ended again in the 90's. 

Why are we in the third cold war?


----------



## virus21

RipNTear said:


> Cold War first ended in the 60's and then it ended again in the 90's.
> 
> Why are we in the third cold war?


Ended in the 60s? That never happened. And we are having issues with Russia, because the Globalists don't like competition.


----------



## Reaper

Well, I need to do some reading on that topic. 

In other ignored news:


> *Why the MSM Is Ignoring Trump's Sex Trafficking Busts
> *
> Since President Donald Trump has been sworn in on Jan. 20, authorities have arrested an unprecedented number of sexual predators involved in child sex trafficking rings in the United States. This should be one of the biggest stories in the national news. Instead, the mainstream media has barely, if at all, covered any of these mass pedophile arrests. This begs the question – why?
> 
> *As a strong advocate for sex crime victims, I’ve been closely following the pedophile arrests since Trump took office. There have been a staggering 1,500-plus arrests in one short month; compare that to less than 400 sex trafficking-related arrests in 2014 according to the FBI. It’s been clear to me for awhile that Trump would make human trafficking a top priority. On October 8, 2012,* Trump tweeted:
> 
> "Got to do something about these missing children grabbed by the perverts. Too many incidents – fast trial, death penalty."
> 
> My suspicions were confirmed on Feb. 23 when Trump gave a press conference from the White House addressing how human trafficking is a “dire problem” domestically and internationally. He gave further confirmation when he said: “Dedicated men and women across the federal government have focused on this for some time as you know -- it’s been much more focused over the last four weeks.” Trump’s press conference was barely a blip in the mainstream media and the massive arrests have been almost completely ignored by the MSM altogether. Here’s a rundown of some of the massive sex trafficking rings that have been broken up since Trump took office.
> 
> CARTOONS | GARY VARVEL
> VIEW CARTOON
> -On Jan. 27 authorities arrested 42 in a human trafficking operation in Tennessee.
> 
> -On Jan. 29 authorities announced that 474 were arrested in a statewide California human trafficking operation and 28 sexually exploited children were rescued.
> 
> -108 were arrested from Jan. 18 to Feb. 5 in Illinois as part of a national sex trafficking sting operation.
> 
> - 178 people were arrested in Texas for sex trafficking in sting that operated in January till Super Bowl Sunday.
> 
> -16 people were arrested in January in Michigan for sex trafficking during the Detroit Auto Show.
> 
> -In February, authorities arrested 11 in Virginia in a child sex sting.
> 
> -On Feb. 14 the Polk County sheriff announced that 42 were arrested in Florida in child pornography related cases.


----------



## stevefox1200

RipNTear said:


> You need to educate me on why America fears Russia in the first place. Weren't the Russians our allies in WWII. What changed?


Russia and the Allies were only united out of convenience and I personally consider WW2 a war with three sides where two of them happened to be fighting one (Allies, Axis, and the Comintern) which is actually the official Russian government stance on the war 

As modern day just look at the current Russian culture and the stories their state sponsored news puts out

Stories about how America is corrupt and trying to kill Russia and subjugate its people out of racism and hatred 

Stories about how western Europe is dying and the people are screaming out for liberation

Stories about Nazi's and national socialists are rising up and preparing to push east to finish what Hitler started

Stories of US police shootings in Bumfuck Iowa are run next to stories of Russian cops saving 50 orphans on RT 

9-11 was inside job documentations are run on RT and conspiracy theorists who claim that the west is under control of the Zionist NWO are given prime-time 

There has been more of push to paint Stalin as a good man than there was when Khrushchev was alive 

Things like doping scandal at the Olympics are used as proof that the rest of the world can't be trusted 

Constant threats to Poland, the Baltics, and west leaning Eastern Europe 

Add into that most of Russia's government are former Soviet official who miss the days when they had complete power and Russian Mafia types who want to expand their outreach and a public that has been raised to believe that things like freedom of the press and election accountability are just western propaganda and every leader is like Putin and will do whatever they want to get whatever they want

finally sprinkle a bit of homophobia and racism to gain a moral superiority as well as over confidence ("The west is full pussies who let **** into their army, they will be easy to beat") and you have a population that is wound up and ready to be unleashed when ever it is convenient

Simply put, Russia's government wants the land they had during the cold war so if they decide to go to war the fighting will largely take place in central and eastern Europe and not the homeland if they have to mow down every government to Germany to get there than that's fine

That's NATO rushed to surround Russia with bases, they know Russia will crush a Ukraine or a Latvia for a buffer zone and a NATO base prevents that 

like it or not NATO is the gun held to Russia and China that has kept the world relatively peaceful


----------



## Dr. Middy

RipNTear said:


> At the same time however, you have to remember that VA benefits, soldier and family salaries and benefits and the like all come from the military budget as well. Military families have some of the best healthcare in the country and much of the bloat simply comes from that. The costs are not exclusively in development. The largest chunk of the huge budget goes to "labor" like it does in all industries. Each soldier makes 1400 odd a month plus bonuses and benefits. That's probably 10 times more than it costs China and Russia their soldiers. (I don't remember now but I did the math once and I think the numbers were about 10 times). The only real way to compare dollar spent is to make the US soldier make as much as a Chinese or Russian soldier and there's no way to do that. We'd never have any enlistment.


Yeah it's hard to really argue against what the soldiers make. Are they all paid that ~$1400 regardless of where they happened to be stationed? I'm just curious if a solder who was say in Afghanistan at it's peak level of conflict some years ago under Bush, versus a solder who is helping out somewhere else doing more office related work in a safer location. 

It's also weird knowing that they have quite a bit of money going to healthcare, yet I always have heard a lot of flack given to how our veterans as a whole are treated. Seems like that should be much better given the amount which is at the disposal here.



> That's going to happen, but that would mean throwing the budget out of whack and increasing debt even more. However, if the military isn't up to standard and a war breaks out, we're at the moment not conflict ready. This is also why Trump's idea of trying to maintain peaceful relations with Russia and China are so important in tandem with still preparing for the worst. I'm not anti-adjustment of what's already being spent, but like most every layman I'm also not privy to the overall budget expenditures (as this is not a transparent expenditure), so I can't simply look at a huge budget and claim that it's too much simply because the number happens to be big.
> 
> It takes Hollywood $150-200 million these days to make a great blockbuster. How much of that money is wasted and how much that money is well spent? Do we question the fact that we go to consume this movie that cost so much and say that we should stop making big budget movies just because they're big budget movies and the entrepreneur instead of making a big budget movie should simply donate that money to charity. No. We want our blockbusters to show that there was indeed a lot of money spent.


I'm all for the increase if the budget is actually well maintained already, and that there is a definite need (which according to what you've mentioned, seems to be the case). Maybe other projects could be put on the backburner or eliminated to create the capital needed, like the wall (instead maybe upgrade what we have and add manned structures in higher traffic areas).

I feel like though this idea of peaceful relation should be done towards the vast majority of countries, not just Russia and China because of their size. It's annoying to hear Trump's attitude on countries like Mexico and such, when ideally we should be allies. The one thing I could never give Obama flack for was that he maintained a very respectful attitude and was dignified in how he treated his position. With Trump, I feel like he needs to lighten up on how he speaks his mind seemingly on his own accord, because eventually he might say stuff that will REALLY upset some people. 

With the blockbuster thing, I mean, with a movie that spends that sort of money, people want to really see that all the money went into really making a fantastic movie with great effects and visuals, as well as other elements which prove that they really did use the money that was given to them. Sometimes I do question the amount of money a film uses, especially when it gets to over $250 million or so, especially when I watch low budget moves that end up being fantastic. 

I understand that obviously our defense spending is huge in scope simply because we're a big superpower with a huge GDP. So naturally, this will translate into that being a big number. All I ask (sorry if I'm repeating myself so much!) is that for something that does function off so much money, that it will be properly managed and allocated within the department that it happens to be for. And hopefully when they did estimate the amount of money needed on top of what already exists, they made sure everything is necessary and all the money will be used for what is needed.


----------



## virus21




----------



## Reaper

Dr. Middy said:


> Yeah it's hard to really argue against what the soldiers make. Are they all paid that ~$1400 regardless of where they happened to be stationed? I'm just curious if a solder who was say in Afghanistan at it's peak level of conflict some years ago under Bush, versus a solder who is helping out somewhere else doing more office related work in a safer location.
> 
> It's also weird knowing that they have quite a bit of money going to healthcare, yet I always have heard a lot of flack given to how our veterans as a whole are treated. Seems like that should be much better given the amount which is at the disposal here.


Working closely with vets has dispelled a lot of ridiculous myths I had my head filled up with as well. While the veteran situation is definitely bad, the primary reason for it being bad is veterans are by and large simply unemployable after they return and are discharged. 

The military consumes them and institutionalizes them to the point where they're unprepared to function in the real world. However, that is a sort of a problem that the government even despite its best intentions cannot take care of. Americans have been at war for all of Bush's second term and both of Obama's terms. _That's thrice as long as the entire duration of WWII. _. That alone is a staggering statistic that people tend to ignore because of the far-reaching consequences. 

There are men now that have done multiple tours and are completely broken on return. There are also few workplaces willing to tolerate and employ them because of their incompetence and lack of civilian skills. The military has broken two generations of men and if the Afghanistan War and Iraqi war doesn't end soon they'll doom a third. 

As for pays, that's the average pay that I picked off a website. I'm not sure as to the accuracy of the number, but they also claimed that there are bonuses including enlistment bonuses as well as tour bonuses. There's also officer training, college pay, family insurance etc. This encourages men to go on multiple tours and that breaks them even more. 



> I'm all for the increase if the budget is actually well maintained already, and that there is a definite need (which according to what you've mentioned, seems to be the case). Maybe other projects could be put on the backburner or eliminated to create the capital needed, like the wall (instead maybe upgrade what we have and add manned structures in higher traffic areas).
> 
> I feel like though this idea of peaceful relation should be done towards the vast majority of countries, not just Russia and China because of their size. It's annoying to hear Trump's attitude on countries like Mexico and such, when ideally we should be allies. The one thing I could never give Obama flack for was that he maintained a very respectful attitude and was dignified in how he treated his position. With Trump, I feel like he needs to lighten up on how he speaks his mind seemingly on his own accord, because eventually he might say stuff that will REALLY upset some people.
> 
> With the blockbuster thing, I mean, with a movie that spends that sort of money, people want to really see that all the money went into really making a fantastic movie with great effects and visuals, as well as other elements which prove that they really did use the money that was given to them. Sometimes I do question the amount of money a film uses, especially when it gets to over $250 million or so, especially when I watch low budget moves that end up being fantastic.
> 
> I understand that obviously our defense spending is huge in scope simply because we're a big superpower with a huge GDP. So naturally, this will translate into that being a big number. All I ask (sorry if I'm repeating myself so much!) is that for something that does function off so much money, that it will be properly managed and allocated within the department that it happens to be for. And hopefully when they did estimate the amount of money needed on top of what already exists, they made sure everything is necessary and all the money will be used for what is needed.


This is all very fair.

However, Obama was fighting wars on 7 fronts. That's more than most presidents before him combined. He was well-spoken, but his government was the most militarized war-mongering government in the history of the United States. He dropped something like 100,000 bombs on 7 countries and their civilians and that includes allies.


----------



## Stinger Fan

RipNTear said:


> Well, I need to do some reading on that topic.
> 
> In other ignored news:


Can't make Trump look good amigo


----------



## Dr. Middy

RipNTear said:


> Working closely with vets has dispelled a lot of ridiculous myths I had my head filled up with as well. While the veteran situation is definitely bad, the primary reason for it being bad is veterans are by and large simply unemployable after they return and are discharged.
> 
> The military consumes them and institutionalizes them to the point where they're unprepared to function in the real world. However, that is a sort of a problem that the government even despite its best intentions cannot take care of. Americans have been at war for all of Bush's second term and both of Obama's terms. That's twice as long as the entire duration of WWII. There are men now that have done multiple tours and are completely broken on return. There are also few workplaces willing to tolerate and employ them because of their incompetence and lack of civilian skills. The military has broken two generations of men and if the Afghanistan War and Iraqi war doesn't end soon they'll doom a third.
> 
> As for pays, that's the average pay that I picked off a website. I'm not sure as to the accuracy of the number, but they also claimed that there are bonuses including enlistment bonuses as well as tour bonuses. There's also officer training, college pay, family insurance etc. This encourages men to go on multiple tours and that breaks them even more.


Man that vet thing sort of makes me sad. I mean, our system does end up making some of the finest solders in the world, but it ends up completely changing the people they once were to do so. It's a really difficult trade off because all those men and women who end up like this did volunteer to do so. I wonder if they realize that they may never be the person they were before when they first walk into training.

It almost fits sort of in line with how many people in the country have workaholic attitudes and treat their jobs as if it is their life. And technically speaking, when you're in the military it pretty much becomes their life, to where they don't know what their lives are when they leave, which might explain why so many go back.


----------



## virus21




----------



## stevefox1200

RipNTear said:


> Working closely with vets has dispelled a lot of ridiculous myths I had my head filled up with as well. While the veteran situation is definitely bad, the primary reason for it being bad is veterans are by and large simply unemployable after they return and are discharged.
> 
> The military consumes them and institutionalizes them to the point where they're unprepared to function in the real world. However, that is a sort of a problem that the government even despite its best intentions cannot take care of. Americans have been at war for all of Bush's second term and both of Obama's terms. _That's thrice as long as the entire duration of WWII. _. That alone is a staggering statistic that people tend to ignore because of the far-reaching consequences.
> 
> There are men now that have done multiple tours and are completely broken on return. There are also few workplaces willing to tolerate and employ them because of their incompetence and lack of civilian skills. The military has broken two generations of men and if the Afghanistan War and Iraqi war doesn't end soon they'll doom a third.
> 
> As for pays, that's the average pay that I picked off a website. I'm not sure as to the accuracy of the number, but they also claimed that there are bonuses including enlistment bonuses as well as tour bonuses. There's also officer training, college pay, family insurance etc. This encourages men to go on multiple tours and that breaks them even more.
> 
> 
> 
> This is all very fair.
> 
> However, Obama was fighting wars on 7 fronts. That's more than most presidents before him combined. He was well-spoken, but his government was the most militarized war-mongering government in the history of the United States. He dropped something like 100,000 bombs on 7 countries and their civilians and that includes allies.


The "rehabilitation" thing has been getting better and better

The effects of PTSD are still a fairly recent discovery let alone non-crippling mental effects 

I read a lot of Stars and Stripes (the official military news source) and its seems that a new public or private vet program is being made every week so attention is started to be shifted toward it

People like John McCain who was a POW and who knows how hard it can be are some of the top people in the government currently

I don't want to rail on Obama or liberals but they tended to prefer civilians to run military matters and as such their knowledge of vets and their problems started and ended at First Blood (as long as they aren't going crazy and killing people we are doing fine)


----------



## Reaper

Dr. Middy said:


> Man that vet thing sort of makes me sad. I mean, our system does end up making some of the finest solders in the world, but it ends up completely changing the people they once were to do so. It's a really difficult trade off because all those men and women who end up like this did volunteer to do so. I wonder if they realize that they may never be the person they were before when they first walk into training.
> 
> It almost fits sort of in line with how many people in the country have workaholic attitudes and treat their jobs as if it is their life. And technically speaking, when you're in the military it pretty much becomes their life, to where they don't know what their lives are when they leave, which might explain why so many go back.


America needs a sustained period of revamping its military and peace-time. Maybe a good couple of decades and eventually a planned sustained global effort against terrorism in a major war of attrition. Currently America is embroiled in symptomatic treatment instead of outright extermination and part of why they're doing that is that their military has become depleted and ground forces largely ineffective in hostile terrain.



stevefox1200 said:


> The "rehabilitation" thing has been getting better and better
> 
> The effects of PTSD are still a fairly recent discovery let alone non-crippling mental effects
> 
> I read a lot of Stars and Stripes (the official military news source) and its seems that a new public or private vet program is being made every week so attention is started to be shifted toward it


I hope that someone realizes at some point that while institutionalised men that are broken down in order to make the perfect soldier also need to be "deinstitutionalized" upon return. I know 5 vets now at least and other than a guy from the Air Force, the grunts are completely incapable of handling themselves amongst civilians. They're barely functional. It's not just PTSD. It's the overall culture of the military that is very much incompatible with civilian life. Grunts are completely broken down to follow orders, not have any initiative, not be leaders etc. Most of them try to work in offices and retail where you need to be able to work smart and be independent and most of them simply have had that beaten out of them out of necessity to ensure that they're good soldiers.


----------



## Dr. Middy

RipNTear said:


> America needs a sustained period of revamping its military and peace-time. Maybe a good couple of decades and eventually a planned sustained global effort against terrorism in a major war of attrition. Currently America is embroiled in symptomatic treatment instead of outright extermination and part of why they're doing that is that their military has become depleted and ground forces largely ineffective in hostile terrain.


Yeah we need to really come up with a better plan where we have many nations and allies involved so we aren't the only ones taking the brunt of this. 

Right now it's akin to putting bandages on a large bleeding wound, yet instead of getting new ones when the old bandages are dirty and worn, we wash they as best we can and put them right back on the wound.


----------



## birthday_massacre

stevefox1200 said:


> Almost all of the US's small arms are pre-2000s designs, most from the 80s
> 
> Almost all of the US's armor are 80s designs with the exceptions of the ones that have been modified to fight insurgency
> 
> China and Russia have both issued complete new armor in 2000s with Russia planning on upgrading AGAIN before the US has upgraded once
> 
> China has developed a completely new line of small arms in the time it has taken the US to standardize a few new weapons for test use
> 
> The US still rules the sky and sea and aggressively maintains control of them but on the ground they have been completely revamped to fight insurgents and not big wars which is unacceptable when that is the entire focus of your rivals
> 
> Edit:
> 
> Here are some pics of the Iraqi Armed Forces
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US is currently paying for a military for a military that could rival most Eastern European nations for one of their of their secondary two-bit allies halfway around the world, that is why the budget is high and that's the benefit of being a US ally







RipNTear said:


> US ground forces are depleted compared to Russia and China.
> 
> I'm not pro military expenditure but the economics of military expenditures are different from the economics of insurance or health care.
> 
> The US definitely needs to improve how they spend the money.
> 
> In a utopia you wouldn't even need a military but that's a pipe dream.


That is my point, the US is spending on this money on the military in the wrong places. They dont need to spend more money just spend it more wisely.

How can the US be spending all this money and still have armor that are 80s design. WTF are they wasting the money on.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> That is my point, the US is spending on this money on the military in the wrong places. They dont need to spend more money just spend it more wisely.
> 
> How can the US be spending all this money and still have armor that are 80s design. WTF are they wasting the money on.


This is a topic I've been researching a lot. A lot of America's current war budget actually goes into peace-keeping in impacted areas and maintaining splinter bases across the globe. Many of these bases are actually unnecessary

And I'm sure that there are contractors that are over-charging and price-gouging the government which is extremely easy to do since it's guaranteed money. 

It's the same unfortunate consequences of pretty much all government run bodies. Since the money is guaranteed and rarely accounted for, nor is transparent, people take advantage - on both sides. Government and Private contractors. 

I agree that putting in more money will not necessary achieve the desired results without accompanied accountability which is lacking. If the government becomes more transparent then people can figure out where the money is going. I think Trump's government wants more transparency but already I hear that the Pentagon is opposing it as much as they possibly can.


----------



## stevefox1200

birthday_massacre said:


> That is my point, the US is spending on this money on the military in the wrong places. They dont need to spend more money just spend it more wisely.
> 
> How can the US be spending all this money and still have armor that are 80s design. WTF are they wasting the money on.


We are going in circles

The US pays for the UN peacekeepers, NATO, and the military of their allies

Most European nations only have a token air force and navy to defend their own skies and water and rely completely on the US for strike ability 

When British troops need a lift they get it from a US plane being flown by a US pilot using US fuel which is all being paid for by the US

When a UN needs some new equipment for a dangerous mission the US tends to have no problem paying for like 90% even if they are not going to use it 

When Germany wants to test a new tank design the US will pay the development costs as long as they share the data

One of the reasons so many nations in Europe can have so many social programs and welfare systems is because the US can cover their defense costs

The US is fine with this arrangement as they can both afford it and it gives them a MASSIVE political boost in international relations and gives them the first and final word on all NATO actions

The UK doesn't want to want to make a deal with the US? Well, it would be awkward if those planes that fly your men around were to suddenly disappear

Russia wants to expand their power? Well, it would be a shame if those NATO allied nations next door suddenly got a whole new line tanks and fighter jets


----------



## Alco

@RipNTear I forgot to quote you but the discussion has moved to military spending, so w/e. I would just like to add a point that while you are right that if you can't fill a need, then you're out. However, I'd like to argue it's a two-way street. Imagine you can fill a need, but the costs are huge that it's not profitable to continue your business. This happens often in the pharmaceutical industry where there are treatments for rare diseases, but the cost (and subsequently the prize for the patient) are so high that Big Pharma either quits development entirely or that government has to bear some of the cost. 

You already know I'm pro small-government. I say this because I ultimately believe that it remains a government "task" to defend its citizens (military, police, fire brigade) and to create a framework in which business can operate. Quality control for instance is something I'd rather not let up entirely to the private sector, as its ultimate goal is to make a profit, which _can_ lead to a race to the bottom in terms of quality etc. 

On the topic of military budget, I'm not at all an expert on the matter, but I find it suspect that a business man such as Trump doesn't look for more efficient spending, instead of throwing more money at the military that already enjoys the highest budget allocation in the world, by far.


----------



## BruiserKC

RipNTear said:


> Working closely with vets has dispelled a lot of ridiculous myths I had my head filled up with as well. While the veteran situation is definitely bad, the primary reason for it being bad is veterans are by and large simply unemployable after they return and are discharged.
> 
> The military consumes them and institutionalizes them to the point where they're unprepared to function in the real world. However, that is a sort of a problem that the government even despite its best intentions cannot take care of. Americans have been at war for all of Bush's second term and both of Obama's terms. _That's thrice as long as the entire duration of WWII. _. That alone is a staggering statistic that people tend to ignore because of the far-reaching consequences.
> 
> There are men now that have done multiple tours and are completely broken on return. There are also few workplaces willing to tolerate and employ them because of their incompetence and lack of civilian skills. The military has broken two generations of men and if the Afghanistan War and Iraqi war doesn't end soon they'll doom a third.
> 
> As for pays, that's the average pay that I picked off a website. I'm not sure as to the accuracy of the number, but they also claimed that there are bonuses including enlistment bonuses as well as tour bonuses. There's also officer training, college pay, family insurance etc. This encourages men to go on multiple tours and that breaks them even more.
> 
> 
> 
> This is all very fair.
> 
> However, Obama was fighting wars on 7 fronts. That's more than most presidents before him combined. He was well-spoken, but his government was the most militarized war-mongering government in the history of the United States. He dropped something like 100,000 bombs on 7 countries and their civilians and that includes allies.





Dr. Middy said:


> Man that vet thing sort of makes me sad. I mean, our system does end up making some of the finest solders in the world, but it ends up completely changing the people they once were to do so. It's a really difficult trade off because all those men and women who end up like this did volunteer to do so. I wonder if they realize that they may never be the person they were before when they first walk into training.
> 
> It almost fits sort of in line with how many people in the country have workaholic attitudes and treat their jobs as if it is their life. And technically speaking, when you're in the military it pretty much becomes their life, to where they don't know what their lives are when they leave, which might explain why so many go back.


While I have a college degree, I think some of my best skills came from my time in the military. The technical and organizational skills that I learned have been very beneficial to me. Of course, I'm one of the fortunate ones as we have folks that will never be the same after their time because of a government machine that chews them up and spits them out. That's also partly because you have civilian leadership who doesn't know what it really means to serve. To many today, their idea of knowing what the military is all about is sitting on the couch and playing "Call of Duty." I have friends and co-workers that served in Iraq and Afghanistan who while for the most part have adjusted to civilian life, it is still a struggle sometimes for them. 

Overall, though...hiring veterans can be a great thing for a business. Knowing how to work efficiently and under time crunches and pressure...they know all about that. 



stevefox1200 said:


> The "rehabilitation" thing has been getting better and better
> 
> The effects of PTSD are still a fairly recent discovery let alone non-crippling mental effects
> 
> I read a lot of Stars and Stripes (the official military news source) and its seems that a new public or private vet program is being made every week so attention is started to be shifted toward it
> 
> People like John McCain who was a POW and who knows how hard it can be are some of the top people in the government currently
> 
> I don't want to rail on Obama or liberals but they tended to prefer civilians to run military matters and as such their knowledge of vets and their problems started and ended at First Blood (as long as they aren't going crazy and killing people we are doing fine)


However, these days folks like McCain are the exception as opposed to the rule. In 1971 (this was from a PBS study), 73% of Congress was made up of veterans. Today, that number is down to 20%. Our last few Presidents do not have military experience, including our current POTUS who applied for deferment multiple times. Civilians have a harder time understanding what it means to serve, especially when they went out of their way to avoid military duty. If you choose not to sign, that's fine, but it makes it harder for them to understand what the consequences are if are sending folks into harm's way. Granted, the uptick in recent years is there with folks like Tulsi Gabbard, Joni Ernst, and Tammy Duckworth have been elected to Congress but the disconnect is still there. 



birthday_massacre said:


> That is my point, the US is spending on this money on the military in the wrong places. They dont need to spend more money just spend it more wisely.
> 
> How can the US be spending all this money and still have armor that are 80s design. WTF are they wasting the money on.


The money has been spent here on computer equipment for the most part. This especially got going during the Dubya administration. They felt by making the technology more efficient that you were less likely to need to send soldiers. I understand wanting to streamline the process and be more efficient in how you take care of business, but unfortunately that's not always enough. You have to have the manpower to fight, war is still a nasty business and sometimes it requires troops to go in and do the dirty work. This has led to fewer people joining, meaning that we send people for multiple tours and they burn out.


----------



## FriedTofu

RipNTear said:


> Reducing prices artificially results in a net negative impact on innovation and move towards alternate sources as it makes them uncompetitive. While we enjoy low energy/utility costs thanks to subsidies, we could be enjoying even lower costs if industries are allowed to innovate and compete without government interference. While the subsidies keep the costs low, it also interferes with competition more and that still has an impact on prices remaining at higher levels than market equilibrium could achieve.


But you would also have areas that are unappealing due to lower population/spending that would have no provider in the market. On the flip side, subsidised utilities are horrible there too because operators still neglect the area as it is unprofitable.



> It also creates a dependence which again stunts innovation into alternate fuel sources. Government subsidies stifles the creation of a true substitute because artificial price controls creates an unfair advantage and forces a non-competitive environment.


These countries often do not have the resources to throw at developing alternative fuel sources. Without subsidies, market forces would determine companies sell more to foreign buyers who has much higher purchasing power than the average local consumer, leaving the poorer population without easy access to the much needed resource.



> There's an opposite to this as well. While we're at a level where food prices are very low for us, in those countries that heavily subsidize agriculture in developing countries with the goal of keeping costs low actually force those countries to remain dependent on importing from wealthy countries as the local producers actually have a harder time competing because of their own low price controls. They end up with lower margins and hence cannot continue to expand, hence why the disparity in import/export exists in those countries.
> 
> Every government action that's designed to have a positive outcome has a negative reaction as well.


Funny, I read somewhere that it is heavily subsidised American export that is driving prices down for the local farmers in developing countries as they can't compete against the economy of scale of the big corporations. Most governments are subsidising to keep the jobs of farming viable, feeding the hungry is secondary. :shrug



> Old jobs that die but new ones are created. For example, when the great railway boom ended and was replaced by aviation and automotive travel, it created new jobs in the latter two fields. Take the entire situation with Uber vs Taxi lobbyists. If the government decides to favor cabs, Uber which is a much better service could potentially die and we're back to the shit service that shouldn't even exist since a much better service now actually exists. If a company can no longer fill a need and has been replaced, then it needs to be allowed to die so the better service can replace it.
> 
> It's really a matter of personal responsibility and self-improvement at this point. There will always be natural unemployment as there's declines in industries and booms in others and the government simply cannot control that. The _best _way the government can actually create jobs is by reducing its interference. I.E. Tax breaks and not favoring certain industries over others.
> 
> The government cannot control or create jobs. I've already had this discussion with someone else on this site and anyone that thinks that the government can create jobs without taking its nose out of industries is simply wrong.


I'm not disputing jobs being displaced all the time due to technological advancement. The simple PC made spreadsheet clerks irrelevant and they became analysts instead way back when too. I'm just simply pointing it out as you championing the advancement of the internet is at odds with Trump's solutions to 'bring jobs back' as you are a big defender of his. The internet and e-commerce disrupted across a variety of industries that has not been seen since a century ago. And most don't have the option to go overseas to a 'land of opportunities' if immigration rules are tightened.


----------



## Reaper

FriedTofu said:


> But you would also have areas that are unappealing due to lower population/spending that would have no provider in the market. On the flip side, subsidised utilities are horrible there too because operators still neglect the area as it is unprofitable.


That's purely speculation that's not based on fact simply because subsidies still wouldn't necessarily be allocated the way they're meant to be. For example, right after Obama's auto bailout, some of the CEO's gave themselves pay hikes and bonuses and used the money to build foreign factories :lmao 



> These countries often do not have the resources to throw at developing alternative fuel sources. Without subsidies, market forces would determine companies sell more to foreign buyers who has much higher purchasing power than the average local consumer, leaving the poorer population without easy access to the much needed resource.


And that would open up a needs gap that would be filled by smaller providors. 



> Funny, I read somewhere that it is heavily subsidised American export that is driving prices down for the local farmers in developing countries as they can't compete against the economy of scale of the big corporations. Most governments are subsidising to keep the jobs of farming viable, feeding the hungry is secondary. :shrug


Isn't that exactly what I said? You know the Sugar Industry of Pakistan right? IIRC the government tried to create price controls on them and they responded by creating artificial shortfalls meaning that more sugar had to be imported from abroad. The shit that happens in developing countries when governments get involved is nothing short of disasterous. The thing is that this idea that lower prices are better for everybody because they can consume more with less is an economic fallacy. But I'd have to get into too much detail to elaborate why it's a bad thing. In short, it's bad because artificial pricing gives a bad idea of what the demand is therefore it leads to suppliers not knowing what the real shortfall is. The market doesn't grow and isntead stagnates and over a period of time it makes the industry instable keeping it in the hands of those who can survive and that encourages them to create cartels in order to counter the governments' policies and then those same people become lobbyists etc etc and a huge circle-jerk occurs creating a "false" market. 



> I'm not disputing jobs being displaced all the time due to technological advancement. The simple PC made spreadsheet clerks irrelevant and they became analysts instead way back when too. I'm just simply pointing it out as you championing the advancement of the internet is at odds with Trump's solutions to 'bring jobs back' as you are a big defender of his. The internet and e-commerce disrupted across a variety of industries that has not been seen since a century ago. And most don't have the option to go overseas to a 'land of opportunities' if immigration rules are tightened.


Advocating for a president doesn't mean advocating for all his policies and I've repeatedly told you that.



BruiserKC said:


> While I have a college degree, I think some of my best skills came from my time in the military. The technical and organizational skills that I learned have been very beneficial to me. Of course, I'm one of the fortunate ones as we have folks that will never be the same after their time because of a government machine that chews them up and spits them out. That's also partly because you have civilian leadership who doesn't know what it really means to serve. To many today, their idea of knowing what the military is all about is sitting on the couch and playing "Call of Duty." I have friends and co-workers that served in Iraq and Afghanistan who while for the most part have adjusted to civilian life, it is still a struggle sometimes for them.
> 
> Overall, though...hiring veterans can be a great thing for a business. Knowing how to work efficiently and under time crunches and pressure...they know all about that.


Based on my experience considering what I've seen in my small town anyways, you'd be an exception not the rule. My wife's boss loves to hire veterans and they're essentially a revolving door. He's got a couple decent ones, but i can tell you some horror stories. One vet pulled a gun on a female employee in the office over a disagreement (I know, the boss is the sort that's ok with guns on the premises). Another vet that was working directly with my wife gave her nightmares because he couldn't even sign his name on something without being told to do it. Another vet is a tattle tale who views his boss as a replacement for his CO and pretty much been ordered to "report" on his colleagues and therefore creates a bad team environment. While the last guy is abusive towards his wife and daughter and blames it on his PTSD ... As someone more educated I know that constant abuse is not a symptom of PTSD. 

Though it could just be down to bad personalities amongst this specific group, but it doesn't create a very good impression for an observer like me whose wife has significant trouble working with vets. It might be just be the luck of the draw though :draper2


----------



## The5star_Kid

How about the US stop starting wars so they dont have to spend so much on them? 

I know, thats a radical idea but in the UK, we call it common sense.


----------



## Alco

@BruiserKC re: your rep (I need to spread rep before I can rep you again  )

Didn't the Bush administration spend more on the military than Trump is proposing? I read somewhere numbers between 13% and 15% increase annualy, whilst Trump's proposition represents a 10% increase. The money went to "digitalizing" the army like you said, but I can't help but wonder if they didn't vastly overpay the entire project then.


----------



## Reaper

Alco said:


> @RipNTear I forgot to quote you but the discussion has moved to military spending, so w/e. I would just like to add a point that while you are right that if you can't fill a need, then you're out. However, I'd like to argue it's a two-way street. Imagine you can fill a need, but the costs are huge that it's not profitable to continue your business. This happens often in the pharmaceutical industry where there are treatments for rare diseases, but the cost (and subsequently the prize for the patient) are so high that Big Pharma either quits development entirely or that government has to bear some of the cost.


I see your point about cost-prohibition, but that's fine. Some industries just need 4-5 major players to have price wars. The problem with the pharmaceutical industry is that due to lengthy patents (which are a major form of government interference btw) it operates far more like mini monopolies rather than a competitive industry. That said, drug costs really aren't a major problem in America until and unless you get into the really rare diseases which impact a very small amount of the population. The major problem here is in hospitalization and getting health insurance. For regular medical stuff that impacts the most people, the cost of healthcare really isn't prohibitive at all. As a healthy young person, I would need to spend less than a grand a year on my medical, but if I paid insurance I'm looking at paying 3-4g. I'd rather put money I save in an investment account. Anyways, I digress. 

My point is that cost prohibitive industries can end up in a state of perfect competition as well (take the PC, TV and Phone markets for example) given the right policy-making. 



> On the topic of military budget, I'm not at all an expert on the matter, but I find it suspect that a business man such as Trump doesn't look for more efficient spending, instead of throwing more money at the military that already enjoys the highest budget allocation in the world, by far.


It's probably part of the plan. We don't know everything yet. Over time, it should become clear whether he's just dumping money into the military, or finding ways to make it more cost efficient as well or not. It's too soon to form a fully realized opinion at this point.


----------



## FriedTofu

RipNTear said:


> That's purely speculation that's not based on fact simply because subsidies still wouldn't necessarily be allocated the way they're meant to be.


Wouldn't you say your free market assumptions about lower prices if left to market forces is also based on speculations too?




> And that would open up a needs gap that would be filled by smaller providors.


At what cost? The locals can't afford the higher prices hence the subsidies.





> Isn't that exactly what I said? You know the Sugar Industry of Pakistan right? IIRC the government tried to create price controls on them and they responded by creating artificial shortfalls meaning that more sugar had to be imported from abroad. The shit that happens in developing countries when governments get involved is nothing short of disasterous. The thing is that this idea that lower prices are better for everybody because they can consume more with less is an economic fallacy. But I'd have to get into too much detail to elaborate why it's a bad thing. In short, it's bad because artificial pricing gives a bad idea of what the demand is therefore it leads to suppliers not knowing what the real shortfall is. The market doesn't grow and isntead stagnates and over a period of time it makes the industry instable keeping it in the hands of those who can survive and that encourages them to create cartels in order to counter the governments' policies and then those same people become lobbyists etc etc and a huge circle-jerk occurs creating a "false" market.


I was talking about subsidies to keep costs low for farmers so they can afford to keep using their land for farming. Your example seem to be a government that cannot afford to do what they said. :shrug

Your explanation seems to suggests the business model of the sharing economy will collapse on itself due to its artificial pricing at the moment. :shrug




> Advocating for a president doesn't mean advocating for all his policies and I've repeatedly told you that.


The head in the sand defence is tiresome.


----------



## Reaper

FriedTofu said:


> Wouldn't you say your free market assumptions about lower prices if left to market forces is also based on speculations too?


No. It's based on what we see over time in perfectly competitive industries. It's based on fact. 



> At what cost? The locals can't afford the higher prices hence the subsidies.


You simply don't understand the organic development of price discrimination in industries at all. 



> I was talking about subsidies to keep costs low for farmers so they can afford to keep using their land for farming. Your example seem to be a government that cannot afford to do what they said. :shrug


What? My example was stating how price controls by the government leads to creation of artificial shortfalls in supply in order to force consumers to pay more for what is currently supplied into the market. 



> Your explanation seems to suggests the business model of the sharing economy will collapse on itself due to its artificial pricing at the moment. :shrug


I didn't say it would collapse on itself. Where did I say that? 



> The head in the sand defence is tiresome.


Huh? Is this another phrase you read somewhere without understanding what it means and are using it now. How is saying that advocating a president and not all of his policies burying my head in the sand? 

What's tiresome is discussing things with you because you know next to nothing but still want to keep arguing.


----------



## Vic Capri

*2005*: George W. Bush is a pillaging, torturing war criminal who let a city drown.

*2017*: I may have disagreed with Bush, but he was a good man.

:serious:

- Vic


----------



## Stinger Fan

Vic Capri said:


> *2005*: George W. Bush is a pillaging, torturing war criminal who let a city drown.
> 
> *2017*: I may have disagreed with Bush, but he was a good man.
> 
> :serious:
> 
> - Vic


How times have changed


----------



## Alco

The change in narrative about Fidel Castro is even worse though :wtf2


----------



## Stinger Fan

Jeez, this "controversy" about Kellyane Conway having her feet on a couch is ridiculous. People are losing their shit over the smallest things and this crap only shows how hypocritical people can be


----------



## Reaper

Stinger Fan said:


> Jeez, this "controversy" about Kellyane Conway having her feet on a couch is ridiculous. People are losing their shit over the smallest things and this crap only shows how hypocritical people can be


Oh the horror. Did she have Steak with Ketchup too?


----------



## Sensei Utero

How about not going to war, and instead spend billions of profit on improving the lives of your own citizens, instead of creating more hell in the middle east? Then folk wonder why people are attempting to flee there.

As someone who has Green Day's 'American Idiot' tattooed on their arm (and someone who is a pacifist), I obviously don't like what Bush did back in the day. Part of it just seems like a repeat of that.


----------



## MrMister

Regarding Conway's feet up under her on the sofa.

Didn't Clinton get blowjobs in the Oval Office?

:lol


----------



## deepelemblues

the :trump presidency is starting to get boring

another reason paul ryan and mitch mcconnell need to re-drop their balls already and start passing some legislation and confirm gorsuch to make supreme court cases great again


----------



## Stinger Fan

MrMister said:


> Regarding Conway's feet up under her on the sofa.
> 
> Didn't Clinton get blowjobs in the Oval Office?
> 
> :lol


Leftists don't care, they just want to find something to complain about. Having that sort of mentality will make these 4 years go by incredibly slow


----------



## Vic Capri

President Trump signed the Inspiring the Next Space Pioneers and Innovators and Explorers Act (INSPIRE) and Promoting Women in Entrepreneurship Acts.

What a fucking misogynist!

- Vic


----------



## 2 Ton 21

Hate these bullshit unwritten rules of the Oval Office. Acting like it's holy ground. Can't take your coat off. No feet on the couch. No blowjobs. No beheading immortals. Bunch of fucking hall monitors.

Imagine some of the dark shit that has probably went down in the room over the years.


----------



## Stinger Fan

RipNTear said:


> Oh the horror. Did she have Steak with Ketchup too?


I actually never realized until now that you were referencing something that happened :lol I can't believe I missed that one


----------



## MrMister

Not just with ketchup but also well done. Not sure why anyone would defend this.


----------



## Reaper

InUtero said:


> How about not going to war,


America tried to do that in 1941. Didn't matter did it?


Then in the 80's when Afghanistan was invaded by Russia who wanted to then take over Pakistan, I guess they should've just let Russia annex the world all the way down to the Arabian Sea and beyond. What difference would that have made in the world right now, right? Let China and Russia fight amongst each other and do whatever they want. They surely wouldn't have attacked America at all eventually after murdering billions of people.

Clinton pretended that the problem of Islamist terrorism in the middle east against Americans wasn't a major problem in the 90s. How did that work out for us?

I'm anti-war. But also a realist. Sometimes "not going to war" isn't an option.


----------



## Sensei Utero

RipNTear said:


> America tried to do that in 1941. Didn't matter did it?
> 
> 
> Then in the 80's when Afghanistan was invaded by Russia who wanted to then take over Pakistan, I guess they should've just let Russia annex the world all the way down to the Arabian Sea and beyond. What difference would that have made in the world right now, right? Let China and Russia fight amongst each other and do whatever they want. They surely wouldn't have attacked America at all eventually after murdering billions of people.
> 
> Clinton pretended that the problem of Islamist terrorism in the middle east against Americans wasn't a major problem in the 90s. How did that work out for us?


Different times, different era. Admittedly, I don't know too much on the second part. I can only really talk about the first bit (I'd actually like to hear an account on the second part to educate myself haha). Unfortunately, when 1941 hit, hell even before that - we all didn't have any choice but to enter War with Nazi Germany, as shite as that sounds. However, there is an opportunity to do things differently here. Causing more hell in the middle east isn't going to achieve what many what to achieve. People killing people and dying for their government (not their country) for the sake of 'peace' is just...wrong. I'm not denying there's an Islamist terrorist problem (it'd be silly if I did, and it was silly of Clinton to pretend there wasn't), but there are many different ways in which war can be avoided. Violence isn't the answer.


----------



## virus21

Vic Capri said:


> President Trump signed the Inspiring the Next Space Pioneers and Innovators and Explorers Act (INSPIRE) and Promoting Women in Entrepreneurship Acts.
> 
> What a fucking misogynist!
> 
> - Vic


Regressives don't care. They're pissed that their political sugar momma didn't get in and nothing else.


----------



## Reaper

InUtero said:


> Different times, different era. Admittedly, I don't know too much on the second part. I can only really talk about the first bit. Unfortunately, when 1941 hit, hell even before that - we all didn't have any choice but to enter War with Nazi Germany, as shite as that sounds. However, there is an opportunity to do things differently here. Causing more hell in the middle east isn't going to achieve what many what to achieve. People killing people and dying for their government (not their country) for the sake of 'peace' is just...wrong. I'm not denying there's an Islamist terrorist problem (it'd be silly if I did, and it was silly of Clinton to pretend there wasn't), but there are many different ways in which war can be avoided. Violence isn't the answer.


As I said, I'm anti-war. However, you have to be realistic. 

There are currently 29 armed conflicts in Africa, 16 in Asia, 10 in Europe, 7 in the middle east and 6 in North/South America. Several of these conflicts have the potential to change the entire map and power structure of the region. Most of these conflicts are between Islamist terrorists and the countries they've infested and have the potential to turn most middle-east countries in afghanistan-like wastelands as well as turn some of the most lucrative parts of the world into Russian sympathizing governments without US intervention or protection. 

This is a dangerous situation. While I want America to get away from war, I feel like it may not be possible without literally giving up most of the middle-east to Russia and trust me, you'd rather not give up any territory to pro-Russian governments because it's not going to stop / end there.


----------



## Sensei Utero

RipNTear said:


> As I said, I'm anti-war. However, you have to be realistic.
> 
> There are currently 29 armed conflicts in Africa, 16 in Asia, 10 in Europe, 7 in the middle east and 6 in North/South America. Several of these conflicts have the potential to change the entire map and power structure of the region. Most of these conflicts are between Islamist terrorists and the countries they've infested and have the potential to turn most middle-east countries in afghanistan-like wastelands as well as turn some of the most lucrative parts of the world into Russian sympathizing governments without US intervention or protection.
> 
> This is a dangerous situation. While I want America to get away from war, I feel like it may not be possible without literally giving up most of the middle-east to Russia and trust me, you'd rather not give up any territory to pro-Russian governments because it's not going to stop / end there.


You do raise good points, I have to admit. It is a very complicated issue. I'm just hoping for the best outcome for the innocent people on all sides.

Nonetheless, won't it lead to more refugees? 'Cause in the position of someone in the middle east, I'd also be trying to do anything to get the hell outta there.


----------



## Reaper

InUtero said:


> You do raise good points, I have to admit. I'm just hoping for the best outcome for the innocent people on all sides.
> 
> Nonetheless, won't it lead to more refugees? 'Cause in the position of someone in the middle east, I'd also be trying to do anything to get the hell outta there.


America exiting the conflicts will not result in an end to the wars. Take Africa for example. Many of the 29 conflicts have been ongoing since I was born and the Islamist terrorist issue has lasted at least 7 decades (since the birth of Israel). 

What needs to be done is a period of American isolation in order to rebuild and create a synergized effort towards liberation that will be better than what they're involved in currently. 

A huge war in that region is inevitable. It can be delayed, but it can't be prevented. I would actually argue that we're already in the beginning stages of WWIII and we're just too scared and optimistic to call it that.

---

On another note: Here's an interesting theory on why the media wants you to focus on Conway and not what the event was: 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/836704095993999360


----------



## Alco

RipNTear said:


> As I said, I'm anti-war. However, you have to be realistic.
> 
> There are currently 29 armed conflicts in Africa, 16 in Asia, 10 in Europe, 7 in the middle east and 6 in North/South America. Several of these conflicts have the potential to change the entire map and power structure of the region. Most of these conflicts are between Islamist terrorists and the countries they've infested and have the potential to turn most middle-east countries in afghanistan-like wastelands as well as turn some of the most lucrative parts of the world into Russian sympathizing governments without US intervention or protection.
> 
> This is a dangerous situation. While I want America to get away from war, I feel like it may not be possible without literally giving up most of the middle-east to Russia and trust me, you'd rather not give up any territory to pro-Russian governments because it's not going to stop / end there.


Can you assholes come stop Russia in the Ukraine first please? :side: The epitomy of ineptitude known as the EU sure won't be doing anything about it soon. 



RipNTear said:


> America exiting the conflicts will not result in an end to the wars. Take Africa for example. Many of the 29 conflicts have been ongoing since I was born and the Islamist terrorist issue has lasted at least 7 decades (since the birth of Israel).
> 
> What needs to be done is a period of American isolation in order to rebuild and create a *synergized effort towards liberation* that will be better than what they're involved in currently.
> 
> A huge war in that region is inevitable. It can be delayed, but it can't be prevented. I would actually argue that we're already in the beginning stages of WWIII and we're just too scared and optimistic to call it that.


Any effort has to involve a Western/Arab(or African depending where you're at) coalition though or you'd just be igniting the already lit anti-American fire over there.


----------



## Alco

RipNTear said:


> I see your point about cost-prohibition, but that's fine. Some industries just need 4-5 major players to have price wars. The problem with the pharmaceutical industry is that due to lengthy patents (which are a major form of government interference btw) it operates far more like mini monopolies rather than a competitive industry. That said, drug costs really aren't a major problem in America until and unless you get into the really rare diseases which impact a very small amount of the population. The major problem here is in hospitalization and getting health insurance. For regular medical stuff that impacts the most people, the cost of healthcare really isn't prohibitive at all. As a healthy young person, I would need to spend less than a grand a year on my medical, but if I paid insurance I'm looking at paying 3-4g. I'd rather put money I save in an investment account. Anyways, I digress.
> 
> My point is that cost prohibitive industries can end up in a state of perfect competition as well (*take the PC, TV and Phone markets for example*) given the right policy-making.


[Double post because too lazy to multiquote]

Your last point is interesting. Right policy-making is absolutely on the money. Let's take the Phone market in the EU. For years on end, Telecom providers have been ripping off people with exaggerated "Roaming" tarriffs and this summer, finally, "Roaming" costs will be banned because of a European measure that was voted late last year. Which is why I reiterate my point that -while I am in favor of small government- I'm all for a government that installs the right framework for business to operate in, that takes into account the citizen/customer.


----------



## Reaper

Alco said:


> Can you assholes come stop Russia in the Ukraine first please? :side: The epitomy of ineptitude known as the EU sure won't be doing anything about it soon.


And I believe that will mark the official start of WWIII but our future generations may not be around to know that :mj




> Any effort has to involve a Western/Arab(or African depending where you're at) coalition though or you'd just be igniting the already lit anti-American fire over there.


You can't have an Arab coalition. They're separated by the Shia/Sunni sectarianism and deeply divided. 

There isn't going to be an arab coalition. The only thing they hate a little less than Israel is themselves therefore they'll simply turn on each other as at least 7-10 Arab nations are active state sponsors of terrorism. 



Alco said:


> Your last point is interesting. Right policy-making is absolutely on the money. Let's take the Phone market in the EU. For years on end, Telecom providers have been ripping off people with exaggerated "Roaming" tarriffs and this summer, finally, "Roaming" costs will be banned because of a European measure that was voted late last year. Which is why I reiterate my point that -while I am in favor of small government- I'm all for a government that installs the right framework for business to operate in, that takes into account the citizen/customer.


Well, honestly I think that's partly a local government fault anyways. Countries charge telcos more when it comes to international roaming. 

Last I checked, the only reason why roaming charges were ever high is because of government regulations. So adding regulation instead of deregulation may backfire.


----------



## CamillePunk

Alco said:


> Can you assholes come stop Russia in the Ukraine first please? :side: The epitomy of ineptitude known as the EU sure won't be doing anything about it soon.


hard pass


----------



## virus21




----------



## BruiserKC

Alco said:


> @BruiserKC re: your rep (I need to spread rep before I can rep you again  )
> 
> Didn't the Bush administration spend more on the military than Trump is proposing? I read somewhere numbers between 13% and 15% increase annualy, whilst Trump's proposition represents a 10% increase. The money went to "digitalizing" the army like you said, but I can't help but wonder if they didn't vastly overpay the entire project then.


He roughly asked around 10% as well...for example...a 2007 Washington Post article stated that for that year he was looking for an 11% increase in military spending, which was pushing the defense budget at a point not seen at that time since the Reagan administration. 

At least it's a good thing that Trump is looking for elsewhere to pay for the increase, as opposed to just increasing the budget like we've been seeing for years. My big thing is that our federal government is $20 trillion in debt and we need to start drastically cutting the fat out before it hurts too much to do so.


----------



## virus21




----------



## stevefox1200

Alco said:


> Can you assholes come stop Russia in the Ukraine first please? :side: The epitomy of ineptitude known as the EU sure won't be doing anything about it soon.
> 
> 
> Any effort has to involve a Western/Arab(or African depending where you're at) coalition though or you'd just be igniting the already lit anti-American fire over there.


An African coalition would likely be 100% pure China

China has been dumping their military equipment for 100% control of oil fields

That are Chinese enclaves protected by the Chinese military (tanks and shit) in the middle of war lords territory

To a war lord it seems like a great deal, they can use a crate of rusty AKs but don't have the infrastructure to get to the oil and no other government will do business with them and most companies don't have the ability to keep their rigs protected 

China has copied the whole "mercs protecting oil rigs" that used to happen in the middle east and has "socialized" it


----------



## virus21




----------



## Reaper

stevefox1200 said:


> An African coalition would likely be 100% pure China
> 
> China has been dumping their military equipment for 100% control of oil fields


Isn't Chinese neo-colonization of Africa simply just a baseless accusation at this point though or is there something more to their economic and military build up that I'm not noticing at this point?


----------



## Art Vandaley




----------



## yeahbaby!

Where's the Trump-tainment???!!!


----------



## virus21




----------



## deepelemblues

Pouring liquid xanax down :trump 's throat before he gets in front of a camera works!


----------



## Reaper

While I still disagree with some of his policy points, but I have to admit that this was the most engaging political speech I've ever seen. Remarkable stuff indeed.

And with the dems refusing to clap or acknowledge even the most bipartisan of policies, they've pretty much guaranteed that they're going to continue to lose voters in the years to come.


----------



## Dr. Middy

RipNTear said:


> While I still disagree with some of his policy points, but I have to admit that this was the most engaging political speech I've ever seen. Remarkable stuff indeed.
> 
> And with the dems refusing to clap or acknowledge even the most bipartisan of policies, they've pretty much guaranteed that they're going to continue to lose voters in the years to come.


I'll never like the dude really, but I thought he was very strong, and it was nice to see him soft spoken and serious, yet not doom and gloom like before.

I feel like it's stupid though to continue to pay pretend he doesn't exist though, which is what a good chunk of the democratic party seems to be doing. I may not like him, I may never really support him nor like most of his policies, but the guy is our president, and he should be treated as such. We should work with him to actually try to introduce some of the ideas of the other side, while also working to make other policies - like whatever his new healthcare policy to replace obamacare will be - work so that both sides can agree.


----------



## Reaper

Dr. Middy said:


> I feel like it's stupid though to continue to pay pretend he doesn't exist though, which is what a good chunk of the democratic party seems to be doing. I may not like him, I may never really support him nor like most of his policies, *but the guy is our president, and he should be treated as such.* We should work with him to actually try to introduce some of the ideas of the other side, while also working to make other policies - like whatever his new healthcare policy to replace obamacare will be - work so that both sides can agree.


Well, a lot of us were able to see the strength of his message even under all of his angry rhetoric as well and we all knew (as he had promised several times over) that he will soften his tone once he gets into power. 

I made a list of things that the democrats refused to acknowledge and it's actually very damning for them because I'm seeing a similar sort of sentiment from liberals who watched him tonight as well. You can dislike the man, you can hate the man but to sit there deluding yourself that you look like you're "protesting" the president _by refusing to clap even when he's talking about putting victims before criminals _is just disgraceful to me. I think a lot of people noticed that tonight as well.

Here are some of the things that the Dems refused to acknowledge:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/836775218823716864


----------



## Dr. Middy

RipNTear said:


> Well, a lot of us were able to see the strength of his message even under all of his angry rhetoric as well and we all knew (as he had promised several times over) that he will soften his tone once he gets into power.
> 
> I made a list of things that the democrats refused to acknowledge and it's actually very damning for them because I'm seeing a similar sort of sentiment from liberals who watched him tonight as well. You can dislike the man, you can hate the man but to sit there deluding yourself that you look like you're "protesting" the president _by refusing to clap even when he's talking about putting victims before criminals _is just disgraceful to me. I think a lot of people noticed that tonight as well.
> 
> Here are some of the things that the Dems refused to acknowledge:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/836775218823716864


Exactly, it looks just terrible all around. I'm more liberal than conservative, and it's not like I'm afraid to admit when the guy make a great point, or when he mentions something that I agree with. And it's not like I don't have my fair share of criticisms for him. 

I'm fine with people not liking him, I had no problem with any of the peaceful protests and marches that have happened recently, but really it felt really disrespectful by some of them to completely not acknowledge the positive things he mentioned, some of which WOULD be in favor for the democrats themselves. And I only say some because I watched some of them also get up and applaud on occasion as well, so good on those who still remember to act respectful and dignified.


----------



## Reaper

Dr. Middy said:


> And I only say some because I watched some of them also get up and applaud on occasion as well, so good on those who still remember to act respectful and dignified.


Or they probably started getting messages about how much they're being ridiculed on Twitter. Who wants to go down in history on the wrong side of sitting stone-faced when Trump says "We should kill ISIS" :mj 

That said, I like to believe that Trump's persuasion eventually got these people to realize that he's talking sense and they simply forgot about their disdain. That would be more optimistic.


----------



## Dr. Middy

RipNTear said:


> Or they probably started getting messages about how much they're being ridiculed on Twitter. Who wants to go down in history on the wrong side of sitting stone-faced when Trump says "We should kill ISIS" :mj
> 
> That said, I like to believe that Trump's persuasion eventually got these people to realize that he's talking sense and they simply forgot about their disdain. That would be more optimistic.


I'll go with the optimistic route. Gotta stay positive :becky2


----------



## Vic Capri

1.) Damn fine speech by President Trump!

2.) The best part was the respect shown to the widow of US Navy Seal Ryan Owens.

3.) The Democrats are so fucking salty! :lol

- Vic


----------



## birthday_massacre

Vic Capri said:


> 1.) Damn fine speech by President Trump!
> 
> *2*.) The best part was the respect shown to the widow of US Navy Seal Ryan Owens.
> 
> 3.) The Democrats are so fucking salty! :lol
> 
> - Vic


yeah the guy Trump killed because of his incompetence. He should have shown his respect. It was Trump fault he is dead. 







RipNTear said:


> Well, a lot of us were able to see the strength of his message even under all of his angry rhetoric as well and we all knew (as he had promised several times over) that he will soften his tone once he gets into power.
> 
> I made a list of things that the democrats refused to acknowledge and it's actually very damning for them because I'm seeing a similar sort of sentiment from liberals who watched him tonight as well. You can dislike the man, you can hate the man but to sit there deluding yourself that you look like you're "protesting" the president _by refusing to clap even when he's talking about putting victims before criminals _is just disgraceful to me. I think a lot of people noticed that tonight as well.
> 
> Here are some of the things that the Dems refused to acknowledge:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/836775218823716864


You are such a fucking fraud. Like republicans were not doing the same thing to Obama for 8 years and blocking everything he wanted to do. You act like at every Obama speech the republicans always clapped for him. 

yeah and after 6 years of republicans record number of obstructions now you are going to give the democrats shit if they don't want to work with Trump and the republicans.

The republicans had 8 years to work with Obama on improving healthcare but refused. 

If anyone is a disgrace its you for your double standards

Where were you when the republicans refused to clap for a cure for cancer or these other things during an obama speech


For those keeping score at home, here are just some of the issues that President Obama raised during Tuesday’s State of the Union address that Republican Senators and Congressmen in attendance refused to clap for, let alone get off their asses and cheer:

Nearly 15 million new jobs and the unemployment rate being cut in half.
Equality for all Americans.
Cutting pollution levels.
A good education for our children.
Fighting terrorism.
The idea that America is the strongest nation on earth.
Avoiding war.
Making it easier to vote.

You are such a fucking joke like most Trump supporters


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> You are such a fucking fraud. Like republicans were not doing the same thing to Obama for 8 years and blocking everything he wanted to do. *You act like at every Obama speech the republicans always clapped for him.*


Where have I said or even implied it at all? 



> yeah and after 6 years of republicans record number of obstructions now you are going to give the democrats shit if they don't want to work with Trump and the republicans.


Where have I said that? 



> The republicans had 8 years to work with Obama on improving healthcare but refused.
> 
> If anyone is a disgrace its you for your double standards


What double standard. Where have I said that I think that the republicans worked with Democrats?



> Where were you when the republicans refused to clap for a cure for cancer or these other things during an obama speech


I wasn't watching. Obama isn't a draw. Sorry. Trump is. 



> For those keeping score at home, here are just some of the issues that President Obama raised during Tuesday’s State of the Union address that Republican Senators and Congressmen in attendance refused to clap for, let alone get off their asses and cheer:
> 
> Nearly 15 million new jobs and the unemployment rate being cut in half.
> Equality for all Americans.
> Cutting pollution levels.
> A good education for our children.
> Fighting terrorism.
> The idea that America is the strongest nation on earth.
> Avoiding war.
> Making it easier to vote.
> 
> You are such a fucking joke like most Trump supporters


Except, unfortunately the difference is that most of the above are lies or exaggerations and that came at the end of Obama's term, not the beginning. 

I also don't care if republicans didn't cheer Obama. But I'm glad you think that's a bad thing because now you have to admit that when the dems are doing the same, they're horrible as well. 

Can't say that the same thing is bad for one side without admitting that the same thing is bad for your side.

BTW, keep up with the histrionics. While I'm persuading more people through remaining calm and rational towards my side, you're losing them through your rage fits :mj4









Speaking of histrionics. Read the horrendous tweet of this Clinton staffer :wow


----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> hard pass


Agreed, maybe it's time Europe paid for more of it's defense instead of inept social programs.


----------



## birthday_massacre

RipNTear said:


> Where have I said or even implied it at all?
> 
> 
> 
> Where have I said that?
> 
> 
> 
> What double standard. Where have I said that I think that the republicans worked with Democrats?
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't watching. Obama isn't a draw. Sorry. Trump is.
> 
> 
> 
> Except, unfortunately the difference is that most of the above are lies or exaggerations and that came at the end of Obama's term, not the beginning.
> 
> I also don't care if republicans didn't cheer Obama. But I'm glad you think that's a bad thing because now you have to admit that when the dems are doing the same, they're horrible as well.
> 
> Can't say that the same thing is bad for one side without admitting that the same thing is bad for your side.
> 
> BTW, keep up with the histrionics. While I'm persuading more people through remaining calm and rational towards my side, you're losing them through your rage fits :mj4



LOL making up lies again and ignoring the facts.

Nothing was made up or exaggerated. And they did this shit for his whole 8 years but sure lets pretend that is not what happened in your fantasy land.

And LOL at you think Trump has been calm and rational. Trump is at 38% approval. He is losing people faster than you can say Trump.

More and more people are against Trump as each day passes. You don't even live in reality anymore.

You are going back on ignore where you belong.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> LOL making up lies again and ignoring the facts.
> 
> Nothing was made up or exaggerated. And they did this shit for his whole 8 years but sure lets pretend that is not what happened in your fantasy land.
> 
> And LOL at you think Trump has been calm and rational. Trump is at 38% approval. He is losing people faster than you can say Trump.
> 
> More and more people are against Trump as each day passes. You don't even live in reality anymore.
> 
> You are going back on ignore where you belong.


 @FriedTofu - This is what being :triggered actually looks like 

:mj4

I'll just address one point above. Trump is at 38% approval, the same way Hillary had a 91% chance of winning the election :ha

PS. I love the fact that he said he put me on ignore because now even if he didn't, or reads my posts, he'll have to not respond because otherwise he'd be going back on his word. 

I hope he remains honest and true to his word :mj4


----------



## DesolationRow

When Donald Trump gave himself a "C" for messaging he was certainly placing an inarguable degree of import upon this address to Congress and to the American people.

Excellent speech featuring myriad familiar themes running through it while establishing a newer tonal patina of sorts through which to evaluate the content.

Twenty days until Neil Gorsuch's Senate hearing. Establishing channels of capital through private equity firms to be joined with public investments in infrastructure will doubtless be one of the Trump administration's top priorities in the interim.

That piece on all of the vicious human traffickers being busted over the past several weeks was highly fascinating, @RipNTear; thank you for contributing that.


----------



## Warlock

Dont expect bm to provide proof of the things he accuses you of when trying to argue obscure points of non-contention. Thats just crazy talk.


----------



## stevefox1200

RipNTear said:


> Isn't Chinese neo-colonization of Africa simply just a baseless accusation at this point though or is there something more to their economic and military build up that I'm not noticing at this point?


The documentary "The Devil Came on Horseback" is about an American who went to Africa to do overwatch and gather evidence for the African Union 

In his personal investigation trying to find the root of the warlords he kept running into areas that were literally patrolled by Chinese armor and his bosses told him that due to deals the president of the moment made the territory is counted as sovereign China and they have zero jurisdiction there

Its been a while since I have seen it but I believe he was told he was not allowed to release anything he filmed in those areas 

If China wants to move crates of weapons there they are allowed to because it is technically their land and its a massive arms dealing loophole 

No one cares because its war torn central Africa and they only internal speakers are the people who work for the government


----------



## Reaper

stevefox1200 said:


> The documentary "The Devil Came on Horseback" is about an American who went to Africa to do overwatch and gather evidence for the African Union
> 
> In his personal investigation trying to find the root of the warlords he kept running into areas that were literally patrolled by Chinese armor and his bosses told him that due to deals the president of the moment made the territory is counted as sovereign China and they have zero jurisdiction there


Damn, I remember my father telling me to watch that. Was probably too disinterested then to care. I'll watch it before going to bed tonight. Thanks.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

RipNTear said:


> @FriedTofu - This is what being :triggered actually looks like
> 
> :mj4
> 
> I'll just address one point above. Trump is at 38% approval, the same way Hillary had a 91% chance of winning the election :ha
> 
> PS. I love the fact that he said he put me on ignore because now even if he didn't, or reads my posts, he'll have to not respond because otherwise he'd be going back on his word.
> 
> I hope he remains honest and true to his word :mj4


I wouldn't be surprised if he put you on ignore. He is constantly getting exposed as purely emotional and he betrays his own arguments the longer he continues to debate with you.


----------



## Reaper

TheNightmanCometh said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if he put you on ignore. He is constantly getting exposed as purely emotional and he betrays his own arguments the longer he continues to debate with you.


I'm learning from the Master Persuader himself :trump3


----------



## Art Vandaley

RipNTear said:


> Where have I said or even implied it at all?


In a two party system when you criticize one party for something you are clearly implying the other party don't do that thing.

For example, say I was babysitting two children A and B, and at the end I said to the parents child A was very well behaved, and say nothing about child B, I have implied that child B was not well behaved. 

That is how implications work. You don't need to consciously intend to imply something to imply something.


----------



## Pratchett

Alkomesh2 said:


> In a two party system when you criticize one party for something you are clearly implying the other party don't do that thing.
> 
> For example, say I was babysitting two children A and B, and at the end I said to the parents child A was very well behaved, and say nothing about child B, I have implied that child B was not well behaved.
> 
> *That is how implications work. You don't need to consciously intend to imply something to imply something.*


It can also be said that one need not consciously intend to imply something for it to be inferred by another.

Just saying. :draper2


----------



## BruiserKC

Watched the speech...THAT was the speech that he should have given on January 20. If that was his Inauguration Day speech, he would have gotten off on a much better footing. There was nothing new that he introduced as far as agenda, it was a reset and he wanted to show that he could be Presidential. There's always going to be the haters no matter what, but I was impressed. 

Now...call me still jaded...but I still want action. Words are great, but they are only words. Congress needs to get off its ass and start passing legislation. We've been hearing this for years, now get the job done we elected you to do.


----------



## CamillePunk

BruiserKC said:


> Watched the speech...THAT was the speech that he should have given on January 20. If that was his Inauguration Day speech, he would have gotten off on a much better footing. There was nothing new that he introduced as far as agenda, it was a reset and he wanted to show that he could be Presidential. There's always going to be the haters no matter what, but I was impressed.
> 
> Now...call me still jaded...but I still want action. Words are great, but they are only words. Congress needs to get off its ass and start passing legislation. We've been hearing this for years, now get the job done we elected you to do.


Yes, it is crucial for this Republican congress to make the most of its majority and at least attempt to match Trump's entrepreneurial pace, as hard a transition as that is sure to be for these government workers.

That said I don't think he could have given this speech at his inauguration as he relied on using sympathetic faces and stories to sell his proposals, and having the Democrats there to thumb their noses made them look...quite bad, in contrast to Trump's apparent empathy for victims the Democrats deny and ignore in favor of their future voters. :lol I appreciate the political and persuasive strategy of President Trump and his team.


----------



## BruiserKC

CamillePunk said:


> Yes, it is crucial for this Republican congress to make the most of its majority and at least attempt to match Trump's entrepreneurial pace, as hard a transition as that is sure to be for these government workers.
> 
> That said I don't think he could have given this speech at his inauguration as he relied on using sympathetic faces and stories to sell his proposals, and having the Democrats there to thumb their noses made them look...quite bad, in contrast to Trump's apparent empathy for victims the Democrats deny and ignore in favor of their future voters. :lol I appreciate the political and persuasive strategy of President Trump and his team.


The GOP did the same for eight years. Difference being they had a strategy and counter proposals to put in play. Resistance just for the sake of it is not a long term solution.


----------



## Vic Capri

> For those keeping score at home, here are just some of the issues that President Obama raised during Tuesday’s State of the Union address that Republican Senators and Congressmen in attendance refused to clap for, let alone get off their asses and cheer:
> 
> Nearly 15 million new jobs and the unemployment rate being cut in half.
> Equality for all Americans.
> Cutting pollution levels.
> A good education for our children.
> Fighting terrorism.
> The idea that America is the strongest nation on earth.
> Avoiding war.
> Making it easier to vote.


Fake news.



> Speaking of histrionics. Read the horrendous tweet of this Clinton staffer












Speaking of which, :lol

- Vic


----------



## Genking48

Looks like teleprompters are the way to go for Trump when holding a speech, kept focused and did not come with any unnecessary attacks on things people in reality doesn't give a fuck about. Good decision.

No wonder the speech felt like it dragged on, they stand up and clap every minute or so, clap at the end of the speech, not after every sentence like you are what-ing at a Steve Austin promo :cuss:

Actually surprised not all of congress stood up and clapped when Trump said the Make America Great Again phrase, only looked like half of them did, were the ones sitting down the democrats?

Who were the women on the row that were dressed in white that sat with their tablets, Journalists, secretaries?

Good speech overall, we'll see how it all turns out in the future, but the speech was optimistic.


----------



## Stinger Fan

> *Ohio investigation found 385 non-US citizens registered to vote, 82 cast illegal ballots*
> 
> COLUMBUS (WCMH) — Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted announced an investigation has uncovered that hundreds of non-US citizens are registered to vote in the state, and dozens of them voted illegally.
> 
> According to a release from Husted, 385 people who are not citizens of the United States are registered to vote in Ohio. Out of those, 82 voted in at least one election in the last year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Husted’s office says the 82 non-citizens who are registered to vote and cast ballots will be immediately referred to law enforcement for further investigation and possible prosecution.
> 
> “In light of the national discussion about illegal voting it is important to inform our discussions with facts. The fact is voter fraud happens, it is rare and when it happens, we hold people accountable,” Secretary Husted said.
> 
> 19 of the 82 non-citizens voted in the central Ohio area. 14 of those were in Franklin County, 2 were in Delaware County and 1 each in Fairfield, Licking and Union Counties.
> 
> The 303 registered voters identified as non-citizens who have not cast a ballot will be sent letters both informing them that non-citizens are not eligible to vote and requesting that they cancel their registration. A follow-up letter will be sent to any individuals that still remain on the rolls after 30 days. Any non-citizens identified that remain on the rolls after being contacted twice will then be referred to law enforcement, according to Husted.


http://nbc4i.com/2017/02/27/ohio-se...zens-registered-to-vote-cast-illegal-ballots/

I wonder if this will make national headlines....Certainly interesting . Non-Citizens shouldn't be effecting election outcomes , that's just absurd .


----------



## Marv95

Now THAT was a speech. The way those dems bounced made it seem as if they were going for a drinking marathon all night.


----------



## virus21




----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> In a two party system when you criticize one party for something you are clearly implying the other party don't do that thing.
> 
> For example, say I was babysitting two children A and B, and at the end I said to the parents child A was very well behaved, and say nothing about child B, I have implied that child B was not well behaved.
> 
> That is how implications work. You don't need to consciously intend to imply something to imply something.


Lol. You're a reach artist. You always have been. :mj4

But that's the problem with the left. You guys have to mind read and reach in order to make arguments. You do this because you can't actually refute what is stated therefore you need to make things up and then refute what you make up. It's classic strawmanning. 

Fake news. 

Those are not arguments.

---

Given that all socialists pretty much unanimously refuse to debate economics with me, I'm just gonna leave this here: 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/836830020010131462
---

Also, Van Jones of all people turned a corner after the speech last night. He doesn't have to like the president or his policies, but at least it seems he's broken away from his extreme hatred and narrative spinning ways :wow

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/01/polit...the-president-in-that-moment-cnntv/index.html



> Van Jones on Trump: 'He became President of the United States in that moment, period'
> 
> (CNN)Shortly after President Donald Trump addressed a Joint Session of Congress for the first time since taking the oath of office, CNN's Van Jones called one particularly moving moment from the speech the real estate mogul's most presidential to date.
> 
> Less than an hour after Trump honored the widow of a slain NAVY Seal, the Democratic commentator suggested that the commander in chief had officially begun to look the part.
> 
> Follow
> Anderson Cooper 360° ✔ @AC360
> "He became President of the United States in that moment, period" @VanJones68 on @POTUS honoring Navy Seal widow
> 10:44 PM - 28 Feb 2017
> 123 123 Retweets 251 251 likes
> "He became President of the United States in that moment, period," said Jones, after the evening's most emotional point was replayed by CNN's Anderson Cooper.
> "That was one of the most extraordinary moments you have ever seen in American politics," Jones added.
> 
> Congress reaction brings SEAL's widow to tears 01:24
> Navy SEAL's widow provides emotional highpoint
> The exchange the group was referring to centered around Trump recognizing Carryn Owens, whose husband Chief Petty Officer William "Ryan" Owens was killed in Yemen.
> 
> Follow
> OutFrontCNN ✔ @OutFrontCNN
> "Ryan's legacy is etched into eternity...thank you" @POTUS #JointAddress http://cnn.it/2ln17IX
> 10:07 PM - 28 Feb 2017
> 119 119 Retweets 289 289 likes
> 
> Noting that he still often disagrees with the President, Jones admitted that Trump's powerful moment shows he may be settling into the role.
> "If he finds a way to do that over and over again, he's going to be there for eight years," Jones said.
> 
> Follow
> CNN ✔ @CNN
> Sen. McConnell: I find myself in agreement with Van Jones for the first time; Trump did become presidential tonight
> 11:02 PM - 28 Feb 2017
> 346 346 Retweets 1,125 1,125 likes
> 
> Moments after Jones' remarks, Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell spoke to Cooper, and had this to say: "I find myself in agreement with Van Jones, for the first time in my political life."


----------



## Vic Capri

Here's the video. CNN is also reporting positive reviews for President Trump's speech. Holy shit! We're back in The Twilight Zone! :lol

- Vic


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*Salute to Kellyann for taking one hundred for the team:









And maybe now Fuhrer Trump will stop trying to censor CNN. That is, until he reads this article highlighting yet another stamped endorsement of bigotry: http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/28/politics/donald-trump-voice-victim-reporting/*



> Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump used his joint address to Congress on Tuesday to call attention to crimes committed by undocumented immigrants -- inviting guests affected by such crimes and describing a new office he has ordered created to report them.
> Trump invited three guests whose family members were allegedly killed by criminals living in the US illegally, acknowledging them individually as he described his recently ordered crime reporting initiative.
> As mandated by Trump's executive order signed last month, the Department of Homeland Security announced in implementation guidance issued last week that it would create the Victims Of Immigration Crime Engagement office, or VOICE.
> 
> "I have ordered the Department of Homeland Security to create an office to serve American victims," Trump said Tuesday night. "We are providing a voice to those who have been ignored by our media, and silenced by special interests."
> Critics worried over Trump's call to report crimes by undocumented immigrants
> Critics worried over Trump's call to report crimes by undocumented immigrants
> The line elicited some audible groans from Democrats in the chamber.
> To make his point, Trump in his speech recognized Jamiel Shaw, Susan Oliver, her daughter, Jenna Oliver, and Jessica Davis.
> Shaw's teen son, Jamiel Shaw Jr., was murdered by a gang member living in the US illegally.
> Susan Oliver and Davis' husbands were Deputy Sheriff Danny Oliver and Detective Michael Davis, who were killed in the line of duty in California. An undocumented immigrant is charged with their murders.
> 
> "To Jamiel, Jenna, Susan and Jessica: I want you to know --- we will never stop fighting for justice," Trump said. "Your loved ones will never be forgotten, we will always honor their memory."
> 
> In establishing the office as called for in Trump's January 25 executive order, Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly ordered the reallocation of any DHS resources currently going toward advocating for undocumented immigrants that can be re-routed to fund the office.
> VOICE's job will be to work with victims of crimes committed by undocumented immigrants.
> Trump called in his order for the office to issue reports once a quarter "studying the effects of the victimization by criminal aliens present in the United States."
> 
> Along with a similar provision in the executive order requiring weekly reports about crimes committed by undocumented immigrants designed to name and shame sanctuary cities, critics fear the measures are designed to skew public opinion unfavorably toward immigrants. Studies conducted by organizations that support pro-immigration policies have found that immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate than the general public, findings that supporters of hardline immigration policies say don't matter.
> "The obvious intent of a provision like that is to provide a misleading view of what sanctuary jurisdictions are really doing," Omar Jadwat, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Immigrants' Rights Project, told CNN in January.
> "The point is that every crime that is committed by someone who is here illegally is a crime that would not occur if they weren't in the country," said Hans von Spakovsky, a legal expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation.


*Unsurprising sidenote-Hitler also published crimes of immigrant Jews:

 https://twitter.com/i/web/status/836771894950928385
I'm numb to it at this point, and it's sad. *


----------



## Reaper

Criminals are outed all the time. Or do you not know how regular policing works. Have you never seen a mug shot? What sort of criminal is awarded immunity from having their crime reported or published? 

The only criminals that aren't outed are juveniles for their protection.


----------



## Stinger Fan

Oh look more Trump "comparisons" to Hitler. Colour me surprised



RipNTear said:


> Criminals are outed all the time. Or do you not know how regular policing works. Have you never seen a mug shot? What sort of criminal is awarded immunity from having their crime reported or published?
> 
> The only criminals that aren't outed are juveniles for their protection.


He seems to ignore registered sex offenders database being public knowledge as well. What do you expect from blind leftists?


----------



## Reaper

Stinger Fan said:


> Oh look more Trump "comparisons" to Hitler. Colour me surprised
> 
> 
> He seems to ignore registered sex offenders database being public knowledge as well. What do you expect from blind leftists?


Not just sex offenders. I can google anyone with their real name and see some of their past offences. I know my mother in law's record simply through a google search.


----------



## Stinger Fan

RipNTear said:


> Not just sex offenders. I can google anyone with their real name and see some of their past offences. I know my mother in law's record simply through a google search.


I wasn't sure about that myself thanks for clarifying. Seems like pretty much everything is out in the open now a days , I don't see the issue


----------



## Miss Sally

RipNTear said:


> Not just sex offenders. I can google anyone with their real name and see some of their past offences. I know my mother in law's record simply through a google search.


Isn't that called a background check? You can get them online now using certain programs, google or calling some agencies. 

Not to mention some states sell magazines listing criminals, their mugshots and offenses. That's how the sexiest criminal got his modeling job.


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> Isn't that called a background check? You can get them online now using certain programs, google or calling some agencies.
> 
> Not to mention some states sell magazines listing criminals, their mugshots and offenses. That's how the sexiest criminal got his modeling job.


Daaamn. Dude is sexy. Fuck. 

I don't often have the hots for black dudes, but ima gonna make an exception for him :homer

Time to google for scientific reasons.


----------



## Miss Sally

RipNTear said:


> Daaamn. Dude is sexy. Fuck.
> 
> I don't often have the hots for black dudes, but ima gonna make an exception for him :homer
> 
> Time to google for scientific reasons.


He is indeed sexy! But the whole thing is that these magazines have been out a while and there is a few of them, they were around when Obama was in office.. conspiracy! There is also a few websites listing criminals from sexy ones, dumb and so on and so forth. 

Your local paper will have Police listings to their responses and criminals pictures do get on the air or paper or online depending on their crime. 

Considering this data has been around for a while now this isn't exactly news.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

RipNTear said:


> Criminals are outed all the time. Or do you not know how regular policing works. Have you never seen a mug shot? What sort of criminal is awarded immunity from having their crime reported or published?
> 
> The only criminals that aren't outed are juveniles for their protection.


*What you're ignoring is that he's created an entire division to specifically TARGET immigrants. Why not just crack down on crime in general? Because he's throwing a tantrum about his illegal EO being rejected and looking for reasons to deport more immigrants, as if the increased ICE raids weren't enough. All it's going to do is create more immigrant fear mongering by the usual radical, right wing racists.*


----------



## Reaper

Legit BOSS said:


> *What you're ignoring is that he's created an entire division to specifically TARGET illegal criminal immigrants. *


Corrected that for you. This isn't targeting all immigrants obviously because that would include people like me. I'm also a legal immigrant and I haven't had any reason to fear anything because I have my paper-work and have committed no crimes. 

Are you saying that there shouldn't be a special task force to fight illegal immigrant crime? 

Personally, I think a special task force is a great idea. Immigrants that are here illegally haven't had had background checks, they aren't in the system, they can't be tracked. A special task force can be better trained and better equipped than regular police to handle crimes specifically committed by illegals.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Legit BOSS said:


> *What you're ignoring is that he's created an entire division to specifically TARGET immigrants. Why not just crack down on crime in general? Because he's throwing a tantrum about his illegal EO being rejected and looking for reasons to deport more immigrants, as if the increased ICE raids weren't enough. All it's going to do is create more immigrant fear mongering by the usual radical, right wing racists.*


Because Trump does not care when white people do crime, just when its blacks and immigrants.


----------



## Stinger Fan

RipNTear said:


> Corrected that for you. This isn't targeting all immigrants obviously because that would include people like me. I'm also a legal immigrant and I haven't had any reason to fear anything because I have my paper-work and have committed no crimes.
> 
> *Are you saying that there shouldn't be a special task force to fight illegal immigrant crime? *
> 
> Personally, I think a special task force is a great idea. Immigrants that are here illegally haven't had had background checks, they aren't in the system, they can't be tracked. A special task force can be better trained and better equipped than regular police to handle crimes specifically committed by illegals.


That's exactly what they're saying. They want illegal immigrants to run free and don't care about the actual people who did it the right way. Immigrants who are against illegal immigration are just nuisances to them.


----------



## CamillePunk

It's interesting to see people talking about Trump's most recent address as some kind of turning point or pivot, or a "New Trump" as is now trending on Twitter. I think people are using this perhaps as a "fake because", a manufactured reason to soften on Trump. In truth there wasn't really anything different or unique about that speech to me as someone who has been following and supporting Trump for over a year now. But hey, if that speech helped people see Trump in a new light, less tainted by the MSM's smear tactics, I'm cool with it.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> Because Trump does not care when white people do crime, just when its blacks and immigrants.


That would be true if he signs an EO that says "stop arresting white people". 

So far he's done no such thing. White criminals are still being arrested just like they were before he became president.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

RipNTear said:


> Corrected that for you. This isn't targeting all immigrants obviously because that would include people like me. I'm also a legal immigrant and I haven't had any reason to fear anything because I have my paper-work and have committed no crimes.
> 
> Are you saying that there shouldn't be a special task force to fight illegal immigrant crime?
> 
> Personally, I think a special task force is a great idea. Immigrants that are here illegally haven't had had background checks, they aren't in the system, they can't be tracked. A special task force can be better trained and better equipped than regular police to handle crimes specifically committed by illegals.


*What I'm saying is that there's dead silence and spun narratives when whites commit mass killings and terrorist acts. They're always "mentally ill" or "misguided youths" while all immigrants are automatically labeled terrorists. White terrorism is prevalent in this country and it's widely ignored by these racists with an agenda. Why isn't Trump creating a task force to target the people issuing bomb threats to Jewish community centers? There have been dozens of these threats that are widely ignored, but he's wasting valuable resources looking for undocumented immigrants who MIGHT do something illegal.*


----------



## Reaper

Legit BOSS said:


> *What I'm saying is that there's dead silence and spun narratives when whites commit mass killings and terrorist acts. They're always "mentally ill" or "misguided youths" while all immigrants are automatically labeled terrorists. White terrorism is prevalent in this country and it's widely ignored by these racists with an agenda. Why isn't Trump creating a task force to target the people issuing bomb threats to Jewish community centers? There have been dozens of these threats that are widely ignored, but he's wasting valuable resources looking for undocumented immigrants who MIGHT do something illegal.*


What about the mass arrests of human traffickers and pedophiles accross the country right after Trump came into power? 

They weren't immigrants, or people of color. They were mostly whites. It was all mixed up, but there were no people of a specific race in there. It was colorblind arrests of hundreds of people in a month.

https://townhall.com/columnists/liz...gnoring-trumps-sex-trafficking-busts-n2290379

http://ktla.com/2017/02/01/474-arre...g-statewide-human-trafficking-operation-lasd/

http://abc13.com/news/sports-agent-among-178-arrested-in-trafficking-sting/1744436/

http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2017/02...-trafficking-stings-during-detroit-auto-show/

http://www.nbc12.com/story/34502403/11-arrested-across-va-in-child-sex-sting

http://abc7chicago.com/news/108-arrested-in-illinois-in-sex-sting;-752-arrested-across-us/1746351/

Is this racist too? Just go through all the mug shots and tell me.


----------



## virus21




----------



## Goku

CamillePunk said:


> It's interesting to see people talking about Trump's most recent address as some kind of turning point or pivot, or a "New Trump" as is now trending on Twitter. I think people are using this perhaps as a "fake because", a manufactured reason to soften on Trump. In truth there wasn't really anything different or unique about that speech to me as someone who has been following and supporting Trump for over a year now. But hey, if that speech helped people see Trump in a new light, less tainted by the MSM's smear tactics, I'm cool with it.


I think some people may have felt trapped in their anti-trump stance and a high profile pivot gives them a way out without damaging their own credibility by having to admit they were wrong to start with.

It's maneuvering, would see if narrative shifts or whether old delusions pull back.


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/836816662032703488

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/837013259551059968
:ha 

I lost my tea on this exchange.


----------



## virus21




----------



## virus21




----------



## deepelemblues

Legit BOSS said:


> *What I'm saying is that there's dead silence and spun narratives when whites commit mass killings and terrorist acts. They're always "mentally ill" or "misguided youths" while all immigrants are automatically labeled terrorists. White terrorism is prevalent in this country and it's widely ignored by these racists with an agenda. Why isn't Trump creating a task force to target the people issuing bomb threats to Jewish community centers? There have been dozens of these threats that are widely ignored, but he's wasting valuable resources looking for undocumented immigrants who MIGHT do something illegal.*


:heston

Please, tell me what Adam Lanza's ideology was that caused him to murder his mother and 25 other people. You can't because he didnt have one. Which is the case for the vast majority of white - and non white - mass shooters. 

White terrorism is prevalent in this country :heston please provide some examples of the organizations and ideology that are causing prevalent white terrorism. Surely it shouldn't be too hard considering how prevalent it is.

Of course you can't because you're talking out of your ass making ludicrous equivalencies. 

The level of surveillance white supremacist militias are under and have been under since the 80s would make your blood boil if it was applied to Muslim organizations. The FBI has its fingers so far up the Aryan Nation's asshole they gotta use a crowbar to get their sphincter open enough to take a shit. 

I'm not sure why you want the government to take a hard look at those desecrating Jewish cemeteries and making bomb threats since most likely the culprits are either Muslims or hard left college kids who hate Jews because Israel. 

Perhaps you can provide some quotes of anyone in the media or the government or anyone here demonstrating a belief that all immigrants are automatically terrorists.

Dead silence is right I mean no one even heard about columbine or sandy hook or oklahoma city or Charleston oh wait that's not true either. There's been plenty of racist temper tantrums spinning narratives about white people in response to those atrocities, did you miss them or decide not to mention them because that would undermine your own spun narrative?

The problem isn't that you don't know shit, it's that you know so much shit that isn't so.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

deepelemblues said:


> Of course you can't because you're talking out of your ass
> 
> I'm not sure why you want the government to take a hard look at those desecrating Jewish cemeteries and making bomb threats since most likely the culprits are either Muslims or hard left college kids who hate Jews because Israel.












*Thanks for the very clear message not to take you seriously :aj3*


----------



## CamillePunk

Jesus. :lol


----------



## Art Vandaley

When discussing the illegal immigrant crime list remember that Hitlers first move was to set up a Jewish Crime List.

This is a time old tactic used by fascists to engender hatred against minorities. 

I know you all love to pretend no parallels exist because it makes you feel better, but sadly they do this being only one of a myriad of examples.


----------



## CamillePunk

LITERALLY HITLER YOU GUYS


----------



## Art Vandaley

Wouldn't go that far, but literally doing the same stuff though.

I get this is an emotive thing and you all don't want to feel like you're morally on the level with the people who voted for Hitler and so you'll fight people pointing out the parallels tooth and nail with adhominems and straw men, Trump is literally hitler for example being something no one has ever said but is constantly wheeled out and attacked, as if him not literally being Hitler somehow negates the parallels. 

But you can't appropriately debate the immigrant crime list without acknowledging where the idea comes from.

Camps are gonna be the next step, mark my words, Australia already puts illegal immigrants in camps and Trump did explicitly rule it out during an interview with Bill O'Reilly during the campaign, but just you wait until the wall doesn't work/doesn't get built. 

He's currently in the process of dehumanizing immigrants, once that is done its quite easy to move onto darker things.


----------



## glenwo2

RipNTear said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/836816662032703488
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/837013259551059968
> :ha
> 
> I lost my tea on this exchange.


Oh my god. And I was a big fan of Bette Midler, too. fpalm


Talk about READING COMPREHENSION ISSUES... 

I truly hope she feels embarrassed right now by that idiotic tweet.


----------



## glenwo2

And anyone who makes ANY comparison with Trump to Hitler.... I can't say 'cause I don't want to get in trouble.

So I will just reiterate(and I shouldn't have to because I THOUGHT we are all adults about this) that Trump is NOT Hitler nor are his tactics like Hitler. 

Just stop...STOP.


----------



## Headliner

> Then-Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) spoke twice last year with Russia’s ambassador to the United States, Justice Department officials said, encounters he did not disclose when asked about possible contacts between members of President Trump’s campaign and representatives of Moscow during Sessions’s confirmation hearing to become attorney general.





> At his Jan. 10 Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing, Sessions was asked by Sen. Al Franken, a Minnesota Democrat, what he would do if he learned of any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of the 2016 campaign.
> 
> “I’m not aware of any of those activities,” he responded. He added: “I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians.”


I don't see it changing anything honestly unless the transcripts from the calls gets released.


----------



## Miss Sally

Alkomesh2 said:


> When discussing the illegal immigrant crime list remember that Hitlers first move was to set up a Jewish Crime List.
> 
> This is a time old tactic used by fascists to engender hatred against minorities.
> 
> I know you all love to pretend no parallels exist because it makes you feel better, but sadly they do this being only one of a myriad of examples.


This would make sense if there wasn't a list for sexual offenders, multiple outlets for background checks and crime magazines which consist of pictures/offenses to mock criminals. These have been around a while so why is this list supposed to be scary?


----------



## glenwo2

Headliner said:


> I don't see it changing anything honestly unless the transcripts from the calls gets released.


Yep. It's basically still a his-word-against-someone-else's thing here. The only way to know EXACTLY what transpired was to see the transcripts.


But something tells me those won't ever get released and even if they do, it won't be for public consumption. :shrug


----------



## Headliner

glenwo2 said:


> Yep. It's basically still a his-word-against-someone-else's thing here. The only way to know EXACTLY what transpired was to see the transcripts.
> 
> 
> But something tells me those won't ever get released and even if they do, it won't be for public consumption. :shrug


Yea. Surely what Sessions just did was perjury right?


----------



## virus21

Headliner said:


> Yea. Surely what Sessions just did was perjury right?


If he didn't disclose about the meetings when asked in a legal session, then yes it likely would be perjury


----------



## Reaper

I hope all yaall Hitler virtue signallers will enlist to save immigrants like me. 

In fact why wait. Go now and join your respective armies since American Nazis are now about to start wwiii. Go ahead. Since you're so sure that history is repeating itself why are you still sitting comfortably in your homes. Why aren't you on warships and tanks on your way to save us?

Or better yet. Give me all your money and property. In fact let me take your identity and life since you're so deeply concerned about me. I'll send you my account details. Just wire me all your moneys. 

Thank you in advance.

Save me from the death squads!!

If you can't do that then for fuck sake stop using me as an object to talk about and use to pretend that you give a fuck. 

Might as well admit that this is nothing but pretentiousness and narcissism masquerading as altruism and empathy.


----------



## nucklehead88

Headliner said:


> Yea. Surely what Sessions just did was perjury right?


Yea. Thats perjury.


----------



## Miss Sally

RipNTear said:


> I hope all yaall Hitler virtue signallers will enlist to save immigrants like me.
> 
> In fact why wait. Go now and join your respective armies.
> 
> Or better yet. Give me all your money and property. In fact let me take your identity and life since you're so deeply concerned about me. I'll send you my account details. Just wire me all your moneys.
> 
> Thank you in advance.
> 
> Save me from the death squads!!
> 
> If you can't do that then for fuck sake stop using me as an object to talk about and use to pretend that you give a fuck.


I'm mostly confused about this list that people are babbling about. There are so many lists for wanted criminals that it seems stupid to worry about one focused on illegal immigrant crime.


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> I'm mostly confused about this list that people are babbling about. There are so many lists for wanted criminals that it seems stupid to worry about one focused on illegal immigrant crime.


It's because they were told to spin it that way by someone else who was told to think that by someone else. 

This isn't an original thought or position. It's classic hive mind thinking and echo chamber agreement. 

It's again narcissism masquerading as altruism therefore the most empathic of individuals are hoodwinked to repeat someone else's thoughts.

It sounds good since it contains all the buzzwords therefore it must be right and worth parroting all over the place.


----------



## Art Vandaley

Miss Sally said:


> This would make sense if there wasn't a list for sexual offenders, multiple outlets for background checks and crime magazines which consist of pictures/offenses to mock criminals. These have been around a while so why is this list supposed to be scary?


Because one is a list by the type of crime and one a list by type of criminal.


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> Because one is a list by the type of crime and one a list by type of criminal.


If you use an excel sheet and use pivot tables you can sort it any way you want. You know, that's how they figure out how many whites killed blacks, or blacks killed whites etc etc. *They keep records based on ethnicity of criminal.*. 

You wouldn't have hate crime statistics that you guys jizz over all the time if they didn't keep lists based on type of criminal. 

They pretty much always have. 

I guess Americans have been secretly Nazis since like forever. 

:mj4 :kobelol :heston

I think the real :triggered here is the use of the word "list". 

See, Hitler had a list. Now Trump has a list. Therefore Trump is literally Hitler. 

:mj4


----------



## Art Vandaley

You believe whatever helps you sleep at night. 

Do not let reality get in the way. Just stick to your straw men and avoid all real issues.

At the end of the day people like the poster above support trump because he is targeting minorities and they're totally down for it because they aren't a member of that particular minority, exactly the same reason people supported Hitler. 

The only difference is the minority targeted.

Also while keeping records of crimes based on ethnicity has been common practise, publishing weekly lists is unprecedented. 

Unprecedented in the US of course. There is a clear precedent from Nazi Germany.


----------



## Goku

didn't know we had so many solipsists on wf. Not sure if I'm heartened or confused.


----------



## Art Vandaley

Goku said:


> didn't know we had so many solipsists on wf. Not sure if I'm heartened or confused.


I know right, the percentage of posters who's economic policy is just "as long as I'm ok fuck everyone else" is crazy.


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> You believe whatever helps you sleep at night.
> 
> Do not let reality get in the way. Just stick to your straw men and avoid all real issues.
> 
> At the end of the day people like the poster above support trump because he is targeting minorities and they're totally down for it, exactly the same reason people supported Hitler.
> 
> The only difference is the minority targeted.


Calling me a Nazi now because he can no longer refute my statements. 

You can see the amount of damage suffered that his narrative spinning now needs to exclude specific points that counter his world view by resorting to labeling anyone that counters the Hitler spin as a Nazi. 

He needs to believe that Trump is Hitler. Therefore he needs to find things that fit into his narrative by misconstruing something that every single nation does which is to mitigate the damage caused by criminals and illegal aliens. 

First he has to pretend to himself that the person who is a Nazi isn't talking specifically about illegal criminal immigrants, so he intentionally drops the "illegal and criminal" from his own expression. By erasing the illegal and criminal parameters, he has then already changed the true intended target of the new taskforce. Now that he has changed the intended target by simply removing two words, he's entered into a faux reality where he can include the innocent into the discussion. By including the innocent into the discussion he can now conflate a comparison to the innocent Jew. Now that he's conflated the innocent with the Jew, he has been able to create a Hitler comparison. 

Of course, since he doesn't even want to believe that the intended target of the new initiative is specifically targeting Criminal and Illegal Immigrants, therefore anyone that says otherwise is the one faking it or a Hitler supporter. 

I think you should be ashamed of your world view. It's not based on fact. It's based on lies and propaganda that you yourself created because deep down you actually WANT there to be a Hitler so that you can be right. This is narcissism. This isn't empathy. You're pretending to care, but all you really care about is being right.

I'd like to give you more credit than you deserve, but I don't think you deserve it anymore. You really don't.



Alkomesh2 said:


> I know right, the percentage of posters who's economic policy is just "as long as I'm ok fuck everyone else" is crazy.


Your use of the word strawman was wrong. ^This is the perfect example of a strawman. 

So, when are you going to send me pictures of the refugee family sharing your house?


----------



## birthday_massacre

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...e613afeb09f_story.html?utm_term=.10cc26427c8f

*Sessions met with Russian envoy twice last year, encounters he later did not disclose*


By Adam Entous, Ellen Nakashima and Greg Miller March 1 at 9:35 PM 
Then-Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) spoke twice last year with Russia’s ambassador to the United States, Justice Department officials said, encounters he did not disclose when asked about possible contacts between members of President Trump’s campaign and representatives of Moscow during Sessions’s confirmation hearing to become attorney general.

One of the meetings was a private conversation between Sessions and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak that took place in September in the senator’s office, at the height of what U.S. intelligence officials say was a Russian cyber campaign to upend the U.S. presidential race.

The previously undisclosed discussions could fuel new congressional calls for the appointment of a special counsel to investigate Russia’s alleged role in the 2016 presidential election. As attorney general, Sessions oversees the Justice Department and the FBI, which have been leading investigations into Russian meddling and any links to Trump’s associates. He has so far resisted calls to recuse himself.

Checkpoint newsletter
Military, defense and security at home and abroad.
Sign up
When Sessions spoke with Kislyak in July and September, the senator was a senior member of the influential Armed Services Committee as well as one of Trump’s top foreign policy advisers. Sessions played a prominent role supporting Trump on the stump after formally joining the campaign in February 2016.

Sessions ‘unable to comment' on Trump intelligence briefing reports Embed Share Play Video2:15
Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) questioned attorney general nominee Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) about news that intelligence officials briefed President-elect Trump on unconfirmed reports that Russia has compromising information on Trump. (Senate Judiciary Committee)
At his Jan. 10 Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing, Sessions was asked by Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) what he would do if he learned of any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of the 2016 campaign.

“I’m not aware of any of those activities,” he responded. He added: “I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians.”

[Trump administration sought to enlist intelligence officials, key lawmakers to counter Russia stories]

Officials said Sessions did not consider the conversations relevant to the lawmakers’ questions and did not remember in detail what he discussed with Kislyak.

“There was absolutely nothing misleading about his answer,” said Sarah Isgur Flores, Sessions’s spokeswoman.

In January, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) asked Sessions for answers to written questions. “Several of the President-elect’s nominees or senior advisers have Russian ties. Have you been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after election day?” Leahy wrote.

Sessions responded with one word: “No.”

Justice officials said Sessions met with Kislyak on Sept. 8 in his capacity as a member of the armed services panel rather than in his role as a Trump campaign surrogate.

“He was asked during the hearing about communications between Russia and the Trump campaign — not about meetings he took as a senator and a member of the Armed Services Committee,” Flores said.

She added that Sessions last year had more than 25 conversations with foreign ambassadors as a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, including the British, Korean, Japanese, Polish, Indian, Chinese, Canadian, Australian and German ambassadors, in addition to Kislyak.

In the case of the September meeting, one department official who came to the defense of the attorney general said, “There’s just not strong recollection of what was said.”

The Russian ambassador did not respond to requests for comment about his contacts with Sessions.

The Washington Post contacted all 26 members of the 2016 Senate Armed Services Committee to see whether any lawmakers besides Sessions met with Kislyak in 2016. Of the 20 lawmakers who responded, every senator, including Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.), said they did not meet with the Russian ambassador last year. The other lawmakers on the panel did not respond as of Wednesday evening.

“Members of the committee have not been beating a path to Kislyak’s door,” a senior Senate Armed Services Committee staffer said, citing tensions in relations with Moscow. Besides Sessions, the staffer added, “There haven’t been a ton of members who are looking to meet with Kislyak for their committee duties.”

Last month, The Washington Post reported that Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn had discussed U.S. sanctions with Kislyak during the month before Trump took office, contrary to public assertions by Mike Pence, the vice president-elect, and other top Trump officials. Flynn was forced to resign the following week.

[National security adviser Flynn discussed sanctions with Russian ambassador, despite denials, officials say]

When asked to comment on Sessions’s contacts with Kislyak, Franken said in a statement to The Washington Post on Wednesday: “If it’s true that Attorney General Sessions met with the Russian ambassador in the midst of the campaign, then I am very troubled that his response to my questioning during his confirmation hearing was, at best, misleading.”

Franken added: “It is now clearer than ever that the attorney general cannot, in good faith, oversee an investigation at the Department of Justice and the FBI of the Trump-Russia connection, and he must recuse himself immediately.”

Current and former U.S. officials say they see Kislyak as a diplomat, not an intelligence operative. But they were not sure to what extent, if any, Kislyak was aware of or involved in the covert Russian election campaign.

Steven Hall, former head of Russia operations at the CIA, said that Russia would have been keenly interested in cultivating a relationship with Sessions because of his role on key congressional committees and as an early adviser to Trump.

Sessions’s membership on the Armed Services Committee would have made him a priority for the Russian ambassador. “The fact that he had already placed himself at least ideologically behind Trump would have been an added bonus for Kislyak,” Hall said.

Michael McFaul, a Stanford University professor who until 2014 served as U.S. ambassador to Russia, said he was not surprised that Kislyak would seek a meeting with Sessions. “The weird part is to conceal it,” he said. “That was at the height of all the discussions of what Russia was doing during the election.”

Two months before the September meeting, Sessions attended a Heritage Foundation event in July on the sidelines of the Republican National Convention that was attended by roughly 50 ambassadors. When the event was over, a small group of ambassadors approached Sessions as he was leaving the podium, and Kislyak was among them, the Justice Department official said.

[FBI once planned to pay former British spy who authored controversial Trump dossier]

Sessions then spoke individually to some of the ambassadors, including Kislyak, the official said. In the informal exchanges, the ambassadors expressed appreciation for his remarks and some of them invited him to events they were sponsoring, said the official, citing a former Sessions staffer who was at the event.

Democratic lawmakers, including senior members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, have demanded in recent weeks that Sessions recuse himself from the government’s inquiry into possible ties between Trump associates and Russia.

Last week, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee, became one of the few Republican representatives to state publicly the need for an independent investigation.

Sessions’s public position on Russia has evolved over time.

In an interview with RealClear World on the sidelines of the German Marshall Fund’s Brussels Forum in March 2015, Sessions said the United States and Europe “have to unify” against Russia.

More than a year later, he spoke about fostering a stronger relationship with the Kremlin. In a July 2016 interview with CNN’s “State of the Union,” Sessions praised Trump’s plan to build better relations with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“Donald Trump is right. We need to figure out a way to end this cycle of hostility that’s putting this country at risk, costing us billions of dollars in defense, and creating hostilities,” Sessions told CNN.

Asked whether he viewed Putin as a good or bad leader, Sessions told CNN: “We have a lot of bad leaders around the world that operate in ways we would never tolerate in the United States. But the question is, can we have a more peaceful, effective relationship with Russia? Utilizing interests that are similar in a realistic way to make this world a safer place and get off this dangerous hostility with Russia? I think it’s possible.”

Julie Tate, Robert Costa and Karoun Demirjian contributed to this report.


----------



## glenwo2

^ Can you make the title a little bigger? Thanks. :lol



Oh and this is not a good look for Sessions. Not a good look at all.

But as Headliner pointed out, we'd need the transcripts of that meeting/conversation to know for sure what was discussed. If we don't know, it's all speculation.

The only thing that would happen is that Sessions is forced to recuse himself mainly 'cause he kept the meetings he had private instead of letting anyone know about it. Yep...definitely not a good look.


----------



## Goku

Alkomesh2 said:


> I know right, the percentage of posters who's economic policy is just "as long as I'm ok fuck everyone else" is crazy.


that... that's not solipsism.


----------



## Art Vandaley

> Therefore he needs to find things that fit into his narrative by misconstruing something that every single nation does which is to mitigate the damage caused by criminals and illegal aliens.


Name a single country that publishes weekly lists of crimes by a specific minority group. 

I mean you say every single nation does it so one shouldn't be hard should it?



Goku said:


> that... that's not solipsism.


Using which definition?


----------



## birthday_massacre

glenwo2 said:


> ^ Can you make the title a little bigger? Thanks. :lol
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and this is not a good look for Sessions. Not a good look at all.
> 
> But as Headliner pointed out, we'd need the transcripts of that meeting/conversation to know for sure what was discussed. If we don't know, it's all speculation.
> 
> The only thing that would happen is that Sessions is forced to recuse himself mainly 'cause he kept the meetings he had private instead of letting anyone know about it. Yep...definitely not a good look.


It was shady what ever it was that is why it was not disclosed. Just like when Bil Clinton met with Lynch.

Sessions needs to resign


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> Name a single country that publishes lists of crimes by a specific minority group.
> 
> I mean you say every single nation does it so one shouldn't be hard should it?


America already does. 

That's how we know crime by ethnicity as well as type of crime by that ethnicity. We know how many blacks were murdered by whites, and how many whites were involved in shooting crimes and how many latinos are arrested for drugs. Complete with mug shots in every newspaper every single day. 

It was started I believe after the civil rights (or before) in order to determine hate crimes. 

It was already mentioned in the post you ignored.

Here's your own country:



> Indigenous Australians commit crimes and are imprisoned at a disproportionately high rate in Australia. According to one source, there is "gross overrepresentation of Indigenous offenders at all stages of the criminal justice system".[1] The 2006 census documented that there are 455,031 Indigenous people, who are either Australian Aborigines or Torres Strait Islanders, in Australia, accounting for 2.3 percent of the population.


How would they know this if they didn't record crimes by ethnicity? 

UK: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...chment_data/file/269399/Race-and-cjs-2012.pdf

Germany: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_crime#Germany



> A report released by the German Federal Office of Criminal Investigation in November 2015 found that over the period January–September 2015, the crime rate of refugees was the same as that of native Germans.[62] According to Deutsche Welle, the report "concluded that the majority of crimes committed by refugees (67 percent) consisted of theft, robbery and fraud. Sex crimes made for less than 1 percent of all crimes committed by refugees, while homicide registered the smallest fraction at 0,1 percent."[62] According to the conservative newspaper Die Welt's description of the report, the most common crime committed by refugees was not paying fares on public transportation.[63] According to Deutsche Welle's reporting in February 2016 of a report by the German Federal Office of Criminal Investigation, the number of crimes committed by refugees did not rise in proportion to the number of refugees between 2014-2015.[64] According to Deutsche Welle, "between 2014 and 2015, the number of crimes committed by refugees increased by 79 percent. Over the same period, however, the number of refugees in Germany increased by 440 percent."[64]


How are they collecting this data if they're not recording crimes based on race and ethnicity and status?


----------



## Goku

Alkomesh2 said:


> Using which definition?


any. Preference for one's own well-being can't be classed as solipsism by any standard.


----------



## Art Vandaley

RipNTear said:


> America already does.
> 
> That's how we know crime by ethnicity as well as type of crime by that ethnicity. We know how many blacks were murdered by whites, and how many whites were involved in shooting crimes and how many latinos are arrested for drugs. Complete with mug shots in every newspaper every single day.
> 
> It was started I believe after the civil rights (or before) in order to determine hate crimes.
> 
> It was already mentioned in the post you ignored.


Keeping records is not the same as publishing a weekly list.

You maintain this is standard practice. 

I maintain the US today and Nazi Germany are the only examples of this happening. 

Pointing out that countries keep records that are available if people wish to look them up is neither relevant or intetesting to the discussion at hand.


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> Keeping records is not the same as publishing a weekly list.


You can't even read right now can you? 

Almost every single arrest is published every day in local papers with the mugshot of the person arrested. 

fpalm

http://www.floridatoday.com/news/crime-arrest-mugshots/

http://mugshots.houmatoday.com/



Alkomesh2 said:


> Keeping records is not the same as publishing a weekly list.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You maintain this is standard practice.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is. You would know that if you were American.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I maintain the US today and Nazi Germany are the only examples of this happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, then like I said America has been Nazi Germany for centuries :lmao
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pointing out that countries keep records that are available if people wish to look them up is neither relevant or intetesting to the discussion at hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it is. Your contention is the publishing a list of criminals makes a country the same as Nazi Germany. Therefore if countries are keeping these records and people can look up those records (meaning that they're available for public viewing) then by your logic they too are Nazi Germany. But since they haven't used those lists in order to create work camps and extermination centers, then that means they're not Nazi Germany. Therefore publishing or maintaining a list doesn't make a country Nazi Germany :lmao
Click to expand...


----------



## Art Vandaley

RipNTear said:


> You can't even read right now can you?
> 
> Almost every single arrest is published every day in local papers with the mugshot of the person arrested.
> 
> fpalm
> 
> http://www.floridatoday.com/news/crime-arrest-mugshots/
> 
> http://mugshots.houmatoday.com/


Ok, think about it this way, everybody is already informed of every crime right?

So why have a federal list repeating that already available info only for a certain minority?


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> Ok, think about it this way, everybody is already informed of every crime right?
> 
> So why have a federal list repeating that already available info only for a certain minority?


And here comes the shifted goalpost :lmao 

This is passing on the same information in differently organized way. There is nothing shady about it. It already exists but now it's being presented differently in order to raise awareness where awareness may not exist. 

It's just reporting facts. In fact, this could actually work for the better for these poor poor minorities you're so falsely concerned about. In fact, if the illegal crime rates are lower than expected then it'll actually help the illegals and may lead to softer stance on illegal immigration. If however, it turns out that the crimes are higher, then it'll justify their expulsion even more.

You want more nuanced and uncomplicated information. It's always better. 

The fact that you're comparing this to Nazi Germany is incredibly off-base. These accusations are getting more and more ridiculous day by day. And interestingly, I found that this conflation is primarily coming from the European countries. Three of which are worse off today than they were just a few years ago because they couldn't take care of their migration issues and are forcing their own ridiculous stances onto Americans. Lots of over-exaggerations, mischaracterizations, misrepresentations. Poor arguments. 

The real fear-mongering is coming from you guys that invoke Hitler at every single thing. This Hitler narrative has led to violence in several parts of America. But of course, it doesn't matter to you, you don't have to live the consequences of this ridiculous comparison.

Anyways, so since you're so sure that America is now full on Hitler and Nazi controlled, when are you enlisting to come save us?


----------



## Art Vandaley

RipNTear said:


> And here comes the shifted goalpost :lmao
> 
> This is passing on the same information in differently organized way. There is nothing shady about it. It already exists but now it's being presented differently in order to raise awareness where awareness may not exist.
> 
> It's just reporting facts. In fact, this could actually work for the better for these poor poor minorities you're so falsely concerned about. In fact, if the illegal crime rates are lower than expected then it'll actually help the illegals and may lead to softer stance on illegal immigration. If however, it turns out that the crimes are higher, then it'll justify their expulsion even more.


They aren't posting rates though or comparison with the general population just absolutes at least afaik.

You're right that the reason this is done is to create awareness that illegal immigrants commit crimes, just like Hitlers list was about creating awareness that jews commit crimes.

The question is why raise awareness?

I mean you can't tell if someone is an illegal immigrant by looking at them so it's not like this allows people to avoid a dangerous group. 

The only reason to raise awareness that illegal immigrants commit crimes is to make the general public dislike them.


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> You're right that the reason this is done is to create awareness that illegal immigrants commit crimes, just like Hitlers list was about creating awareness that jews commit crimes.


And this betrays your complete lack of knowledge of history and intent of Hitler's list of Jews. Nazism was entirely and always based on racial superiority and segregation. Innocent Jews were made criminals simply based on being Jews. They didn't have to commit crimes to be forced to wear the Star of David and be shipped off to work and labor camps where they died by the millions. America's deportation of criminals is absolutely nothing like stealing their valuables, putting them on trains and sending them off to their death. The fact that you even dare to make such comparisons and diminish the suffering of Jews with your horrendous comparisons is repulsive. Really repulsive. You should be ashamed of yourself. Even our deportation centers are humane as fuck complete with all basic necessities. 









^What an American detention center looks like. 









^Least violent picture I could take of a Jew camp I could find. 

Incredibly that in your mind these are the same things fpalm 



> The question is why raise awareness?


And this is the definition of burying ones' head in the sand. 



> I mean you can't tell if someone is an illegal immigrant by looking at them so it's not like this allows people to avoid a dangerous group.


The point of this isn't to make people want to avoid other people. The point of this is probably to show people that work is being done to remove a certain type of criminal and make them feel safer. I don't think you realize just how bad things are for americans in border towns. I mean, @Miss Sally has given us a great deal of insight into the matter, but I don't think you've ever actually bothered to allow that to change your mind. America is a big place with huge pockets of low and high crime areas and some parts where illegal immigrant crime is higher than others. If you really think that citizens don't deserve to sleep better at night knowing that their government has caught criminals (actual criminals, not the innocent you seem to believe that they'll be catching), then there is something really wrong with your world view. 



> The only reason to raise awareness that illegal immigrants commit crimes is to make the general public dislike them.


Non-sequitur. False conclusion. 

You don't really believe that Trump is Hitler, nor do you really believe that America is going down Germany's path of ethnic genocide. If you really do, then at this point you're part of a very small group of highly deluded individuals and in time hopefully you'll realize that.


----------



## Art Vandaley

RipNTear said:


> And this betrays your complete lack of knowledge of history and intent of Hitler's list of Jews. Nazism was entirely and always based on racial superiority and segregation. Innocent Jews were made criminals simply based on being Jews. They didn't have to commit crimes to be forced to wear the Star of David and be shipped off to work and labor camps where they died by the millions. America's deportation of criminals is absolutely nothing like stealing their valuables, putting them on trains and sending them off to their death. The fact that you even dare to make such comparisons and diminish the suffering of Jews with your horrendous comparisons is repulsive. Really repulsive. You should be ashamed of yourself.


Eventually they made being Jewish criminal, but it took a while to get to that point, at first they did stuff like publishing weekly lists of crimes done by Jews so as to justify the later actions. 

The Holocaust didn't happen over night, it took years of propaganda and support from people like you to get to that point. 



> You don't really believe that Trump is Hitler


I know I've said that repeatedly.


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> Eventually they made being Jewish criminal, but it took a while to get to that point, at first they did stuff like publishing weekly lists of crimes done by Jews so as to justify the later actions.
> 
> The Holocaust didn't happen over night, it took years of propaganda and support from people like you to get to that point.


The KEY difference you're completely ignoring and will continue to ignore since it doesn't suit your agenda is the component of *innateness * and predisposition of Jews to commit crimes because they're Jews. 

This hasn't occurred in America. The idea here is very different and that there is nothing ethnic about the criminals, but rather the extent of the crime is to have come here illegally. This does not conflate to the ethnicity being innately predisposed to crime. 

Every single country expels illegal immigrants. None of them have to suffer through sanctimonious bullying by SJW ideologues like yours. You're arguing something that you yourself don't even believe in so it's really nothing more than shaming and not even intellectually justifiable shaming. 

Believing that someone has broken a law by crossing a border illegally is not the same as believing that someone is innately predisposed to crime. Again, you keep doing a disservice to the suffering of the Jews because you want to argue tha point that you yourself don't believe to be true. 




> I know I've said that repeatedly.


If you don't believe that Trump and Hitler aren't the same, then you're even more narcissistic than I originally thought. But I'm glad you continued to respond and continued to show everyone why your side has become hysterical to the point of making comparisons that you yourself don't believe to be true. 

At least believe the thing you're arguing. This is incredibly poor display on your part.


----------



## Art Vandaley

So you accept that a parralell exists between Trump's list and Hitler's you just reckon Trump has done a better job picking the minority to target?


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> So you accept that a parralell exists between Trump's list and Hitler's you just reckon Trump has done a better job picking the minority to target?


I accept that you have no idea how to draw parallels. You don't even believe what you're arguing. You're not a serious person.


----------



## glenwo2

I don't understand why Hitler is even in the conversation when it comes to Trump...


This list...that list...WHO CARES?!?! Is Trump on Jericho's list, though? 


Anyway, this is crazy talk.

"Alien Elvis Clones From Outer Space" would be a more sane subject. :lol


----------



## Reaper

glenwo2 said:


> I don't understand why Hitler is even in the conversation when it comes to Trump...
> 
> 
> This list...that list...WHO CARES?!?! Is Trump on Jericho's list, though?
> 
> 
> Anyway, this is crazy talk.
> 
> "Alien Elvis Clones From Outer Space" would be a more sane subject.


It's several factors. 

Cognitive Dissonance. 
Self promotion. 
Wanting to have victims to cry fake tears over. 
Fighting personal failures by converting oneself into some sort of hero for the weak. 
Soft bigotry of low expectations.
Giving one's meaningless life some purpose. 
Creating a situation where one's lack of being needed is fulfilled by this imaginary group of victims. 
Needing the supervillain of this generation. This is the superhero generation after all. 

Note that all of the fantasies revolve around fighting something like Thanos. But comparing Trump to Thanos would be completely crazy and schizophrenic so the comparison is to the only human supervillain whose name they're familiar with. Note that the comparisons are never to the lesser known villains like Stalin or Mao. 

Not their fault they grew up average in a normal world without superpowers. So they believe this is their calling. 

Lots of reasons. None rational however.


----------



## CamillePunk

Alkomesh2 said:


> Wouldn't go that far, but literally doing the same stuff though.
> 
> I get this is an emotive thing and you all don't want to feel like you're morally on the level with the people who voted for Hitler and so you'll fight people pointing out the parallels tooth and nail with adhominems and straw men, Trump is literally hitler for example being something no one has ever said but is constantly wheeled out and attacked, as if him not literally being Hitler somehow negates the parallels.
> 
> But you can't appropriately debate the immigrant crime list without acknowledging where the idea comes from.
> 
> Camps are gonna be the next step, mark my words, Australia already puts illegal immigrants in camps and Trump did explicitly rule it out during an interview with Bill O'Reilly during the campaign, but just you wait until the wall doesn't work/doesn't get built.
> 
> He's currently in the process of dehumanizing immigrants, once that is done its quite easy to move onto darker things.


German Jews weren't IN THE COUNTRY ILLEGALLY before Jew-hating Hitler took power. They were rounded up and killed for being Jews, they did nothing wrong. Trump isn't going to pull an FDR (but worse because those were actually American citizens leftist superhero FDR rounded up, the guy leftists adore and don't compare to Hitler) and put people in camps. He doesn't want them in camps in our country, he wants them back in THEIR COUNTRY. 

Special criminal lists isn't a HITLER EXCLUSIVE idea. Also, the Jews in Germany WEREN'T CRIMINALS (before Hitler made being Jewish itself a crime). The fact people who are so super-conscious about phantom antisemitism keep making this comparison is fucking hilarious to me. Your Trump Derangement Syndrome is so severe you don't even see it. What are you going to do when 8 years have passed and Trump never did any of the Hitler things you were so sure he was going to do? How are you going to show your face to anyone after all of the hysteria you partook in? It's going to be really embarrassing, I don't envy you for what waits ahead.

"Dehumanizing immigrants" is such a hideously dishonest horseshit phrase. Trump has never said anything negative about LEGAL IMMIGRANTS, nor has he proposed anything to make lives harder for them. Deporting people who are in the country illegally isn't dehumanizing someone. Applying the law fairly to people isn't dehumanization. 

There is zero ethnic or racial content to any of Trump's policies or campaign rhetoric. It's not comparable to the German Jews situation at all. 



Miss Sally said:


> This would make sense if there wasn't a list for sexual offenders, multiple outlets for background checks and crime magazines which consist of pictures/offenses to mock criminals. These have been around a while so why is this list supposed to be scary?


Trump Derangement Syndrome. These people aren't well. I'm afraid they'll start to fully believe the Trump is Hitler delusion and ramp up the violence. In that case Trump will have to take strong measures which will only reinforce the authoritarian perception of him by the TDS sufferers.


----------



## CamillePunk

DOUBLE-POSTING WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW @MRMISTER

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/157865134106/president-trumps-speech-last-night

Great article by Scott Adams about Trump's presidential address last night, highlighting moments of "pre-suasion" and reinforcing earlier predictions about the arc Trump's public perception with his critics will take over the course of this year (Hitler -> Incompetent (already happening) -> Competent, but we don't like it (by the end of the year)). I'm waiting for someone who thought Hillary was going to win the election easily to tell me Scott Adams is wrong about this.


----------



## Miss Sally

The Jewish comparisons are odd. Sure being Jewish in Germany became illegal during the Hitler days but being an illegal immigrant is already illegal. Nobody has the right to immigrate because you want to, there are rules in place for every country.

So the comparison is apples and bowling balls. Also people do realize it's more than Mexicans that come here illegally right? The majority are probably Mexican because the US is next to Mexico. It would be odd if the majority were Polish or Chinese. Some critical thinking or basic common sense would tell you that.

Also again the US has crime statics based on everything you can imagine and crimes are public record. I guess the publications that show photos and crimes of American citizens are somehow bigoted against Americans since they only tend to show crimes of Americans.

There is a lot you can bitch about but this is a pretty dumb hill to die on.


----------



## The5star_Kid

So, when is Trump going to cut ties with China and bring all this industry back to the US?


----------



## Mra22

Such a great speech by Trump the other night. It is sad that the crybaby democrats wanted to sit during the speech, especially when he was honoring the slain soldier.


----------



## Vic Capri

To add insult to injury:












> Oh and this is not a good look for Sessions. Not a good look at all.


Next week, the Democrats will accuse Dr. Carson of conspiring with Russian officials.



> It is sad that the crybaby democrats wanted to sit during the speech, especially when he was honoring the slain soldier.


Democrats: President Trump is exploiting a fallen soldier for political purposes!

Me: You didn't have a problem doing it last year with Humayun Khan.










- Vic


----------



## Alco

^That is good. Regardless of where your alignments lie, more people should watch political programming. The more informed, the better.


----------



## Reaper

Alco said:


> ^That is good. Regardless of where your alignments lie, more people should watch political programming. The more informed, the better.


Technically it's much lower than the number of people Obama drew for his first address but internet streaming wasn't a thing back then. 

No one's tallied/released their web numbers for Trump's address however yet.


----------



## Headliner

Rushing to defend Sessions lol. Hilarious. 


Mra22 said:


> Such a great speech by Trump the other night. It is sad that the crybaby democrats wanted to sit during the speech, especially when he was honoring the slain soldier.


Wat. The opposing party normally sits when the President is speaking. Did you not watch Obama's State of the Unions?


----------



## Reaper

Headliner said:


> Rushing to defend Sessions lol. Hilarious.
> 
> Wat. The opposing party normally sits when the President is speaking. Did you not watch Obama's State of the Unions?


TBF, a lot of people here are probably too young to remember the amazing energy and drive people had when Obama won and therefore weren't interested in politics back then. Even I don't know as much. 

Trump's election is significant in its own right, but the nation's response and reaction to Obama during his first run and initial briefings and speeches was nothing short of brilliant and likely incomparable.


----------



## P Thriller

Welp....I've been waiting for a Republican president for years and years and years now because I've been hoping that somebody would finally decide to address our country's insane federal debt. But after watching that speech, I'm realizing that we are really screwed. Bush added 4 trillion to the debt, which is ridiculous. Then Obama added about 9 trillion more which is even more outrageous, and now it is looking like we will be adding more. You can't increase defense spending while at the same time making tax cuts, while not cutting spending anywhere. Entitlements have been in need of cuts for a long time now (among other things) but our leaders for the last 17 years are only concerned with telling people what they want to hear, and not what they NEED to hear. Interest rates are well below average and are bound to start creeping back to reality, and our country is almost 20 TRILLIONS dollars in debt and they aren't going to do anything about it? This would be like if you are me are in like 100,000 dollars worth of debt and we decided, "I'm going to try spending more money and taking in less money, that will fix the problem". What a joke


----------



## Oxidamus

Watched the Trump speech. The thing that I found most interesting is how important American jobs are to the Republican party (and Trump). Every mention got standing ovations. I mean, most everything got standing ovations, but it's interesting talk about increasing jobs does, to me. So many conservatives in the US and Australia are so disillusioned with employment, thinking someone (usually someone they don't like or disagree with) is unemployed by their own volition or failures... Yet at the same time they realise the workforce has been dwindling for years, and people are losing work left and right for reasons out of their control. It's really odd, but I hope Trump's focus on getting jobs back in the US brings to light the hypocrisy and biased views on unemployment.


----------



## Reaper

I'm watching Obama's first Union Address to see if the republican responses were similar to the democrats or not. Will edit this post later with my thoughts. 

First thing I did notice was how Nansy Pelosi interrupted the president right off the bat to bring the spotlight onto herself :lol and so far he's getting a completely unanimous positive reaction as he takes the stand :mj4


----------



## Mra22

P Thriller said:


> Welp....I've been waiting for a Republican president for years and years and years now because I've been hoping that somebody would finally decide to address our country's insane federal debt. But after watching that speech, I'm realizing that we are really screwed. Bush added 4 trillion to the debt, which is ridiculous. Then Obama added about 9 trillion more which is even more outrageous, and now it is looking like we will be adding more. You can't increase defense spending while at the same time making tax cuts, while not cutting spending anywhere. Entitlements have been in need of cuts for a long time now (among other things) but our leaders for the last 17 years are only concerned with telling people what they want to hear, and not what they NEED to hear. Interest rates are well below average and are bound to start creeping back to reality, and our country is almost 20 TRILLIONS dollars in debt and they aren't going to do anything about it? This would be like if you are me are in like 100,000 dollars worth of debt and we decided, "I'm going to try spending more money and taking in less money, that will fix the problem". What a joke


Um....Ever since Trump has been in office the stock markets have been at an all time high, also Trump has already reduced the debt...


----------



## Headliner

RipNTear said:


> I'm watching Obama's first Union Address to see if the republican responses were similar to the democrats or not. Will edit this post later with my thoughts.
> 
> First thing I did notice was how Nansy Pelosi interrupted the president right off the bat and so far he's getting a completely unanimous positive reaction as he takes the stand :mj4


Those State of the Unions are long so here's a short clip where Obama asked Congress to raise the minimum wage during a State of the Union. (Of course the min wage bill didn't pass in Congress, but the Executive Order for Federal Contractors was GOAT because you had federal contractors taking care of are troops making like $8.50)

You would think everyone would want to stand for that but you can see the division. That's just the nature of State of the Union addresses.


----------



## Reaper

Headliner said:


> Those State of the Unions are long so here's a short clip where Obama asked Congress to raise the minimum wage during a State of the Union. (Of course the min wage bill didn't pass in Congress, but the Executive Order for Federal Contractors was GOAT because you had federal contractors taking care of are troops making like $8.50)
> 
> You would think everyone would want to stand for that but you can see the division. That's just the nature of State of the Union addresses.


Yah. I was getting too deeply entrenched into the echo chamber based on my twitter feed yesterday and mentioned this to my wife who set me straight already by reminding me that this division occurs on both sides and always has. She's extremely fond of Obama and was voting age for both his campaigns, so I give her credit where credit is due. 

I'm skimming through Obama's first address and there's significant division ... Very similar to what transpired during Trump's first address. It's not as divisive, but the problem is that Trump leading up to his unifying speech has been fairly divisive and not as bipartisan as Obama was initially. Difference is that there's no internet and twitter to over-exaggerate and create false impressions. 

This is why I personally try to stay outside of the echo chamber even though it's very compelling and comfortable to stay within it. But I will admit that it's not always easy.


----------



## rennlc

Today I read sleep deprivation can cause permanent brain damage. Maybe Trump never sleeps.


----------



## Reaper

Mra22 said:


> Um....Ever since Trump has been in office the stock markets have been at an all time high, also Trump has already reduced the debt...


Elaborate how so. I want to understand your thought process here.


----------



## P Thriller

Mra22 said:


> Um....Ever since Trump has been in office the stock markets have been at an all time high, also Trump has already reduced the debt...


Presidents have very little influence or control on the stock market. And my frustration is with what Trump is proposing that he is going to do, not what he has done. He wants to basically have a 1 trillion dollar stimulus package along with increased defense spending. Which is fine, but you can't do that if you aren't going to either take in more tax revenue (which he is proposing the opposite, he plans to cut taxes which I support), or you need to cut federal spending somewhere, and he isn't doing that. At least not from what he has been saying. Entitlements like Medicare, Social Security etc. need a significant cut because we spend way too much money on those but every president is afraid to take away people's entitlements because of the backlash they would get for doing it.


----------



## Headliner

Ok I'm bringing up this Jeff Sessions thing because I'm starting to get bothered by it. On the surface, he committed clear perjury. Now, there's nothing wrong with an armed services committee member of the Senate meeting with an ambassador, but if you met with them, why cover it up? So far they asked the other 25 members of the Senate armed services committee and 20 of them said they had zero contact with Russian ambassadors. The other 5 haven't responded yet. 

Now, the guy Sessions spoke with was also apparently a top Russian spy and top spy recruiter. He met with Sessions in Sessions office which is catching heat because it was during the peak of potential Russian interference, but he also met with him during the Republican National Convention. What the hell was a Russian spy doing at the Republican National Convention? 

And Republicans in Congress have different opinions about this. Some Republicans have already called for Sessions to recuse himself of this Russian investigation based on this news while scumbag Paul Ryan (I love calling him that) is trying to put a leash on this. 

Either way, it's fair for him to recuse himself.


----------



## krtgolfing

Saw an article on Yahoo where the Democrats were critical of what the Trump ladies were wearing. Saying they looked like they were going to a night club. I thought they looked classy and well yes sexy. What should they have worn pant suits? GTFO


----------



## Headliner

RipNTear said:


> Elaborate how so. I want to understand your thought process here.


What is he talking about in regards to Trump reducing the debt? He really believes what Trump tweeted about that?

The current operating budget was passed before Trump took office. Is there some emergency immediate budget cut thing that Trump did that people don't know about? Because so far I don't see it.


----------



## Reaper

Headliner said:


> What is he talking about in regards to Trump reducing the debt? He really believes what Trump tweeted about that?
> 
> The current operating budget was passed before Trump took office. Is there some emergency budget cut thing that Trump did that people don't know about? Because so far I don't see it.


And Trump picked up that number from a Fox and Friends show.


----------



## Vic Capri

George W. Bush is speaking out against Trump out of jealousy and liberals are insane enough to praise the war criminal taking his fake moral high ground.

- Vic


----------



## Reaper

krtgolfing said:


> Saw an article on Yahoo where the Democrats were critical of what the Trump ladies were wearing. Saying they looked like they were going to a night club. I thought they looked classy and well yes sexy. What should they have worn pant suits? GTFO


Democrats (referring to the electorate here) should really be worried right now considering the pettiness of the people representing them.


----------



## wagnergrad96

Only a buffoon who went bankrupt with casinos would think that raising the military budget to insanely unnecessary levels AND passing huge tax cuts for millionaires would help the national debt he is so find of talking about. We owe that money to JINA!


----------



## glenwo2

Headliner said:


> Ok I'm bringing up this Jeff Sessions thing because I'm starting to get bothered by it. On the surface, he committed clear perjury. Now, there's nothing wrong with an armed services committee member of the Senate meeting with an ambassador, but if you met with them, why cover it up? So far they asked the other 25 members of the Senate armed services committee and 20 of them said they had zero contact with Russian ambassadors. The other 5 haven't responded yet.
> 
> Now, the guy Sessions spoke with was also apparently a top Russian spy and top spy recruiter. He met with Sessions in Sessions office which is catching heat because it was during the peak of potential Russian interference, but he also met with him during the Republican National Convention. What the hell was a Russian spy doing at the Republican National Convention?
> 
> And Republicans in Congress have different opinions about this. Some Republicans have already called for Sessions to recuse himself of this Russian investigation based on this news while scumbag Paul Ryan (I love calling him that) is trying to put a leash on this.
> 
> *Either way, it's fair for him to recuse himself.*


At this point, he has to. He's bringing too much suspicion to Trump's cabinet by his actions(alleged, anyway). The safe thing is to recuse himself but will he?


----------



## birthday_massacre

glenwo2 said:


> At this point, he has to. He's bringing too much suspicion to Trump's cabinet by his actions(alleged, anyway). The safe thing is to recuse himself but will he?


If he doesn't he needs to be fired. He perjured himself. He should be in jail


----------



## Kabraxal

Hopefully Sessions is gone... could we get lucky enough and it is discovered Pence did something stupid and will get ousted too? Those two are what are truly frightening in this administration.


----------



## Reaper

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...t-sessions-committed-perjury/ar-AAnIWvT?pfr=1



> *There’s Almost No Chance That Sessions Committed Perjury*
> 
> Journalists and Democrats in Congress were far too quick to speculate that Attorney General Jeff Sessions perjured himself during his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, after The Washington Post revealed he had failed to disclose two meetings with the Russian ambassador to the U.S.
> 
> Perjury is the crime of willfully telling an untruth while under oath before a court or tribunal. Sessions’ failure to disclose contacts with Russian officials is disappointing, but doesn’t qualify as perjury within the meaning of federal law.
> 
> The federal perjury statute reads as follows:
> 
> Whoever —
> 
> having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or
> 
> in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury…willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true;
> 
> is guilty of perjury.
> 
> There are three elements here: a statement must be false, the false statement must be material (relevant) to the question/s asked, and the false statement must be made with an intent to deceive.
> 
> The “willfulness” standard is especially challenging in a perjury prosecution. Absent a clear demonstration that Sessions intended to lie to the committee, an indictment is extremely unlikely. Such a demonstration could include an email from Sessions or an aide disclosing intentional deception, a recording to this effect, or a post-hoc comment defending a false answer. This list isn’t exhaustive, but the absence of such evidence likely forecloses a perjury charge.
> 
> It also isn’t clear that either of Sessions’ responses are untrue. Sessions was asked about contacts with elements of the Russian government twice during the course of his confirmation. The first was on a questionnaire from Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy. His question read:
> 
> *Several of the President-elect’s nominees or senior advisers have Russian ties. Have you been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after election day?
> *
> *Sessions responded with a terse “No.”
> *
> *About the 2016 election is the operative language here. If Sessions’ conversations with the Russian ambassador did not concern the election, then his answer is truthful. This is hardly an inspiring display of integrity from the nation’s top law enforcement officer, but strictly speaking, it is a true statement.
> *
> His exchange with Democratic Sen. Al Franken is more complicated, but on balance, it seems to mitigate against a perjury charge.
> 
> “If there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?” Franken asked.
> 
> “I’m not aware of any of those activities,” Sessions responded. “I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians, and I’m unable to comment on it.”
> 
> Franken’s question is specifically tailored to communications made in the course of this campaign between the Russians and the Trump campaign. A reasonable listener could conclude the question solicits exchanges related to the general election, or exchanges in which both parties conspired in furtherance of a shared objective.
> 
> More importantly than this, the material (again, relevance) element almost certainly absolves Sessions of wrongdoing. It is not clear that a brief interaction at a social event and a meeting concerning matters unrelated to the campaign are material to Leahy and Franken’s questions. Of course, one can reasonably argue that they are, but the absence of a consensus on this point is very helpful to the embattled AG.
> 
> There is another Franken-Sessions exchange that seems especially relevant. At the beginning of his first line of questioning, Franken read a quote from Sessions himself into the record.
> 
> “We’re not going to misrepresent any nominee’s record,” Sessions said in 2009, of his task as ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.
> 
> One hopes he would expect the same of a nominee.
> 
> Follow Kevin on Twitter
> 
> Send tips to [email protected].
> 
> Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].


I'm not defending Sessions. I don't care if he stays or goes. There's a lot about him that I completely disagree with. However, the entire conversation at the moment is being reported out of context and he doesn't seem guilty of anything when you really break down the actual conversation. 

I do think as a personal opinion that on this issue Trump's administration needs to buckle down and stick up for their man and not allow what happened to Flynn to happen. If they let him go, the only people who will suffer are the people who voted in the government because at the moment special interests are buckling down to seemingly sabotage the government. 

This at this point isn't a republican vs democrat issue. This is an issue of special interests and potentially lobbyists who want to install a favorable AG for obvious reasons.


----------



## glenwo2

Kabraxal said:


> Hopefully Sessions is gone... could we get lucky enough and it is discovered Pence did something stupid and will get ousted too? Those two are what are truly frightening in this administration.


Hmmm..Has a Vice President ever been impeached, Kabraxal?


----------



## glenwo2

RipNTear said:


> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...t-sessions-committed-perjury/ar-AAnIWvT?pfr=1
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not defending Sessions. I don't care if he stays or goes. There's a lot about him that I completely disagree with. However, the entire conversation at the moment is being reported out of context and he doesn't seem guilty of anything when you really break down the actual conversation.
> 
> I do think as a personal opinion that on this issue Trump's administration needs to buckle down and stick up for their man and not allow what happened to Flynn to happen. If they let him go, the only people who will suffer are the people who voted in the government because at the moment special interests are buckling down to seemingly sabotage the government.
> 
> This at this point isn't a republican vs democrat issue. This is an issue of special interests and potentially lobbyists who want to install a favorable AG for obvious reasons.



Well I take back what I said then. He shouldn't have to recuse himself since "technically"(and Legally) he hasn't done anything wrong. It's still a bad look, though. 

Whatever.


----------



## Kabraxal

glenwo2 said:


> Hmmm..Has a Vice President ever been impeached, Kabraxal?


That's one I don't know... haven't researched it. I just do not like "Shock the gay out them!" Pence and the Drug War Overlord Sessions and both need to go. I liked a lot of Trump's choices for his administration, but these two were absolutely awful.


----------



## Reaper

Kabraxal said:


> That's one I don't know... haven't researched it. I just do not like "Shock the gay out them!" Pence and the Drug War Overlord Sessions and both need to go. I liked a lot of Trump's choices for his administration, but these two were absolutely awful.


And that's why you need Trump to stay in power because he's literally our first pro-gay/LGBT president going into presidency. Obama was pro-DOMA when he was elected and then changed his mind. Trump went in pro-gay marriage. 

Democrats will shoot themselves in the foot trying to oust Trump quite literally.

--- 

On the issue of Antisemitism suddenly becoming a hot topic. It becomes part of the evidence for how the media can force the national consciousness to shift towards issues that were once ignored under a more popular president. 

https://www.algemeiner.com/2017/03/...emitic-incidents-under-obama-largely-ignored/


> *Why Were the 7,000 Antisemitic Incidents Under Obama Largely Ignored?
> *
> In the last two months, almost 100 Jewish community centers and day schools have been targeted with antisemitic threats. The map of the threats is shocking. It stretches from Maine to Florida, Texas, Colorado, all the way to California and Washington. Despite more than 190 antisemitic incidents, no arrests have been made. These are terrifying times for many, and there is a feeling that antisemitism is reaching a crescendo in the US. The perception is that America has historically been safe and tolerant, but today a rising “wave” of antisemitism may be breaking on its golden door.
> 
> The US administration’s response has been tepid at best, and a case of denial at worst. Although Vice President Mike Pence stopped by a desecrated cemetery in St. Louis, it took more than a month for US President Donald Trump to make his denunciations clear, despite numerous chances to do. Trump is personally blamed for “unleashing” antisemitism during the election campaign last year. Rabbi Daniel Bogard, a victim of online antisemitic abuse, told the JTA,“There has been permission that’s been given to say these things we didn’t used to say.”
> 
> This feeds a growing narrative about the rise in antisemitism. There are more than nine million results in Google relating to “Trump antisemitism,” including the recent headlines “Report: Trump mulling axing antisemitism envoy as part of budget plan,” and “Trump suggests Jewish community is spreading antisemitic threats.”
> 
> MARCH 2, 2017 8:30 AM0
> SPME BDS Monitor: Neo-Nazi and Islamic Antisemitism on the Rise
> February was marked by antisemitic incidents both on and off campus, originating from both the far-Right and the far-Left. Neo-Nazi...
> 
> However, Mark Oppenheimer at The Washington Post notes, “There is no good statistical evidence (yet, anyway) that Americans have grown more anti-Semitic in recent months…Overall, however, we won’t know for many more months, when the FBI and the Anti-Defamation League have better data to work with, if Nov. 9, 2016, was the start of something new or just a continuation of a regrettable but enduring legacy.”
> 
> The Anti-Defamation League has released a list of the 10 worst antisemitic incidents of 2016, though the data for that year is not yet complete. There is data, however, for previous years.
> 
> If there was a major rise in antisemitism, then the 190 incidents that the media have reported on in the first two months of 2017 should be significant. That’s 95 a month. Let’s use that as a barometer and look at the first seven years of Barack Obama’s presidency. The 2016 data, when it is released, will be influenced by the apparent rise in antisemitism during the election. But the years 2009-2015, for which we have data, are untainted by the alleged rise in attacks from Trump supporters.
> 
> *There were 1,211 antisemitic incidents in Obama’s first year in office. This was after four straight years of declining antisemitism. For instance, in 2008, there were 1,352 incidents. Attacks had peaked in 2004 with 1,821.
> *
> Over the years, the number of incidents continued to decline. After an initial uptick to 1,239 in 2010, they declined to 751 in 2013. They began to rise again to 914 in 2015, the last year for which we have data. When we tally the total number of incidents between 2009 and 2015, the overall number of attacks reaches more than 7,000. *However, the number of assaults increased, almost doubling during the Obama administration.*
> 
> *Overall, there was an average of 84 incidents a month under the Obama administration. Let’s step back for a moment and compare that to the 95 incidents between January and February 2017. That’s a 10% increase. It could be more once all the data comes in. But the media haven’t been telling us there is a slight increase; the narrative has been that there is an antisemitic wave sweeping the US. In Berlin, there was a 16% increase in antisemitic incidents by comparison. It was also “sweeping” the UK in 2014.
> *
> *One of the key indicators of rising antisemitism during the Obama years was the number of physical assaults. From a low of 17 in 2012 they rose to 56 in 2015. The ADL noted a “dramatic rise” in assaults that year.*
> 
> So why are headlines today claiming a “pandemic” of antisemitism in the US? Abe Foxman used the word “pandemic” to describe antisemitism in the US in 2009. “This is the worst, the most intense, the most global that it’s been in most of our memories. And the effort to get the good people to stand up is not easy,” he said in a speech that year. Jonathan Greenblatt said in November of 2016 that the US was suffering extreme levels of hate. “Anti-Jewish public and political discourse in America is worse than at any point since the 1930s,” he was quoted by JTA as saying.
> 
> Looking back almost a decade puts things in perspective. Where was the media in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 to highlight thousands of incidents of antisemitism? 210 physical assaults on Jews. 3,900 threats against Jews and Jewish institutions. 2,900 incidents of vandalism. 180 incidents of antisemitism on campus. Every six days, a Jewish person in America was being attacked in 2015 and it went largely ignored. On average, there were threats every day against Jews and Jewish institutions over the last eight years and most of them did not receive headlines.
> 
> There were also incidents of vandalism every day on average. Why did 7,034 incidents of antisemitism not get major headlines for so long? Was it because of an agenda to protect the Obama administration from criticism, or due to complacency and people becoming inured to the phenomenon? The cesspool and swamp from which today’s hate crimes on Jewish cemeteries emerge is not in a vacuum and it may not be due to the toxic divisions of 2016; it may have deeper roots. That’s the elephant in the room: 7,000 incidents that were recorded — and reported by the ADL — which almost no one wants to talk about.
> 
> *Is the media misleading us through fear-mongering about antisemitism in the United States? The data seems to show that the recent wave of threats, while unique in their target and regularity, are not a massive increase from years past. Threats occurred throughout the last decades, and many went unreported. The key indicator of physical assaults has been rising in the last years. Campus antisemitism, the ADL says, peaked in 2015. The most important thing is to present the public with real data on the number of incidents. The 24-hour news cycle tends to encourage the feeling that antisemitism is leaving people under siege, with swastikas on subways and memorials, at rural synagogues and on homes.
> *
> There is also a tendency to feed a narrative that there is a major rise in hate crimes in the United States connected with the toxic election of Trump. There may be a rise in hate crimes, but many of them are not directed at Jews; many of them are directed at Muslims and other groups, such as the Georgia couple recently sentenced for threatening African-Americans.
> 
> The reality is that the American press even ignores serious antisemitism in other countries, while reporting on its expression in the US. Video footage recently emerged of a preacher at Canada’s Al Andalous Islamic Centre — Sheikh Wael Al-Ghitawi — claiming Jews were “people who slayed the prophets, shed their blood and cursed the Lord.” Another sermon in Toronto referred to the “filth of the Jews.”
> 
> Are there videos in America of anyone preaching such hatred openly without a pushback?
> 
> This raises serious questions about how we discuss and learn from antisemitism. When people sit through a sermon and don’t raise a hand in protest when a preacher says Jews should be killed, that’s a huge problem.
> 
> What about when there are clear cases of antisemitism whose perpetrators are not charged with hate crimes? In Avignon, a man tried to light firecrackers in front of a synagogue, but was cleared of antisemitism charges. He just happened to do it in front of a synagogue, not any of the dozens of churches in the town?
> 
> This is one of but many examples.
> 
> The question is: Are we only offended by certain types of antisemitism and not others?


TL;DR - Antisemitism overall has shown waves of decline and rising over the years. Physical assaults against Jews have been rising for 3 years now. People report on antisemitism at the start of a new president coming into power. Then complacency sets in. There is a deeper issue with regards to antisemitism in the States and making it about presidents is ignoring the real issues since it's clearly not related to whichever government is in power. Stats show no link between antisemitism and who's in power.



glenwo2 said:


> Well I take back what I said then. He shouldn't have to recuse himself since "technically"(and Legally) he hasn't done anything wrong. It's still a bad look, though.
> 
> Whatever.


Interesting irony here. Trump personally extended presidential protection towards Hillary. Democrats have responded by bringing up all kinds of false allegations against his cabinet. People aren't blind to what's happening here.


----------



## virus21




----------



## Headliner

Sessions just recused himself from current and future investigations.


----------



## glenwo2

^ A reasonable and WISE decision by Sessions ultimately.


----------



## birthday_massacre

glenwo2 said:


> ^ A reasonable and WISE decision by Sessions ultimately.


He should be resigning from his position. Imagine if Hillary Clinton did what he did when she was sectary of state. The GOP would be calling for her head.

Sessions needs to go.


----------



## glenwo2

virus21 said:


>


Is this the same "sexist" President that the FAR-LEFT nitwits have been crying about?


Wonder what the feminist-Far-left think now? Or will they just ignore this and continue with their "Oh! Trump is sexist" diatribe because the Truth would destroy their now-irrelevant argument? :sleep


----------



## wagnergrad96

He should be resigning for lying to congress.


----------



## deepelemblues

Really guys :trump and those Russkis are the problem when it has become obvious that the cyber and regular security of the Democratic Party and associated Clintonista and Obamanista organizations was so shitty that a 90 year old great great grandma in a wheelchair who has never touched a piece of technology more advanced than a 1980s TV remote could break into either their devices or offices with ease.


----------



## CamillePunk

As much as I like Sessions regarding immigration, he's pretty terrible when it comes to the drug war. I'm not partial to him at all, really. That said, he didn't do anything wrong so I don't think he should re-sign/be forced out. I don't think this is a scalp the left is going to get.


----------



## deepelemblues

He should focus on heroin and other opiates instead of getting distracted in a culture war skirmish about weed that is really very unimportant overall. 

I'd be A-OK with his drug warrior hero shit if he was talking about getting tough on the opiates that are killing people and ruining urban and suburban AND rural communities of all ethnicities and not about weed. Criminal organizations from the cartels and the mob down to biker gangs and street gangs are making money hand over fist distributing opiates wholesale and retail everywhere. To cities, suburbs and rural areas, everywhere is getting hit.


----------



## Reaper

If anyone should be fired or forced to resign, it's Trump's horrendously incompetent media team. But not because the did anything wrong. Because they're doing nothing positive for the President or his cabinet being completely unable to withstand the assault of the media's assassination... In fact continously giving them more ammunition.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

Sessions has officially recused himself.

This fuckery involving him is quite funny for me, considering he is among my least enthusiastic picks by Trump, with the other being Pence (though I did enjoy seeing him calmly crush Kaine). DeVos was also among them, though I'm more open to her thanks to @RipNTear giving me a heads up on her involvement in education reform and her making a stand for the transgender kids in regard to the whole bathroom ordeal.


----------



## glenwo2




----------



## yeahbaby!

What's the latest on Trump's failed muslim ban EO? When does it reach the next Court level? Or is it dead?

It seems to have left the news cycle since it turned out Sessions did nothing wrong at all.


----------



## DesolationRow

Jeff Sessions recusing himself is fine but it is rather clear that this whole issue is being manufactured by the Democrats and allies within the Deep State and their media surrogates (the _Washington Post_, which had the longest and most thorough examination of the case today, will always effectively be talking points primarily dictated by deeply ensconced figures within the CIA). Sessions was a U.S. Senator on the Armed Services Committee and met with more foreign ambassadors than Tammy Sytch has met men. In the context of Al Franken's gargantuan question, which was asked through the penumbra of Sessions meeting with or speaking to any Russian officials about the U.S. election, Sessions's answer is, as far as anyone knows, truthful. One of these "meetings" was a chance encounter at the RNC in July, which amounted to a handshake and pleasantries being exchanged for a couple of minutes. The other meeting took place under the auspices of Sessions being on the Senate's Armed Services Committee and took place the day after Sessions met, for an even longer period of time, with the ambassador from Ukraine. 

This is a tempest in a teapot and Sessions, while recusing himself, should feel just fine. 

These are humorous. :lol


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/837307103370952706

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/837365972231151617

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/837364571270705153
Again, these Democrats were just doing their job as far as anyone knows, and the same is true of Sessions. As he noted today, he did not speak with anyone from the Russian government as a "surrogate" for Donald Trump, for he was still on the Armed Services Committee and was fulfilling duties attached to that position. 

As the House Intelligence chairman admitted a few hours ago, no evidence yet exists to point to supposed improper contacts with the Russian government. It's another positive sign that Trump's Deep State enemies are so concerned that Trump is serious about at least attempting to establish a more productive relationship with Russia; soon we will be reading stories about how Mike Pence likes Russian dressing on his Reuben sandwich. And before anyone questions me, I like Russian dressing on my Reuben sandwich, too. 

Sessions's comment today that he should have been clearer is also understandable because he accepted the questioning as it was delivered, vis-a-vis the theoretical meeting with Russian officials as a Trump campaign surrogate. It's all-too-believable that Sessions forgot that he had also met with the Russian ambassador one-on-one for a little while in his office in October, just as Claire McCaskill and various Democrats have apparently forgotten their myriad meetings and phone calls with Russian ambassadors. Trying to prove that Sessions committed perjury here would be exasperatingly near-impossible for even the most skilled prosecutor. The questioning never even simply stated, "Did you have contact...?" with the Russians. He jumped in and took the metaphorical bait, saying he did not have contact; even in not addressing his meeting(s) with the Russian ambassador, he's fundamentally covered by the way by which the questioning was delivered, as per asking whether Sessions or anyone in the Trump camp had met with Russian government officials and talked to them about the U.S. election. 

Also the Deputy Attorney General is going to have a great deal on his plate once he is finally confirmed next week as all of the Russian investigation information will be briefed to him rather than Sessions, haha.



CamillePunk said:


> As much as I like Sessions regarding immigration, he's pretty terrible when it comes to the drug war. I'm not partial to him at all, really. That said, he didn't do anything wrong so I don't think he should re-sign/be forced out. I don't think this is a scalp the left is going to get.


Must disavow this comment, *Camille*. The fact is that any and all realistic U.S. Attorney General is going to be pretty bad on the drug war, at least for now, and even if they were not, that is a matter that is going to take considerable time in turning the proverbial ship of state around. The matter of illegal immigration is far too important for those supporting Trump to see Sessions join Michael Flynn as being a Trump administration official character prematurely killed off (I supported Flynn's resignation for several different reasons).

The Republicans joining the Democrats in the present hysterical pile-on on Sessions are exhibiting their true colors and showing Trump precisely where they will be the minute they find the opening. 

Furthermore, Sessions is important because as today we have discovered the possibility, as brought to the public's attention by the House Judiciary Committee, that the Barack Obama Department of Justice had established a bizarre "slush fund" by which taxpayer dollars were funneled to groups such as the National Council of La Raza, the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, the National Urban League and other such groups. The Department of Justice's culture needs to be turned around and Sessions is possibly the perfect individual for the job. 

All that has been proven thus far is that Sessions committed a partial _faux pas_. Sessions's two aides who were in his office, according to Sessions, while he met with the Russian ambassador, should also have helped him out and told him to remember about the meeting. This failure is a valid reason for Sessions to recuse himself from the case from this moment forward whichhe has now done.


----------



## MrMister

yeahbaby! said:


> What's the latest on Trump's failed muslim ban EO? When does it reach the next Court level? Or is it dead?
> 
> It seems to have left the news cycle since it turned out Sessions did nothing wrong at all.


last i heard they're going to make a new one.


----------



## CamillePunk

DesolationRow said:


> Must disavow this comment, *Camille*. The fact is that any and all realistic U.S. Attorney General is going to be pretty bad on the drug war, at least for now, and even if they were not, that is a matter that is going to take considerable time in turning the proverbial ship of state around. The matter of illegal immigration is far too important for those supporting Trump to see Sessions join Michael Flynn as being a Trump administration official character prematurely killed off (I supported Flynn's resignation for several different reasons).
> 
> The Republicans joining the Democrats in the present hysterical pile-on on Sessions are exhibiting their true colors and showing Trump precisely where they will be the minute they find the opening.
> 
> Furthermore, Sessions is important because as today we have discovered the possibility, as brought to the public's attention by the House Judiciary Committee, that the Barack Obama Department of Justice had established a bizarre "slush fund" by which taxpayer dollars were funneled to groups such as the National Council of La Raza, the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, the National Urban League and other such groups. The Department of Justice's culture needs to be turned around and Sessions is possibly the perfect individual for the job.
> 
> All that has been proven thus far is that Sessions committed a partial _faux pas_. Sessions's two aides who were in his office, according to Sessions, while he met with the Russian ambassador, should also have helped him out and told him to remember about the meeting. This failure is a valid reason for Sessions to recuse himself from the case from this moment forward whichhe has now done.


I'm not sure what you're disavowing. :lol I don't disagree with any of this and don't think what you've said here contradicts anything in my post. I don't care much for his personal politics. I don't want to see him go though, for immigration reasons and because it would be another victory for the anti-Trump forces.


----------



## DesolationRow

Your earlier post made it seem as though you were possibly underrating how crucial Sessions is in the implementation of much of Trump's domestic agenda, @CamillePunk, but your subsequent statement provides clarification, much like Jeff Sessions's statements today. :side: :lol

Were this a chess game Sessions would be Trump's "Queen." I'm sure he would like that analogy.


----------



## CamillePunk

DesolationRow said:


> Your earlier post made it seem as though you were possibly underrating how crucial Sessions is in the implementation of much of Trump's domestic agenda, @CamillePunk, but your subsequent statement provides clarification, much like Jeff Sessions's statements today. :side: :lol
> 
> Were this a chess game Sessions would be Trump's "Queen." I'm sure he would like that analogy.


Not at all, my friend. :lol Sessions is a necessary...well, I won't say evil, but he's far less than ideal on many issues. But of course, as we've both argued many times, we can't work towards an ideal society if we don't sort out our immigration issues. Classical liberalism is literally a foreign concept to the people the left want to continue importing en masse.


----------



## Reaper

DesolationRow said:


> Were this a chess game Sessions would be Trump's "Queen." I'm sure he would like that analogy.


I'm not so sure about Sessions, but I'm pretty sure we can all guess how Pence would feel :kobelol


----------



## birthday_massacre

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/02/mike-pence-private-email/98637782/

*Pence used personal email for state business — and was hacked*

INDIANAPOLIS — Vice President Mike Pence routinely used a private email account to conduct public business as governor of Indiana, at times discussing sensitive matters and homeland security issues.

Emails released to The Indianapolis Star in response to a public records request show Pence communicated via his personal AOL account with top advisers on topics ranging from security gates at the governor’s residence to the state’s response to terror attacks across the globe. In one email, Pence’s top state homeland security adviser relayed an update from the FBI regarding the arrests of several men on federal terror-related charges.

Cybersecurity experts say the emails raise concerns about whether such sensitive information was adequately protected from hackers, given that personal accounts like Pence's are typically less secure than government email accounts. In fact, Pence's personal account was hacked last summer.

Furthermore, advocates for open government expressed concerns about transparency because personal emails aren't immediately captured on state servers that are searched in response to public records requests.

Vice President Mike Pence speaks during the Republican
Vice President Mike Pence speaks during the Republican Jewish Coalition's annual leadership meeting Feb. 24, 2017, at The Venetian in Las Vegas. (Photo: Ethan Miller, Getty Images)
Pence's office in Washington said in a written statement Thursday: "Similar to previous governors, during his time as Governor of Indiana, Mike Pence maintained a state email account and a personal email account. As Governor, Mr. Pence fully complied with Indiana law regarding email use and retention. Government emails involving his state and personal accounts are being archived by the state consistent with Indiana law, and are being managed according to Indiana’s Access to Public Records Act.”

Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb's office released more than 30 pages from Pence's AOL account, but declined to release an unspecified number of emails because the state considers them confidential and too sensitive to release to the public.

That's of particular concern to Justin Cappos, a computer security professor at New York University's Tandon School of Engineering. “It’s one thing to have an AOL account and use it to send birthday cards to grandkids," he said. "But it’s another thing to use it to send and receive messages that are sensitive and could negatively impact people if that information is public.”

Indiana law does not prohibit public officials from using personal email accounts, although the law is generally interpreted to mean that official business conducted on private email must be retained for public record purposes.

► Related: Vice President Pence in Cincinnati stop: 'Obamacare nightmare' to end

► Related: Vice President Pence condemns vandalism at Jewish cemetery

Pence's office said his campaign hired outside counsel as he was departing as governor to review his AOL emails and transfer any involving public business to the state.

Concerns surrounded Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server and email account during her tenure as secretary of State, though Pence as governor would not have dealt with national security issues as sensitive or as broad as those handled by Clinton in her position or with classified matters.

Pence fiercely criticized Clinton throughout the 2016 presidential campaign, accusing her of trying to keep her emails out of public reach and exposing classified information to potential hackers.

Pence spokesman Marc Lotter called any comparisons between Pence and Clinton "absurd," noting that Pence didn't deal with federally classified information as governor. While Pence used a well-known consumer email provider, Clinton had a private server installed in her home, he said.

Cybersecurity experts say Pence’s emails were likely just as insecure as Clinton’s. While there has been speculation about whether Clinton's emails were hacked, Pence’s account was actually compromised last summer by a scammer who sent an email to his contacts claiming Pence and his wife were stranded in the Philippines and in urgent need of money.

Corey Nachreiner, chief technology officer at computer security company WatchGuard Technologies, said the email accounts of Pence and Clinton were probably about equally vulnerable to attacks.

"In this case, you know the email address has been hacked,” he said. “It would be hypocritical to consider this issue any different than a private email server.”

Mike Pence
Vice President-elect Mike Pence speaks to members of the media while meeting with House Speaker Paul Ryan of Wis., on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Nov. 30, 2016. (Photo: Andrew Harnik/AP)
He and other experts say personal accounts such as the one Pence used are typically less secure than government email accounts, which often receive additional layers of monitoring and security, and are linked to servers under government control.

Indiana law requires all records dealing with state business to be retained and available for public information requests. Emails exchanged on state accounts are captured on state servers, which can be searched in response to such requests. But any emails Pence sent from his AOL account to another private account likely would have been hidden from public record searches unless he took steps to make them available.

Indiana Public Access Counselor Luke Britt, who was appointed by Pence in 2013, said he advises state officials to copy or forward their emails involving state business to their government accounts to ensure the record is preserved on state servers.

But there is no indication that Pence took any such steps to preserve his AOL emails until he was leaving the governor's office.

When public officials fail to retain their private-account emails pertaining to public business, "they're running the risk of violating the law,” Britt said. “A good steward of those messages and best practice is going to dictate they preserve those."

All of the emails provided to IndyStar were ones captured on state servers.

► Related: Pence 'expects our allies to keep their word' on NATO costs

► Related: Pence vows to 'hold Russia accountable' while Russian FM divines a 'post-West' world order

The emails were obtained after a series of public records requests that the Pence administration did not fulfill for nearly four months before Pence left office.

The administration of Pence’s successor, Gov. Eric Holcomb, released 29 pages of emails late last week. But it withheld others, saying they are deliberative or advisory, confidential under rules adopted by the Indiana Supreme Court or the work product of an attorney.

Holcomb’s office declined to disclose how many emails were withheld.

Cyber-security experts and government transparency advocates said Pence's use of a personal email account for matters of state business — including confidential ones — is surprising given his attacks on Clinton's exclusive use of a private email server.

On NBC's Meet the Press in September, for example, Pence called Clinton "the most dishonest candidate for president of the United States since Richard Nixon."

“What’s evident from all of the revelations over the last several weeks is that Hillary Clinton operated in such a way to keep her emails, and particularly her interactions while secretary of State with the Clinton Foundation, out of the public reach, out of public accountability,” Pence said. “And with regard to classified information she either knew or should have known that she was placing classified information in a way that exposed it to being hacked and being made available in the public domain even to enemies of this country.”

► Related: With Pence gone, fellow Republicans undo his work in Indiana

► Related: Wounded warriors thrilled by Super Bowl trip with the vice president

The experts told IndyStar that similar arguments about a lack of transparency could be made about Pence’s use of a personal email account.

“There is an issue of double standard here,” Gerry Lanosga, a professor at Indiana University and past president of the Indiana Coalition for Open Government. “He has been far from forthcoming about his own private email account on which it’s clear he has conducted state business. So there is a disconnect there that cannot be avoided.”

Security concerns

As governor, Pence oversaw Indiana's state police, national guard and department of homeland security, all of which collaborate with federal authorities and handle sensitive information.

The emails provided to IndyStar show that Pence corresponded with his then-chief of staff, Jim Atterholt, and his top public safety and homeland security adviser John Hill, on subjects including Pence’s efforts to prevent the resettlement of Syrian refugees and the state’s response to a shooting at Canada’s national parliament building.

“I just received an update from the FBI regarding the individuals arrested for support of ISIS,” Hill wrote to Pence in a Jan. 8, 2016 email with the subject, “Arrests of Refugees.”

At that time, the Pence administration was embroiled in a lawsuit over the governor’s effort to block the resettlement of Syrian refugees in Indiana.

Hill went on to explain how many people were arrested, on what charges and in which cities before adding in underlined type: “Both of the earlier referenced refugees are reported now as ‘Iraqi’ — not Syrian.”

Much if not all of that information appears to have been reported in the media at the time. But questions remain about the more sensitive information contained in Pence’s AOL account that the Holcomb administration declined to release.

Experts say there have been high-profile security lapses involving AOL email accounts in the past. The company reported a major breach of its email in 2014 affecting hundreds of thousands of users. The following year, messages hackers obtained from then-CIA Director John Brennan’s personal AOL account were posted on WikiLeaks.

Pence’s own account was compromised in June when a hacker sent a counterfeit email to his contacts claiming Pence he and his wife had been attacked on their way back to their hotel in the Philippines, losing their money, bank cards and mobile phone.

In response, Pence sent an email to those who had received the fake communication apologizing for any inconvenience. He also set up a new AOL account.

Because the hacker appears to have gained access to Pence’s contacts, experts say it is likely that the account was actually penetrated, giving the hacker access to Pence’s inbox and sent messages.

The nature of that hack suggests it was part of a broad, impersonal attack — not one carefully crafted to target Pence in particular, Cappos said.

“It’s particularly concerning that someone who didn’t do a very particular, very specific attack was able to hack this account,” he said.

That's especially true given that at least some of the emails Pence sent or received have been deemed confidential or exempt from public disclosure..

“The fact that these emails are stored in a private AOL account is crazy to me,” Cappos said, “This account was used to handle these messages that are so sensitive they can’t be turned over in a records request.”

As governor, Pence was less likely than the U.S. secretary of State to encounter national security secrets, said Adam Segal, director of the digital and cyberspace policy program at the Council on Foreign Relations.

But much of the rationale behind the criticism of Clinton's emails would apply to Pence, too, he said.

“A large part of the criticism of (Hillary Clinton’s) personal server by the GOP — that it was unsafe or that it was to circumvent oversight — would be misplaced if Pence was using an AOL account,” he said. “The secretary of State would be in possession of secrets that had more of a national impact, but at a lower level, a private email account has the same implications.”

Transparency issues

In addition to security issues, Pence's personal email account also raises new concerns about transparency, according to ethics experts and government accountability advocates.

Pence is already fighting in state court to conceal the contents of emails involving his decision to join a 2014 lawsuit challenging then-President Barack Obama's executive order on immigration. The emails are being sought by William Groth, a Democrat and labor lawyer who says he wants to expose waste in the Republican administration.

Richard Painter, former chief ethics lawyer to President George W. Bush, said it's bothersome that Pence is only now transferring his AOL emails to the state. It raises questions about whether those emails were included in previous responses to public records requests. "That’s a problem that should have been dealt with back then," he said. "The existence of the private email account should have been dealt with at the time the record requests were made."

The use of personal email accounts by public officials — including governors — is nothing new. But the increased risk that hackers, including foreign actors, could break into the account of someone as high-ranking as the vice president of the United States is disconcerting, Painter said.

"Clinton did it. The Bush White House was doing it. It’s nothing new. But it’s a bad idea," he said, noting that Pence's account was vulnerable to a low-level hacker. "If they can get in there, ex-KGB agents can get in there. It’s a bad idea because of the hacking thing and the potential destruction of records."

Lanosga of the Indiana Coalition for Open Government said it's a problem that seems to cross party lines.

"Officials are eager to point the finger at a lack of transparency when it happens on the other side," he said, "but they dodge those issues when it comes to their own side."

Contributing: Maureen Groppe, USA TODAY. Follow Tony Cook on Twitter: @Indystartony


----------



## birthday_massacre

Lock him up right Trump supporters? Pence needs to be impeached and put in jail.


----------



## Miss Sally

birthday_massacre said:


> Lock him up right Trump supporters? Pence needs to be impeached and put in jail.


Getting rid of Pence isn't a bad idea. Bring in Rand Paul.


----------



## deepelemblues

Mike pence, political prisoner sounds like a really wacky ifc show. The lead in would of course be portlandia.


----------



## CamillePunk

birthday_massacre said:


> Lock him up right Trump supporters? Pence needs to be impeached and put in jail.


I don't like anything about Mike Pence, but why would he be impeached or imprisoned based on what we know so far?



> Indiana law does not prohibit public officials from using personal email accounts, although the law is generally interpreted to mean that official business conducted on private email must be retained for public record purposes.


It's not against the law to do this in Indiana if the e-mails pertaining to the state are retained.



> Pence's office said his campaign hired outside counsel as he was departing as governor to review his AOL emails and transfer any involving public business to the state.


Pence says all e-mails involving public business were given to the state.



> Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb's office released more than 30 pages from Pence's AOL account, but declined to release an unspecified number of emails because the state considers them confidential and too sensitive to release to the public.


The state has the e-mails. 

So, again, what's the problem?


----------



## Reaper

So that's the fake news cycle for the next few days. :lmao


----------



## glenwo2

birthday_massacre said:


> Lock him up right Trump supporters? Pence needs to be impeached and put in jail.


Look, I'm not a big Pence fan myself.

I'm curious, though, as to who you believe would be a better VP for Trump? 

Not being condescending, I'm just curious.


----------



## glenwo2

yeahbaby! said:


> What's the latest on Trump's failed muslim ban EO? When does it reach the next Court level? Or is it dead?
> 
> It seems to have left the news cycle since it turned out Sessions did nothing wrong at all.


A new one will be made from what everyone hears. Trump hasn't given up on that. Sorry. :grin2:


----------



## Reaper

https://heatst.com/culture-wars/kellyanne-conway-subjected-to-vile-sexist-comments/?mod=sm_tw_post



> *Kellyanne Conway Subjected to Vile, Sexist Comments by Dem. Rep., Hollywood Star Over Couch Pic*
> 
> After a photo of Kellyanne Conway awkwardly kneeling on an Oval Office couch was released, some Democrats alleged that her positioning was disrespectful to the office’s history and somehow offensive to the African-Americans in the room.
> 
> Now, some Democrats think they have a free pass to engage in the sexist mockery they lecture Republicans about. The latest culprits? Democratic Rep. Cedric Richmond and noted marijuana enthusiast and former associate director in the White House Office of Public Engagement, Kal Penn.
> 
> So much for being the Party of Tolerance and Inclusion.
> 
> The Louisiana congressman commented on the photo at the Washington Press Club Foundation congressional dinner, saying “she really looked kind of familiar there in that [kneeling] position there.”
> 
> Richmond’s office released a statement after some sharp reaction to his comments, saying that the joke was not about fellatio, but that “‘familiar’ simply means they are behaving too comfortably.” Presumably, the implication here is that one of the most powerful women in the White House shouldn’t act too relaxed in her boss’s office.
> 
> In case innuendo about fellatio wasn’t demeaning enough, Penn tweeted a photo of himself mocking Conway’s appearance and looking mentally disabled. The Huffington Post declared the photo an “example of expert trolling.”
> 
> When initially asked about her position on the couch, Conway said “I, of course, meant no disrespect, I was being asked to take a picture in a crowded room with the press behind us. I was asked to take a certain angle and was doing exactly that.”


That's why I said that Trump needs to fire his completely incompetent shit-as-fuck Press Team and start filling it up with youngsters that are revolutionizing the right. 

His idiot staff is literally taking this bullshit up its ass with no counter punching at all other than the "fake news" melodrama which is doing their brand even more damage.

I don't like the overly toned down approach of this administration at this point. It's bordering on cowardice :draper2


----------



## Miss Sally

RipNTear said:


> https://heatst.com/culture-wars/kellyanne-conway-subjected-to-vile-sexist-comments/?mod=sm_tw_post
> 
> 
> 
> That's why I said that Trump needs to fire his completely incompetent shit-as-fuck Press Team and start filling it up with youngsters that are revolutionizing the right.
> 
> His idiot staff is literally taking this bullshit up its ass with no counter punching at all other than the "fake news" melodrama which is doing their brand even more damage.
> 
> I don't like the overly toned down approach of this administration at this point. It's bordering on cowardice :draper2


Agreed, it would make a huge difference. There are a lot of Trump supporting youngsters that could do a much better job than Press Team now.


----------



## BruiserKC

At the end of the day, I think let's just get the investigation over with if that's what everyone wants. Whoever did wrong should be held accountable for their actions. However, let's make sure we're doing this for the right reasons and not turn this into a complete political witchhunt. Everybody on Capitol Hill is turning this into a pissing contest, which is not surprising because this is what they do. 

Part of me gets this feeling that people are acting like this in the hopes that Trump starts tweeting again on the whole thing. Then, if he responds, people can once again say, "He's the same person! That speech was just more theater, he's never going to change!" If he doesn't respond, then he risks the anger of the voters who want him to tweet and retaliate. 



RipNTear said:


> And that's why you need Trump to stay in power because he's literally our first pro-gay/LGBT president going into presidency. Obama was pro-DOMA when he was elected and then changed his mind. Trump went in pro-gay marriage.
> 
> Democrats will shoot themselves in the foot trying to oust Trump quite literally.


Funny you should mention this, Reaper...

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/03/01/texas-court-hears-case-to-limit-gay-marriage-legalization.html

Shortly after the election, I mentioned here that elections are about leverage. Trump ran this campaign to be obligated to as few special interest groups as possible. However, one group that feels he is beholden to them to an extent are the religious right/social conservatives. Trump has been wanting to keep his promises, so he is doing his best to give those who backed him what they want right off the bat. He has offered them the chance to overturn Roe v. Wade if it gets to the SCOTUS with a conservative SC justice (possibly another one down the road if another retirement or death opens up another spot within the next year or so). For them, that's not enough. They want more. 

To them, many of the ills in this country are those of what they perceive as lack of morals. To them, homosexuality is wrong, period. They are divided in the camps of those who think that they are mentally ill or that they are clearly making the choice to be gay. This is the thoughts of our current Vice President. It was while he was governor of Indiana that he signed a religious liberty law that created a lot of scrutiny. Eventually, he gutted the law in a way that made First Amendment advocates wince but he is considered by many a solid social conservative. While they were happy that the transgender bathroom issue was to be left up to the states, they were disappointed that he wouldn't do away with the protections of LGBTQ employees within the federal government. To them, much like Trump believes Roe vs. Wade is an error by the SCOTUS, they think Obergfell vs. Hodges is something the Supreme Court got wrong. To them, marriage is between a man and a woman...no questions asked. To them, this is a chance to strike while the iron is hot and with a conservative-leaning SCOTUS for at least the forseeable future and bring the country back to what is perceived to them as a moral base. 

By going after this and doing away with same-sex marriage (they are using the argument in the Texas case that it's a states-right issue and not something the feds need to worry about), they are hoping Trump will simply allow this to play out in the courts and focus on the more pressing issues. If Trump was to step in and attempt to side with those that are in favor of same-sex marriage, they would advise him, "You wouldn't be president without us. This is what's best for the country, so you do the heavy lifting as far as the economy and immigration issues and leave the social issues to us. If you want to get in our way, we can always sit out the next election. Ask McCain and Romney how that worked for them when we sat it out in '08 and '12." 

Personally, I don't care who gets married. However, there are many that do and are hell-bent on taking that hill. The culture war was on hiatus over the last couple of years...it's back and the social conservatives/religious right is prepared to take it to the next level.


----------



## Reaper

I have been worried the last few days. You're absolutely right that Trump will create a lot of enemies on the Gay issue even though people who voted were told he would protect gays. 

I actually fear that Trump may be heading towards a fatality given that he seems to have very strong enemies on both sides at this point.


----------



## glenwo2

^ This could be his achilles heel in the end and might give a solid opportunity for a Democratic Candidate to steal the Presidency in 4 years. 

(of course, I don't foresee this happening but life is strange sometimes)


----------



## yeahbaby!

glenwo2 said:


> A new one will be made from what everyone hears. Trump hasn't given up on that. Sorry. :grin2:


Oh I'm not worried about it, nor did I think it would go away. That failed EO could've been about red TRUMP lollipops and Trump wouldn't have let it go because his giant ego wouldn't allow it.

I was just interested in the process - it can't go any further in court so it needs to be 'Re-Trumped' it seems? Perhaps we'll get a new and improved one by the end of Q2.


----------



## FITZ

birthday_massacre said:


> http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/02/mike-pence-private-email/98637782/
> 
> *Pence used personal email for state business — and was hacked*
> 
> INDIANAPOLIS — Vice President Mike Pence routinely used a private email account to conduct public business as governor of Indiana, at times discussing sensitive matters and homeland security issues.
> 
> Emails released to The Indianapolis Star in response to a public records request show Pence communicated via his personal AOL account with top advisers on topics ranging from security gates at the governor’s residence to the state’s response to terror attacks across the globe. In one email, Pence’s top state homeland security adviser relayed an update from the FBI regarding the arrests of several men on federal terror-related charges.
> 
> Cybersecurity experts say the emails raise concerns about whether such sensitive information was adequately protected from hackers, given that personal accounts like Pence's are typically less secure than government email accounts. In fact, Pence's personal account was hacked last summer.
> 
> Furthermore, advocates for open government expressed concerns about transparency because personal emails aren't immediately captured on state servers that are searched in response to public records requests.
> 
> Vice President Mike Pence speaks during the Republican
> Vice President Mike Pence speaks during the Republican Jewish Coalition's annual leadership meeting Feb. 24, 2017, at The Venetian in Las Vegas. (Photo: Ethan Miller, Getty Images)
> Pence's office in Washington said in a written statement Thursday: "Similar to previous governors, during his time as Governor of Indiana, Mike Pence maintained a state email account and a personal email account. *As Governor, Mr. Pence fully complied with Indiana law regarding email use and retention. Government emails involving his state and personal accounts are being archived by the state consistent with Indiana law, and are being managed according to Indiana’s Access to Public Records Act.”*
> 
> Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb's office released more than 30 pages from Pence's AOL account, but declined to release an unspecified number of emails because the state considers them confidential and too sensitive to release to the public.
> 
> That's of particular concern to Justin Cappos, a computer security professor at New York University's Tandon School of Engineering. “It’s one thing to have an AOL account and use it to send birthday cards to grandkids," he said. "But it’s another thing to use it to send and receive messages that are sensitive and could negatively impact people if that information is public.”
> 
> Indiana law does not prohibit public officials from using personal email accounts, although the law is generally interpreted to mean that official business conducted on private email must be retained for public record purposes.
> 
> ► Related: Vice President Pence in Cincinnati stop: 'Obamacare nightmare' to end
> 
> ► Related: Vice President Pence condemns vandalism at Jewish cemetery
> 
> Pence's office said his campaign hired outside counsel as he was departing as governor to review his AOL emails and transfer any involving public business to the state.
> 
> Concerns surrounded Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server and email account during her tenure as secretary of State, though Pence as governor would not have dealt with national security issues as sensitive or as broad as those handled by Clinton in her position or with classified matters.
> 
> Pence fiercely criticized Clinton throughout the 2016 presidential campaign, accusing her of trying to keep her emails out of public reach and exposing classified information to potential hackers.
> 
> Pence spokesman Marc Lotter called any comparisons between Pence and Clinton "absurd," noting that Pence didn't deal with federally classified information as governor. While Pence used a well-known consumer email provider, Clinton had a private server installed in her home, he said.
> 
> Cybersecurity experts say Pence’s emails were likely just as insecure as Clinton’s. While there has been speculation about whether Clinton's emails were hacked, Pence’s account was actually compromised last summer by a scammer who sent an email to his contacts claiming Pence and his wife were stranded in the Philippines and in urgent need of money.
> 
> Corey Nachreiner, chief technology officer at computer security company WatchGuard Technologies, said the email accounts of Pence and Clinton were probably about equally vulnerable to attacks.
> 
> "In this case, you know the email address has been hacked,” he said. “It would be hypocritical to consider this issue any different than a private email server.”
> 
> Mike Pence
> Vice President-elect Mike Pence speaks to members of the media while meeting with House Speaker Paul Ryan of Wis., on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Nov. 30, 2016. (Photo: Andrew Harnik/AP)
> He and other experts say personal accounts such as the one Pence used are typically less secure than government email accounts, which often receive additional layers of monitoring and security, and are linked to servers under government control.
> 
> Indiana law requires all records dealing with state business to be retained and available for public information requests. Emails exchanged on state accounts are captured on state servers, which can be searched in response to such requests. But any emails Pence sent from his AOL account to another private account likely would have been hidden from public record searches unless he took steps to make them available.
> 
> Indiana Public Access Counselor Luke Britt, who was appointed by Pence in 2013, said he advises state officials to copy or forward their emails involving state business to their government accounts to ensure the record is preserved on state servers.
> 
> But there is no indication that Pence took any such steps to preserve his AOL emails until he was leaving the governor's office.
> 
> When public officials fail to retain their private-account emails pertaining to public business, "they're running the risk of violating the law,” Britt said. “A good steward of those messages and best practice is going to dictate they preserve those."
> 
> All of the emails provided to IndyStar were ones captured on state servers.
> 
> ► Related: Pence 'expects our allies to keep their word' on NATO costs
> 
> ► Related: Pence vows to 'hold Russia accountable' while Russian FM divines a 'post-West' world order
> 
> The emails were obtained after a series of public records requests that the Pence administration did not fulfill for nearly four months before Pence left office.
> 
> The administration of Pence’s successor, Gov. Eric Holcomb, released 29 pages of emails late last week. But it withheld others, saying they are deliberative or advisory, confidential under rules adopted by the Indiana Supreme Court or the work product of an attorney.
> 
> Holcomb’s office declined to disclose how many emails were withheld.
> 
> Cyber-security experts and government transparency advocates said Pence's use of a personal email account for matters of state business — including confidential ones — is surprising given his attacks on Clinton's exclusive use of a private email server.
> 
> On NBC's Meet the Press in September, for example, Pence called Clinton "the most dishonest candidate for president of the United States since Richard Nixon."
> 
> “What’s evident from all of the revelations over the last several weeks is that Hillary Clinton operated in such a way to keep her emails, and particularly her interactions while secretary of State with the Clinton Foundation, out of the public reach, out of public accountability,” Pence said. “And with regard to classified information she either knew or should have known that she was placing classified information in a way that exposed it to being hacked and being made available in the public domain even to enemies of this country.”
> 
> ► Related: With Pence gone, fellow Republicans undo his work in Indiana
> 
> ► Related: Wounded warriors thrilled by Super Bowl trip with the vice president
> 
> The experts told IndyStar that similar arguments about a lack of transparency could be made about Pence’s use of a personal email account.
> 
> “There is an issue of double standard here,” Gerry Lanosga, a professor at Indiana University and past president of the Indiana Coalition for Open Government. “He has been far from forthcoming about his own private email account on which it’s clear he has conducted state business. So there is a disconnect there that cannot be avoided.”
> 
> Security concerns
> 
> As governor, Pence oversaw Indiana's state police, national guard and department of homeland security, all of which collaborate with federal authorities and handle sensitive information.
> 
> The emails provided to IndyStar show that Pence corresponded with his then-chief of staff, Jim Atterholt, and his top public safety and homeland security adviser John Hill, on subjects including Pence’s efforts to prevent the resettlement of Syrian refugees and the state’s response to a shooting at Canada’s national parliament building.
> 
> “I just received an update from the FBI regarding the individuals arrested for support of ISIS,” Hill wrote to Pence in a Jan. 8, 2016 email with the subject, “Arrests of Refugees.”
> 
> At that time, the Pence administration was embroiled in a lawsuit over the governor’s effort to block the resettlement of Syrian refugees in Indiana.
> 
> Hill went on to explain how many people were arrested, on what charges and in which cities before adding in underlined type: “Both of the earlier referenced refugees are reported now as ‘Iraqi’ — not Syrian.”
> 
> Much if not all of that information appears to have been reported in the media at the time. But questions remain about the more sensitive information contained in Pence’s AOL account that the Holcomb administration declined to release.
> 
> Experts say there have been high-profile security lapses involving AOL email accounts in the past. The company reported a major breach of its email in 2014 affecting hundreds of thousands of users. The following year, messages hackers obtained from then-CIA Director John Brennan’s personal AOL account were posted on WikiLeaks.
> 
> Pence’s own account was compromised in June when a hacker sent a counterfeit email to his contacts claiming Pence he and his wife had been attacked on their way back to their hotel in the Philippines, losing their money, bank cards and mobile phone.
> 
> In response, Pence sent an email to those who had received the fake communication apologizing for any inconvenience. He also set up a new AOL account.
> 
> Because the hacker appears to have gained access to Pence’s contacts, experts say it is likely that the account was actually penetrated, giving the hacker access to Pence’s inbox and sent messages.
> 
> The nature of that hack suggests it was part of a broad, impersonal attack — not one carefully crafted to target Pence in particular, Cappos said.
> 
> “It’s particularly concerning that someone who didn’t do a very particular, very specific attack was able to hack this account,” he said.
> 
> That's especially true given that at least some of the emails Pence sent or received have been deemed confidential or exempt from public disclosure..
> 
> “The fact that these emails are stored in a private AOL account is crazy to me,” Cappos said, “This account was used to handle these messages that are so sensitive they can’t be turned over in a records request.”
> 
> As governor, Pence was less likely than the U.S. secretary of State to encounter national security secrets, said Adam Segal, director of the digital and cyberspace policy program at the Council on Foreign Relations.
> 
> But much of the rationale behind the criticism of Clinton's emails would apply to Pence, too, he said.
> 
> “A large part of the criticism of (Hillary Clinton’s) personal server by the GOP — that it was unsafe or that it was to circumvent oversight — would be misplaced if Pence was using an AOL account,” he said. “The secretary of State would be in possession of secrets that had more of a national impact, but at a lower level, a private email account has the same implications.”
> 
> Transparency issues
> 
> In addition to security issues, Pence's personal email account also raises new concerns about transparency, according to ethics experts and government accountability advocates.
> 
> Pence is already fighting in state court to conceal the contents of emails involving his decision to join a 2014 lawsuit challenging then-President Barack Obama's executive order on immigration. The emails are being sought by William Groth, a Democrat and labor lawyer who says he wants to expose waste in the Republican administration.
> 
> Richard Painter, former chief ethics lawyer to President George W. Bush, said it's bothersome that Pence is only now transferring his AOL emails to the state. It raises questions about whether those emails were included in previous responses to public records requests. "That’s a problem that should have been dealt with back then," he said. "The existence of the private email account should have been dealt with at the time the record requests were made."
> 
> The use of personal email accounts by public officials — including governors — is nothing new. But the increased risk that hackers, including foreign actors, could break into the account of someone as high-ranking as the vice president of the United States is disconcerting, Painter said.
> 
> "Clinton did it. The Bush White House was doing it. It’s nothing new. But it’s a bad idea," he said, noting that Pence's account was vulnerable to a low-level hacker. "If they can get in there, ex-KGB agents can get in there. It’s a bad idea because of the hacking thing and the potential destruction of records."
> 
> Lanosga of the Indiana Coalition for Open Government said it's a problem that seems to cross party lines.
> 
> "Officials are eager to point the finger at a lack of transparency when it happens on the other side," he said, "but they dodge those issues when it comes to their own side."
> 
> Contributing: Maureen Groppe, USA TODAY. Follow Tony Cook on Twitter: @Indystartony


This is a very long article. I made bold the part that I thought was important.


----------



## yeahbaby!

What's the difference between Pence personal email gate and Hillary personal email gate? Are they comparable at all?


----------



## Reaper

FITZ said:


> This is a very long article. I made bold the part that I thought was important.


BM just read the headline. He doesn't have the attention span to read an article of that length. Neither does yeahbaby.


----------



## BruiserKC

RipNTear said:


> I have been worried the last few days. You're absolutely right that Trump will create a lot of enemies on the Gay issue even though people who voted were told he would protect gays.
> 
> I actually fear that Trump may be heading towards a fatality given that he seems to have very strong enemies on both sides at this point.


Trump doesn't care in reality, he has no problem with it and he's got bigger fish to fry right now. However, his VP does, as well as many of the religious right that voted for him. Pence is willing to take care of other things right now, but make no mistake the social conservatives see a chance for Trump to at the least stay out of the way and allow them to take care of the culture war. 

There is a substantial number of folks in the LGBTQ community who is scared that Trump is going to take away those rights. Their concern has massive validity, but it's somewhat misplaced as it's those around Trump that are the real threat.


----------



## Vic Capri

Mentally ill Rosie O'Donnell promotes Mark Dice's video making fun of her. You can't make this stuff up! :lol




> Hopefully Sessions is gone...


My only gripe with him is his war on weed. He's not doing President Trump any favors with that dumb move.

- Vic


----------



## Reaper

BruiserKC said:


> There is a substantial number of folks in the LGBTQ community who is scared that Trump is going to take away those rights. Their concern has massive validity, but it's somewhat misplaced as it's those around Trump that are the real threat.


On top of that, the establishment republicans are not in there advocating for the rights of the people, or to willingly work with the current government either. On the slightest slip up, they'll gut Trump and/or any member of his team as we already saw with Flynn. So we could potentially be looking at 4 years of extreme in-fighting. 

It's not just the democrats that are dragging their feet on confirming Trump's cabinet and it's not just the democrats that are sabotaging the so-called "new" right. It was conservatives that took down Milo (and it's not a coincidence that he's gay) and it's republicans that are taking extensive time off during the new government's first month (as Tucker pointed out the other day) and delaying proceedings. The guy (I don't remember who) upon being challenged by Tucker to speed up things and do the work simply had no response whatsoever. There are deep divisions within the party still and the opposition against Trump has only just begun. The Democrats are doing it openly while certain Republicans are more snake-like under the radar.






There is no rational explanation given for why Congress is dragging its fucking feet.


----------



## virus21

yeahbaby! said:


> What's the difference between Pence personal email gate and Hillary personal email gate? Are they comparable at all?


Not really since Pence's were handed over to the state while Hillary deleted her's/


----------



## Stinger Fan

RipNTear said:


> On top of that, the establishment republicans are not in there advocating for the rights of the people, or to willingly work with the current government either. On the slightest slip up, they'll gut Trump and/or any member of his team as we already saw with Flynn. So we could potentially be looking at 4 years of extreme in-fighting.
> 
> It's not just the democrats that are dragging their feet on confirming Trump's cabinet and it's not just the democrats that are sabotaging the so-called "new" right. It was conservatives that took down Milo (and it's not a coincidence that he's gay) and it's republicans that are taking extensive time off during the new government's first month (as Tucker pointed out the other day) and delaying proceedings. The guy (I don't remember who) upon being challenged by Tucker to speed up things and do the work simply had no response whatsoever. There are deep divisions within the party still and the opposition against Trump has only just begun. The Democrats are doing it openly while certain Republicans are more snake-like under the radar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no rational explanation given for why Congress is dragging its fucking feet.


I it seems like their dragging their feet to make the Trump presidency look as incompetent and reckless as possible. It seems like everyone wants to make the next 4 years as long and as grueling as they possibly can lol


----------



## Miss Sally

I don't mind Sessions but the war on weed is stupid. 

If you're going to let States decide on Bathroom laws then you should let states pick and choose about weed. 

Besides prohibition never worked, some of those rich politicians who made their family fortune off bootlegging should know it didn't stop people from buying booze.


----------



## rennlc

Stinger Fan said:


> I it seems like their dragging their feet to make the Trump presidency look as incompetent and reckless as possible. It seems like everyone wants to make the next 4 years as long and as grueling as they possibly can lol


This is fascinating because if so, the effect this has will vary wildly depending on who people blame. On one hand, when government fails, we tend to blame the President even when the President is being sabotaged by the other branches of government, like with Obama. On the other, when the national government appears dysfunctional, we tend to support the Republican party more because they're the party associated with diminishing the power of the national government. When the national government has done little lately, we'll more willing to be against it.

If our government fails to accomplish much under Trump, what will we do? Will we support him because he's the guy who was saying the national government was corrupt and ineffective? The other branches are kind of proving some of his points right now. Or will we blame Trump because he's the guy we elected to do something about this and he's failing because he's uncompromising to the point that he can't get enough people to work with him?

I don't know what we'll do. I've stopped presuming to know what the American people will do after so many of us voted for Trump to begin with. Overall, we're not exactly a sane group of people.


----------



## Stinger Fan

Miss Sally said:


> I don't mind Sessions but the war on weed is stupid.
> 
> If you're going to let States decide on Bathrooms laws then you should let states pick and choose about weed.
> 
> Besides prohibition never worked, some of those rich politicians who made their family fortune off bootlegging should know it didn't stop people from buying booze.


I'm neither pro or against, but it seems pointless to fight against it. It's not goign to open doors for other drugs to be legalized because I don't see people protesting in favor of coke or heroin legalization lol


----------



## amhlilhaus

virus21 said:


> Not really since Pence's were handed over to the state while Hillary deleted her's/


And hillarys would show that 

Before donations=no meetings

After donations=unrestricted access including a night on the town with bill for donations in excess of 10 million (id pay for this btw)


----------



## glenwo2

Going to go out on a limb here and say that Trump will serve a 2nd term despite the DemoCRAP's efforts.


----------



## deepelemblues

The FBI has arrested a suspect in the Jewish community center bomb threats.

He's a black Bernie Sanders voter leftoid journalist who briefly worked for The Intercept and Raw Story named Juan Thompson. He was fired by Raw Story for making up sources and stories. According to the FBI he made the bomb threats to try to frame his white ex-girlfriend. Who he really does not like anymore apparently.

Legit Boss seemed very interested in the identity of the perpetrator or perpetrators I'm sure he's thrilled to know this miscreant has been arrested.


----------



## Reaper

deepelemblues said:


> The FBI has arrested a suspect in the Jewish community center bomb threats.


Dude is just a very angry human being overall. But he's not a Bernie Supporter. He's more of the typical raging anarchist "hate everything" type.

http://heavy.com/news/2017/03/juan-...mmunity-center-racist-communist-bomb-threats/


----------



## virus21




----------



## Stinger Fan

So pretty much everyone has ties with Russia am I correct? lol


----------



## virus21

Stinger Fan said:


> So pretty much everyone has ties with Russia am I correct? lol


Yep, even the people who are demonizing people for having ties with Russia...have ties with Russia


----------



## Stinger Fan

virus21 said:


> Yep, even the people who are demonizing people for having ties with Russia...have ties with Russia


it just goes to show that people want to complain. My favorite character in all this is Chuck Schumer , he seems to contradict himself every time he talks


----------



## virus21

Stinger Fan said:


> it just goes to show that people want to complain. My favorite character in all this is Chuck Schumer , he seems to contradict himself every time he talks


Speaking of Schumer



> A snowshoe racer from India whose entry into the U.S. to compete was made possible by Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer was being held Friday in a New York jail on a sex charge.
> 
> The U.S. embassy in New Delhi last month rejected Tanveer Hussain’s application for a visa so he could compete in the World Snowshoe Championship in upstate. Local officials then intervened on Hussain’s behalf, appealing for help to the offices of Schumer and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y. Their offices reached out to the New Delhi embassy, which allowed Hussain to reapply for a visa and granted that visa.
> 
> “Obviously, this is a troubling matter for him — these are troubling accusations,” Brian Barrett, Hussain’s lawyer, told Fox News over the phone. “He is in good spirits and he looks forward to fighting these charges.”
> 
> Saranac Lake Police Chief Charles Potthast told Fox News that the charges, one of first-degree sexual abuse, a felony, and another of endangering the welfare of a child, a misdemeanor, stem from Hussain “engaging in a passionate kiss” with a 12-year-old girl, and accusations of the athlete touching her over her clothing in an “intimate area.”
> 
> Barrett, who has entered a not guilty plea for his client, said the girl “had been following him around all week. But that’s really all I can say on that.”
> 
> snowshoeExpand / Contract
> The arrest made headlines in upstate New York. (Adirondack Daily Enterprise)
> Hussain was arrested Wednesday after Saranac Lake Village police received a report of the alleged incident, which was reported to have happened on Monday.
> 
> The village’s police chief said that coming into contact with the athletes at the championship would not be difficult, as spectators moved from different venues to watch the games, so the word “following” did not apply. He did confirm, however, that the underage girl and Hussain had been in contact via text message.
> 
> Hussain, who was being held Friday on a $5,000 cash bail or $10,000 bond, has a preliminary hearing Tuesday at St. Armand Town Court in St. Armand, New York.
> 
> Schumer’s office told Fox News he often intervenes to facilitate international competition.
> 
> “As we often do when local communities ask for help, at the request of Saranac Lake we helped to navigate the visa process so these athletes could compete at a local competition. The charges against one member of the group, who is accused of a serious crime and abusing our visa program, are extremely troubling. If he’s found guilty, he should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.”
> 
> Gillibrand’s office had a similar response, adding that the charges are “extremely serious.”
> 
> Barrett told Fox News that he is under the impression that Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., was involved in helping speed the process as well. “Our office simply inquired with the embassy as to why his visa was originally denied,” a spokesman for Stefanik told Fox News.
> 
> “We were told it was because he could not prove substantial ties to his country and we took no further action,” the Stefanik spokesman said.


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/03/03/athlete-whom-senators-helped-enter-us-to-compete-now-in-sex-abuse-case.html


----------



## Goku

i have a cousin who married a russian.

what does it mean :CENA


----------



## CamillePunk

RipNTear said:


> I have been worried the last few days. You're absolutely right that Trump will create a lot of enemies on the Gay issue even though people who voted were told he would protect gays.
> 
> I actually fear that Trump may be heading towards a fatality given that he seems to have very strong enemies on both sides at this point.





glenwo2 said:


> ^ This could be his achilles heel in the end and might give a solid opportunity for a Democratic Candidate to steal the Presidency in 4 years.
> 
> (of course, I don't foresee this happening but life is strange sometimes)


I'll put my money on Trump coming out on top as usual. 



Miss Sally said:


> I don't mind Sessions but the war on weed is stupid.
> 
> If you're going to let States decide on Bathroom laws then you should let states pick and choose about weed.
> 
> Besides prohibition never worked, some of those rich politicians who made their family fortune off bootlegging should know it didn't stop people from buying booze.


There's some good news on this front, as I was just coming here to post:

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/jeff-sessions-marijuana-crackdown-senators-react-235616



> Sessions reassures senators: No pot crackdown imminent
> 
> Worries about a shift in federal enforcement in states that have legalized recreational use may be overblown.
> 
> The Trump administration is causing serious paranoia among marijuana advocates with its hints of a federal crackdown on recreational use. But Attorney General Jeff Sessions has privately reassured some Republican senators that he won't deviate from an Obama-era policy of allowing states to implement their own marijuana laws.
> 
> Sessions has rattled both libertarians and liberals in ordering a review of the hands-off pot policy under President Barack Obama. But Sessions provided some private assurances to senators before he was confirmed that he was not considering a major shift in enforcement, despite his opposition to the use of marijuana.
> 
> *“He told me he would have some respect for states' right on these things. And so I’ll be very unhappy if the federal government decides to go into Colorado and Washington and all of these places. And that’s not the [what] my interpretation of my conversation with him was. That this wasn’t his intention," said Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.). in an interview.*
> 
> And since he was confirmed, Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) said administration officials have left him with the impression there is no big policy change coming.
> 
> "Nothing at this point has changed," Gardner said.


Pretty much my only concern with Sessions at this point is he would pursue marijuana prohibition and interfere with state drug laws. Hopefully Senator Paul is correct in his read of Sessions' intentions.


----------



## birthday_massacre

glenwo2 said:


> Going to go out on a limb here and say that Trump will serve a 2nd term despite the DemoCRAP's efforts.


Trump will be lucky to last 4 years without getting impeached.


----------



## Miss Sally

Good news Punk!

Also have they found out who was doing all that anti-semitic stuff yet?


----------



## Mra22

birthday_massacre said:


> Trump will be lucky to last 4 years without getting impeached.


Why would Trump get impeached? Just stop


----------



## glenwo2

^ BM is just doing an accurate representation of every SJW out there in youtube. He means no harm. :lol


----------



## HandsomeRTruth

If Trump is impeached I think it would come with a push not from Democrats but Republicans who ideologically are in line with Pence and come from the Socially Conservative Wing of the party.


----------



## CamillePunk

Okay I like Mike Pence a bit more after reading some of his leaked e-mails. :lol

https://www.wired.com/2017/03/mike-pence-leaked-aol-emails/


----------



## yeahbaby!

virus21 said:


>


How anyone believes a word out of this annoying man's mouth is beyond me. He's as biased and jaded as any leftie MSM reporter that gets poo-pooed by the righties, yet somehow this clown gets a pass.

Why anyone serious would promote this guy who comes at us through 'Trump proven right yet again' Infowars - which it cannot be argued have their lips firmly planted on Trump's cheesey dick.

I know we've all been through this before with this idiot but it bears repeating. If we want to hold the MSM to higher standards then let's ignore clowns like this too IMO.


----------



## CamillePunk

yeahbaby! said:


> How anyone believes a word out of this annoying man's mouth is beyond me. He's as biased and jaded as any leftie MSM reporter that gets poo-pooed by the righties, yet somehow this clown gets a pass.
> 
> Why anyone serious would promote this guy who comes at us through 'Trump proven right yet again' Infowars - which it cannot be argued have their lips firmly planted on Trump's cheesey dick.
> 
> I know we've all been through this before with this idiot but it bears repeating. If we want to hold the MSM to higher standards then let's ignore clowns like this too IMO.


not an argument


----------



## Goku

'not an argument' is not an argument either tbf


----------



## Miss Sally

HandsomeRTruth said:


> If Trump is impeached I think it would come with a push not from Democrats but Republicans who ideologically are in line with Pence and come from the Socially Conservative Wing of the party.


This seems more likely as the Democrats like Schumer are pretty incompetent. The biggest issue comes from establishment Republicans.

Rinos, neoconservatives, ultra religious Republicans and cowardly types are all out to pull things for themselves. Instead of working to push things that are Republican, they're trying to steal power for themselves. Some are even working with Democrats and not in a good way but a shady way.

If both sides don't get their shit together we could be looking at anarchy next election as people are sick of the hardcore left and right.


----------



## CamillePunk

Goku said:


> 'not an argument' is not an argument either tbf


not an argument either


----------



## Goku

CamillePunk said:


> not an argument either


not an argument either either

you are not a serious person


----------



## CamillePunk

Goku said:


> not an argument either either
> 
> you are not a serious person


:cookie


----------



## BruiserKC

CamillePunk said:


> I'll put my money on Trump coming out on top as usual.
> 
> There's some good news on this front, as I was just coming here to post:
> 
> http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/jeff-sessions-marijuana-crackdown-senators-react-235616
> 
> Pretty much my only concern with Sessions at this point is he would pursue marijuana prohibition and interfere with state drug laws. Hopefully Senator Paul is correct in his read of Sessions' intentions.


As far as the culture war stuff, the social conservatives are expecting Trump to sit them out. Trump is really the first President that really hasn't dived headlong into this clash, more people voted for him to right the ship regarding the economy and to strengthen our national security. I think he understands that's not his strong point and that right now his focus needs to be elsewhere. 

However, make no mistake...the religious right voted for Trump mostly for one reason...the Supreme Court. With Scalia's opening, and the chance of at least one or two more additional openings coming during his administration, they know that putting in conservative judges shapes the SCOTUS for at least the next generation. They are prepared fully now to legislate from the bench and be perfectly OK with it. To me, the system is broken for sure when the idea of SCOTUS was simply having judges be neutral arbiters determining if laws were legal or not only, but that's the path we're on now. 

To them, part of the reason this country is failing is not just the economy, not just our loss of credibility worldwide, or the millions of illegal immigrants that are putting a further damper on things. What is happening in this country is a moral breakdown of our values and the idea that God is preparing to judge us much like what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah in the Bible. They see this with Roe v. Wade, Obergfell vs. Hodges, and even the legalization in some states of marijuana. The election of Trump gives us a fighting chance in their eyes to get back on the road to being a just, moral people. 

Going back to when Reagan was elected in 1980, the Moral Majority/religious right/social conservatives have had a role in the political game. When the epidemic known as AIDS first hit the scene, it was the strength of religious conservatives that kept Reagan silent on the matter. Many on here at WF aren't old enough to remember when AIDS was referred to as the "gay cancer" and was punishment from God for their immoral lifestyle. There was no mention of AIDS coming from the Reagan administration until the death of Rock Hudson, who had been a friend to the Reagans from their days in Hollywood in the acting biz. 

It was Bill Clinton who signed DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act. In 2004, with an extremely tight presidential race leading to the chance that George W Bush might not have had a second term, he understands he needs the support of wavering evangelicals. He comes out and says that the act of marriage is strictly between a man and a woman. That is one of the reasons why he wins re-election. 

Now, Obama was originally pro-DOMA when he first took office, he then changed his tune in '12 and embraced same-sex marriage. In the past, this would have been the kiss of death for his campaign. However, it didn't bite him in the butt because many evangelicals sat this election out. Many of them wouldn't vote for Romney for one reason only...he was a Mormon and to them the LDS church is not a Christian denomination (even though Jesus plays a role in it as far as after his resurrection he comes to America) but a cult. Then again, many of the evangelicals sat out '08, McCain lacked the social chops they want. 

Trump took a different approach with the race tightening when during the third debate he mentioned the idea that abortion is wrong. After the nomination, there were many evangelicals who were fully prepared to sit this one out as well. After all, they were having a hard time explaining to people they were looking to support a man who has been married three times (and screwed around on his first wife with his soon-to-be second) and lived a somewhat bohemian and hedonistic lifestyle. However, their concern for the Supreme Court moving further to the left with at least one new justice was too much for them to stomach. 

The pro-life movement is energized like it hasn't been in a long time. They had a sitting Vice-President appear at the Pro-Life March in DC for the first time ever. Trump has said he would like to see Roe v. Wade overturned, and you are starting to see this across the country. Here in Iowa, a bill has moved to the legislature for debate that would ban termination of pregnancy after 20 weeks (@@DesolationRow;, you wanted an update...a similar bill that said life begins at conception and could have banned all abortions did not pass the funnel and is dead for this session). States that have been placing these limits with their laws are going to get braver. Eventually, we will see a state that passes a life-starts-at-conception bill and that's when it starts to SCOTUS and the possible overturn of Roe v. Wade. 

Trump is getting out of the way his promises to those who did have his back and voted for him. He is starting with Obamacare (even though I think tax reform makes more sense to tackle first, and let Obamacare die before working on replacing it) as well as the travel ban and is ramping up on deporting of illegals. His thank you to the evangelical movement is the chance to have Roe v. Wade declared unconstitutional. 

However, for the evangelical movement...that's not enough...they want more. Trump promised protection of religious liberty, but many were disappointed when he declined rescinding LGBTQ federal worker protection. They appreciate the transgender bathroom issue being left up to the states, but to them the idea that same-sex marriage is legal is not something that sits well. To them, marriage is between a man and a woman...PERIOD. There is no discussion to them on the matter, to them even the concept of civil unions is unacceptable. This is part of the issue of the moral fiber. The article link I posted was a case that originally was not going to be pursued because SCOTUS had declared same-sex marriage the law of the land. However, shortly after Trump's election is when they decided to pursue it, saying that SCOTUS overstepped its boundaries with the ruling and that the states need to decide on the matter. They see an opening and are going to take it. The fact that more and more people have no qualms with same-sex marriage (and some states have actually seen it voted for by its populace) means nothing. 

The drug war is also part of the culture war. To some, the idea of marijuana (or other drugs) is wrong and it should be banned and the states that OK'd it should reverse course. Others believe that by legalizing pot and eventually other drugs it means we will be easily controlled by the government. To them, a doped-up, passive population is easier to manipulate. Meanwhile, keep in mind that Trump has run his administration so far on the idea that he doesn't want people to be able to guess where he really is on an issue. He wants to keep people on their toes. For example...UN Ambassador Nikki Haley says that we are committed to a two-state solution regarding Israel/Palestine. Trump comes out and says I'm not necessarily going to go with that idea. We hear conflicting reports from people saying we're committed to NATO/the other members of NATO need to pony up. He knows exactly what he's doing and wants to keep people on their toes. Plus, keep in mind the federal law still states marijuana is illegal. Sessions might say he is OK with letting the states decide, but down the road we could see a crackdown in the places where it is legal. We don't know, and he wants people to guess. 

Keep in mind, CP, the reasons you voted for Trump are completely different from the reasons a church pastor voted for him. Trump really has very little interest in social issues, he's going to stay out of that fight and let that get hashed out. That's what the social conservative movement is banking on as they begin to ramp up their efforts. Their concept of MAGA is also to get America back on solid moral ground and to be once again blessed in the eyes of God. They want America to get back to the Judeo-Christian principles of the Constitution (although there are more than just that in that document such as English common law for that time and the Code of Hammurabi which pre-dates Judeo-Christian philosophy by 2000 years) and same-sex marriage and abortion don't fit into that view. They fully expect Trump to sit the matter out. For the most part, I think he will for now since we have more pressing issues to deal with.


----------



## Reaper

The problem is however, the State (local or Federal) cannot impose biblical values. They simply can't. And I also feel that to an extent the morality spin on social values is simply an enforcement of biblical morality and I'm against that. While I agree that in some cases abortions are wrong, I'm also evolved to the point of understanding that we can have nuanced laws and judgements and not blanket absolute morality. The core is choice and the constitution allows for personal choice in most matters. Using the freedom and liberty arguments where there is a disagreement on the morality of certain acts, the courts I believe cannot force one group's understanding of morality onto another especially with regards to enforcing what is easily biblical morality. 

Also, Gorsuch doesn't change the current balance. You need another conservative judge and I believe that this alone is the key to Trump's second election win. The religious majority is seeing their opportunity right now and they've dug in. I agree with BruiserKC that in the next 8 years the social fabric of the US is going to go through a massive shift towards religious values becoming a problem for social liberals. 

Hence why I actually plan to move to a blue state at some point. I might hate their fiscal / economic policies but I still largely agree with their stance on abortions and gay marriage. :shrug


----------



## Reaper

Double-posting because the above post got a like before I could edit it. Sue me. 



> Gorsuch said the _Roe v. Wade _decision created a “new right” to abortion access, a suggestion that the court crafted the right out of the 14th Amendment's privacy protection, a criticism frequently leveled by anti-abortion groups. Indeed, anti-abortion groups cite the book as proof of his support for their cause.
> *But he also seemed to suggest the court’s 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision — which upheld the right to abortion but created a more clear framework for state regulation — repaired the mistakes in Roe, making it settled law.*
> *“The plurality in Casey expressly sought to provide a firmer basis for the abortion right and to shore up the reasoning behind Roe’s result,” Gorsuch wrote. “In doing so, the Casey plurality purposefully eschewed any effort to examine the history of abortion regulation, stressing instead the importance of ‘reasoned judgment’ in assessing whether to continue recognizing the constitutional right to abortion.”*
> The book will surely be examined in the run-up to Gorsuch’s confirmation hearings.


This is important to note when trying to figure out whether Gorsuch will rule against Roe v Wade or not. 

What I look forward to is him revealing his actual stance because so far it seems like the guy is smart enough to pass nuanced legislation. Smarter than any of us are on the subject :draper2
What I can definitely ascertain is that while Gorsuch may be pro-life, but he won't pass judgement simply based on that stance alone. This is why I believe he's an incredibly good pick - probably Trump's best move so far.


----------



## Klotty23

RipNTear said:


> Double-posting because the above post got a like before I could edit it. Sue me.
> 
> This is important to note when trying to figure out whether Gorsuch will rule against Roe v Wade or not.
> 
> What I look forward to is him revealing his actual stance because so far it seems like the guy is smart enough to pass nuanced legislation. Smarter than any of us are on the subject :draper2
> What I can definitely ascertain is that while Gorsuch may be pro-life, but he won't pass judgement simply based on that stance alone. This is why I believe he's an incredibly good pick - probably Trump's best move so far.


U seem triggered this morning... everything ok?


----------



## Reaper

Klotty23 said:


> U seem triggered this morning... everything ok?


What?


----------



## Klotty23

RipNTear said:


> What?


U have nearly FOURTEEN THOUSAND posts on a fake wrestling message board and u are insulting gay people.

If u were anywhere near me I'd bash ur head into ur keyboard so hard that u would have a spacebar permanently tattooed on ur forehead.


----------



## Reaper

Klotty23 said:


> U have nearly FOURTEEN THOUSAND posts on a fake wrestling message board and u are insulting gay people.
> 
> If u were anywhere near me I'd bash ur head into ur keyboard so hard that u would have a spacebar permanently tattooed on ur forehead.


:mj4 

Looks like we have an alt troll or something. Mods clean this shit up please. I'm guessing it's that dewberry kid with a couple of accounts.


----------



## Klotty23

RipNTear said:


> :mj4
> 
> Looks like we have an alt troll or something. Mods clean this shit up please. I'm guessing it's that dewberry kid with a couple of accounts.


24 more posts and u will have finally made it!

FOURTEEN THOUSAND


----------



## Miss Sally

RipNTear said:


> :mj4
> 
> Looks like we have an alt troll or something. Mods clean this shit up please. I'm guessing it's that dewberry kid with a couple of accounts.


U iz lame I fite U n U run jajajaja


----------



## BruiserKC

RipNTear said:


> The problem is however, the State (local or Federal) cannot impose biblical values. They simply can't. And I also feel that to an extent the morality spin on social values is simply an enforcement of biblical morality and I'm against that. While I agree that in some cases abortions are wrong, I'm also evolved to the point of understanding that we can have nuanced laws and judgements and not blanket absolute morality. The core is choice and the constitution allows for personal choice in most matters. Using the freedom and liberty arguments where there is a disagreement on the morality of certain acts, the courts I believe cannot force one group's understanding of morality onto another especially with regards to enforcing what is easily biblical morality.
> 
> Also, Gorsuch doesn't change the current balance. You need another conservative judge and I believe that this alone is the key to Trump's second election win. The religious majority is seeing their opportunity right now and they've dug in. I agree with BruiserKC that in the next 8 years the social fabric of the US is going to go through a massive shift towards religious values becoming a problem for social liberals.
> 
> Hence why I actually plan to move to a blue state at some point. I might hate their fiscal / economic policies but I still largely agree with their stance on abortions and gay marriage. :shrug


Wrong choice of words...dug in refers to defense. The social conservative movement is going on the offensive now. I saw this coming years ago. Part of it is the fact that they are unwilling to deter from certain things, there was also a lack of hubris on the side of some people attached to the movement for same-sex marriage, etc. They got into the habit of shouting down anyone who disagreed with them, to the point that many who disagreed had their true feelings pushed underground. People got tired of being called homophobic, Islamophobic, etc. There is some truth to it...there are a number of people who disagree with homosexuality. Same-sex marriage is wrong, and there might be a few who actually would love to get back to the days when homosexual activity was criminalized. There is a number of people who hate Islam...ALL of it. All Muslims, from the most devoted imams to even the apostates. They've said, "You're right, we don't like it! Guess what...we don't care!" They see their opening, and now they're taking full advantage of it. I even have a couple of people I work out with who say they would love to shake the hand of anyone who beat up a Muslim. Of course, one of them nearly got their throat ripped out by me during the election by calling me a homosexual Commie (different words used) because I wouldn't vote for Trump and he found out the hard way that a former member of the military is the wrong person to mess with.  

The moment the opening came, they were going to blast the door down. They wore "deplorable" like a badge of honor. They complained about legislating from the bench, but they are going to play the same game now. Some of them talk about leaving same-sex marriage and abortion up to the states, but the truth is they are going to go for the home run. Since in the eyes of the SCOTUS both are law, they are going to say the SCOTUS made a mistake and that both are illegal. In reality, the Constitution says nothing about either topic but that's besides the point. They will push for the law of the land being ALL life, even that of the unborn, is precious. Marriage is defined strictly as between a man and a woman. States' rights is a cover, they want the whole damn thing. 

While the state should not be defining morality...we need some type of moral compass in society. We can't just run around doing whatever the fuck we want just because it feels good and we can. There has to be some aspect of right and wrong. The Founding Fathers may not have necessarily believed in God as a whole, but they understood that there was a higher power in place. Also, there had to be some semblance of morality, which is why we have laws in this country and around the world. There is supposed to be right and wrong. Yes, there are extenuating circumstances, but there is still a moral code we live by or should live by. It should be up to us to determine that code, problem is there are some stupid people who screw it up for the rest of us.


----------



## Reaper

BruiserKC said:


> The moment the opening came, they were going to blast the door down. They wore "deplorable" like a badge of honor. They complained about legislating from the bench, but they are going to play the same game now. Some of them talk about leaving same-sex marriage and abortion up to the states, but the truth is they are going to go for the home run. Since in the eyes of the SCOTUS both are law, they are going to say the SCOTUS made a mistake and that both are illegal. In reality, the Constitution says nothing about either topic but that's besides the point. They will push for the law of the land being ALL life, even that of the unborn, is precious. Marriage is defined strictly as between a man and a woman. States' rights is a cover, they want the whole damn thing.


That goes for my comment about how most Republicans are merely the same as authoritarian Democrats, just with different desires for what the federal government should have authority over. Both groups wield "state rights" vs "federal powers" as a baton to virtue signal and demand for their personally held value and belief systems all the while ignoring what I believe to be the core desire of the Constitution which is to grant individuals liberty above all else. 



> While the state should not be defining morality...we need some type of moral compass in society. We can't just run around doing whatever the fuck we want just because it feels good and we can. There has to be some aspect of right and wrong. The Founding Fathers may not have necessarily believed in God as a whole, but they understood that there was a higher power in place. Also, there had to be some semblance of morality, which is why we have laws in this country and around the world. There is supposed to be right and wrong. Yes, there are extenuating circumstances, but there is still a moral code we live by or should live by. It should be up to us to determine that code, problem is there are some stupid people who screw it up for the rest of us.


That's where the separation of powers comes in I believe. My take on this is that the Federal Government in America's system should not have the authority to push laws and that's why the Congress exists, right? Congress however, then has the same fallacy of majority dictating objectivity and that's where the Supreme Court comes in. But then, if you allow the Federal Government the ability to appoint judges which then has to be confirmed by the Congress circumvents the Supreme Courts' powers. WHat prevents the a government that has Senate/Congress and Federal control from picking ideologues instead of constitutionalists and circumvent separation of powers through that way? 

So how does the morality defining process really work in a scenario where while we believe we have a separation of powers, we don't really considering that majority ruling gets to define that morality ultimately. 

Assume a scenario where 100 years down the road, America has now become a majority Muslim country (this is just a thought exercise, not that I'm positing that it has become one), and they are now the majority in Congress, Senate, Federal Government and Supreme Court. Now we have Shariah as the dominating morality of America. What stops any of the systems in the country from preventing that from happening? 

This is why I think that morality cannot be defined through majority. There is no moral reason for banning gay marriage. At most you can make the argument that the government shouldn't even be involved in such legislation, but morality is irrelevant there as there are no victims in a consenting homosexual union. The only way you can even bring morality into this is because God said it was wrong, but ultimately God has been wrong about a lot of his moral stances and we've looked past that. As far as the "all life is valuable" argument of the religious right is concerned, then why does that apply to human life only and not animal life and what moral basis does that religious right then have to claim that animal life isn't valuable and Vegans getting the eventual right to ban all forms of animal eating - based on the "all life is valuable" argument. 

"The all life is valuable" argument is uyniversal, but then it limits human's freedom to kill animals. If you limit it to "all human life is valuable", then it's myopic because it becomes limited to human life only and not all life. 

Morality of value of life vs morality of value of human life are two very different arguments because there the operator is value of life and human life is a limiter and while justifiable, but relativist as well. 

I'm ok with believing in the idea that America's morality may have once been defined through religiosity. Most moral systems around the world are hybrids of secular and non-secular moral values. But religious morality (while drawn from) is also largely absent from the constitution for specific codes and for very valid reasons and that is to limit the power of religious groups (any religious groups) from trying to pass their personal beliefs as the nation's entire moral compass. The only way to limit religious morality from becoming the supreme law of the land is to have a mix of secular and non-secular moral values. A certain amount of flexibility required to ensure ideologues don't circumvent liberty based on personal beliefs and the other way around as well.


----------



## glenwo2

Goku said:


> 'not an argument' is not an argument either tbf


Neither is this an argument. (and I won't call you "frank" either)


----------



## dewberry

The Donald freaking out on twitter right nao lolololo. Fukin Russian spy asshole hahahha. Enjoy your putin overlord guys!:surprise:


----------



## glenwo2

Klotty23 said:


> U have nearly FOURTEEN THOUSAND posts on a fake wrestling message board and u are insulting gay people.
> 
> *If u were anywhere near me I'd bash ur head into ur keyboard so hard that u would have a spacebar permanently tattooed on ur forehead.*


Then you'll be arrested for assault and thrown in with the General Population who would proceed to treat you like a "gay person"(if you get my drift).


In other words, you wouldn't do shit to him. #KeyboardWarrior


----------



## Arya Dark

CamillePunk said:


> Okay I like Mike Pence a bit more after reading some of his leaked e-mails. :lol
> 
> https://www.wired.com/2017/03/mike-pence-leaked-aol-emails/



*I'm pretty sure that it's fake due to this update at the end

"1UPDATE 6:40pm ET 3/3/2017: This is a work of satire. Apologies for not labeling it more clearly as such."

*


----------



## Reaper

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/799802692747087872
Poor guy just went full on loony bin after this :kobelol


----------



## CamillePunk

AryaDark said:


> *I'm pretty sure that it's fake due to this update at the end
> 
> "1UPDATE 6:40pm ET 3/3/2017: This is a work of satire. Apologies for not labeling it more clearly as such."
> 
> *


Ah, that's disappointing. :lol Back to not caring for him at all it is then.


----------



## MrMister

ImGovinIt

:lmao


----------



## deepelemblues

FBI requested a secret warrant from the secret FISA court to bug :trump Tower.

Secret FISA court said no because the warrant specifically named :trump

FBI came back and again requested a warrant to bug :trump Tower from the secret FISA court but took :trump 's name out and the warrant was granted.

The FBI does not request secret warrants from the secret FISA court and then not carry out the surveillance if the warrant is granted.

Obama's shameful love for mass domestic surveillance finally coming back to bite him. His spokespeople can deny it all they want, they're lying and everybody knows it. Spokesbitch Kevin Lewis dropped the laughable whopper that the Obama "never" ordered spying on "any" American citizen period during his 8 years which is of course completely 100% untrue.


----------



## CamillePunk

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/838113375406206976


----------



## Reaper

> Random Thought
> By Will Ricciardella
> The Democrats are the Party of identity politics focusing on groups predicated on race, sex, religion, education etc.
> 
> The Republicans are now the Party of classes predicated on income groups and classes: lower, middle, working etc.
> 
> Conservatives and libertarians are merely concerned with the individual, not their race, religion, income group, class, sex, behavior, or skin pigmentation.
> 
> Classical liberalism is now without significant representation.


Saw this on my facebook today. Any Classical Liberals here care to comment on whether you guys feel you have representation or not?


----------



## yeahbaby!

CamillePunk said:


> not an argument either


Impressive! I can see those 'Become a Master Persuader in 5 easy Steps' dvds you ordered from Scott Adams inc. are really paying off.

:heston


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Here is why Trump is a genius. If what he tweeted about being wiretapped turns out to be true then Trump will be able to use that information to attack Obama and the media. If it turns out to be false then he can say that Obama and the media have no reason to suspect his campaign colluded with the Russians. It's a win-win. Well, except he'll look like a buffoon for tweeting something false, but people on the left already think he's a buffoon for tweeting things.

:Cocky


----------



## glenwo2

^ Mind Blown. Trump truly is the GOAT.


----------



## FriedTofu

The president seems determines to gaslight the alleged Russian ties again. Obama wiretapping him? Talking about the Apprentice again? Oh and another weekend spent at Florida. :lol


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

RipNTear said:


> Saw this on my facebook today. Any Classical Liberals here care to comment on whether you guys feel you have representation or not?


I don't feel I have representation at all in politics, at least not any that is certainly viable at a state or national level (local level is different, but even then, it's difficult).

If I had to label myself politically, I'd say elements of both Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism -- some believe they are the same, and while they share importance in liberty, the applications can be different -- are the foundations for my political beliefs. Finding a pragmatic equilibrium for the application of those beliefs is also paramount. 

It's unfortunate that so many ideals have been hijacked and/or corrupted beyond their original intent.


----------



## Reaper

Oda Nobunaga said:


> I don't feel I have representation at all in politics, at least not any that is certainly viable at a state or national level (local level is different, but even then, it's difficult).
> 
> If I had to label myself politically, I'd say elements of both Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism -- some believe they are the same, and while they share importance in liberty, the applications can be different -- are the foundations for my political beliefs. Finding a pragmatic equilibrium for the application of those beliefs is also paramount.
> 
> It's unfortunate that so many ideals have been hijacked and/or corrupted beyond their original intent.


I think that minarchists and classical liberals have more in common than at least rightwing libertarians do with classical liberals so I agree that while my side gets some representation in the Republican party, your side is pretty much left flailing as pretty much all left-wing politics in America are now terribly authoritarian (which is euphamised with "modern progressiveness" ). 

Almost bordering on totalitarianism when it comes to ignoring individual liberty actually. The rights of the many are more important than the rights of the few in that party - and while the Republicans overall are also fairly authoritarian, they still welcome the libertarians from time to time. Though the representation is fairly minor and without Rand Paul probably non-existent as well. 

I can't think of an actual classical liberal in the opposition at this point as at least the most prominent ones all seem to have succumb to the seduction of identity politics.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

RipNTear said:


> I think that minarchists and classical liberals have more in common than at least rightwing libertarians do with classical liberals so I agree that while my side gets some representation in the Republican party, your side is pretty much left flailing as pretty much all left-wing politics in America are now terribly authoritarian (which is euphamised with "modern progressiveness" ).


Flailing indeed, with mouths open agape at the deterioration and bastardization of those ideals. 



> Almost bordering on totalitarianism when it comes to ignoring individual liberty actually. The rights of the many are more important than the rights of the few in that party - and while the Republicans overall are also fairly authoritarian, they still welcome the libertarians from time to time. Though the representation is fairly minor and without Rand Paul probably non-existent as well.


I was supporting Rand Paul in the beginning (he was the closest candidate I had, despite some disagreements here and there), but in my mind, I knew he had no chance of winning, which sort of mitigated any kind of excitement I had for the political race this time around. Shame.



> I can't think of an actual classical liberal in the opposition at this point as at least the most prominent ones all seem to have succumb to the seduction of identity politics.


Ugh, identity politics. They've become the modus operandi for that segment and I loathe to indulge in it. Simply not interested in it.


----------



## Miss Sally

Oda Nobunaga said:


> Flailing indeed, with mouths open agape at the deterioration and bastardization of those ideals.
> 
> 
> 
> I was supporting Rand Paul in the beginning (he was the closest candidate I had, despite some disagreements here and there), but in my mind, I knew he had no chance of winning, which sort of mitigated any kind of excitement I had for the political race this time around. Shame.
> 
> 
> 
> Ugh, identity politics. They've become the modus operandi for that segment and I loathe to indulge in it. Simply not interested in it.


The worst part of identity politics is that it pretty much serves no purpose. It's just there and is ambiguous to what it's supposed to accomplish or even do. 

Identity politics is like debating over what color wall paper there should be when the house is on fire. It's just chasing people away from discussion and just gets in the way of solving real issues.

The worst part of this monster is it cannot coexist with anything, it must be the main talking point, anything said or done must have identity politics in mind. It takes and never gives and it's never clear as to what it's supposed to change or solve as it constantly morphs depending on who is wielding it. It serves no purpose other than to be divisive.


----------



## Dr. Middy

http://globalnews.ca/news/3285791/great-lakes-epa-funding-trump/
http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/...e-cuts-great-lakes-restoration-work/98742414/
http://www.freep.com/story/news/loc...tic-cuts-early-white-house-proposal/98659286/

It hasn't gone through yet, but apparently an early draft from President Trump's budget cuts includes slashing money dedicated to the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative from $300 million to $10 million. I'm incredibly against this for a number of reasons, especially given the beautiful nature of these bodies of water, as well as how they are one of the largest freshwater reserves in the world, which will become even more significant in the future. 

Right now the Initiative helps to combat invasive species like Zebra Mussels, help clean up toxins, restore wetland regions, and reduce nutrient rich runoffs which contribute to algal blooms (which drastically lower the oxygen content of the water they inhabit). Really, they do a hell of a lot of good for the health of the Great Lakes as a whole, and I'm not sure why such a drastic cut is necessary.


----------



## Reaper

If the Aral Sea can spring back to life without human intervention and the great Lakes survive millions of years with and without human intervention, 8 years of budget cuts isn't going to destroy them.


----------



## Dr. Middy

RipNTear said:


> *If the Aral Sea can spring back to life without human intervention* and the great Lakes survive millions of years with and without human intervention, 8 years of budget cuts isn't going to destroy them.


http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/inpictures/2016/06/aral-sea-springs-life-160623082720228.html

http://www.worldbank.org/en/results/2005/09/01/saving-a-corner-of-the-aral-sea

Aral Sea was nearly 100% dried up due to Russians using its water for irrigation for cotton farms and the like. Thanks to acts taken by Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and other countries in the vicinity, as well as the Kok-Aral Dam constructed in 2005, there is water and aquatic life returning to the Northern Aral Sea now. So really, human intervention both nearly killed the Aral Sea, while also now trying to save and restore what remains.

Obviously our Great Lakes are not suffering this problem, and are in generally good health. But cutting this much out of their budget is terrible news for all of the efforts being done to help keep the lake in it's current condition. It also is bad news for those who work in the Initiative, because I assume there's gonna be layoffs for them in the future with such a drastic budget decrease.


----------



## Reaper

Dr. Middy said:


> http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/inpictures/2016/06/aral-sea-springs-life-160623082720228.html
> 
> http://www.worldbank.org/en/results/2005/09/01/saving-a-corner-of-the-aral-sea
> 
> Aral Sea was nearly 100% dried up due to Russians using its water for irrigation for cotton farms and the like. Thanks to acts taken by Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and other countries in the vicinity, as well as the Kok-Aral Dam constructed in 2005, there is water and aquatic life returning to the Northern Aral Sea now. So really, human intervention both nearly killed the Aral Sea, while also now trying to save and restore what remains.
> 
> Obviously our Great Lakes are not suffering this problem, and are in generally good health. But cutting this much out of their budget is terrible news for all of the efforts being done to help keep the lake in it's current condition. It also is bad news for those who work in the Initiative, because I assume there's gonna be layoffs for them in the future with such a drastic budget decrease.


How do you know that the budget was being put to good use though. I mean is there any real accountability for the money spent?

As you said yourself, the health of the great Lakes is fine. So what were they spending all that money on.


----------



## HandsomeRTruth

It's possible it's budget is higher then needs to be, but if your slashing an agencies budget over 95% shouldn't the burden be on the his adminastration to make a case why it's unnecesary.


----------



## Reaper

HandsomeRTruth said:


> It's possible it's budget is higher then needs to be, but if your slashing an agencies budget over 95% shouldn't the burden be on the his adminastration to make a case why it's unnecesary.


Agreed. But did the previous governments ever make the case for setting the budget at $300 million? Do you know why or did you just accept it on faith?

Think about this for a second. They have about a $5 billion spending plan over a period of 10 years and yet Flint Michigan is still without clean water because supposedly they're broke. 

None of this shit makes sense. I know that there are plenty of bloated government spending areas and the priorities are incredibly fucked. And I don't trust the republican government any more than I did the democrats but that's what you get with both governments. Spending in ridiculous personal projects.


----------



## Dr. Middy

RipNTear said:


> How do you know that the budget was being put to good use though. I mean is there any real accountability for the money spent?
> 
> As you said yourself, the health of the great Lakes is fine. So what were they spending all that money on.


Keeping the Great Lakes in good and increased health is the goal of all the money used. I remember learning about how in the 1960-1970s about how Lake Erie was nearly a mostly dead lake thanks to massive algal blooms, and also how areas like the Cyuahoga River were ON FIRE multiple times due to dumping being done it in (actually this was one of the big reasons behind the EPA being born).

I don't know if all of the funds are used properly, but to slash any program by 95% is nearly a fatal blow. I'm sure that they could probably streamline and properly budget their money to maybe take a 10% cut or so, and really every agency, whether environmental or not, should use their money to the best degree in which they can. That goes for the EPA too, and I won't say that everything they do is all sunshine and rainbows, because they have their fair share of mistakes. 

But the Imitative has been a positive influence, and it's funding should remain enough so that they can continue to function at the level which they currently are.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Thousands march for Trump today around the country. Of course numerous protesters got violent and got arrested and rightfully so.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...her-march-4-trump-rallies-around-us/98740822/


----------



## virus21

ShowStopper said:


> Thousands march for Trump today around the country. Of course numerous protesters got violent and got arrested and rightfully so.
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...her-march-4-trump-rallies-around-us/98740822/


Heres another article from the UK about it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4282632/Trump-supporters-clash-protesters-California-rally.html?ito=social-twitter_dailymailus

Welcome to the Year of Lead America


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Here's HuffPo's headline

*Tens Of People Rally Across The Country In ‘March 4 Trump’
*

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...d?2r1mxpnzix1fhto6r&ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

:eyeroll2


----------



## glenwo2

March 4 Trump? 

That sounds so alien considering all I've read are about Anti-Trump marches 24/7. 

Guess the pathetic SJW's got tired of marching and decided to stay home and eat their donuts and fattening foods.

I suppose it's OUR turn now to do the "protest" thing.


----------



## DOPA

Hai . I'll post a more serious post at some point.

All I'll say here for now is an apology to @MrMister;, @birthday_massacre; and @Legit Boss;. I went too far in the Transgender athlete thread with the insults. I'll make sure that doesn't happen again and keep things more civil.


----------



## Beatles123

Its laughable to me how anyone can deny that it's at least possible Obama tapped Trump. :lol he was threatening to end his entire legacy!


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*The Republicans never disappoint with their blatant lies, hypocrisy, incompetence, and racism. Apparently it's hypocrisy day, since these idiots on Fox News and other right wing media spent TWO YEARS bitching about Hillary's emails, as they now blindly justify Pence using a private email for public work.*

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/837723655845122048
*Edit: I stand corrected, they've got some racism for us too! This time they decided to detain an Afghan with a Visa who previously worked with our government:

 https://twitter.com/i/web/status/838377303486918656He must be a Muslim terrorist too, right ?
*


----------



## DOPA

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/03/mike-pence-used-private-email-indiana-governor-hacked/ 



> Mike Pence, the US Vice President used a private email account to discuss matters of homeland security when he was governor of Indiana, and was hacked shortly before he became Donald Trump's running mate.
> 
> Mr Pence communicated with advisers in Indiana through a personal AOL account during his four year term, it has emerged.
> 
> He discussed issues including security gates at the governor's mansion and how the state should respond to terror attacks across the world.
> 
> One email on his private account was from his homeland security adviser giving an update from the FBI on a group of terror suspects who had been arrested.
> 
> Last June the private account was hacked by an internet scammer.
> 
> That led to a message being sent to Mr Pence's contacts falsely claiming the governor and his wife were stranded in the Philippines, and asking for money.
> 
> The following month Mr Pence was selected by Mr Trump, then the Republican presidential nominee, as his running mate.
> 
> During the ensuing presidential campaign Mr Pence frequently criticised
> 
> Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton over her use of a private email server when she was President Barack Obama's Secretary of State.
> 
> Mr Pence spoke at rallies where crowds chanted that Mrs Clinton should be "locked up" in jail over her emails.
> 
> A total of 29 pages of correspondence from Mr Pence's private account were released by his successor as governor of Indiana in response to freedom of information requests by the Indianapolis Star newspaper.
> 
> Corey Nachreiner, of computer security company WatchGuard Technologies, told the newspaper the accounts of Mr Pence and Mrs Clinton had about the same vulnerability to hacking attacks.
> 
> He said: "It would be hypocritical to consider this issue any different than a private email server.”
> 
> But Marc Lotter, a spokesman for Mr Pence, said it was "absurd" to make comparisons between Mr Pence and Mrs Clinton's email use.
> 
> *Unlike her Mr Pence did not handle any classified material as Indiana's governor, he said, and Mr Pence had not set up a private server.
> 
> In Indiana public officials are not banned from using personal email accounts like AOL.
> 
> The state law is interpreted to mean that any official business conducted by private email must be retained.
> 
> At the end of his term Mr Pence did direct an independent lawyer to review all his communications to ensure the state-related emails were transferred and properly archived, Mr Lotter said.*
> 
> Following the hacking in June Mr Pence moved to a different AOL account with additional security.
> 
> He had stopped using that account since he was sworn in as vice president.
> 
> In a statement the vice president's office said:"Similar to previous governors, during his time as governor of Indiana, Mike Pence maintained a state email account and a personal email account.
> *
> "As governor Mr Pence fully complied with Indiana law regarding email use and retention."*


Whilst this looks bad on the surface, context is important. Pence did not break any of the state's laws on private email accounts, did not have a private server unlike Hillary, did not handle classified documents on his private email unlike Hillary and went through all the necessary reviews. 

I'd have to look into it further at some point as this is only Pence's spokesperson speaking, so clearly they would deny it and spin it some way. Perhaps there is a lot more to it than what is being said thus far but right now it looks like Pence did not break any state laws in the same way that Hillary broke federal laws. At the moment it does not even remotely look like the same thing. It would not surprise me if this was a witch hunt.

We'll see what happens and what is revealed in time, perhaps another article does reveal more damaging evidence but for now I'm not buying it.

And this is coming from someone who does not even like Pence. I don't even like most Republicans or Trump to be fair.


----------



## Reaper

Oh Well. It's not really worth the effort.


----------



## Beatles123

Keith Cuckleman is going to expose us, oh no :lol


----------



## Café de René

I don't know if that was already discussed on the thread but LOL at GW Bush doing all the talk shows and basically being rehabilated by the medias and the left as a great president just because he opposes Trump.

The liberals love them warmongers.


----------



## Beatles123

I disagree with Levin on a few things, but man, if he get involved Obama may be in deep doo doo!


----------



## BruiserKC

L-DOPA said:


> Hai . I'll post a more serious post at some point.
> 
> All I'll say here for now is an apology to @MrMister;, @birthday_massacre; and @Legit Boss;. I went too far in the Transgender athlete thread with the insults. I'll make sure that doesn't happen again and keep things more civil.


This nails it right there. We have a lot of important shit to worry about, and all this whining, kneeling, sitting, and bitching is doing is distracting us from the issues. The agenda that Trump wants to work on is in danger of being derailed with all this nonsense going on. While you have an uptick in the economy now, it's not going to last forever. The business world is expecting a lot of the pro-business agenda Trump has pushed to move forward. If we go into the fall and nothing has happened, that's when you will start seeing the markets get jittery and customer confidence wane. 



Beatles123 said:


> Its laughable to me how anyone can deny that it's at least possible Obama tapped Trump. :lol he was threatening to end his entire legacy!


Is it possible that Obama would have tapped Trump Tower as well as the Capitol/White House/etc? Anything is possible, especially since they tapped into discussions with foreign leaders. However, what benefit would that have provided for him, especially if this all came out into the open? Say what you want about Obama, he's not stupid and part of me would like to think that he wouldn't do something this dumb. Anyone who graduates from Harvard Law has to be a pretty smart cookie. 

Trump can get ahead of this and do so now. Many of these cases that hurt Presidencies have been a case of stuff slowly coming out...drip, drip, drip. With Nixon and Watergate, we were slowly seeing information come out. With Bill Clinton regarding the Monica Lewinsky affair, it was info that came out in pieces. At this point, with anything regarding Russia...the Trump administration needs to flat out just put everything they have on this out there for the public to see. Just do an info dump that makes Assange jealous. Yes, even Trump's tax returns. If there's nothing to hide, say, "Here it is, have fun." 

While they're at it...they need to put out the evidence they have that Obama was behind wiretapping throughout the campaign. Trump mentions McCarthyism... those that study history know that McCarthy's accusations of Communist agitators came with no proof. Put all the chips in the middle and lay your cards on the table. You can cut this whole thing off now at the pass and take away any ammo the Dems and liberals have if the proof is there.


----------



## Reaper

> The business world is expecting a lot of the pro-business agenda Trump has pushed to move forward. If we go into the fall and nothing has happened, that's when you will start seeing the markets get jittery and customer confidence wane.


Slight correction here. The business world always responds positively to a regime change not just because they expect business friendly policies. It's more market manipulation based on pure speculation. They drove up stock prices when Obama was elected as well knowing full well that Obama was preaching anti-business doctrines of massive corporate bailouts which every businessman knew at the time would be a failed policy. They knew that democrats are largely antibusiness and spendthrifts but the dow jones still boomed in 2009 as well. 

Market response to any presidential change as historically pretty much always been positive while it has always "crashed" during election years. Nothing to do with the Presidents or their promises - except that it's used as an excuse for more market manipulation. All part of an orchestrated effort to line the pockets of the insiders imo.

As for the Wire-tapping allegations: 









https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/trump-russia-associates-investigation.html?_r=0

Claim is that some wiretapped communications were received while investigating the Trump campaign ... so if wiretaped info was received, then where was it received from - and if you're talking about the Trump campaign and then either him, his premises, or his staff or their premises were wiretapped. 

So yes, the blunder of the Democrats' Russian ties allegations is kind of what revealed this info. Punch-Counter-Punch.


----------



## Oxidamus

TheNightmanCometh said:


> *Tens Of People Rally Across The Country In ‘March 4 Trump’
> *













How petty. Far left and far right really aren't much different than each other.


----------



## Beatles123

I really will be interested to see where this goes. :trump


----------



## Reaper

Oxi X.O. said:


> How petty. Far left and far right really aren't much different than each other.


Dude, don't become a centrist meme 'cuz you're beginning to sound like one :lol 










I think self-proclaimed "centrists" are those high school kids that are too afraid to have anyone dislike them so they stand in the middle asking everybody to love them equally


----------



## Oxidamus

RipNTear said:


> Dude, don't become a centrist meme 'cuz you're beginning to sound like one :lol
> 
> I think self-proclaimed "centrists" are those high school kids that are too afraid to have anyone dislike them so they stand in the middle asking everybody to love them equally


I don't criticise left and right. I criticise far left and far right. :jericho2

I'm not a centrist because I want to be in the middle, on the fence about everything. I'm a centrist because I try not to have any bias towards things. A "middleman" centrist wouldn't be so vehemently against feminism. I have liberal and conservative values but they probably equal themselves out, thus centrist. :draper2


----------



## Reaper

Oxi X.O. said:


> I don't criticise left and right. I criticise far left and far right. :jericho2
> 
> I'm not a centrist because I want to be in the middle, on the fence about everything. I'm a centrist because I try not to have any bias towards things. A "middleman" centrist wouldn't be so vehemently against feminism. *I have liberal and conservative values but they probably equal themselves out, thus centrist. :draper2*


Eh. You're more left-wing than centrist (and least in terms of how Americans view centrists). You're both social and economic left based on what I've seen from your posts and discussions with you. Being anti-feminism doesn't make you a social conservative because a social conservative would be anti abortion rights and gay marriage - both of which you support if I'm not wrong. 

Your centrism is merely an assumed attitude, but your actual political stances (social and economic) are pretty much all left wing.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Beatles123 said:


> I really will be interested to see where this goes. :trump


*You have no answer at all for legitimate wrongful occurrences under the Trump regime, but then you turn around and spam baseless accusations as real news :mj4. Please tell us when Obama found the time to set up a wiretap in Trump Tower and listen to all the dumb shit that Trump had to say. He had 10,000 things to worry about towards the end of his presidency, and Trump had Secret Service in Trump Towers all during the presidential race. What's your next excuse, he wiretapped him while on vacation?

Was it while he was Kite Surfing in the Virgin Islands with Richard Branson?

 https://twitter.com/i/web/status/828939842990067713









Was it while having dinner at Emilio's with his daughter?
BQ4OQJYhXm0

 https://twitter.com/i/web/status/BQ5fpsYAe4s%2F
Was it at the Broadway Play?









 https://twitter.com/i/web/status/835297389116289024
Does it really look like THIS man spent any kind of time stressing over Trump ruining this country by the day?*


----------



## Oxidamus

RipNTear said:


> Eh. You're more left-wing than centrist (and least in terms of how Americans view centrists). You're both social and economic left based on what I've seen from your posts and discussions with you. Being anti-feminism doesn't make you a social conservative because a social conservative would be anti abortion rights and gay marriage - both of which you support if I'm not wrong.
> 
> Your centrism is merely an assumed attitude, but your actual political stances (social and economic) are pretty much all left wing.


I refuse to acknowledge welfare as a socialist or left-wing policy (but you know that) :mj.

My stances are circumstantial, though. By proxy of being Australian I'm more welcoming to the idea of cultural inclusion etc. But I defend America's right to cultural conservatism, which I wouldn't do for Australia.

I don't think anti-abortion or anti-gay marriage is intrinsically conservative either btw, same vice versa.

Yea I said before I would consider myself more left leaning, but ultimately it's because I see more reason in moderate left arguments (in my own country first and foremost) than I do in moderate right arguments. I don't have (m)any anchors to either side and just go with what seems the most reasonable.



Legit BOSS said:


> this whole post


A big non-argument. He wouldn't listen to it himself, and why would he worry when no democrat thought Trump had a chance of winning, let alone if they unearthed what they were _supposedly_ trying to find?


----------



## Beatles123

Legit BOSS said:


> *You have no answer at all for legitimate wrongful occurrences under the Trump regime, but then you turn around and spam baseless accusations as real news :mj4. Please tell us when Obama found the time to set up a wiretap in Trump Tower and listen to all the dumb shit that Trump had to say. He had 10,000 things to worry about towards the end of his presidency, and Trump had Secret Service in Trump Towers all during the presidential race. What's your next excuse, he wiretapped him while on vacation?
> 
> Was it while he was Kite Surfing in the Virgin Islands with Richard Branson?
> 
> https://twitter.com/i/web/status/828939842990067713
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was it while having dinner at Emilio's with his daughter?
> 
> https://twitter.com/i/web/status/BQ5fpsYAe4s%2F
> Was it at the Broadway Play?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://twitter.com/i/web/status/835297389116289024Does it really look like THIS man spent any kind of time stressing over Trump ruining this country by the day?*


You are really stretching if "BUT HIS SMILE" is your defense. 

Did you even watch the video with Levin? Do you honestly think NOTHING happened?


----------



## Reaper

Oxi X.O. said:


> I refuse to acknowledge welfare as a socialist or left-wing policy (but you know that) :mj.


Your refusal to acknowledge what it is doesn't change what it is :mj 



> My stances are circumstantial, though. *By proxy of being Australian I'm more welcoming to the idea of cultural inclusion etc.* But I defend America's right to cultural conservatism, which I wouldn't do for Australia.


Not that your being an aussie has anything to do with it, but that is still social liberalism. In fact, even the conservatives that claim that them being anti-illegal-immigration doesn't make them social conservatives because by and large they're for immigration and assimilation actually making them social liberals. If you're pro-multiethnicism you're a social liberal. If you're anti-globalist and anti-multiculturism but pro-multiethnicism, then that just means you're woke :mj

Being anti-illegal immigration and against mass refugee intake with the intent of limiting erosion of western culture would be social conservativism but that's a stretch. 



> I don't think anti-abortion or anti-gay marriage is intrinsically conservative either btw, same vice versa.


You'd be wrong. Anti-abortion and Anti-gay marriage is pretty much the last remaining topics that define social conservatism at least here in the states. Segregationists have been rightfully labeled as racists and the majority of social conservatives that used to be segregationists are now disappearing and interestingly popped up on the far left demanding segregated spaces for minorities. 

I would actually venture to guess that in other European countries such people are now seen as far right. 



> Yea I said before I would consider myself more left leaning, but ultimately it's because I see more reason in moderate left arguments (in my own country first and foremost) than I do in moderate right arguments. I don't have (m)any anchors to either side and just go with what seems the most reasonable.


As far as Americans are concerned, you're pretty much squarely left wing.


----------



## Dr. Middy

Beatles123 said:


> I really will be interested to see where this goes. :trump


Well this is interesting. I mean right now they don't have too much, but the idea that this could have happened is pretty sizable and makes me think twice on Obama now. 

But I'll be on the fence with this until I hear more concrete evidence.


----------



## Oxidamus

You're really turning this into a biggun aren't ya? :mj



RipNTear said:


> Your refusal to acknowledge what it is doesn't change what it is :mj


The concept of taking money from workers to give to the poor can, I suppose, be considered a "left-wing" thing but like I said, if that money is being spent on other people in your country, is it not nationalistic? Isn't this what the Nazis (National Socialism) did, and they're considered far-right?

Isn't it counterproductive and inconsistent to be nationalist at the same time not want to help your own countrymen in time of need?

From my understanding socialism isn't inherently left or right. It's what aspect of your government you're tying socialism to. 



> Not that your being an aussie has anything to do with it, but that is still social liberalism. In fact, even the conservatives that claim that them being anti-illegal-immigration doesn't make them social conservatives because by and large they're for immigration and assimilation actually making them social liberals. If you're pro-multiethnicism you're a social liberal. If you're anti-globalist and anti-multiculturism but pro-multiethnicism, then that just means you're woke :mj


Pls stop using so many -isms and -ists. :side:
What if you're just against all immigration?



> Being anti-illegal immigration and against mass refugee intake with the intent of limiting erosion of western culture would be social conservativism but that's a stretch.


Elaborate? :mj



> You'd be wrong. Anti-abortion and Anti-gay marriage is pretty much the last remaining topics that define social conservatism at least here in the states. Segregationists have been rightfully labeled as racists and the majority of social conservatives that used to be segregationists are now disappearing and interestingly popped up on the far left demanding segregated spaces for minorities.


I never took the entirety of 'conservatism', as just a religious thing. Abortion law and gay marriage aren't cultural topics, they're religious topics. Are you saying that to be conservative you have to be religious? 



> You sound more like a classical liberal, but still a liberal. As far as Americans are concerned, you're pretty much squarely left wing.


Probably. But if I sound like it, doesn't mean I subscribe. I don't consider myself anchored by left or right and just go with what is reasonable. What's reasonable is circumstantial. I'm pro-welfare because there's no better reasonable answer. If there was, I'd probably be against it. And if I was against it, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.


----------



## glenwo2

Legit BOSS said:


> *The Republicans never disappoint with their blatant lies, hypocrisy, incompetence, and racism. Apparently it's hypocrisy day, since these idiots on Fox News and other right wing media spent TWO YEARS bitching about Hillary's emails, as they now blindly justify Pence using a private email for public work.*
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/837723655845122048
> *Edit: I stand corrected, they've got some racism for us too! This time they decided to detain an Afghan with a Visa who previously worked with our government:
> 
> https://twitter.com/i/web/status/838377303486918656He must be a Muslim terrorist too, right ?
> *


You lost all credibility when you put up tweets from that nutjob Keith Olbermann. fpalm


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Legit BOSS said:


> *You have no answer at all for legitimate wrongful occurrences under the Trump regime, but then you turn around and spam baseless accusations as real news :mj4. Please tell us when Obama found the time to set up a wiretap in Trump Tower and listen to all the dumb shit that Trump had to say. He had 10,000 things to worry about towards the end of his presidency, and Trump had Secret Service in Trump Towers all during the presidential race. What's your next excuse, he wiretapped him while on vacation?
> 
> Was it while he was Kite Surfing in the Virgin Islands with Richard Branson?
> 
> https://twitter.com/i/web/status/828939842990067713
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was it while having dinner at Emilio's with his daughter?
> BQ4OQJYhXm0
> 
> https://twitter.com/i/web/status/BQ5fpsYAe4s%2F
> Was it at the Broadway Play?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://twitter.com/i/web/status/835297389116289024
> Does it really look like THIS man spent any kind of time stressing over Trump ruining this country by the day?*


The amount of stupid in this post is outstanding. Obama doesn't sit there with earpiece in hand, it's foolish that you would even think that. It's foolish to think that Obama dressed up in his "spy gear" and set the wiretaps himself. It's almost as if you have no real understanding on how delegation works.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

glenwo2 said:


> You lost all credibility when you put up tweets from that nutjob Keith Olbermann. fpalm


*And you never had any :mj4. That tweet is a direct link to an NY times article reporting a factual incident. Attacking the messenger is yet another weak ass copout because you have no answer for it.*


----------



## glenwo2

Legit BOSS said:


> *And you never had any :mj4. That tweet is a direct link to an NY times article reporting a factual incident. Attacking the messenger is yet another weak ass copout because you have no answer for it.*


My mistake then. I meant to say that the NY Times has NO Credibility because they're using tweets from Keith Olbermann, the nut-job. :quite

Happy?


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Legit BOSS said:


> *And you never had any :mj4. That tweet is a direct link to an NY times article reporting a factual incident. Attacking the messenger is yet another weak ass copout because you have no answer for it.*


When AT MOST 200 people out of 300,000+ were detained, because of Trump's immigration order, that doesn't make it a trend towards discrimination. It's called an outlier. What else would you call 0.00066667%? And you want to point to ONE family that was detained as reason to believe Trump is whatever your cognitive dissonance thinks he is? You'll have to forgive us if we think you have no credibility. If you have a problem with that then I would recommend that your posts be better constructed.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

glenwo2 said:


> My mistake then. I meant to say that the NY Times has NO Credibility because they're using tweets from Keith Olbermann, the nut-job. :quite


*Which means you didn't even read, which further devalues your contribution on any serious matter. Keith linked an NY times article and gave his own personal commentary within the tweet. Nowhere in that article were any of his tweets mentioned.*


----------



## samizayn

Trump like woke up, said something half-assed about oh btw I was tapped, and then went on to address the real issues ie why Arnold really left The Apprentice. How on earth do you defend that :lol


----------



## Vic Capri

> The amount of stupid in this post is outstanding. Obama doesn't sit there with earpiece in hand, it's foolish that you would even think that. It's foolish to think that Obama dressed up in his "spy gear" and set the wiretaps himself. It's almost as if you have no real understanding on how delegation works.


Agreed. Barack Obama continued to have Americans spied on. That is fact!

- Vic


----------



## glenwo2

Legit BOSS said:


> *Which means you didn't even read, which further devalues your contribution on any serious matter. Keith linked an NY times article and gave his own personal commentary within the tweet. Nowhere in that article were any of his tweets mentioned.*


Keith Olbermann is an insane piece of shit who was fired from his job and is now communicating his bullshit from his Mom's basement. True story.

I don't give a fuck what that clown is spewing from the anus he calls a mouth. Apparently you do which is sad, actually. :no:


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

glenwo2 said:


> Keith Olbermann is an insane piece of shit who was fired from his job and is now communicating his bullshit from his Mom's basement. True story.
> 
> I don't give a fuck what that clown is spewing from the anus he calls a mouth. Apparently you do which is sad, actually. :no:


*Surprise: Blind Trump supporter continues to deflect the main issue by attacking the person who shared the article because he has no answer for it. Since your thinking is too linear to look past the guy who shared an article from a 3rd party, I will link said article on its own so you have no excuse:* https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/...-iphone-share&referer=https://t.co/bI1VqW8Jx5



> An Afghan family of five that had received approval to move to the United States based on the father’s work for the American government has been detained for more than two days after flying into Los Angeles International Airport, a legal advocacy group said in court documents filed on Saturday.
> 
> A federal judge in Los Angeles issued on Saturday evening a temporary restraining order to prevent the mother and children from being transferred out of the state. The order, by Judge Josephine L. Staton of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, arrived as they were about to be put on a plane to Texas, most likely bound for a family detention center there, lawyers said.
> 
> The scene at the airport was “chaotic, panicked; it was a mess,” said Lali Madduri, a lawyer with the firm Gibson Dunn, which is representing the family pro bono. “The whole time the children are crying, the woman is crying. They can’t understand what’s going on.”
> 
> The father had arrived on Thursday with his wife and three children, ages 7, 6 and 8 months, on Special Immigrant Visas, according to the lawyers’ habeas corpus petition filed on Saturday in Federal District Court in Los Angeles. Those visas were created by Congress for citizens in Iraq and Afghanistan who have helped the United States military or government as drivers, interpreters or in other jobs — work that often makes them targets in their home countries.
> 
> But instead of being allowed to enter the United States, the family has been detained, according to the court papers.
> 
> “I’ve never, ever heard of this happening,” said Becca Heller, the director of the International Refugee Assistance Project, or IRAP, which filed the petition. “They go through so many layers of security clearance, including one right before they get on the plane.”
> 
> Calling the detention “egregious, inhumane and unconstitutional,” the group petitioned the court to release the family, whose names were not publicly revealed. The judge did not order the family be released, but set a hearing in the case for Monday.
> 
> According to Ms. Heller, the father was being held Saturday night at a men’s immigration detention facility in Orange County, Calif. His wife and children were taken to a detention center in downtown Los Angeles.
> 
> Asked for comment on the case, a spokesman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement said only that the agency “will fully comply with the March 4 judicial order and all other legal requirements.”
> 
> The case was the latest instance of what advocates say has been increased scrutiny at American airports since President Trump took office, especially after his January executive order temporarily banning travelers from seven predominantly Muslim countries. A federal court halted that order, but the administration has said it will issue a revised version. *Afghanistan was not one of the seven countries in the original ban.*
> 
> Even so, customs agents at airports have been using their power to detain passengers, demand passwords for smartphones to search their contents and to even cancel visas. Mem Fox, a best-selling children’s book author from Australia, described being held for questioning — also at Los Angeles International Airport — for several hours with no access to water or a bathroom, and was prohibited from using her cellphone.
> 
> Henry Rousso, a prominent French historian of the Holocaust, said he was detained at an airport in Houston for more than 10 hours and was threatened with deportation when he arrived to give the keynote address at a conference at Texas A&M University.
> 
> It was unclear exactly how the Afghan man who was detained had helped the United States, but IRAP wrote in the court petition that “his service put not only his own life, but also the lives of his wife and three small children, at risk.”
> 
> Kerry Arndt, a spokeswoman for Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington State, where the family was going to settle, said the senator’s office was trying to get information from the Department of Homeland Security, but was “very frustrated from the lack of communication and information that we’re getting.”


*So please, if it's not blatant racism, tell us why this man with a Visa was detained since Afghanistan wasn't even on the OVERTURNED list of countries in the travel ban.*


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Legit BOSS said:


> *So please, if it's not blatant racism, tell us why this man with a Visa was detained since Afghanistan wasn't even on the OVERTURNED list of countries in the travel ban.*




You don't even know why he was detained. You're just guessing based off of your confirmation bias. The fact is, nobody on this board knows why he was detained. For you to say you know why is disingenuous, at best, and does nothing to help your point.


----------



## glenwo2

Legit BOSS said:


> *Surprise: Blind Trump supporter continues to deflect the main issue by attacking the person who shared the article because he has no answer for it. Since your thinking is too linear to look past the guy who shared an article from a 3rd party, I will link said article on its own so you have no excuse:* https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/...-iphone-share&referer=https://t.co/bI1VqW8Jx5
> 
> 
> 
> *So please, if it's not blatant racism, tell us why this man with a Visa was detained since Afghanistan wasn't even on the OVERTURNED list of countries in the travel ban.*



Then let me re-quote someone's recent post on this :



TheNightmanCometh said:


> When AT MOST 200 people out of 300,000+ were detained, because of Trump's immigration order, that doesn't make it a trend towards discrimination. It's called an outlier. What else would you call 0.00066667%? And you want to point to ONE family that was detained as reason to believe Trump is whatever your cognitive dissonance thinks he is? You'll have to forgive us if we think you have no credibility. If you have a problem with that then I would recommend that your posts be better constructed.


:sleep :sleep :sleep


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

glenwo2 said:


> Then let me re-quote someone's recent post on this :
> 
> 
> 
> :sleep :sleep :sleep


*1. I'm not responding to a troll.
2. He shouldn't have been detained, period.

No legal citizen with a Middle Eastern background, nor one that has a VISA, should be detained for being Middle Eastern or Muslim. I don't even need to make this up because there's been a precedent set for it when they asked Muhammed Ali's son about his religion after detaining him just last week: http://nypost.com/2017/02/24/muhammad-alis-son-detained-under-trump-immigration-ban/
*


> Muhammad Ali’s son was detained at Fort Lauderdale International Airport earlier this month — in the wake of President Donald Trump’s executive order on immigration, it was revealed Friday.
> 
> Muhammad Ali Jr. was traveling from Jamaica on Feb 7 with his mother Khalilah Ali when immigration officers detained him in a small room and questioned him for 30 minutes, the Miami New Times reported.
> 
> *Ali Jr., who has no criminal record and carries a US passport, was repeatedly asked about his religion, his rep told the New Times.*
> 
> “This is an outrage,” Chris Mancini, a former federal prosecutor and friend of the family, told the paper.
> 
> *“I don’t know what is going on with Mr. Trump’s claim that his ban is not religion-based. We do not discriminate in this country based on religion.”*
> 
> Khalilah Ali showed immigration officers pictures of herself with her former husband — legendary boxer Muhammad Ali — and they chose not to detain her.
> 
> Muhammad Ali Jr. did not have a picture of his father at the time.
> 
> President Trump signed the travel ban on Jan. 27. A federal judge in Seattle blocked the order a few days before Ali’s flight and the directive is currently ensconced in a legal battle.
> 
> Customs and Border Protection did not comment about Ali’s encounter.


*There's yet another baseless stop for being brown and possibly Muslim. Now they're facing a law suit for improper detention.*


----------



## glenwo2

So he's a troll just for having a different opinion than yours. Okay then.

Nevermind that he brought up a valid point but let's forget about that because he's not Anti-Trump and his opinion ruins your "flow". :lol



The "Troll" even goes on to say : 

*"You don't even know why he was detained. You're just guessing based off of your confirmation bias. The fact is, nobody on this board knows why he was detained. For you to say you know why is disingenuous, at best, and does nothing to help your point."*

Doesn't sound like a troll that says "hurr hurr..you suck. Hurr".


----------



## virus21




----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Legit BOSS said:


> *1. I'm not responding to a troll.*


Anyone who has a cogent argument.....TROLLL!!!!

The fact is you have no argument and you're calling me a troll because it's much easier to say that than refute my points. The truth of the matter is that you're mirroring. You're a troll, saying outlandish things, with no proof, just for the sole purpose of taking a moral stance on an issue you know nothing about.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

glenwo2 said:


> Doesn't sound like a troll that says "hurr hurr..you suck. Hurr".


*You do, because you can't even form your own argument. I've presented an argument with multiple facts backing it. You're supposed to provide facts to counter said argument. If you can't do that, then just go back to your corny one liners about liberals. You aren't built for this.*


----------



## Stephen90

I can't believe people are defending Trump for this stupid wiretapping allegation.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Legit BOSS said:


> *You do, because you can't even form your own argument. I've presented an argument with multiple facts backing it. You're supposed to provide facts to counter said argument. If you can't do that, then just go back to your corny one liners about liberals. You aren't built for this.*


Facts? What facts? Saying one person got detained is a fact. Saying AT MOST 200 people out of 300,000+ people got detained is also a fact. In absence of information, speculation fills the vacuum. You have no information, so you fill up your opinion based on minimal information that confirms your bias and conflate it to equal what you perceive to be the issue, when it isn't an issue at all. 0.0006667% proves that it is not an issue. It's easier for you to take one person and conflate it to be a trend because it soothes your bias and furthers your cognitive dissonance that Trump is Hitler and you're the hero. The hero, I might add, who has done nothing more than post your indignation on the internet over the fact that the country voted in "literally Hitler you guyz!!!"

To add further, your ad hominem attacks won't prove to anyone that you have the moral high ground. So, really it isn't a question of whether you'll debate me because I'm a troll. The question is whether you're even worth debating at all, because I have yet to see anything from you that would warrant a debate.



Stephen90 said:


> I can't believe people are defending Trump for this stupid wiretapping allegation.


I can't believe you think it's strictly a baseless allegation. Go do some research on the topic.


----------



## Stephen90

TheNightmanCometh said:


> I can't believe you think it's strictly a baseless allegation. Go do some research on the topic.


Yes because if brietbart says it it must be true.


----------



## glenwo2

Legit BOSS said:


> *You do, because you can't even form your own argument. I've presented an argument with multiple facts backing it. You're supposed to provide facts to counter said argument. If you can't do that, then just go back to your corny one liners about liberals. You aren't built for this.*


Well why should I form an argument when someone else forms one(a good one) already? :shrug

Not my problem if you believe he's a troll.


----------



## glenwo2

Stephen90 said:


> I can't believe people are defending Trump for this stupid wiretapping allegation.


Read the news. It's not exactly just an "allegation", Stephen.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Stephen90 said:


> Yes because if brietbart says it it must be true.


It's more than just brietbart. Like I said, do some research.


----------



## glenwo2

OKAY. Switching gears here.

Found this comment on another forum that looks very interesting :



> When they say, "funds that combat terrorism" they mean us giving money to countries that hate us in hopes that they dont hate us. And when they say "create opportunities for American workers" they mean defense contractors making money on war.


Ouch. Can't say that I disagree with this, especially the first part. :lol


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Stephen90 said:


> Yes because if brietbart says it it must be true.


*Don't you see how this works? Trump supporters can make baseless claims with no evidence because Trump said it and we're supposed to accept that, and when we bury them in facts to confirm the contrary, they can also deny said facts with no evidence disproving them, while throwing in buzzwords like Social Justice Warrior, race baiter, and liberal. Their arguments don't require logic nor proof. *


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Legit BOSS said:


> *Don't you see how this works? Trump supporters can make baseless claims with no evidence because Trump said it and we're supposed to accept that, and when we bury them in facts to confirm the contrary, they can also deny said facts with no evidence disproving them, while throwing in buzzwords like Social Justice Warrior, race baiter, and liberal. Their arguments don't require logic nor proof. *


You know there isn't evidence? When did this happen? Please, link your sources that prove there's no evidence. I find it funny that you would automatically be convinced that a lack of evidence means there is no evidence. After all, don't you think Trump has ties with Russia, and don't you base that on zero proof whatsoever? If you believe that there should be an independent prosecutor for alleged Trump-Russia ties, shouldn't you also agree that there should be an independent prosecutor for alleged Obama-wiretapping ties? If not, how do you separate the two?


----------



## Stinger Fan

Stephen90 said:


> I can't believe people are defending Trump for this stupid wiretapping allegation.


Wasn't there a report that Obama at the very least tried and was denied a wire tap?



TheNightmanCometh said:


> You know there isn't evidence? When did this happen? Please, link your sources that prove there's no evidence. I find it funny that you would automatically be convinced that a lack of evidence means there is no evidence. After all, don't you think Trump has ties with Russia, and don't you base that on zero proof whatsoever? If you believe that there should be an independent prosecutor for alleged Trump-Russia ties, shouldn't you also agree that there should be an independent prosecutor for alleged Obama-wiretapping ties? If not, how do you separate the two?


There's no point in talking to him. He claims Trump is being run by Russia and the Saudis with zero proof behind it. Funny how that works right? They can accuse people with zero evidence but complain if someone else does the same.


----------



## glenwo2

^ Legit Boss is pretty amusing in that respect, Stinger. :lol


----------



## Oxidamus

Saying Breitbart isn't a reputable source of information but watching mainstream media, reading NY Times and HuffPo. :westbrook5


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

When you don't know what news to trust, if any. :mj2

Misinformation and blatant bias running amok. :mj2


----------



## Stephen90

Legit BOSS said:


> *Don't you see how this works? Trump supporters can make baseless claims with no evidence because Trump said it and we're supposed to accept that, and when we bury them in facts to confirm the contrary, they can also deny said facts with no evidence disproving them, while throwing in buzzwords like Social Justice Warrior, race baiter, and liberal. Their arguments don't require logic nor proof. *


Yes they make fun of liberals losing their mind when Milo goes to speak at a university. Yet they lose it when Ana Kasparian is booked to make an appearance.


----------



## Oxidamus

Why do you guys still respond to BBR? He's a blatant troll. :kobe8

When you say something he can't respond to, whether it's because he is wrong or because it's just against his view and simply has no response, he doesn't say anything.
Then he claims everyone else is "deflecting" while he "hits them with facts" despite flat-out ignoring facts against him. He does this with video games, wrestling AND politics all on this same board, and people still respond.

If Trump is what BBR says he is, then BBR himself is our version of a liberal Trump. Shame! :trump


----------



## Dr. Middy

Oxi X.O. said:


> Saying Breitbart isn't a reputable source of information but watching mainstream media, reading NY Times and HuffPo. :westbrook5


I mean you could say every single possible way of getting news isn't reputable because there is bias and lies, it just varies as to how much. :shrug

The idea behind reading any sort of news now is to not put 100% stock into it, rather, read it and take whatever is being said with a grain of salt.

I mean, I just went on Breitbart's main page, and it's clear they are VERY pro Trump based on headlines alone. Meanwhile, the NYT is on the other side. So both are bias in their own rights, just like every single news outlet would be. It's a matter of reading in between the lines now.


----------



## Beatles123

Stephen90 said:


> Yes they make fun of liberals losing their mind when Milo goes to speak at a university. Yet they lose it when Ana Kasparian is booked to make an appearance.


I don't get mad at Ana for speaking, I get mad because she's a brainwashed globalist feminazi. :trump3


----------



## Reaper

Media lying and creating narratives isn't new. It may be new to the young ones that haven't had much exposure in life, but pretty much anyone that's read newspapers for 20-30 years knows that media has always lied. I can cite hundreds of examples with a simple google search. And that includes all of the big ones including AFP, AP, Reuters. All of them have published fake news and photographs at some point in history. A lot of of our photographic record of Palestinian suppression has been consistently debunked over the years. There's plenty of examples all over the place where media has reported something that has been an outright falsehood, but it's remained pervasively etched into global consciousness simply through repetition. 

No idea why kids today are talking like this is a new phenomenon or something :draper2

Maybe their parents should have done a better job of teaching them how to think critically because schools certainly didn't do that.

This is one of the most fascinating stories of how easily people are fooled and anyone that's aware of this should always be skeptical of all media. 

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smith...n-welles-war-of-the-worlds-turns-70-29564451/


> Fake Radio War Stirs Terror Through US: Orson Welles’ War of the Worlds turns 70
> 
> Seventy years ago in a Halloween episode of the Mercury Theatre on the Air, Orson Welles whipped millions of Americans into a martian-crazed panic with his radio play adaptation of H.G. Welles'
> War of the Worlds. You know the story. Those who tuned in late missed the disclaimer that the program was pure fantasy. A typical evening of musical programming was suddenly interrupted by "eyewitness news reporting" describing a Martian invasion that was wreaking devastation in Grovers Mill, New Jersey (about 22 miles from Trenton). From there the Martians began decimating the denizens of New York with heat rays and poisonous black smoke. Please hold your snide remarks. Think people of that bygone era were gullible? Don't forget with war on the horizon in Europe, fears of invasion and mass destruction were keeping those folks up at night. War of the Worlds played on those apprehensions with gleeful abandon.
> 
> This, said Orson Welles, was the "Mercury Theatre's own radio version of dressing up in a sheet. . .jumping out of a bush and saying 'Boo!' So goodbye everybody, and remember please for the next day or so the terrible lesson you learned tonight: that grinning, glowing, globular invader of your living room is an inhabitant of the pumpkin patch and if your doorbell rings and nobody's there, that was no Martian, it's Halloween."
> 
> Hunker down with your favorite Halloween candy and hear what all the fuss was about by listening to the original radio broadcast.


Yes, TV people lie. To assume they don't is intellectual suicide at this point.


----------



## Beatles123

Also, the idea that fake news hasn't always existed like this is :ha worthy. I NEVER trusted the news, even dating back to Bush V. Gore!


----------



## virus21




----------



## DOPA

The way I handle news is I read from a variety of sources from different viewpoints of the same story, then I'll analyze it and come to my own conclusions. That's all you can really do at this point :draper2.

Easier to point out the really hack sources though such as the Guardian from the left and the Daily Mail on the right here in the UK. Independent has gotten really bad lately as well with the anti-trump/anti-brexit hysteria. Shame because they used to reputable.

I don't think Breitbart are as bad as what some people claim they are to be honest. I know I'll get shit for saying that and they are blatantly biased towards Trump but I guess it's because the right wing media in the UK besides the Times and the Telegraph are utter shit.


----------



## Stephen90

Beatles123 said:


> I don't get mad at Ana for speaking, I get mad because she's a brainwashed globalist feminazi. :trump3


Just like Milo who attributes nothing but lame,rude immature comments.


----------



## Dr. Middy

RipNTear said:


> Media lying and creating narratives isn't new. It may be new to the young ones that haven't had much exposure in life, but pretty much anyone that's read newspapers for 20-30 years knows that media has always lied.
> 
> No idea why kids today are talking like this is a new phenomenon or something :draper2
> 
> Maybe their parents should have done a better job of teaching them how to think critically because schools certainly didn't do that.


It seems like the idea has defintely been more widespread than ever though. I mean, the AMOUNT of evident bias it is somewhat new to be because I never followed politics and the like as much as I have the past year. I was aware that there was bias previously though. But I don't look at is with such a pessimistic view as a lot of people seem to have, not saying that you do :shrug


----------



## Reaper

Dr. Middy said:


> It seems like the idea has defintely been more widespread than ever though. I mean, the AMOUNT of evident bias it is somewhat new to be because I never followed politics and the like as much as I have the past year. I was aware that there was bias previously though. But I don't look at is with such a pessimistic view as a lot of people seem to have, not saying that you do :shrug


Not really. Fake news has always permeated national consciousness from the best of my knowledge. The problem isn't better or worse - it's just a topic of conversation in and of itself when it has never been allowing the media to create fake news and then post meek retractions after. Nazi Germany as well as Americans both spent massive amounts of money in their respective propaganda machines feeding people with all kinds of narratives in order to push their agendas. Have you seen Disney's WWII films for example. Propaganda is narrative spinning at its finest. The entire reason for the Iraq war was nothing but fake news created by the government and fed to the media most of which gladly accepted the info. :draper2 

In fact. Here's an article from CNN from 2002 creating a spin on how an Iraq War is pretty much inevitable

In the digital age, it's much easier to archive, discuss and debate. We are living in the information age so we're consuming more info.


----------



## CamillePunk

Trump makes the important issues we ignore national topics of conversation, usually through exaggerating the issue somewhat in order to get people to "fact check" him, which unwittingly serves Trump's interest of getting people to talk about the problem and realizing it's a much bigger issue than they were aware, even if not to the degree of Trump's exaggerations. He understands human psychology and the media in a way few people appreciate.

I'm still chuckling to myself thinking of how he went on Fox & Friends and said he gave himself a "C or C+" in messaging, and then when asked about how he'll improve he said "watch the speech and find out" (referring to the congressional address). Then he goes out and gives a speech that is hailed even by people on the left who hate Trump. It doesn't matter how good the speech actually was (to me I thought it was pretty good but nothing unique or special from Trump, nothing that should illicit all of these "fake becauses" from people apparently just now coming around on Trump), he set himself up to look as good as possible by underrating his own messaging in the first place.


----------



## Dr. Middy

RipNTear said:


> Not really. Fake news has always permeated national consciousness from the best of my knowledge. The problem isn't better or worse - it's just a topic of conversation in and of itself when it has never been allowing the media to create fake news and then post meek retractions after :draper2
> 
> In the digital age, it's much easier to archive, discuss and debate. We are living in the information age so we're consuming more info.


I believe you, really it's just that I haven't followed much of this that intently only until recently. It is easier to read and analyze more information than ever thanks to just how easy and accessible everything has come, which probably is a good thing for the majority of people when it comes to what they want to believe. Instead of reading a select newspaper and watch a news station, you can now do this times 10, 20, and so forth, and have the ability to make better decisions based on many different sources instead of just a few.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Stephen90 said:


> Just like Milo who attributes nothing but lame,rude immature comments.


Well, I don't see anti-Ana protesters blocking entrances to prevent people from hearing Ana speak. I also don't see ANTIFA coming in and beating up pro-Ana supporters.


----------



## DOPA

By the way, on the whole Obama wiretapped Trump accusations, here is a really good article from Ben Shapiro analyzing it in detail:

http://www.dailywire.com/news/14101/towergate-trump-accuses-obama-wiretapping-him-ben-shapiro



> On Saturday morning, President Trump found his cellphone and immediately determined to bring to light a national controversy: the Obama administration wiretapping of Trump Tower. At least, that’s what he tweeted about.
> 
> This tweetstorm raises a few questions: first, did the Obama administration have Trump’s wires tapped in Trump Tower? Second, did President Obama himself have Donald Trump’s wires tapped in Trump Tower? Third, does Trump know what the hell he’s talking about? Fourth, if not, does it matter? Finally, how will this little conflagration play out politically?
> 
> Here are some answers.
> 
> 1. The Obama Administration *Did Monitor Communications Of People/Sources Surrounding Trump. The New York Times reported months ago that the intelligence community had recordings of several of Trump’s associates*; the Times speculated that such recordings could have been gathered because the Obama intelligence apparatus was wiretapping Russians and caught Trump officials on the other end. As *Andrew McCarthy writes at National Review:*
> 
> _To summarize, reporting indicates that, prior to June 2016, the Obama Justice Department and FBI considered a criminal investigation of Trump associates, and perhaps Trump himself, based on concerns about connections to Russian financial institutions. Preliminary poking around indicated that there was nothing criminal involved. Rather than shut the case down, though, the Obama Justice Department converted it into a national-security investigation under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). FISA allows the government, if it gets court permission, to conduct electronic surveillance (which could include wiretapping, monitoring of e-mail, and the like) against those it alleges are “agents of a foreign power.” FISA applications and the evidence garnered from them are classified – i.e., we would not know about any of this unless someone had leaked classified information to the media, a felony.
> _
> 
> As *James Barrett writes*:
> 
> _According to multiple reports, during the 2016 campaign, the Obama administration allegedly submitted two requests with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) targeting Trump or those associated with him. The first, submitted in June 2016, was reportedly a request to monitor several of Trump's associates. The request was denied. The Obama administration then allegedly submitted a second FISA request in October focused on the computer server in Trump Tower, which they suspected had some connections to Russian banks. That request was granted, but nothing was found. According to some reports, the wiretaps of Trump Tower continued nonetheless. _
> 
> Here was *Heat Street’s reporting* on the issue:
> 
> _Two separate sources with links to the counter-intelligence community have confirmed to Heat Street that the FBI sought, and was granted, a FISA court warrant in October, giving counter-intelligence permission to examine the activities of ‘U.S. persons’ in Donald Trump’s campaign with ties to Russia. Contrary to earlier reporting in the New York Times, which cited FBI sources as saying that the agency did not believe that the private server in Donald Trump’s Trump Tower which was connected to a Russian bank had any nefarious purpose, the FBI’s counter-intelligence arm, sources say, re-drew an earlier FISA court request around possible financial and banking offenses related to the server. The first request, which, sources say, named Trump, was denied back in June, but the second was drawn more narrowly and was granted in October after evidence was presented of a server, possibly related to the Trump campaign, and its alleged links to two banks; SVB Bank and Russia’s Alfa Bank._
> 
> So to pretend the Obama administration did nothing at all questionable here is bizarre.
> 
> We also don’t know that the Obama administration had Trump’s wires tapped. In fact, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper appeared on the morning shows on Sunday and stated that no FISA court order was issued to tap Trump or his campaign. But as we've seen, the issue is a bit more complex than that.
> 
> 2. *There’s No Evidence Obama Himself Had Trump’s Wires Tapped. But It’s Not Impossible*. Figures in the Obama administration immediately denied there were any direct orders to the DOJ to pursue a Trump wiretap. “A cardinal rule of the Obama administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice,” said Obama spokesman Kevin Lewis. “As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any US citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false.” This is plausible. McCarthy points out that FISA courts are responsible for ordering surveillance. And McCarthy also states, "it is specious to claim that, if the White House asks to see FISA court applications and orders, this would be a form of political interference in the law-enforcement mission of the FBI and Justice Department."
> 
> Beyond that, there’s no reason to believe that Obama himself would order the DOJ to do or not do anything – there’s a reason the DOJ has become the repository for political hacks who know where their bread is buttered over the past two decades. The Obama White House invoked executive privilege in 2012 in order to avoid making emails involving Attorney General Eric Holder available to Congress, in the middle of a contempt vote. It’s likely true that the Obama White House didn’t order the DOJ to pursue wiretaps against Trump personally. But the high dudgeon from the Obama White House here is way overblown. Presidents rarely have to ask their appointees to do their bidding.
> 
> 3. *Trump Hasn’t Presented Any New Evidence*. Trump hasn’t presented any evidence for his claims. White House press secretary Sean Spicer essentially tweeted that Trump was shooting from the hip: “President Trump is requesting that as part of their investigation into Russian activity, the congressional intelligence committees exercise their oversight authority to determine whether executive branch investigative powers were abused in 2016. Neither the White House nor the President will comment further until such oversight is conducted.” In other words, Trump made an unsupported accusation and wants Congress to pursue it for him. There’s no risk to Trump in doing this – it means that if Congress refuses to investigate, he can call them weaklings; if they investigate and find anything, he’ll claim proof; if they investigate and find nothing, he’ll rail against them and call them weaklings.
> 
> 4. *Yes, It Matters That Trump Tweets His Theories Without Evidence. But This Problem Doesn't Start With Trump.* This will raise serious questions about the behavior of the Obama administration in the run-up to the election. It will also raise questions about whether the Obama administration’s FISA requests were legitimate or political hits. If they were legitimate, then Trump actually has some troubles here – it’s possible that all the Trump-Russia smoke has some fire to it. If not, then Obama’s administration could have been engaging in seriously undemocratic behavior, far surpassing Watergate. Either way, Trump’s tweets do nothing to quell the chaos surrounding the presidency or ease concerns about the honesty of the federal government. Senator Ben Sasse (R-NE) hits the nail on the head:
> 
> The President today made some very serious allegations, and the informed citizens that a republic requires deserve more information. If there were wiretaps of then-candidate Trump’s organization or campaign, then it was either with FISA Court authorization or without such authorization. If without, the President should explain what sort of wiretap it was and how he knows this. It is possible that he was illegally tapped. On the other hand, if it was with a legal FISA Court order, then an application for surveillance exists that the Court found credible. The President should ask that this full application regarding surveillance of foreign operatives or operations be made available, ideally to the full public, and at a bare minimum to the US Senate. We are in the midst of a civilization-warping crisis of public trust, and the President’s allegations today demand the thorough and dispassionate attention of serious patriots. A quest for the full truth, rather than knee-jerk partisanship, must be our guide if we are going to rebuild civic trust and health.
> 
> The media are pretending now that Trump's tweet undermines confidence in government. But if confidence in government hadn't already been compromised, Trump wouldn't be president. And as we've seen, the Obama administration's weaponization of the bureaucracy means that Americans are suspicious that all means are in play for politically motivated actors.
> 
> 5. *Trump’s Supporters Will Point To Obama’s Malfeasance, Obama’s Supporters Will Point To Trump’s Twitter Diarrhea, Both Will Be Right. *So, how will this shake out? Trump’s supporters will accuse the media of fibbing for claiming that the Obama administration never did anything to the Trump team during the campaign – and they’ll be right. There are multiple media reports that the Obama administration asked for FISA wiretaps and got at least one of them; we don’t know the extent of those wiretaps or what they found. We also don’t know who in the Obama administration requested such FISA wiretaps or why. Meanwhile, Obama’s supporters will accuse Trump of making things up based on shoddy evidence – and they’ll be right too, in all likelihood, since even Trump’s team is running from providing evidence of his accusations.


To sum up, the Obama administration did monitor several people associated with Trump's campaign during election season and this has been confirmed by multiple sources including left wing outlets. So there is something to what Trump was saying, it didn't just appear from nowhere. There is however no evidence to suggest that Obama himself was involved or that Trump was wiretapped. That is all speculation. To be honest, this is one of those situations where Trump's twitter finger has gotten himself into a pickle with these allegations with no substantial new evidence to back it up. But to suggest Obama's administration did nothing in regards to monitoring Trump and the people around him is laughable, because clearly that did happen.

Overall I give both Trump and the people claiming Obama's administration did nothing a D. There is arguments to be made from both sides but there is also a fair bit of bullshit coming out from both ends.


----------



## Dr. Middy

CamillePunk said:


> Trump makes the important issues we ignore national topics of conversation, usually through exaggerating the issue somewhat in order to get people to "fact check" him, which unwittingly serves Trump's interest of getting people to talk about the problem and realizing it's a much bigger issue than they were aware, even if not to the degree of Trump's exaggerations. He understands human psychology and the media in a way few people appreciate.
> 
> I'm still chuckling to myself thinking of how he went on Fox & Friends and said he gave himself a "C or C+" in messaging, and then when asked about how he'll improve he said "watch the speech and find out" (referring to the congressional address). Then he goes out and gives a speech that is hailed even by people on the left who hate Trump. It doesn't matter how good the speech actually was (to me I thought it was pretty good but nothing unique or special from Trump, nothing that should illicit all of these "fake becauses" from people apparently just now coming around on Trump), he set himself up to look as good as possible by underrating his own messaging in the first place.


And as somebody who does consider himself somewhat left leaning, I thought he was eloquent, respectful, and generally level headed and with good intentions with his speech. If he keeps that sort of attitude, that would be much better over for him and really everybody, but I don't see that happening all the time.

I don't give Trump _that _much credit though. Sure, he is doing a pretty good job of calling out the media and making people question and read more into the news they consume daily, but he and his administration also made larger issues over rather trivial matters, like the inauguration crowd size for example.


----------



## Stephen90

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Well, I don't see anti-Ana protesters blocking entrances to prevent people from hearing Ana speak. I also don't see ANTIFA coming in and beating up pro-Ana supporters.


That's because they cancelled it because a bunch of republicans through a fit.


----------



## Reaper

L-DOPA said:


> I don't think Breitbart are as bad as what some people claim they are to be honest.


I consider the existence of Breitbart a necessary evil and I think that part of their agenda is fairly obvious. They specifically attack far left narratives and try to debunk them. They're not always successful and as a consequence of that ideology trap themselves into simply creating counterpunches not always backed in fact, but usually give a smarter reader a new outlook - or a starting point. 

I don't see Breitbart as anything more than a starting point. It's not a primary source. A single source should never be.



Stephen90 said:


> That's because they cancelled it because a bunch of republicans through a fit.


Or was it other left-wingers because she's given the left plenty of reason to protest her as well considering that it would logically be the blow-back for what transpired with the Armenian student with regards to the name of TYT. Last I checked it was Armenian descendants of the Armenian genocide protesting them. 

Do you have a source?


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

L-DOPA said:


> By the way, on the whole Obama wiretapped Trump accusations, here is a really good article from Ben Shapiro analyzing it in detail:
> 
> To sum up, the Obama administration did monitor several people associated with Trump's campaign during election season and this has been confirmed by multiple sources including left wing outlets. So there is something to what Trump was saying, it didn't just appear from nowhere. There is however no evidence to suggest that Obama himself was involved or that Trump was wiretapped. That is all speculation. To be honest, this is one of those situations where Trump's twitter finger has gotten himself into a pickle with these allegations with no substantial new evidence to back it up. But to suggest Obama's administration did nothing in regards to monitoring Trump and the people around him is laughable, because clearly that did happen.
> 
> Overall I give both Trump and the people claiming Obama's administration did nothing a D. There is arguments to be made from both sides but there is also a fair bit of bullshit coming out from both ends.


It really all comes down to this...



> The media are pretending now that Trump's tweet undermines confidence in government. But if confidence in government hadn't already been compromised, Trump wouldn't be president. And as we've seen, the Obama administration's weaponization of the bureaucracy means that Americans are suspicious that all means are in play for politically motivated actors.


At the end of the day, if there's no fire to this smoke then it'll be "Trump is a buffoon" as usual. His supporters will still support him and his opponents will still think he's the worst. But, if there is fire, then boy, oh boy, do we have ourselves quite the story. When it comes down to it, I want there to be an independent investigation into Trump's claims, because Trump may be wily, but he's not crazy. There's something there that would make him jump to the conclusion that he did and I wanna know what it is. That being said, I also want an independent investigation into the Russia/Trump allegations, even though I believe that if something existed it'd have already been made public by now. As we have seen, the remaining Obama appointees have no problem, whatsoever, leaking information they feel would hurt Trump and his team.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Stephen90 said:


> That's because they cancelled it because a bunch of republicans through a fit.


Well, that's disappointing. (No sarcasm)

As Rip asked, do you have a source that backs up your claim that it was cancelled because republicans "threw" a fit?


----------



## M_J

Stephen90 said:


> Yes they make fun of liberals losing their mind when Milo goes to speak at a university. Yet they lose it when Ana Kasparian is booked to make an appearance.


Truth be told both Democrats and Republicans are only for free speech when it comes to making them look good. They're against it when it makes them look bad.


----------



## virus21




----------



## TheNightmanCometh

M_J said:


> *Truth be told both Democrats and Republicans are only for free speech when it comes to making them look good. *They're against it when it makes them look bad.


That isn't true at all, at all. I would align myself on the right and I think everyone has a right to free speech, especially those who have different views from me. I mean, we got people claiming they want to punch people who support them in the face. There's nothing better I could say that would convince an opponent to be on my side than one of my opponents telling a fellow supporter that they want to punch them in the face for supporting them.


----------



## CamillePunk

Judging Trump based on the accuracy of his tweets is a very limited 2D approach to someone who is a master of persuasion and thus operates on a higher plane than the seemingly reason-based 2D plane most of us operate on. It ultimately doesn't matter if Obama personally bugged Trump Tower, having that allegation disproven would be utterly meaningless to Trump, as it has every time in the past when he's made a specific allegation that was disproven but lead to a discussion about things that had previously been well covered up. Obama has positioned himself as a direct opponent to Trump through his organization that explicitly seeks to combat Trump's agenda. I don't think things are going to work out particularly well for the former president.


----------



## virus21




----------



## M_J

TheNightmanCometh said:


> That isn't true at all, at all. I would align myself on the right and I think everyone has a right to free speech, especially those who have different views from me. I mean, we got people claiming they want to punch people who support them in the face. There's nothing better I could say that would convince an opponent to be on my side than one of my opponents telling a fellow supporter that they want to punch them in the face for supporting them.


Yes it's very true if you bashed Hillary then you were a sexist. If you bashed Trump then you hated America.


----------



## dan the marino

As amusing as this all is to me this ..... is legit mentally ill. I actually didn't think he'd last 2 years before impeachment but at the rate he's going it won't be 6 months.


----------



## Beatles123

Stephen90 said:


> Just like Milo who attributes nothing but lame,rude immature comments.


Not at all. Milo is actually a skilled debater. Ana just uses the woman card.


----------



## CamillePunk

dan the marino said:


> As amusing as this all is to me this ..... is legit mentally ill. I actually didn't think he'd last 2 years before impeachment but at the rate he's going it won't be 6 months.


He'll be president for 8 years. Don't believe me, but do remember I told you this.


----------



## Reaper

@Stephen90 - Still waiting for evidence of Republicans protesting Ana Kasparian leading to a cancellation of her talk. 

Don't leave me hanging here :armfold


----------



## CamillePunk

Also, given the way Trump keeps saying "he-or-she" when referring to future presidents (which, to be fair, is something he's done since he was asked about running back in the 80's), and how Ivanka has pulled back from her role at Trump Tower and has been more involved with her father's administration, I'm also starting to believe Trump sees his daughter as succeeding him in 2024. :lol I've talked about this before, but the idea of the first female president being a Trump, and that being made possible by her supposedly sexist father, is simply too delicious a thought to contemplate for me not to want to come true, regardless of her politics. :lol


----------



## Reaper

I follow Ms Trump on facebook, and she's pretty much at every single meeting with her father. He either really values her advice or is grooming her or both. So yes, I have fantasized about Ivanka being the first US female president as well.

I've taken it a step further with a very deep political fantasy of Chelsea Clinton and Ivanka Trump battling it out in the debates for a glorious Clinton vs Trump II :evil


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

M_J said:


> Yes it's very true if you bashed Hillary then you were a sexist. If you bashed Trump then you hated America.


I'm sorry, but I fail to see how that makes any sense as a reply to the statement I made. You claimed that both sides are only interested in free speech if it helps their side, I said that wasn't true, and then you....gave examples of people who weren't tolerant of other people's points of view. I mean, I get that, but I just gave you an example of someone who is perfectly fine with dissenting opinions from my own. All I ever ask for is a rational response based on facts.


----------



## Stephen90

Beatles123 said:


> Not at all. Milo is actually a skilled debater. Ana just uses the woman card.


In reality they both suck.



RipNTear said:


> @Stephen90 - Still waiting for evidence of Republicans protesting Ana Kasparian leading to a cancellation of her talk.
> 
> Don't leave me hanging here :armfold


----------



## Reaper

Stephen90 said:


>


That's not how you present evidence. Give me the time-stamp where he talks about Ana's event specifically as I'm not shuffling through 12 minutes so I can check it. There's nothing specific in his links either. This is something completely different. 

I know what you're trying to do here, but I'm talking specifics and as a lot of people have found out, I'm extremely pedantic when it comes to staying on topic. You can't skirt by this easily.


----------



## Stephen90

Beatles123 said:


> Not at all. Milo is actually a skilled debater. Ana just uses the woman card.


He also defends pedophilia.


----------



## Stephen90

RipNTear said:


> That's not how you present evidence. Give me the time-stamp where he talks about Ana's event specifically as I'm not shuffling through 12 minutes so I can check it. There's nothing specific in his links either. This is something completely different.
> 
> I know what you're trying to do here, but I'm talking specifics and as a lot of people have found out, I'm extremely pedantic when it comes to staying on topic. You can't skirt by this easily.


Too bad


----------



## Reaper

Stephen90 said:


> Too bad


If you need to lie in order to make a point then you haven't made any point and you can be dismissed as a non-serious person.


----------



## yeahbaby!

How anyone can treat a tweet by Trump at this point as serious is beyond me.

Of course if there is evidence of the wire tapping scandal by Obama then begin the investigations. 

But Trump's tweet history is so insane and indeed, inane, that taking it seriously based on his couple of sentences frantically typed out while taking a shit or whatever, is not smart. IMO he has gone well past of being taken seriously on Twitter. 

Fool us once shame on you, fool us twice..... can get fooled again.


----------



## Stephen90

RipNTear said:


> If you need to lie in order to make a point then you haven't made any point and you can be dismissed as a non-serious person.


I find that funny since you are a Trump supporter. People in glass houses should never throw stone.


----------



## Reaper

Stephen90 said:


> I find that funny since you are a Trump supporter. People in glass houses should never through stone.


:mj4 

I've actually started to enjoy these takedowns. The response is always the same 

:trump3


----------



## Yeah1993

Stephen90 said:


> Too bad


what the fuck??? :lmao :lmao :lmao


----------



## CamillePunk

yeahbaby! said:


> How anyone can treat a tweet by Trump at this point as serious is beyond me.
> 
> Of course if there is evidence of the wire tapping scandal by Obama then begin the investigations.
> 
> But Trump's tweet history is so insane and indeed, inane, that taking it seriously based on his couple of sentences frantically typed out while taking a shit or whatever, is not smart. IMO he has gone well past of being taken seriously on Twitter.
> 
> Fool us once shame on you, fool us twice..... can get fooled again.


Many, many things were beyond you during your running commentary on this election cycle. :lol


----------



## Stephen90

I'm pretty sure this Obama wiretapping thing is another BS lie by Trump. But I'll wait till all the facts come out.


----------



## Stephen90

From BBC America
Trump Obama: FBI chief Comey 'rejects' phone tap allegation
06 March 2017
US & Canada
US President Donald Trump speaks by phone in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, 28 January 2017
Image caption The allegation relates to the presidential race last year
FBI director James Comey has rejected President Donald Trump's claim on Saturday that his predecessor, Barack Obama, tapped his phone, US media say.

Mr Comey reportedly asked the US justice department to reject the allegation Mr Obama ordered a wiretap during last year's election campaign.

He is said to have asked for the correction because it falsely insinuates that the FBI broke the law.

The development was reported by the New York Times and confirmed by NBC.

The justice department did issue any immediate statement in response to Mr Comey's reported request.

US media quoted officials as saying that Mr Comey believed there was no evidence to support Mr Trump's allegation.

Did Obama really wiretap Trump Tower?
FBI Director James Comey, 27 September 2016
Image caption Mr Comey said there was no evidence to support Mr Trump's claim, US media report
The New York Times and NBC reports came as the White House called on Congress to investigate whether the Obama administration had abused its powers.

White House press secretary Sean Spicer said there had been "very troubling" reports "concerning potentially politically motivated investigations immediately ahead of the 2016 election".

Mr Trump called the alleged tapping "Nixon/Watergate", referring to the notorious political scandal of 1972, which led to the downfall of President Richard Nixon.

He asked on Twitter whether it was legal for a "sitting president to be wire-tapping" and referred to the allegation as "a new low".

Trump tweet
Mr Trump, who has faced intense scrutiny over alleged Russian interference in support of his presidential bid, offered no evidence to support his allegation that phones at Trump Tower were tapped last year.

A spokesman for Mr Obama said the charge was "simply false".

Did Obama really tap Trump Towers?
Earlier, the director of national intelligence at the time of the US election, James Clapper, denied there had been any wire-tap on Mr Trump or his election campaign team.

Mr Clapper also told NBC that he knew of no court order to allow monitoring of Trump Tower in New York.


Image caption James Clapper says he "can deny" that Donald Trump's phones were tapped
"There was no such wire-tap activity mounted against the president-elect at the time, as a candidate, or against his campaign," Mr Clapper said.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

yeahbaby! said:


> *How anyone can treat a tweet by Trump at this point as serious is beyond me.*
> 
> Of course if there is evidence of the wire tapping scandal by Obama then begin the investigations.
> 
> But Trump's tweet history is so insane and indeed, inane, that taking it seriously based on his couple of sentences frantically typed out while taking a shit or whatever, is not smart. IMO he has gone well past of being taken seriously on Twitter.
> 
> Fool us once shame on you, fool us twice..... can get fooled again.


Dismissing an allegation because of the way it was delivered is wrong. I mean as someone who dislikes Trump, what do you really have to lose if this is investigated? In your mind he's a buffoon who tweets idiotic stuff and if this ends up being the same as all his other tweets then you'll still get to say he's a buffoon who tweets idiotic stuff. 

This is a serious allegation and it should be investigated. You can't sit there and believe that allegations regarding Trump and Russia should be investigated, when there is literally zero evidence, and at the same time say that his allegations should be dismissed.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Stephen90 said:


> _*I'm pretty sure this Obama wiretapping thing is another BS lie by Trump. *_But I'll wait till all the facts come out.


Cognitive dissonance is a funny thing.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Stephen90 said:


> From BBC America
> Trump Obama: FBI chief Comey 'rejects' phone tap allegation
> 06 March 2017
> US & Canada
> US President Donald Trump speaks by phone in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, 28 January 2017
> Image caption The allegation relates to the presidential race last year
> FBI director James Comey has rejected President Donald Trump's claim on Saturday that his predecessor, Barack Obama, tapped his phone, US media say.
> 
> Mr Comey reportedly asked the US justice department to reject the allegation Mr Obama ordered a wiretap during last year's election campaign.
> 
> He is said to have asked for the correction because it falsely insinuates that the FBI broke the law.


So, Comey wants the DOJ to reject the allegation because it falsely insinuates that the FBI broke the law? Never met a guilty person who said, "Please, look into the fact that I broke the law." If these allegations are false and there's nothing there then why would Comey be concerned?


----------



## virus21

> I start the day with liquids, but after the morning news, I eat pancakes smothered in maple syrup!" the singer tweeted on Saturday.
> Barbra Streisand says Donald Trump is making her gain weight. The singer tweeted on Saturday that news involving the president affects her morning routine.
> 
> "Donald Trump is making me gain weight. I start the day with liquids, but after the morning news, I eat pancakes smothered in maple syrup!" the singer tweeted on Saturday.
> 
> Follow
> Barbra Streisand ✔ @BarbraStreisand
> Donald Trump is making me gain weight. I start the day with liquids, but after the morning news, I eat pancakes smothered in maple syrup!
> 6:56 PM - 4 Mar 2017
> 3,726 3,726 Retweets 15,258 15,258 likes
> Her comments come after Trump recently claimed the Obama administration wiretapped into his Trump Tower phones during the 2016 presidential election. The White House asked Congress to investigate the matter on Sunday.
> 
> "Trump just accused Obama of tapping his phones. Seriously crazy times," added Streisand. "Time for more pancakes."
> 
> Follow
> Barbra Streisand ✔ @BarbraStreisand
> Trump just accused Obama of tapping his phones. Seriously crazy times. Time for more pancakes.
> 7:01 PM - 4 Mar 2017
> 1,177 1,177 Retweets 5,238 5,238 likes
> The performer has made it clear in the past that she is not a supporter of Trump. Streisand penned an essay for The Huffington Post titled "Clueless, Reckless, Graceless, Mindless and Heartless: Our President Elect," where she expressed that Trump is "dangerous and unfit for office."
> 
> After Meryl Streep's anti-Trump Golden Globes speech, Streisand called into MSNBC's Hardball With Chris Matthews while getting her teeth cleaned and said she agreed with Streep. "You can't trust anything he says," the singer added about Trump.


http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/barbra-streisand-tweets-trump-is-making-her-gain-weight-983280


----------



## yeahbaby!

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Dismissing an allegation because of the way it was delivered is wrong. I mean as someone who dislikes Trump, what do you really have to lose if this is investigated? In your mind he's a buffoon who tweets idiotic stuff and if this ends up being the same as all his other tweets then you'll still get to say he's a buffoon who tweets idiotic stuff.
> 
> This is a serious allegation and it should be investigated. You can't sit there and believe that allegations regarding Trump and Russia should be investigated, when there is literally zero evidence, and at the same time say that there's nothing to what he said.


Dismissing an allegation because of the way it's delivered isn't wrong at all. Trump's twitter history and indeed loudmouth allegations in the past speak for themselves and they do matter. He's been simply proven wrong about many of his tweets and utterings in the past so why shouldn't we treat this one with high skepticism?

Yes it's a serious allegation - but right now there is nothing more to it than a tweet from the President with a dubious history at best. Nothing more that a tweet. A tweet. A tweet. If there's more evidence he needs to produce it.

And I don't have anything to lose personally - but If I was an American citizen I might care about the resources taken up to investigate this based on no more than the latest Trump twittergasm - resources that could be used elsewhere for actual worthwhile things that would benefit society.


----------



## Mra22

Man, I hope Obama goes to jail


----------



## yeahbaby!

CamillePunk said:


> Many, many things were beyond you during your running commentary on this election cycle. :lol


Good job on challenging my point! Perhaps there's a Scott Adams' blog entry coming up that will do it for you?


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

yeahbaby! said:


> Dismissing an allegation because of the way it's delivered isn't wrong at all. Trump's twitter history and indeed loudmouth allegations in the past speak for themselves and they do matter. He's been simply proven wrong about many of his tweets and utterings in the past so why shouldn't we treat this one with high skepticism?
> 
> Yes it's a serious allegation - but right now there is nothing more to it than a tweet from the President with a dubious history at best. Nothing more that a tweet. A tweet. A tweet. If there's more evidence he needs to produce it.
> 
> And I don't have anything to lose personally - but If I was an American citizen I might care about the resources taken up to investigate this based on no more than the latest Trump twittergasm - resources that could be used elsewhere for actual worthwhile things that would benefit society.


I would agree with you if Trump alleges that SNL sucks, but this allegation is extremely serious if true and shouldn't be dismissed by the wave of a hand because of his previous history with tweeting random shit. And, this isn't just a tweet that he thought up in his head while taking a shit. His tweet was based off of a Breitbart article that was based off of Mark Levin's discovery. There's smoke here and there should be an investigation to see if there's fire.

If you are concerned about the resources being taken up, do you believe that the allegations of ties between Trump and Russia should also be dismissed? If you say it should then I would respect you for being consistent. After all, there is no evidence at all that there are ties between Trump and Russia, but there's still a continual insistence that it be further investigated, thus wasting resources.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Mra22 said:


> Man, I hope Obama goes to jail


Only if he's guilty of something. Personally, I don't want to believe that a sitting President had a hand in tapping a US citizen in order to find information that would affect an election. That would be really really really really bad.


----------



## Mra22

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Only if he's guilty of something. Personally, I don't want to believe that a sitting President had a hand in tapping a US citizen in order to find information that would affect an election. That would be really really really really bad.


I believe it since he was involved in Benghazi


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Mra22 said:


> I believe it since he was involved in Benghazi


He was also involved in tapping Angela Merkel, the Associated Press, and journalist James Rosen...and that's just to name a few. 



> Today, 23 February 2016 at 00:00 GMT [updated 12:20 GMT], WikiLeaks publishes highly classified documents showing that the US National Security Agency bugged a private climate change strategy meeting; between UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon and German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin; singled out the Chief of Staff of UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) for long term interception targetting his Swiss phone; singled out the Director of the Rules Division of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), Johann Human, and targetted his Swiss phone for long term interception; stole sensitive Italian diplomatic cables detailing how Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu implored Italy's Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi to help patch up his relationship with US President Barack Obama, who was refusing to talk to Netanyahu; intercepted top EU and Japanese trade ministers discussing their secret strategy and red lines to stop the US "extort[ing]" them at the WTO Doha arounds (the talks subsequently collapsed); explicitly targetted five other top EU economic officials for long term interception, including their French, Austrian and Belgium phone numbers; explicitly targetted the phones of Italy's ambassador to NATO and other top Italian officials for long term interception; and intercepted details of a critical private meeting between then French president Nicolas Sarkozy, Merkel and Berluscon, where the latter was told the Italian banking system was ready to "pop like a cork".
> 
> Some of the intercepts are classified TOP-SECRET COMINT-GAMMA and are the most highly classified documents ever published by a media organization.
> 
> WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange said "Today we proved the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon's private meetings over how to save the planet from climate change were bugged by a country intent on protecting its largest oil companies. Back in 2010 we revealed that the then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had ordered her diplomats to steal the UN leadership's biometric data and other information. The US government has signed agreements with the UN that it will not engage in such conduct. It will be interesting to see the UN's reaction, because if the United Nations Secretary General, whose communications and person have legal inviolability, can be repeatedly attacked without consequence then everyone is at risk."


----------



## CamillePunk

yeahbaby! said:


> Good job on challenging my point! Perhaps there's a Scott Adams' blog entry coming up that will do it for you?


You need to make a point for me to challenge it.


----------



## yeahbaby!

TheNightmanCometh said:


> I would agree with you if Trump alleges that SNL sucks, but this allegation is extremely serious if true and shouldn't be dismissed by the wave of a hand because of his previous history with tweeting random shit. And, this isn't just a tweet that he thought up in his head while taking a shit. His tweet was based off of a Breitbart article that was based off of Mark Levin's discovery. There's smoke here and there should be an investigation to see if there's fire.
> 
> If you are concerned about the resources being taken up, do you believe that the allegations of ties between Trump and Russia should also be dismissed? If you say it should then I would respect you for being consistent. After all, there is no evidence at all that there are ties between Trump and Russia, but there's still a continual insistence that it be further investigated, thus wasting resources.


Yeah but Trump just hasn't been wrong or using Twitter off handedly about SNL or the Apprentice. He's done it several times regarding policy and government stuff and been inaccurate or plain wrong.

If this is as serious as Trump claims - why not call a press conference or something? Back it up with more than a tweet please. On the surface this is a serious claim but Trump has shown on Twitter he's not to be taken seriously IMO.


----------



## Reaper

And people think that their "no evidence" narrative is their own independent conclusion :kobelol

BTW, I don't care if there's evidence or no evidence and I don't even care if there was wiretapping or no wire tapping. My interest in this is purely for the entertainment the sheer amount of group-think that occurs the minute Trump tweets something.

As I was talking to someone in PM's about it, there are those of us who recognize the difference between information and infotainment and at this point, Trump is driving the left media to become complete and utter parodies of themselves.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

yeahbaby! said:


> Yeah but Trump just hasn't been wrong or using Twitter off handedly about SNL or the Apprentice. He's done it several times regarding policy and government stuff and been inaccurate or plain wrong.
> 
> *If this is as serious as Trump claims - why not call a press conference or something? Back it up with more than a tweet please.* On the surface this is a serious claim but Trump has shown on Twitter he's not to be taken seriously IMO.


Well, from day one Trump has used Twitter as a means to communicate with the American people, and in that respect he's very transparent, I can't source where I read it, but I believe that any information that he has is classified, so he can't just come out and say what he knows, but he can clue the American people in on the fact that something is rotten in Denmark, and through his tweet that's exactly what he's done. Like I said, normally I would take his tweets with a grain of salt, but this happens to be a very serious allegation and I'm okay with brushing aside his previous tweets because what he's alleging happens to be so serious. Him tweeting about the size of the crowd at his inauguration and how it was the BIGGEST EVAR!!! is something worth just shaking my head over and saying, "Who gives a shit?", but this is far beyond that. What I'm chiefly concerned with is the allegation, that's the most important thing. Where it came from means little to me. The allegation is there and since it's from our sitting President it should be investigated further. If there's no fire then we can all laugh at him, but if there is fire then God help us all. Either way, we deserve to know the truth. It's out there in the universe and now that it is we deserve to know if it's true.


----------



## yeahbaby!

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Well, from day one Trump has used Twitter as a means to communicate with the American people, and in that respect he's very transparent, I can't source where I read it, but I believe that any information that he has is classified, so he can't just come out and say what he knows, but he can clue the American people in on the fact that something is rotten in Denmark, and through his tweet that's exactly what he's done. Like I said, normally I would take his tweets with a grain of salt, but this happens to be a very serious allegation and I'm okay with brushing aside his previous tweets because what he's alleging happens to be so serious. Him tweeting about the size of the crowd at his inauguration and how it was the BIGGEST EVAR!!! is something worth just shaking my head over and saying, "Who gives a shit?", but this is far beyond that. What I'm chiefly concerned with is the allegation, that's the most important thing. Where it came from means little to me. The allegation is there and since it's from our sitting President it should be investigated further. If there's no fire then we can all laugh at him, but if there is fire then God help us all. Either way, we deserve to know the truth. It's out there in the universe and now that it is we deserve to know if it's true.


Fair enough. Isn't it just completely bizarre that the new Prez uses Twitter to unveil something as serious as a phonetapping scandal against the Previous Prez? I mean.... twitter.


----------



## Reaper

Here's more. This is why I don't take the majority of left wing posters on this site seriously because they're literally coming in here after thinking that they've received some legit information and conclusion that they and only they have. :lol

This is what the new face of propaganda in the information age looks like. It's not State Run media. It's homogeneity of narrative and headlines. 

If there's only one state run media and publishes just 1 headline, it's propaganda. If there's dozens of "independent media" but they all get lazy and publish the exact same story, they're still nothing but a propaganda mill.


----------



## CamillePunk

And people wonder why Trump chooses to disseminate info directly to the public.


----------



## Reaper

Yup. Mika Brzezinski and reporters/news anchors and their bosses are the reason why










https://www.intellihub.com/msnbcs-m...ob-to-control-what-the-american-people-think/


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

yeahbaby! said:


> Fair enough. Isn't it just completely bizarre that the new Prez uses Twitter to unveil something as serious as a phonetapping scandal against the Previous Prez? I mean.... twitter.


It's very bizarre, but I guess welcome to the 21st century. While I wouldn't post half the stuff he does, if I were in his shoes, having to face off against the MSM that thoroughly hates my guts, actively looks for ways to discredit me, and insists that I'm a spy for the Russians committing treason against the American people, which is punishable by death BTW, all because I won the Presidential election and ruined their plans, I would try to circumvent the system too.


----------



## yeahbaby!

TheNightmanCometh said:


> It's very bizarre, but I guess welcome to the 21st century. While I wouldn't post half the stuff he does, if I were in his shoes, having to face off against the MSM that thoroughly hates my guts, actively looks for ways to discredit me, and insists that I'm a spy for the Russians committing treason against the American people, which is punishable by death BTW, all because I won the Presidential election and ruined their plans, I would try to circumvent the system too.


What you're failing to mention however is how Trump made his bed in that regard also by constantly spouting off plenty of retarded bullshit in the leadup to the whitehouse and he hasn't stopped. Weekly, sometimes daily, inaccuracies, half truths that need to be 'clarified' later, and outright lies.

Are the media blameless? Of course not, they're sensationalist and click bait hungry when they shouldn't be. They play a huge part but so does Trump. Please don't be one of those one-eyed supporters that refuses to acknowledge he plays no part in getting a grilling from the media.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

yeahbaby! said:


> What you're failing to mention however is how Trump made his bed in that regard also by constantly spouting off plenty of retarded bullshit in the leadup to the whitehouse and he hasn't stopped. Weekly, sometimes daily, inaccuracies, half truths that need to be 'clarified' later, and outright lies.
> 
> Are the media blameless? Of course not, they're sensationalist and click bait hungry when they shouldn't be. They play a huge part but so does Trump. Please don't be one of those one-eyed supporters that refuses to acknowledge he plays no part in getting a grilling from the media.


I make no apologies for Trump and his inability to express himself in a way that leaves a lot to the imagination. For that, whatever he sows, he reaps. I've said as much already when I commented on his tweets about his inauguration size. Some of the things he's said, were untoward and pointless, i.e. what he said about the Khan's, the grabbing them by the puss, and the like. I look at it like this, I will give him kudos when he's right and I will call him out when he's wrong. Right now, it's up in the air and I'm waiting until more information has come to light.

I will say this, and I've said it before, this is pretty much a win-win for Trump. If he's proven wrong then he can go out, in front of the public and say, "See, there are no connections between myself and Russia and it's been a smear campaign from day one." If he's proven right, then well, you're looking at a completely neutered DNC and President Trump plus his hand picked successor for the next 16 years. All he'll lose is credibility from those who already don't like him and he has no credibility with them anyways.


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> And people wonder why Trump chooses to disseminate info directly to the public.


close to 70% of the info Trump gives to the public is lies and fake news LOL

He is a clown.




Stephen90 said:


> I'm pretty sure this Obama wiretapping thing is another BS lie by Trump. But I'll wait till all the facts come out.


it is BS. Obama can't tap the phones but the FBI can if they have reason to. And if the FBI did wire tap it could be because of Trumps ties to Russia. And if he did make a backdoor deal during wire taps, he will get fucked for it.


----------



## CamillePunk

Well the tapping has been disputed by former DNI James Clapper, who also told us the NSA wasn't collecting information on millions of Americans. He seems credible to me.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> close to 70% of the info Trump gives to the public is lies and fake news LOL
> 
> He is a clown.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it is BS. Obama can't tap the phones but the FBI can if they have reason to. And if the FBI did wire tap it could be because of Trumps ties to Russia. And if he did make a backdoor deal during wire taps, he will get fucked for it.


Still waiting for the evidence that connects Trump with Russia. You found any? You're so sure those allegations are true, but his allegation about Obama, I'm sure, you think is fake.


----------



## yeahbaby!

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Still waiting for the evidence that connects Trump with Russia. You found any? You're so sure those allegations are true, but his allegation about Obama, I'm sure, you think is fake.


Maybe Obama should just tweet that he's innocent, that should settle it surely?


----------



## Miss Sally

No idea if Obama approved a wiretap though if he did i wonder what the spin will be? Could be interesting.

I could see why people would think Obama could do this, he did expand spying on Americans and well thought out and planned projects like Fast and Furious behind the Mexican Government's back. 

Hopefully more comes out about this, there is a lot of oddness going on in Washington right now.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

yeahbaby! said:


> Maybe Obama should just tweet that he's innocent, that should settle it surely?


I'd imagine the same amount of people who are satisfied with mere allegations of a connection would be satisfied with him tweeting his innocence. :wink2:


----------



## DesolationRow

:lol @Legit BOSS using the "Al Capone's in Florida right now; no way could he have masterminded the St. Valentine's Day massacre" defense for Obama wiretapping Trump may be my favorite post in this thread, unironically! :mark: I smiled, I laughed. :lol

Now I'm not saying that Obama wiretapped Trump. He deserves to be considered innocent. It's just funny, that's all. 

Man this is so much more fun than if Hillary would have won. 

This is a good timeline we find ourselves in, everyone. As @CamillePunk notes above, it's good to see that trustworthy recurring character, former DNI James Clapper, make a return.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

DesolationRow said:


> :lol @Legit BOSS using the "Al Capone's in Florida right now; no way could he have masterminded the St. Valentine's Day massacre" defense for Obama wiretapping Trump may be my favorite post in this thread, unironically! :mark: I smiled, I laughed. :lol
> 
> Now I'm not saying that Obama wiretapped Trump. He deserves to be considered innocent. It's just funny, that's all.
> 
> Man this is so much more fun than if Hillary would have won.
> 
> This is a good timeline we find ourselves in, everyone. As @CamillePunk notes above, it's good to see that trustworthy recurring character, former DNI James Clapper, make a return.


*You get outta here and tag me in the NBA thread to discuss the Warriors barely beating the Knicks :cudi. We have some work to do, to say the least :side: *


----------



## CamillePunk




----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Still waiting for the evidence that connects Trump with Russia. You found any? You're so sure those allegations are true, but his allegation about Obama, I'm sure, you think is fake.


A lot of people connected to Trump has been talking to Russia, where there is smoke there is fire. Hell Trumps son in law met with the Russian ambassador at Trump tower. And Trumps picks like Sessions, Flynn and Page. Lets also not forget Rex Tillerson and his ties. 

But sure Trump does not have ties to Russia. Its only a matter of time before its exposed.

As for Obama where is the proof Obama called for a wiretap of Trump?


----------



## Vic Capri

If you think Barack Obama had nothing to do with or knew nothing about what happened at the Justice Department during his Presidency, I feel sorry for you.

- Vic


----------



## birthday_massacre

Vic Capri said:


> If you think Barack Obama had nothing to do with or knew nothing about what happened at the Justice Department during his Presidency, I feel sorry for you.
> 
> - Vic


Where is your evidence? Also him knowing about it and calling for Trumps phones to be tapped are two different things. 

Of course Obama would know if it was happening since he is President but there is zero evidence Obama asked for the phones to be tapped. Thats the FBI call. And if they were tapped and there is evidence of Trump and Russia making a backdoor deal for if Trump becomes President, like Trump lifting some sanctions. Trump is done.


----------



## Figure4Leglock

i dont understand how this wire tapping is a surprise in anyway. When J.Edgar Hoover was at helm of FBI, no one was spared of wire tapping: Senate, Judges, Governors, Presidents, Celebrities, CO`s i mean literally everyone. I know, "But it was for a sake of fight against Communism". Yeah right. As the threat of communism surely was a "threat" at the time, there was more sinister reasons to tap everyone, like simply just pile up as much dirt as possible from them. I have no reason to believe the things have changed a bit . Its just more advanced with hacking also now involved which make it more sophisticated nowadays .


----------



## virus21

Also, doesn't anyone remember that little scandal with the NSA?




> Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair has discussed becoming Donald Trump’s adviser on Middle East policies, during talks in the White House earlier this week, The Mail on Sunday reported.
> Blair, who was in charge of the UK government in 1997-2007, met Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner in Washington on Wednesday, the papers claims, citing it’s source.
> 
> The meeting in the West Wing of the US presidential residence lasted for three hours, according to The Mail on Sunday report.
> 
> Read more
> Tony Blair (L) and Boris Johnson© www.globallookpress.com / ReutersBoris Johnson & social media attack Tony Blair’s call for Brexit revolt (VIDEO)
> It was the third time since September 2016 that Blair and Kushner have met in secrecy, The Daily Mail’s sister-paper added.
> 
> The paper’s informed source said that the former British prime mister may take on the role of Kushner’s senior adviser.
> 
> “Blair has been pitching hard for this job and Trump’s people are taking him very seriously,” the source added.
> 
> Blair is viewed as an expert on the Middle East after being an envoy for the so-called ‘Quartet’ of the EU, US, Russia, and the UN, aimed at finding a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
> 
> In recent years, the 63-year-old was involved in business activity, also launching several foundations, including the Tony Blair Foundation in 2008.
> 
> In February, he launched a campaign aimed at persuading the British to change their mind about Brexit.
> 
> READ MORE: 'Revolting' Tony Blair says 'Brexit not inevitable'... & blames Labour for losing referendum
> 
> Blair’s office denied the claims on Sunday, calling it an “invention” by the newspaper, the BBC reported.
> 
> “Mr Blair has made no such 'pitch' to be the president's (Trump) Middle East envoy. Neither has he had any discussions about taking such a role or any role working for the new president,” it said.
> 
> READ MORE: Tony Blair Iraq War case could be hindered by Supreme Court Brexit ruling – lawyers
> 
> The former PM “has been working on the peace process for 10 years. He continues to do so. He does so in a private capacity. He will continue to do it in that way. Period,” Blair’s office added.


https://www.rt.com/uk/379521-trump-blair-advisor-middle-east/

Are you kidding?


----------



## Reaper




----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> A lot of people connected to Trump has been talking to Russia, where there is smoke there is fire. *Hell Trumps son in law met with the Russian ambassador at Trump tower.* And Trumps picks like Sessions, Flynn and Page. Lets also not forget Rex Tillerson and his ties.
> 
> But sure Trump does not have ties to Russia. Its only a matter of time before its exposed.
> 
> As for Obama where is the proof Obama called for a wiretap of Trump?


Do you have any proof at all that the result of those meetings was collusion in order to effect the election? Or is it just more alleged theories?


----------



## samizayn

yeahbaby! said:


> Fair enough. Isn't it just completely bizarre that the new Prez uses Twitter to unveil something as serious as a phonetapping scandal against the Previous Prez? I mean.... twitter.


In between tweeting about The Apprentice!

I've seen people go more in depth on twitter telling stories about what just happened to them on the supermarket. It's just his style, don't think the man will ever care to come correct about things most people would take extreme caution over. He can write reams and reams about how Sad! and Unfair! the media is to him, but when it comes to actual groundbreaking developments, they are apparently an afterthought :lol


----------



## Reaper

Cracking a joke on twitter takes 2-5 seconds. Literally. 

Most successful people know how to multi-task. 



> (K.R.) BREAKING NEWS - President Trump has signed a new executive order on immigration, imposing a 90-day ban on U.S. entry for new visa seekers from six nations. The countries are the same as his previous order, save for Iraq, which has agreed to increase cooperation with the United States on additional security vetting under separate negotiations.
> 
> Additionally, refu.gee entry will be suspended for 120 days, and no more than 50,000 refugees will be allowed to immigrate to the U.S. per year, down from the 110,000 cap set by the Obama administration. The administration is also pushing back against claims that past refugee entrants weren't a threat, saying 300 people who entered the country as refugees are currently the subject of FBI counterterrorism investigations.
> 
> The order provides new exceptions for travelers from those countries who are legal permanent residents of the United States, dual nationals who use a passport from another country, those attending diplomatic missions, and those who have been granted asylum or refu.gee status. Citizens with visas from the six countries listed in the order will not be affected by it and no visas will be revoked solely because of the order.
> The order goes into effect March 16.


Sounds like a reasonable compromise to me. I'd say even 50k is far too many, but at this point appeasement of the democrats seems to be one of Trump's goals. 

http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/06/t...der-restricting-immigration-from-6-countries/


----------



## Vic Capri

When you can't make up what news you want to report.

- Vic


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Right in line with what I've been thinking since Saturday.



> While You Weren’t Looking, the Democrat–Media Election-Hacking Narrative Just Collapsed
> by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY	March 6, 2017 1:07 PM
> 
> That supposed FBI investigation of collusion with the Russians? Never mind . . . They’re in retreat now. You may have missed it amid President Trump’s startling Saturday tweet storm, the recriminations over president-on-candidate spying, and the Jeff Sessions recusal — a whirlwind weekend. But while you weren’t looking, an elaborate narrative died. For months, the media-Democrat complex has peddled a storyline that the Putin regime in Russia hacked the U.S. presidential election. There is, of course, no evidence that the election was hacked in the sense that the actual voting process was compromised. Rather, there is evidence that e-mail accounts of prominent Democrats were hacked months before the election, and thousands of those e-mails were published by WikiLeaks in the months leading up to the election. Into this misleading “Russia hacked the election” narrative, the press and the Dems injected a second explosive allegation — or at least an explosive suspicion that they’ve wanted us to perceive as a credible allegation meriting a serious investigation. The suspicion/allegation is: Not only did Russia hack the election, but there are also enough ties between people in the Trump orbit and operatives of the Putin regime that there are grounds to believe that the Trump campaign was complicit in Russia’s hacking of the election. Transparently, the aim is to undermine the legitimacy of Trump’s election victory. Finally, the third prong, without the support of which the stool would collapse: the impression that the FBI has been feverishly investigating what is said to be the Trump campaign’s collusion in what is said to be the Russian hacking of the election.
> 
> This reporting is designed to get you saying to yourself: “Why would there be such a zealous investigation by FBI agents — in addition to several other intelligence and law-enforcement agents — unless there really were grave reasons to believe the shocking election-hacking conspiracy narrative?” Thus, details about investigative activity have been leaked to the media. The press and the Democrats then exploit the leaks to spin the “Trump complicity in Russian election-hacking” story. It seems not to matter how objectively ill-conceived the Russian election-hacking claim is, or how woefully insufficient the purported Trump–Russia ties are to support an inference of campaign collusion in the hacking.
> 
> The specter of an investigation — breathless media reports of FISA-court applications, wiretaps, surveillance of agents of a foreign power, and mysterious servers; painstaking analysis of shady financial transactions involving Russian banks and funding streams — seems to make the outlandish conspiracy impossible to dismiss out of hand. A New York Times report perfectly illustrates the three-prong scheme. On January 19, under the alarming headline “Intercepted Russian Communications Part of Inquiry into Trump Associates,” the paper began its report as follows: WASHINGTON — American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of a broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump, including his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, current and former senior American officials said. The continuing counterintelligence investigation means that Mr. Trump will take the oath of office on Friday with his associates under investigation and after the intelligence agencies concluded that the Russian government had worked to help elect him. As president, Mr. Trump will oversee those agencies and have the authority to redirect or stop at least some of these efforts. Could what’s going on be more obvious? The Times would have you believe that the Russians “worked to help elect” Trump because the intelligence agencies have said so. With this ballyhooed conclusion as the premise, law-enforcement and intelligence agencies are conducting a “counterintelligence investigation” — meaning that there may be crimes involved, as well as activities of a foreign power in the United States — to determine the nature of links between Russian officials (who, remember, helped elect Trump) and Trump associates connected to the Trump campaign. The probe, we’re further told, is “broad” and includes “intercepted communications” — which, to any informed person, strongly suggests that the FBI went to a federal court and laid out probable cause of improprieties, which prompted one or more judges to authorize wiretaps and potentially other forms of electronic surveillance (e.g., e-mail intercepts).
> 
> Is there an innocent interpretation of all this? Of course there is. After all, the underlying allegation of an election-hacking conspiracy between the Putin regime and the Trump campaign is nonsense, so there must necessarily be an innocent interpretation. And, lo and behold, the Times itself provides it — further down in the story, after all the sensational conspiracy mongering: It is not clear whether the intercepted communications had anything to do with Mr. Trump’s campaign, or Mr. Trump himself. It is also unclear whether the inquiry has anything to do with an investigation into the hacking of the Democratic National Committee’s computers and other attempts to disrupt the elections in November. See? It is entirely possible that the FBI and other investigative agencies are not pursuing, and have never pursued, a Trump-campaign angle on the hacking. It is entirely possible (though I have doubts about this) that there are no FISA national-security wiretaps directed at Trump associates — maybe the “intercepted communications” touted by the Times came from surveillance targeting Russian operatives whom Trump associates, perhaps unwittingly, happened to run into while doing business that had nothing to do with the campaign. I think, based on all the reporting we’ve seen (some of which, as the Weekly Standard’s Steve Hayes observes, is thinly supported), it is more likely that the feds got FISA surveillance authorization for some associates of Trump (the names of Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, and Carter Page are mentioned). But maybe the probable cause for any such surveillance involved those associates’ own business dealings with Russia — having nothing to do with Trump or the Trump campaign. But the innocent interpretation, the more likely interpretation, is not what the media and Democrats have wanted us to believe.
> 
> For months, they have titillated their audience with the election-hacking conspiracy fantasy. When they cover their behinds by mentioning the possibility of innocence, it is in the fine print. But still, the media and Democrats have always had a serious vulnerability here — one they’ve never acknowledged because they’ve been too swept away by the political success of the fantasy narrative. It is this: At a certain point, if compelling evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia to steal the election did not materialize, the much more interesting question becomes “How did the government obtain all this information that has been leaked to the media to prop up the story?” The most plausible answer to that question: The Obama administration, through the Justice Department and the FBI, was investigating the associates of the opposition party’s presidential nominee, and perhaps even the nominee himself, during the campaign. Otherwise, what explanation can there be for all of the investigative information — much of it classified, and thus illegal to disclose — that has been funneled to the press?
> 
> In short, the media and Democrats have been playing with fire for months. The use of law-enforcement and national-security assets to investigate one’s political opponents during a heated election campaign has always been a potentially explosive story. Let’s not kid ourselves: If the roles were reversed, and a Republican administration had investigated officials tied to the campaign of the Democrats’ nominee, we would be drowning in a sea of Watergate 2.0 coverage. Well, this weekend, the potentially explosive story detonated. It happened in the now familiar way: jaw-dropping tweets by President Trump. Given the abundance of indications that the Obama Justice Department scrutinized his campaign, or at least his associates, it was odd that the president chose to tweet the one allegation in the whole mess that appears insupportable — viz., that President Obama had had candidate Trump wiretapped. To my knowledge, no such suggestion has ever been publicly reported. At most, it has been reported (but not proved) that there was a FISA application in June that “named Trump” – but, as I’ve pointed out, saying someone was named in an application does not mean that person was targeted for eavesdropping. And, in any event, the reporting tells us that if there was such an application, the FISA court denied it.
> 
> Thus, I know of no basis to believe that Trump himself was wiretapped; and if the president’s objective was to sensationalize the story, it would surely have been enough to tweet out a colorable fear that surveillance of him — as a Russian agent — had been proposed. But was the overstatement slyly intentional? Was Trump trying to make a point? Maybe not. It is certainly possible that the president was angry and the tweets result from a fit of pique. On the other hand, though, how much crazier is it for Trump to contend that Obama ordered spying on Trump than for the media and Democrats to have contended, for month upon month, that Trump’s campaign conspired with the Putin regime to steal the American presidential election and turn the Oval Office into occupied Kremlin territory? It is probable that both allegations are ludicrous. There is a good case, though, that there’s more support for the former than the latter. Here’s the most interesting part: Now that they’ve been called on it, the media and Democrats are gradually retreating from the investigation they’ve been touting for months as the glue for their conspiracy theory. It’s actually quite amusing to watch: How dare you suggest President Obama would ever order surveillance! Who said anything about FISA orders? What evidence do you lunatic conservatives have — uh, other than what we media professionals been reporting — that there was any investigation of the Trump campaign? You will hear more righteous indignation in the coming days, no doubt. The first brushback pitches came this weekend: the claim that if President Trump dares to demand that the FBI and Justice Department show him the supposed FISA applications, he will be engaged in unprecedented political interference in the independence of law enforcement. It’s a silly assertion; as I explained over the weekend, FISA surveillance is not law enforcement, it is national security.
> 
> A chief executive who demanded to review FISA information (obtained by exercise of the executive’s power) would be doing his main job — to protect the country — not interfering in a judicial proceeding. The Dystopia We Get May Not Be the One We Dreamed Of 00:25 01:14 But have you noticed? While all this head-spinning legal jibber-jabber goes back and forth, the foundation of the false narrative we’ve been hearing since November 8 has vanished. Now that we’re supposed to believe there was no real investigation of Trump and his campaign, what else can we conclude but that there was no real evidence of collusion between the campaign and Russia . . . which makes sense, since Russia did not actually hack the election, so the purported objective of the collusion never existed. Trick or tweet?


----------



## Stinger Fan

RipNTear said:


> Cracking a joke on twitter takes 2-5 seconds. Literally.
> 
> Most successful people know how to multi-task.
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like a reasonable compromise to me. I'd say even 50k is far too many, but at this point appeasement of the democrats seems to be one of Trump's goals.
> 
> http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/06/t...der-restricting-immigration-from-6-countries/


I really hate the word "ban" and wish the word suspended or freeze would be used instead seeing as it comes across better 

Anyway, onto the actual topic here. Basically , this is what the order should have resembled in the first place. Something more thorough and clear. Hopefully this is a new trend going forward with the administration where they actually explain the things they're doing instead of being relatively vague and expecting people to understand


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> I really hate the word "ban" and wish the word suspended or freeze would be used instead seeing as it comes across better
> 
> Anyway, onto the actual topic here. Basically , this is what the order should have resembled in the first place. Something more thorough and clear. Hopefully this is a new trend going forward with the administration where they actually explain the things they're doing instead of being relatively vague and expecting people to understand


And still no Saudi Arabia on the list and still all the countries listed have had no immigrant/refugee fatal terrorist attacks on US citizens. Why wouldn't Trump add Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey? Oh that's right because Trump has business ties to those countries


----------



## Stinger Fan

birthday_massacre said:


> And still no Saudi Arabia on the list and still all the countries listed have had no immigrant/refugee fatal terrorist attacks on US citizens. Why wouldn't Trump add Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey? Oh that's right because Trump has business ties to those countries


:Rollins

You're sounding more like Alex Jones with each and every post you make.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Stinger Fan said:


> :Rollins
> 
> You're sounding more like Alex Jones with each and every post you make.


How so?

What did I say that was not true?

Do you think Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey should not be on the list? Especially Saudi Arabia who is where most of the terrorist came from on 9/11








[/IMG]


----------



## Reaper

Saudi Arabia should most definitely be on the list.


----------



## CamillePunk

I'm glad Trump has managed to shift BM to his side of the "immigration ban" debate. In fact, Trump has pushed BM further than Trump's own public position, apparently, which is great. I also agree with BM, more countries should be on the list. Nice to find ourselves on the same side of an issue. (Y) Thank you, President Trump, for delivering the unity you promised. 

I also find 50,000 refugees a year to be an unacceptable figure. Hopefully we don't actually let in anywhere near that many.


----------



## deepelemblues

Unfortunately the US never treated the Saudis the way it treated Pakistan. After 9/11 we should have told the Saudis we will end you if you don't stop fucking around. We did - unofficially, of course - tell that to Islamabad and it's taken them 15 years to clean out most of the play both ends against the middle / two-faced people in their government but they have made serious attempts to do that and have been more successful than most people would have said beforehand was anywhere near possible. 

Saudi Arabia has only fought terrorism to the extent of keeping it out of Saudi Arabia and their little brother countries - Bahrain, Qatar, and the UAE. Everywhere else they either don't give a fuck or have been actively incubating the jihadi and supremacist ideologies that cause terrorism.


----------



## Reaper

deepelemblues said:


> Unfortunately the US never treated the Saudis the way it treated Pakistan. After 9/11 we should have told the Saudis we will end you if you don't stop fucking around. We did - unofficially, of course - tell that to Islamabad and it's taken them 15 years to clean out most of the play both ends against the middle / two-faced people in their government but they have made serious attempts to do that and have been more successful than most people would have said beforehand was anywhere near possible.
> 
> Saudi Arabia has only fought terrorism to the extent of keeping it out of Saudi Arabia and their little brother countries - Bahrain, Qatar, and the UAE.


And in that relationship I can vouch through very close personal attachment that America was the one with the weaker position in that engagement. Very weak. America had nothing to do with improving the situation and in fact consistently made it worse first by installing Zia and funding him before he had to be assassinated, then by supporting Musharraf throughout the 2000's. It's almost as though you believe that America actually wanted the situation in Pakistan to improve when they really didn't. Not when you have decades long support of military dictatorships and neoconservative leadership in America under Bush and Obama. 

It wasn't until 2007 that Pakistanis finally woke up. And even then it took 2 democratic governments and a huge massacre of military personnels' children in 2014 to finally wake them up. Obama's drone strikes didn't help. It wasn't until Pakistan was able to create a strong democratic government that they were finally able to actually take independent action. 

America prolonged the war in Pakistan. It didn't help. 

But at the same time, I will admit that a lot of America's funding in social programs was put to decent use. My own father was deeply involved in a couple of USAID projects and they're reaping benefits now. As far as the war effort is concerned, America did diddly squat and only made matters worse.


----------



## deepelemblues

> It's almost as though you believe that America actually wanted the situation in Pakistan to improve when they really didn't.


America threatened to do in 2001 with a sledgehammer what the Pakistanis themselves did with more targeted methods later. If Musharraf didn't bow down to Bush then yes America would have fought a war with all of Pakistan and not just jihadi networks on the Afghan border after 9/11. It was a very seriously made threat. 



> Not when you have decades long support of military dictatorships and neoconservative leadership in America under Bush and Obama.


The region didn't need American neoconservatives to play the same game that had been played ever since forever. There was the Afghans supporting tribes in what would later become Pakistan against the British and Indians, then after partition and independence it was Pakistan supporting Afghan and border tribes to secure Pakistan's rear in the next seen as inevitably coming war against India and to keep a buffer between Russia and Pakistan. You can go even further back to when the Tibetans were a real central Asian power, or even farther back than that to the time of Alexander and the Indo-Greek and Graeco-Bactrian days, it's all the same. The big local powers arm and support the frontier tribes to use as proxies, auxiliaries, and buffers. 

Pakistan would have done precisely the same with or without the US Cold War alliance or later American neoconservatives. It would be silly though to deny that that alliance put Pakistan in a position where its policies would have farther-reaching consequences, like supporting organizations that would eventually conflict with the US and thus put Pakistan in a very uncomfortable position.


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> I'm glad Trump has managed to shift BM to his side of the "immigration ban" debate. In fact, Trump has pushed BM further than Trump's own public position, apparently, which is great. I also agree with BM, more countries should be on the list. Nice to find ourselves on the same side of an issue. (Y) Thank you, President Trump, for delivering the unity you promised.
> 
> I also find 50,000 refugees a year to be an unacceptable figure. Hopefully we don't actually let in anywhere near that many.


Where did I say I agree with the ban. Just more typical Cam Punk BS.

All I said was why aren't Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey on the list if Trump really cares about keep America safe from terrorists, when the countries he has on the ban list don't cause fatal terrorist attacks on Americans in the US.

But keep trolling.


----------



## virus21

The real zombie apocalypse


----------



## birthday_massacre

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...anger-of-donald-trump/?utm_term=.97762cff7ab0

The dangerous rage of Donald Trump

Here's how The Washington Post described President Trump's mood heading into this past weekend: “Trump was mad — steaming, raging mad.”

Here's Politico's take: “Trump, who complained loudly to top aides during a tense Oval Office meeting on Friday over how things in his White House were going.…”

And here's ABC News: “President Donald Trump summoned some of his senior staff to the Oval Office and went 'ballistic.'”

The president, it seems fair to say, wasn't happy then on Saturday morning when he sent a flurry of tweets alleging — with zero evidence — that Trump Tower had been wiretapped in the course of the 2016 campaign under orders from then-President Barack Obama. Anger — and a persistent sense that people were out to get him or weren't treating him fairly — motivated Trump to make a massive charge: That the man he was running to replace purposely sought to sway the election via misuse of the intelligence community.

What you need to know about Trump's wiretapping claim Embed Share Play Video2:25
Here's what happened after President Trump fired off a tweet accusing former president Barack Obama of wiretapping Trump Tower before the 2016 election. (Monica Akhtar/The Washington Post)
This isn't the first time we've seen what President Trump acts like when he's angry. Think back to Trump's news conference on Feb. 16. In it, Trump offered raw and personal attacks against the media who, he insisted, were creating a fake news story out of the ties between his campaign and the Russians. He insisted he wasn't angry at all — a statement totally belied by his actions and words.

We can safely conclude then that when Trump gets angry, he looks for a way to strike back. And he is willing to stretch — or break with — the truth to give himself a measure of satisfaction in that regard.

As a candidate for president, we saw this side of Trump regularly — particularly in a debate setting. When, say, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, an also-ran, attacked Trump, the front-runner was unable to resist hitting back. His attacks on “low energy” Jeb Bush, “little” Marco Rubio and “lyin'” Ted Cruz were all, to Trump's mind, ways of leveling the playing field after he had been attacked. Whether it made sense as a political strategy was beside the point; Trump felt better after he swung back — so he always swung back.

The trouble for Trump — and all of the rest of us — is that Trump is now president. And there are real-world consequences to both how angry he gets and how he chooses to blow off that steam. An angry call with the Australian prime minister, for example, has real-world implications. So does an open and aggressive attempt to disqualify the free and independent press. Or the accusation that your predecessor used the powers of the federal government to specifically target you.

5-Minute Fix newsletter
Keeping up with politics is easy now.
Sign up
The question now is if Trump is willing to do the sorts of things listed above primarily because he is angry, what else is he willing to do to vent his frustrations? The president of the United States is a bounded job — checks and balances and all that — but even so, Trump can have massive influence, for positive or negative, based on a single tweet. He either doesn't understand that power or doesn't seem care about it when he's mad.

What's even more harrowing is the fact that in the wake of Trump's Twitter tirade on tapping, two things happened.

1. He felt better. This from The Post story: “Trump was brighter Sunday morning as he read several newspapers, pleased that his allegations against Obama were the dominant story.”

2. He got angry again. Again, The Post: “But he found reason to be mad again: Few Republicans were defending him on the Sunday political talk shows.”

This feels like a cycle that is going to keep repeating itself. Anger, release, anger. The issue is that Trump's “release” mechanism is getting more and more dangerous. If he's offering (so far) unfounded allegations about being wiretapped by the former president less than two months into his tenure, what will he be saying in a year's time when something provokes him to anger?


----------



## virus21

> On January 19th and 20th 2017, The NY Times reported that wiretaps of people on the Trump team were passed along to the Obama White House, one of the story’s authors was Michael S. Schmidt. On Saturday that same Michael S. Schmidt was one of the reporters who wrote the story, “Trump, Offering No Evidence, Says Obama Tapped His Phones.” That’s right, the same NY Times reporter who was one of the sources for the President’s claim, said that there was no evidence for the claim.
> The first story by Mr. Schmidt appeared on the NY Times website the evening of January 19, 2017 and appeared on the front page of the paper the morning of Inauguration Day, January 20, 2017:
> nytimesWASHINGTON — American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of a broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump, including his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, current and former senior American officials said.
> The continuing counterintelligence investigation means that Mr. Trump will take the oath of office on Friday with his associates under investigation and after the intelligence agencies concluded that the Russian government had worked to help elect him. As president, Mr. Trump will oversee those agencies and have the authority to redirect or stop at least some of these efforts.
> It is not clear whether the intercepted communications had anything to do with Mr. Trump’s campaign, or Mr. Trump himself. It is also unclear whether the inquiry has anything to do with an investigation into the hacking of the Democratic National Committee’s computers and other attempts to disrupt the elections in November. The American government has concluded that the Russian government was responsible for a broad computer hacking campaign, including the operation against the D.N.C.
> The counterintelligence investigation centers at least in part on the business dealings that some of the president-elect’s past and present advisers have had with Russia. Mr. Manafort has done business in Ukraine and Russia. Some of his contacts there were under surveillance by the National Security Agency for suspected links to Russia’s Federal Security Service, one of the officials said.
> 
> Mr. Manafort is among at least three Trump campaign advisers whose possible links to Russia are under scrutiny. Two others are Carter Page, a businessman and former foreign policy adviser to the campaign, and Roger Stone, a longtime Republican operative.
> The F.B.I. is leading the investigations, aided by the National Security Agency, the C.I.A. and the Treasury Department’s financial crimes unit. The investigators have accelerated their efforts in recent weeks but have found no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, the officials said. One official said intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House.
> Counterintelligence investigations examine the connections between American citizens and foreign governments. Those connections can involve efforts to steal state or corporate secrets, curry favor with American government leaders or influence policy. It is unclear which Russian officials are under investigation, or what particular conversations caught the attention of American eavesdroppers. The legal standard for opening these investigations is low, and prosecutions are rare.
> 
> On Saturday, the day the POTUS tweeted that he was wiretapped, the NY Times claimed President Trump had no evidence. If you look at the bi-line of the story, you will see the same Michael S. Schmidt:
> Screen Shot 2017-03-06 at 9.46.06 AM
> 
> This is the ultimate in liberal media bias. In January Michael S. Schmidt perpetuated the rumor that team Trump had Russian connections, and to support his point he said that Trump’s people were wiretapped. However when President Trump claimed his people were wiretapped, the same guy, Michael S. Schmidt said there was no evidence.
> Either the Times editors and Mr. Schmidt are trying to skew the story, or they are all suffering from a form of dementia and have no memory.


http://lidblog.com/same-ny-times-reporter/


----------



## yeahbaby!

virus21 said:


> http://lidblog.com/same-ny-times-reporter/


So yeah from that link sounds like supreme dodgy-ness from the NYT.

However this statement is still correct:



> “Trump, Offering No Evidence, Says Obama Tapped His Phones.”


Neither Trump or his team have produced any evidence which is strange isn't it?

It begs the question that if that is the case then why aren't the Trump administration on top of this in January and exposing this themselves? I mean, more than just a tweet. One would think they would jump all over it then.


----------



## virus21

yeahbaby! said:


> So yeah from that link sounds like supreme dodgy-ness from the NYT.
> 
> However this statement is still correct:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither Trump or his team have produced any evidence which is strange isn't it?
> 
> It begs the question that if that is the case then why aren't the Trump administration on top of this in January and exposing this themselves? I mean, more than just a tweet. One would think they would jump all over it then.


Why didn't the DNC bring any evidence of Russian involvement before the election?

Razorfist has a theory about this whole thing.


----------



## birthday_massacre

virus21 said:


> Why didn't the DNC bring any evidence of Russian involvement before the election?
> 
> Razorfist has a theory about this whole thing.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...team-trump-and-russia/?utm_term=.0367ac2272ed












The web of relationships between Team Trump and Russia


In the most abstract sense, there is nothing noteworthy about a government official meeting with an ambassador from a foreign country. When such an interaction becomes important is when that official is an ally of a presidential campaign that’s got a complex set of possibly inappropriate relationships with other representatives of that ambassador’s country — and when that official while under oath says he did not have communications with representatives of that country.

What we’re going to endeavor to do here is to parse out that complex set of relationships, using the information we have at hand. In this case, as you’ve hopefully ascertained, the country at issue is Russia and the campaign is that of President Trump. The official, of course, is Attorney General Jeff Sessions. And the ambassador is, at this point, the linchpin of a lot of the interactions between Trump and the rest of his team.

We’ll consider three Russian entities.

Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Russia’s man in Washington.
The Russian government. Kislyak is part of this government, of course, but we’ll use this as a shorthand for interactions with President Vladimir Putin or other government agencies (who may or may not be known). Included here is RT, the Russia-backed and -based television network.
Russian business interests. This encompasses everything from Rosneft, the Russian oil giant, to sketchy Russian oligarchs.
As for the American side, let’s start at the top and move outward through Trump’s network.


Donald Trump, president. Trump’s connections to Russian business interests are murky, thanks to his decision not to release his tax returns during the campaign. We know that the Miss Universe pageant was hosted in Moscow when Trump owned it and that he earned millions of dollars for doing so. We know, too, that he’s repeatedly explored real estate deals in the country. It’s not clear whether Trump has met Kislyak, though the ambassador attended a foreign policy speech Trump gave last spring and the reception that preceded it. We know now that Trump has been in communication with Putin — but he also claimed to have been in contact with representatives of the Russian president (and Putin himself) before the campaign.

[Here’s what we know about Donald Trump and his ties to Russia]

Jeff Sessions, attorney general. Sessions’s relationship with Kislyak is well-established by now. This is a good point at which to note, though, that the existence of that relationship does not in any way imply wrongdoing by Sessions. It’s just part of the network we’re establishing.

Jeff Sessions's news conference, in less than 3 minutes Embed Share Play Video2:48
Attorney General Jeff Sessions told reporters at the Justice Department, March 2, that he was recusing himself from any investigation having to do with President Trump's 2016 campaign. Here are key moments from that news conference. (Video: Sarah Parnass/Photo: Melina Mara/The Washington Post)
Jared Kushner, adviser. Trump’s son-in-law (Ivanka’s husband) also met with Kislyak during the period between Election Day and the inauguration, according to the New York Times. Kushner also has some loose connections to Russian business interests, according to the Times, including an investment from tech investor Yuri Milner in a real estate investment company and a friendship with the wife of oligarch Roman Abramovich. (She was invited to the inauguration as Ivanka Trump’s guest.)

Michael Flynn, former national security adviser. Flynn had a number of contacts with Kislyak after Election Day, including attending that meeting between the ambassador and Kushner. (Flynn was forced to resign his position after it was revealed that his comments about the content of those meetings to Vice President Pence were falsehoods.) After resigning from the Defense Intelligence Agency in 2014, Flynn was invited to give a paid speech at a celebration of RT. He did so and joined Putin’s table for a related banquet.

Pence 'disappointed' Flynn misled him Embed Share Play Video1:02
Vice President Mike Pence said he was “disappointed” that former White House national security adviser Michael Flynn misled him on his contacts with Russia, during a visit on Feb. 20 to NATO headquarters in Brussels. (Reuters)
Donald Trump Jr., son. The younger Trump visited France last October to speak to an obscure Russian group. In 2008, Don Jr., who works for the Trump Organization, famously told a real estate conference that “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets” and that “we see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.”

Paul Manafort, former campaign manager. Manafort’s links to Russian interests are well established. New revelations that emerged during the campaign prompted Trump to demand Manafort’s resignation. Manafort is one of the Trump campaign staffers who reportedly made contact with Russian interests during the campaign.

Details emerge in Ukraine of alleged payments to Manafort Embed Share Play Video1:15
A Ukrainian lawmaker releases more details of what he says were secret payments made to Paul Manafort, Donald Trump's former campaign chief who resigned the same day the new details emerged. (Reuters)
Rex Tillerson, secretary of state. Before he was confirmed to serve as the head of the State Department, even Republicans questioned Tillerson’s relationship to Putin. As the head of ExxonMobil, Tillerson helped negotiate a massive agreement between the Russian government and ExxonMobil-Rosneft, a partnership between the two companies. Tillerson was subsequently awarded the “Order of Friendship” by Putin.


Today's WorldView
What's most important from where the world meets Washington
Sign up
Wilbur Ross, secretary of commerce. Ross’s connections to Russian business interests are less obvious than Tillerson’s. During the Clinton administration, Ross served on the board of the U.S.-Russia Investment Fund, an effort to bolster businesses in post-Cold-War Russia. During his confirmation, questions arose about his ownership of a bank on Cyprus that, in the words of McClatchy’s Kevin Hall, “caters to wealthy Russians.”

Roger Stone, longtime adviser. Stone’s connection to Russia is murky. During the campaign, he drew attention for seeming to have inside knowledge on the WikiLeaks document releases — releases that have been linked to Russian interests by the government. More directly, the Times reports that Stone is possibly under investigation by the U.S. government for his links to Russia.

Carter Page, former adviser. Page is included in that alleged investigation as well, but his links to Russia are more clear. Page pretty clearly met with Kislyak last year during the Republican convention in Cleveland, as he admitted to MSNBC’s Chris Hayes on Thursday night. He also has repeatedly addressed Russian business groups in that country, including twice in 2016. Over a decade ago, he worked in Russia as an investment banker.

J.D. Gordon, former adviser. Page is far in the outer orbit of Trump’s circle, serving briefly as part of Trump’s national security advisory team. He’s joined there by Gordon, a onetime Pentagon spokesman who also served as an adviser to the campaign. Gordon, like Page, reportedly spoke with Kislyak in Cleveland.

This document should be considered a work in progress. As more information is released, it (and the graphic) will be updated. Again, none of the relationships above are intended to show misbehavior by those involved. The broad question at stake is the extent to which Russia sought to interfere in the 2016 election and, if it did, the extent to which it may have leveraged relationships with Trump’s team to that end. That much-bigger question is much harder to evaluate.


----------



## virus21




----------



## glenwo2

birthday_massacre said:


> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...anger-of-donald-trump/?utm_term=.97762cff7ab0
> 
> The dangerous rage of Donald Trump
> 
> Here's how The Washington Post described President Trump's mood heading into this past weekend: “Trump was mad — steaming, raging mad.”
> 
> Here's Politico's take: “Trump, who complained loudly to top aides during a tense Oval Office meeting on Friday over how things in his White House were going.…”
> 
> And here's ABC News: “President Donald Trump summoned some of his senior staff to the Oval Office and went 'ballistic.'”
> 
> The president, it seems fair to say, wasn't happy then on Saturday morning when he sent a flurry of tweets alleging — with zero evidence — that Trump Tower had been wiretapped in the course of the 2016 campaign under orders from then-President Barack Obama. Anger — and a persistent sense that people were out to get him or weren't treating him fairly — motivated Trump to make a massive charge: That the man he was running to replace purposely sought to sway the election via misuse of the intelligence community.
> 
> What you need to know about Trump's wiretapping claim Embed Share Play Video2:25
> Here's what happened after President Trump fired off a tweet accusing former president Barack Obama of wiretapping Trump Tower before the 2016 election. (Monica Akhtar/The Washington Post)
> This isn't the first time we've seen what President Trump acts like when he's angry. Think back to Trump's news conference on Feb. 16. In it, Trump offered raw and personal attacks against the media who, he insisted, were creating a fake news story out of the ties between his campaign and the Russians. He insisted he wasn't angry at all — a statement totally belied by his actions and words.
> 
> We can safely conclude then that when Trump gets angry, he looks for a way to strike back. And he is willing to stretch — or break with — the truth to give himself a measure of satisfaction in that regard.
> 
> As a candidate for president, we saw this side of Trump regularly — particularly in a debate setting. When, say, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, an also-ran, attacked Trump, the front-runner was unable to resist hitting back. His attacks on “low energy” Jeb Bush, “little” Marco Rubio and “lyin'” Ted Cruz were all, to Trump's mind, ways of leveling the playing field after he had been attacked. Whether it made sense as a political strategy was beside the point; Trump felt better after he swung back — so he always swung back.
> 
> The trouble for Trump — and all of the rest of us — is that Trump is now president. And there are real-world consequences to both how angry he gets and how he chooses to blow off that steam. An angry call with the Australian prime minister, for example, has real-world implications. So does an open and aggressive attempt to disqualify the free and independent press. Or the accusation that your predecessor used the powers of the federal government to specifically target you.
> 
> 5-Minute Fix newsletter
> Keeping up with politics is easy now.
> Sign up
> The question now is if Trump is willing to do the sorts of things listed above primarily because he is angry, what else is he willing to do to vent his frustrations? The president of the United States is a bounded job — checks and balances and all that — but even so, Trump can have massive influence, for positive or negative, based on a single tweet. He either doesn't understand that power or doesn't seem care about it when he's mad.
> 
> What's even more harrowing is the fact that in the wake of Trump's Twitter tirade on tapping, two things happened.
> 
> 1. He felt better. This from The Post story: “Trump was brighter Sunday morning as he read several newspapers, pleased that his allegations against Obama were the dominant story.”
> 
> 2. He got angry again. Again, The Post: “But he found reason to be mad again: Few Republicans were defending him on the Sunday political talk shows.”
> 
> This feels like a cycle that is going to keep repeating itself. Anger, release, anger. The issue is that Trump's “release” mechanism is getting more and more dangerous. If he's offering (so far) unfounded allegations about being wiretapped by the former president less than two months into his tenure, what will he be saying in a year's time when something provokes him to anger?



They certainly love using that picture. Funny thing is you can replace Trumps head with Hillary or any SJW and it would be accurate. 






RipNTear said:


> Cracking a joke on twitter takes 2-5 seconds. Literally.
> 
> Most successful people know how to multi-task.
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like a reasonable compromise to me. I'd say even 50k is far too many, but at this point appeasement of the democrats seems to be one of Trump's goals.
> 
> http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/06/t...der-restricting-immigration-from-6-countries/


I approve of this new plan. It looks more well-thought out this time. And I also agree that 50k is still too many(I would've reduced that to maybe 25,000 TOPS) but like you said : Gotta please the Democraps.... :lol


----------



## Vic Capri

> The real zombie apocalypse


Holy shit! Just...holy shit...

- Vic


----------



## yeahbaby!

virus21 said:


> Why didn't the DNC bring any evidence of Russian involvement before the election?


Good question I have no idea - I haven't personally looked into that. I thought they did but anyway we were discussing the trump phonetapping claim weren't we?

Why don't you answer my question?


----------



## virus21

yeahbaby! said:


> Good question I have no idea - I haven't personally looked into that. I thought they did but anyway we were discussing the trump phonetapping claim weren't we?
> 
> Why don't you answer my question?


Because he likely hasn't any. It seems possible its to bring something to light. Right now, there seems to be a clusterfuck going on and much of it seems directed towards the DNC. Perhaps a plan to destabilizes the Democrats or to bring up something to light that would hurt them.


----------



## yeahbaby!

virus21 said:


> Because he likely hasn't any. It seems possible its to bring something to light. Right now, there seems to be a clusterfuck going on and much of it seems directed towards the DNC. Perhaps a plan to destabilizes the Democrats or to bring up something to light that would hurt them.


Ok then. Are you okay with that - Trump tweeting in no uncertain terms:



> How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!


When it's likely that he has no proof by your own admission?


----------



## CamillePunk

He clearly received some new information since he was praising Obama as recently as a week ago.


----------



## virus21

yeahbaby! said:


> Ok then. Are you okay with that - Trump tweeting in no uncertain terms:
> 
> 
> 
> When it's likely that he has no proof by your own admission?


Under normal circumstances, no. However, given the DNC's seemingly never ending push for a Trump/Russia connection, which also has no proof, them getting it thrown back at them seems satisfying in a way. Even though, both sides are acting like idiots in the end.


----------



## Reaper

deepelemblues said:


> America threatened to do in 2001 with a sledgehammer what the Pakistanis themselves did with more targeted methods later. If Musharraf didn't bow down to Bush then yes America would have fought a war with all of Pakistan and not just jihadi networks on the Afghan border after 9/11. It was a very seriously made threat.


Yeah, american threatening a newly declared legit nuclear power was really going to make Pakistanis bow down to their demands if they didn't themselves want to do something about it. :eyeroll 

Pakistan was a reluctant ally, but it was also extremely poorly painted in the western media as it is typical of western media to do. However, the one thing they didn't lie about (but also couldn't report without angering their tax payers) was that Musharraf used every bit of leverage he could find to squeeze Americans throughout their war effort. He strongarmed them for reductions in loans, increased aid, reduction in IMF loans, write-offs - everything he could possibly imagine under the sun. There was no fear or dread of an American invasion in Pakistan. I would know. I lived there from 2002-2010. America was Musharraf's golden cow and he milked it till it was dry. :lol 

If anything, it was Americans constantly fearing the end of their war effort as Pakistan controlled the only supply line from Karachi to Afghanistan - the only way America had access to Afghanistan through the Khyber Pass. That road was treacherous and America lost a pretty sizeable amount of their arsenal to Taliban attacks along that route and Musharraf used that pass as leverage, repeatedly blocking it whenever he wanted to squeeze something new out of the American government ... and the American war machine backed by an endless amount of US tax payer money consistently gave in. 










This was a common sight during transport: 









^US Fuel and Food supply trucks after a Taliban attack. 

The American Afghan was was a complete and utter disaster for America from all possible angles. 



> Pakistan would have done precisely the same with or without the US Cold War alliance or later American neoconservatives. It would be silly though to deny that that alliance put Pakistan in a position where its policies would have farther-reaching consequences, like supporting organizations that would eventually conflict with the US and thus put Pakistan in a very uncomfortable position.


If America had not given Pakistan any leverage, the Afghan war could not have been possible. They would have had to go through Pakistan which is a major military stronghold in that region and there's no way any American would ever fight a war in Pakistan just to get to Afghanistan. 

Pakistan with civilian governments if you notice has pretty much never been involved in an escalation of war without the support of the people. Islamist extremism coincides squarely with Islamist dictators as all 3 of Pakistan's major political parties are secular. All of Pakistan's major conflicts have been fought under dictators. 

While we've always had severe problems with Islamists, the only time Islamists have ever increased their power is during military dictatorships because they need the militant wing of the Islamists to further their personal agendas. Musharraf was literally no different as he had an alliance with several militant groups in the country. It was under his rule that the TTP (Pakistani Taliban) killed 10's of thousands of people. The numbers have been constantly declining ever since secular governments have taken power since the late 2007's. It was a fascinating time. I know, I lived it.

If you want to go further back, then every single Islamist law in Pakistan at the moment is a direct result of Zia-ul-Haq. Pro taliban, pro-Al-Qaeda piece of shit dictator of the 80's who's completely and single-handedly responsible for at least the entire Taliban mess in the region.


----------



## yeahbaby!

virus21 said:


> Under normal circumstances, no. However, given the DNC's seemingly never ending push for a Trump/Russia connection, which also has no proof, them getting it thrown back at them seems satisfying in a way. Even though, both sides are acting like idiots in the end.


Cool Cool. I would really rather Trump doesn't tweet at all - to me it seems like it just really cheapens the whole Presidential position.


----------



## glenwo2

yeahbaby! said:


> Cool Cool. I would really rather Trump doesn't tweet at all - to me it seems like it just really cheapens the whole Presidential position.


yeahbaby!, can we agree that Twitter is the most stupid creation known to mankind?


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

virus21 said:


> Because he likely hasn't any. It seems possible its to bring something to light. Right now, there seems to be a clusterfuck going on and much of it seems directed towards the DNC. Perhaps a plan to destabilizes the Democrats or to bring up something to light that would hurt them.


It also seems possible that what information he does have is classified and he can't just go and release it to the public.


----------



## Reaper

glenwo2 said:


> yeahbaby!, can we agree that Twitter is the most stupid creation known to mankind?


Sure, twitter is cancer - but Trump's tweets are mostly infotainment. People need to realize that most of it is designed to purposefully trigger and I don't mind the president triggering people. Makes him more human and relateable.

I don't mind acknowledging that he posts shit from time to time. The people who dislike him are gonna do it regardless so what's there to change? 

However, plenty of people who don't never fail to see the humor behind most of his tweets and that's fine by me so why deny them of their infotainment. 

--

Play the gif. Very interesting indeed. 

--











__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/838254017516044288


----------



## CamillePunk

Twitter is great. Technophobic relics get the fuck out, your gatekeepers aren't relevant anymore. :aryep

Speaking of TWITTER:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/838946161968967680


----------



## Reaper

CamillePunk said:


> Twitter is great. *Technophobic relics get the fuck out*, your gatekeepers aren't relevant anymore. :aryep


That's a false assumption :mj 

I think Twitter is cancer because of its political bias, censoring right wing tweets and doxxing.


----------



## CamillePunk

RipNTear said:


> That's a false assumption :mj
> 
> I think Twitter is cancer because of its political bias, censoring right wing tweets and doxxing.


It was a general statement about people who shit on social media, not people ITT specifically. 

I agree with you about the censorship. Scott Adams has been viciously targeted by Twitter in this fashion for his tweets about Trump and climate change. These are problems, but overall I'm grateful the platform exists.


----------



## Reaper

CamillePunk said:


> It was a general statement about people who shit on social media, not people ITT specifically.
> 
> I agree with you about the censorship. Scott Adams has been viciously targeted by Twitter in this fashion for his tweets about Trump and climate change. These are problems, but overall I'm grateful the platform exists.


Aah. I guess it's the timing of the post that made me think you might be referring to me. I heard about how Scott was censored. Thought it was BS at first but then realized how they did it. Pretty sneaky. 

Lots of censoring going on amongst people I follow as I've started following some "kekistan" tweeters. Most of them have their accounts frozen for 12 hours pretty much every few days. Meanwhile people who tweet veiled or direct death threats at others and even the president have no action taken against them. 

FB is also getting pretty bad. Their trending news is 99% chosen far left outlets. 

Google and Bing OTOH has literally trying to partner with the current french government to feed francophones only left-wing news on their search engines. I've noticed that plenty of right wing news outlets are now consistently ranking lower on Bing as that's the search engine I use.


----------



## CamillePunk

RipNTear said:


> Aah. I guess it's the timing of the post that made me think you might be referring to me. I heard about how Scott was censored. Thought it was BS at first but then realized how they did it. Pretty sneaky.
> 
> Lots of censoring going on amongst people I follow as I've started following some "kekistan" tweeters. Most of them have their accounts frozen for 12 hours pretty much every few days.


Yes meanwhile many left-wing people have tweeted far worse with zero repercussions. It's a shame. Unfortunately, to compound matters, certain right-wing folks do tweet some genuinely abominable stuff and then claim they got "censored" for tweeting something benign. These false claims just give credence to those who will claim the Twitter censorship is all conspiracy theory nonsense, when it's not. Scott Adams has already proven the censorship by replacing "Trump" and "climate change" with "kittens" in his tweets, and observing the immense difference in traffic. :lol

My recommendation is to actually go and manually check out the twitter pages of the people who regularly post interesting stuff. That's what I do. It's an inconvenience to be sure, but better than nothing.


----------



## Reaper

CamillePunk said:


> My recommendation is to actually go and manually check out the twitter pages of the people who regularly post interesting stuff. That's what I do. It's an inconvenience to be sure, but better than nothing.


Lol. I do that too. I just discovered Sarah Abdallah a few minutes ago (funny how she hasn't changed her name considering she sounds nothing like a "slave of allah") and I've been enjoying her tweets.


----------



## Reaper

Interesting. I have no love for Putin, but dude is on the money right here.


----------



## samizayn

yeahbaby! said:


> Cool Cool. I would really rather Trump doesn't tweet at all - to me it seems like it just really cheapens the whole Presidential position.


Honestly, in between the whining and random accusations he occasionally says positive things, and I actually enjoy them a lot. For example today he said something about it being inspiring seeing jobs come back to America. This is a dude that really enjoys his unsubstantiated claims so I can't entirely believe him, but it allows me to keep the blind optimism I'm hoping guides me through the next four years :^)



TheNightmanCometh said:


> It also seems possible that what information he does have is classified and he can't just go and release it to the public.


If it was classified you wouldn't be allowed to publicise the case tho


----------



## birthday_massacre

virus21 said:


> Under normal circumstances, no. However, given the DNC's seemingly never ending push for a Trump/Russia connection, which also has no proof, them getting it thrown back at them seems satisfying in a way. Even though, both sides are acting like idiots in the end.


I love how you keep asking for proof and I keep giving it yet you keep ignoring it.


Its easy to see how Trump could have Russian connections when everyone close to him does.













The web of relationships between Team Trump and Russia


In the most abstract sense, there is nothing noteworthy about a government official meeting with an ambassador from a foreign country. When such an interaction becomes important is when that official is an ally of a presidential campaign that’s got a complex set of possibly inappropriate relationships with other representatives of that ambassador’s country — and when that official while under oath says he did not have communications with representatives of that country.

What we’re going to endeavor to do here is to parse out that complex set of relationships, using the information we have at hand. In this case, as you’ve hopefully ascertained, the country at issue is Russia and the campaign is that of President Trump. The official, of course, is Attorney General Jeff Sessions. And the ambassador is, at this point, the linchpin of a lot of the interactions between Trump and the rest of his team.

We’ll consider three Russian entities.

Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Russia’s man in Washington.
The Russian government. Kislyak is part of this government, of course, but we’ll use this as a shorthand for interactions with President Vladimir Putin or other government agencies (who may or may not be known). Included here is RT, the Russia-backed and -based television network.
Russian business interests. This encompasses everything from Rosneft, the Russian oil giant, to sketchy Russian oligarchs.
As for the American side, let’s start at the top and move outward through Trump’s network.


Donald Trump, president. Trump’s connections to Russian business interests are murky, thanks to his decision not to release his tax returns during the campaign. We know that the Miss Universe pageant was hosted in Moscow when Trump owned it and that he earned millions of dollars for doing so. We know, too, that he’s repeatedly explored real estate deals in the country. It’s not clear whether Trump has met Kislyak, though the ambassador attended a foreign policy speech Trump gave last spring and the reception that preceded it. We know now that Trump has been in communication with Putin — but he also claimed to have been in contact with representatives of the Russian president (and Putin himself) before the campaign.

[Here’s what we know about Donald Trump and his ties to Russia]

Jeff Sessions, attorney general. Sessions’s relationship with Kislyak is well-established by now. This is a good point at which to note, though, that the existence of that relationship does not in any way imply wrongdoing by Sessions. It’s just part of the network we’re establishing.

Jeff Sessions's news conference, in less than 3 minutes Embed Share Play Video2:48
Attorney General Jeff Sessions told reporters at the Justice Department, March 2, that he was recusing himself from any investigation having to do with President Trump's 2016 campaign. Here are key moments from that news conference. (Video: Sarah Parnass/Photo: Melina Mara/The Washington Post)
Jared Kushner, adviser. Trump’s son-in-law (Ivanka’s husband) also met with Kislyak during the period between Election Day and the inauguration, according to the New York Times. Kushner also has some loose connections to Russian business interests, according to the Times, including an investment from tech investor Yuri Milner in a real estate investment company and a friendship with the wife of oligarch Roman Abramovich. (She was invited to the inauguration as Ivanka Trump’s guest.)

Michael Flynn, former national security adviser. Flynn had a number of contacts with Kislyak after Election Day, including attending that meeting between the ambassador and Kushner. (Flynn was forced to resign his position after it was revealed that his comments about the content of those meetings to Vice President Pence were falsehoods.) After resigning from the Defense Intelligence Agency in 2014, Flynn was invited to give a paid speech at a celebration of RT. He did so and joined Putin’s table for a related banquet.


Donald Trump Jr., son. The younger Trump visited France last October to speak to an obscure Russian group. In 2008, Don Jr., who works for the Trump Organization, famously told a real estate conference that “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets” and that “we see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.”

Paul Manafort, former campaign manager. Manafort’s links to Russian interests are well established. New revelations that emerged during the campaign prompted Trump to demand Manafort’s resignation. Manafort is one of the Trump campaign staffers who reportedly made contact with Russian interests during the campaign.

Details emerge in Ukraine of alleged payments to Manafort Embed Share Play Video1:15
A Ukrainian lawmaker releases more details of what he says were secret payments made to Paul Manafort, Donald Trump's former campaign chief who resigned the same day the new details emerged. (Reuters)
Rex Tillerson, secretary of state. Before he was confirmed to serve as the head of the State Department, even Republicans questioned Tillerson’s relationship to Putin. As the head of ExxonMobil, Tillerson helped negotiate a massive agreement between the Russian government and ExxonMobil-Rosneft, a partnership between the two companies. Tillerson was subsequently awarded the “Order of Friendship” by Putin.



Wilbur Ross, secretary of commerce. Ross’s connections to Russian business interests are less obvious than Tillerson’s. During the Clinton administration, Ross served on the board of the U.S.-Russia Investment Fund, an effort to bolster businesses in post-Cold-War Russia. During his confirmation, questions arose about his ownership of a bank on Cyprus that, in the words of McClatchy’s Kevin Hall, “caters to wealthy Russians.”

Roger Stone, longtime adviser. Stone’s connection to Russia is murky. During the campaign, he drew attention for seeming to have inside knowledge on the WikiLeaks document releases — releases that have been linked to Russian interests by the government. More directly, the Times reports that Stone is possibly under investigation by the U.S. government for his links to Russia.

Carter Page, former adviser. Page is included in that alleged investigation as well, but his links to Russia are more clear. Page pretty clearly met with Kislyak last year during the Republican convention in Cleveland, as he admitted to MSNBC’s Chris Hayes on Thursday night. He also has repeatedly addressed Russian business groups in that country, including twice in 2016. Over a decade ago, he worked in Russia as an investment banker.

J.D. Gordon, former adviser. Page is far in the outer orbit of Trump’s circle, serving briefly as part of Trump’s national security advisory team. He’s joined there by Gordon, a onetime Pentagon spokesman who also served as an adviser to the campaign. Gordon, like Page, reportedly spoke with Kislyak in Cleveland.

This document should be considered a work in progress. As more information is released, it (and the graphic) will be updated. Again, none of the relationships above are intended to show misbehavior by those involved. The broad question at stake is the extent to which Russia sought to interfere in the 2016 election and, if it did, the extent to which it may have leveraged relationships with Trump’s team to that end. That much-bigger question is much harder to evaluate.



Oh but sure there is no evidence Trump has connections to Russia. You can't be serious.

and LOL at you claiming the DNC getting it throw back at them, every day it seems like someone close to Trump or one of his picks have ties to Russia. 

Trump supporters are so delusional its getting sad.


----------



## Reaper

Yet another article that BM hasn't himself read. In fact, at several points in that article, the author makes sure to remind everyone that while he's claiming there is proof, there isn't any proof of anything but legal commerce between the named Americans and Russians. 

For example: 



> In the most abstract sense, there is nothing noteworthy about a government official meeting with an ambassador from a foreign country. When such an interaction becomes important is when that official is an ally of a presidential campaign that’s got a complex set of possibly inappropriate relationships with other representatives of that ambassador’s country — and when that official while under oath says he did not have communications with representatives of that country.


Just read this bullshit here. He said that there's nothing wrong with a government official meeting an ambassador. And then lists the ways in which it could be wrong but doesn't mention that no such wrong-doing was committed. Leaving up to biased individuals to read heavily into the implication. 

This is a craftily created piece designed to prey on the minds of individuals with lower than average IQ's. Nothing else. 

There's nothing in this article that even the author has dared to present as proof of any extraordinary ties between Trump's campaign and Russia. The entire case of this article is basically telling everyone that Americans are legally doing legal commerce with Russians. That's it. There's only "minor" sanctions placed on Russia. All business ties have not be revoked. We're not at war with them. The author of this article is smart, but clearly using that intellect to make asses of people who read it. 

The only thing they have is potentially a corrupt staffer that was immediately dismissed upon revelation of corruption. One individual's corruption is not evidence of a campaign being corrupt otherwise Weiner being a pedophile makes every single democrat a pedophile. 

America has a business relationship with Russia. We're not in a relationship where under no circumstances any American can't do business with them.


----------



## birthday_massacre

RipNTear said:


> Yet another article that BM hasn't himself read. In fact, at several points in that article, the author makes sure to remind everyone that while he's claiming there is proof, there isn't any proof of anything but legal commerce between the named Americans and Russians.
> 
> For example:
> 
> Just read this bullshit here. He said that there's nothing wrong with a government official meeting an ambassador. And then lists the ways in which it could be wrong.
> 
> This is a craftily created piece designed to prey on the minds of individuals with lower than average IQ's. Nothing else.
> 
> There's nothing in this article that even the author has dared to present as proof of any extraordinary ties between Trump's campaign and Russia. The entire case of this article is basically telling everyone that Americans are legally doing legal commerce with Russians. That's it. There's only "minor" sanctions placed on Russia. All business ties have not be revoked. We're not at war with them. The author of this article is smart, but clearly using that intellect to make asses of people who read it.
> 
> America has a business relationship with Russia. We're not in a relationship where under no circumstances any American can't do business with them.


More spin by the spin master himself .

As for this part

* In the most abstract sense, there is nothing noteworthy about a government official meeting with an ambassador from a foreign country. When such an interaction becomes important is when that official is an ally of a presidential campaign that’s got a complex set of possibly inappropriate relationships with other representatives of that ambassador’s country — and when that official while under oath says he did not have communications with representatives of that country.*


Right except a couple of them lied about meeting with Russian officials. If there is nothing to hide why lie about it or be evasive like Sessions and Page and Flynn had to resign over his Russian connections.

Also lets not forget Trump said he would be open to lifting the sanctions on Russia. 

But yeah keep making excuses and spin away. Its what you do best. Virus keeps claiming there are no Trump / Russia connections but there clearly are. 

It has nothing to do with rigging the election but its def about business and that is why Trump says he may lift the sanctions on Russia. So if Trump does that what is he getting out of it.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> More spin by the spin master himself .
> 
> As for this part
> 
> * In the most abstract sense, there is nothing noteworthy about a government official meeting with an ambassador from a foreign country. When such an interaction becomes important is when that official is an ally of a presidential campaign that’s got a complex set of possibly inappropriate relationships with other representatives of that ambassador’s country — and when that official while under oath says he did not have communications with representatives of that country.*
> 
> 
> Right except a couple of them lied about meeting with Russian officials. If there is nothing to hide why lie about it or be evasive like Sessions and Page and Flynn had to resign over his Russian connections.
> 
> Also lets not forget Trump said he would be open to lifting the sanctions on Russia.
> 
> But yeah keep making excuses and spin away. Its what you do best.


:mj4 Couldn't resist could you. 

YTou don't even understand what "spin" is. There is no spin here. Simply analysing what the article itself claimed and basically admitted that there's nothing, but here's all the things that low IQ people will think are nefarious tactics because they don't have the foreknowledge of what's allowed and allowable during a campaign. The ONLY thing that would be illegal is if there were any dealings related directly to the campaign itself and there is absolutely no proof of that. Everyone knows it. but it doesn't stop them from implying baseless conjecture to be fact. :lol 

Flynn shouldn't have resigned nor do we know why he really resigned so that's conjecture, not proof. Conjecture is not proof. 

He was part of a meeting and that's actually standard practice. There is no rule that says that a member of a campaign cannot accompany authorized individuals into meetings with foreign ambassadors even Russians. It could simply mean that during those legal meetings he may have said certain things that were not acceptable to the Trump administration. If any of the meetings were illegal, THAT would have been the narrative because it would have been a real case. The reason why the leftist hive mind is ignoring the legality of the communications is because that isn't up for debate. So they create the spin. 

Simple as that. It doesn't mean that the entire Trump administration did something wrong and that he's a scapegoat. Assuming that there's something nefarious going on is the spin and it's all conjecture. Conjecture isn't proof of anything. But I don't expect you to understand that. 

Him resigning does not implicate or incriminate him any more or less than anyone that pleads the 5th. 

Also, nobody has lied. That's already been cleared up that Sessions was asked and the operative phrase was "were you in contact with russians *about the campaign*" and to that his answer was "No" and that is an absolutely factual answer. This is not lying. 

So no. You don't have any facts. But keep up with your delusions. Also, at the very least, be man enough to do what you say you'd do and block me. Because seriously, at this point this is bordering on masochism.

Conjecture is not proof

Repeat after me. Conjecture is not proof. 

Once again. Conjecture is not proof. 

Do you understand what that means? That conjecture isn't proof?

Edit: I love that every single time I post in this thread, yeahbaby appears out of nowhere. Another guy pretending to have "blocked" me :lmao


----------



## glenwo2

^ Just how do you block someone here, though? Is there an option 'cause I don't see it. :lol


----------



## Reaper

glenwo2 said:


> ^ Just how do you block someone here, though? Is there an option 'cause I don't see it. :lol


You go to someone's profile and it's under User Lists. 

Blocking someone because of their political views. 

The ultimate example of :triggered :mj4


----------



## birthday_massacre

RipNTear said:


> :mj4 Couldn't resist could you.
> 
> YTou don't even understand what "spin" is. There is no spin here. Simply analysing what the article itself claimed and basically admitted that there's nothing, but here's all the things that low IQ people will think are nefarious tactics because they don't have the foreknowledge of what's allowed and allowable during a campaign. The ONLY thing that would be illegal is if there were any dealings related directly to the campaign itself and there is absolutely no proof of that. Everyone knows it. but it doesn't stop them from implying baseless conjecture to be fact. :lol
> 
> Flynn shouldn't have resigned nor do we know why he really resigned so that's conjecture, not proof. Conjecture is not proof.
> 
> He was part of a meeting and that's actually standard practice. There is no rule that says that a member of a campaign cannot accompany authorized individuals into meetings with foreign ambassadors even Russians. It could simply mean that during those legal meetings he may have said certain things that were not acceptable to the Trump administration. Simple as that. It doesn't mean that the entire Trump administration did something wrong and that he's a scapegoat. Assuming that there's something nefarious going on is the spin and it's all conjecture. Conjecture isn't proof of anything. But I don't expect you to understand that.
> 
> Him resigning does not implicate or incriminate him any more or less than anyone that pleads the 5th.
> 
> Also, nobody has lied. That's already been cleared up that Sessions was asked and the operative phrase was "were you in contact with russians *about the campaign*" and to that his answer was "No" and that is an absolutely factual answer. This is not lying.
> 
> So no. You don't have any facts. But keep up with your delusions. Also, at the very least, be man enough to do what you say you'd do and block me. Because seriously, at this point this is bordering on masochism.
> 
> Conjecture is not proof
> 
> Repeat after me. Conjecture is not proof.
> 
> Once again. Conjecture is not proof.
> 
> Do you understand what that means? That conjecture isn't proof?
> 
> Edit: I love that every single time I post in this thread, yeahbaby appears out of nowhere. Another guy pretending to have "blocked" me :lmao


There you go spinning once again. Sessions lied but spin it all you want


How is this not a lie?

Al Franken question


CNN has just published a story, and I’m telling you this about a news story that has just been published, so I’m not expecting you to know whether or not it’s true or not, but CNN just published a story alleging that the intelligence community provided documents to the president elect last week that included information that ‘Russian operatives claimed to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump.’ These documents also allegedly say ‘There was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government.’ Now again I am telling you this as it’s coming out so, ah, you know… but if it’s true it’s obviously extremely serious, and if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign what will you do?


Sessions answer

Sen Franken, I am not aware of any of those activities. *I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign, and I did not have communications with the Russians, and I am unable to comment on it.*


How is that not a lie? Sessions flat out said he did not have communications with the Russians when he did

But keep spinning away.

Keep ignoring the facts, it just makes you look that much worse.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> There you go spinning once again. Sessions lied but spin it all you want
> 
> 
> How is this not a lie?
> 
> Al Franken question
> 
> 
> CNN has just published a story, and I’m telling you this about a news story that has just been published, so I’m not expecting you to know whether or not it’s true or not, but CNN just published a story alleging that the intelligence community provided documents to the president elect last week that included information that ‘Russian operatives claimed to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump.’ These documents also allegedly say ‘There was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government.’ Now again I am telling you this as it’s coming out so, ah, you know… but if it’s true it’s obviously extremely serious, and if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign what will you do?
> 
> 
> Sessions answer
> 
> Sen Franken, I am not aware of any of those activities. *I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign, and I did not have communications with the Russians, and I am unable to comment on it.*
> 
> 
> How is that not a lie? Sessions flat out said he did not have communications with the Russians when he did
> 
> But keep spinning away.
> 
> Keep ignoring the facts, it just makes you look that much worse.


What you're quoting is the spin. 

The question was asked in the context of communication between Russia and Trump campaign with regards to influencing the campaign itself. That's what his answer was referring to. 

But "context" is too complex of a concept these days.


----------



## birthday_massacre

RipNTear said:


> What you're quoting is the spin.
> 
> The question was asked in the context of communication between Russia and Trump campaign with regards to influencing the campaign itself. That's what his answer was referring to.
> 
> But "context" is too complex of a concept these days.


That is not what Franken asked.

I posted his whole quote for the question. Where in that quote does he ask about in regards to the campaign itself. He's not, you are just spinning.


CNN has just published a story, and I’m telling you this about a news story that has just been published, so I’m not expecting you to know whether or not it’s true or not, but CNN just published a story alleging that the intelligence community provided documents to the president elect last week that included information that ‘*Russian operatives claimed to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump.’ These documents also allegedly say ‘There was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government.’* Now again I am telling you this as it’s coming out so, ah, you know… but if it’s true it’s obviously extremely serious, and if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign what will you do?

Franken was asking about compromising personal and financial information about Trump he was not asking about the campaign.

Just admit Sessions lied because he did. You keep trying to spin this when the whole context is there. 

It's a joke you can't admit he lied. But yeah me quoting the exact question is spin because it proves Session lied.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> That is not what Franken asked.
> 
> I posted his whole quote for the question. Where in that quote does he ask about in regards to the campaign itself. He's not, you are just spinning.
> 
> 
> CNN has just published a story, and I’m telling you this about a news story that has just been published, so I’m not expecting you to know whether or not it’s true or not, but CNN just published a story alleging that the intelligence community provided documents to the president elect last week that included information that ‘*Russian operatives claimed to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump.’ These documents also allegedly say ‘There was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government.’* Now again I am telling you this as it’s coming out so, ah, you know… but if it’s true it’s obviously extremely serious, and if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign what will you do?
> 
> Franken was asking about compromising personal and financial information about Trump he was not asking about the campaign.
> 
> Just admit Sessions lied because he did. You keep trying to spin this when the whole context is there.
> 
> Its a joke you cant admit he lied


Lol. Of course he didn't lie. Nor did he mislead :lmao 

Sessions met with ambassadors as part of his *previous *job not as part of the Trump campaign and he was referring to not knowing about the meetings between the Trump administration and Russians which is what he was talking about when he said he wasn't aware of *those *activities. i.e. the activities of Trump's campaign individuals meeting with Russians. 

The fact that you don't even know that Sessions was actually himself allowed to meet Russian ambassadors as part of his then job is hilarious to me :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

RipNTear said:


> Lol. Of course he didn't lie. Nor did he mislead :lmao
> 
> Sessions met with ambassadors as part of his current job not as part of the Trump campaign and he was referring to not knowing about the meetings between the Trump administration and his campaign.
> 
> The fact that you don't even know that Sessions was actually himself allowed to meet Russian ambassadors as part of his job is hilarious to me :lol


It has nothing to do with him being allowed to meet with Russian ambassadors , it has to do with he said he did not but he did. 

Nice strawman argument there.

And he said he did not have communications with the Russians when he did. That is a lie.

Keep spinning reaper. Keep digging your hole deeper and deeper.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> It has nothing to do with him being allowed to meet with Russian ambassadors , it has to do with he said he did not but he did.
> 
> Nice strawman argument there.


That's not what a strawman is but :mj4

No. The context of the question was entirely surrounding the meetings between Trump campaign and Russians. So that's what he was answering to. He was not being asked to answer about whether or not he met with the Russians outside of the Trump campaign :lol. Context is so difficult for you to grasp. I'm amazed. 

He didn't lie.


----------



## birthday_massacre

RipNTear said:


> That's not what a strawman is but :mj4
> 
> No. The context of the question was entirely surrounding the meetings between Trump campaign and Russians. So that's what he was answering to. He was not being asked to answer about whether or not he met with the Russians outside of the Trump campaign :lol. Context is so difficult for you to grasp. I'm amazed.
> 
> He didn't lie.


If HR asks if you know if anyone on your team stole a stapler off the managers desk, and you said no, then you said I did not steal it either but you are the one who stole it , you lied.

But in your world its not a lie because HR did not directly ask if YOU stole it even though you offered up that you did not steal it either.


Your spin is a huge fail on this one. He did lie and its even more of a joke you claim he did not even mislead. 


And yes you made a strawman LOL You don't even know what a strawman argument is do you.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> If HR asks if you know if anyone on your team stole a stapler off the managers desk, and you said no, then you said I did not steal it either but you are the one who stole it , you lied.
> 
> But in your world its not a lie because HR did not directly ask if YOU stole it even though you offered up that you did not steal it either.
> 
> Your spin is a huge fail on this one.


Your analogy is completely wrong. 

Jeff Sessions did not steal the stapler. What he did was take the stapler that belonged to him at the time and left the stapler on the HR desk alone. The HR manager is now asking him about another stapler taken by someone on his team. Sessions doesn't even know if someone on his team took the different stapler therefore he rightfully claims that he didn't take the stapler. He also doesn't say that he took his own stapler since it was not relevant to the discussion. HR is satisfied by this answer. 

Now comes the janitors of the company and they see a stapler on Sessions desk so they assume that this was the original stapler and now are accusing him of stealing the stapler that already belonged to him because they don't realize that there are 2 staplers, not one. 

There's no spin here.


----------



## birthday_massacre

RipNTear said:


> Your analogy is completely wrong.
> 
> Jeff Sessions did not steal the stapler. What he did was take the stapler that belonged to him at the time and left the stapler on the HR desk alone. The HR manager is now asking him about another stapler taken by someone on his team. Sessions doesn't even know if someone on his team took the different stapler therefore he rightfully claims that he didn't take the stapler. HR is satisfied by this answer.
> 
> Now comes the rest of the company and they see a stapler on Sessions desk so they assume that this was the original stapler and now are accusing him of stealing the stapler that already belonged to him.
> 
> There's no spin here.


Even more spinning LOL

You keep proving how delusional Trump supporters are, no wonder you believe any bullshit Trump says.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> Even more spinning LOL
> 
> You keep proving how delusional Trump supporters are, no wonder you believe any bullshit Trump says.


:mj4 I'll take that as a white flag of surrender :kobelol


----------



## Oxidamus

What I am gathering from this wiretap shitstorm is Trump hasn't put forth any proof, but really believes it is real. And the possibility he hasn't provided any proof, if there is, is either because he is legally unable until it is completely 100% confirmed, or because it is yet to be truly unearthed and confirmed at all, because of this shit going on with Sessions.

A fuck tonne of media (the usual suspects) went from making unabashed reports on Trump working with the Russians without any actual proof, to then pointing at Trump's allegations because there is no proof. And this is a huge red flag to a lot of people, and a reason why people believe the allegations.
Is this about right?

Either way there is, as usual, some fishy shit with the MSM. :fakenews


----------



## birthday_massacre

RipNTear said:


> :mj4 I'll take that as a white flag of surrender :kobelol


What ever makes you sleep at night. I totally destroyed you on this. You can twist and spin all you want but its a fact Sessions lied. You just do what you and Trump supporters do a lot and ignore the facts and the actual quotes.

Its why Trump supporters can't be taken seriously.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Oxi X.O. said:


> What I am gathering from this wiretap shitstorm is Trump hasn't put forth any proof, but really believes it is real. And the possibility he hasn't provided any proof, if there is, is either because he is legally unable until it is completely 100% confirmed, or because it is yet to be truly unearthed and confirmed at all, because of this shit going on with Sessions.
> 
> A fuck tonne of media (the usual suspects) went from making unabashed reports on Trump working with the Russians without any actual proof, to then pointing at Trump's allegations because there is no proof. And this is a huge red flag to a lot of people, and a reason why people believe the allegations.
> Is this about right?
> 
> Either way there is, as usual, some fishy shit with the MSM. :fakenews


Trump is a clown, he got the info from Alex Jones lol. If Trump really wanted to know if he was wiretapped ask the FBI he is the fucking president FFS. They have to tell him. 

If you look back in Jan. the FBI asked FISA courts to grant a wiretap and they said no. 

As for making unabashed reports on Trump working with the Russians without any actual proof, already showed the proof on that. Ties of people close to Trump has business ties with Russia. 

Anyone who is claiming Trump worked with Russia on fixing the election is lying since they have no evidence of that at all. But Trump having business ties with Russia, his son and his son and law do, so of course Trump does as well.

The funny thing is, Trump asking for an investigation, could bite him in the ass if there is one and Trump was doing shady shit with the Russians the will find out and that could get him impeached.

the only fake news here is the BS Trump is spewing that he got from Alex Jones.


----------



## Laser Rey

deepelemblues said:


> FBI requested a secret warrant from the secret FISA court to bug :trump Tower.
> 
> Secret FISA court said no because the warrant specifically named :trump
> 
> FBI came back and again requested a warrant to bug :trump Tower from the secret FISA court but took :trump 's name out and the warrant was granted.
> 
> The FBI does not request secret warrants from the secret FISA court and then not carry out the surveillance if the warrant is granted.


How the fuck do you know what secret warrants a secret court is granting or denying?


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> What ever makes you sleep at night. I totally destroyed you on this. You can twist and spin all you want but its a fact Sessions lied. You just do what you and Trump supporters do a lot and ignore the facts and the actual quotes.
> 
> Its why Trump supporters can't be taken seriously.


:sleep


----------



## Beatles123

RipNTear said:


> You go to someone's profile and it's under User Lists.
> 
> Blocking someone because of their political views.
> 
> The ultimate example of :triggered :mj4


It happened to me :trump3


----------



## Beatles123

Also, based Rand gettin' shit done :trump3


----------



## Stinger Fan

RipNTear said:


> :mj4 I'll take that as a white flag of surrender :kobelol


The best part is the self patting on the back after


----------



## virus21




----------



## krtgolfing

Can't we all just get along? So much hate up in here!


----------



## Beatles123

Stinger Fan said:


> The best part is the self patting on the back after


he can't see this, but anyone who has to announce himself the winner that much knows he's never won anything at all.


----------



## Reaper

krtgolfing said:


> Can't we all just get along? So much hate up in here!


Nah. Call out the ones that are actually hateful. 

The only ones in this thread spewing hate and picking fights deliberately are the leftists. 

Some of us just like to oblige cuz self defence is still an American value :mj

Of course I use the opportunity to entertain myself as well.


----------



## Miss Sally

RipNTear said:


> Nah. Call out the ones that are actually hateful.
> 
> The only ones in this thread spewing hate and picking fights deliberately are the leftists.
> 
> Some of us just like to oblige cuz self defence is still an American value :mj
> 
> Of course I use the opportunity to entertain myself as well.












In the words of the great Quincy Taggert; "Never give up, never surrender!"


----------



## Reaper

> http://www.usapoliticstoday.com/miley-cyrus-leave-america-will-british-citizen/
> 
> Miley Cyrus: “Today I Leave America And Never Come Back, In 10 Days I Will Be British Citizen”


And nothing of any value was lost :kobelol

And I don't know in which universe does someone get to be a british citizen in 10 days


----------



## Stinger Fan

RipNTear said:


> And nothing of any value was lost :kobelol
> 
> And I don't know in which universe does someone get to be a british citizen in 10 days


If she did, she'd be back within a year....like clockboy


----------



## Reaper

Stinger Fan said:


> If she did, she'd be back within a year....like clockboy


Yeah. Picking England of all places. Guess she doesn't know there's a right wing uprising there as well :kobelol


----------



## Miss Sally

RipNTear said:


> Yeah. Picking England of all places. Guess she doesn't know there's a right wing uprising there as well :kobelol


My biggest wonder is why do these celebs pick places that are whiter than America to go live in? It's always Canada or Europe, anywhere else isn't good enough for some reason...yet they bitch about white people pretty much nonstop. :laugh:


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> My biggest wonder is why do these celebs pick places that are whiter than America to go live in? It's always Canada or Europe, anywhere else isn't good enough for some reason...yet they bitch about white people pretty much nonstop.


Lol. It's cuz whites have created the only inclusive societies in the world. 

So much irony.


----------



## Stinger Fan

RipNTear said:


> Yeah. Picking England of all places. Guess she doesn't know there's a right wing uprising there as well :kobelol


Celebs aren't the brightest people around . It's always amusing that they never threaten to move anywhere that doesn't speak English as a first language or where they'd be a minority . Wonder why that is :hmm:


----------



## Reaper

Stinger Fan said:


> Celebs aren't the brightest people around . It's always amusing that they never threaten to move anywhere that doesn't speak English as a first language or where they'd be a minority . Wonder why that is :hmm:


Plenty of non-white countries are proficient english speaking countries. Language is a secondary factor. 

The real reason is that in 90% of the world, Miley would either be a pariah, stoned to death or jailed for sucking on a strap on in front of a camera - whereas it gets her fame and fortune in the white world. And most importantly actual respect from large segments. 

Imagine an exhibitionist like Miley getting respected anywhere that's not majority white :lmao


----------



## Miss Sally

RipNTear said:


> Lol. It's cuz whites have created the only inclusive societies in the world.
> 
> So much irony.


I imagine these people talking about diversity and white people but then clutching their pearls and purses when they are in a non-white area and assuming the first non-white male they meet will rape them. 

They also seem like the type to host fund raisers in nice areas which don't include anyone from the area from which they're raising funds for.

Because heaven help them if little susie or timmy has to go to a public school, let alone one that's not white. 

They'd just die if they couldn't have an area with Starbucks, Trader Joes, Ikea and a million other hipster places within 3 minute driving distance.

It would be the worst thing ever if they couldn't send their moron kids to college to learn puppet dance choreography or gender studies.

It would be the end of them if they couldn't take a vacation in a 3rd world country and post selfies of themselves in areas which excludes the locals and poor people.


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> Because heaven help them if little susie or timmy has to go to a public school, let alone one that's not white.
> 
> They'd just die if they couldn't have an area with Starbucks, Trader Joes, Ikea and a million other hipster places within 3 minute driving distance.


As a brown, I would hate to leave predominantly white areas. My wife used to think that I was racist for saying that, but after our car got broken in a few days ago as this neighborhood is turning into a mini-ghetto she's changed her tune. First time in her life something like this has happened to her and she's always lived in mainly rich white neighborhoods until recently. 

But I don't like Starbucks, Trader Joes or Ikea lol. Still brown, but don't care much for majority brown areas. Not even apologetic about it.4

She made me sign the lease even though I was skeptical about staying in this house. Now she wants to move soon as the lease is up :kobelol

Oh and she wants to get a gun and is no longer a democrat. Poor thing. She sounds absolutely traumatized as apparently her tolerant first world view came crashing down in an instant.


----------



## Laser Rey

Would any of the Trump fans here like to address the closest thing to pass as evidence for his Tweets this weekend? Radio host Mark Levin - whose talk of this story inspired a Breitbart article that probably set Trump off the next day - went on Fox News yesterday and, according to the right-wing commenters on YouTube, PROVED that Obama ordered a wiretap on Trump. If you heard Levin speak, he cited articles by The New York Times (thought that was fake news?), The Guardian and McClatchy in which anonymous sources say numerous investigative agencies (FBI, NSA, etc.) requested warrants from FISA for surveillance on Trump's AIDES (not Trump, his aides) to establish a connection between the campaign and Russia. These articles were 2-5 months old and didn't make huge splashes at the time.

Obama's role, according to Levin? Boiled down to "Are you telling me he didn't know that this was going on, through all his intelligence briefings? Of course he did." Yes, that is Trump fans equated to ORDERING wiretaps. Empirical evidence - provided by anonymous sources about business with a secret court - that suggested that, if this was true, he would have known about it. Nevermind that there would be no scandal in having knowledge about agencies going through a legal route (I hate that FISA exists and constitutes a legal route, but it is a reality). Nevermind that probably having knowledge is a far cry from personally ordering wiretaps, as Trump claims. Nevermind that the anonymously-sourced stories say the requested warrants were for Trump's aides, not Trump. Nevermind that the only mention in any of this about Trump Tower, where Trump said HIS phone was tapped, is that there was a request for surveillance between a computer server there and two Russian banks. These imbeciles actually take what Levin said as proof that Trump was telling the truth, even though Levin himself doesn't even frame it that way and conveniently doesn't want to discuss Trump's evidence-free tweet. Video here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vdzxy8tEoTo

Before you jump down my throat, just know that I can't stand Obama. But sorry, you can't watch that video and read the comments about how Trump supporters interpreted the information and tell me with a straight face that huge swaths of Trumpites are not aggressively stupid people.


----------



## Reaper

^I'm just glad you're being skeptical since I personally have no views on the whole wire-tapping thing at all. It's part of a kind of politics that I don't believe is important enough for me to care about as it does not impact me directly. My interest in politics is self-serving and pretty much unashamedly so. :mj 

Hopefully you'll extend this kind of skepticism and critical thought to everything else though.


----------



## Laser Rey

I'm not even expressing skepticism (though I am skeptical about virtually anything to do with the intelligence community since those issues by nature exist in shaded areas ordinary citizens aren't allowed to play in). I'm expressing shock at how dedicated most Trump supporters are to never calling a spade a spade.

Based on what we know now, the claim that Obama ordered Trump's phone at Trump Tower to be wiretapped (Trump's exact words) lives in one place: Trump's Twitter account. Fox News brought Levin on as if what he had to say would back up Trump's wholly separate allegation. Cue the poorly educated MAGA cult listening to a bunch of complicated spy stuff they know nothing about and watch them reach the conclusion of "See? There's your evidence right there!"


----------



## Warlock

BM is right in regards of the term 'spin'. Taking information and drawing a different conclusion out of it than someone else(sometimes to the complete opposite) is definitely a spin. That said, BM's takeaway from the same data he provided would also be spin. So not sure why "spin" is even used to try to discredit someone's opinion of the data presented.

Reaper, however, is correct that proof of Russian communication/ties does not mean proof of something nefarious is going on. Especially since the only communications being reported thus far have all been legal(someone can link me if I've missed something here). There is a big difference in these two. And as such people with an agenda purposefully phrase things in a manner to portray something than it actually is. By BM's logic, anyone that has ever talked with someone in Russian government(which is a whole hell of alot of people on both sides of the aisle) now has proof against them for dealings with the Russians, and now in bed with them, and now is an immediate threat to our country. I guess he thinks US should completely stonewall the entire country. 

BM still needs to invest in that dictionary, now adding a bookmark to strawman alongside bigot. He literally just wash, rinse, repeated my analysis of him on 7077, complete with declaring victory, "destroying points", ignoring counterpoints, name calling, and thus not getting some valid points recognized throughout the shuffle. I pray BM is never part of a jury trial, cause his proneness to false equivalencies and irrelevant proofs is concerning.


----------



## Vic Capri

Real News Vs. Fake News on the same story.

- Vic


----------



## glenwo2

dan the marino said:


> As amusing as this all is to me this ..... is legit mentally ill. I actually didn't think he'd last 2 years before impeachment but at the rate he's going it won't be 6 months.


Keep telling yourself that.

'Cause at that rate, you're the one that will become legit mentally ill. :lol




Stephen90 said:


> I find that funny since you are a Trump supporter. People in glass houses should never through stone.


How do you "through" stone? Is that some new vocabulary? :side:


----------



## Stephen90

glenwo2 said:


> Keep telling yourself that.
> 
> 'Cause at that rate, you're the one that will become legit mentally ill. :lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you "through" stone? Is that some new vocabulary? :side:


Somebody is still mad about something that happened about a year ago on another board.


----------



## amhlilhaus

So wikileaks has a bunch of dirt on the cia

The cia can mimic foreign government hacking techniques, therefore framing that government

Russia hacked the dnc, so trumps illegitimate

Investigations! (That havent found anything, or theyd be leaked by now)

Trump accuses obama of hacking him

Media pooh poohs trump, conveniantly forgetting trumps calls with foreign leaders, proving hes been tapped AS PRESIDENT with MORE security around him.

At least theyre playing nice and havent tried 'other means' of getting rid of trump, but its probably already been discussed


----------



## glenwo2

Stephen90 said:


> Somebody is still mad about something that happened about a year ago on another board.


And somebody needs to fix the auto-correct on their phone. :lol

('through' is a verb? lol )


----------



## birthday_massacre

Sweenz said:


> BM is right in regards of the term 'spin'. Taking information and drawing a different conclusion out of it than someone else(sometimes to the complete opposite) is definitely a spin. That said, BM's takeaway from the same data he provided would also be spin. So not sure why "spin" is even used to try to discredit someone's opinion of the data presented.
> 
> Reaper, however, is correct that proof of Russian communication/ties does not mean proof of something nefarious is going on. Especially since the only communications being reported thus far have all been legal(someone can link me if I've missed something here). There is a big difference in these two. And as such people with an agenda purposefully phrase things in a manner to portray something than it actually is. By BM's logic, anyone that has ever talked with someone in Russian government(which is a whole hell of alot of people on both sides of the aisle) now has proof against them for dealings with the Russians, and now in bed with them, and now is an immediate threat to our country. I guess he thinks US should completely stonewall the entire country.
> 
> BM still needs to invest in that dictionary, now adding a bookmark to strawman alongside bigot. He literally just wash, rinse, repeated my analysis of him on 7077, complete with declaring victory, "destroying points", ignoring counterpoints, name calling, and thus not getting some valid points recognized throughout the shuffle. I pray BM is never part of a jury trial, cause his proneness to false equivalencies and irrelevant proofs is concerning.


How is it spin when you take a question and answer that shows how Sessions lied? Its spin when you try to explain away and make up excuses to spin why he is not lying.

The problem is not Trump or his connections having ties to Russia, it's them lying about it and hiding it. When that happens then people start to wonder if something shady is going on. Because if their meetings are above board there is nothing to lie about.

Also if Trump has ties to Russia then gives lifts sanctions as favors to them now that he is president that is a huge conflict and would get him impeached.

As for investing in that dictionary I think you are the one that needs to. Still love how you are sticking with oh people that are against racist are bigots or racists against those racists lol. Just give them one up.

As for this strawman thing, you should look the word up, hell ill do it for you.


Strawman - an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument. The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. 

that is exactly what reaper did when we were talking about Sessions lying then he says since he knows he lost the argument about sessions lying " The fact that you don't even know that Sessions was actually himself allowed to meet Russian ambassadors as part of his then job is hilarious to me. "



So take your own advice and get back on topic about Sessions lying.


----------



## birthday_massacre

The GOP's Obamacare repeal plan is out — and it's even worse than anyone expected

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busin...gop-obamacare-replacement-20170307-story.html

After weeks of expectations — actually, nearly seven years of expectations — House Republicans on Monday released their proposal to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

Elements of the proposal, which was kept under lock and key last week — have been dribbling out for a few days. The text of the bill encompassing the GOP plan validates much of that reporting. On the whole, however, it’s a nastier, more consumer-unfriendly proposal than even close followers could have expected.

The House GOP, in a written statement, cloaked this plan with a bodyguard of outright deceit. “What we’re proposing will deliver the control and choice individuals and families need to access healthcare that’s right for them,” the statement said. House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said the measure would “drive down costs, encourage competition and give every American access to quality, affordable health insurance.” Curiously, the GOP statement says the plan embodies “President Trump's proposed healthcare reforms,” although the president has never advanced a coherent set of proposals.

The truth is that the GOP measure would destroy the ability of millions of Americans to access any health care worth the name. The Congressional Budget Office reportedly warned the Republicans that their proposals would lead to lost coverage for millions and higher costs for millions more, but the GOP is pushing ahead anyway.

Reporters and experts will be poring over the new draft for days, but here are some key elements gleaned from a first reading. Further examination undoubtedly will unearth more issues with the bill. The chances are almost nil that closer examination will find much, if anything, good about it.

The proposal defunds Planned Parenthood. No federal funding can be made, either directly or indirectly, by Medicaid to a health care organization that “provides for abortions,” other than those done in cases of rape or incest or to save the life of the mother. That’s Planned Parenthood. It’s proper to note that Planned Parenthood doesn’t use federal funds to pay for abortions, as that’s already against the law. This measure shuts down funding for the organization just because it uses other funds to cover those procedures.


The real reason the GOP is gung-ho on repealing Obamacare: It would give the rich a huge tax cut
The bill effectively shuts down private health insurance coverage for abortion. According to a House Ways and Means Committee digest, the measure forbids spending federal tax subsidies on health plans that include coverage of abortion, even if the customer doesn’t get an abortion. This would dramatically shrink working Americans’ access to insurance-covered abortions, or would lead to insurers dropping abortion coverage from their plans, or both. Customers could buy separate policies to cover abortions, but couldn’t use the federal subsidy to help pay for them. Insurers likely would charge hugely discouraging premiums for such policies, as the market for them would be tiny.

The individual and employer mandates are eliminated. They’re not repealed exactly, but the penalties are repealed, which amounts to the same thing. Without a requirement that individuals carry health insurance, the insurance markets are almost certain to collapse. The repeal is retroactive back to the beginning of 2016, but the real problem is in the market starting this year. Individuals would be able to drop their coverage immediately, which will wreak havoc with the market starting right now. Aetna’s chairman and chief executive, Mark Bertolini, said recently that the individual market was entering a “death spiral” in which healthier customers dropped coverage, leaving sicker customers who know they need insurance facing an ever-increasing rates. This provision will do much to guarantee that will happen.

Trump's pick to run Medicare and Medicaid thinks maternity coverage should be optional. Here's why she's wrong

Essential health benefit rules are repealed. As of Dec. 31, 2019, ACA rules that required qualified health plans to provide hospitalization, maternity care, mental health services and other benefits would be sunsetted at the federal level. States would have the authority to set them instead. The impact on private, non-Medicaid plans would therefore vary by state. If a state removes maternity benefits, for example, that’s likely to make maternity coverage, among other services, immensely expensive, if available at all.

Income-based premium subsidies would be replaced by age-based subsidies, which will hurt working-class families in many states. Under the ACA, subsidies to help individual buyers afford premiums and (for poorer households) deductibles and copays were based on household income. The GOP measure will base them on the buyer’s age, instead, with older buyers receiving more help than younger. The GOP plan limits subsidies to $4,000 per individual; under the ACA, which also keys subsidies to the cost of benchmark insurance plans in the buyer’s home market, the subsidies theoretically could be several times higher. No family could receive more than $14,000 in subsidies, and no more than five family members could be eligible for subsidies.

As we reported last week, this scheme would reduce subsidies to many of the people who need them the most, while awarding them to recipients who don’t need them. “People who are lower income, older or live in high-premium areas would be particularly disadvantaged,” the Kaiser Family Foundation observed after examining an earlier draft. The new draft retains those features. Some modest means-testing of the subsidies — an idea tossed around within the GOP caucus last week to quell complaints that the change would make the rich richer — appears to be incorporated into the fiscal provisions of the proposal.

The Medicaid expansion is killed. As of Dec. 31, 2019, the Medicaid expansion is repealed. Traditional Medicaid will be block-granted, a system almost certain to result in less federal funding for the joint state-federal program than it would have received, over time. The neediest and sickest Americans will increasingly be on their own, as states get less federal help to provide them with medical services.

All of Obamacare’s taxes are repealed, another boon for the rich. Everything from the tax on tanning salons and medical devices to the surcharge on high-income taxpayers will be gone. As we explained earlier, this amounts to an enormous tax cut for the wealthy — at least $346 billion over 10 years, every cent going to taxpayers earning more than $200,000 ($250,000 for couples). The proposal would sharply raise the limits on contributions to tax-advantaged Health Savings Accounts — another gimme for the rich.

The tax repeal, the Brookings Institution has reported, will make it impossible to pay for any Obamacare “replacement” — which still isn’t on the horizon. It also will exacerbate the fiscal problems of Medicare, by hastening the exhaustion of the program’s trust fund by four years, to 2025.

Keep up to date with Michael Hiltzik. Follow @hiltzikm on Twitter, see his Facebook page, or email [email protected].


----------



## Stephen90

glenwo2 said:


> And somebody needs to fix the auto-correct on their phone. :lol
> 
> ('through' is a verb? lol )


Is that all you have move on snowflake.


----------



## Vic Capri

CNN = Censor News Network

- Vic


----------



## birthday_massacre

Vic Capri said:


> CNN = Censor News Network
> 
> - Vic


You act like fox news does not censor lol. They just talk over the person trying to give facts or stats so they cant get it out.


----------



## Warlock

birthday_massacre said:


> How is it spin when you take a question and answer that shows how Sessions lied? Its spin when you try to explain away and make up excuses to spin why he is not lying.
> 
> The problem is not Trump or his connections having ties to Russia, it's them lying about it and hiding it. When that happens then people start to wonder if something shady is going on. Because if their meetings are above board there is nothing to lie about.
> 
> Also if Trump has ties to Russia then gives lifts sanctions as favors to them now that he is president that is a huge conflict and would get him impeached.
> 
> As for investing in that dictionary I think you are the one that needs to. Still love how you are sticking with oh people that are against racist are bigots or racists against those racists lol. Just give them one up.
> 
> As for this strawman thing, you should look the word up, hell ill do it for you.
> 
> 
> Strawman - an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
> 
> that is exactly what reaper did when we were talking about Sessions lying then he says since he knows he lost the argument about sessions lying " The fact that you don't even know that Sessions was actually himself allowed to meet Russian ambassadors as part of his then job is hilarious to me. "
> 
> So take your own advice.


1) You are switching the topic of discussion to try to make a point. I didn't mention sessions, I was talking about your "proof of russian ties" data. But lets not let facts get in the way.

2) but since you bring it up, in context sessions didn't lie. He should have been forthcoming and more compliant with the inquiry. (This is the part you are right about but got lost in the shuffle.) The very reason people are careful on how they construct their questions during these types of questioning is for things like this. He was able to tell the truth and still not give people the information that they were wanting. This was very shady of him and annoying as hell, but no more than any other politician that does the same type of stuff(sort of like when congress was questioning Comey about the emails, the way they worded some of their questions left wiggle room to not be fully forthcoming with the information they were after). Why Sessions did so is pure speculation. That's where you start your own spin (ie - "oh, he did that on purpose to hide his dealings with russia cause he was doing something very shady, and thus purjured himseld and should immediately resign"). That is the very definition of spin. 

3) Racist and bigot are two different things. You are trying to misrepresent what I said. And you still have no idea what bigot means. :lmao <-- Also not a strawman

4) For something to be a strawman, what is being presented to you must be something you are not contesting(meaning you agree with what he is saying), and must be an actual argument. "The fact that you don't even know that Sessions was actually himself allowed to meet Russian ambassadors as part of his then job is hilarious to me. " is not an argument. If so, what argument is he making with that statement? At most, its a side commentary about your understanding of the topic, not the actual topic being argued. 

presubmit edit:

Examples of a strawman. 
a) Student tells his professor that he thinks some of Hillary Clinton's positions have merit. 
b) Professor says he can't believe that the student supports giving access to classified documents to foreign countries. 

a) Student tells his professor that he thinks should look for a more reasonable solution to the trans bathroom issue, instead of one that negatively impacts one group or the other.
b) Professor says he can't believe that the student supports bigotry.

Noone contests either b comment. But that's not what comment a in either was saying, but b is much easier to argue. Obviously the student doesn't support either of those, but falsely equating and creating a strawman.

So applying that to your example.. are you saying that you don't contest the following. "The fact that you don't even know that Sessions was actually himself allowed to meet Russian ambassadors as part of his then job is hilarious to me.". And what position is he trying to take that is obviously easier to argue?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Sweenz said:


> 1) You are switching the topic of discussion to try to make a point. I didn't mention sessions.
> 
> 2) but since you bring it up, in context sessions didn't lie. He should have been forthcoming and more compliant with the inquiry. (This is the part you are right about but got lost in the shuffle.) The very reason people are careful on how they construct their questions during these types of questioning is for things like this. He was able to tell the truth and still not give people the information that they were wanting. This was very shady of him and annoying as hell, but no more than any other politician that does the same type of stuff(sort of like when congress was questioning Comey about the emails, the way they worded some of their questions left wiggle room to not be fully forthcoming with the information they were after). Why Sessions did so is pure speculation. That's where you start your own spin (ie - "oh, he did that on purpose to hide his dealings with russia cause he was doing something very shady, and thus purjured himseld and should immediately resign"). That is the very definition of spin.
> 
> 3) Racist and bigot are two different things. You are trying to misrepresent what I said. And you still have no idea what bigot means. :lmao
> 
> 4) For something to be a strawman, what is being presented to you must be something you are not contesting(meaning you agree with what he is saying), and must be an actual argument. "The fact that you don't even know that Sessions was actually himself allowed to meet Russian ambassadors as part of his then job is hilarious to me. " is not an argument. If so, what argument is he making with that statement? At most, its a side commentary about your understanding of the topic, not the actual topic being argued.
> 
> presubmit edit:
> 
> Examples of a strawman.
> a) Student tells his professor that he thinks some of Hillary Clinton's positions have merit.
> b) Professor says he can't believe that the student supports giving access to classified documents to foreign countries.
> 
> a) Student tells his professor that he thinks should look for a more reasonable solution to the trans bathroom issue, instead of one that negatively impacts one group or the other.
> b) Professor says he can't believe that the student supports bigotry.
> 
> Noone contests either b comment. But that's not what comment a in either was saying, but b is much easier to argue. Obviously the student doesn't support either of those, but falsely equating and creating a strawman.
> 
> So applying that to your example.. are you saying that you don't contest the following. "The fact that you don't even know that Sessions was actually himself allowed to meet Russian ambassadors as part of his then job is hilarious to me.". And what position is he trying to take that is obviously easier to argue?


He did lie, he offered up he did not meet with the Russians when answering the question, which was a lie since he did meet with them. The funny thing is all you Trump supporters woudl be claiming he lied if Sessions was a Hillary pick and Hillary was president. All the mental gymnastics Trump suppporters have to do to spin he did not lie or mislead is quite comical.

See you don't know what a strawman is. I even gave you the definition. But keep being uninformed. 

Here is the def again. 

Strawman - an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument. *The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. *

I said sessions lied and reaper came back with I can't believe you don't know its sessions job to meet with Russians.

That is a strawman

I never said its not his job and him claiming its his job has nothing to do with Sessions lying about meeting with the Russians.


----------



## deepelemblues

OT every time I see bm is the most recent poster in this thread I think it's :trump 's birthday 


:trump3


----------



## Oxidamus

Let me pose a situation to you guys. Specifically you Americans.

Let's say Trump gets super close to revealing the true malice behind the US Government Agencies like CIA, NSA, FBI etc and is assassinated.

What do the citizens do?


----------



## deepelemblues

Oxi X.O. said:


> Let me pose a situation to you guys. Specifically you Americans.
> 
> Let's say Trump gets super close to revealing the true malice behind the US Government Agencies like CIA, NSA, FBI etc and is assassinated.
> 
> What do the citizens do?


shit would get real real real fast and his assassination would not be the last. except the ones to follow wouldn't be carried out by the CIA.


----------



## Warlock

birthday_massacre said:


> He did lie, he offered up he did not meet with the Russians when answering the question, which was a lie since he did meet with them. The funny thing is all you Trump supporters woudl be claiming he lied if Sessions was a Hillary pick and Hillary was president. All the mental gymnastics Trump suppporters have to do to spin he did not lie or mislead is quite comical.


1. I'm not a trump supporter. So you can remove that from your case against my stance(as if that should matter anyway, but you rely heavily on those types of attacks)

2. I'll play along cause maybe i'm looking at the wrong quotes. Find me the quote where he lied. Cause the two I'm looking at are aimed at "discussions as a part of the trump campain" (which he didn't, only as a member of the armed services committee, which was not the question asked) ... and a "any communication with russia *about the 2016 election* before or after the election day" (which could be false cause we don't know the subject matter of the meetings, but if he didn't talk the election in those, he is telling the truth. Anything beyond that with that answer is conflation). 



> See you don't know what a strawman is. I even gave you the definition. But keep being uninformed.
> 
> Here is the def again.
> 
> Strawman - an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument. *The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. *
> 
> I said sessions lied and reaper came back with I can't believe you don't know its sessions job to meet with Russians.
> 
> That is a strawman
> 
> I never said its not his job and him claiming its his job has nothing to do with Sessions lying about meeting with the Russians.


You keep posting it, but you aren't reading it. 

You said sessions lied. Reaper "came back with" saying Sessions didn't and provided why it wasn't a lie(he met with them cause it was part of his job, not as part of the trump campaign, and thus for the question asked, was a truthful answer), then the part about you is about you not actually knowing why he met with the russians. He directly addressed your lying allegation, then commented on your knowledge to make your accusation. That is not a strawman in any way.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Oxi X.O. said:


> Let me pose a situation to you guys. Specifically you Americans.
> 
> Let's say Trump gets super close to revealing the true malice behind the US Government Agencies like CIA, NSA, FBI etc and is assassinated.
> 
> What do the citizens do?


Didn't Snowden already do that for the most part?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Sweenz said:


> 1. I'm not a trump supporter. So you can remove that from your case against my stance(as if that should matter anyway, but you rely heavily on those types of attacks)
> 
> 2. I'll play along cause maybe i'm looking at the wrong quotes. Find me the quote where he lied. Cause the two I'm looking at are aimed at "discussions as a part of the trump campain" (which he didn't, only as a member of the armed services committee, which was not the question asked) ... and a "any communication with russia *about the 2016 election* before or after the election day" (which could be false cause we don't know the subject matter of the meetings, but if he didn't talk the election in those, he is telling the truth. Anything beyond that with that answer is conflation).
> 
> 
> 
> You keep posting it, but you aren't reading it.
> 
> You said sessions lied. Reaper "came back with" saying Sessions didn't and provided why it wasn't a lie(he met with them cause it was part of his job, not as part of the trump campaign, and thus for the question asked, was a truthful answer), then the part about you is about you not actually knowing why he met with the russians. He directly addressed your lying allegation, then commented on your knowledge to make your accusation. That is not a strawman in any way.


Yes you are a Trump supporter, you posts prove that, you just claim you are not. 

I posted the quote twice, but Ill post it again. 


Al Franken question


CNN has just published a story, and I’m telling you this about a news story that has just been published, so I’m not expecting you to know whether or not it’s true or not, but CNN just published a story alleging that the intelligence community provided documents to the president elect last week that included information that ‘Russian operatives claimed to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump.’ These documents also allegedly say *‘There was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government.’ Now again I am telling you this as it’s coming out so, ah, you know… but if it’s true it’s obviously extremely serious, and if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign what will you do?
*

Sessions answer

Sen Franken, I am not aware of any of those activities.* I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign, and I did not have communications with the Russians,* and I am unable to comment on it.

How is Sessions not lying when he said .* I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign, and I did not have communications with the Russians,* 

How is that not a lie? 

Yes it is a strawman because we are not talking about it being his job or not and it's even more because Reaper claims I did not know that which is bullshit. It being his job or not has nothing to do with if he lied or not.

And forget the strawman BS, stick to the Sessions lying or not.

Tell me how he did not lie?


----------



## Warlock

I am not a trump supporter. I'm sorry if my centrist position sometimes falls in line with the things that may not align with your own opinion.

First.. the question... "in the course of this campaign". Not, "in the course of your job". Not "communications of any manner". Specifically "in the course of this campaign". So the question is specifically worded to say "did you communicate with the Russians on behalf of the campaign"

Next .. the answer... He's saying that as a part of the campaign(ie - as the surrogate), he did not communicate with them. Unless there is proof that he did so during one of these times *as a surrogate*, you are merely speculating or projecting your own opinion as fact. Neither of which are grounds to call someone a liar, a purgerer and not enough to have the man removed from office. At best, its a "wait and see" what comes out of it, THEN decide.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Sweenz said:


> I am not a trump supporter. I'm sorry if my centrist position sometimes falls in line with the things that may not align with your own opinion.
> 
> First.. the question... "in the course of this campaign". Not, "in the course of your job". Not "communications of any manner". Specifically "in the course of this campaign". So the question is specifically worded to say "did you communicate with the Russians on behalf of the campaign"
> 
> Next .. the answer... He's saying that as a part of the campaign(ie - as the surrogate), he did not communicate with them. Unless there is proof that he did so during one of these times *as a surrogate*, you are merely speculating or projecting your own opinion as fact. Neither of which are grounds to call someone a liar, a purgerer and not enough to have the man removed from office. At best, its a "wait and see" what comes out of it, THEN decide.


He said he did not speak to Russia. He was lying and being misleading. When you have to get all cutesy with someone's answers and spin it so you claim its not a lie, then its a lie.

That is why its always bullshit when later someone says under other, like Sessions did, I don't recall ever doing this or that, because you know they are lying and hiding something.


So what is your take on the disaster that is Trumpcare?


----------



## Warlock

birthday_massacre said:


> He said he did not speak to Russia. He was lying and being misleading. When you have to get all cutesy with someone's answers and spin it so you claim its not a lie, then its a lie.
> 
> That is why its always bullshit when later someone says under other, like Sessions did, I don't recall ever doing this or that, because you know they are lying and hiding something.
> 
> So what is your take on the disaster that is Trumpcare?


You have to ignore context of what he was saying to believe that, you are forcing yourself to only read the part that fits what you want it to say. There is nothing cutesy about it. "as a surrogate, I had no communication with the Russians". He's not supposed to stop doing his job just cause he is called on to be a surrogate for (possibly) other things. 

He may have been misleading(I am not denying that possibility). Or he was answering what he thought the question was(since, you know, that was what the question was). I agree he should have elaborated more about his non-campaign dealings with russia, which is the part that frustrates me. Much like the "I don't recall" answers, on that part we 100% agree. "I don't recall" can be used when you don't really know if you said/did something and don't want to answer incorrectly.. but most times its a way to avoid answering a question that you don't like giving the answer to. And so frustrating for me as a citizen.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Sweenz said:


> You have to ignore context of what he was saying to believe that, you are forcing yourself to only read the part that fits what you want it to say. There is nothing cutesy about it. "as a surrogate, I had no communication with the Russians". He's not supposed to stop doing his job just cause he is called on to be a surrogate for (possibly) other things.
> 
> He may have been misleading(I am not denying that possibility). Or he was answering what he thought the question was(since, you know, that was what the question was). I agree he should have elaborated more about his non-campaign dealings with russia, which is the part that frustrates me. Much like the "I don't recall" answers, on that part we 100% agree. "I don't recall" can be used when you don't really know if you said/did something and don't want to answer incorrectly.. but most times its a way to avoid answering a question that you don't like giving the answer to. And so frustrating for me as a citizen.


The whole reason he said a time or two he has been known as a surrogate is so he can lie and do what you and reaper are doing right now. Spinning it claiming he did not lie when he said he did not have communications with the Russians.

He was being misleading for sure, and he was lying as well. If he was not lying and the reason he met with the Russians was for his job, he would have just said that but he hide that fact and lied he even met with them.


If he has nothing to hide he would have just said as a Trump surrogate I did not have contact with them but I did for my other role.

If you want to meet in the middle and said he was being misleading by leaving out he met with Russia for his other role fine. Its just semantics at this point over a word lie or misled.


----------



## Warlock

Um.. what? "a time or two" has nothing to do with if he had communication with them about the campaign. He's acknowledging that he was part of the campaign. A "time or two" or "a thousand times" doesn't change the point of the statement that he didn't communicate to them on their behalf. Completely unrelated. 

_*"Misleading for sure"*_ - Speculation and spin. Could be true, but needs more evidence before you can say that.
*"Lying*" - Speculation and spin. Could be true, but needs more evidence before you can say that.

_*"If he was not lying and the reason he met with the Russians was for his job, he would have just said that but he hide that fact and lied he even met with them."*_ Maybe, but speculation. I could also counter with "if these meetings were so easily confirmable(and both were), there would be no point to try to hide it and lie about it, so likely he was just referencing not talking to them on behalf of the campaign". 

Major difference in speculation and fact.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Sweenz said:


> Um.. what? "a time or two" has nothing to do with if he had communication with them about the campaign. He's acknowledging that he was part of the campaign. A "time or two" or "a thousand times" doesn't change the point of the statement that he didn't communicate to them on their behalf. Completely unrelated.
> 
> "Misleading for sure" - Speculation and spin. Could be true, but needs more evidence before you can say that.
> "Lying" - Speculation and spin. Could be true, but needs more evidence before you can say that.
> 
> _"If he was not lying and the reason he met with the Russians was for his job, he would have just said that but he hide that fact and lied he even met with them."_ Maybe, but speculation. I could also counter with "if these meetings were so easily confirmable(and both were), there would be no point to try to hide it and lie about it".
> 
> Major difference in speculation and fact.


The fact is he was not truthful when he said he did not meet with the Russians. End of story. Spin it how you like but facts are facts. He said he did not meet with the Russians when he did.

Last time I am speaking on this.


----------



## Warlock

That isn't what he said. He said he didn't meet with the russians _*as a surrogate*_. End of story. Spin it how you like but facts are facts. He said he did not meet with the Russians *as a surrogate* and he *didn't*.

Last time I am speaking on this.

Good talk.


----------



## birthday_massacre

So what is your take on Trumpcare that came out today


----------



## Warlock

Mine? I've not read on it yet. Saw your posting about it from some site about it being "worse than expected", but other than that headline I don't know any details.


----------



## deepelemblues

Barack Obama, 2015:



> Certainly, it wasn’t easy for those of African heritage who had not come here voluntarily and yet in their own way were immigrants themselves. There was discrimination and hardship and poverty. But, like you, they no doubt found inspiration in all those who had come before them. And they were able to muster faith that, here in America, they might build a better life and give their children something more.


Sleepy Ben Carson, 2017:



> That’s what America is about, a land of dreams and opportunity. There were other immigrants who came here in the bottom of slave ships, worked even longer, even harder for less. But they too had a dream that one day their sons, daughters, grandsons, granddaughters, great-grandsons, great-granddaughters, might pursue prosperity and happiness in this land.


Guess which one caused controversah.


----------



## Reaper

I don't like many parts of Trumpcare. It's literally proof that the Republican congress is crap. This program will continue to drive up costs as it doesn't address several issues that would have driven costs down. 

- There's no repeal of the mandated tax meaning that insurance companies still operate like oligarchies or mini-monopolies
- There's not enough deregulation to foster any major competition
- There's still nothing about selling insurance across state lines
- There's massive subsidies for insurance companies

It's better than the shit Obamacare was, but not good enough to make a positive impact. Sounds like they're also planning to make up for the shortfalls of the economic fallout by spending more in medicaid and that's not a good idea at all as it will continue to drive up costs. 

It's a piece of shit still. But I started expecting that when they froze Rand Paul out of the process.


----------



## deepelemblues

The bill is crap, they're trying to make it so that anybody on Obamacare or Medicaid won't lose coverage. Lots of people lost coverage thanks to Obamacare and had to accept more expensive and shittier Obamacare plans or lost their insurance and decided fuck those shitty Obamacare plans I'll go without, or were hurt other ways, Democrats sure didn't give a fuck. You can't repeal such huge and complex and shitty legislation as Obamacare without there being problems and hiccups. Sack the fuck up House GOP.

Paul Ryan is personally going to fuck up the GOP's chance to put its boot down even harder on the neck of the Democrats in 2018. Maybe then the centrist milquetoast faction of the GOP will realize that pissing off its own voters is a bad idea and vote someone else as Speaker and start getting behind truly conservative reform legislation. Or maybe he'll get primaried and BTFO the way Cantor was in 2014.


----------



## birthday_massacre

RipNTear said:


> I don't like many parts of Trumpcare. It's literally proof that the Republican congress is crap. This program will continue to drive up costs as it doesn't address several issues that would have driven costs down.
> 
> - There's no repeal of the mandated tax meaning that insurance companies still operate like oligarchies or mini-monopolies
> - There's not enough deregulation to foster any major competition
> - There's still nothing about selling insurance across state lines
> - There's massive subsidies for insurance companies
> 
> It's better than the shit Obamacare was, but not good enough to make a positive impact. Sounds like they're also planning to make up for the shortfalls of the economic fallout by spending more in medicaid and that's not a good idea at all as it will continue to drive up costs.
> 
> It's a piece of shit still. But I started expecting that when they froze Rand Paul out of the process.


How is it better than Obamcare? Trumpcare is fucking over the middle class and the poor by getting rid of the tax subsidies for those who need help paying for insurance and instead do it by age. It’s getting rid of the medicad expansion,. It is going to defund planned parenthood. 

How is any of that good or better?


----------



## Oxidamus

America just needs to concede that universal healthcare will be stupidly expensive because they're so capitalistic and late to implement. :draper2


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

@birthday_massacre

Curious question. You automatically believe that there is a tie to the Trump campaign and Russia because Democrats say so, even though there has yet to be any proof, but you dismiss Trump's allegation that he was wiretapped by the Obama administration, because there is no proof. How do answer for that glaring example of hypocrisy?


----------



## CamillePunk

@L-DOPA @AryaDark @DesolationRow

Senator Rand Paul has been perhaps the most vocal critic of the GOP Obamacare replacement bill, and President Trump just tweeted this:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/839268048313929729
:mj I'm not so sure, Mr. President. I expect Rand to maintain his stand, and rightfully so.


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> @birthday_massacre
> 
> Curious question. You automatically believe that there is a tie to the Trump campaign and Russia because Democrats say so, even though there has yet to be any proof, but you dismiss Trump's allegation that he was wiretapped by the Obama administration, because there is no proof. How do answer for that glaring example of hypocrisy?


I already gave you evidence about people in Trumps campaign having contacts/ties with Russian officials stop pretending I did not, it's getting old.

You can also google Trump ties to Russia and get article after article with examples of it.

You have to go out of your way to pretend there are not.

And again like I said, Obama cannot tap people's phones that is the FBIs job and everyone has said Obama did not tap Trumps phone. Trump got the info from Alex Jones and Breitbart. 

Why do you keep asking the same question over and over when I answered it three times for you now.


----------



## CamillePunk

Just like Obama didn't target conservative groups during the 2012 election, it was the IRS. Nothing to do with Obama! GAWD! 

:lol Carry on, carry on.


----------



## Reaper




----------



## Miss Sally

CamillePunk said:


> Just like Obama didn't target conservative groups during the 2012 election, it was the IRS. Nothing to do with Obama! GAWD!
> 
> :lol Carry on, carry on.


IRS scandal, fast and furious, expanding the patriot act.. Obama's never done anything shady. GOAT President :laugh:


----------



## Laser Rey

amhlilhaus said:


> Media pooh poohs trump, conveniantly forgetting trumps calls with foreign leaders, proving hes been tapped AS PRESIDENT with MORE security around him.


You need to learn what the word "proof" means. Until then, you aren't a serious person. Sorry, you just aren't. Good luck.


----------



## Headliner

Did anyone talk about Trump's tweet where he blamed Obama for releasing 122 Gitmo people when Bush released 113 and Obama released 9? This is getting ridiculous.


----------



## samizayn

lol I swear to god I'll be so sad if Trump messes up healthcare! This is the one thing I was certain he could improve at least marginally.


Headliner said:


> Did anyone talk about Trump's tweet where he blamed Obama for releasing 122 Gitmo people when Bush released 113 and Obama released 9? This is getting ridiculous.


Alternative inmates!


----------



## birthday_massacre

samizayn said:


> lol I swear to god I'll be so sad if Trump messes up healthcare! This is the one thing I was certain he could improve at least marginally.
> 
> 
> Alternative inmates!


LOL at you thinking Trump would make healthcare better 


































I told you Trump supporters like beatles how badly Trump would fuck up healthcare and none of you listened.









Trumpcare is a disaster.









And its going to fuck over pretty much everyone but the rich


----------



## birthday_massacre

Headliner said:


> Did anyone talk about Trump's tweet where he blamed Obama for releasing 122 Gitmo people when Bush released 113 and Obama released 9? This is getting ridiculous.


Of course they didn't. I can't wait for the Trump supporters spin on it how Trumps tweet was not full of shit like most things Trump tweets about


----------



## CamillePunk

Well God Emperor Trump does eat the sun and drink the sky and they both go with him when he dies so I'll assume our perception of reality is wrong and God Emperor Trump's tweet is right. Naturally.


----------



## samizayn

birthday_massacre said:


> LOL at you thinking Trump would make healthcare better
> 
> 
> I told you Trump supporters like beatles how badly Trump would fuck up healthcare and none of you listened.
> 
> Trumpcare is a disaster.
> 
> And its going to fuck over pretty much everyone but the rich


:lol:

:mj2

We have to be optimistic. Maybe that aide or whoever was on the news meant that chronic illnesses and cancer treatments will be able to be paid for with iPhones. Like a gadget-to-life exchange?


----------



## FITZ

Oxi X.O. said:


> America just needs to concede that universal healthcare will be stupidly expensive because they're so capitalistic and late to implement. :draper2


We're not trying to get universal healthcare. We have a sick abomination of universal healthcare and what was proposed by Trump was slightly less or slightly more abominable form of depending on how it affects you. 

Everything is super expensive. Everything is super expensive because the law forces people to buy a service from companies that operate for profit. Hospitals and insurance both operate for profit. You go to a hospital and they bill your insurance company obscene amounts of money. Your insurance company has to pay this and they respond by billing all of their customers obscene amounts of money for insurance. 

There is no way that this changes when everyone is still trying to make a profit. 



Headliner said:


> Did anyone talk about Trump's tweet where he blamed Obama for releasing 122 Gitmo people when Bush released 113 and Obama released 9? This is getting ridiculous.


Numbers are just numbers.


----------



## glenwo2

Obamacare sucks.


Trumpcare sucks.


Everything sucks. 


In other words : Business as usual.


----------



## yeahbaby!

deepelemblues said:


> Barack Obama, 2015:
> 
> Certainly, it wasn’t easy for those of African heritage who had not come here voluntarily and yet in their own way were immigrants themselves. There was discrimination and hardship and poverty. But, like you, they no doubt found inspiration in all those who had come before them. And they were able to muster faith that, here in America, they might build a better life and give their children something more.
> 
> 
> Sleepy Ben Carson, 2017:
> 
> Quote:
> That’s what America is about, a land of dreams and opportunity. There were other immigrants who came here in the bottom of slave ships, worked even longer, even harder for less. But they too had a dream that one day their sons, daughters, grandsons, granddaughters, great-grandsons, great-granddaughters, might pursue prosperity and happiness in this land.
> 
> 
> Guess which one caused controversah.
> 
> .


Because Obama has a dreamy smile and nice eyes, and Ben Carson is a fucking nutcase with a history of buffoonery who's like your weird uncle who comes by for a visit and you shut the curtains and pretend you've moved.


----------



## deepelemblues

yeahbaby! said:


> Because Obama has a dreamy smile and nice eyes, and Ben Carson is a fucking nutcase with a history of buffoonery who's like your weird uncle who comes by for a visit and you shut the curtains and pretend you've moved.


That's not exactly a complimentary statement about Barack Obama either you made there :cena5


----------



## Miss Sally

Seems one of the CIA programs is named Dugtrio, that's hilarious but these things are scary. Alex Jones not looking so crazy now.

Hopefully we can get some documentation on the fbi and all the shadow play going on. Also hilarious that the brits have been buying up CIA stuff.

Meant to post this in the vault thread, if anyone can move this you'll get a million thanks!


----------



## yeahbaby!

FITZ said:


> Hospitals and insurance both operate for profit. You go to a hospital and they bill your insurance company obscene amounts of money. Your insurance company has to pay this and they respond by billing all of their customers obscene amounts of money for insurance.
> 
> There is no way that this changes when everyone is still trying to make a profit.


End topic right here. 

It's where most sane governments would've already said 'enough is enough, people need to be healthy so we need to take control of this and stop pretending it's a business'.


----------



## glenwo2

deepelemblues said:


> That's not exactly a complimentary statement about Barack Obama either you made there :cena5


I know, right?

A dreamy smile? Nice Eyes?

Is yeahbaby! looking for love or something? :lol :lol :lol


----------



## Oxidamus

FITZ said:


> Everything is super expensive. Everything is super expensive because the law forces people to buy a service from companies that operate for profit. Hospitals and insurance both operate for profit. You go to a hospital and they bill your insurance company obscene amounts of money. Your insurance company has to pay this and they respond by billing all of their customers obscene amounts of money for insurance.
> 
> There is no way that this changes when everyone is still trying to make a profit.


Yea, that's my point. TOO capitalistic. :jericho2


----------



## yeahbaby!

glenwo2 said:


> I know, right?
> 
> A dreamy smile? Nice Eyes?
> 
> Is yeahbaby! looking for love or something? :lol :lol :lol


I've made no secret that I like my men like my chocolate.

Dark and nutty


----------



## deepelemblues

Nationalizing healthcare for 330,000,000 people... Healthcare is like 17% of the US GDP or something. Nationalizing it would immediately add ~2 trillion a year and probably more to federal government expenditures. You're not going to be able to get trillions in new taxes imposed as fast as you can in any country much less America.

That's not feasible. You can bitch about capitalism all you want but the government is not going to implement a system that lowers the amount of money being spent on healthcare so as not to bankrupt the government because it would wreck a ton of hospitals and other medical institutions which would require even more tax money to fix. A huge amount of doctors refuse Medicaid patients because the amount the government pays them is shit. There'd be a lot of doctors who would simply retire if the US nationalized healthcare.

Plus as you can see from European nations they are having trouble reining in cost increases to the point where they're on the verge of realizing they simply can't do it from a financial perspective solely through government anymore, as distasteful as that realization is to them. The NHS in Britain is probably in the worst shape as far as that situation goes.

It's one thing to pay for the healthcare of five million people in Norway or even 65 million in France, it's another to pay for the healthcare of 330 million people in a country where the culture expects swift, comprehensive treatment.


----------



## Beatles123

LOL at worst this is one thing i might disagree with Trump on, and it's a bill that may yet change. Not gonna panic yet. 

Besides, It is but one area in a sea of others I support him on. 

Still, I said healthcare was Important and it is. Trump should go with RAND's plan, not Ryans. I want this done right, not more of the same. If it does not eliminate state lines and utilize the free market, I am disappoint.

@BruiserKC I kept my word. :trump3


----------



## Art Vandaley

Sweenz said:


> That isn't what he said. He said he didn't meet with the russians _*as a surrogate*_.


He never said as a surrogate though, he said he was a surrogate and he hadn't met with the Russians as two independent facts, it was only after it came that he did that he has since said that he _meant_ as a surrogate, but he never made that distinction at the time. 



> "Sessions: "Senator Franken, I'm not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I didn't have — did not have communications with the Russians, and I'm unable to comment on it."


That's the exact quote from the transcript btw.


----------



## Draykorinee

deepelemblues said:


> Barack Obama, 2015:
> 
> 
> 
> Sleepy Ben Carson, 2017:
> 
> 
> 
> Guess which one caused controversah.


I'll hold my hands up and say I was pretty blown away by how dumb Carsons speech was, but that Obama one is just as bad.


----------



## deepelemblues

draykorinee said:


> I'll hold my hands up and say I was pretty blown away by how dumb Carsons speech was, but that Obama one is just as bad.


I guess obama said the same thing in like ten other speeches too.

I don't blame either one really I blame whoever wrote their speeches. I get the point if you want to be 100% schmaltzy with no sense of irony. It's kind of a useless and stupid point. 

Black people on slave ships were captives. Yeah sure technically they were immigrants but they were captives being transported to be sold into slavery. So calling them immigrants is kinda dumb.


----------



## birthday_massacre

deepelemblues said:


> I guess obama said the same thing in like ten other speeches too.
> 
> I don't blame either one really I blame whoever wrote their speeches. I get the point if you want to be 100% schmaltzy with no sense of irony. It's kind of a useless and stupid point.
> 
> Black people on slave ships were captives. Yeah sure technically they were immigrants but they were captives being transported to be sold into slavery. So calling them immigrants is kinda dumb.


Its all in the wording and the way they said it. The way Carson said it was much worse. He basically flat out said slaves were immigrants whereas Obama did not use the word slaves, and he said immigrants in their own way 

Both are stupid for saying it but when you hear the way Carson worded it , it sounds way worse.

Not to mention why did Carson even bring that up, he was speaking at a HUD event. It was out of place.


----------



## CamillePunk

A fun (and if you're not having fun, you are doing this whole thing completely wrong) take on Trump's wiretapping claim from the Paragon of Credibility, Scott Adams: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/158110404781/wiretapping-word-thinking

On a more serious note, Adams also includes a small bit about North Korea, which (aside from the prediction at the end, because unlike Mr. Adams I am not a seer) reflects my own thoughts on the matter:



> About North Korea
> 
> In other news, watch President Trump force China to put the clamps on North Korea’s missile program by making it clear we’ll handle it for them if they can’t take care of their own backyard. If the United States has to take care of China’s problem for them, it sure would be embarrassing for China. And persuasive.
> 
> I base my North Korea prediction on the assumption that by now President Trump has burrowed so far into the brains of the Chinese leadership that he’s already got functional control, Master Persuader style. They just don’t realize it.


 @DesolationRow @L-DOPA


----------



## DOPA

@DesolationRow @CamillePunk @RipNTear @Beatles123 @Miss Sally @Pratchett @AryaDark @Alco @Goku @Vic Capri @BruiserKC


I'm going to be brutally honest with you guys after reading what is going to be in the House Republican bill to replace Obamacare.

It's trash, absolute garbage. This isn't a repeal, it's a partial repeal at best. It is essentially the same big government corporatist healthcare plan with a few tweaks here and there. It is essentially more of the same. Obamacare-Lite is right, I'd call it Ryancare.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/14161..._content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro#



> In 2010, angry Americans elected Republicans to the House of Representatives in the belief that Republicans would fight tooth and nail to repeal Obamacare. In 2014, Republicans took the Senate by making the same promise. In 2016, President Trump won election on the basis of repealing the “disaster” of Obamacare.
> 
> Now it’s 2017. Republicans have a majority in the House and Senate. President Trump is in the White House.
> 
> And instead of repealing Obamacare, they now plan to trim around the edges.
> 
> Their new Obamacare plan isn’t an attempt to shift America away from government-run healthcare. It’s an attempt to re-enshrine government as the center of the health care system, with a slightly rejiggered vision of its role. The plan isn’t likely to lower costs, promote competition, or curb moral hazard.
> 
> It’s not good.
> 
> Here are the five biggest problems:
> 
> *1. It Retains Requirements That Insurance Cover People With Pre-Existing Conditions*. The key component to Obamacare was always the nonsensical notion that government could force insurance companies to cover those with pre-existing conditions. This turns insurance companies into piggy banks rather than insurance companies – imagine a fire insurance company that allowed you to buy insurance after your house was on fire. That’s not an insurance company anymore. The same is true in health insurance – and the Republicans’ attempt to preserve this popular provision of Obamacare means that Republicans must also do something to ensure that insurance companies don’t go bankrupt. There are only two ways to do that: with a mandate to buy insurance, or with government subsidies.
> 
> *2. It Creates A Back Door Mandate.* The Republican plan gets rid of the overt Obamacare mandate. But it does allow insurance companies to charge an elevated 30% fine for those whose insurance lapses for more than two months at any point in the last 12 months. This means that you’re essentially fined in the future for not buying insurance now. Which has nothing to do with the Constitutional role of government.
> 
> *3. It Creates Individual Healthcare Subsidies.* The problem is that this back door mandate isn’t enough. What about people who are high risk or have pre-existing conditions, but haven’t bought insurance? We have to give them money to buy health insurance. Which is what the bill does: it includes an advanceable, refundable tax credit based on age. This is effectively a subsidy, since the tax credits apply to people who don’t pay much in taxes, just as the Earned Income Tax Credit is actually a giveaway to people who don’t pay taxes.
> 
> *4. It Subsidizes Medicaid.* The Obamacare boondoggle was sold by allowing the federal government to pick up the tab for Medicaid expansion in the states. This bill would allow the feds to cover Obamacare Medicaid expansion for three years – and there’s no way a future Congress will actually cut these subsidies, fearing political backlash. This is like every other long-promised sunsetted spending program: it’s not going anywhere.
> 
> *5. It Subsidizes High-Risk Pools On The State Level.* The bill sends $100 billion to states over the next ten years to help cover those who are high risk and can’t afford insurance. This, of course, won’t be nearly enough – it incentivizes the state to sign people up, then look to the federal government for more cash.
> 
> The bill does have good points – it’s revocation of Obamacare taxes and sponsorship of Planned Parenthood are great. But it doesn’t do any of the key things Republicans would want to do, and it actually ends up allowing Democrats to keep most of what Obama created while simultaneously blaming Republicans for its shortcomings as well as the budget blowout that will follow Republicans killing both the individual mandate and the Cadillac tax.
> 
> So, well done, Republicans. Instead of putting forward a gradual repeal of Obamacare, you've actually created a gradual cementing of key elements of Obamacare, all to avoid the political blowback.


http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017...en-have-open-debate-on-how-to-replace-it.html



> Republican leadership wants to keep several variations of ObamaCare:
> 
> 1. Leadership wants to keep ObamaCare-like subsidies to buy insurance but rename them refundable tax credits (families will be given up to $14,000 dollars of other people's money)
> 
> 2. leadership wants to keep the ObamaCare Cadillac tax but rename it a tax on the top 10% of people who have the best insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Leadership wants to keep the individual mandate but instead of mandating a tax penalty to the government they mandate a penalty to the insurance company (can it possibly be Constitutional to mandate a penalty to a private insurance company?)
> 
> 4. Leadership wants to keep $100 billion of the insurance company subsidies from ObamaCare but call them "reinsurance". (Why? Because insurance companies love guaranteed issue as long as the taxpayer finances it!)
> 
> Conservatives don't want new taxes, new entitlements and an “ObamaCare Lite” bill. If leadership insists on replacing ObamaCare with ObamaCare-lite, no repeal will pass.


The first obvious problem is the 30% fine that companies can place on individuals whose insurance lapses more than 2 months over a 12 month period. One of the biggest complaints that Republicans had was that people were being fined to death for choosing not to be on insurance as they couldn't afford it. This continues this trend. You cannot coerce people to buy health insurance, it does not work. It is much cheaper in the long run for people to not take out insurance and risk paying the extra premium in the event that they get sick. What should be done is to open up the market to allow more competition and to get the government out of the way. None of the proposals that are in this bill does this. The fine in any event is something that both sides of the political spectrum can agree on is awful. Nothing in this bill truly deals with getting the costs of insurance down.

The second problem I see is the medicaid expansion. It is supposed to expire after three years but let's be honest here, if Paul Ryan and the House Republicans are willing to give this much room from the get go (much like Obama did when he could have tried to get single payer or a public option...) then who really thinks the medicaid expansion won't continue? The interesting point to make here is the Republicans who are fighting for medicaid expansion in their states, so called Conservatives want more government involvement and control of healthcare. Will they make the tough decisions and be somewhat fiscally conservative by either suggesting that costs be cut elsewhere or that taxes should go up to fund the medicaid expansion? Or will they rely on the federal government to either borrow money from China or print the money via the Federal Reserve? My guess would be the latter. 

Let us be clear here, one of the main problems in terms of debt comes from the social programs. In 2015, the projected debt that these programs have accumulated is around *$90 Trillion. $48 Trillion comes from Medicaid's counterpart Medicare.* This continued expansion of medicaid as well as not putting any free market reforms will do nothing to deal with the US's debt problem with these social programs. The Republicans are just kicking the can along hoping that the debt does not catch up with them and that another government will deal with the problem. In order for reform to be enacted at least in the case of medicaid and medicare, you have to put in policies in which relieves the government burden of being a primary insurer of healthcare. The proposals in this bill expands that. Whilst there are projected medicaid cuts, in reality there are just as many proposed government funding schemes and ones that I think will come to light later which will offset what is being proposed in the cuts, with no market reforms to offset it.

To be a true fiscal conservative, you have to be willing to look at all spending. Not pick and choose what you want to get rid of when it suits you. This is a problem of both Republicans and Democrats, politicians and supporters alike.

Speaking subsidies, the high risk pool is another one I see being a huge problem. If you have $100 Billion being sent to states in order to fund people to get on health insurance, more people are going to be dependent on the government financing their healthcare. Shapiro is absolutely correct if this is comes to fruition, more money in the long term would have to spent to accommodate the high risk pools of each state, meaning that the states and the individuals in that state will demand more money in order for their plans to be funded. This creates some of the same problems Obamacare has had, healthy individuals will be subsidizing those who are sick through their taxes or more likely the money is going to be borrowed or printed. There are surely better ways you can cover those with high risk than to just use the government and increase spending, which is exactly what would happen under this plan. It is not economically viable in the long run and it could hurt healthier people who will end up paying more for their health insurance or in taxes. Either that or more irresponsible spending through other means.

The pre-existing conditions is also a concern but something in terms at least in this bill I do not really know enough to talk about. One of the primary causes of skyrocketing premiums and ACA Exchanges collapses – is that sicker patients pay the same premiums as everybody else, but cost more for insurers to cover. This makes ACA coverage a great deal for people with expensive pre-existing conditions, but a lousy deal for healthy people, who can pay the penalty (or use one of the many loopholes), pocket the savings, and enroll when (if) they ever get sick. The result is higher average costs to cover those who sign up, and therefore higher premiums, and therefore fewer people signing up. This bill instead would cover the costs through government subsidies, which seems to be the main theme here. My problem isn't that there are subsidies to cover this necessarily but that again the bill produces no proposals in order to bring overall prices of insurance down. If it is the case that health insurance, deductibles and premiums go up rather than down thanks to this bill, this means more subsidies would either have to go towards funding the pre-existing conditions or the mandate has to stay. Maybe even both. If there are not enough healthy people to buy health insurance in order to help keep insurance companies afloat and to keep the level of government subsidies down, and the prices of health insurance continue to go up, then you are still going to have the same problems of insurance companies going bankrupt and the healthcare market getting smaller and smaller, meaning more of a corporatist set up. The problems isn't that it's too capitalistic, the problem is that's it is not free market enough and that there is too much government involvement. 

Rand (who wrote the fox news piece by the way) sums it up perfectly in this article: http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017...-months-insurance-companies-will-go-bankrupt/



> Wednesday on Fox News Channel’s “America’s News HQ,” Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) said while he supports repealing the Affordable Care Act, it must be replaced immediately or “within months of repealing it, you will lead to further bankruptcies in the insurance industry.”
> 
> Paul said, *“Well here’s the interesting thing about Obamacare, they wanted to provide insurance for everybody, even if you were already sick, preexisting conditions, but they could only pay for it if they forced all of the healthy people to buy insurance through a mandate. It’s not working so well. What is happening is not enough healthy people are buying insurance and the rates for individual insurance went through the roof and yet insurance companies are still failing and threatening bankruptcy.”*
> 
> He added, *“Here is the problem. If you repeal the individual mandate that forces young people to buy insurance less young healthy people buy insurance and the system will spiral quicker. I’m for getting rid of the mandate. I am for repealing Obamacare, but you have to replace it. If you don’t replace it, my prediction is within months of repealing it, you will lead to further bankruptcies in the insurance industry.”*


One could also argue Shapiro is right in his moral argument and analogy about the fact you don't insurance your house after it gets set on fire. But I'm not going to delve into the moral arguments, the point is does the Ryancare bill do enough to address the problems of covering people with pre-existing conditions whilst putting the breaks on to stop the health insurance industry from spiraling out of control? I don't know the answer to that but I have my concerns.

The biggest problems however are what is *not in the bill.* There is no legalization of buying health insurance across state lines, no health savings accounts for people to save money for their health insurance, pay plans, deductibles or premiums and there is no legalization of voluntary associations to pool resources of individuals together in order to drive down costs and create a real market place within the healthcare industry. It is essentially trimming around the edges of Obamacare in the hopes of appealing to Democrats, but yet at the same time in the bill they want to put the axe to Planned Parenthood, which is nonsensical because any hopes of Democrats voting for the bill is gone within that instance and you only alienate Conservatives in the process. Here is a spoiler alert: *No Democrats are going to vote for this bill regardless of what is in it.* So the fact that Ryan and co. want to appease them is ridiculous. It proves they aren't free marketeers, and certainly proves they are not fiscal conservatives with the inevitable government spending spree this bill will enact.

So yeah, this bill is garbage and might end up making the problems worse. I could go further with what else is a problem in the bill but I think this is enough for now :lol.


----------



## Pratchett

Maybe when/if that bill goes down in defeat, there can be further negotiations about what is in it.

I'm not going to hold my breath though. :mj


----------



## Reaper

Pratchett said:


> Maybe when/if that bill goes down in defeat, there can be further negotiations about what is in it.
> 
> I'm not going to hold my breath though. :mj


With the president and Congress behind it what can defeat it?


----------



## Beatles123

Trump wanted to remove state lines and have health vouchers and savings accounts. is that in there?


----------



## Pratchett

Hence the "when/if" caveat I placed in there.

I will hold out marginal hope that this is the opening salvo in the repeal and replace process.


----------



## virus21

> The youngest son of Hillary Clinton’s running mate, Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine, was arrested in Minnesota over the weekend for rioting against President Trump.
> 
> Linwood Michael Kaine, 24, was arrested with four other people and charged with second-degree riot for his activities during a pro-Trump rally held in the rotunda of the Minnesota state capitol in St. Paul on Saturday.
> 
> According to the St. Paul Pioneer Press, around 400 Trump supporters and 50 protesters were gathered at the “March 4 Trump” event.
> 
> Kaine, who goes by “Woody,” was with a group of people who set off fireworks in the rotunda, police said. A smoke bomb was also set off.
> 
> 
> Sponsored Links by
> One 61-year-old Trump supporter said she was hit in the head by remnants of the smoke bomb.
> 
> When Kaine was being apprehended, he reportedly “turned around and squared up to fight” with the arresting officer,” St. Paul police spokesman Scott Linders told the Pioneer Press on Tuesday.
> 
> Police are still not sure whether Kaine helped light the fireworks or smoke bomb.
> 
> Tim Kaine issued a statement on Tuesday expressing support for his son.
> 
> “We love that our three children have their own views and concerns about current political issues,” he told the Pioneer Press. “They fully understand the responsibility to express those concerns peacefully.”
> 
> Students for a Democratic Society, the radical left-wing group, advertised that it was holding counter-protests at the capitol building. It is unclear if Kaine is part of the group.
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/07/tim-kaines-son-arrested-for-rioting-against-trump/#ixzz4ak16QGij


http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/07/tim-kaines-son-arrested-for-rioting-against-trump/


----------



## Reaper

Oxi X.O. said:


> Yea, that's my point. TOO capitalistic. :jericho2


Not capitalist enough.



Pratchett said:


> Hence the "when/if" caveat I placed in there.
> 
> I will hold out marginal hope that this is the opening salvo in the repeal and replace process.


Well then color me disappointed and apprehensive for the future if what looks like a democratic plan is the republican's opening salvo ...


----------



## virus21

Older story




> It’s just not fair.
> 
> It’s not fair that historically black college presidents are on the precipice of doing something with Donald Trump in less than two weeks that they couldn’t accomplish with Barack Obama in eight years — a single meeting with the president of the United States to address critical issues facing our campuses.
> 
> 
> It’s not fair that in the last 24 hours, Trump and his cabinet has generated more goodwill between the White House and black colleges than Obama was disinclined to even feign in three commencement speeches and eight national HBCU week conferences — none of which he attended. And with one executive order unique to HBCU federal support, Trump could become one of the greatest advocates black colleges have ever seen.
> 
> It’s not fair that the first black president created this culture with his neglect of our schools, and that Trump can get back at him through the searing dissonance set up by his willingness to help these critically important institutions. His rhetoric has been especially offensive and harmful to people who look, think and live like many of us — and his words empower some of his supporters to threaten violence against our schools for voices of dissenting opinion.
> 
> It’s not fair that Trump could be so helpful, yet so many Republicans in state legislatures throughout the Rust and Bible Belts will dig in deeper to harm public HBCUs with budget cuts, program duplication and tampering with executive boards. Even if Trump declares two years of free tuition for students attending public or private HBCUs, or mandates five percent of federal research grants and contracts to be awarded to HBCUs, he may not be able to stop governors and state lawmakers from levying anti-HBCU policies of merger or audit.
> 
> It’s not fair that Democrats didn’t see this coming, and only sees HBCUs as catalysts for momentum among black voters during election cycles. It’s not fair that the NAACP, the Urban League and other black advocacy groups put HBCU support on the backburner for generations, remained silent when Democratic leaders neglected these schools, but now want to broker with the Trump Administration behind the scenes in support of the same institutions.
> 
> It’s not fair that trustees, alumni, and students will turn their backs on every HBCU president who sits to meet with Trump and other Republican lawmakers in the next week because they will emotionally react to engagement built upon mutual political and financial interests. And it’s not fair that we have to view their emotional reaction as purely emotional because we don’t have enough money to justify it as logical.
> 
> 
> It’s not fair that we have to potentially sacrifice donations and students coming from our communities for trying to work with a president who will grant support in exchange for black loyalty from key influencers and silence from influential black media creators. It’s not fair that Trump might be more loyal to HBCUs to gain Black America’s trust, when Black America itself has been so disloyal to HBCUs over generations, and will hypocritically dismiss Trump’s interests which may replace those we willingly have withheld from our own schools.
> 
> It’s not fair that wealthy liberals, black and white, are silently allowing this to happen without offering alternative facts and alternative funding to support the HBCU narrative which has supported their political and business interests for so long. It’s not fair that wealthy conservatives can’t wait to hold an audience with the major HBCU influencers, to reinforce the certain point that while Republican policies have harmed HBCUs, Democrats haven’t been much better and still mark us entrenched in their ideology and campaigns in the next mid-term elections.
> 
> It’s not fair that BuzzFeed, The Griot, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal can report the news about the unlikely alliance between Trump and HBCUs, but that it’s solely up to the Digest to contextualize it and to make enemies and detractors as a result.
> 
> It’s not fair that even if Trump creates a windfall for HBCUs, that it still may not be enough to effectively chip away at the damage of underfunding, biased media coverage and neglect over the course of years.
> 
> HBCUs need and want Trump’s support. Trump wants and needs to earn the support of Black America. And in the scope of American political culture, we may never see stranger bedfellows generate a more positive outcome for the nation’s history of race relations and minority progress.
> 
> But given from whence we’ve come over the last 152 years since the abolition of slavery, 53 years since the passage of the Civil Rights Act, eight years since Obama’s first historic election, and the 48 hours since Trump threw open the White House doors on HBCU engagement, none of this seems fair.
> 
> It never has and never will. But fair or not, we need this now more than ever.


http://www.hbcudigest.com/the-unfair-reality-of-donald-trump-and-hbcus/

But, but racist!


----------



## Warlock

Alkomesh2 said:


> He never said as a surrogate though, he said he was a surrogate and he hadn't met with the Russians as two independent facts, it was only after it came that he did that he has since said that he _meant_ as a surrogate, but he never made that distinction at the time.
> 
> That's the exact quote from the transcript btw.


I disagree. Claiming he was a surrogate means nothing to the question asked without the point of not communicating with the russians. Its was even said and presented in the same sentence meaning they are related. But hey, lets intentionally lie about something easily proven as false. Right?

Regardless.. the fact there is dispute over his meaning means there will be no way to say he purgered, which means he won't be going anywhere.


----------



## glenwo2

virus21 said:


> http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/07/tim-kaines-son-arrested-for-rioting-against-trump/


More proof that Hillary is the(possible) mastermind behind these and that these violent protestors were PAID to do this. _#TinFoilHatOn_


I mean the perpetrator's father(who was Hillary's running mate) didn't even bat an eyelash and actually praised him for being a thug in this. 

Smoke...fire...


----------



## Reaper

You know why I love capitalism? This is why I love capitalism. 

While brand perception of Starbucks took a hit when they tried to virtue signal about refugees, Ivanka Trump's brands hit record sales despite actually having her products removed from shelves by :triggered leftists:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-...-reports-record-sales-after-retailer-boycotts


> *Ivanka Trump's Fashion Line Reports Record Sales After Retailer Boycotts*
> 
> The Ivanka Trump boycott appears to have backfired.
> One month after several brand name retailers announced they would no longer carry the 35-year-old’s clothing and accessories, Ivanka Trump’s women’s fashion line has seen record February sales.
> The collection said they had some of the highest performing weeks since the brand was launched last month. “Since the beginning of February, they were some of the best performing weeks in the history of the brand,” Abigail Klem, the company's new president, told Refinery 29. “For several different retailers Ivanka Trump was a top performer online, and in some of the categories it was the [brand’s] best performance ever.”
> 
> 
> 
> *E-commerce aggregator Lyst confirmed the report, stating that from January to February, Ivanka Trump sales increased 346%. It also found that February 2017 brand sales had increased by 557 per cent when compared to average orders in 2016. The brand was ranked as no 11 in sales on Lyst for the month of February, a sharp increase from no 550 in January.*
> 
> “Ivanka Trump brand has never ranked in as a top seller on our site,” Sarah Tanner, Lyst's US public relations director, said. “To see such an extreme spike in one month is completely unheard of and came as a huge surprise to us.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _ *Note: This is an unconventional ordering of the graph as the y-axis has been reversed for some weird reason_
> 
> The news of a sales surge comes after the Grab Your Wallet campaign, highly critical of the Trump administration, asked shoppers to boycott retailers with any Ivanka or Donald Trump-branded products. As a result, Nordstrom announced in early February that it would no longer carry Ivanka Trump's clothing line citing poor product sales. Neiman Marcus also joined, and stopped carrying the first daughter's jewelry line on its website, while employees of T.J. Maxx and Marshalls stores were instructed to throw away any signage advertising her wares.
> 
> 
> According to the Independent, the reason for the increase could be linked to Trump supporters explicitly deciding to purchase the products to counter the boycott. "I bought a pair of her shoes, they are great and classy just like Ivanka trump. Boycott all stores that drop her line," said one person on Twitter. "On behalf of the anti Trumper's and boycott Trump products . I Bought Ivanka Handbag. Shoes tomorrow," chipped in another.
> In retrospect, the boycott may have revived what otherwise would have been a declining brand. In the beginning of February, the Wall Street Journal reported that sales of the range fell by nearly a third in the past financial year with a steep decline in the weeks before her father was elected President. The Journal cited internal Nordstrom data as showing sales of the products were more than 70 per cent lower in the second, third and fourth week of October compared to the same weeks the previous year. The presidential election was on 8 November.
> 
> 
> 
> Ivanka Trump announced in January she would be taking formal leave of absence from the brand after her father became president, saying she would “no longer be involved with the management or operations” of the company.
> 
> 
> 
> Ethics counselors advised that the company cease using images of Ivanka Trump in “new promotional, advertising, or marketing materials,” according to the profile piece on Klem. The guidance apparently doesn’t impact existing marketing materials, such as the company’s website. "It's unprecedented what this brand is dealing with,” said Klem. “We are really committed to having the brand be separate, even from [Ivanka], so certainly her dad is even more distant from that. We're committed to doing everything we can to carve an identity for this brand that is about what the brand stands for and the core brand attributes. And so absolutely, it complicated matters.”
> 
> 
> For now, at least, what is clear is that attempts to punish Trump's daughter by hyping it up constantly in the press have backfired.


http://worldpoliticus.com/2017/02/25/ivanka-perfume-1-fragrance-amazon-best-sellers/


> *Ivanka Perfume Is #1 Fragrance On Amazon Best Sellers*
> 
> *The Trumps have been a constant target of the mainstream media and the liberal soldiers. But, the first family stood strong during the presidential campaign, and resisted every attack. Now Donald Trump is the President of the US, and every move he makes is a clear confirmation that America chose well.*
> 
> But, although Donald Trump is the leader of this country, he’s been constantly criticized about every decision he brings. Liberals didn’t spare his daughter Ivanka either. Ivanka’s line was dropped down in major stores, and some people use every occasion to boycott her. But, Ivanka responded in the most glorious way ever, and her supporters cheered to her respond.
> 
> Ivanka learned the best lessons from her father, and that’s what liberals hate about her. Yes, liberals attack Ivanka only because she’s Trump.
> The successful woman helped President Trump go through his presidential campaign. She also runs a few business, and let’s be honest, she’s pretty good at that. But, he who laughs last, laughs the hardest.
> 
> _Ivanka now has the #1 fragrance on the “Amazon Best Sellers” list, ranked above big names like Estee Lauder and Jennifer Lopez._
> _Apparently for every Trump-hater NOT buying her products, there is MORE than one Trump supporter buying her products to fight back._
> 
> 
> When was the last time a first daughter did this? Anti-Trump protesters can bug Ivanka as much as they want, but nobody will ever take her success. Ivanka is one of the most powerful women out there, and the world praises her. Too bad our own people don’t know how to honor a strong woman and a caring mother. But, this is just the beginning. Everything will come to its place.
> What do you think about this? Will Ivanka keep gaining success, despite the efforts of all liberals to “kill” her ideas?


Man, I love how capitalism works. It's the greatest system of "shut your mouth" when it comes to putting virtue signallers in place :banderas
I believe that in time capitalism will destroy SJW-ism leaving it to become yet another one of those fringe movements that tried to change the world in their favor but failed.


----------



## Warlock

That graph makes my head hurt.


----------



## Reaper

Sweenz said:


> That graph is makes my head hurt.


Yah. Took me a few minutes to figure out what was going on as well.


----------



## Warlock

Lol.. yea. First I was like.. "That looks like it had a major dropoff and never recovered. What are they talking about"? 

Then I read the dates. fpalm

Then I was like "well, they did well one month, but then had a terrible month right after", then realized march was the "first month" and its still in progress, so not really valid data yet to be graphing. fpalm


----------



## Vic Capri

L-DOPA said:


> I'm going to be brutally honest with you guys after reading what is going to be in the House Republican bill to replace Obamacare.
> 
> It's trash, absolute garbage. This isn't a repeal, it's a partial repeal at best. It is essentially the same big government corporatist healthcare plan with a few tweaks here and there. It is essentially more of the same. Obamacare-Lite is right, I'd call it Ryancare.


I'm not too fond of it either, but I'll take anything over the current Obamacare at this point. The government shouldn't have gotten involved in healthcare to begin with. 



> I'll hold my hands up and say I was pretty blown away by how dumb Carsons speech was, but that Obama one is just as bad.


I checked on Facebook and surprise, surprise, all the Obama ass kissers are giving him another free pass! Fucking liberals I tell you. :lol

- Vic


----------



## Headliner

virus21 said:


> Older story
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.hbcudigest.com/the-unfair-reality-of-donald-trump-and-hbcus/
> 
> But, but racist!


:mj4 All Trump did was sign a similar, less vague Executive Order that Obama signed (with more detail) and even Carter signed. And one of them realizes they'e been duped.



> After spending two days in the nation’s capital meeting with President Donald Trump and key members of his administration, Morehouse College President John Wilson Jr. now says the “historic” sit-down with the president was nothing more than a photo op with “the African-Americans” at the White House.
> 
> In a less-than-enthusiastic statement released Thursday, March 2, Wilson acknowledged that, initially, he and the other 100+ HBCU leaders were excited to hear the Trump administration’s plans to show favor to the nation’s historically Black colleges and universities, specifically in the form of additional federal funding. He figured that since former President Obama had previously invested $3 billion in HBCUs during his first six years in office, surely President Trump would invest at least another $500 million in the financially strapped schools.
> 
> The disputed president has repeatedly pledged to “do more for HBCUs than any other president has done before,” so it was time to see if Trump would actually put his money where his mouth is.
> 
> “Besides the expectation of new funding, there was advance talk of changes like an aspirational goal of 5 to 10 percent for federal agency funding to HBCUs, a special HBCU innovation fund, large boosts in Pell Grant and Title III funding, and extra tax breaks for those in the private sector who contribute to HBCUs,” Wilson wrote.
> 
> To his disappointment, however, Wilson said rather than signing an executive order that would produce such outcomes, Trump merely moved the HBCU initiative from the Education Department to the Executive Office of the President. No additional funding. No tax breaks. Nada.
> 
> “It is not possible to measure the impact of this gesture anytime soon, if ever,” the HBCU president wrote.
> 
> Wilson then ripped into contested Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, who, during a special luncheon at the Library of Congress Feb. 28, suggested that historically Black colleges were created because “there were too many students in America who didn’t have equal access to education,” completely ignoring the fact that it ultimately was racist Jim Crow laws that kept Black students from receiving said education.
> 
> “HBCUs were not created because the four million newly freed Blacks were unhappy with the choices they had,” Wilson asserted. “They were created because they had no choices at all.
> 
> “That is not just a very important distinction, it is profoundly important,” he continued. “Why? Because if one does not understand the crippling and extended horrors of slavery, then how can one really understand the subsequent history and struggle of African-Americans or the current necessities and imperatives that grow out of that history and struggle?”
> 
> The Morehouse president wasn’t the only HBCU leader disappointed with last week’s meetings. Walter M. Kimbrough, president of Dillard University in New Orleans, also wrote a statement expressing frustration with the the way things went down, explaining that university leaders were initially told they’d be meeting with Secretary DeVos and a number of federal agencies but were instead ushered into the Oval Office to meet with Trump. Their plans of telling key government leaders more about the importance of HBCUs were essentially derailed.
> 
> “I’m still processing that entire experience,” Kimbrough wrote. “But, needless to say that [meeting with Trump] threw the day off and there was very little listening to HBCU presidents today. We were only given about two minutes each and that was cut to one minute, so only about seven of maybe 15 or so speakers were given an opportunity today.”
> 
> Only time will tell how committed the Trump administration is to helping HBCUs, according to Wilson. He called the meetings a “troubling start” to what was expected to be a productive relationship but said he and other HBCU leaders would continue pushing for the funding needed to help HBCUs succeed.
> 
> “Trust that the HBCU community will continue to press for the kind of funding that educational excellence and national competitiveness require!” he concluded.


Fuck them HBCU's executives. Ungrateful assholes. They get what's coming to them.


----------



## Headliner

FITZ said:


> Numbers are just numbers.


What? He had easy access to the information and he just tweets false bullshit in order to rally up his anti-Obama fanbase.

Don't give him a pass. He's suppose to be the President of the United States. Start acting like it. Start governing. Enough of this twitter bullshit.


----------



## Reaper

Headliner said:


> :mj4 All Trump did was sign a similar, less vague Executive Order that Obama signed (with more detail) and even Carter signed. And one of them realizes they'e been duped.
> 
> 
> Fuck them HBCU's executives. Ungrateful assholes. They get what's coming to them.


Are the HBCU execs similar to the Teacher's Union? If that's the case, I fail to see the congruence between angering the Teacher's Union through introducing school choice and pandering to HBCU's execs. It seems contradictory. But I may not have enough information on the subject to be sure of my conclusion.


----------



## virus21

RipNTear said:


> You know why I love capitalism? This is why I love capitalism.
> 
> While brand perception of Starbucks took a hit when they tried to virtue signal about refugees, Ivanka Trump's brands hit record sales despite actually having her products removed from shelves by :triggered leftists:
> 
> http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-...-reports-record-sales-after-retailer-boycotts
> http://worldpoliticus.com/2017/02/25/ivanka-perfume-1-fragrance-amazon-best-sellers/Man, I love how capitalism works. It's the greatest system of "shut your mouth" when it comes to putting virtue signallers in place :banderas
> I believe that in time capitalism will destroy SJW-ism leaving it to become yet another one of those fringe movements that tried to change the world in their favor but failed.


Not a surprise. SJW culture seems to be dying off and anyone still sticking to it lose profit.


----------



## King Joffrey

Still can't believe Devos got the job. Horrible.


----------



## Reaper

virus21 said:


> Not a surprise. SJW culture seems to be dying off and anyone still sticking to it lose profit.


I heard that comic book sales are massively declining as well despite comic book movies making more money than ever.


----------



## virus21

RipNTear said:


> I heard that comic book sales are massively declining as well despite comic book movies making more money than ever.


Well Marvel's are. DC seems to be killing it lately


----------



## Reaper

virus21 said:


> Well Marvel's are. DC seems to be killing it lately


Interesting. DC needs to get their live action shit in order.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

virus21 said:


> Well Marvel's are. DC seems to be killing it lately


DC's bounce back with Rebirth has been amazing. Marvel meanwhile has went to shit.


----------



## virus21

RipNTear said:


> Interesting. DC needs to get their live action shit in order.


Indeed. Get rid of Snyder will help greatly. Even funnier about the comic thing, the last top 10 list had only 2 Marvel entries on it and they were Star Wars comics. Thats how bad Marvel got.


----------



## virus21




----------



## BruiserKC

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/03/6-moronic-arguments-for-rinocare-refuted

So far the new bill is Obamacare 2. It doesn't get government out of the healthcare game plus doesn't offer anything regarding competition and opening up being able to buy across state lines which will help really bring costs down. I know this is just the beginning so there is a chance to get it right. However in the current form it's garbage.


----------



## CamillePunk

It is a garbage bill and it's disappointing to see President Trump trying to get people to fall in line rather than encourage debate and try and improve the replacement plan. I get that "repeal and replace" was a major campaign promise and he's been gung-ho about fulfilling his promises, but I think people would rather wait a bit longer to get it right than rush through a replacement that sucks a bag of dicks and changes little for the better.


----------



## Art Vandaley

You're not all down for the "Worlds Greatest Healthcare Plan of 2017"???

That is the legit name of the actual bill btw. 

This is what you get when you elect a celebrity entertainer into a serious elected position.

Ah well at least you're all gonna get your wish of the US ceasing to be a superpower with influence on the world stage. 

Kinda sad to see the death of Pax Americana like this.


----------



## virus21

Alkomesh2 said:


> Kinda sad to see the death of Pax Americana like this.


Pax Americana? Yeah, not really. You can't say we are at peace with whats going on in the middle east. Not to mention the socio-political issues in the country that were around _before_ Trump even got into office.


----------



## Art Vandaley

virus21 said:


> Pax Americana? Yeah, not really. You can't say we are at peace with whats going on in the middle east. Not to mention the socio-political issues in the country that were around _before_ Trump even got into office.


Post WW2 has been the most peaceful period in human history.


----------



## virus21

Alkomesh2 said:


> Post WW2 has been the most peaceful period in human history.


Except Korea, Vietnam, the turmoil of the civil rights movement, the Iran/Iraq war, the first Gulf War, The Second Gulf War, The constant drone warfare in the middle east, the riots and protest in universities and a possible military intervention in North Korea.


----------



## Art Vandaley

virus21 said:


> Except Korea, Vietnam, the turmoil of the civil rights movement, the Iran/Iraq war, the first Gulf War, The Second Gulf War, The constant drone warfare in the middle east, the riots and protest in universities and a possible military intervention in North Korea.


No including all of those.


----------



## virus21

Alkomesh2 said:


> No including all of those.


Yes including all of those. The post-WW2 era has been anything but peaceful.


----------



## Art Vandaley

virus21 said:


> Yes including all of those. The post-WW2 era has been anything but peaceful.


But still the most peaceful period in recorded human history.


----------



## virus21

Alkomesh2 said:


> But still the most peaceful period in recorded human history.


That's certainly a matter of perspective


----------



## yeahbaby!

virus21 said:


> That's certainly a matter of perspective


If you subscribe to the outrage industry, the victim narrative and the belief the sky could fall in at any moment, it sure is!


----------



## stevefox1200

100 years ago things like Iraq or Syria would be considered minor conflicts that would not even get front page news and in the era before that would be considered taming the locals 

Most of humanity has been at full-scale empire vs empire war for most of its existence


----------



## virus21

yeahbaby! said:


> If you subscribe to the outrage industry, the victim narrative and the belief the sky could fall in at any moment, it sure is!


I don't. There seems to be a never ending source of conflict all around.



stevefox1200 said:


> 100 years ago things like Iraq or Syria would be considered minor conflicts that would not even get front page news and in the era before that would be considered taming the locals
> 
> Most of humanity has been at full-scale empire vs empire war for most of its existence


Indeed. Its easy to say we are at peace when your in a country thats not in danger of getting the crap blow out of it.


----------



## Reaper

virus21 said:


> Indeed. Its easy to say we are at peace when your in a country thats not in danger of getting the crap blow out of it.


That's a very valid point. It's not just that the conflicts we have now are fewer in number - they're also much more dangerous and genocidal. 

Most of the conflicts (other than the world wars) that Stevefox is talking about had casualties in the hundreds or thousands and it would be a big deal. They'd run away and resettle and resettling was also easier with fewer closed borders and accepting/friendlier kingdoms. It was also easier to be a refugee as people had the basic survival skills necessary for growing their own food. Land didn't have ownership. People weren't boxed into borders. The world had more room. 

Today people die without ever having seen the face of their enemy or having a chance to escape. Back then at least you'd get a few days if not months of warning before the enemy arrived. The comparison between modern conflict and past conflict is fallacious.


----------



## Art Vandaley

Here are the actual stats of violent deaths per 100,000 if anyone was curious. As you can see the post WW2 era is the most peaceful era we've ever had as a species. 

And that is not a matter of perspective it's a matter of statistical fact. 

It sucks if you're in a part of the world that is more dangerous than most atm, but that is besides the point that we are globally speaking living in the most peaceful time in humanities history. To say we aren't in the most peaceful period because your part of the world is less peaceful than others atm is as valid an argument as me saying global warming is real because it's hot today.



Which is all besides the point that Trump's healthcare bill is literally titled the "Worlds Greatest Healthcare Bill of 2017" and we shouldn't lose track of how funny that is.


----------



## virus21




----------



## Beatles123

yeahbaby! said:


> If you subscribe to the outrage industry, the victim narrative and the belief the sky could fall in at any moment, it sure is!


well i mean, sure, it is entirely possible to ignore it happening around you if you subscribe to globalism and big government.


----------



## yeahbaby!

Alkomesh2 said:


> Which is all besides the point that Trump's healthcare bill is literally titled the "Worlds Greatest Healthcare Bill of 2017" and we shouldn't lose track of how funny that is.


The absurdity is hard to believe isn't it. The kind of thing a snake oil salesman would have on his carriage in the 1900s. 

Or that character in the Mel Brooks move who was 'World Famous in Poland' - except Mel understands irony whereas I'm not sure that computes with a character like Trump


----------



## birthday_massacre

Alkomesh2 said:


> Here are the actual stats of violent deaths per 100,000 if anyone was curious. As you can see the post WW2 era is the most peaceful era we've ever had as a species.
> 
> And that is not a matter of perspective it's a matter of statistical fact.
> 
> It sucks if you're in a part of the world that is more dangerous than most atm, but that is besides the point that we are globally speaking living in the most peaceful time in humanities history. To say we aren't in the most peaceful period because your part of the world is less peaceful than others atm is as valid an argument as me saying global warming is real because it's hot today.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is all besides the point that Trump's healthcare bill is literally titled the "Worlds Greatest Healthcare Bill of 2017" and we shouldn't lose track of how funny that is.


Trumpcare is so bad even some republicans are turning against it.


----------



## Art Vandaley

yeahbaby! said:


> The absurdity is hard to believe isn't it. The kind of thing a snake oil salesman would have on his carriage in the 1900s.
> 
> Or that character in the Mel Brooks move who was 'World Famous in Poland' - except Mel understands irony whereas I'm not sure that computes with a character like Trump


You just know that he's going to ask at a rally one day "did you know that people call my healthcare bill the world's greatest healthcare bill?" and all his incredibly dumb supporters are going to be super impressed.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Alkomesh2 said:


> You just know that he's going to ask at a rally one day "did you know that people call my healthcare bill the world's greatest healthcare bill?" and all his incredibly dumb supporters are going to be super impressed.


yeah people like beatles will be cheering Trump even though Trump is fucking over people like him but they are too uninformed to even know it.


----------



## samizayn

Alkomesh2 said:


> Which is all besides the point that Trump's healthcare bill is literally titled the "Worlds Greatest Healthcare Bill of 2017" and we shouldn't lose track of how funny that is.


You have to be lying.


----------



## Art Vandaley

samizayn said:


> You have to be lying.


https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1275/text

FWIW I have heard it claimed that this is just one of the bills Republicans have put forward in recent days and not the one Trump has chosen to support, I'm not sure about that and its still hilarious anyway.


----------



## nucklehead88




----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> I already gave you evidence about people in Trumps campaign having contacts/ties with Russian officials stop pretending I did not, it's getting old.
> 
> You can also google Trump ties to Russia and get article after article with examples of it.
> 
> You have to go out of your way to pretend there are not.
> 
> And again like I said, Obama cannot tap people's phones that is the FBIs job and everyone has said Obama did not tap Trumps phone. Trump got the info from Alex Jones and Breitbart.
> 
> Why do you keep asking the same question over and over when I answered it three times for you now.


The evidence wouldn't hold up in a court of law. You've gathered your evidence, used your confirmation bias, and determined that the evidence is damning. Yet, when asked, there isn't a single democrat, or anyone else for that matter, who can say unequivocally that evidence exists tying the Trump campaign to the Russians. All there is is assumptions on their part, and yours, that a connection exists. I mean think about it, if the evidence was there, clear as day, there wouldn't even be a debate. Dems would call for his head, Reps would disavow him, and he, as we speak, would be under impeachment. You talk as if the evidence is there, but, again, all that's really there is perception and perception doesn't make it a fact. Until you have a factual evidence of a link you have nothing.

Let me put it another way, there are people out there, smarter than you, actively looking for evidence. If what you've given so far is enough to impeach Trump then why hasn't it happened yet? You can't sit there and say that Republicans would stand by him when a large majority tried to cut ties with him from the get. They don't want a cancer hurting their brand, so if the evidence was so overwhelming, they'd be standing right along side you calling for his head, as would I. Even Rip would be standing along side you.

So, maybe, just maybe, the "evidence" you cite isn't really evidence at all. It's more like grasping at straws. You believe assumptions are evidence enough and I hate to be the one to tell you this, but they aren't. So, if you have unequivocal proof that he's guilty, if you have the smoking gun, cite it now because otherwise all you have is confirmation bias.

And relying on assumptions to prove Trump is lying, just as above, doesn't prove he's wrong. I'm not sitting here saying Trump is right, but you're sure as shit saying he's wrong. So, cite the evidence, i.e. the smoking gun that proves he's a liar.


----------



## CamillePunk

BM has wildly different standards of evidence for things he wants to believe are true vs. things he is predisposed against. This is actually true for pretty much everyone. We're fundamentally irrational beings who didn't evolve to perceive reality accurately. Some people are better at mitigating their irrationality than others though. :mj


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> The evidence wouldn't hold up in a court of law. You've gathered your evidence, used your confirmation bias, and determined that the evidence is damning. Yet, when asked, there isn't a single democrat, or anyone else for that matter, who can say unequivocally that evidence exists tying the Trump campaign to the Russians. All there is is assumptions on their part, and yours, that a connection exists. I mean think about it, if the evidence was there, clear as day, there wouldn't even be a debate. Dems would call for his head, Reps would disavow him, and he, as we speak, would be under impeachment. You talk as if the evidence is there, but, again, all that's really there is perception and perception doesn't make it a fact. Until you have a factual evidence of a link you have nothing.
> 
> Let me put it another way, there are people out there, smarter than you, actively looking for evidence. If what you've given so far is enough to impeach Trump then why hasn't it happened yet? You can't sit there and say that Republicans would stand by him when a large majority tried to cut ties with him from the get. They don't want a cancer hurting their brand, so if the evidence was so overwhelming, they'd be standing right along side you calling for his head, as would I. Even Rip would be standing along side you.
> 
> So, maybe, just maybe, the "evidence" you cite isn't really evidence at all. It's more like grasping at straws. You believe assumptions are evidence enough and I hate to be the one to tell you this, but they aren't. So, if you have unequivocal proof that he's guilty, if you have the smoking gun, cite it now because otherwise all you have is confirmation bias.
> 
> And relying on assumptions to prove Trump is lying, just as above, doesn't prove he's wrong. I'm not sitting here saying Trump is right, but you're sure as shit saying he's wrong. So, cite the evidence, i.e. the smoking gun that proves he's a liar.


Connections do exist LOL You just ignore the connections and the evidence. And to be clear like I said before, the Russians did not work with Trump and his people to hack the election. They have business ties to Russia and like I said if Trump does Russia favors by lifting sanctions for example because of those business ties that will get him impeached.

Maybe we are talking about different things here.

Are we talking about Trump and his people having business ties to Russia or are you talking about hacking the election? Or are you talking about both?

Because if you think I am talking about hacking the election to have Trump win, then yes there is no evidence of that. I am talking about business ties with Russia


----------



## birthday_massacre

CamillePunk said:


> BM has wildly different standards of evidence for things he wants to believe are true vs. things he is predisposed against. This is actually true for pretty much everyone. We're fundamentally irrational beings who didn't evolve to perceive reality accurately. Some people are better at mitigating their irrationality than others though. :mj


That is ironic coming from you when you believe every BS thing Trump says lol But ok buddy what ever.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> Connections do exist LOL You just ignore the connections and the evidence. And to be clear like I said before, the Russians did not work with Trump and his people to hack the election. They have business ties to Russia and like I said if Trump does Russia favors by lifting sanctions for example because of those business ties that will get him impeached.
> 
> Maybe we are talking about different things here.
> 
> Are we talking about Trump and his people having business ties to Russia or are you talking about hacking the election? Or are you talking about both?
> 
> Because if you think I am talking about hacking the election to have Trump win, then yes there is no evidence of that. I am talking about business ties with Russia


Connections do not equal proof. There's a possibility of it's existence, but without proof it's just in the ether. It's like Schrodinger's Cat, they could be in collusion, they could not be in collusion, you won't know until you open the box. Opening the box, of course, means supplying actual evidence, which nobody has done. So, sure, you're free to believe that the connection equals collusion, but without proof you're just yelling into the wind. 

Perfect example, you bring up business ties and then you equate that to favors by lifting sanctions. Sure, that could exist, but do you have proof? I could accuse you of being a murderous baby raper, does that mean it's true because you have a baby sitting business and you look funny? No, I need actual evidence to support my claim. Let me go on record by saying that, no, I do not think you're a murderous baby raper. I don't have proof. You need evidence to support your assertions, and just saying, "Trust me, business ties means without a doubt that the Trump team offered to lift sanctions " doesn't mean anything. Even if the Trump team did lift some sanctions it doesn't mean they're in collusion together.

I'm, sorry, BM, if I'm going to believe that our sitting President colluded with a foreign country to rig the Presidential election, I'm gonna need more than a white board filled with pictures, thumb tacks, and string; and you shouldn't be settling for anything less either. Whether you like the guy or not. If it was you on trial, you wouldn't want such flimsy evidence deciding your fate.


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Connections do not equal proof. There's a possibility of it's existence, but without proof it's just in the ether. It's like Schrodinger's Cat, they could be in collusion, they could not be in collusion, you won't know until you open the box. Opening the box, of course, means supplying actual evidence, which nobody has done. So, sure, you're free to believe that the connection equals collusion, but without proof you're just yelling into the wind.
> 
> Perfect example, you bring up business ties and then you equate that to favors by lifting sanctions. Sure, that could exist, but do you have proof? I could accuse you of being a murderous baby raper, does that mean it's true because you have a baby sitting business and you look funny? No, I need actual evidence to support my claim. Let me go on record by saying that, no, I do not think you're a murderous baby raper. I don't have proof. You need evidence to support your assertions, and just saying, "Trust me, business ties means without a doubt that the Trump team offered to lift sanctions " doesn't mean anything. Even if the Trump team did lift some sanctions it doesn't mean they're in collusion together.
> 
> *I'm, sorry, BM, if I'm going to believe that our sitting President colluded with a foreign country to rig the Presidential election,* I'm gonna need more than a white board filled with pictures, thumb tacks, and string; and you shouldn't be settling for anything less either. Whether you like the guy or not. If it was you on trial, you wouldn't want such flimsy evidence deciding your fate.


Learn to read for FFS, how many times do I have to say im not saying he tried to rig the elections with the Russians.

My claim has been Trump and his people have business ties to Russia WHICH THEY DO and I said if those ties lead to Trump giving them favors, he will get impeached.


----------



## amhlilhaus

Democrat operatives in the intelligence community cooked up the scam of looking into trumps business with russian banks, getting the warrants. That morphed alongside the trump people having contact with russian agents.

Ergo trump is russias puppet, stole the election and kicked a puppy.

All these claims are declared to be false and not proven, buried in the story.

Yet its repeated every couple of weeks.

No evidence, and IF THERE WERE, itd have been leaked.

Bottom line, they bugged the campaign of a presidential candidate on a witch hunt, found nothing yet continue on.

They will continue this drip drip drip of russian accusations. The republicans will stall all of trumps agenda, thus getting nothing done.

Fatigue sets in, then some trigger, most likely false yet sallacious will give the establishment the ammo they need to impeach trump.

Country goes back to 'normal

Nwo wins again


----------



## Warlock

Bm.. you are toeing a line claiming proof of legal/legit connections, and proof of nefarious/illegal connections that would get people removed from their position. You seem to be conflating the two.

People here are asking for proof of the latter to justify the outcry against the current adminitration as it pertains to russia. But the proof you end up proving is for the former, which noone really is denying.


----------



## Reaper

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/i...-to-five-year-low-in-february/article/2616874


> *Border arrests hit five-year low after Trump's executive order
> *
> The number of people apprehended for illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border dropped sharply in February, which the Department of Homeland Security said is a sign of decreased traffic of illegal immigrants, and a sign that President Trump's immigration policies are already having an effect.
> 
> Apprehensions in February were 18,762, which is lower than any of the totals seen over the last five years, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection statistics released late Wednesday.
> 
> Homeland Security Sec. John Kelly said the "unprecedented" drop from 31,578 apprehensions in January reflects a reduced flow of illegal immigrants, and indicates that President Trump's immigration policies are already helping to reduce that traffic.
> 
> "Since the administration's implementation of Executive Orders to enforce immigration laws, apprehensions and inadmissible activity is trending toward the lowest monthly total in at least the last five years," Kelly said in a statement.
> 
> *While apprehensions — or the number of illegal aliens taken into custody by border agents — tend to decrease during the winter months, CBP historically has seen a 10 to 20 percent increase from January to February. The number of apprehensions went from 31,578 in January to 18,762 last month, a much sharper dropoff.
> *
> Kelly said the drop also indicates "many fewer people are putting themselves and their families at risk of exploitation, assault and injury by human traffickers and the physical dangers of the treacherous journey north."
> 
> *One of the reasons for the drop may be attributed to the cost of travel for someone in Central America who wishes to make it to the U.S. Human smugglers or "coyotes" have hiked their prices by nearly 130 percent, according to DHS. Previously it would cost someone $3,500 for a coyote to guide them on their journey north, but since the election in November, those fees have jumped to $8,000 in some cases.
> *
> The increased fees may be due to increased risk smugglers take on as a result of Trump's change to detention policies of aliens. Last month, Trump essentially reversed catch-and-release policies so that those who are apprehended are not released into the interior of the country.
> 
> Although illegal entrant numbers typically rise during the spring and summer months, Kelly added that the administration's early efforts to thwart these problems indicate continued action will have an effect in the coming months.


----------



## Warlock

Maybe they just got worse at catching them since trump started? [emoji14]


----------



## Reaper

Sweenz said:


> Maybe they just got worse at catching them since trump started? [emoji14]


That's the next CNN headline.


----------



## amhlilhaus

Sweenz said:


> Maybe they just got worse at catching them since trump started? [emoji14]


My first thought

Cue stories of trump in competence


----------



## Reaper

The more I listen to Ryan, the less I like him. He seems to be saying all the right things, but the bill does another. However, he did mention stuff about repealing the mandated taxes and pushing forward with selling across state lines. But I have little faith at this point. Not when it's clear that members of the GOP were frozen out in the first bill.


----------



## Stephen90

Alkomesh2 said:


> You just know that he's going to ask at a rally one day "did you know that people call my healthcare bill the world's greatest healthcare bill?" and all his incredibly dumb supporters are going to be super impressed.


That's the Trump cult in a nutshell. Anything he does is the greatest thing in the world.


----------



## glenwo2

In the news that I saw this morning, it said that the Republicans have achieved their first victory in the overturning of Obamacare in that they've eliminated the TAX PENALTY for those who do not have insurance. 

Did anyone else see this? 

*This* is the issue that has always bugged me : People basically BLACKMAILED into buying insurance or having to pay a hefty fine(basically) by the IRS if they didn't. 

This apparent development probably(I said probably) means that whatever this new so-called Trumpcare that's being developed is, will NOT have that Tax Penalty included. If that's the case, then Trump is the true GOAT because every American Citizen should have the RIGHT to NOT have insurance due to not having a job(for example) and being unable to afford it(besides, there are free clinics out there for those who don't have insurance anyway).


----------



## Beatles123

Stephen90 said:


> That's the Trump cult in a nutshell. Anything he does is the greatest thing in the world.


 Not at all, I hate this bill but love Trump as a whole.

This is just that two bit neocon RYAN influencing him IMO.

Anyway, Sen. Cotton is right.

We don't want 0bamacare Lite.

How about (after we repeal ALL of 0bamacare) we:

1) Transfer all tax benefits from the employer to the employee. 
2) Eliminate all group plans and government mandated coverage mandates. 
3) Set the risk pools demographically at the state level. 
4) Make sure HSAs are able to be used for OTC medical things.
5) Match HSA contributions, similar to 401Ks, based upon income/need.
6) Direct Pay emergency and catastrophic care for the truly indigent.

Wouldn't this go a long way to solving our problems while securing liberty and controlling costs?

Come on guys! It doesn't have to be complicated, and the government doesn't have to be the caretaker!


----------



## Reaper

glenwo2 said:


> In the news that I saw this morning, it said that the Republicans have achieved their first victory in the overturning of Obamacare in that they've eliminated the TAX PENALTY for those who do not have insurance.
> 
> Did anyone else see this?
> 
> *This* is the issue that has always bugged me : People basically BLACKMAILED into buying insurance or having to pay a hefty fine(basically) by the IRS if they didn't.


The news isn't reporting this. You're the first person to have brought it up. Source?

Anyways, if true, this in and of itself should have an impact on insurance plans as they'd have to make them more reasonably priced. It won't be a huge impact, but an impact nonetheless.


----------



## glenwo2

RipNTear said:


> The news isn't reporting this. You're the first person to have brought it up. Source?
> 
> Anyways, if true, this in and of itself should have an impact on insurance plans as they'd have to make them more reasonably priced. It won't be a huge impact, but an impact nonetheless.


This was reported on Local TV(ABC - Channel 7 over here where I live). 

I'm not one to make shit up here and just post it like certain people we know.


----------



## glenwo2

Okay....here is a link(and pertinent blurb to the article below) to the actual thing I mentioned :

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/house-panel-nears-health-bill-industry-groups-46012179



> Determined House Republicans pushed ahead Thursday with divisive legislation to undo former President Barack Obama's health care law, holding marathon all-night voting sessions in key committees despite Democratic protest and intense opposition from doctors and consumer groups.
> 
> The GOP scored a pre-dawn triumph in the Ways and Means Committee after nearly 18 hours of debate along party lines, as the panel approved legislation to reshape the way millions of Americans pay for medical care, *including abolishing the tax penalty Obama's statute imposes on people who don't purchase insurance.*


THE GOAT :trump


----------



## Vic Capri

The Fifth Amendment of The Constitution provides, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

*The Ninth Amendment*: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

George Bush Jr. and Barack Obama broke their oaths to uphold it by allowing Americans to be spied on by the National Security Agency!








> In the news that I saw this morning, it said that the Republicans have achieved their first victory in the overturning of Obamacare in that they've eliminated the TAX PENALTY for those who do not have insurance.


That was the biggest fail of Obamacare. You can't force people to buy a service they do not want. How did it make any sense to penalize people who couldn't afford it to begin with?

Also, people who had the money because they were employed would rather pay the fine because it was cheaper than any healthcare plan they could get and those people who lost their healthcare plans had to pay double for what they once had!

- Vic


----------



## Reaper

glenwo2 said:


> This was reported on Local TV(ABC - Channel 7 over here where I live).
> 
> I'm not one to make shit up here and just post it like certain people we know.


Wasn't accusing you of making shit up. I ask everyone for sources when I can't be bothered to search for them myself :draper2


----------



## glenwo2

^ I know. I was temporarily frustrated then that I didn't have any source to back it up(yet) at that point. But fortunately I was able to find it. 

I am so fucking relieved to know that, basically, the PRESSURE is off when it comes to buying or not buying health insurance.


----------



## virus21




----------



## samizayn

Alkomesh2 said:


> https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1275/text
> 
> FWIW I have heard it claimed that this is just one of the bills Republicans have put forward in recent days and not the one Trump has chosen to support, I'm not sure about that and its still hilarious anyway.





> *SECTION 1. Short title; purposes; table of contents.*
> 
> (a) Short title.—This Act may be cited as the “World’s Greatest Healthcare Plan of 2017”.


:maury Why does this read like the document struggled to get the words out? 

I can't cope. How do you deal with crying laughing, while also feeling your soul leave your body?


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

:clap at Teflon Don Juan if really did axe that damned ACA penalty. My GF basically had to give up a little more than half of her tax return ($700 out of $1300) in order to pay for that horseshit because she's not insured and isn't on her parents' insurance plans, even though she could be on there for another 6 years if she wanted to. What makes it doubly annoying is that she's a bit strapped for cash as is because she's saving up for a car.

Hopefully she can get some form of reimbursement in light of this development.
@glenwo2 : Have some rep for giving us that link that provided that nice peace of mind. :sk


----------



## Reaper

Wow. The republicans are actually developing a sense of humor. I like it :draper2



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> :clap at Teflon Don Juan if really did axe that damned ACA penalty. My GF basically have to give up a little more than half of her tax return ($700 out of $1300) in order to pay for that horseshit because she's not insured and isn't on her parents' insurance plans, even though she could be on there for another 6 years if she wanted to. What makes it doubly annoying is that she's a bit strapped for cash as is because she's saving up for a car.
> 
> Hopefully she can get some form of reimbursement in light of this development.


Interesting that my wife and I have been filing joint taxes with me not being insured and haven't been charged the penalty. And now it's gone so I'm guessing this will never be an issue again.


----------



## NotGuilty

> Illegal Southwest border crossings were down 40% last month, according to just released Customs and Border Protection numbers -- a sign that President Donald Trump's hardline rhetoric and policies on immigration may be having a deterrent effect.


:trump2 *PROGRESS.* The article says that normal Jan-Feb change is between 10-20% so this year its a sizeable decrease in illegals. :dance


----------



## samizayn

Vic Capri said:


> George Bush Jr. and Barack Obama broke their oaths to uphold it by allowing Americans to be spied on by the National Security Agency!


Govt spying on its citizens is a bipartisan and global phenomenon. Protest it vehemently and consistently, but I wouldn't get my hopes up for Trump being the guy to stop it, when he's all but certainly going to order it during his tenure. It's not right but it's gonna happen regrdless


----------



## birthday_massacre

Sweenz said:


> Bm.. you are toeing a line claiming proof of legal/legit connections, and proof of nefarious/illegal connections that would get people removed from their position. You seem to be conflating the two.
> 
> People here are asking for proof of the latter to justify the outcry against the current adminitration as it pertains to russia. But the proof you end up proving is for the former, which noone really is denying.


Look at what is going on with Trump, Tillerson, ExxonMobil and Russia

But yeah there is no evidence of shady shit going on right LOL


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

RipNTear said:


> Wow. The republicans are actually developing a sense of humor. I like it :draper2
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting that my wife and I have been filing joint taxes with me not being insured and haven't been charged the penalty. And now it's gone so I'm guessing this will never be an issue again.


I haven't been threatened with the penalty because my income isn't sufficiently high enough, which is thanks to me being back on the hunt for work after my seasonal shift at my last job ended a little while ago. But yeah, it feels good that I don't have to deal with the creeping dread of paying a penalty for health care of all damn things.

And stuffy, old, white politicians getting a sense of humor = The latest sign that we are living in possibly the greatest timeline.

Praise Kek. :trump2


----------



## glenwo2

birthday_massacre said:


> Look at what is going on with Trump, Tillerson, ExxonMobil and Russia
> 
> But yeah there is no evidence of shady shit going on right LOL



^ When it comes to Politics, bm, EVERYTHING is "shady shit". 

It's the fucking Government. :lol

I'm just all giddy that the stupid-as-fuck BLACKMAIL/EXTORTION Tax-Penalty bullshit is gone.


----------



## birthday_massacre

glenwo2 said:


> ^ When it comes to Politics, bm, EVERYTHING is "shady shit".
> 
> It's the fucking Government. :lol
> 
> I'm just all giddy that the stupid-as-fuck BLACKMAIL/EXTORTION Tax-Penalty bullshit is gone.


What state do you live in? Can't you go for subsidized insurance since you cannot afford it? Or does your state not have that?


----------



## glenwo2

^ I live in Jersey currently. Got laid off from my job in January and been trying hard as fuck to find new employment but damn it....Age Discrimination is fucking real, BM. 

Anyway, THIS is why I'm glad this penalty thing is no more. One less thing to worry about.

And as far as Subsidiary insurance goes, I am still covered by my company-sponsored insurance thus far(I haven't received the dreaded COBRA thing yet...).


----------



## Warlock

birthday_massacre said:


> Look at what is going on with Trump, Tillerson, ExxonMobil and Russia
> 
> But yeah there is no evidence of shady shit going on right LOL


So provide proof of the illegal activity. Not speculation or conjecture of what might be going on, but actual proof of your statement that something shady is happening. Don't present proof of a possibility something could be happening, but prrof that it actually is.


----------



## birthday_massacre

glenwo2 said:


> ^ I live in Jersey currently. Got laid off from my job in January and been trying hard as fuck to find new employment but damn it....Age Discrimination is fucking real, BM.
> 
> Anyway, THIS is why I'm glad this penalty thing is no more. One less thing to worry about.
> 
> And as far as Subsidiary insurance goes, I am still covered by my company-sponsored insurance thus far(I haven't received the dreaded COBRA thing yet...).


I got laid off from my job and have been looking as well. I got the subsidized insurance its called MassHealth here in MA and i don't pay anything for insurance and am fully covered. I even had major surgery and it was fully covered and I paid nothing. the funny thing is when I was working and had my insurance I had another surgery and ended up paying like $2000.





Sweenz said:


> So provide proof of the illegal activity. Not speculation or conjecture of what might be going on, but actual proof of your statement that something shady is happening. Don't present proof of a possibility something could be happening, but prrof that it actually is.


You don't think it's a huge conflict of interest what is going on with Trump and Tillerson and ExxonMobil and how Putin is meeting with the ExxonMobil President? And then if Trump lifts Russias sanctions as well. 

Seriously dude wake up.


----------



## glenwo2

^ Now that *IS* odd. It's like your insurance covered only certain procedures and not all. Go figure.


----------



## birthday_massacre

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-obamacare-repeal-back-up-plan-democrats-2017-3


Trump tells conservative groups he has a plan B if the GOP Obamacare replacement blows up (spoiler, its keep Obamacare in place).

President Donald Trump told conservative groups that if the GOP leadership's American Health Care Act did not pass, he would allow Obamacare to collapse and blame its failure on Democrats.

Trump revealed his strategy during a meeting with the conservative groups FreedomWorks, Club for Growth, Heritage Action, Americans for Prosperity, and the Tea Party Patriots at the White House on Wednesday. His comments were first reported by CNN's Jim Acosta and were confirmed to Business Insider by a source with knowledge of the meeting.

The first attempt at an Obamacare replacement supported by the House GOP leadership and Trump, the AHCA has faced opposition from conservative Republicans and organizations for not going far enough in repealing Obamacare.

Conservative groups say the AHCA's tax credits that allow people to purchase insurance are a "Republican entitlement" and the whole bill is simply "Obamacare Lite" or "Obamacare 2.0."

After the meeting, the heads of the various groups in attendance struck a conciliatory tone but still expressed concerns over the new bill.


http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/08/politics/donald-trump-conservative-leaders/


Washington (CNN)In an Oval Office meeting featuring leaders of conservative groups that already lining up against House Republicans' plan to repeal and replace Obamacare, President Donald Trump revealed his plan in the event the GOP effort doesn't succeed: Allow Obamacare to fail and let Democrats take the blame, sources at the gathering told CNN.


During the hour-long meeting, sources said Trump chastised the groups -- including Club for Growth, the Heritage Foundation, Americans for Prosperity, FreedomWorks and the Tea Party Patriots -- for calling the House GOP proposal "Obamacare lite," warning the tea party activists, "you are helping the other side."
In true Trump fashion, the President jumped into salesman mode, sources at the meeting said.
"This is going to be great. You're going to make it even greater," the President told the group. "I'm going to work hard to get it done."
The meeting between Trump and the conservative leaders also included White House senior advisers Steve Bannon, Reince Priebus, Kellyanne Conway and Marc Short, as well as other top West Wing staff.
Sources at the meeting said White House aides showed some openness to one aspect of the House GOP plan that has become an irritant to tea party aligned groups: the provision that pushes back an overhaul of the expansion Obamacare Medicaid funding until 2020.
The conservative groups at the meeting asked that the date be moved up to January 1, 2018. White House aides said they were "open to discussing" it, sources said.
Concerns were also raised about the tax credits in the House GOP plan which allow lower-income Americans to buy health insurance, financial assistance that tea party groups see as subsidies.
"They counter-punched hard on that," a source at the meeting said of the White House response.
Office of Management and Budget director Mick Mulvaney, a former member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, gave an impassioned defense of the tax credits, a display that surprised attendees from the conservative groups.
"He was very defensive about it," one attendee said about Mulvaney.
Confident that the health care plan will pass the House, Trump laid out his strategy for winning passage in the Senate, telling the meeting he will campaign heavily in red states featuring vulnerable Democrats up for re-election.
"Trump said he will have football stadium events in states where he won by 10-12 points and he is going to dare people to vote against him," a source at the meeting said.
As for prominent Republican opponents of the health care plan, Trump sounded optimistic.
On Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, the President was effusive about his one-time primary rival.
"I love him. He's a friend. He's going to end up voting for it," the President told the group.
A source at the meeting was astonished as to how White House staff could have been so blindsided by the initial conservative opposition to the GOP plan.
"We telegraphed it for weeks," one tea party official at the meeting said.
A WH official at the meeting said: "It was a legit policy meeting -- real discussion about specifics."
"The president expressed that he was open to things that could improve the bill, but was also clear that this is the vehicle -- this is the chance to repeal and replace."


----------



## birthday_massacre

glenwo2 said:


> ^ Now that *IS* odd. It's like your insurance covered only certain procedures and not all. Go figure.


It's because my work insurance only covered 80%. When my old jobs insurance was great it covered 100% then after a few years it dropped to 90% then at the end before the mass layoff it dropped again that year to 80%.


----------



## virus21

> Now that the Trump-Russia fake news story is crumbling as Rolling Stone writer Matt Taibbi warned liberals, how can the mainstream media continue to report on this fact-free topic? Simple. By invoking masters of fiction in the form of spy novelists. Therefore it is appropriate that Associated Press writer Hillel Italie consulted several of those fiction writers to comment on fake news fiction.
> 
> You will look in vain for any actual facts but at least you will be somewhat entertained by his desperation to report something in his March 8 AP article, Spy novelists keeping an eye on Trump-Russia allegations:
> 
> <<< Please support MRC's NewsBusters team with a tax-deductible contribution today. >>>
> 
> DONATE
> 
> 
> NEW YORK (AP) -- Jason Matthews is a retired CIA officer who now writes spy novels, focused on Russia. He was working on a book last year that ordinarily would seem a little far-fetched, but which proved too close to current events.
> 
> "The plot line was an American presidential candidate who has a secret that's so bad it would ensure his or her impeachment, and the only person who would know the secret is Vladimir Putin," says Matthews, a prize-winning author best known for his "Red Sparrow" thrillers.
> 
> Newsflash! If you had been following the real, not fake, news recently, the premise has definitely returned to the far-fetched category. Not one intelligence agency has provided proof of collusion between Trump and Russia. In fact the former Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, flat out denied it on Sunday. But back now to the AP fiction story:
> 
> With law enforcement and Congress looking into possible ties between Trump advisers and Russians during the 2016 campaign, spy novelists have been challenged, amused, angered and inspired. The Cold War ended decades ago, but writers now see a new wave of possible plot twists and plots to avoid, whether the reported Russian contacts of such former Trump campaign officials as Paul Manafort and Carter Page, the Trump dossier compiled by British intelligence or the firing of National Security Adviser Michael Flynn over phone conservations with the Russian ambassador.
> 
> ...Charles Cumming, known for such novels as "A Divided Spy" and "A Colder War," is working on a thriller that touches upon Brexit and Trump's election, including "the idea that collusion could take place between the Russian and American intelligence services is no longer the stuff of fiction." Michael R. Davidson, another former CIA agent who writes novels, also found the story of Trump and Russia overlapping with fiction. He and writing partner Kseniya Kirillova had been working since early 2016 on "Successor," a thriller about the Russians attempting to get a mole in the White House who will push the Americans to lift sanctions.
> 
> More likely will be comedy reality, not fiction, of a Russia collusion story that blows up in the faces of the MSM which is desperately searching for an impeachment pot of gold.
> 
> David Downing, whose novels include "Lenin's Roller Coaster" and "One Man's Flag," said he finds the Trump-Russia reports more a political story than a spy story. But he did find some details in common with his novel "Stettin Station," about an American businessman caught up with Nazi Germany during World War II.
> 
> "This is what you get for electing a self-defining businessman/deal-maker as president - someone who can't be relied on to put the national interest first, while, of course, loudly insisting that that's exactly what he's doing," he said of Trump.
> 
> Too bad the AP couldn't have consulted the late Ian Fleming, author of the highly popular James Bond novels. Perhaps Fleming could have written a book based on the ultimate outcome called, "From Russia With Laughs."
> 
> P.S. And perhaps novelist George Orwell would like to write about Winston Smith sending the January 20 New York Times wiretapping headline down the memory hole. Fact, not fiction.


http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/pj-gladnick/2017/03/09/ap-consults-spy-novelists-hype-trump-russia-fake-news


----------



## Warlock

birthday_massacre said:


> I
> You don't think it's a huge conflict of interest what is going on with Trump and Tillerson and ExxonMobil and how Putin is meeting with the ExxonMobil President? And then if Trump lifts Russias sanctions as well.
> 
> Seriously dude wake up.


Conflict of interest increases the chances of something underhanded going on. That ill agree with. But doesnt prove that it is. One doesnt equal proof of the other. Thats conflation.


----------



## southrnbygrace

I still owe $1500.00 in taxes from LAST year (for the 2016 tax year) thanks to the stupid penalty for not having insurance. It's not like I don't WANT to have it. My employer nor my husband's offer it and we sure can't afford the 'affordable' insurance of Obama. Nice to know that won't be a problem going forward.


----------



## samizayn

southrnbygrace said:


> I still owe $1500.00 in taxes from LAST year (for the 2016 tax year) thanks to the stupid penalty for not having insurance. It's not like I don't WANT to have it. My employer nor my husband's offer it and we sure can't afford the 'affordable' insurance of Obama. Nice to know that won't be a problem going forward.


That's really awful. I at least hope that the new healthcare will help families in situations like yours.


----------



## glenwo2

^ The problem is, *SOUTHERNBYGRACE*(and not SamiZayn) that you might have to still pay for it. 

I hope not but this is the fucking government(IRS). If they want your money, they'll get your money. Damn vultures.


----------



## birthday_massacre

samizayn said:


> That's really awful. I at least hope that the new healthcare will help families in situations like yours.


Of course it wont. Trumpcare is just a huge tax break for the rich and its going to fuck over the middle class and poor. Families like his will get fucked over even more as well as all the people that were being helped by the Medicaid expansion.

When will people like you learn? Trumpcare is going to be a million times worse than obamacare.


----------



## samizayn

birthday_massacre said:


> Of course it wont. Trumpcare is just a huge tax break for the rich and its going to fuck over the middle class and poor. Families like his will get fucked over even more as well as all the people that were being helped by the Medicaid expansion.
> 
> When will people like you learn? Trumpcare is going to be a million times worse than obamacare.


I guess I'll learn if and when it happens. I'm young yet, so I mainly rely on people here telling their specific stories of how exactly they've been affected by policies. It's certainly true that robbing Peter to pay Paul is more than a possibility here. But I don't know.. not being optimistic about stuff like this is against my nature. Especially because this was the one thing I knew had to get at least marginally better considering how largely unpopular ACA was. New healthcare is looking underwhelming so far compared to what seemed planned, but a wait and see attitude is the best approach I feel.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

@birthday_massacre

:triggered much?

Your confirmation bias isn't evidence, so stop pretending like it is. You want to be taken seriously, cite the proof that what you claim is factual.


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> @birthday_massacre
> 
> :triggered much?
> 
> Your confirmation bias isn't evidence, so stop pretending like it is. You want to be taken seriously, cite the proof that what you claim is factual.


Examples of connections is evidence of those people have ties to Russia lol What world do you live in? Oh yeah Trump would. 

I have shown the evidence a number of times, if you want to ignore it like Trump supporters love to do be my guest but its Trump supporters who can't be taken seriously when ignore evidence and pretend its not there.

Also stop with the childish Gifs that Trump supporters love to use. I know you think it makes you look cool to use the word triggered but it doesn't. It just takes away from your post because you are trolling.
Dont turn into a beatles or deepelemblues who just shit post with gifs like that.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

Had a question I thought some of the Trump fans could answer. I remember during and right after the election everybody was vehemently against the lobbyists and billionaire backers of people like Hillary, the Soros' etc. Does it not bother you all that Robert Mercer is basically exactly the same thing but for Trump and right-wing organisations? It's not like Trump is some unsupported dude who answers to nobody, he's just another whipping boy for a different master, no?


----------



## birthday_massacre

samizayn said:


> I guess I'll learn if and when it happens. I'm young yet, so I mainly rely on people here telling their specific stories of how exactly they've been affected by policies. It's certainly true that robbing Peter to pay Paul is more than a possibility here. But I don't know.. not being optimistic about stuff like this is against my nature. Especially because this was the one thing I knew had to get at least marginally better considering how largely unpopular ACA was. New healthcare is looking underwhelming so far compared to what seemed planned, but a wait and see attitude is the best approach I feel.


Obamacare is not unpopular lately . More people approve of the ACA than oppose in the latest polls. And the funny thing is, a good number of the dumbasses that oppose Obamacare don't even release its the same thing as the ACA. It's always the majority of the REP that hate the ACA while majority of Dems are the ones who like it.

Also AGAIN a big real people don't like it are mostly in red states because the REP running those states rejected the Medicaid expansion.

It is funny now that ACA is looking to be cut more Americans want to keep it and improve upon it than just repeal and replace.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ty-americans-want-to-keep-obamacare/98854446/


----------



## Miss Sally

southrnbygrace said:


> I still owe $1500.00 in taxes from LAST year (for the 2016 tax year) thanks to the stupid penalty for not having insurance. It's not like I don't WANT to have it. My employer nor my husband's offer it and we sure can't afford the 'affordable' insurance of Obama. Nice to know that won't be a problem going forward.


I know a few people who had this issue. Lots of people got fucked by this tax bullshit.


----------



## CamillePunk

@L-DOPA @DesolationRow @AryaDark

https://www.paul.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/ObamacareReplacementActSections.pdf

Here is the text of Senator Rand Paul's healthcare bill.


----------



## glenwo2

^ Interesting.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> Examples of connections is evidence of those people have ties to Russia lol What world do you live in? Oh yeah Trump would.
> 
> I have shown the evidence a number of times, if you want to ignore it like Trump supporters love to do be my guest but its Trump supporters who can't be taken seriously when ignore evidence and pretend its not there.
> 
> Also stop with the childish Gifs that Trump supporters love to use. I know you think it makes you look cool to use the word triggered but it doesn't. It just takes away from your post because you are trolling.
> Dont turn into a beatles or deepelemblues who just shit post with gifs like that.


If you're 100% convinced that something bad HAS happened then you should have no issue citing it here for all to see. Otherwise, it's all speculation, and from all the "evidence" you've posted that's all that's there, speculation. If something bad has happened I wanna know about it. As I said before, if the Trump administration has done something they shouldn't have done then I will stand right beside you wanting there to be consequences. You say it's happening, so show me.

Of all the people here, you are the last person to be talking about doing childish things. *cough* red reps *cough*. You want a mature discussion? I'm willing to take part. Reply to my comments and leave it at that, don't pull out your red rep bully tactics.


----------



## Draykorinee

virus21 said:


> http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/pj-gladnick/2017/03/09/ap-consults-spy-novelists-hype-trump-russia-fake-news


Newsbusters...

:reneelel


----------



## Beatles123

Well, trump met with Rand's Illk to discuss the opposing side to the bill, so maybe thats a positive.

Won't be too concerned (or happy) till i see the final product thats made law.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Here's the article in question...



> Why the Russia Story Is a Minefield for Democrats and the Media
> Russia scandals have bloodied the Trump administration. But it carries dangers for those reporting it
> 
> By Matt Taibbi
> 2 days ago
> 
> Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper appeared on Meet the Press this past weekend to discuss the Trump-Russia scandal. Chuck Todd asked: Were there improper contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials?
> 
> JAMES CLAPPER: We did not include any evidence in our report, and I say, "our," that's N.S.A., F.B.I. and C.I.A., with my office, the Director of National Intelligence, that had anything, that had any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. There was no evidence of that…
> CHUCK TODD: I understand that. But does it exist?
> JAMES CLAPPER: Not to my knowledge.
> Todd pressed him to elaborate.
> CHUCK TODD: If [evidence of collusion] existed, it would have been in this report?
> JAMES CLAPPER: This could have unfolded or become available in the time since I left the government.
> 
> This is the former Director of National Intelligence telling all of us that as of 12:01 a.m. on January 20th, when he left government, the intelligence agencies had no evidence of collusion between Donald Trump's campaign and the government of Vladimir Putin's Russia.
> 
> Virtually all of the explosive breaking news stories on the Trump-Russia front dating back months contain some version of this same disclaimer.
> There is a lot of smoke in the Russia story. The most damning item is General Michael Flynn having improper discussions with Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak prior to taking office. There is the much-discussed Republican platform change with regard to American assistance to Ukranian rebels, and the unreported contacts between officials like Jeff Sessions (and even Trump himself now) with Kislyak.
> Moreover, the case that the Russians hacked the Democratic National Committee now appears fairly solid. Even Donald Trump thinks so. This of course makes it harder to dismiss stories like the one in which former Trump adviser Roger Stone appeared to know that Wikileaks was about to release the hacked emails of Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta.
> 
> But the manner in which these stories are being reported is becoming a story in its own right. Russia has become an obsession, cultural shorthand for a vast range of suspicions about Donald Trump.
> The notion that the president is either an agent or a useful idiot of the Russian state is so freely accepted in some quarters that Beck Bennett's shirtless representation of Putin palling with Alec Baldwin's Trump is already a no-questions-asked yuks routine for the urban smart set.
> 
> And yet, this is an extraordinarily complex tale that derives much of its power from suppositions and assumptions.
> 
> If there's any truth to the notion that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian state to disrupt the electoral process, then yes, what we're seeing now are the early outlines of a Watergate-style scandal that could topple a presidency.
> 
> But it could also be true that both the Democratic Party and many leading media outlets are making a dangerous gamble, betting their professional and political capital on the promise of future disclosures that may not come.
> 
> We have to remember that the unpopularity of the press was a key to Trump's election. Journalists helped solve the billionaire's accessibility problem by being a more hated group than the arrogant rich. Trump has people believing he shares a common enemy with them: the news media. When we do badly, he does well.
> 
> Trump calls us "enemies of the people" who purvey "fake news." Together with what vile ex-CNN turncoat Lou Dobbs calls the "global corporatists" who own the major media companies, we are said to comprise the "opposition party."
> 
> We can't afford to bolster these accusations of establishment bias and overreach by using the techniques of conspiracy theorists to push this Russia story. Unfortunately, that is happening.
> One could list the more ridiculous examples, like the Washington Post's infamous "PropOrNot" story identifying hundreds of alternative media sites as fellow travellers aiding Russia, or the Post's faceplant over a report about a hacked utility in Vermont.
> 
> There was the "Russian cybercrime arrests" story that multiple outlets incorrectly suggested was linked to last year's election, or the bizarre series of stories about Russia-linked murders around the world that are supposedly connected to this tale. (Glenn Greenwald at the Intercept noted the similarity between these latter tales and early anti-Clinton paranoia).
> All of this noise matters. The pop culture realm is filled with bits like the SNL "Santa Putin" routine, the New Yorker's Cyrillic cover and the promiscuous use of terms like "Siberian Candidate." Even the new DNC chief, Tom Perez, got in the act with a tweet about a Trump's weekly address.
> 
> https://twitter.com/TomPerez/status/837699013101105152?ref_src=twsrc^tfw
> 
> Add all this to fringe-Internet reports about mysterious murders, and soon audiences come to every Russia story with pre-stoked expectations. Those expectations are what allow a paper to turn what may be a page nine story into a front-page sensation.
> 
> Setting all of that aside, look at the techniques involved within the more "legitimate" reports. Many are framed in terms of what they might mean, should other information surface.
> There are inevitably uses of phrases like "so far," "to date" and "as yet." These make visible the outline of a future story that isn't currently reportable, further heightening expectations.
> Take the Times story about Trump surrogates having "repeated contacts" with Russian intelligence officials (an assertion that can mean anything, incidentally – as a reporter in Russia I had contact with Russian intelligence officials, as did most of my colleagues and friends in business, and there was nothing newsworthy about those interactions).
> 
> That story not only didn't explain whether the contacts were knowing or unknowing, it also brought up a host of other "dots" in the Russia narrative for the reader to connect. For instance, the Times mentioned the bizarre (and unverified) dossier prepared by Christopher Steele.
> 
> Whether the Steele material was in any way connected to the contacts to which the Times referred was unclear, but the paper plowed ahead, writing (emphasis mine):
> 
> "The dossier contained a raft of allegations ... unsubstantiated claims that the Russians had embarrassing videos that could be used to blackmail Mr. Trump. ... The F.B.I. has spent several months investigating the leads in the dossier, but has yet to confirm any of its most explosive claims..."
> 
> These constructions are an end run around the paper's own reporting standards. The Times by itself could never have run that "explosive" Steele dossier, or mentioned the "embarrassing videos" – because the dossier material can't be confirmed.
> 
> But since it's all out there in the ether now, thanks to Buzzfeed, it apparently can safely be mentioned. Worse, the Times recounted all this in connection with the other story about alleged contacts with Russian intelligence, adding to the appearance of gravity and salaciousness.
> Similarly, Democrats in congress have been littering their Russia speeches with caveats like, "We do not know all the facts," and, "More information may well surface." They repeatedly refer to what they don't know as a way of talking about what they hope to find out.
> 
> Members demand that Trump release his tax returns, for instance, so that Democrats can "clarify the specific financial interests that he has in Russia" – as if it is a given that he has such interests, or that such interests will be meaningful.
> 
> But what if there is nothing else to find?
> 
> Reporters should always be nervous when intelligence sources sell them stories. Spooks don't normally need the press. Their usual audiences are other agency heads, and the executive. They can bring about action just by convincing other people within the government to take it.
> 
> In the extant case, whether the investigation involved a potential Logan Act violation, or election fraud, or whatever, the CIA, FBI, and NSA had the ability to act both before and after Donald Trump was elected. But they didn't, and we know why, because James Clapper just told us – they didn't have evidence to go on.
> 
> Thus we are now witnessing the extremely unusual development of intelligence sources that normally wouldn't tell a reporter the time of day litigating a matter of supreme importance in the media. What does this mean?
> 
> Hypothesize for a moment that the "scandal" here is real, but in a limited sense: Trump's surrogates have not colluded with Russians, but have had “contacts,” and recognize their political liability, and lie about them. Investigators then leak the true details of these contacts, leaving the wild speculations to the media and the Internet. Trump is enough of a pig and a menace that it's easy to imagine doing this and not feeling terribly sorry that your leaks have been over-interpreted.
> 
> If that's the case, there are big dangers for the press. If we engage in Times-style gilding of every lily the leakers throw our way, and in doing so build up a fever of expectations for a bombshell reveal, but there turns out to be no conspiracy – Trump will be pre-inoculated against all criticism for the foreseeable future.
> 
> The press has to cover this subject. But it can't do it with glibness and excitement, laughing along to SNL routines, before it knows for sure what it's dealing with. Reporters should be scared to their marrow by this story. This is a high-wire act and it is a very long way down. We might want to leave the jokes and the nicknames be, until we get to the other side – wherever that is.


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> If you're 100% convinced that something bad HAS happened then you should have no issue citing it here for all to see. Otherwise, it's all speculation, and from all the "evidence" you've posted that's all that's there, speculation. If something bad has happened I wanna know about it. As I said before, if the Trump administration has done something they shouldn't have done then I will stand right beside you wanting there to be consequences. You say it's happening, so show me.
> 
> Of all the people here, you are the last person to be talking about doing childish things. *cough* red reps *cough*. You want a mature discussion? I'm willing to take part. Reply to my comments and leave it at that, don't pull out your red rep bully tactics.


I love how you keep pretending I have not given you evidence of business ties of Russia and Trump and the people close to him. It's not speculation they have business ties its a fact. 


But you want more evidence. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...dda4e2f2aec_story.html?utm_term=.fb93d8ccfcf1

*Most notably, Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr. made that very claim at a real estate conference in New York in 2008, saying “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets.” Donald Trump Jr. added, “we see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.”*
*
Most notably, Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr. made that very claim at a real estate conference in New York in 2008, saying “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets.” Donald Trump Jr. added, “we see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.”*



*Q: What about Trump’s advisers?

A: They too have financial ties in Russia. His campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, managed an investment fund for a Russian aluminum magnate with close ties to Putin. (The oligarch is suing Manafort, claiming, according to litigation in the Cayman Islands, that Manafort disappeared with $19 million.)

Manafort also unsuccessfully attempted a multimillion-dollar real estate project in New York City with funds from a Ukranian energy tycoon. And he worked as an adviser to the Putin-backed Ukranian president whose 2014 ouster sparked Russian intervention in that country, which has been opposed by U.S. officials in both parties.

Trump also considered retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn as his vice-presidential running mate. Flynn has argued that the United States needs stronger ties to Russia to fight Islamist terrorism. In 2015 , Flynn attended a dinner honoring the Kremlin-aligned English language media company RT, where he sat near Putin.

Another Trump foreign policy adviser, Carter Page, once ran the Moscow office of Merrill Lynch and advised the state-run conglomerate Gazprom. He has spoken publicly about the possibility that a Trump presidency could result in the lifting of Ukraine-related sanctions on Russia that would help the business interests of some of his Russian contacts.

*


So stop pretending there is not evidence Trump and his close allies dont have business ties to Russia.

You just keep proving how uninformed you are.

You have to go out of your way to not see these connections.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Trump Met Russian Ambassador at Reception During Campaign
*

*President Donald Trump met last April with the Russian ambassador at the center of a pair of controversies over engagement between Trump allies and the Kremlin, despite claims by his spokeswoman that he had "zero" involvement with Russian officials during the campaign.

Attention to Trump’s encounter with Russian Ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak resurfaced after revelations last week that at least five members of Trump’s campaign team -- including Attorney General Jeff Sessions -- had contact with Kislyak before Trump took office.*


The federal government has launched multiple investigations into Russia’s interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and potential contacts between Moscow and the Trump campaign.

QuickTake
Trump-Russia Saga

Trump met Kislyak during a VIP reception April 27, 2016, at the Mayflower Hotel shortly before a foreign policy address, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal. In the speech, Trump said an "easing of tensions and improved relations with Russia" is possible.

The Wall Street Journal article, published May 13, 2016, reported Trump "warmly greeted Mr. Kislyak and three other foreign ambassadors who came to the reception."


The Daily Trump: Tracking the 45th President
White House officials described the encounter as brief and non-substantive, saying that Trump only attended the reception for five minutes and that multiple foreign ambassadors were present.

The Center for the National Interest, a nonprofit that hosted Trump’s speech, said that it invited Kislyak to attend and sat him in the front row of the audience with three other foreign ambassadors. “The Trump campaign had nothing to do with the seating arrangement,” the group said in a statement posted on its website on Wednesday.

No Recollection

The center said it invited the ambassadors to a “short reception” preceding Trump’s speech with about two dozen guests, who formed a receiving line for Trump.

“The line moved quickly and any conversations with Mr. Trump in that setting were inherently brief and could not be private,” the group said. “Our recollection is that the interaction between Mr. Trump and Ambassador Kislyak was limited to the polite exchange of pleasantries appropriate on such occasions.”

One of the White House officials said in a statement e-mailed on condition of anonymity that campaign staffers who were at the event “have no recollection of who he may have shaken hands with at the reception and we were not responsible for inviting or vetting guests. To state they met or that a meeting took place is disingenuous and absurd.”

But the meeting is at odds with White House Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Sanders’ claim last week that Trump had "no interaction" with Russian government officials during the campaign.

"The big point here is the president himself knows what his involvement was, and that’s zero," Sanders told reporters on March 3. “And I think that he’s the primary person that should be held responsible, and he had no interaction, and I think that’s what the story should be focused on.”

The encounter between Trump and Kislyak is in keeping with routine work by foreign diplomats who often seek contact with presidential campaigns of both parties during election season in order to report back analysis of potential impact to their governments.

Renewed Scrutiny

But the White House has come under renewed scrutiny over ties between campaign officials and Russia.

Sessions, who said during his confirmation hearings that he hadn’t had contact with Russian officials, acknowledged last week that he met the Russian ambassador twice during the election year, in response to media reporting on the meetings. He later recused himself from any Justice Department investigation into the Trump presidential campaign and amended his prior Senate testimony.

Read more: A Q&A on the twists in the Trump-Russia saga

Last month, former national security adviser Mike Flynn resigned after it was revealed he misled senior administration officials, including Vice President Mike Pence, about the content of his conversations with Kislyak.

The White House has also said Kislyak met with Trump’s son-in-law and adviser, Jared Kushner.

Trump himself has dismissed allegations of improper ties with Russia as "a ruse."

"I have nothing to do with Russia. Haven’t made a phone call to Russia in years. Don’t speak to people from Russia," he said during a February press conference.


----------



## DOPA

Rand's healthcare bill :banderas.

Read through it and it is almost exactly what I hoped he'd put out. It is most excellent. Let's hope :trump realizes this as well (Y).

Fuck Ryancare.


----------



## DOPA

Sorry for the double post but seems worth it to share these videos:





 @Tater

The situation in Yemen is bad and if it continues we could see another Syria situation where a terrorist group such as Al Qaeda fills the vacuum left. And that's not even taking into account the civilian casualties. The US needs to stop arming the damn Saudi's.







The more I read and listen about it, the more I think how terrible this Ryancare bill really is. $100 Billion bailout package for the insurance companies and of course as mentioned about the penalties being reallocated to the insurance companies who already have too much power. I don't know whether it's unconstitutional what the bill will do in terms of the 30% going towards the insurance companies. Perhaps my good friend @DesolationRow could explain to me when he has time .


----------



## birthday_massacre

L-DOPA said:


> Rand's healthcare bill :banderas.
> 
> Read through it and it is almost exactly what I hoped he'd put out. It is most excellent. Let's hope :trump realizes this as well (Y).
> 
> Fuck Ryancare.


Not sure why the GOP is so hell bent on repealing the Medicaid expansion. It's not like most of the republican states even opted into it. It's just a FU to screw over the blue states.


----------



## FriedTofu

All this healthcare reform talk just signals to me Republicans still can't let go off bashing Obama to win points even after he is no longer the president. :lol


----------



## wagnergrad96

When will the nightmare be over? Every day is a new shit storm.

So Flynn was a lobbyist for a foreign government. Will Trump say he didn't know? Then why the hell not?? It's called VETTING. If he says he did know . . . then all hope is lost.

Now the guy in charge of the GOP platform admits that the section in Ukraine was changed at the behest of Trump. Putin's first Quid pro Quo. 

Manafort was really the catalyst for that - having received millions in under-the-table payments from Ukraine's pro-putin leader.


It's like a bad dream that so many people in this great nation were duped. #TrumpRegrets

P.S. My health care plan would probably triple in cost if #TrumpCare gets passed


----------



## Warlock

John Shimkus is either ignorant or self serving with his comment/question about about healthcare. 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...ohn-shimkus-prenatal-care-20170309-story.html

I think I know what Roger Marshall was trying to get at(similar to what has been discussed in here the last couple of days), but he fell way short of doing that properly. 

http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article137189318.html


----------



## FriedTofu

Sweenz said:


> John Shimkus is either ignorant or self serving with his comment/question about about healthcare.
> 
> http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...ohn-shimkus-prenatal-care-20170309-story.html
> 
> I think I know what Roger Marshall was trying to get at(similar to what has been discussed in here the last couple of days), but he fell way short of doing that properly.
> 
> http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article137189318.html


Shimkus wants ala carte insurance. Maybe some company out there will provide a list of things they can cover in different categories and allow him to choose a limit in each category to keep and which will not be covered like choosing the fillings of a sub. Covers heart diseases but tough luck if you get cancer?

Maybe there will be plan that will cover only the right hand instead of both hands. 

I think Marshall was trying to say the poor would rather spend money on what they have immediate needs for than to use the benefits on preventive healthcare which is way cheaper than when they have to use insurance for when serious stuff happens and can be a drag to the whole system.


----------



## glenwo2

This is all so amusing. The LEFT continue to do whatever it takes to discredit Trump's administration.

I am personally not a fan of Ryancare naturally(who is?) but the removal of the Tax penalty(for not having insurance) makes that very unattractive healthcare package just unattractive. Would rather have RandCare myself. Hope they tweak this to include many aspects of Randcare to make it more palatable to stomach....


----------



## wagnergrad96

The idea behind The Affordable Care Act (and insurance in general) is that the healthy buy insurance and don't use it that much. The sick buy at the same price but use it a lot. The healthy pay for the sick (and themselves)

By making the penalty for not buying lower than the cost of the actual plans, the healthy didn't buy!

When they don't buy but get sick, who pays? Everyone else.

So, if you are not going to go to a single payer system (like the rest of the civilized world) then raise the damn penalty! 

Then just about everyone will buy and the cost can go down for all.


----------



## Warlock

FriedTofu said:


> Shimkus wants ala carte insurance. Maybe some company out there will provide a list of things they can cover in different categories and allow him to choose a limit in each category to keep and which will not be covered like choosing the fillings of a sub. Covers heart diseases but tough luck if you get cancer?
> 
> Maybe there will be plan that will cover only the right hand instead of both hands.


ala carte for insurance will never work. The reason insurance works is cause people pay for a larger set of different coverages for various things and never needing the majority of them, but for the items you do actually need, other people who paid for that coverage you just used but they themselves never used help pay for your coverage. 

Ala carte means exactly what you said. Picking and choosing what you want to have covered and what you are willing to take a risk on what will never happen to you. People will flock to the every day needs(allergies, regular checkups, etc) and avoid the less likely options of coverage that have higher costs(major accidents, Heart transplants, maybe cancer, etc). But without the group pay for those coverage's, the cost of ala-carte for those items would shoot through the roof. 

Ala-carte would also mean the insurance wouldn't be able to provide coverage for pre-existing conditions.. otherwise people would ala-carte the coverage they need only when they actually need it, then drop it immediately after they were done needing it. Insurance companies can't have someone paying hundreds into insurance and those companies pay out thousands in coverage on the short term like that. 



> I think Marshall was trying to say the poor would rather spend money on what they have immediate needs for than to use the benefits on preventive healthcare which is way cheaper than when they have to use insurance for when serious stuff happens and can be a drag to the whole system.


I think he's saying there are people who would rather not HAVE to pay for insurance if they don't want it. Be it confidence they won't need it, spiritual reason to not wanting to use modern medicine, money, or any other reason. We shouldn't be forcing people into the system. That is not limited to the poor. 

I think his poor comment was about those who can get covered, but would never be able to hit the deductible anyway, so they were out even more than they would have been had they not been covered in the first place. Or maybe they can't even pay the "affordable" coverage, and now they are in an even bigger bind cause they are now being penalized for not having the money to buy coverage.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> I love how you keep pretending I have not given you evidence of business ties of Russia and Trump and the people close to him. It's not speculation they have business ties its a fact.
> 
> 
> But you want more evidence.
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...dda4e2f2aec_story.html?utm_term=.fb93d8ccfcf1
> 
> *Most notably, Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr. made that very claim at a real estate conference in New York in 2008, saying “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets.” Donald Trump Jr. added, “we see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.”*
> *
> Most notably, Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr. made that very claim at a real estate conference in New York in 2008, saying “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets.” Donald Trump Jr. added, “we see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.”*
> 
> 
> 
> *Q: What about Trump’s advisers?
> 
> A: They too have financial ties in Russia. His campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, managed an investment fund for a Russian aluminum magnate with close ties to Putin. (The oligarch is suing Manafort, claiming, according to litigation in the Cayman Islands, that Manafort disappeared with $19 million.)
> 
> Manafort also unsuccessfully attempted a multimillion-dollar real estate project in New York City with funds from a Ukranian energy tycoon. And he worked as an adviser to the Putin-backed Ukranian president whose 2014 ouster sparked Russian intervention in that country, which has been opposed by U.S. officials in both parties.
> 
> Trump also considered retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn as his vice-presidential running mate. Flynn has argued that the United States needs stronger ties to Russia to fight Islamist terrorism. In 2015 , Flynn attended a dinner honoring the Kremlin-aligned English language media company RT, where he sat near Putin.
> 
> Another Trump foreign policy adviser, Carter Page, once ran the Moscow office of Merrill Lynch and advised the state-run conglomerate Gazprom. He has spoken publicly about the possibility that a Trump presidency could result in the lifting of Ukraine-related sanctions on Russia that would help the business interests of some of his Russian contacts.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> So stop pretending there is not evidence Trump and his close allies dont have business ties to Russia.
> 
> You just keep proving how uninformed you are.
> 
> You have to go out of your way to not see these connections.



Question, is it illegal to have Russian assets? Does that portend that something against the law HAS happened?

Manafort was "fired" after it was found that he could be compromised.

Is it against the law to believe that the US should have stronger ties with Russia to fight ISIS?

Is lifting sanctions against the law?

I'm interested in what has happened, not what could happen. Just because something could happen doesn't mean it will. I could win a million dollars, that doesn't mean it will or has happened. I'm all for being suspect of the Trump administration. I'm all for watching them with eagle eyes, but saying something could happen doesn't mean it has or it will.


----------



## Reaper

BM really has never understood just how much a subtle difference can make all the difference. For the longest time he didn't even know that hate speech isn't a crime, so I'm pretty sure he has no clue that having russian ties, business relationships or correspondence in and of itself isn't illegal. There are dozens of Russian businesses that operate in America and the same happens the other way. Of course, businesspeople in America will have links with Russians. It's perfectly legal :lmao 

Remember, this is the same guy that spent 20 odd posts in a back and forth with me once over hate speech versus hate crime not knowing the difference between the two - so this particular differentiation just might be too much for him to understand.


----------



## Warlock

wagnergrad96 said:


> The idea behind The Affordable Care Act (and insurance in general) is that the healthy buy insurance and don't use it that much. The sick buy at the same price but use it a lot. The healthy pay for the sick (and themselves)
> 
> By making the penalty for not buying lower than the cost of the actual plans, the healthy didn't buy!
> 
> *When they don't buy but get sick, who pays? Everyone else.*
> 
> So, if you are not going to go to a single payer system (like the rest of the civilized world) then raise the damn penalty!
> 
> Then just about everyone will buy and the cost can go down for all.


Those without insurance but paying the penalty are not covered and would be out of pocket for those costs. At least that was my understanding.


----------



## Reaper

Sweenz said:


> Those without insurance but paying the penalty are not covered and would be out of pocket for those costs. At least that was my understanding.


And you'd be right. I was uninsured for two years and I paid about 4 grand for my hospitalization out of pocket. I did get a sweet discount though :shrug 

Unfortunately as I've noticed from the majority of posters from the rest of the civilized world, they like to make up shit and pretend that they know what they're talking about.


----------



## wagnergrad96

Sweenz said:


> Those without insurance but paying the penalty are not covered and would be out of pocket for those costs. At least that was my understanding.


Really? So if they go to the emergency room and the bill is $10,000, the hospital is just going to wait forever to NOT get paid?

No! The insurance rates rise because the hospitals start charging more to the insurance companies to cover their losses.


----------



## wagnergrad96

RipNTear said:


> And you'd be right. I was uninsured for two years and I paid about 4 grand for my hospitalization out of pocket. I did get a sweet discount though :shrug
> 
> Unfortunately as I've noticed from the majority of posters from the rest of the civilized world, they like to make up shit and pretend that they know what they're talking about.




Why do you think it was 4k (and that's after your "sweet" discount).?


----------



## Reaper

wagnergrad96 said:


> Why do you think it was 4k (and that's after your "sweet" discount).?


Not that it's relevant, but it's a combination of the government lobbying, misuse of doctor privilege (over-testing instead of relying on quick diagnosis), over-charging by the doctor (the doctor alone took $2grand) and just how the market has evolved as a result of not being a laissez faire system. 

It was also my mistake for going to a hospital instead of an urgent care clinic which would have cost me $60 instead. 

On the flip, what I'm pretty sure you're not aware as since you're part of the rest of the civilized western world is that taking the Canadian model of healthcare assuming that a person is healthy all their lives and work for 20 years, they've paid in about 80-100k at least for services they never even received. 

So I'm still better off having paid that 4k in one year. Most people in their lifetimes (something like 80%) do not need to spend about 100k in medical at all while in single-payer systems you've got people wasting doctors' time and taxpayer money for shit like the sniffles. 

So what we need is a competitive environment for hospitals and doctors - or just accept that some things are just gonna cost you more and work towards it and having savings accounts, or buying your own insurance.


----------



## Warlock

wagnergrad96 said:


> Really? So if they go to the emergency room and the bill is $10,000, the hospital is just going to wait forever to NOT get paid?
> 
> No! The insurance rates rise because the hospitals start charging more to the insurance companies to cover their losses.


Well, that does happen. Many patients have outstanding bills with their hospitals. They usually bring them in and figure out a payment plan that will work. Sometimes those costs never get paid, the the hospital eats those costs, and partially what causes the increase in hospital costs. They are not specifically charging insurance companies more, they are charging everyone more, regardless of coverage. 

Your solution means that if I decide not to pay for insurance and opt to pay out of pocket for any would be costs(til they are paid off), I still should have to pay the full rate of health coverage(or at least more than the penalty is now) on top of that to keep the other medical costs from creeping up that I had no part in causing?


----------



## wagnergrad96

RipNTear said:


> On the flip, what I'm pretty sure you're not aware as since you're part of the rest of the civilized western world is that taking the Canadian model of healthcare assuming that a person is healthy all their lives and work for 20 years, they've paid in about 80-100k at least for services they never even received.


Yeah, it's called chipping in. We are all in this life together. 

Some people pay social security taxes all their life and die before seeing a penny. Some live to be 110 and get more than they gave. Oh well. 

How many of those healthy people you mention will end up with a debilitating end of life health issue? I would say most.

BTW - I used to be a complete market libertarian until I realized the selfishness of it.


----------



## wagnergrad96

Sweenz said:


> Your solution means that if I decide not to pay for insurance and opt to pay out of pocket for any would be costs(til they are paid off), I still should have to pay the full rate of health coverage(or at least more than the penalty is now) on top of that to keep the other medical costs from creeping up that I had no part in causing?


1) If you could afford to pay out of pocket like it's a mere bag of shells, you would have bought insurance anyway.

2) Yes. We're all in this life together my friend.


p.s. I prefer a single payer system, but the current affordable care act (with some fixes) is 1000% better than republican "die quickly" plans


----------



## Reaper

wagnergrad96 said:


> Yeah, it's called chipping in. We are all in this life together.


Then I hope on your next paycheck, you'll start paying for my medical bill. I'll send you my paypal. I also need about $1000 bucks for my immigration papers. 



> Some people pay social security taxes all their life and die before seeing a penny. Some live to be 110 and get more than they gave. Oh well.


Some people steal ferraris and get to drive around in them. Others don't steal ferraris. Oh well. Also, how come there isn't any such thing as single-payer foodcare system? There is, but it's called charity instead of government theft. 



> How many of those healthy people you mention will end up with a debilitating end of life health issue? I would say most.


No they don't. Vast majority of people at the end of their retirements need about 150-200k. If you work hard and pay lower taxes, and manage your money well, you can save that much pretty easily. I'll have a portfolio of about 10k just next year (but I still want YOU to pay for my medical bill and start a gofundme for my immigration payment as well!) and will keep adding to it monthly. We're financial planners that are already preparing for our retirement. My wife's working towards a degree that'll get her a better job, I'm working on the savings and portfolio. She has a 401k. I have a business that'll be profitable soon. 



> BTW - I used to be a complete market libertarian until I realized the selfishness of it.


Doesn't sound like it. Maybe you missed the most important aspects of it like actually understanding how the free market is the best system and that government regulation of any kind destroys it.

Looks like Bernie and his cronies that can't do math worth shit got to you.


----------



## wagnergrad96

RipNTear said:


> Then I hope on your next paycheck, you'll start paying for my medical bill. I'll send you my paypal. I also need about $1000 bucks for my immigration papers. -- Thankfully, there are 300 million other people to split the bill with me
> 
> 
> Some people steal ferraris and get to drive around in them. Others don't steal ferraris. Oh well. -- Oh . . .so you are comparing citizens in need of health care to criminals . . . hmm
> 
> 
> 
> No they don't. Vast majority of people at the end of their retirements need about 150-200k. If you work hard and pay lower taxes, and manage your money well, you can save that much pretty easily. I'll have a portfolio of about 10k just next year (but I still want YOU to pay for my medical bill and start a gofundme for my immigration payment as well!) and will keep adding to it monthly. We're financial planners that are already preparing for our retirement. My wife's working towards a degree that'll get her a better job, I'm working on the savings and portfolio. She has a 401k. I have a business that'll be profitable soon. . . Good for you my friend. Not everyone is as wise and lucky as you. We should just say "fuck them?"
> 
> .


 Yup. I am a recovering libertarian. My POTUS voting record: 1992 (I was 18) - Andre Marrou (lib)
1996 - Perot
2000 - Harry Browne (lib)
2004 - Badnarik (lib)
2008 - Barack Obama!
2012 - Barack Obama
2016 - Gary Johnson (lib) (for the non-intervention foreign policy and pro-immigration stance


----------



## glenwo2

wagnergrad96 said:


> The idea behind The Affordable Care Act (and insurance in general) is that the healthy buy insurance and don't use it that much. The sick buy at the same price but use it a lot. The healthy pay for the sick (and themselves)
> 
> By making the penalty for not buying lower than the cost of the actual plans, the healthy didn't buy!
> 
> When they don't buy but get sick, who pays? Everyone else.
> 
> *So, if you are not going to go to a single payer system (like the rest of the civilized world) then raise the damn penalty!
> *
> Then just about everyone will buy and the cost can go down for all.




How about we keep "the damn penalty" away from anything and everything instead? 

It was only 'till Obamacare where this BLACKMAIL/EXTORTION tactic reared its fugly head. Before, it was up to the American Citizen whether he/she wants to buy insurance or not. Now, Trump and his team have made sure this is true once again. 

I vehemently am against anything that would pressure us to buy insurance. Fuck that shit!


----------



## birthday_massacre

RipNTear said:


> BM really has never understood just how much a subtle difference can make all the difference. For the longest time he didn't even know that hate speech isn't a crime, so I'm pretty sure he has no clue that having russian ties, business relationships or correspondence in and of itself isn't illegal. There are dozens of Russian businesses that operate in America and the same happens the other way. Of course, businesspeople in America will have links with Russians. It's perfectly legal :lmao
> 
> Remember, this is the same guy that spent 20 odd posts in a back and forth with me once over hate speech versus hate crime not knowing the difference between the two - so this particular differentiation just might be too much for him to understand.



Where did I ever say it was illegal? I said he and his associates has business ties to Russia and Trump supporters were denying it but of course I showed tons of evidence and now you pretend oh well its not illegal. LOL GTFO.

What I have been saying is if Trumps Russian ties get him to lift sanctions on Russia or gets him to do favors that will get him impeached because its a conflict

I love how you are trying to move the bar now. But that is what you always do and its why you are a fraud


----------



## Reaper

@wagnergrad96



> Thankfully, there are 300 million other people to split the bill with me


Splitting bills assumes that the splitting of the bill doesn't impact anything else and that the current prices and current costs remains the same while wages continue to increase and wealth continues to be created. Whereas social welfare hybrids by and large show the opposite. 

Splitting the bill depresses the economy through over-taxation and that directly impacts wages which directly impacts affordability which does nothing to address the costs growing every year. The bubble that pays for the services is the only bubble that is impacted in this scenario because pooling resources together does not give the capitalist any reason to reduce his costs or his prices, nor does it give any competitor an option entering what is now a cost-prohibitive industry. 

Simple enough scenario for you:

You are a group of 5 friends and you decide to go on a vacation which costs $8,000. Here's the breakdown of how much each of you can afford:

Friend A: $5000
Friend B: $2000
Friend C: $1000
Friend D: $700
Friend E: $300

All of you pooled the resources because you are really friendly with each other and love each other and don't care if the poorest guy is literally mooching off of everyone else. 

Now we're in year 2. You still want to take the same vacation, however, due to inflation the cost of the same trip is now $9000. Since you all paid for it last year, the capitalist had no incentive to charge the same or lower. Because now he's banking on you guys pooling your resources together. So now you all scrape together the $9000 this year somehow (this time the poorest guy couldn't pay anything at all because his wife got pregnant earlier and now he has no money, so the richest person is not paying $6000). 

Now you're in year 3. Since you all managed to pay $9000 last year, this time the capitalist decides that you can afford to pay $10,000. Now you're in a situation where you no longer have ability to pay even when you all pool in your resources because the overall economy has shrunk, everyone is still making the same amount of money. The poorest guy again can't pay. Now you guys decide that you'll just have to let him go since he's not paying anyway. The richest guy is upset because he no longer wants to pay anymore and the middle guys simply can't get anything at all. 

So now what do you do? You want the rich guy to pay more than he wants, so you bully and guilt him. You call him all sorts of bad things. Then you find a group of thugs that'll put him in a cage if he doesn't fork up the $7000 you feel like he should owe. 

Pooling in money has now resulted in a situation where you guys may not even have a lasting friendship. 

Oops. 

Too bad for Bernieeconomics here. They just created a situation where the poorest guy didn't get anything at all. Same thing.



> Oh . . .so you are comparing citizens in need of health care to criminals . . . hmm


Those who feel _entitled _to free healthcare just like criminals are entitled to free cars are not better than criminals. Sorry. You can't use that sort of guilt-tripping to change my mind about the criminality of something simply because you've arbitrarily decided that one thing is criminal and the other isn't. 



> Good for you my friend. Not everyone is as wise and lucky as you. We should just say "fuck them?"


Another BULLSHIT liberal tactic of making someone feel bad about their hardwork because the only way someone can have more money than some other schmuck is because they got "lucky" :eyeroll


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Question, is it illegal to have Russian assets? Does that portend that something against the law HAS happened?
> 
> Manafort was "fired" after it was found that he could be compromised.
> 
> Is it against the law to believe that the US should have stronger ties with Russia to fight ISIS?
> 
> Is lifting sanctions against the law?
> 
> I'm interested in what has happened, not what could happen. Just because something could happen doesn't mean it will. I could win a million dollars, that doesn't mean it will or has happened. I'm all for being suspect of the Trump administration. I'm all for watching them with eagle eyes, but saying something could happen doesn't mean it has or it will.


I never said it was illegal. I said Trump and Co have business ties to Russia and you denied that. I proved you wrong over and over . First you were claiming I was trying to claim those ties let to the Russians rigging the election which I never made, and you kept claiming that even when I made it clear I never said that.

Now you are trying to claim oh I was saying those business ties are illegal which I never said. 

So nice try, just admit you were wrong.


----------



## wagnergrad96

glenwo2 said:


> How about we keep "the damn penalty" away from anything and everything instead?
> 
> It was only 'till Obamacare where this BLACKMAIL/EXTORTION tactic reared its fugly head. Before, it was up to the American Citizen whether he/she wants to buy insurance or not. Now, Trump and his team have made sure this is true once again.
> 
> I vehemently am against anything that would pressure us to buy insurance. Fuck that shit!



Ok, so don't buy car insurance. Let me know how that goes when you get in an accident.

You do realize that the reason cost for health care kept rising like a flood is because of opinions like yours, right?

It was great to not have insurance, until you broke your leg . . . or got cancer . . . or had a heart attack.

It's really not a complicated idea. Simple logic works. Just take your time . . . 

It's not extortion or blackmail. It's everyone looking out for everyone. We don't live in a vacuum.


----------



## wagnergrad96

RipNTear said:


> The poorest guy again can't pay. Now you guys decide that you'll just have to let him go since he's not paying anyway. The richest guy is upset because he no longer wants to pay anymore and the middle guys simply can't get anything at all.
> 
> So now what do you do? You want the rich guy to pay more than he wants, so you bully and guilt him. You call him all sorts of bad things. Then you find a group of thugs that'll put him in a cage if he doesn't fork up the $7000 you feel like he should owe.
> 
> Pooling in money has now resulted in a situation where you guys may not even have a lasting friendship.
> .



The rich guy should stop bitching and be thankful for the great life he can live. If he was a friend, he would happily help his friends.


That rich guy should be thankful that he only pays social security tax on his first $125,000 of income. The other friends pay it on every dime they make (since they likely make less than 125K). The rich guy gets that nuisance out of the way early.

Never good enough for ya eh? Gotta find something to whine about.


----------



## Reaper

wagnergrad96 said:


> The rich guy should stop bitching and be thankful for the great life he can live. If he was a friend, he would happily help his friends.
> 
> 
> That rich guy should be thankful that he only pays social security tax on his first $125,000 of income. The other friends pay it on every dime they make (since they likely make less than 125K). The rich guy gets that nuisance out of the way early.
> 
> Never good enough for ya eh? Gotta find something to whine about.


And this is why I hope that in my lifetime America never becomes a socialist state because not only do you people refuse to learn or understand maths and economics, but also hate success. You just want the fruit of someone else's labor. To me, that is no better than being a criminal. Instead of hiring your own thugs, you just want the government to steal from others for you.


wagnergrad96 said:


> Ok, so don't buy car insurance. Let me know how that goes when you get in an accident.
> 
> You do realize that the reason cost for health care kept rising like a flood is because of opinions like yours, right?
> 
> It was great to not have insurance, until you broke your leg . . . or got cancer . . . or had a heart attack.
> 
> It's really not a complicated idea. Simple logic works. Just take your time . . .
> 
> It's not extortion or blackmail. It's everyone looking out for everyone. We don't live in a vacuum.


I LITERALLY just gave you the simplest layman understanding of how costs are driven up in a single-payer "split the bill" system and you still are talking about how people's unwillingness to contribute more money is the reason why costs are going up. Costs go up because in a system like this there is no incentive for the capitalist to reduce costs not because people aren't paying him what he wants :lmao 

I don't even know why I bothered taking you seriously.


----------



## birthday_massacre

RipNTear said:


> And this is why I hope that in my lifetime America never becomes a socialist state because not only do you people refuse to learn or understand maths and economics, but also hate success. You just want the fruit of someone else's labor. To me, that is no better than being a criminal. Instead of hiring your own thugs, you just want the government to steal from others for you.


Trickle down economics does not work either. Hope you are not for that.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> Trickle down economics does not work either. Hope you are not for that.


I don't want to debate you on this because at this point you sincerely believe that trickle down economics is actually even a thing when there have been countless studies showing that it was never a thing. It was a strawman.


----------



## birthday_massacre

RipNTear said:


> I don't want to debate you on this because at this point you sincerely believe that trickle down economics is actually even a thing when there have been countless studies showing that it was never a thing. It was a strawman.


LOL OK BUDDY whatever


----------



## wagnergrad96

RipNTear said:


> And this is why I hope that in my lifetime America never becomes a socialist state because not only do you people refuse to learn or understand maths and economics, but also hate success.
> 
> I LITERALLY just gave you the simplest layman understanding of how costs are driven up in a single-payer "split the bill" system and you still are talking about how people's unwillingness to contribute more money is the reason why costs are going up. Costs go up because in a system like this there is no incentive for the capitalist to reduce costs not because people aren't paying him what he wants :lmao
> 
> I don't even know why I bothered taking you seriously.


You seem to not know the definition of socialism - " . . . Socialism is a social and economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production . . . "

We don't have anything like that and never will.

What you lack is simple care and concern for others. It's called empathy and a desire to share in the happiness of life. I'm sorry you are devoid of that. . . . but hey . . . we're both wrestling fans . . so that's one thing in common . .


Funny that you should compare me to a criminal . . . :grin2:


----------



## Reaper

wagnergrad96 said:


> You seem to not know the definition of socialism - " . . . Socialism is a social and economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production . . . "


I was using it coloqually, but that's a fair point. What we're talking about is actually social welfare, and I find that to be nearly as bad. 



> We don't have anything like that and never will.


Fair enough. 



> What you lack is simple care and concern for others. It's called empathy and a desire to share in the happiness of life. I'm sorry you are devoid of that. . . . but hey . . . we're both wrestling fans . . so that's one thing in common . .


Nope. I have far more empathy than half the people on this site. I pay for the living, schooling and apprenticeship expenses of three children. I bought a barber's chair for my driver's son who eventually turned it into a full business for himself. I bought another driver's son a Laptop and now he's working on becoming a programmer. I bought a poor singer boy a musical keyboard and a guitar and paid for his music lessons. I bought another one of my drivers a motor-cycle which he still owns. And finally, I gave away all of my old TV's and clothes to all my servants instead of reselling them. I used to run a text messaging service where I built a database of 100,000 people who would be willing to donate blood and did it in my spare time - so whenever there was a bomb attack, I would send out as many texts as I could and spread the word that such and such hospital needed blood. 

My dad bought a property for another one of his servants and my mom runs a local charity where she feeds, clothes and provides medical care for thousands of people out of pocket. So yeah, claiming that I lack empathy is ridiculous at this point. Don't virtue signal at me. I've lived a long, happy, successful and philanthropic life. :shrug 

No government or taxes required. I was able to do that because I have largely lived a tax-burden-free life before I moved to the States so my social responsibility was ENTIRELY voluntary. Taxation isn't voluntary. Charity is. What you'll also notice is that the trend of my philanthropy has meant that I've given away money to people who've been able to use it for longer sustenance instead of just blowing it away on living expenses. The money went into self-improvement and careers, and not just spending. It's called an investment. 



> Funny that you should compare me to a criminal . . . :grin2:


You left me with no choice. First you claimed an entitlement to your friends' money and then claimed that he's no real friend because he doesn't want to part with his money. It really does make you sound like the criminal.


----------



## Warlock

wagnergrad96 said:


> 1) If you could afford to pay out of pocket like it's a mere bag of shells, you would have bought insurance anyway.
> 
> 2) Yes. We're all in this life together my friend.
> 
> 
> p.s. I prefer a single payer system, but the current affordable care act (with some fixes) is 1000% better than republican "die quickly" plans


1) Don't only consider the exaggerated ideas. I'm not only talking about being able to fork out 10's of thousands of dollars. Example - After not needing insurance and paying for it for three years, I opted to drop insurance one year specifically to try and have more of my paycheck available to me(a whopping $100 a month). I ended up having issues that year and paid out more than I would have had I kept the insurance(~$3000 in costs). That was the risk I took and it ended up not paying off. But either way, if that is the risk I want to take, I should be able to take it. And had it worked, I would have pocketed an extra 1200 that year(this was before insurance mandate). I shouldn't be penalized (more) for doing so, especially if I'm still fully paying the costs of my bills. Your solution would mean I would have been out 3700+ for the same costs medical care. 

2) We are in this life together. But there are still limits. I can't just move into your home or take part of your stuff by saying "hey we are in this together" If I want something from you, I expect to give you something in return. Same goes for insurance. If I'm paying for something, I want to see potential benefit out of it. Paying into insurance means that the pool of money they collect can be accessed to help pay any bills I incur. Should I not pay into that, I don't have access to that pool of money. That's how all insurance works. Penalizing me further (by taxing me) for not having access to that pool of money gives me no return for that value. You are making me pay into a pool and not giving me a way to pull out of it. Taxing me with no intention of giving me benefit from it will always create a negative reaction.


----------



## birthday_massacre

OH Look , he just happens to get all of these after he was president but could never get before 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/03/09/china-approves-trump-trademarks/98953422/

SHANGHAI (AP) — China on Thursday defended its handling of 38 trademarks it recently approved provisionally for President Trump, saying it followed the law in processing the applications at a pace that some experts view as unusually quick.

Democrats in Congress were critical of Trump after the Associated Press reported Wednesday that the potentially valuable trademarks had been granted, raising questions of conflict of interest and political favoritism. One senator said the issue "merits investigation."

Trump has sometimes struggled to win trademarks from China; he secured one recently after a 10-year fight that turned his way only after he declared his candidacy for the presidency.

China's foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said in a regular briefing with reporters that Chinese authorities handle all trademark applications "in accordance with the law and regulation." He declined to comment on speculation about political influence on Trump's trademark approvals.

Critics fear foreign governments might gain leverage from Trump's global portfolio of brands.

Democrats in Congress have been pushing Trump to sever financial ties with his global businesses to avoid potential violations of the emoluments clause of the U.S. Constitution, which bars federal officials from accepting anything of value from foreign governments unless approved by Congress.

The monopoly right to a successful brand in a market like China can be worth huge sums. Former top ethics lawyers from the administrations of Barack Obama and George W. Bush say any special treatment from Beijing in awarding Trump intellectual property protection would violate the Constitution.

Concerns about political influence are particularly sharp in China, where the courts and bureaucracy are designed to reflect the will of the ruling Communist Party, and foreign companies and the lawyers that work for them regularly ask embassy staff for help lobbying Chinese officials.

A pedestrian walks past a real estate advertisement
A pedestrian walks past a real estate advertisement featuring a cartoon figure resembling President Trump in Shenyang in northeastern China's Liaoning province on Feb. 22, 2017. (Photo: AP)
Spring Chang, a founding partner at Chang Tsi & Partners, a Beijing law firm that has represented the Trump Organization, declined to comment specifically on Trump's trademarks. But she did say government relations are an important part of trademark strategy in China. She said she has worked with officials from both the U.S. and Canadian embassies to help her clients. The key, she said, is "you should communicate closely with the government to push your case."

Drawing on public records from the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce, the AP compiled a detailed list of 49 trademarks Trump's lawyers applied for in 2016, even as he railed against China on the campaign trail. On Feb. 22, seven of those marks were rejected , though public records do not indicate why. China granted preliminary approval for 38 marks on Feb. 27 and Mar. 6. Four applications are pending.

Matthew Dresden, a China intellectual property attorney at Harris Bricken in Seattle, said the rejections suggested that the trademark office hadn't done Trump any special favors. "Some did not go through, that suggests it's just business as usual," he said.

Dan Plane, a director at Simone IP Services, a Hong Kong intellectual property consultancy, said it would be difficult to draw firm conclusions without in-depth research. However, he said the efficiency of China's trademark office in handling Trump's caseload suggested favor for a man whose decisions could have a powerful impact on China.

"For this many marks to all sail through to preliminary approval this quickly, with nary an issue in sight — that is unheard of to me, and I have been doing this for 16 years," he said. "I wish my clients' applications would be dealt with half as expeditiously and graciously."

If no one objects, the new marks will be officially registered after 90 days, bringing the number of Trump's trademarks in China to 115. Nearly all are in the president's own name; a few are registered to a Delaware company called DTTM Operations LLC.

The new marks could lay the groundwork for an expanded range of branded businesses, including financial, insurance and real estate services, golf clubs, educational institutions, restaurants and bars. A number of the trademarks granted, including those for "social escort" and "body guard" services, appeared to relate specifically to hotels. Other international hotel companies whose documents were reviewed by AP sought similar trademarks.

It's unclear whether any of these Trump-brand businesses will materialize in China. Many companies here register trademarks just to prevent others from using their name inappropriately. Trump has also said he will refrain from new foreign deals while in office.

Trump began to file trademark applications in China in late 2005, an effort that accelerated in 2008 as Trump's lawyers fought for control of Chinese variations of his name, public records show. Years of ambition in China, however, have yet to yield a single marquee development. And despite all the recent activity, Trump still doesn't have a firm hold on his brand in China. More than 225 Trump-related marks are held or sought by others in China, for an array of things including Trump toilets, condoms, pacemakers and even a "Trump International Hotel."

Trump Organization chief legal officer Alan Garten said the latest registrations were a continuation of efforts that long predate Trump's presidential run. "Any suggestion to the contrary demonstrates a complete disregard of the facts as well as a lack of understanding of international trademark law," he said in an email.

But a growing number of Democrats disagree.

After AP reported Wednesday about the sweep of new approvals, Senators Debbie Stabenow and Ben Cardin called a press conference to lambaste President Trump for his growing Chinese entanglements. Also citing AP's report, Senator Richard Blumenthal said on the Senate floor that Trump's intellectual property in China "merits investigation."

"This president's conflicts of interest are creeping into every corner of the world," he said in an email to the AP. "The consequence is that he has done nothing to counter Chinese currency manipulation, trade rules violations, military buildup, and other aggressive Chinese actions. Standing up for a great America means putting our nation before personal profit."

Democrats have also written to Trump and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson urging scrutiny of Trump's intellectual property interests in China.

"It's time for Republicans in Congress to join our efforts to hold President Trump accountable," Senator Dianne Feinstein said in a statement Wednesday. "The Constitution demands it and the American people deserve it."


----------



## birthday_massacre

https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-file...general-sessions-false-statements-made-during

CLU FILES ETHICS COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEY GENERAL SESSIONS FOR FALSE STATEMENTS MADE DURING CONFIRMATION HEARING

March 9, 2017
WASHINGTON — The American Civil Liberties Union today filed a complaint with the Alabama State Bar against Attorney General Jeff Sessions, asking it to investigate a potential rules violation after Sessions made false statements during sworn testimony at his confirmation hearing for attorney general.

“False testimony made under oath is one of the most serious ethical offenses a lawyer can make and one any state bar should investigate vigorously,” said ACLU National Political Director Faiz Shakir. “Alabamians and Americans from all walks of life should be assured that the organizations responsible for regulating lawyers in their state takes ethical violations seriously — no matter how powerful that lawyer may be.”

“Few events are more corrosive to a democracy than having the Attorney General make false statements under oath about a matter the Justice Department is investigating,” said Christopher Anders, deputy director of the ACLU's legislative office. “Jeff Sessions told a falsehood to the Senate, and did nothing to correct his statement until he was exposed by the press more than a month later. No attorney, whether just starting out as a new lawyer or serving as the country’s top law enforcement officer, should lie under oath. The Alabama bar must investigate this wrong fully and fairly.”

Alabama State Bar rules state that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to “engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.” Sessions has been a member of the bar since 1973.

In his confirmation hearing, then-Senator Sessions was asked about any contact he had with members of the Russian government and responded at the time that he “did not have any communications with the Russians.” It has since come to light that Sessions met with Russia’s ambassador to the United States on at least several occasions.

The complaint is available here: https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/sessions-ethics-complaint


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Had one of my best friends on the planet recommend a handful of stocks to me last year and ever since January they've blown up. Just wanted to take this post to thank my friend and Trump. Loving my stock portfolio at the moment.

:vince$


----------



## Miss Sally

"Chip in" Lmao, people only use this shit when it's trying to get others to pay for something they want. If this is the case there is a whole lot more you can pay for after all, it's only fair.

"We're in this together" No we're not, I don't know you and you don't know me. I don't expect you to pay for my stuff nor will I pay for yours. My family and friends matter to me, people who I don't know I have empathy for but that doesn't mean giving up more of my money when I know there are people who outright abuse it and won't work hard for their own shit. Besides at what point does it stop? To only citizens? Everyone within the US? The world? 

Be careful how you use words and these phrases because unless you're willing to pay for it yourself don't include me.


----------



## Reaper

ShowStopper said:


> Had one of my best friends on the planet recommend a handful of stocks to me last year and ever since January they've blown up. Just wanted to take this post to thank my friend and Trump. Loving my stock portfolio at the moment.
> 
> :vince$


Yeah. I made some money on the stock market too, but not too much. I did double what I spent on selling Trump hats though :trump3. 

I've set aside some money for Disney. I'll probably keep putting like a grand in there every 2 years and hopefully by the time my kid is old enough for college it should pay for it all. With its park expansions, marvel and Star Wars success, this is by far the safest investment in the world right now imo.


----------



## deepelemblues

RipNTear said:


> Yeah. I made some money on the stock market too, but not too much. I did double what I spent on selling Trump hats though :trump3.
> 
> I've set aside some money for Disney. I'll probably keep putting like a grand in there every 2 years and hopefully by the time my kid is old enough for college it should pay for it all. With its park expansions, marvel and Star Wars success, this is by far the safest investment in the world right now imo.


Disney = genius for buying Star Wars and Marvel (the cinematic part, not the comics part which is in technical terms a fucking mess). Without them Disney would be heading up that certain creek without a paddle the way ESPN is hemorrhaging subscribers. ESPN was a YUUUUUUUUGE proportion of their revenue before they bought Star Wars and Marvel and is still a not inconsiderable proportion of it. Star Wars alone is a billion+ in 'guaranteed' gross revenue every year.


----------



## Reaper

deepelemblues said:


> Disney = genius for buying Star Wars and Marvel. Without them Disney would be heading up that certain creek without a paddle the way ESPN is hemorrhaging subscribers. ESPN was a YUUUUUUUUGE proportion of their revenue before they bought Star Wars and Marvel and is still a not inconsiderable proportion of it.


TBF, Disney has always been safe, especially since Pixar anyways. I read this case of a guy who bought something like a $1000 worth of stock for each of his daughters and in 15 years, it grew enough to be able to pay for all of their colleges. 

ESPN went way overboard with the SJW stuff and I find that to be a common complaint. It could be exaggerated, but as long as Disney itself doesn't mix politics with its movies, it should remain successful for a long time.



Miss Sally said:


> "Chip in" Lmao, people only use this shit when it's trying to get others to pay for something they want. If this is the case there is a whole lot more you can pay for after all, it's only fair.
> 
> "We're in this together" No we're not, I don't know you and you don't know me. I don't expect you to pay for my stuff nor will I pay for yours. My family and friends matter to me, people who I don't know I have empathy for but that doesn't mean giving up more of my money when I know there are people who outright abuse it and won't work hard for their own shit. Besides at what point does it stop? To only citizens? Everyone within the US? The world?
> 
> Be careful how you use words and these phrases because unless you're willing to pay for it yourself don't include me.


I really blame schools and schooling. I was raised in a family where saving was taught as a value, so I actually hyperventilate and have panic attacks if I don't have money saved at the end of the month, or my bank balance starts going under $5k. Then I get motivated and find ways to eek out as much money as I can in order to stay above that range. Others do that when they hit 0 or negative. Seriously, that's where the real difference lies now where a lot of people have been raised to live well above their means. I don't. If I can't afford it, I don't buy it. I also make sure our monthly expenses stay at least a couple of hundred below our earning capacity. It helps that my wife has left managing the house finances all to me so I make the budgets freely. We never go over. 

I'm currently in the process of convincing my wife to open up a Disney DSPP account, so it's basically just giving up on a cable/phone bill and paying into a future plan. We'll eventually also do something similar with Walmart and maybe McDonald's (which despite the negativity around it right now looks like is getting its act in gear for some great future profitability). If you're making money, there's no point in spending all of it. You have to invest some of it. We decided to do this instead of getting a new car which we put off for a couple of years.


----------



## birthday_massacre

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/...?utm_source=vicefbusads&utm_campaign=interest

Nearly Everyone Agrees the New Healthcare Bill Is Garbage

The bipartisan consensus is in: No one, except maybe Donald Trump, wants to endorse the American Health Care Act.

A long, long time ago—like eight or nine years—Democrats had a rare opportunity that comes along once a generation in politics: They could do something. After winning the House, the Senate, and the White House, the party set out reforming the American healthcare system, which was notoriously complicated, inefficient, and cruel. After months of heated debate and compromise between liberals who wanted government-provided health insurance and moderates who wanted something less drastic, the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare, became law.

ADVERTISEMENT
The ACA expanded Medicaid to a larger number of people and incentivized those too wealthy to qualify for Medicaid to purchase insurance by way of a set of penalties and subsidies. It failed to satisfy left-wing members of Congress like Bernie Sanders, who wanted "Medicaid for all"; Republicans uniformly opposed it from the beginning; it pissed off enough voters that Democrats immediately lost control of the House; it narrowly avoided being dismantled by the Supreme Court; the website it created was a clusterfuck; some of its state insurance marketplaces have been struggling; experts still debate its economic impact. It was an enormously complicated piece of legislation, in other words, that fell short in many respects—and yet it did succeed in giving millions of people health insurance, mostly through Medicaid.

With Donald Trump and the Republicans sweeping the 2016 elections, they have a similar chance to do something big, namely turn their long-held promise of repealing and replacing the ACA into concrete action. The most significant move of the repeal effort came Monday, when House Republicans, led by Speaker Paul Ryan, released a bill that officially outlined an ACA replacement. Like the ACA, the new bill—called the American Health Care Act, or AHCA—is an attempt at doing a whole lot of things at once. It gets rid of most of the ACA's unpopular features, halts the Medicaid expansion (after 2019), and lets insurers charge old people more than they currently can, among other things. It also appears to be an attempt to craft something that can pass the Senate through "reconciliation," a process that requires 50 votes rather than 60 and is intended to be used for measures relating to revenue.

It has the support of some Republican leaders, including President Donald Trump, but everyone else seems to hate it with a passion. Here's an incomplete guide to the who and why:

Democrats

Obviously, everyone on the left opposes a bill that strips away benefits and protections from people. The ACA was uniformly denounced by Republicans, so Democrats have been doing the same thing to its proposed replacement. Even those who criticized the ACA as being insufficiently socialist don't want to see it struck down.


Planned Parenthood

The ACHA would also defund Planned Parenthood for a year, so naturally the women's healthcare organization is against it.

Conservative Think Tanks

But the really bad sign for the bill is that conservatives have problems with the ACHA, too, albeit for opposite reasons than Democrats. The bill would keep the government involved in healthcare to an unacceptable extent, say groups like the Heritage Foundation and the Club for Growth. "Obamacare Lite" is the moniker that appears to be sticking to the ACHA. That's not a compliment.

The Koch Brothers

In that roster of conservative groups opposed to the ACHA are those backed by the anti-regulation, anti-tax Koch brothers, who have no problem throwing around the apocalyptic rhetoric of the Tea Party. From USA Today:

At a Capitol Hill rally Tuesday attended by about 200 Koch-aligned activists, Americans for Prosperity President Tim Phillips warned that Republicans "will have the shortest-lived majority in the modern era" [if] they don't toss the law on "the ash heap of history."

Conservative Intellectuals

Right-wing healthcare wonks hate the ACA for a host of reasons, but they appear to hate the AHCA almost as much:

"House Republican leaders sent a signal loud and clear: liberalism has already won," wrote Philip Klein, a conservative who has written extensively on healthcare for the Washington Examiner.
"If Republicans manage to pass this, they will richly deserve it when voters blame them for the resulting havoc it will wreak in the individual market," predicted Megan McArdle in Bloomberg.
"The GOP's real problem, in terms of passing legislation, isn't that the party can't agree on specifics, or that legislators need to bargain their way toward a compromise that gives everyone something they want," wrote Jacob Sullum in libertarian Reason. "It's that they don't agree on, or in some cases even have, basic goals when it comes to health policy."
Finally, a National Review editorial bent over backward to praise the bill, but concluded, "The bill is a disappointment. And it is not too late to get a second opinion."
Ann Coulter


Breitbart News

Two versions of the homepage of what is normally a very Trump-friendly media outlet:


Old People

Even before any bill was introduced to the public, AARP, the senior advocacy group with an enormous amount of political power, was gearing up to fight any Republican plan that would allow insurers to jack up rates on older people. The AHCA allows insurers to jack up rates on older people, so predictably AARP has come out against it. It even produced an ad against the "age tax" contained in the AHCA:


Senate Republicans

Meanwhile, several Republican senators have problems with the bill, too. Rand Paul and Mike Lee, both antigovernment conservatives, oppose it on the same grounds as the Freedom Caucus. Ted Cruz hasn't made up his mind about it. And Alaska senator Lisa Murkowski, a Republican moderate, has voiced concerns about any ACA replacement that doesn't leave the Medicaid expansion in place or that defunds Planned Parenthood.

At Least One Republican Governor

"Illinois won't do very well under the changes they're recommending" is how Illinois governor Bruce Rauner put his vague criticism of the ACHA. A lot of Republican governors in states that expanded Medicaid under the ACA (like Illinois did) have been nervous about a repeal that ends that expansion.

Hospitals

The American Hospital Association released a letter to congressional leaders Tuesday opposing the bill, presumably because fewer insured people means less revenue for hospitals.


Doctors

The American College of Physicians wrote a similar letter to Congress on Tuesday, highlighting a host of concerns about sweeping changes to Medicaid and coverage requirements. UPDATE: The American Medical Association, the country's largest doctors group, announced its own opposition on Wednesday. 

Conservative Republicans in the House

Adding insult to insult, even Ryan's fellow House Republicans aren't united around the bill. After a meeting Tuesday evening, the Freedom Caucus—a group of hardline conservatives in the House—was reportedly very unhappy with the ACHA, saying that the Speaker would need Democratic votes to get the bill through the House. That's not going to happen.

Paul Ryan?

The ACHA plan is so hated that there's speculation that somebody as allegedly clever as Ryan would never have introduced it seriously. At the bare minimum, wouldn't he have at least consulted with the conservative groups that are tearing into the bill? Or try to get the fickle Freedom Caucus in line? Is Ryan really that dumb? Yeah, he's dumb LIKE A FOX, according to one theory:

"Ryan couldn't possibly be this inept," wrote Scott Lemieux in the Week. He didn't get his allies on board for a simple reason: He doesn't actually want any major repeal plan to pass."

Soooooo, uh, the way this theory goes is that Ryan wants to be seen making a serious attempt to repeal the ACA, but the ACA is popular enough with voters—and potential replacements are so unpopular—that making changes to the healthcare system would wreck Republicans' electoral chances. Better to do nothing loudly, then, and make sure you're reelected.

If this is what the GOP's effort to do something big looks like, getting rid of the ACA is going to be even harder than it was to set up.

Follow Harry Cheadle on Twitter.


----------



## Miss Sally

RipNTear said:


> I really blame schools and schooling. I was raised in a family where saving was taught as a value, so I actually hyperventilate and have panic attacks if I don't have money saved at the end of the month, or my bank balance starts going under $5k. Then I get motivated and find ways to eek out as much money as I can in order to stay above that range. Others do that when they hit 0 or negative. Seriously, that's where the real difference lies now where a lot of people have been raised to live well above their means. I don't. If I can't afford it, I don't buy it. I also make sure our monthly expenses stay at least a couple of hundred below our earning capacity. It helps that my wife has left managing the house finances all to me so I make the budgets freely. We never go over.
> 
> I'm currently in the process of convincing my wife to open up a Disney DSPP account, so it's basically just giving up on a cable/phone bill and paying into a future plan. We'll eventually also do something similar with Walmart and maybe McDonald's (which despite the negativity around it right now looks like is getting its act in gear for some great future profitability). If you're making money, there's no point in spending all of it. You have to invest some of it. We decided to do this instead of getting a new car which we put off for a couple of years.


This is true, schools used to teach balancing checkbooks and finances. A lot I blame on the availability of so much credit. Credit isn't bad if you have a good job or have money but if you don't credit is a disaster. Most people end up not being able to pay back what they owe and it just bleeds people financially. The Disney stock is a good idea, I started my 401k a year ago, may adjust it to invest in Disney and a few other safe bets. 

I really need to learn more about stocks and money saving and investing. You're never to rich or poor to invest.


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> This is true, schools used to teach balancing checkbooks and finances. A lot I blame on the availability of so much credit. Credit isn't bad if you have a good job or have money but if you don't credit is a disaster. Most people end up not being able to pay back what they owe and it just bleeds people financially. The Disney stock is a good idea, I started my 401k a year ago, may adjust it to invest in Disney and a few other safe bets.
> 
> I really need to learn more about stocks and money saving and investing. You're never to rich or poor to invest.


I think that if people learnt how to manage their own money, there would never be social welfare at all because ultimately everyone would be responsible for taking care of themselves and actually know how to do it as well. By removing agency from yourself and handing it over to a government, you're essentially giving an outsider the ability to control your investment and assume that they're doing it fairly. 

I don't know much about stocks either, but as a test, I bought Disney stock at 99 and sold it at 110 netting me 100 on original 990 spent (not including fees) on Disney in about 2-3 months. That's literally free money considering I put in no actual effort. 

I'm just gonna learn by doing as I've done in most everything in my life.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> I never said it was illegal. I said Trump and Co have business ties to Russia and you denied that. I proved you wrong over and over . First you were claiming I was trying to claim those ties let to the Russians rigging the election which I never made, and you kept claiming that even when I made it clear I never said that.
> 
> Now you are trying to claim oh I was saying those business ties are illegal which I never said.
> 
> So nice try, just admit you were wrong.


Point out where I said they didn't have business ties. I only know of former members of the Trump administration that had business ties, but they were let go, or "quit".

The whole point of this is that you post things that claim that Trump and his administration are guilty of something and I asked you to cite what evidence exists. All you've shown is a relationship between some people in the Trump campaign, and people who no longer are, and some Russians, but that neither proves that anything illegal has happened or will happen. If you believe something has happened then cite what it is and prove it. If you don't then you're just basing your opinion on conflation, rumors, and confirmation bias. If you would admit that is all you really have to go off of I'd move on.

Here's another example, you post an article highlighting the fact that Trump has gained copyright in China and you conflate that to equaling that he got it simply because he's the President. You do this so we all can see how Trump is bad, but there's nothing in that article to suggest that he's done anything at all.

China's foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said in a regular briefing with reporters that *Chinese authorities handle all trademark applications "in accordance with the law and regulation." *

Matthew Dresden, a China intellectual property attorney at Harris Bricken in Seattle, said the rejections suggested that the trademark office hadn't done Trump any special favors. *"Some did not go through, that suggests it's just business as usual," he said*

Two people who say "nothing to see here", but you post it as "evidence" that something nefarious has happened. That isn't proof. Proof is providibeng evidence that he got those trademarks specifically because he's President and he made concessions with China in order to get them. Do you have proof of this? If you don't then it's just conflation, as usual.

Again, I say, if such flimsy evidence decided your fate you'd have a problem with it.


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Point out where I said they didn't have business ties. I only know of former members of the Trump administration that had business ties, but they were let go, or "quit".
> 
> The whole point of this is that you post things that claim that Trump and his administration are guilty of something and I asked you to cite what evidence exists. All you've shown is a relationship between some people in the Trump campaign, and people who no longer are, and some Russians, but that neither proves that anything illegal has happened or will happen. If you believe something has happened then cite what it is and prove it. If you don't then you're just basing your opinion on conflation, rumors, and confirmation bias. If you would admit that is all you really have to go off of I'd move on.
> 
> Here's another example, you post an article highlighting the fact that Trump has gained copyright in China and you conflate that to equaling that he got it simply because he's the President. You do this so we all can see how Trump is bad, but there's nothing in that article to suggest that he's done anything at all.
> 
> China's foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said in a regular briefing with reporters that *Chinese authorities handle all trademark applications "in accordance with the law and regulation." *
> 
> Matthew Dresden, a China intellectual property attorney at Harris Bricken in Seattle, said the rejections suggested that the trademark office hadn't done Trump any special favors. *"Some did not go through, that suggests it's just business as usual," he said*
> 
> Two people who say "nothing to see here", but you post it as "evidence" that something nefarious has happened. That isn't proof. Proof is providibeng evidence that he got those trademarks specifically because he's President and he made concessions with China in order to get them. Do you have proof of this? If you don't then it's just conflation, as usual.
> 
> Again, I say, if such flimsy evidence decided your fate you'd have a problem with it.


You kept asking for evidence of them having business ties. That was always my claim, and I kept saying it over and over. First you were lying and claiming oh I said they helped rig the election, now are you claiming this other bullshit because I showed you all the evidence of their business ties

and yes Trump got most of that patients because he is president. Don't be stupid and think that is not a huge reason. Keep ignoring facts. 

You really need to stop trolling dude.


----------



## CamillePunk

wagnergrad96 said:


> BTW - I used to be a complete market libertarian until I realized the selfishness of it.


MAY I INTEREST YOU IN SOME READING MATERIAL MY FRIEND










https://www.amazon.com/Virtue-Selfishness-Centennial-Ayn-Rand/dp/0451163931

:drose


----------



## CamillePunk

Two great articles by everyone's favorite social commentator, entrepreneur, comic strip artist, author, and persuasion expert Scott Adams: 

How Trump persuaded America to make immigration its biggest focus and why that could ultimately solve the problem of income equality: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/158192839741/income-inequality

How the US government could defeat ISIS by making use of the tools of persuasion: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/158211182101/could-cognitive-scientists-eliminate-isis


----------



## FriedTofu

Sweenz said:


> ala carte for insurance will never work. The reason insurance works is cause people pay for a larger set of different coverages for various things and never needing the majority of them, but for the items you do actually need, other people who paid for that coverage you just used but they themselves never used help pay for your coverage.
> 
> Ala carte means exactly what you said. Picking and choosing what you want to have covered and what you are willing to take a risk on what will never happen to you. People will flock to the every day needs(allergies, regular checkups, etc) and avoid the less likely options of coverage that have higher costs(major accidents, Heart transplants, maybe cancer, etc). But without the group pay for those coverage's, the cost of ala-carte for those items would shoot through the roof.
> 
> Ala-carte would also mean the insurance wouldn't be able to provide coverage for pre-existing conditions.. otherwise people would ala-carte the coverage they need only when they actually need it, then drop it immediately after they were done needing it. Insurance companies can't have someone paying hundreds into insurance and those companies pay out thousands in coverage on the short term like that.


Of course it wouldn't work. That's why he's being ridiculed for suggesting it. I've always thought of insurance as a safety net hoping to never use it which will be paid back to me with interest adjusting for inflation after a certain number of years if not used. Somehow it has turned into buying insurance to get a discount/subsidy for things.





> I think he's saying there are people who would rather not HAVE to pay for insurance if they don't want it. Be it confidence they won't need it, spiritual reason to not wanting to use modern medicine, money, or any other reason. We shouldn't be forcing people into the system. That is not limited to the poor.
> 
> I think his poor comment was about those who can get covered, but would never be able to hit the deductible anyway, so they were out even more than they would have been had they not been covered in the first place. Or maybe they can't even pay the "affordable" coverage, and now they are in an even bigger bind cause they are now being penalized for not having the money to buy coverage.


He wouldn't be using the poor as an example if he is limiting to people who would rather not pay for insurance. I think the main point is he believe the poor are irresponsible with their choices and shouldn't be forced into the system shared by those that are more responsible thus increasing the premiums for all as the poor would be getting free care from entitlements anyway. Ironic from the party of personal responsibility that hates entitlements.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

CamillePunk said:


> Two great articles by everyone's favorite social commentator, entrepreneur, comic strip artist, author, and persuasion expert Scott Adams:
> 
> How Trump persuaded America to make immigration its biggest focus and why that could ultimately solve the problem of income equality: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/158192839741/income-inequality
> 
> How the US government could defeat ISIS by making use of the tools of persuasion: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/158211182101/could-cognitive-scientists-eliminate-isis


Don't get me wrong, I love Scott Adams for Dilbert, but do you not think he's giving way too much credit to Trump for this "persuasion?" It's really the work of Robert Mercer and his empire, Cambridge Analytics, Breitbart, Infowars etc etc. Seems a little bit silly to give the puppets the praise more than the puppeteer, no?


----------



## Art Vandaley

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/840281694921973761
Lol Trump openly admitting that the very same figures from the very same places were "fake" when they delivered good news about Obama but are now real now that they are delivering news that he can claim as good about himself. 

What a joke.


----------



## Reaper

RavishingRickRules said:


> Don't get me wrong, I love Scott Adams for Dilbert, but do you not think he's giving way too much credit to Trump for this "persuasion?" It's really the work of Robert Mercer and his empire, Cambridge Analytics, Breitbart, Infowars etc etc. Seems a little bit silly to give the puppets the praise more than the puppeteer, no?


That would be a solid assertion if only Trump actually listened to those people outside of them simply telling him that he was needed in certain states. 

Those people were simply guides in directing Trump's message to the areas that needed/wanted to hear it the most in order to craft a victory. The message itself however was all Trump and the delivery was his own.

---

BTW, for people who think that conservatives lack empathy: 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/840371493779472384
In case people don't know, Becket is a conservative reporter at the Washington Examiner, which is largely consumed by conservatives.


----------



## Goku

filthy statists


:tripsscust


----------



## Miss Sally

RipNTear said:


> That would be a solid assertion if only Trump actually listened to those people outside of them simply telling him that he was needed in certain states.
> 
> Those people were simply guides in directing Trump's message to the areas that needed/wanted to hear it the most in order to craft a victory. The message itself however was all Trump and the delivery was his own.
> 
> ---
> 
> BTW, for people who think that conservatives lack empathy:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/840371493779472384
> In case people don't know, Becket is a conservative reporter at the Washington Examiner, which is largely consumed by conservatives.


It was largely Conservatives that donated to that Muslim guy who had his Limo smashed by Antifa. I'm sure the "Leftists" would have helped but they're all jobless and guys like Soros, Zuckerberg and Cook only donate money when it's destroying shit or if it's going to get them good PR.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

RipNTear said:


> That would be a solid assertion if only Trump actually listened to those people outside of them simply telling him that he was needed in certain states.
> 
> Those people were simply guides in directing Trump's message to the areas that needed/wanted to hear it the most in order to craft a victory. The message itself however was all Trump and the delivery was his own.


Im not convinced the message was all his tbh looking at how/what Cambridge Analytics do what they do. It's essentially mass data collection along with psy-ops propaganda. If we're talking who has the "power of persuasion" which was what I was questioning from CamillePunk's post then I'd put that firmly behind the organisation that runs the propaganda machine rather than the politician they're propping up. The delivery, fair point, but the mass persuasion techniques aren't his to claim, they were the same ones used in Brexit and will be the same ones used by Nigel Farage's new political party if it does come into fruition. Seems Trump and friends have their own version of Soros, one in control of a lot more potent resources.


----------



## virus21

RipNTear said:


> That would be a solid assertion if only Trump actually listened to those people outside of them simply telling him that he was needed in certain states.
> 
> Those people were simply guides in directing Trump's message to the areas that needed/wanted to hear it the most in order to craft a victory. The message itself however was all Trump and the delivery was his own.
> 
> ---
> 
> BTW, for people who think that conservatives lack empathy:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/840371493779472384
> In case people don't know, Becket is a conservative reporter at the Washington Examiner, which is largely consumed by conservatives.





> This holiday season is a time to examine who’s been naughty and who’s been nice, but I’m unhappy with my findings. The problem is this: We liberals are personally stingy.
> 
> Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.
> 
> Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.
> 
> Other research has reached similar conclusions. The “generosity index” from the Catalogue for Philanthropy typically finds that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so.
> 
> The upshot is that Democrats, who speak passionately about the hungry and homeless, personally fork over less money to charity than Republicans — the ones who try to cut health insurance for children.
> 
> “When I started doing research on charity,” Mr. Brooks wrote, “I expected to find that political liberals — who, I believed, genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did — would turn out to be the most privately charitable people. So when my early findings led me to the opposite conclusion, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error. I re-ran analyses. I got new data. Nothing worked. In the end, I had no option but to change my views.”
> 
> Something similar is true internationally. European countries seem to show more compassion than America in providing safety nets for the poor, and they give far more humanitarian foreign aid per capita than the United States does. But as individuals, Europeans are far less charitable than Americans.
> 
> Americans give sums to charity equivalent to 1.67 percent of G.N.P., according to a terrific new book, “Philanthrocapitalism,” by Matthew Bishop and Michael Green. The British are second, with 0.73 percent, while the stingiest people on the list are the French, at 0.14 percent.
> 
> Photo
> 
> Nicholas D. Kristof Credit Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
> (Looking away from politics, there’s evidence that one of the most generous groups in America is gays. Researchers believe that is because they are less likely to have rapacious heirs pushing to keep wealth in the family.)
> 
> When liberals see the data on giving, they tend to protest that conservatives look good only because they shower dollars on churches — that a fair amount of that money isn’t helping the poor, but simply constructing lavish spires.
> 
> It’s true that religion is the essential reason conservatives give more, and religious liberals are as generous as religious conservatives. Among the stingiest of the stingy are secular conservatives.
> 
> Opinion Today
> Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, The Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world.
> 
> 
> Enter your email address
> Sign Up
> 
> Receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services.
> 
> SEE SAMPLE PRIVACY POLICY
> According to Google’s figures, if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do. But Mr. Brooks says that if measuring by the percentage of income given, conservatives are more generous than liberals even to secular causes.
> 
> In any case, if conservative donations often end up building extravagant churches, liberal donations frequently sustain art museums, symphonies, schools and universities that cater to the well-off. (It’s great to support the arts and education, but they’re not the same as charity for the needy. And some research suggests that donations to education actually increase inequality because they go mostly to elite institutions attended by the wealthy.)
> 
> Conservatives also appear to be more generous than liberals in nonfinancial ways. People in red states are considerably more likely to volunteer for good causes, and conservatives give blood more often. If liberals and moderates gave blood as often as conservatives, Mr. Brooks said, the American blood supply would increase by 45 percent.
> 
> So, you’ve guessed it! This column is a transparent attempt this holiday season to shame liberals into being more charitable. Since I often scold Republicans for being callous in their policies toward the needy, it seems only fair to reproach Democrats for being cheap in their private donations. What I want for Christmas is a healthy competition between left and right to see who actually does more for the neediest.
> 
> Of course, given the economic pinch these days, charity isn’t on the top of anyone’s agenda. Yet the financial ability to contribute to charity, and the willingness to do so, are strikingly unrelated. Amazingly, the working poor, who have the least resources, somehow manage to be more generous as a percentage of income than the middle class.
> 
> So, even in tough times, there are ways to help. Come on liberals, redeem yourselves, and put your wallets where your hearts are.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html


----------



## Reaper

Miss Sally said:


> It was largely Conservatives that donated to that Muslim guy who had his Limo smashed by Antifa. I'm sure the "Leftists" would have helped but they're all jobless and guys like Soros, Zuckerberg and Cook only donate money when it's destroying shit or if it's going to get them good PR.


Oh and conservatives have raised over 65k for Basedstickman's legal defense fund as well.

This is despite the fact that liberal cocksucking Gofundme took down their page for Kyle Chapman literally minutes after it was put up - despite the fact that it was self-defense.


----------



## glenwo2

wagnergrad96 said:


> Ok, so don't buy car insurance. Let me know how that goes when you get in an accident.


Why are you being an ass about this? :shrug

I'm referring solely to Health Care. 

A person doesn't get sick every day he or she gets up in the morning.

But a person CAN have an automobile accident at ANY TIME when driving their vehicle each day. 

And I drive a car so of course I HAVE TO have AUTO insurance as it's illegal not to have it when you drive a car. 

My point is that I shouldn't have to be forced to buy HEALTH....HEALTH....*HEALTH* insurance if I don't want it. 




> You do realize that the reason cost for health care kept rising like a flood is because of opinions like yours, right?


My opinion is about as impactful on the "cost for health care" as yours is. Come on now.... :lmao :lmao :lmao




> It was great to not have insurance, until you broke your leg . . . or got cancer . . . or had a heart attack.


That's *MY* choice, though. If those things happened, and I didn't have insurance, that would be ON ME but it would've been *MY* choice that got me there as opposed to the government reaching into your wallet and forcing you to hand over your money like they were bandits(which they are) to buy something you don't want to buy. 



> It's really not a complicated idea. Simple logic works. Just take your time . . .


My god...The condescension here is putrid. fpalm




> It's not extortion or blackmail. It's everyone looking out for everyone. We don't live in a vacuum.


Yes it is extortion/blackmail. If a person doesn't want to pay for insurance, he/she SHOULDN'T HAVE TO. And thankfully, Trump made sure of that now....despite what a piece of garbage RYANCARE is(god help us)...


----------



## CamillePunk

RavishingRickRules said:


> Don't get me wrong, I love Scott Adams for Dilbert, but do you not think he's giving way too much credit to Trump for this "persuasion?" It's really the work of Robert Mercer and his empire, Cambridge Analytics, Breitbart, Infowars etc etc. Seems a little bit silly to give the puppets the praise more than the puppeteer, no?


Thinking Donald Trump is a puppet is just dead wrong. :lol Why the fuck would he become the puppet of anyone? He's got a billion dollar empire and an amazing life. He doesn't need any of this shit. I don't agree with all or perhaps even most of his ideas and policies (I agree with most of the major ones which is good enough, considering I find western civilization itself to be at risk here), but I don't doubt that he ran for president because he wants to fix the problems he's been talking about consistently for 30 years.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

CamillePunk said:


> Thinking Donald Trump is a puppet is just dead wrong. :lol Why the fuck would he become the puppet of anyone? He's got a billion dollar empire and an amazing life. He doesn't need any of this shit. I don't agree with all or perhaps even most of his ideas and policies (I agree with most of the major ones which is good enough, considering I find western civilization itself to be at risk here), but I don't doubt that he ran for president because he wants to fix the problems he's been talking about consistently for 30 years.


He doesn't need the advanced analytics he received from Cambridge Analytics? You 100% convinced on that one? You're aware that those are a HUGE factor in him getting elected right? Just as they were a huge factor in Brexit. Don't kid yourself on Donald's "persuasion mastery" he had one of the most potent propaganda machines in the world today on his side doing most of the heavy lifting there. I'm not sure that's even debatable at this point. Perhaps a little research into the people you're supporting and the people behind them may be in order?


----------



## CamillePunk

RavishingRickRules said:


> He doesn't need the advanced analytics he received from Cambridge Analytics? You 100% convinced on that one? You're aware that those are a HUGE factor in him getting elected right? Just as they were a huge factor in Brexit. Don't kid yourself on Donald's "persuasion mastery" he had one of the most potent propaganda machines in the world today on his side doing most of the heavy lifting there. I'm not sure that's even debatable at this point. Perhaps a little research into the people you're supporting and the people behind them may be in order?


How does making use of an analytics firm make him a puppet?  

In any case, his persuasion mastery is well documented and Adams blogged near-daily about it during the campaign. You should read up on it before dismissing him. This is clearly an area where you lack knowledge so speaking about it is ill-advised.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

CamillePunk said:


> How does making use of an analytics firm make him a puppet?
> 
> In any case, his persuasion mastery is well documented and Adams blogged near-daily about it during the campaign. You should read up on it before dismissing him. This is clearly an area where you lack knowledge so speaking about it is ill-advised.


I've read them. Scott Adams is dead wrong. Cambridge Analytica have been backing the Donald for a VERY long time now. Robert Mercer also pretty much funded Breitbart, has close ties with Infowars, Nigel Farage, Andrew Wigmore, is in control of the wealthiest hedge fund in the world (ie the wealth he manages makes the Donald look like a pauper - £55bn) Is the money man behind the Trump campaign, and Cambridge Analytica are one of the biggest factors in his success. You're aware I'm sure that they had an AI profiling US voters on Facebook? 220 Million people to be exact, and we're talking they can extract so much deail about your life that you'd probably be shocked. Are you on Facebook? If so you've been profiled and targeted already by them. But yeah, it's all Donald's "master persuasion." Sorry, not buying it. If the shoe doesn't fit.

Also, don't condescend me, you're not even a graduate. You're not remotely as well informed or educated as you think you are, come back with the big talk when you've lived a little and actually earned a significant living instead of being a little snot, deal?


----------



## CamillePunk

RavishingRickRules said:


> Also, don't condescend me, you're not even a graduate. You're not remotely as well informed or educated as you think you are, come back with the big talk when you've lived a little and actually earned a significant living instead of being a little snot, deal?


"YOU'RE NOT EVEN A GRADUATE" :lmao 

You are not a serious person. Your baseless asinine conspiracy theory is more refreshing than RUSSIAN HACKING or Trump being a secret Russian himself though, so there is that.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

CamillePunk said:


> "YOU'RE NOT EVEN A GRADUATE" :lmao
> 
> You are not a serious person. Your baseless asinine conspiracy theory is more refreshing than RUSSIAN HACKING or Trump being a secret Russian himself though, so there is that.


Its not a conspiracy theory, it's a fact. All you've done here is expose how little knowledge YOU have. Good job though, you manage to stand out as the least credible, least intelligent member of the political right wing clique. Do some research and stop buying into nonsense from a friggin comic book artist.


----------



## CamillePunk

RavishingRickRules said:


> Its not a conspiracy theory, it's a fact. All you've done here is expose how little knowledge YOU have. Good job though, you manage to stand out as the least credible, least intelligent member of the political right wing clique. Do some research and stop buying into nonsense from a friggin comic book artist.


Well I trusted the "friggin comic book artist" and wasn't too surprised when Trump won, or that he won bigly, whereas the rest of you were scrambling for answers for your shattered reality. :lol 

Also, CA was working for Ted Cruz until May, so the idea Trump was their puppet makes no sense. Unless you're saying in the middle of the campaign, after Trump SEVERELY DEFEATED CA's major client, Ted Cruz, that Trump completely sold out to the firm backing the guy he utterly demolished. :lol I'm sure he made great use of their abilities, as you would expect of an extremely competent and intelligent person like Trump, who makes great hiring and firing decisions (see his campaign managers). How this makes him a puppet, you have utterly failed to demonstrate. Saying the person funding CA has ties to right-wing news media organizations that you don't like doesn't cut it. 

Also, considering you just acted like a degree means something for credibility and intelligence, you probably shouldn't be judging others. :lol You have no more credibility than the engineers with PHDs who claim the Twin Towers was a demolition job.


----------



## Miss Sally

Trump persuaded me. 

Trump Tower taco bowls are the best. MAGA


----------



## FriedTofu

Saying Trump is a puppet to the Mercers is going too far. I think it was an alliance of convenience to prevent Hilary from winning and that's all it was. 

You guys are forgetting how Trump's general election campaign was imploding before the Mercers machine backed him up. Trump's messaging was simply more willing to go the extreme to win the voters that usually buy what Ted Cruz was selling. One was asking or a Muslim ban while the other was promising to carpet bomb a country so both were already outside the norm in terms of rhetoric early on in the campaign. Trump was simply willing to ignore conventions and norms to gain votes from the fringes and getting away with it because his supporters forgave him for stuff that they wouldn't if said by other politicians such as criticising a POW and flip-flopping on policy positions.

I'll at least give Trump credit for identifying the anger of the Republican base can be the ticket to victory without the need for analytics. Ted Cruz was still second with the backing of the Mercers even though he is despised by almost anyone that worked with him. Trump simply was more persuasive with a similar message because he wasn't a 'politician' and is more of an outsider than Cruz.


----------



## CamillePunk

Trump's campaign was never imploding. Mainstream media narratives are not descriptive of reality. The media was publishing articles about how the Trump campaign had "imploded" all the way up until election day. They were dead wrong. Don't repeat narratives that were proven false as if they were true to retroactively support whatever new theory has been concocted to explain Trump's victory. He had the better message and more importantly the vastly better persuasion skills. He survived a ton of negative events where just one of them would have sunk any other candidate. That can't be explained through some great white horse analytical firm that never helped Ted Cruz stand a chance against Trump and/or Russian hacking.


----------



## DOPA

birthday_massacre said:


> Not sure why the GOP is so hell bent on repealing the Medicaid expansion. It's not like most of the republican states even opted into it. It's just a FU to screw over the blue states.


You are correct, it is interesting to note though that 4 GOP senators have come out and said that they will not sign off any Obamacare replacement unless it keeps intact the medicaid expansion: http://thehill.com/policy/healthcar...ver-repeal-bill-that-would-eliminate-medicaid



> Four GOP senators on Monday told Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) they will vote against any ObamaCare repeal bill that eliminates the healthcare law's Medicaid expansion.
> 
> Sens. Rob Portman (Ohio,) Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.), Cory Gardner (Colo.) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), all from expansion states, said they want to ensure those covered won't be left in the cold.
> 
> "We believe Medicaid needs to be reformed, but reform should not come at the cost of disruption in access to health care for our country’s most vulnerable and sickest individuals," the senators said in a letter to McConnell.
> 
> "Any changes made to how Medicaid is financed through the state and federal governments should be coupled with significant new flexibility so they can efficiently and effectively manage their Medicaid programs to best meet their own needs."
> 
> The senators said a "gradual transition" is needed to ensure states have the time to implement changes.
> 
> They noted that a Feb. 10 draft of the repeal bill "does not meet the test of stability" for people currently enrolled in the program.
> 
> "We will not support a plan that does not include stability for Medicaid expansion populations or flexibility for states," the letter reads.
> 
> Some of the Senate's most conservative members, however, have argued the expansion must be repealed because it is too costly.
> 
> How to deal with Medicaid is a major obstacle for Republicans as they look to repeal ObamaCare.
> 
> GOP senators want to repeal the healthcare law through reconciliation, a procedure that only needs 50 votes to pass. Republicans have a 52-seat majority in the Senate, meaning they can only afford to lose two votes from their party.
> 
> The Feb. 10 draft would eliminate ObamaCare's Medicaid expansion in 2020. States could still cover those people, but would not get the extra federal funding to do so.
> 
> The draft would also cap Medicaid payments to states based on the number of enrollees.
> 
> Leadership is expected to unveil its repeal plan sometime this week.


Now I completely understand this is only 4 states out of so many, but it does show that this isn't a completely black and white situation. You are right to say that probably many red states would not favour the expansion but it isn't across the board. I'd have to see if I can find a breakdown. It would not surprise me if most of the GOP states were against expansion but I'd like to bet a good amount are.

As far as medicaid is concerned, the medicaid system from what I understand and I'm certainly not an expert, is broken and needs gigantic reform if it is going to last. I'd personally would like a market orientated healthcare system and I'd like to see people be weened off of medicaid through market reforms to make health insurance cheaper and more competitive. A big part of that is the individual voluntary associations which would create a legitimate market place to push prices down and have the consumers more in control over their healthcare and strip back the power of insurance companies. This would in effect create consumer lobbying and I think would meet the demands for example for insurance for pre-existing conditions at an affordable rate. In the long term, the individual mandate isn't going to work and I'm not convinced about subsidies either. I'm sure we will disagree on that but that's how I feel the best way to go about this is.

Back to medicaid, there are gigantic problems as I have stated: http://dailysignal.com/2011/04/07/new-york-times-highlights-medicaid’s-problems/



> Recently in The New York Times, Robert Pear highlighted the major problems with the Medicaid program. His findings reveal that having a Medicaid card in one’s wallet is of little use if it doesn’t give beneficiaries access to the care they need.
> 
> A woman with several herniated discs and pain in her neck and arms told Pear that her Medicaid card is “a useless piece of plastic. I can’t find an orthopedic surgeon or a pain management doctor who will accept Medicaid.”
> 
> Pear interviewed doctors and Medicaid enrollees in Louisiana and reported that access problems are systemic due to low provider payment rates. In fact, *Obamacare makes this problem worse by preventing states from reducing program eligibility. This leaves states with the options of either cutting provider payments or slashing benefits. Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber is proposing a 19 percent across-the-board cut for Medicaid providers. These cuts represent a top-down attempt to control Medicaid costs that will only worsen the program and harm its enrollees.*
> 
> Ignoring Medicaid’s problems, Obamacare expands the program to cover over 20 million additional individuals. *Pear reports that Louisiana officials expect to enroll an additional 467,000 people in Medicaid, and the state estimates that 40 percent of individuals added to Medicaid’s rolls will use it as a replacement for private insurance. This “crowd out” effect on private insurance already exists: Dr. Kim Hardey, an obstetrician-gynecologist in Lafayette, said that many of his patients have jobs with private insurance but switch to Medicaid when they become pregnant to avoid premiums, deductibles, and co-payments.*
> 
> Medicaid’s existing shortcomings may lead some to conclude that we need to spend more money on the program.* However, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services estimates that the U.S. spent $427.3 billion on Medicaid in 2010, a six-fold increase from 1990 ($73.7 billion). Medicaid is increasingly crowding out spending on other state priorities, such as education and transportation.*
> 
> The fundamental problem that drives increases in Medicaid spending is the open-ended federal reimbursement of state Medicaid spending. *The reimbursement rate is at least 50 percent, and it increases as state per-capita income decreases. Being able to pass at least half of the costs for the state program to federal taxpayers has led states to expand Medicaid beyond what is affordable. Over the past decade, this has led to three Medicaid bailouts, which only delayed the inevitable day of reckoning for irresponsible and unsustainable Medicaid growth.*
> 
> Thus, we arrive at the great Medicaid paradox: out of control spending coupled with limited access and low quality of care for beneficiaries. President Obama’s solution was to expand Medicaid and temporarily increase the federal government’s share of Medicaid spending.
> 
> Real reform should consist of four pillars that move the program in the opposite direction:
> 
> * First, Congress should replace the open-ended federal reimbursement with fixed payments to the states to discourage unsustainable spending growth.
> * Second, it should allow states the flexibility to tailor their programs to their individual populations and engage in experimentation and learning.
> * Third, children, their mothers, and pregnant women should be transitioned out of traditional Medicaid and into a program of premium support that offers greater choice.
> * Finally, eligibility for the program should be limited to individuals that each state determines are in need of taxpayer assistance.
> By following this path, Congress could put Medicaid on a sustainable path while also improving quality of care for those it already serves.


I have highlighted what I think are the most important points are. The fact is is that medicaid won't be fixed by simply spending more money, the funding has increased exponentially for decades. It comes to a point where you have to ask, when is enough enough? Medicaid is already being expanded beyond what is affordable and the US has a massive debt problem. 2015 figures show that the social programs are $90 Trillion in debt and that is now probably above 100 Trillion as of today. A simple medicaid expansion won't fix the problem because the beneficiaries are lower than what they should be considering how much is being poured into medicaid (to my understanding). That isn't a problem with funding, that's a problem with the program itself. It is being continually funded without addressing these issues, then you are essentially putting public healthcare in more debt and the more likely it becomes that the entire system will have a major problem on it's hands if it is not addressed. Both Democrats and Republicans ignore these facts.

Here are more problems with government ran healthcare i.e medicaid: https://www.cagw.org/media/wastewatcher/more-problems-medicaid-expansion



> Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), better known as Obamacare, the eligibility for Medicaid program was expanded to nearly all Americans under the age of 65 that are effectively at or below 138 percent of the federal poverty level (approximately $32,913 for a family of four.) Prior to Obamacare, Medicaid eligibility was for these mandatory classes: children, pregnant women, very-low income parents, seniors, the blind, and the disabled. Eligibility for these six classes varies by income. (States do have some flexibility in designing and expanding the program.)
> 
> States can now voluntary decide to expand their Medicaid program; 25 states and the District of Columbia have done so to date. The federal government will pay 100 percent of the cost of expansion until 2016, then decrease that percentage until it reaches the permanent level of 90 percent in 2020.
> 
> CAGW’s prior concerns about Medicaid expansion include Medicaid Expansion: A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing and Disturbing News on Medicaid in Oregon. Medicaid is the gift that keeps on giving when it comes to demonstrating how badly government-controlled healthcare, including Obamacare, operates.
> 
> A December 9, 2013 USA Today article describes how the federal exchange,* HealthCare.gov, was incorrectly signing up people for Medicaid even though they were not eligible for the program. Once in Medicaid, they became ineligible for premium subsidies that would have otherwise been available to them to purchase private insurance through an Obamacare exchange. The only way they could get un-enrolled from Medicaid was to file an appeal with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Because of the time constraints, it is highly unlikely that most of those people were able to get un-enrolled from Medicaid and enrolled in a private plan by the December 23 deadline in order to be covered on January 1. And HHS had not revealed how many people are still trying to get the problem corrected in time for the March 31 open-enrollment deadline.*
> 
> USA Today explained, “When consumers applying for insurance put their income information into subsidy calculators on HealthCare.gov, the exchange handling insurance sales for 36 states, it tells them how much financial assistance they qualify for or that they are eligible for Medicaid. If it's the latter, consumers aren't able to obtain subsidies toward the insurance, although they could buy full-priced plans.”
> 
> According to insurance brokers who were interviewed for the article, their clients are in *“insurance limbo as they wait for the error to be corrected by HHS or their states so they can reapply.”
> *
> 
> Being stuck in Obamacare purgatory is not pleasant; it’s downright aggravating and stressful. The article cites the following story:
> 
> Jacob Hawkins of Plano, Texas, makes about $50,000 a year as a self-employed pool builder, yet his family of three was deemed eligible for Medicaid. His wife, Holly, is due to have their second child in February and is worried she won't have insurance in time. She filed an appeal of the Medicaid determination, but doubts it will be approved before the Dec. 23 deadline. I'm frustrated, mad and there's no one to help, says Hawkins.
> 
> It is well-known that the backend of the HealthCare.gov website has not been functioning correctly since its October 1 rollout. *In fact, 40 percent of the website wasn’t built on “opening day.” The website often sends incorrect enrollment and financial information to insurance companies and the states; four-and-a-half months later, HHS has not solved the problem. The Medicaid quirk appears to be its own special issue and there are no good numbers on how many have fallen into the quandary but it’s big enough to be a problem.*
> 
> National Association of Health Underwriters (NAHU) Senior Vice President of Government Affairs Jessica Waltman told CAGW that HHS is very much aware of the Medicaid enrollment problem. She told USA Today, *"I have heard on multiple occasions from brokers in various states over the past eight weeks that they have had wacky Medicaid determinations with people who clearly make way too much money for Medicaid.”
> *
> 
> Certified insurance agents and brokers are the experts when it comes to dealing with insurance policies, types of available coverage, and regulations and have met the necessary privacy requirements. They would like to help with enrollment in Obamacare and prevent mistakes before they occur, but technical barriers and HHS rules, such as the consumer must be in the presence of the agent to enroll, are cumbersome at best. The NAHU wrote a letter to President Obama that offered many suggestions on how to improve the entire process. For now, however, the only way to fix the Medicaid enrollment problem is to try to work through the broken bureaucracy appeals process.
> 
> As of February 4, the only figure available on the appeal process is that 22,000 requests have been submitted by snail mail for all enrollment problems, with none solved. Furthermore, no computer and phone systems have been designed or launched to address the faulty enrollments. Instead, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is reaching out to people that had experienced errors during the sign-up process.
> 
> If this isn’t absurd enough, *Obamacare is splitting up families, forcing them to utilize both private insurance and Medicaid. According to a January 27, 2014 Associated Press (AP) article, “families shopping for health insurance through the new federal marketplace are running into trouble getting everyone covered when children are eligible for Medicaid but their parents are not. Children who qualify for Medicaid, the safety-net program for the poor and disabled, can’t be included on subsidized family plans purchased through the federal marketplace, a fact that is taking many parents by surprise and leaving some kids stuck without coverage.”*
> 
> The AP story goes on to describe how in New Hampshire some parents enrolled themselves into a private plan because they were told their children were eligible for Medicaid, which can be free to them. They later found out the children were not eligible for the program and now the children cannot be included in the family plan, leaving them un-insured. Maria Proulx of Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Hampshire said, “The children are getting stuck in this spot where we’ve enrolled the parent, but we can’t bring the children back on the family plan.”
> 
> Another example is a California father who was assured by officials in Covered California, the state’s exchange, that his children could be included in the private plan he picked for his wife and himself. Later, he got notices from both Covered California and Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program, and discovered his children were on Medicaid while he and his wife are in private subsidized insurance. When he contacted Covered California, he was told that the previous information given to him was wrong and the children had to be enrolled in Medicaid. Unfortunately, the physicians his children have seen from birth do not take Medicaid. He is now spending lots of time on the phone and dealing with the website to see if he can enroll everyone in an unsubsidized plan through Covered California.
> 
> Another issue popping up, as reported in the January 23 Washington Post, *is that people are trying to avoid Medicaid altogether, even though they may qualify for the program. They want nothing to do with it because they fear their estates could be seized by their state.*
> 
> The article cited a 1993 law mandating that states try to recover money from people’s estates that had utilized the program’s long-term care coverage. They also allowed states to go after the estates of people over the age of 55 that used Medicaid for routine healthcare.
> 
> When the law was passed, having health insurance was voluntary. *Now, as people apply for health insurance through HealthCare.gov, they may find they qualify for the expanded Medicaid option. If so, they are not eligible to purchase private insurance with a tax subsidy through the exchange. As a result, they are concerned about assets they have and could lose. *The Post described a 54 year-old woman and former lawyer from New York who is currently unemployed but looking for a job. While Medicaid would provide her free insurance coverage in the meantime, she will not sign up because she owns an $850,000 apartment she hopes to give to a family member upon her death. She says, “I don’t want my assets to be raided after my death. The idea that someone can come after my house after I die…I just can’t do it.”
> 
> *The Post reported that many states take different approaches to estate recovery, particularly with poor people whose only asset may be the family farm. Oregon, which had targeted estates between July 2011 and June 2013 and recovered $41 million from about 8,900 people, changed their estate recovery rule last year. Now estate recovery will only apply to those individuals who are using Medicaid for long-term care as opposed to health insurance.*
> 
> CMS officials say they realize there is a problem and plan to issue guidance soon to the states regarding asset recovery for people who utilize Medicaid expansion only for health insurance.
> 
> While many proponents of Medicaid say there is nothing to worry about and a state will not seize the assets of people who enroll in the program, there is a lack of trust. Too many people remember the promise, “If you like your health plan, you can keep it. Period.”
> 
> But wait, there’s more! The Washington Post’s blog “Fact Checker” declared that the Medicaid enrollment number of 3.2 million being touted in news reports “tells you almost nothing about how the Affordable Care Act is affecting Medicaid enrollment. Reporters need to stop using it.”
> 
> There have been a lot of statistics about Obamacare enrollment issued by Organizing for Action, the president’s former campaign organization turned advocacy group, claiming “6 million Americans have gotten covered.” The Post blog stated the 6 million number comes from combining the 2.1 million of people who have selected a private healthcare plan through an exchange and the 3.9 million from a CMS report on the number of people who have been found to be eligible for Medicaid. But looking more closely at the CMS figure, one sees that the qualifier is “total individuals determined eligible for Medicaid and CHIP by state agencies (includes those newly eligible under the Affordable Care Act and those eligible under prior law.)”
> 
> While the Post goes into some detail about teasing out numbers and gives credit to Sean Trende at Real Clear Politics, who had earlier called out CMS on the figures, the bottom line is that no one knows at this time how many people who had previously been uninsured joined Medicaid due to its expansion under the Affordable Care Act. People sign up for Medicaid all the time, and new enrollees could be people who were always eligible for Medicaid but never bothered to utilize it until after all the Affordable Care Act hoopla. Furthermore, it will not be known until after March 31 how many people have taken advantage of Medicaid expansion. That is when the states will begin to send their enrollment information to CMS because they want their 100 percent reimbursement. This amount would only be given to cover the individuals in the expanded portion of Medicaid.
> 
> The Post ended up giving Three Pinocchios to everyone who used the 3.9 million number incorrectly and without due diligence.
> 
> Eventually, all the Obamacare enrollment numbers will be sorted out. For example, the January 17, 2014 Wall Street Journal cited a survey that only “11 percent of consumers who bought new coverage under the law were previously uninsured.” If the percentage holds, that’s a pretty low return on investment considering the billions of dollars the nation has spent and the frightful churn Obamacare has caused to one-sixth of our economy in what will end up being a futile and wasteful effort to get the nation’s uninsured covered.


This article highlights some of the problems with medicaid expansion under Obamacare, under Ryancare, I have no doubt that at least some of these issues would happen. Largely I am against medicaid expansion because simply pouring in more money isn't going to fix the long term problems with medicaid and because medicaid is already severely in debt. I can't claim to know what the answers are to fixing the problems but this is just like the problems facing the NHS and I know exactly what isn't the answer which is relying on federal funds through printing or borrowing money to finance medicaid expansions for the states. Not whilst the necessary reform to the social program is still looming. You don't solve one problem with the program by simply increasing funding, in fact you create more long term problems for the future.

The way I look at it is this: if states want to expand medicaid they need to show they can do it themselves, either through cutting other parts of the budget to fund it or by raising taxes. The problem is of course as shown in the first article, is states are already cutting funds to meet the expansion of medicaid in their states. And that's with the increase in funding due to Obamacare. That alone should tell you it's more than just a funding issue.

I just don't think with a $20 Trillion national debt and a $90 Trillion debt in social programs that the states should be funded for their medicaid expansions through more borrowing and printing money at the federal level. It's time to be more fiscally responsible and I think the best way for medicaid to be able to be reformed is to have the market reforms in place so that more people can afford health insurance and ween themselves off of medicaid. Ryancare does nothing to achieve this. I think Rand's bill would do the trick.

I could probably write more on this but I need to go soon :lol.


----------



## Reaper

L-DOPA said:


> I just don't think with a $20 Trillion national debt and a $90 Trillion debt in social programs that the states should be funded for their medicaid expansions through more borrowing and printing money at the federal level. It's time to be more fiscally responsible and I think the best way for medicaid to be able to be reformed is to have the market reforms in place so that more people can afford health insurance and ween themselves off of medicaid. Ryancare does nothing to achieve this. I think Rand's bill would do the trick.
> 
> I could probably write more on this but I need to go soon :lol.


The most powerful economy in the world can get away with printing as much money as it can without hyperinflation. I think that economists have been predicting the imminent "crash" and "nuclear fallout" from printing money for more than a century now and it hasn't happened.


----------



## glenwo2

L-DOPA said:


> You are correct, it is interesting to note though that 4 GOP senators have come out and said that they will not sign off any Obamacare replacement unless it keeps intact the medicaid expansion: http://thehill.com/policy/healthcar...ver-repeal-bill-that-would-eliminate-medicaid
> 
> 
> 
> Now I completely understand this is only 4 states out of so many, but it does show that this isn't a completely black and white situation. You are right to say that probably many red states would not favour the expansion but it isn't across the board. I'd have to see if I can find a breakdown. It would not surprise me if most of the GOP states were against expansion but I'd like to bet a good amount are.
> 
> As far as medicaid is concerned, the medicaid system from what I understand and I'm certainly not an expert, is broken and needs gigantic reform if it is going to last. I'd personally would like a market orientated healthcare system and I'd like to see people be weened off of medicaid through market reforms to make health insurance cheaper and more competitive. A big part of that is the individual voluntary associations which would create a legitimate market place to push prices down and have the consumers more in control over their healthcare and strip back the power of insurance companies. This would in effect create consumer lobbying and I think would meet the demands for example for insurance for pre-existing conditions at an affordable rate. In the long term, the individual mandate isn't going to work and I'm not convinced about subsidies either. I'm sure we will disagree on that but that's how I feel the best way to go about this is.
> 
> Back to medicaid, there are gigantic problems as I have stated: http://dailysignal.com/2011/04/07/new-york-times-highlights-medicaid’s-problems/
> 
> 
> 
> I have highlighted what I think are the most important points are. The fact is is that medicaid won't be fixed by simply spending more money, the funding has increased exponentially for decades. It comes to a point where you have to ask, when is enough enough? Medicaid is already being expanded beyond what is affordable and the US has a massive debt problem. 2015 figures show that the social programs are $90 Trillion in debt and that is now probably above 100 Trillion as of today. A simple medicaid expansion won't fix the problem because the beneficiaries are lower than what they should be considering how much is being poured into medicaid (to my understanding). That isn't a problem with funding, that's a problem with the program itself. It is being continually funded without addressing these issues, then you are essentially putting public healthcare in more debt and the more likely it becomes that the entire system will have a major problem on it's hands if it is not addressed. Both Democrats and Republicans ignore these facts.
> 
> Here are more problems with government ran healthcare i.e medicaid: https://www.cagw.org/media/wastewatcher/more-problems-medicaid-expansion
> 
> 
> 
> This article highlights some of the problems with medicaid expansion under Obamacare, under Ryancare, I have no doubt that at least some of these issues would happen. Largely I am against medicaid expansion because simply pouring in more money isn't going to fix the long term problems with medicaid and because medicaid is already severely in debt. I can't claim to know what the answers are to fixing the problems but this is just like the problems facing the NHS and I know exactly what isn't the answer which is relying on federal funds through printing or borrowing money to finance medicaid expansions for the states. Not whilst the necessary reform to the social program is still looming. You don't solve one problem with the program by simply increasing funding, in fact you create more long term problems for the future.
> 
> The way I look at it is this: if states want to expand medicaid they need to show they can do it themselves, either through cutting other parts of the budget to fund it or by raising taxes. The problem is of course as shown in the first article, is states are already cutting funds to meet the expansion of medicaid in their states. And that's with the increase in funding due to Obamacare. That alone should tell you it's more than just a funding issue.
> 
> I just don't think with a $20 Trillion national debt and a $90 Trillion debt in social programs that the states should be funded for their medicaid expansions through more borrowing and printing money at the federal level. It's time to be more fiscally responsible and I think the best way for medicaid to be able to be reformed is to have the market reforms in place so that more people can afford health insurance and ween themselves off of medicaid. Ryancare does nothing to achieve this. I think Rand's bill would do the trick.
> 
> I could probably write more on this but I need to go soon :lol.



From the article : 



> Jacob Hawkins of Plano, Texas, makes about $50,000 a year as a self-employed pool builder, yet his family of three was deemed eligible for Medicaid. *His wife, Holly, is due to have their second child in February*


This is why I don't get married. If I was making 50k a year and was single, I wouldn't give a fuck about Medicaid. I would've signed myself up with private health insurance and that would be that. 

Being married(and with children) makes things all the more difficult because you have to look out for them as well. Tremendous responsibility(and risk); something I'd rather do without. I would rather only be responsible for myself so that way, if something happens, it only happens to me. :shrug


(this is probably not a popular post to those feminists that still wonder why Men don't want to get married but whatever.... :lol )


----------



## glenwo2

Read this shit :




> Rest easy, America: Catalino Guerrero is now a priority target for deportation. He could be sent back to Mexico as early as this week.
> 
> The 59-year-old Union City man, last seen with his arms around three grandkids, *has lived in the United States for 25 years *with his wife and four children.
> 
> He's a stroke victim with a weak heart and Type 2 diabetes, and zero criminal history. *We recently tracked him to the house he's owned for 13 years*, where he was surrounded by little girls and a black-and-white kitten.
> 
> Clearly, a "bad hombre." A man so infamous, in fact, that a coalition of priests, rabbis and imams from all over New Jersey rallied last month, just to fight the deportation order against him.
> 
> Because there is no way to deport all 11 million unauthorized immigrants from the U.S., we must choose. President Donald Trump promised to make America safer by deporting "rapists and murderers," "violent criminals" and "drug dealers."
> 
> But the roundups he authorized throw a bigger, sloppier dragnet. People like Guerrero, with no criminal history, are now being prioritized for deportation. The long-timer out cleaning the sidewalk, or volunteering at church. A "bad hombre"? Really?
> 
> "He is the only grandfather I have," says Lizbeth, age 10.
> 
> *Guerrero's original sin was entering this country illegally by walking across the border -- which was fairly easy to do back then. His tactical mistake was trying to gain legal status once he was here.*
> 
> *After years of working seven days a week, under-the-table, as a dishwasher in Union City, a friend offered to help him obtain a work permit so he could get a better job with benefits. He did, as a delivery man at a wine company.*
> 
> *But the woman who filled out the forms wasn't an attorney; she was an accountant, his family says. She spoke English and he spoke Spanish. Guerrero got bad advice, and mistakenly applied for asylum.*
> 
> *He didn't understand the process, and had no idea. He continued to renew his work permit annually, pay his taxes, and didn't discover the error until eight years later, when he got a letter to appear in court. His application had been denied, he learned, and he was being thrown into deportation proceedings.*
> 
> It is the job of Immigration and Customs Enforcement to process people for deportation, and until now, it has frequently exercised prosecutorial discretion. The Obama administration ordered Guerrero deported in 2011 but stayed its hand, and repeatedly granted him permission to stay because his record was clean and he was so obviously harmless.
> 
> Yet thanks to Trump's order, ICE has become more fierce. Guerrero was told to bring his passport to his next appointment this Friday; a lawyer familiar with his case fears authorities could take him into custody and immediately deport him.
> 
> Guerrero has a letter from his doctors saying his health is fragile and he can't get the same care in Mexico. But that's not even his greatest fear. "My wife and my children and my grandchildren are here. There, I don't have anyone," he said in Spanish. "And the crime is really bad there now" -- he trailed off, and fidgeted.
> 
> His 32-year-old daughter, Vanessa, finished for him: "If they know you are from the U.S., they try to kidnap you, or start asking for money," she said.
> 
> This keeps her up at night. As the only single daughter who still lives with her parents, she's been her father's chief advocate for years. She feels he got into this mess in the first place because he was trying to do what was best for his family.
> 
> Guerrero's taxi driver salary in Puebla, Mexico, didn't begin to compare with what he could earn in the U.S. for his wife and kids. For some, there's no moral ambiguity; he's here illegally. But we looked away as we enjoyed the benefits of cheap labor, and allowed him to stay for 25 years, building a life. We are complicit. Do you eat at restaurants? Then you get a discount from people like him.
> 
> Trump talks about hardened criminals, but "Abuelo" is this man's only alias -- "Grandfather." He traffics in fairy tales. He takes you to the riverfront to see all the lights at night, and roars like a lion while you pretend to be scared. And when he shows up at ICE headquarters in Newark in five days, he'll be leaving behind a crew of anxious little girls.
> 
> "All of our future is in their hands," his daughter, Veronica, says.
> 
> http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/03/trumps_bad_hombre_a_taxpaying_grandpa_from_nj_edit.html


Oh cry me a river.









Why do I say this? Because 25 years ago, he wasn't a "Grandpa". He was a healthy 34-year-old ILLEGAL that came to this country. All this "Sympathy" he's getting is because of his age and his health issues; things he didn't have when he arrived 25 years ago. 

Oh and Obama's administration sought to get rid of him too in 2011 but they were, as expected, too soft on him and Illegals per usual. Trump, however, will make sure he's going back to Mexico. Illegal is ILLEGAL. That's it. 

And of course he only spoke Spanish. I mean why bother learning English in a new country when you have fellow illegals alongside you to translate, right? He was exposed not due to the Accountant's mistake but due to him being illegal. 

The only thing that's perplexing is that he was apparently paying taxes and I have to ask : "Can an ILLEGAL pay U.S. Taxes? Shouldn't one be a LEGAL U.S. Citizen with a Social Security Number in order to pay Taxes?" Or is there something I'm missing? We know his friend managed to get him a work permit(which is also something that needs to be investigated) but does that enable him to pay Taxes? If so, then there is something seriously wrong here. 

Also, how in the world was he able to own a house for 13 years? So Illegals are able to become homeowners now? The hell is going on?

(By the way...the business that allowed him to work under-the-table should be investigated)


----------



## Reaper

Ignorance of a law or process is not a valid justification. It's something we're all raised to believe. 

My wife and I knew NOTHING about the immigration process when we got together. She's a 4th generation American so like many Americans had no clue what the process was.

Then it took us 3 months of navigating through hundreds of not very friendly government documents, a paid consultation with a couple of lawyers (she met with a lawyer in America and I met with one in Pakistan and then met with another after coming together) and hours upon hours of self-study to figure out the processes ourselves. When I first came to see her on a visit visa in 2014, I landed here without knowing that there was an option for me to stay based on a good faith proof of having an original plan to go back. I spent several hundred dollars on making a plan to leave America not knowing that I'll be allowed to stay. 3 months into coming here we literally happened to chance upon a forum where they were talking about adjustment of status. That's when I found out the process to actually be allowed to stay here legally. 

Now I'm 2 years in and again my Conditional residence is expiring and I have to file the papers all over again. This time it's easier, but it's the same process again. More of the same proof that we've lived together for 2 years. But the thing is, I knew there is such a thing as a legal process and that I need to do the work to find it. I literally came here as a 34 year old (same age as this grandpa) and I took the time to educate myself by seeing lawyers, talking government officials, talking to other immigrants etc etc. During the approval process, I'll again have limited status. May have to have finger-printing and background checks and another interview. But I'm prepared for all of that and I scour the net daily making sure I haven't missed a step or made a mistake anywhere at all. It's very stressful, but it's part of _my _job to make sure I don't do anything wrong. 

The onus of a "mistake" like that is on the individual who makes it. I also don't think ticking "asylum" is a mistake. I think it's something people think will fast-track them, or get a sure "in" as they have no other way to prove their legality after coming in illegally. 

It's unfortunate, but ultimately this is another case of failure of personal responsibility and a system that was abused for decades.


----------



## Dr. Middy

Some really good news if it hasn't been mentioned yet already: http://www.techtimes.com/articles/2...shing-nasa-to-send-humans-to-mars-by-2033.htm

There seems to be a majority agreement by most people that space exploration is always a great thing, and defintely something that can boost overall morale.


----------



## virus21

Looks like the swamp is finally being drained



> U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions abruptly asked the remaining 46 chief federal prosecutors left over from the Obama administration to resign on Friday, including Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, who had been asked to stay on in November by then President-elect Donald Trump.
> Although U.S. attorneys are political appointees, and the request from Trump's Justice Department is part of a routine process, the move came as a surprise. Not every new administration replaces all U.S. attorneys at once.
> A Justice Department spokeswoman confirmed the resignation requests included Bharara, whose office handles some of the most critical business and criminal cases passing through the federal judicial system.
> Bharara met with Trump in Trump Tower on Nov. 30. After, Bharara told reporters the two had a "good meeting" and he had agreed to stay on.
> On Friday, Bharara was unsure where he stood because he did not know if the person who contacted him about resigning was aware that Trump had asked him to remain in office, according to a source familiar with the matter.
> It was not immediately clear if all resignations would ultimately be accepted.
> A Justice Department spokesman said on Friday Trump had called Dana Boente, acting U.S. deputy attorney general, to decline his resignation.
> Preet Bharara, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York and Obama appointee, is expected to remain in his post according to a law enforcement official. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid
> Preet Bharara, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York and Obama appointee, is expected to remain in his post according to a law enforcement official. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid
> Trump also called Maryland U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein, his pick to take over as deputy attorney general, to keep him in his post, the spokesman said.
> CORRUPTION CRUSADER
> Bharara, appointed by Democratic President Barack Obama in 2009, has pursued an aggressive push against corruption in state and city politics and is known for his prosecution of white-collar criminal cases. He also has been overseeing a federal probe into New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio's fundraising.
> In November, he announced charges against two defendants in connection with what he called a multimillion-dollar fraud and kickback scheme at Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc (VRX.TO).
> He has also brought dozens of successful cases against insider traders, including a $1.8 billion settlement and plea deal in 2013 with hedge fund SAC Capital Advisors LP.
> His office has secured settlements with companies including General Motors Co (GM.N) and JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPM.N); won several convictions and guilty pleas of former employees of Ponzi scheme operator Bernard Madoff; and prosecuted Suleiman Abu Ghaith, a son-in-law of the late al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.
> Bharara's priorities have often matched those set by Obama's Justice Department, which potentially puts him at odds with the Trump administration.
> ALSO IN POLITICS
> 
> Trump's revised travel ban dealt first court setback
> U.S. civil liberties group ACLU seeks to tap anti-Trump energy
> Amid an increase in civil rights investigations nationally, for example, Bharara's office joined a lawsuit that led to a settlement in 2015 aimed at reducing violence in New York City's Rikers Island jail complex.
> U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer, a Democrat, said in a statement that he was "troubled" to learn of the requests for resignations, "particularly that of Preet Bharara."
> As Schumer's chief counsel, Bharara helped lead the investigation of the dismissals of U.S. attorneys in 2006 during the George W. Bush administration.
> Robert Capers, U.S. Attorney in Brooklyn, issued a statement saying he had been asked to resign. He said Bridget Rohde, the chief assistant U.S. attorney in that office, would take over his role in an acting capacity.
> The Justice Department said on Friday: "Until the new U.S. attorneys are confirmed, the dedicated career prosecutors in our U.S. attorney’s offices will continue the great work of the department in investigating, prosecuting, and deterring the most violent offenders.”


http://archive.is/w6iXo#selection-1255.1-1435.268


----------



## Reaper

Dr. Middy said:


> Some really good news if it hasn't been mentioned yet already: http://www.techtimes.com/articles/2...shing-nasa-to-send-humans-to-mars-by-2033.htm
> 
> There seems to be a majority agreement by most people that space exploration is always a great thing, and defintely something that can boost overall morale.


It may be good news for people who didn't listen to Trump on the campaign trail  

We've known that he wants NASA to revert to its core competence of Space Exploration instead of the BS Climate Change alarmism for a couple of years now.


----------



## Dr. Middy

RipNTear said:


> It may be good news for people who didn't listen to Trump on the campaign trail
> 
> We've known that he wants NASA to revert to its core competence of Space Exploration instead of the BS Climate Change alarmism for a couple of years now.


I'll be happy if it's like the 60s when there was always news on NASA and everybody watched with awe as we step foot on the moon. 

There can be a happy medium with space exploration and work on climate change though. I'm huge into all the climate change and general environmental worries of the future, but I don't think having such a panicked attitude does that much. You can inform people without trying to scare the shit out of them.


----------



## glenwo2

Space. The Final Frontier.

These are the voyages of the Starship TRUMP.

It's continuing mission....

...to explore strange new worlds...

...to seek out new life and new civilizations with no PC bullshit....

...to boldly go where no liberal will ever have gone before....


----------



## Reaper

Dr. Middy said:


> I'll be happy if it's like the 60s when there was always news on NASA and everybody watched with awe as we step foot on the moon.
> 
> There can be a happy medium with space exploration and work on climate change though. I'm huge into all the climate change and general environmental worries of the future, but I don't think having such a panicked attitude does that much. You can inform people without trying to scare the shit out of them.


 Going to the moon is also on the cards with Trump. 

I think we really do need to go back with our current technology. The amount that we can learn now is going to compound upon what we learnt 70 years ago. 

Unfortunately, I don't care much about climate science at this point because a lot of it is pseudo-science. Climate Change happening is fact. Climate Change alarmism and the majority of our current fears are fiction.


----------



## Dr. Middy

RipNTear said:


> Going to the moon is also on the cards with Trump.
> 
> I think we really do need to go back with our current technology. The amount that we can learn now is going to compound upon what we learnt 70 years ago.
> 
> Unfortunately, I don't care much about climate science at this point because a lot of it is pseudo-science. Climate Change happening is fact. Climate Change alarmism and the majority of our current fears are fiction.


Climate change happening and accelerating is defintely well known now, as is the future effects if it isn't made aware. I think it still should be a huge topic for years to come, because it takes many years for people to really start changing their ways and opening up to really understanding the gravity of the situation. You don't need to broadcast something like "human extinction will be upon us if we don't clean up our acts" or stuff like that, but use real world scenarios. For example, the effects of not properly taking care of our waterways. You could use the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland as an example of us knowing _already _what happens when we don't take care of waterways. It's akin to looking back on the past and not repeating our mistakes because we're smarter, more aware and knowledgeable. 

We should defintely revisit current technology. I'd especially do this for Nuclear technology, considering the massive fears over it, as it should be an energy source to be embraced, not feared and pushed aside.


----------



## Reaper

Dr. Middy said:


> Climate change happening and accelerating is defintely well known now, as is the future effects if it isn't made aware. I think it still should be a huge topic for years to come, because it takes many years for people to really start changing their ways and opening up to really understanding the gravity of the situation. You don't need to broadcast something like "human extinction will be upon us if we don't clean up our acts" or stuff like that, but use real world scenarios. For example, the effects of not properly taking care of our waterways. You could use the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland as an example of us knowing _already _what happens when we don't take care of waterways. It's akin to looking back on the past and not repeating our mistakes because we're smarter, more aware and knowledgeable.


The thing that a lot of climate scientists have simply ignored is that every single global warming in the past has resulted in more plant and animal life because apparently living things like it when it's warm :draper2 

Yeah, we'll have some depletion in fresh water and there is a potential of sea levels rising, but that is going to happen regardless because not all of the current climate change is caused by humans and no one has been able to determine what level of reduction in human activity (or even what kind of human activity) would prevent climate change from happening. If the climate change is happening largely as a result of increased solar activity for example then short of dimming the sun, we really have no choice but to accept that it's going to happen and continue to happen. It could just be a cyclical change as we have evidence buried in our rocks that suggest that earth has gone through periods of warming and periods of cooling over millions of years - even when there were no humans on earth. 

Say for example that the people who claim that reduced human activity will result in climate cooling and they turn out to be wrong and in the meantime people living along the coasts haven't taken precaution and drown ... That's one of the dangers of resorting to pseudo-science with regards to climate change. 

I think that becoming a cleaner/less polluted planet is a fine goal. But the way it's being pushed and forced is completely wrong and is based on knowing less than all the facts and causes. Hacks like Bill Nye for example claim that 100% of climate change is happening as a result of human activity and that sort of shit is absolutely bull-crap and we hear that shit from far too many sources for it to have much credibility anymore. And now you have this mechanical engineer with literally no background in climate science becoming the spokesperson for millions of people. That would be like taking the advice of a plumber on how to fix up wiring in your house. 

Real science doesn't need shaming, bullying and scare tactics. Real science needs facts and everyone adopts it. Real science says that if you cut out a malignant tumor, you no longer have cancer. Do you see a huge debate about it? 



> We should defintely revisit current technology. I'd especially do this for Nuclear technology, considering the massive fears over it, as it should be an energy source to be embraced, not feared and pushed aside.


I did some research on Nuclear. The only reason why it's not being widely adopted isn't just fear mongering. The main factor is cost and limited resources.


----------



## Beatles123

LOL at someone calling @RipNTear a snot. Dude has battled literally every lib here with the utmost class and has spent his life fighting the very ideas they are clammoring for us to adopt, yet he isn't "Educated" simply because he opposes them. 

Yeah, NOT! :trump

Also, Rand helping Trump see the light to block Ryan's Cuck attempt. :trump2


----------



## Dr. Middy

RipNTear said:


> The thing that a lot of climate scientists have simply ignored is that every single global warming in the past has resulted in more plant and animal life because apparently living things like it when it's warm :draper2
> 
> Yeah, we'll have some depletion in fresh water and there is a potential of sea levels rising, but that is going to happen regardless because not all of the current climate change is caused by humans and no one has been able to determine what level of reduction in human activity (or even what kind of human activity) would prevent climate change from happening. If the climate change is happening largely as a result of increased solar activity for example then short of dimming the sun, we really have no choice but to accept that it's going to happen and continue to happen. It could just be a cyclical change as we have evidence buried in our rocks that suggest that earth has gone through periods of warming and periods of cooling over millions of years - even when there were no humans on earth.
> 
> Say for example that the people who claim that reduced human activity will result in climate cooling and they turn out to be wrong and in the meantime people living along the coasts haven't taken precaution and drown ... That's one of the dangers of resorting to pseudo-science with regards to climate change.
> 
> I think that becoming a cleaner/less polluted planet is a fine goal. But the way it's being pushed and forced is completely wrong and is based on knowing less than all the facts and causes. Hacks like Bill Nye for example claim that 100% of climate change is happening as a result of human activity and that sort of shit is absolutely bull-crap and we hear that shit from far too many sources for it to have much credibility anymore.
> 
> Real science doesn't need shaming, bullying and scare tactics. Real science needs facts and everyone adopts it. Real science says that if you cut out a malignant tumor, you no longer have cancer. Do you see a huge debate about it?
> 
> I did some research on Nuclear. The only reason why it's not being widely adopted isn't just fear mongering. The main factor is cost and limited resources.


Climate change is indeed cyclical and will happen regardless of human intervention of any kind, it's happened before any of us were ever around. I've taken some archaeology based classes where we actually had pretty major discussions on that sort of thing, but the idea that it's always happened regardless of our involvement is a fact. I mean are we as a whole speeding up the process? Most likely yes given the information we have. 

I've never heard the idea that reduced human activity would result in climate cooling however, and realistically that probably wouldn't occur. The best case scenario is perhaps slowing down climate change, but if it's going to happen based on the other factors, like increased solar activity, then it is bound to happen. 

I may either see it differently than you, but I don't see environmental issues being pushed as forcefully as you mentioned. Sure, there are definitively many instances were environmental fear mongering is indeed happening, but I must notice it less since I know better than to focus on that. Even in the Environmental classes I took, there wasn't that much fear mongering, but more of an idea that "Hey, we are heading down the wrong path right now and we should better protect our planet for the future."

And as a whole, environmentalists should defintely focus on this. Focus on a cleaner, more healthy planet to benefit biodiversity and our future generations to come. That's the message I always preferred anyway.


----------



## Beatles123

"The world isn't going to hell, *WE ARE!*" - George Carlin.


----------



## Reaper

Dr. Middy said:


> Climate change is indeed cyclical and will happen regardless of human intervention of any kind, it's happened before any of us were ever around. I've taken some archaeology based classes where we actually had pretty major discussions on that sort of thing, but the idea that it's always happened regardless of our involvement is a fact. I mean are we as a whole speeding up the process? Most likely yes given the information we have.


There isn't even scientific consensus with regards to the acceleration theory either because they work in reverse. They see CO2 as the main villain first and then pick evidence that supports the theory. It's working backwards and scientists have done that in other things as well ... I have a lot of respect for scientists as a whole, but much of that has waned in recent years because a lot of things they claim as fact get debunked. Rain follows the Ploy theory. Maternal Impression theory (which led to thousands of mothers putting headphones on their pregnant bellies :lmao). Vitamin C curing/preventing colds. Humans born with tails. The list is pretty vast and I am not scared to put the "humans cause acceleration of climate change" in that basket of theories as well. 



> I've never heard the idea that reduced human activity would result in climate cooling however, and realistically that probably wouldn't occur. The best case scenario is perhaps slowing down climate change, but if it's going to happen based on the other factors, like increased solar activity, then it is bound to happen.


There are fewer people like you that are this open and still pro-global warming advocates. The problem is that many of such alarmists have found their way into major government funded organizations and lobbying for BS policies globally based on pseudo-science. 



> I may either see it differently than you, but I don't see environmental issues being pushed as forcefully as you mentioned. Sure, there are definitively many instances were environmental fear mongering is indeed happening, but I must notice it less since I know better than to focus on that. Even in the Environmental classes I took, there wasn't that much fear mongering, but more of an idea that "Hey, we are heading down the wrong path right now and we should better protect our planet for the future."


Take Trudeau's proposed Carbon Tax. Take Australia's failed carbon tax. Spending billions of tax payer dollars in programs that shouldn't exist without alarmism. 



> And as a whole, environmentalists should defintely focus on this. Focus on a cleaner, more healthy planet to benefit biodiversity and our future generations to come. That's the message I always preferred anyway.


Problem here is based on the assumption that government programs and regulations will have a net greater impact on reversing climate change. And this alarmism is actually diverting resources away from spending on simply cleanup activities that I believe should be part of a corporation's social responsibility and not government regulated because in that case all that happens is companies pay a fine and that's the end of it. 

Much of the future of a hotter planet is an unknown but the current policy-making is being pushed on IPCC's "worst case scenario" - especially in Europe. A scenario that may not even happen. I can name a bunch of falsehoods predicted by climate scientists that never happened because many of their scenario predictions are just off the wall silly but billions of dollars were spent on preventing what never happened ...


----------



## Goku

fuck future generations. When I die, I'm taking the planet with me.

:trump


----------



## Dr. Middy

RipNTear said:


> There isn't even scientific consensus with regards to the acceleration theory either because they work in reverse. They see CO2 as the main villain first and then pick evidence that supports the theory. It's working backwards and scientists have done that in other things as well ... I have a lot of respect for scientists as a whole, but much of that has waned in recent years because a lot of things they claim as fact get debunked. Rain follows the Ploy theory. Maternal Impression theory (which led to thousands of mothers putting headphones on their pregnant bellies :lmao). Vitamin C curing/preventing colds. Humans born with tails. The list is pretty vast and I am not scared to put the "humans cause acceleration of climate change" in that basket of theories as well.


Eh, I mean all those ice cores scientists have studied to better understand previous climate change have shown that the major proponent for that was carbon dioxide, so it is realistic to think that all of the CO2 emissions as a result of human interaction does contribute to it somewhat. I'd be more surprised if it does nothing at all. And theories like the Maternal Impression Theory is more kinda media driven nonsense science than anything to me :shrug 



> There are fewer people like you that are this open and still pro-global warming advocates. The problem is that many of such alarmists have found their way into major government funded organizations and lobbying for BS policies globally based on pseudo-science.
> 
> Take Trudeau's proposed Carbon Tax. Take Australia's failed carbon tax. Spending billions of tax payer dollars in programs that shouldn't exist without alarmism.


http://www.npr.org/2017/02/28/517536333/a-carbon-tax-gains-traction-among-some-conservatives

I actually like the idea of a Carbon Tax, without spending any tax-payer money to drive it. You tax major corporations via their Carbon Footprint, and this money can go back to the taxpayer themselves if done correctly. Now I know it isn't that simple, cut, and dry and I don't have a ton of economic and policy knowledge to understand everything this would entail, but on the surface with a businessman in the presidential chair like Trump, I can't see why he wouldn't like this. You could also reduce some regulations as well with a plan like this, which I think he would be in support of as well. 

And realistically, to fight for policies that would inherently be good, even if the science they might use to back it is a bit questionable, seems okay. I mean, if you have a policy like a Carbon Tax that would work to lower emissions which would only be a plus to our atmosphere as a whole, even if it does work with the idea that climate change is mostly human driven (and an idea which could be wrong), is it a terrible thing? I don't like using pseudo science to back anything, but realistically aren't a decent amount policies using pseudo-evidence of some kind? 



> Problem here is based on the assumption that government programs and regulations will have a net greater impact on reversing climate change. And this alarmism is actually diverting resources away from spending on simply cleanup activities that I believe should be part of a corporation's social responsibility and not government regulated because in that case all that happens is companies pay a fine and that's the end of it.
> 
> Much of the future of a hotter planet is an unknown but the current policy-making is being pushed on IPCC's "worst case scenario" - especially in Europe. A scenario that may not even happen. I can name a bunch of falsehoods predicted by climate scientists that never happened because many of their scenario predictions are just off the wall silly but billions of dollars were spent on preventing what never happened ...


I think the difference we have in viewpoints in that you seem to be greatly against most government regulation and policy (And with what's been going on for years, I don't blame you much). I mean, yes to an extent there is corruption and problems associated with it, and corporations are allowed to just pay fines and be considered a-okay by the government, which I think is terrible. But government policies and organizations have worked in the past, hell look at the EPA before and after it's creation. Remember the dark skylines of cities like Pittsburgh? 

The thing with cleanup programs and having corporations be socially responsible for it, is how exactly do you place enforcement on this? I'm just curious really, because if currently it isn't being done and companies are allowed to simply pay off these fines, there should be enforcement instead where instead of fines being placed, companies should instead have to actually physically clean up the areas of pollution they cause. 

Fear mongering as a whole though is not great, I agree with that. And I also agree that there are plenty occasions where the whole "worse case senarios" bullshit and falsehoods have been wrong, and this shouldn't be the way in which you attempt to push the idea of protecting our environment to people. However, I still think that in the end the general idea is for protecting our environment for our own benefit as well as the planet's. It's just that there is a lot more bullshit being put in the way of this message, so it blurs it. It's like instead of having a Point A to Point B, you have a bunch of billboards and detours within the trip.


----------



## Reaper

I want to respond so placeholder. If I forget remind me in a couple of days @Dr. Middy


----------



## Dr. Middy

RipNTear said:


> I want to respond so placeholder. If I forget remind me in a couple of days @Dr. Middy


Will do buddy


----------



## glenwo2

Goku said:


> fuck future generations. When I die, I'm taking the planet with me.
> 
> :trump


We'll all be reborn on the planet Vegeta and become Super Saiyans. :lol


----------



## virus21

Goku said:


> fuck future generations. When I die, I'm taking the planet with me.
> 
> :trump








Also



> A man carrying a backpack was arrested Friday night after breaching security at the White House complex and was discovered by a Secret Service officer by the south entrance to the executive residence, officials said.
> 
> The incident happened just before midnight while President Donald Trump was at the White House.
> The suspect, identified in court records as Jonathan T. Tran, 26, of California, told the agency's officers that he was there to see the President.
> "No, I am a friend of the President. I have an appointment," Tran said when approached by an officer, according to a report released Saturday by the Washington Metropolitan Police Department.
> Asked how he got there, Tran told officers: "I jumped the fence."
> The police report, obtained by CNN, offers a detailed description of the incident. White House security footage showed Tran jumping the face at the northwest courtyard of the Treasury Building, which is adjacent to the White House, the report said. He was not detected, however, until approached by a uniformed Secret Service officer.
> The White House was placed under security condition "orange," one of the highest levels of security for the Secret Service, an agency source said.
> The President was alerted to the incident late Friday night, an administration official said. The suspect was arrested by the Secret Service "without further incident," the Secret Service said in its statement.
> Trump said Saturday that the suspect was disturbed, calling the situation "sad" and saying he appreciates the work of the Secret Service.
> "The service did a fantastic job," the President said to reporters during a lunch meeting with Cabinet officials at the Trump National Golf Club in Potomac Falls, Virginia. "It was a troubled person. It was very sad."
> A Secret Service source said the backpack Tran carried was x-rayed before bomb technicians removed it from the White House grounds for further evaluation.
> The backpack was found to be free of any hazardous materials, the Secret Service said in its statement.
> A special Secret Service intelligence team interviewed Tran, who was taken into custody by Washington police. The suspect has no criminal history and no previous history involving the Secret Service, that agency said.
> A Secret Service emergency response team searched the entire White House grounds with K-9 dogs, including the first lady's garden, which is near the south entrance of the residence. Extensive searches were also conducted on East Executive Avenue and East Wing roadway.
> "Nothing of concern to security operations was found," the Secret Service said in its statement.
> The suspect's 19-year-old younger brother, Brian, from Milpitas, California, said Tran was "troubled" after being laid off from his job at an electrical engineering company.
> Tran had been "living in his car and eating junk food," his brother said. Tran graduated from San Jose State University with an electrical engineering degree and had been "stressed out from the job," his brother said.
> A Secret Service agent called Tran's family's home Friday night to inform them of the fence-jumping incident, his brother said, adding that his mother is "very troubled" about the matter.
> Tran has been "a very good brother to me," said the brother, a mechanical engineering major at San Jose State University.
> The investigation into the security breach continued Saturday as the Secret Service tried to determine how Tran gained entrance to the highly fortified White House complex without being detected, officials said. It is the first known major security incident at the White House since Trump became president two months ago.
> Jonathan Wackrow, a former Secret Service agent, said Saturday on "CNN Newsroom" that the breach has the potential to be "catastrophic."
> "This is really troubling," said Wackrow, a CNN law enforcement analyst. "If someone came over the northwest fence of the Treasury complex, what that indicates is they didn't go over just one fence, they went over multiple fences. This has the potential to be a catastrophic breach of the White House complex. This is really disturbing, just the amount of real estate that this intruder was able to gain or bypass on the complex."
> "So the Secret Service has to really take a very hard look very quickly as to why weren't other defense measures alerted," Wackrow said.
> Asked Saturday if the Secret Service handled the situation correctly, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said, the "Secret Service did a phenomenal job and they continue to provide phenomenal protection to the President and the first family, and the President was very appreciative of their efforts."
> Spicer added that Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly "was kept aware of the situation the entire time."
> There have been numerous instances of people trespassing on the White House grounds over the last several years.
> In one notable instance in 2014, 42-year-old Omar Gonzales, of Copperas Cove, Texas, made it through the north portico doors with a three-and-a-half-inch folding knife in his pants pocket, according to the Secret Service. Gonzalez was apprehended just after making it inside the doors, the Secret Service said. The first family was not at the White House at the time.
> In another, the Secret Service apprehended Joseph Caputo, of Stamford, Connecticut, on the North Lawn after he scaled the fence wearing an American flag-like cape while the first family was inside the residence celebrating Thanksgiving in 2015.
> Other incidents of trespassing include:
> A man tossed a backpack over the north fence in April 2016 before jumping over himself, where he was arrested.
> In April 2015, Jerome R. Hunt, of Hayward, California, climbed the fence on the south side of the White House complex while carrying a suspicious package, later deemed harmless, and was cornered by security dogs.
> Dominic Adesanya, 23, of Bel Air, Maryland, barely made it onto the lawn in October 2014 before he was subdued as he fought off two police dogs, the Secret Service said. Adesanya, who suffers from mental health problems, had been arrested in a previous White House breach, his father said.
> In April 2014, a man wearing a hat of the Pokemon character Pikachu made it over the White House fence and onto the north lawn, where he was apprehended, the New York Daily News reported.


http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/11/politics/man-breeches-white-house/index.html


----------



## TheLapsedFan

RipNTear said:


> Ignorance of a law or process is not a valid justification.


"I didn't know I couldn't do that?" /DaveChappelle





4:34-end


----------



## Miss Sally

glenwo2 said:


> Read this shit :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh cry me a river.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do I say this? Because 25 years ago, he wasn't a "Grandpa". He was a healthy 34-year-old ILLEGAL that came to this country. All this "Sympathy" he's getting is because of his age and his health issues; things he didn't have when he arrived 25 years ago.
> 
> Oh and Obama's administration sought to get rid of him too in 2011 but they were, as expected, too soft on him and Illegals per usual. Trump, however, will make sure he's going back to Mexico. Illegal is ILLEGAL. That's it.
> 
> And of course he only spoke Spanish. I mean why bother learning English in a new country when you have fellow illegals alongside you to translate, right? He was exposed not due to the Accountant's mistake but due to him being illegal.
> 
> The only thing that's perplexing is that he was apparently paying taxes and I have to ask : "Can an ILLEGAL pay U.S. Taxes? Shouldn't one be a LEGAL U.S. Citizen with a Social Security Number in order to pay Taxes?" Or is there something I'm missing? We know his friend managed to get him a work permit(which is also something that needs to be investigated) but does that enable him to pay Taxes? If so, then there is something seriously wrong here.
> 
> Also, how in the world was he able to own a house for 13 years? So Illegals are able to become homeowners now? The hell is going on?
> 
> (By the way...the business that allowed him to work under-the-table should be investigated)


Might have been using a stolen or fake identity.


----------



## glenwo2

^ No "might" about it. I think it's safe to say it's a 99% probability that he was filing his taxes under a deceased person's name or something his "friend" came up with. There's no other explanation for it.


----------



## Reaper

I file my immigration papers over the next few days. Wish me luck guys. I'll be gone from this thread for the next few days as I put everything together.


----------



## Dr. Middy

RipNTear said:


> I file my immigration papers over the next few days. Wish me luck guys. I'll be gone from this thread for the next few days as I put everything together.


Best of luck! Hope everything works out okay with no issues


----------



## DOPA

RipNTear said:


> I file my immigration papers over the next few days. Wish me luck guys. I'll be gone from this thread for the next few days as I put everything together.


Good luck Reap . I would have responded to you on the debt but I've had an eventful day to say the least so you will have to forgive me for not really wanting to talk politics at the moment :lol.


----------



## birthday_massacre

RipNTear said:


> I file my immigration papers over the next few days. Wish me luck guys. I'll be gone from this thread for the next few days as I put everything together.


good luck bud


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

Good luck @RipNTear, hope it all works out seamlessly.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

RipNTear said:


> I file my immigration papers over the next few days. Wish me luck guys. I'll be gone from this thread for the next few days as I put everything together.


Good luck Reaper!


----------



## glenwo2

I have confidence that things will work out for Rip. 



In the meantime, it's up to you, Sally, to keep the peace here. :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre




----------



## DesolationRow

Have not been in this thread for a while, all too busy as of late. Thanks to @RipNTear and @CamillePunk and @L-DOPA--as well as others--for mentioning me and keeping me abreast of myriad developments, though in a few instances I still have to backtrack and read the actual posts which mentioned me. :lol

Want to address the largely miserable Ryancare bill to considerably greater lengths soon, as *L-DOPA* invited me to, but for now, yes, let it be known that it is a fundamentally lousy bill. I'm hoping that Donald Trump is trying to use honey rather than vinegar for both the Ryan forces and the--for lack of a better term--Rand Paul/Freedom Coalition, et. al. forces to unite. The brilliance of the political left is that once entitlements are introduced they never go away. Neocon though he may be, Charles Krauthammer has capably analyzed the sheer politics (which is a separate matter from deciphering what will ultimately work in the long run, and certainly a nearly incalculable distance from principles) of the situation, which is that conservative Republicans are going to have to consume a bitter pill here for the sake of trying to patch the Democrats' mess up. It is hardly surprising that Republicans are, as they have been since Dwight Eisenhower became president, simply primarily caretakers of the latest "advancements" of their political adversaries. Nobody wants to be cast as "The Grinch." It's a sad but predictable spectacle. 

Healthcare costs are topping such exorbitant sums due to governmentally-imposed monopolies that the average American cannot begin to afford to pay the eye-popping bills without subsidies. The Affordable Care Act was devised so that there would be no protection for the uninsured being charged by hospitals more than the insured, but the people who stapled the plan together balked. Due to average Americans being unable to pay their medical bills without subsidies from the government, the problem seems almost inescapable. If one imposes new price controls, subsidies, and penalties, the matter of the market reaction of constricting possibilities, as one insurance company after another recognizes that they cannot continue to support the system. For over half of a century, the consequences of Medicare fixing healthcare-related costs have had far-ranging deleterious effects upon the healthcare market as a whole. With governmental assistance in the way of sparking major price increases through shielding and aiding of overweening monopolies which dominate the market, and these monopolies established by powerful drug companies and the American Medical Association benefit from the arrangement. 

Paul Ryan's plan is a bit brazen in how it diminishes the "middle man"--so to speak--in the subsidies/penalties scheme. 

As for the question of constitutionality, *L-DOPA*, Ryan's plan, like Obama's, like Hillary's, like the Heritage Foundation's (which generally served to provide the framework for what eventually became "Obamacare"), are of course not in any way whatsoever constitutional. Ah well. :lol


Very best wishes and best of luck to you on your immigration paper filing and subsequent related actions, *Reaper*!


----------



## DOPA

Yeah I figured it would be something like that @DesolationRow but wasn't too sure :lol.

Thank you to @Tater for sharing this. Trump supporters + FED skeptics need to read this: http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/03/10/stronger-economic-growth-over-my-dead-body-says-janet-yellen/



> The U.S. economy is weak. Very weak. But the Federal Reserve is planning to raise interest rates anyway. Why?
> 
> Here’s what’s going on: According to the Atlanta Fed the US economy is expected to grow at a respectable 2.8 percent for the first quarter of 2017 That’s not bad considering that, for the entire year of 2016, the economy hobbled along at an anemic 1.6 percent. Unfortunately, the Fed’s original forecast has been slashed to account for the downturn in the data. According to their current (March 8) calculation, the economy is growing at a meager 1.2 percent. In other words, the already-sluggish and underperforming economy is gradually grinding to a standstill.
> 
> This isn’t the kind of environment where the Fed typically raises rates. In theory, lower rates create an incentive for borrowing which boosts consumer and business spending which, in turn, increases growth. Conversely, raising rates, however slightly, has a negative impact not only on rate-sensitive sectors of the economy (Re: Housing) but also on stock and bond markets where investors adjust their portfolios to reflect the rising cost of credit.
> 
> So why is the Fed raising rates when the economy is crawling along at suboptimal speed and, perhaps, headed for recession?
> 
> That question can be answered in two words: Donald Trump.
> 
> The Trump Bump has been the biggest post election day rally in Wall Street history. The promise of giant tax cuts, fewer regulations and $1 trillion in fiscal stimulus has sparked a stock-buying frenzy that has added nearly 2,000 points to the Dow Jones Industrial Average while piling up another $3.2 trillion in market capitalization. Wall Street loves Donald Trump, there’s no doubt about it.
> 
> Regrettably, the unexpected stock-surge has thrown a wrench in the Fed’s plan to gradually guide stocks higher avoiding a bond market blowout that could send yields into the nosebleed section wiping out trillions of dollars in equity in the process. The Fed would rather avoid that scenario which is why the FOMC is expected to gradually raise rates to dampen the irrational exuberance that has overtaken Wall Street. So after nearly a decade of flatlining GDP — accompanied by a stock market rally that lifted the Dow from an abysmal 6,547 points on March 9, 2009 to a lofty 20,906 on March 8, 2017– the Fed has finally decided to ease on the brakes, remove the punchbowl, and see if it can regain control over the runaway equities-train.
> 
> Following Friday’s BLS report that 235,000 new jobs were added in February, Goldman Sachs economists predict the Fed will hike rates three times in 2017; in March, June and September. That should stop the Trump surge dead-in-its-tracks. Here’s more from the New York Times:
> 
> “Employers added 235,000 workers to their payrolls in February, the government reported on Friday, a hefty gain that clears the path for the Federal Reserve to raise its benchmark interest rate when it meets next week.
> 
> The official jobless rate fell to 4.7 percent, from 4.8 percent in January, while average hourly earnings grew by 0.2 percent in a report that overlaps with President Trump’s first full month in office.
> 
> “They’re ready to go,” said Diane Swonk, founder and chief executive of DS Economics, referring to the central bank’s expected vote next week to raise rates from their historically low levels….
> 
> Although the economic anxiety that helped put President Trump into the White House remains, the official jobless rate is near what the central bank considers full employment — a threshold where, in theory at least, everyone who wants a job at the going rate can find one.”
> 
> Of course, the booming labor stats do not account for the millions of people who have left the workforce altogether after failing to find a job in Obama’s less-than-stellar economic recovery. The data also fails to point out that 95 percent of all the new jobs have been crappy, low-paying, parttime service sector jobs that barely keep food on the table let alone put a roof over one’s head. But, whatever.
> 
> Fed chairman Janet Yellen sees the uptick in new hires as a vindication of her steady-as-she-goes 8-year zero rate monetary policy that has shifted trillions to the investor class while working people have seen their incomes and wages stagnate, their prospects for retirement dwindle, and their living standards fall. Now Yellen wants to shift gears and gradually raise rates to preemptively dampen the possibility that tighter labor markets will increase wages and, thus, give workers a bigger slice of gains in production. That, of course, is a catastrophe for which the Fed will do everything in its power to avoid. Any sign of higher salaries will be dealt with swiftly and decisively. As de facto representative of the ruling Bank cabal, the Fed would rather prick the massive asset-price bubble it has created and risk sending the financial system into a headlong plunge off a cliff, than allow perennially-strapped workers to garner even a farthing more for their daily drudgery. Class hatred remains the animating force that fuels all Central Bank policy decisions. Here’s more from the Times:
> 
> “Bigger paychecks are something that most Americans, after years of stagnant wage growth, are particularly eager to see. The Federal Reserve, too, has been waiting for an increase,(yuk, yuk) but it is also wary of wages rising too fast. The board’s members want to head off incipient inflation and so have begun to slowly raise rates, which makes borrowing and risk-taking more expensive.”
> 
> Now there’s a phrase for the ages: “Incipient inflation”?
> 
> You’ve heard of preemptive war, haven’t you? Now we have preemptive attacks on inflation. In other words, even the whiff of higher wages sets off alarms at the Eccles Building where the Bank Mafia hastily gathers their members to mount yet-another assault on working people. Keep in mind, that when stocks double or triple in value providing mountains of cash for the parasite class for whom Yellen works– it’s a sign of boundless optimism and confidence in the illusory recovery, but when wages make even the slightest movement upwards, the shift is greeted with howls of “runaway inflation” followed by a series of excruciating rate hikes that boost unemployment, reduce activity and weaken growth. Where’s the justice?
> 
> At present, inflation hasn’t even reached the Fed’s 2 percent target while, according to Reuters, workers wages have gone up by a pathetic 6 cents per hour. Is that why the Fed is slamming on the brakes?
> 
> Yer darn right, it is. No raise for you, Mr. American worker. Janet Yellen is going to make sure of that!
> 
> But there’s another reason why Yellen is tightening policy even though the economy remains in the 1 percent-GDP doldrums. She wants to torpedo Trump’s economic plan before the details are even put to paper.
> 
> The Fed has repeatedly expressed uneasiness about the president’s $1 trillion fiscal stimulus strategy, a plan Yellen thinks could result in a sudden blip of activity that could push up inflation and overheat the economy. A series of rate hikes will not only put the kibosh on Trump’s chances for success, it will also undercut prospects for stronger growth.
> 
> But why would Yellen want to foil a plan that would result in stronger growth?
> 
> It’s because stronger growth means higher yields on long-term debt. In other words, Yellen’s dodgy buddies in the bond market will get absolutely pulverized if GDP picks up and Trump achieves his goal of 4 percent growth.
> 
> Market analysts think that Trump will never achieve that goal, and they’re probably right. After all, the Fed will never let him.


So the FED are looking to raise interest rates and seems like a pure political move from Yellen. It will be both interesting and worrying to see what if any consequences come from this.

@CamillePunk @BruiserKC @Miss Sally @Goku @Pratchett @AryaDark @Alco

Business as usual in Washington as the Treasury once again looks to raise the debt ceiling to prolong the US defaulting on the dollar; all without taking necessary big steps to cut spending and reform the social programs. All of course in the wake of increased defence spending and a trillion dollar infrastructure bill that Trump will eventually look to push.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...teps-to-delay-default/?utm_term=.3093bd59df9a



> Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin on Thursday began taking “extraordinary measures” to delay the U.S. government from defaulting on its obligations, as he called on House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) to lift the debt ceiling “at its first opportunity.”
> 
> Mnuchin, in a letter to Ryan, said Treasury was now suspending the sale of certain state and local securities, a practice the federal government normally performs to assist with tax policies. Treasury will soon likely suspend payments to certain pension funds as it tries to delay, as long as possible, falling behind on other payments. Eventually, though, it will run out of options and not have enough money to pay its bills.
> 
> “As I said in my confirmation hearing, honoring the full faith and credit of our outstanding debt is a critical commitment,” Mnuchin wrote to Ryan. “I encourage Congress to raise the debt limit at the first opportunity so we can proceed with our joint priorities.”
> 
> The U.S. government makes millions of payments each year in the form of Social Security checks, paying Medicare bills, funding the military, research, veterans' care, and numerous other initiatives. Those funds typically flow out of the Treasury Department, in a complicated burst of cash that disburses trillions of dollars each year.
> 
> Budget experts believe that if the debt ceiling isn’t raised by August or September, Treasury will run out of steps to delay default and the government could fall behind on its obligations.
> 
> The White House and Congress now face several difficult choices.
> 
> They could try a straight vote to raise or suspend the debt ceiling, but that would be difficult because many lawmakers find it politically poisonous to approve more debt without changing spending or tax practices.
> 
> Policymakers could also try to attach a debt-limit increase to another bill that is likely to pass, such as a bill to fund the government beyond the end of April.
> 
> They could also decide not to raise or suspend the debt limit, which has never happened before. If that happens, officials at Treasury could be forced to decide whether to prioritize payments and stop paying certain bills.
> 
> The federal government spends more money than it brings in through tax revenue, and Treasury fills this gap by issuing more debt. But there is a federal limit on how much debt can be issued, and the limit can only be raised by Congress.
> 
> In 2015, Congress and the White House agreed to suspend the federal debt limit until March 15, 2017. After that point, the government cannot continue to borrow money to pay. Past treasury chiefs have also pushed Congress to raise or suspend the debt ceiling, but it can be a very difficult vote for lawmakers, many of whom campaign on cutting the deficit either through tax increases or spending cuts.
> 
> White House officials are expected to propose steep budget cuts to certain federal programs next week as a way to offset increased spending on the military, the creation of a border wall, and more education programs that would expand access to charter schools, among other things. Those budget cuts, though, aren’t expected to reduce the deficit. And the White House has said it does not plan to propose cuts to Social Security and Medicare this year, two of the government’s biggest budget items.
> 
> President Trump is also pushing Congress to enact sweeping tax changes that would lower rates, which he says will lead to more economic growth and job creation. But budget experts have warned this could lead to a huge drop in revenue, widening the deficit and growing the federal debt.
> 
> The deficit is the annual gap between taxes and spending, and the debt is the outstanding money the government has borrowed to cover past deficits.
> 
> The federal government is projected to spend $3.963 trillion in the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30, the Congressional Budget Office has predicted. It is expected to bring in $3.404 trillion in revenue during that time, leaving a deficit of $559 billion. CBO said publicly held debt is expected to hit $14.8 trillion at the end of 2017, but other ways of calculating the debt estimate that it is now closer to $20 trillion.


I have no faith with the house under the RINO cuck that is Paul Ryan that the necessary changes to spending and reform will take place. Yet another "fiscal conservative" who is a fiscal liberal in disguise in my opinion. Ryancare is an indication of this.

Another $560 Billion in debt is expected to be added at the end of the fiscal year, which is higher than Bush's last full year in office in 2008.


----------



## glenwo2

Meanwhile....

Anyone want to read about a certain Conspiracy?

Check this out :

http://m.imgur.com/R3GDsuT

Pretty good read. Don't know how true it is but certainly something to chew on.


----------



## stevefox1200

glenwo2 said:


> Meanwhile....
> 
> Anyone want to read about a certain Conspiracy?
> 
> Check this out :
> 
> http://m.imgur.com/R3GDsuT
> 
> Pretty good read. Don't know how true it is but certainly something to chew on.


A large chunk of that "Read" is about how the CIA does what it does as a cover to ship children to US so they can rape them

I have to find where this "Every person in power is secretly an evil pedo" came from an seal the damn

its fucking stupid


----------



## CamillePunk

RussiaGate: Six Months. No Evidence -- It's Time for the Media to Put Up or Shut Up

http://www.dailywire.com/news/14305...s-time-media-john-nolte#.WMLT30h_gd8.facebook


----------



## virus21

> Russian President Vladimir Putin's spokesman said in an interview Sunday that the Russian ambassador who met with Trump campaign officials also met with “people working in think tanks advising Hillary or advising people working for Hillary.”
> 
> “Well, if you look at some people connected with Hillary Clinton during her campaign, you would probably see that he had lots of meetings of that kind,” Dmitry Peskov told CNN “GPS” host Fareed Zakaria. “There are lots of specialists in politology, people working in think tanks advising Hillary or advising people working for Hillary.”
> 
> Peskov said it is the job of Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak to meet with officials on both sides to talk about “bilateral relations.”
> 
> Peskov also defended those meetings, saying they were not an attempt to interfere in the 2016 election.
> “But there were no meetings about elections — electoral process … So if you look at it with intention to demonize Russia, you would probably say that, yes, he was trying to interfere in Hillary's activities. But it would be nonsense, because this is not true,” Peskov said.
> 
> Peskov also said Putin never voiced support for then-presidential candidate Trump.
> 
> “You would probably recall that President Putin, during election campaign, had never answered directly a question about his candidate of his support. He kept saying that we will respect a choice of American people,” Peskov told Zakaria.
> 
> Peskov, did however, concede that Putin preferred Trump over Clinton, saying, “If you ask him whether he had mentioned the then-candidate Donald Trump, I will answer, yes, he had.”
> 
> Peskov suggested that the Kremlin leader found Clinton hostile toward Russia, while Trump was open to thawing U.S.-Russian relations.
> 
> “The candidate Hillary Clinton was quite negative about our country in her attitude and in her program, declaring Russia being nearly the main evil in the world and the main threat for the United States,” Peskov said.
> 
> “And to the contrary, the other candidate, Donald Trump, was saying that, 'Yes, we disagree with the Russians ... in lots of issues, but we have to talk to them in order to try to find some understanding.' Whom would you like better? The one who says that Russia is evil or the one who says that, 'Yes, we disagree, but let's talk to understand and to try to find some points of agreement?'” he asked.


http://thehill.com/policy/international/323582-kremlin-spokesman-russian-ambassador-met-with-advisers-to-clinton


----------



## glenwo2

stevefox1200 said:


> A large chunk of that "Read" is about how the CIA does what it does as a cover to ship children to US so they can rape them
> 
> I have to find where this "Every person in power is secretly an evil pedo" came from an seal the damn
> 
> its fucking stupid



Well I did mention my skepticism on this. :lol :lol :lol

If anything, it's a pretty "entertaining" story....in a twisted, sick, dark-humor sort-of way.


----------



## virus21




----------



## yeahbaby!

So is TrumpCare TrumpCare or is it actually RyanCare? Or CongressCare? That actually has a ring to it.


----------



## glenwo2

yeahbaby! said:


> So is TrumpCare TrumpCare or is it actually RyanCare? Or CongressCare? That actually has a ring to it.


^I'd call it BullshitCare myself.


----------



## CamillePunk

Calling it TrumpCare seems odd since he doesn't seem to be really involved with it and is just letting the GOP Congress do its thing, but I suppose its fair game to call it that since we called the ACA ObamaCare. I don't really Care what its called, I just hope the final plan is much closer to Rand Paul's than the other one. Of course ideally the government would withdraw from healthcare altogether, but alas, that battle was lost long ago.


----------



## Oxidamus

yeahbaby! said:


> So is TrumpCare TrumpCare or is it actually RyanCare? Or CongressCare? That actually has a ring to it.


Peep the concept, you've got progress, you've got congress. :mj


----------



## yeahbaby!

CamillePunk said:


> Calling it TrumpCare seems odd since he doesn't seem to be really involved with it and is just letting the GOP Congress do its thing, but I suppose its fair game to call it that since we called the ACA ObamaCare. I don't really Care what its called, I just hope the final plan is much closer to Rand Paul's than the other one. Of course ideally the government would withdraw from healthcare altogether, but alas, that battle was lost long ago.


Lol well he probably should be involved with it shouldn't he? He should be able to Master Persuade his own Great Big Healthcare plan across all channels, no?


----------



## NotGuilty

He hires people who know what their doing so no he doesn't have to be more involved, hes overseeing his team. :trump2


----------



## CamillePunk

yeahbaby! said:


> Lol well he probably should be involved with it shouldn't he? He should be able to Master Persuade his own Great Big Healthcare plan across all channels, no?


Trump is a busy man with his own skill set, which doesn't include knowing the inner workings of the healthcare industry. When a plan comes across his desk from Congress he will use his Master Persuasion skills to convince enough people it's a great plan. Healthcare will most likely be a "See how great everything became once I took charge?" talking point of his 2020 election platform. Again, the facts will be irrelevant, as they were in the 2016 election.


----------



## Art Vandaley

Btw for people celebrating that at least Trumpcare gets rid of the penalty you have to pay the government if you don't have medical insurance, Trump hasn't actually gotten rid of the penalty payment he's just shifted it so it goes to the insurance companies instead.



> 5) The arbitrary and crushing penalty for not enrolling during the randomly-selected period will hurt financially struggling voters already fighting to stay afloat. As Avik Roy writes in Forbes, the “continuous coverage” part inflicts a massive cost increase on those who go without paying for a plan for more than 63 days. “Worse still, the bill contains an arbitrary ‘continuous coverage’ provision, in which those who sign up for coverage outside of the normal open enrollment period would pay a 30 percent surcharge to the normal insurance premium,” Roy writes. And you have to pay this for an entire year—which will not go over well with people struggling to pay for rent, for childcare, for student loans. In other words, it’s not enough to pay a one-time penalty if you forget to sign up for your Obamacare 2.0 in time or choose to forgo insurance altogether. No, you have to pay 30 percent more, on top of rising costs, for a whole year. How is this supposed to help, say, parents with three kids paying a large monthly premium (not counting eye and dental, of course) with a high deductible?


http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ps-base-and-hand-power-back-to-the-democrats/


----------



## DesolationRow

Alkomesh2 said:


> Btw for people celebrating that at least Trumpcare gets rid of the penalty you have to pay the government if you don't have medical insurance, Trump hasn't actually gotten rid of the penalty payment he's just shifted it so it goes to the insurance companies instead.


Be careful there, quoting from the right-wing fever swamps near Mordor publication in Breitbart. 

Of course I'm just kidding. You are completely right, as is the article.

Though I'm not sure if Donald Trump should be credited/blamed with/for the bill as it seems to be more a product of Paul Ryan and the mainstream Republicans in Congress between their morning golf games and their two-hour lunches, but to be sure, if Trump continues to herald this bill as he has done thus far and especially if he ultimately signs it into law, he will share full culpability. 

Part of me wonders if this is not just a major decoy of an operation, with some within the Trump circle as well as conservative Republicans who agree with the "repealing" but not the "replacing" to quote Rand Paul hoping the bill, no matter what happens in the House of Representatives, goes on to the Senate simply to die. 

Wanted to bring this point up, too, especially for the likes of @AryaDark, @BruiserKC, @CamillePunk, @L-DOPA, @MillionDollarProns @Miss Sally et. al., which goes thusly: While conservatives are correctly howling over the awfulness of this almost irredeemable bill, there is a bright side to this entire drama unfolding the way it has. The two most indispensable provisions of Obamacare are, (a) the individual mandate, which requires people to buy health insurance or pay a fine; and (b) health insurance packages covering myriad health concerns, with nary a tincture of consideration for individual preferences, thereby predictably pushing premiums up.

Now, many executive orders are more declarations of principles than much else, but Trump's executive order, performed only hours after becoming president, which instructed the Internal Revenue Service to no longer enforce the fine on people not buying health insurance has the resultant effect of overturning Obamacare's individual mandate. It renders that entire aspect of the Affordable Care Act toothless. 

Now, Trump has also been quite liberal in how he has declared that the federal government would, over time, begin to be dramatically more flexible in the sorts of health plans it accepts. Rather than compel everyone through threat of penalty to be covered for everything, as Obamacare did, no matter how remote or inappropriate to their individual situation, it could perhaps be possible, once again, for people to opt for low-premium, high-deductible catastrophic-only plans. 

Time will dictate what occurs in actuality but there are, in spite of the treachery and intrigue afoot within the Republican Congress at the very least--against which people should stand up and voice their unalterable opposition--at least some things in this realm warranting the holding of at least modest optimism.


----------



## Reaper

This is just the first draft. It's not final law. Not yet anyways so there's still time for more favorable changes to happen. 

I'll complain when they don't. At the moment while I have complaints, there's no point choosing a side till the final plan has gone through.

I fail to see how insurance companies will college a penalty from individuals who were never insured - and it will be an even more difficult battle in the legal system to coerce people to pay a capitalist a fine. I don't even see how it could be made logistically possible. It's more likely that this clause will either phase out, or be impossible to implement.

The use of the word "penalty" is just plain wrong :lmao It's merely a government allowed price-hike for people looking for new insurance after they've dropped it. There's no penalty in the same sense as what it was under Obamacare at all. 

Talk about spin fpalm

You can claim that it will result in a zero sum game. It gives no new people any incentive to get insurance and makes it harder for them ONLY outside of the government enrollment period. _But it doesn't mean that you'll be penalized for having nothing if you deice not to get insured. 
_
It does however give insurance companies more opportunity to price gouge. And that's the real criticism. It's not a penalty for receiving nothing. 

It's a penalty for new coverage the consequence of which is that people simply won't sign up but if they don't won't pay anything unlike with Obamacare. 

Completely different situation. 

I really don't understand why people simply no longer have comprehension skills of their own and are just so easily led around by FAKE NOOS.


----------



## glenwo2

Alkomesh2 said:


> Btw for people celebrating that at least Trumpcare gets rid of the penalty you have to pay the government if you don't have medical insurance, Trump hasn't actually gotten rid of the penalty payment he's just shifted it so it goes to the insurance companies instead.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ps-base-and-hand-power-back-to-the-democrats/


I assume this is directed toward me so let me just counter with this part of the blurb you provided :



> *in which those who sign up for coverage outside of the normal open enrollment period* would pay a 30 percent surcharge to the normal insurance premium,”


See the bolded and underlined? First off, I(for example) would sign up during the normal open enrollment period so there won't be any issue. Finally, this "30% penalty" is for those *that try to sign up* for insurance(outside the normal enrollment period). If I do NOT sign up for insurance, then the so-called "30%" doesn't apply to me, especially when the Tax Penalty with the IRS no longer exists. Again, there's no pressure to buy insurance at all. :shrug


Nice try.


----------



## Reaper

glenwo2 said:


> I assume this is directed toward me so let me just counter with this part of the blurb you provided :
> 
> 
> 
> See the bolded and underlined? First off, I(for example) would sign up during the normal open enrollment period so there won't be any issue. Finally, this "30% penalty" is for those *that try to sign up* for insurance(outside the normal enrollment period). If I do NOT sign up for insurance, then the so-called "30%" doesn't apply to me, especially when the Tax Penalty with IRS no longer exists. Again, there's no pressure to buy insurance at all. :shrug


He's only calling it a "penalty" because the media outlets have mischaracterised it in order to get low IQ people to spread FAKE NOOS. (Actually I'm tempted to call it Fake NOOSE from now on considering it's designed to get people twisted up into committing ideological suicide). 

So dishonest.


----------



## glenwo2

Hey Rip, you saw this, right?

http://imgur.com/R3GDsuT


What's your impression?


----------



## Reaper

Conspiracy theory :draper2 

Not a fan of those.


----------



## glenwo2

^ So you're also not a fan of Jesse Ventura either?


----------



## Reaper

glenwo2 said:


> ^ So you're also not a fan of Jesse Ventura either?


Never even listened to a single thing he's ever said. So no. 

I went through my phase of believing conspiracies 15 odd years ago and that was well before I discovered how to do science for myself.

Aand. Trump is such a nazi/hitler/kremlin agent fascist that wants to suppress the freedom of the media that he allows rapper dipshits like PoopDogg make a video shooting him. Part of me actually wishes that he starts skipping context like his enemies and uses them to actually oppress these rich fuckers.


----------



## glenwo2

^ Well he's certainly capable of doing it if he was as petty as the LEFT is.

But unlike the LEFT that seems to have a lot of time on their hands like Bernie Sanders, Trump is actually DOING WORK and his JOB as POTUS.


----------



## Miss Sally

DesolationRow said:


> Be careful there, quoting from the right-wing fever swamps near Mordor publication in Breitbart.
> 
> Of course I'm just kidding. You are completely right, as is the article.
> 
> Though I'm not sure if Donald Trump should be credited/blamed with/for the bill as it seems to be more a product of Paul Ryan and the mainstream Republicans in Congress between their morning golf games and their two-hour lunches, but to be sure, if Trump continues to herald this bill as he has done thus far and especially if he ultimately signs it into law, he will share full culpability.
> 
> Part of me wonders if this is not just a major decoy of an operation, with some within the Trump circle as well as conservative Republicans who agree with the "repealing" but not the "replacing" to quote Rand Paul hoping the bill, no matter what happens in the House of Representatives, goes on to the Senate simply to die.
> 
> Wanted to bring this point up, too, especially for the likes of @AryaDark, @BruiserKC, @CamillePunk, @L-DOPA, @MillionDollarProns @Miss Sally et. al., which goes thusly: While conservatives are correctly howling over the awfulness of this almost irredeemable bill, there is a bright side to this entire drama unfolding the way it has. The two most indispensable provisions of Obamacare are, (a) the individual mandate, which requires people to buy health insurance or pay a fine; and (b) health insurance packages covering myriad health concerns, with nary a tincture of consideration for individual preferences, thereby predictably pushing premiums up.
> 
> Now, many executive orders are more declarations of principles than much else, but Trump's executive order, performed only hours after becoming president, which instructed the Internal Revenue Service to no longer enforce the fine on people not buying health insurance has the resultant effect of overturning Obamacare's individual mandate. It renders that entire aspect of the Affordable Care Act toothless.
> 
> Now, Trump has also been quite liberal in how he has declared that the federal government would, over time, begin to be dramatically more flexible in the sorts of health plans it accepts. Rather than compel everyone through threat of penalty to be covered for everything, as Obamacare did, no matter how remote or inappropriate to their individual situation, it could perhaps be possible, once again, for people to opt for low-premium, high-deductible catastrophic-only plans.
> 
> Time will dictate what occurs in actuality but there are, in spite of the treachery and intrigue afoot within the Republican Congress at the very least--against which people should stand up and voice their unalterable opposition--at least some things in this realm warranting the holding of at least modest optimism.


I've not voiced my opinion on this because I'm waiting for more information. Like just about everyone here I think what is proposed so far is dog shit.

That being said it makes me wonder if Trump was strongarmed by these Rinos and angry Republicans into setting out their own Healthcare plan while Trump waits in the wings. It's a few months into his Presidency and time is on his side. 

My instincts tell me he let them do this to get exposed, to get the targets set on Ryan and the others by the Left and by the voters who voted for Trump. By doing so if Trump introduces his own plan which is superior, Republicans cannot fight him nor can they block it lest they are wiling to suffer an onslaught by Democrats and by the voters. He basically may have let them expose themselves as Trump seemingly has nothing to do with this plan. That alone makes me suspect Trump is working behind the scenes but I could be wrong.

If this is Trump's plan it's genius. Democrats would have no choice but to praise him and out of line Republicans would have to back him. He's been fighting both sides and really the Republicans are lucky they got voted in as not many Trump supporters like Ryan and his cronies. This could very well be what Trump needs, steal voters to vote for him and people allied with him and get rid of establishment Republicans. Doing it without open warfare of words or actions and letting these people hang themselves with their own words keeps Trump looking clean.

Again this is speculation but people have underestimated Trump and he's come out with some ingenious plans. If him and Rand come out with a plan that's actually great which wouldn't have passed by Republicans but now has to because of public outrage, it would be an amazing turnabout and a massive crotch chop to the faces of his Political opponents.


----------



## Reaper

It has Trump's official Twitter endorsement.


----------



## glenwo2

^ Twitter is still AIDS, though.


----------



## CamillePunk

Senator Rand Paul talks ACHA/TrumpCare/Obamacare Lite on Face the Nation, as well as the possibility of the Obama administration wiretapping Trump as a candidate:


----------



## birthday_massacre

Spicer: Trump didn't mean wiretapping when he tweeted about wiretapping


What a joke Trump and his admin is


----------



## Stephen90




----------



## birthday_massacre

Stephen90 said:


>




Is she sure she isn't inspector gadget


----------



## glenwo2

birthday_massacre said:


> Spicer: Trump didn't mean wiretapping when he tweeted about wiretapping
> 
> 
> What a joke Trump and his admin is


Didn't Bill Clinton said something similar except he used the word "intercourse"? 

Politicians are a joke in General.


----------



## birthday_massacre

glenwo2 said:


> Didn't Bill Clinton said something similar except he used the word "intercourse"?
> 
> Politicians are a joke in General.


Thought it was he did not have sexual relations with that women. But yes he lied about having an affair but let's be real here lying about having an affair and claiming a former president tapped your phones (or called for wiretapping) is not even close to the same thing

Bill Clinton getting a blow job in the oval office and Trump claiming Obama had Trumps phones tapped are apples and orangles.

Watergate and what Trump was claiming is way more of a fair comparison but we all know why you went to Clinton (D) and not the correct comparison Nixon a republican.


----------



## birthday_massacre

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/09/polit...-between-russian-bank-and-trump-organization/

Sources: FBI investigation continues into *'odd' computer link between Russian bank and Trump Organization*


ources: FBI investigates 'odd' computer link 08:27
(CNN)Federal investigators and computer scientists continue to examine whether there was a computer server connection between the Trump Organization and a Russian bank, sources close to the investigation tell CNN.

Questions about the possible connection were widely dismissed four months ago. But the FBI's investigation remains open, the sources said, and is in the hands of the FBI's counterintelligence team -- the same one looking into Russia's suspected interference in the 2016 election.

One U.S. official said investigators find the server relationship "odd" and are not ignoring it. But the official said there is still more work for the FBI to do. Investigators have not yet determined whether a connection would be significant.
The server issue surfaced again this weekend, mentioned in a Breitbart article that, according to a White House official, sparked President Trump's series of tweets accusing investigators of tapping his phone.
CNN is told there was no Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant on the server.
The FBI declined to comment. The White House did not respond to a request for comment.
In addition, companies involved have provided CNN with new explanations that at times conflict with each other and still don't fully explain what happened.
*The story -- of a possible connection between computer servers -- is a strange tale because there are no specific allegations of wrongdoing and only vague technical evidence.
Internet data shows that last summer, a computer server owned by Russia-based Alfa Bank repeatedly looked up the contact information for a computer server being used by the Trump Organization -- far more than other companies did, representing 80% of all lookups to the Trump server.*
It's unclear if the Trump Organization server itself did anything in return. No one has produced evidence that the servers actually communicated.
Slate and The New York Times were first to report the unusual server activity.
The Times said the FBI had concluded there could be an "innocuous explanation." And cybersecurity experts told CNN this isn't how two entities would communicate if they wanted to keep things secret.
But for those who have studied the data, the activity could suggest an intent to communicate by email during a period of time when ties between the Trump Organization and Russia are being closely scrutinized because of Russia's alleged involvement in hacking the emails of the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton campaign chief John Podesta.
This issue intrigued a dozen computer researchers at a recent business conference in Washington, D.C. that pulled together the world's top network operators, the ones who help run the internet. To them, it's a strange coincidence that merits further scrutiny.
Another computer researcher, Richard Clayton of Cambridge University, said it's just plain weird.
"It's not so much a smoking gun as a faint whiff of smoke a long way away. Maybe there's something else going on. It's hard to tell," said Clayton, who has independently examined the scant evidence available.
What is known:
Last year, a small group of computer scientists obtained internet traffic records from the complex system that serves as the internet's phone book. Access to these records is reserved for highly trusted cybersecurity firms and companies that provide this lookup service.
These signals were captured as they traveled along the internet's Domain Name System (DNS).
These leaked records show that Alfa Bank servers repeatedly looked up the unique internet address of a particular Trump Organization computer server in the United States.
In the computer world, it's the equivalent of looking up someone's phone number -- over and over again. While there isn't necessarily a phone call, it usually indicates an intention to communicate, according to several computer scientists.
What puzzled them was why a Russian bank was repeatedly looking up the contact information for mail1.trump-email.com.
Publicly available internet records show that address, which was registered to the Trump Organization, points to an IP address that lives on an otherwise dull machine operated by a company in the tiny rural town of Lititz, Pennsylvania.
*From May 4 until September 23, the Russian bank looked up the address to this Trump corporate server 2,820 times -- more lookups than the Trump server received from any other source.
As noted, Alfa Bank alone represents 80% of the lookups, according to these leaked internet records.
Far back in second place, with 714 such lookups, was a company called Spectrum Health.
Spectrum is a medical facility chain led by Dick DeVos, the husband of Betsy DeVos, who was appointed by Trump as U.S. education secretary.
Together, Alfa and Spectrum accounted for 99% of the lookups.
This server behavior alarmed one computer expert who had privileged access to this technical information last year. That person, who remains anonymous and goes by the moniker "Tea Leaves," obtained this information from internet traffic meant to remain private. It is unclear where Tea Leaves worked or how Tea Leaves obtained access to the information.
Tea Leaves gave that data to a small band of computer scientists who joined forces to examine it, several members of that group told CNN, which has also reviewed the data.*
Possible explanations
The corporations involved have different theories to explain the server activity. But they haven't provided proof -- and they don't agree.
Alfa Bank has maintained that the most likely explanation is that the server communication was the result of spam marketing. Bank executives have stayed at Trump hotels, so it's possible they got subsequent spam marketing emails from the Trump Organization. Those emails might have set off defensive cybersecurity measures at the bank, whose servers would respond with a cautious DNS lookup. Alfa Bank said it used antispam software from Trend Micro, whose tools would do a DNS lookup to know the source of the spam.
Alfa Bank said it brought U.S. cybersecurity firm Mandiant to Moscow to investigate. Mandiant had a "working hypothesis" that the activity was "caused by email marketing/spam" on the Trump server's end, according to representatives for Alfa Bank and Mandiant. The private investigation is now over, Alfa Bank said.
Computer scientists agree that such an explanation is possible in theory. But they want to see evidence.
Alfa Bank and Mandiant could not point to marketing emails from the time period in question. "Mandiant has found evidence of an old marketing campaign, which... is too old to be relevant," Alfa Bank said in a statement.
CNN reached out to the Trump Organization with detailed technical questions but has not received answers.
Cendyn is the contractor that once operated marketing software on that Trump email domain. In February, it provided CNN a Trump Organization statement that called the internet records "incomplete" and stressed that they do not show any signs of "two-way email communication." That statement lends credibility to the spam marketing theory, because it says the Trump server was set up in 2010 to deliver promotional marketing emails for Trump Hotels. But Cendyn acknowledged that the last marketing email it delivered for Trump's corporation was sent in March 2016, "well before the date range in question."
Spectrum Health told CNN it "did find a small number of incoming spam marketing emails" from "Cendyn, advertising Trump Hotels." But it pointed to emails sent in 2015, long before the May-through-September 2016 time period examined by scientists. Spectrum Health said that it "has not been contacted by the FBI or any government agency on this matter."
Having the Trump Organization server set up for marketing also doesn't explain why Alfa Bank and Spectrum would stand out so much.
"If it were spam, then a lot of other organizations would be doing DNS lookups. There would be evidence of widespread connectivity with devices," said L. Jean Camp, a computer scientist at Indiana University who has studied the data.
Cendyn has also provided another possible explanation, suggesting a highly technical case of mistaken identity.
Cendyn routinely repurposes computer servers -- like the one used by the Trump Organization.
Cendyn's software, like its event planning tool Metron, sends email and thus relies on the 20 different email servers rented by the company. After "a thorough network analysis," Cendyn has said that it found a bank client had used Metron to communicate with AlfaBank.com.
But Alfa Bank starkly denies "any dealings with Cendyn." And, it says, it's unlikely that it received any emails from that server. "Mandiant investigated 12 months of email archives and it found no emails to or from any of the IP addresses given to us by the media."
On Wednesday, Cendyn provided another explanation to CNN. Cendyn claims the Trump Hotel Collection ditched Cendyn and went with another email marketing company, the German firm Serenata, in March 2016. Cendyn said it "transferred back to" Trump's company the mail1.trump-email.com domain.
Serenata this week told CNN it was indeed hired by Trump Hotels, but it "never has operated or made use of" the domain in question: mail1.trump-email.com.
Upon hearing that Cendyn gave up control of the Trump email domain, Camp, said: "That does not make any sense to me at all. The more confusing this is, the more I think we need an investigation."
Other computer experts said there could be additional lookups that weren't captured by the original leak. That could mean that Alfa's presence isn't as dominant as it seems. But Dyn, which has a major presence on the internet's domain name system, spotted only two such lookups — from the Netherlands on August 15.
Alfa Bank insists that it has no connections to Trump. In a statement to CNN, Alfa Bank said neither it, bank cofounder Mikhail Fridman and bank president Petr Aven "have had any contact with Mr. Trump or his organizations. Fridman and Aven have never met Mr. Trump nor have they or Alfa Bank had any business dealings with him. Neither Alfa Bank nor its officers have sent Mr. Trump or his organization any emails, information or money. Alfa Bank does not have and has never had any special or exclusive internet connection with Mr. Trump or his entities."
Scientists now silent
The bank told CNN it is now trying to identify the person or entity who disseminated this internet traffic. "We believe that DNS traffic in mainland Europe was deliberately captured - in a manner that is unethical and possibly illegal -- in order to manufacture the deceit," it said.
Fear has now silenced several of the computer scientists who first analyzed the data.
Tea Leaves refused to be interviewed by CNN and is now "hiding under a rock," according to an intermediary contact.
Paul Vixie, who helped design the very DNS system the internet uses today, was quoted in the Slate story saying that Alfa Bank and the Trump Organization "were communicating in a secretive fashion." Vixie declined to go on the record with CNN.
Even the skeptics have unanswered questions.
Robert Graham is a cybersecurity expert who wrote a widely circulated blog post in November that criticized computer scientists for premature conclusions connecting the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank.
But he's still wondering why Alfa Bank and Spectrum Health alone dominated links to this Trump server.
"It's indicative of communication between Trump, the health organization and the bank outside these servers," he told CNN. "There is some sort of connection I can't explain, and only they are doing it. It could be completely innocent."


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> Thought it was he did not have sexual relations with that women. But yes he lied about having an affair but let's be real here lying about having an affair and claiming a former president tapped your phones (or called for wiretapping) is not even close to the same thing
> 
> *Bill Clinton getting a blow job in the oval office and Trump claiming Obama had Trumps phones tapped are apples and orangles.
> *
> Watergate and what Trump was claiming is way more of a fair comparison but we all know why you went to Clinton (D) and not the correct comparison Nixon a republican.


Is Bill Clinton getting a blow job in the oval office and Kelly Ann Conway having her feet on the oval office couch apples and oranges?

@birthday_massacre, cool, let us know if any actual evidence comes from it.


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Is Bill Clinton getting a blow job in the oval office and Kelly Ann Conway having her feet on the oval office couch apples and oranges?
> 
> @birthday_massacre, cool, let us know if any actual evidence comes from it.


Yes its apples and oranges too

The people bitching about Kelly Ann and her feet on the couch were stupid No one should have cared. Plus pretty sure her shoes were not even on. Even if they were still it should have been a non issue.

Bill Clinton getting a BJ in the oval office is a bigger deal than Conways feet being on the sofa


----------



## glenwo2

birthday_massacre said:


> http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/09/polit...-between-russian-bank-and-trump-organization/
> 
> Sources: FBI investigation continues into *'odd' computer link between Russian bank and Trump Organization*
> 
> 
> ources: FBI investigates 'odd' computer link 08:27
> (CNN)Federal investigators and computer scientists continue to examine whether there was a computer server connection between the Trump Organization and a Russian bank, sources close to the investigation tell CNN.
> 
> Questions about the possible connection were widely dismissed four months ago. But the FBI's investigation remains open, the sources said, and is in the hands of the FBI's counterintelligence team -- the same one looking into Russia's suspected interference in the 2016 election.
> 
> One U.S. official said investigators find the server relationship "odd" and are not ignoring it. But the official said there is still more work for the FBI to do. Investigators have not yet determined whether a connection would be significant.
> The server issue surfaced again this weekend, mentioned in a Breitbart article that, according to a White House official, sparked President Trump's series of tweets accusing investigators of tapping his phone.
> CNN is told there was no Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant on the server.
> The FBI declined to comment. The White House did not respond to a request for comment.
> In addition, companies involved have provided CNN with new explanations that at times conflict with each other and still don't fully explain what happened.
> *The story -- of a possible connection between computer servers -- is a strange tale because there are no specific allegations of wrongdoing and only vague technical evidence.
> Internet data shows that last summer, a computer server owned by Russia-based Alfa Bank repeatedly looked up the contact information for a computer server being used by the Trump Organization -- far more than other companies did, representing 80% of all lookups to the Trump server.*
> It's unclear if the Trump Organization server itself did anything in return. No one has produced evidence that the servers actually communicated.
> Slate and The New York Times were first to report the unusual server activity.
> The Times said the FBI had concluded there could be an "innocuous explanation." And cybersecurity experts told CNN this isn't how two entities would communicate if they wanted to keep things secret.
> But for those who have studied the data, the activity could suggest an intent to communicate by email during a period of time when ties between the Trump Organization and Russia are being closely scrutinized because of Russia's alleged involvement in hacking the emails of the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton campaign chief John Podesta.
> This issue intrigued a dozen computer researchers at a recent business conference in Washington, D.C. that pulled together the world's top network operators, the ones who help run the internet. To them, it's a strange coincidence that merits further scrutiny.
> Another computer researcher, Richard Clayton of Cambridge University, said it's just plain weird.
> "It's not so much a smoking gun as a faint whiff of smoke a long way away. Maybe there's something else going on. It's hard to tell," said Clayton, who has independently examined the scant evidence available.
> What is known:
> Last year, a small group of computer scientists obtained internet traffic records from the complex system that serves as the internet's phone book. Access to these records is reserved for highly trusted cybersecurity firms and companies that provide this lookup service.
> These signals were captured as they traveled along the internet's Domain Name System (DNS).
> These leaked records show that Alfa Bank servers repeatedly looked up the unique internet address of a particular Trump Organization computer server in the United States.
> In the computer world, it's the equivalent of looking up someone's phone number -- over and over again. While there isn't necessarily a phone call, it usually indicates an intention to communicate, according to several computer scientists.
> What puzzled them was why a Russian bank was repeatedly looking up the contact information for mail1.trump-email.com.
> Publicly available internet records show that address, which was registered to the Trump Organization, points to an IP address that lives on an otherwise dull machine operated by a company in the tiny rural town of Lititz, Pennsylvania.
> *From May 4 until September 23, the Russian bank looked up the address to this Trump corporate server 2,820 times -- more lookups than the Trump server received from any other source.
> As noted, Alfa Bank alone represents 80% of the lookups, according to these leaked internet records.
> Far back in second place, with 714 such lookups, was a company called Spectrum Health.
> Spectrum is a medical facility chain led by Dick DeVos, the husband of Betsy DeVos, who was appointed by Trump as U.S. education secretary.
> Together, Alfa and Spectrum accounted for 99% of the lookups.
> This server behavior alarmed one computer expert who had privileged access to this technical information last year. That person, who remains anonymous and goes by the moniker "Tea Leaves," obtained this information from internet traffic meant to remain private. It is unclear where Tea Leaves worked or how Tea Leaves obtained access to the information.
> Tea Leaves gave that data to a small band of computer scientists who joined forces to examine it, several members of that group told CNN, which has also reviewed the data.*
> Possible explanations
> The corporations involved have different theories to explain the server activity. But they haven't provided proof -- and they don't agree.
> Alfa Bank has maintained that the most likely explanation is that the server communication was the result of spam marketing. Bank executives have stayed at Trump hotels, so it's possible they got subsequent spam marketing emails from the Trump Organization. Those emails might have set off defensive cybersecurity measures at the bank, whose servers would respond with a cautious DNS lookup. Alfa Bank said it used antispam software from Trend Micro, whose tools would do a DNS lookup to know the source of the spam.
> Alfa Bank said it brought U.S. cybersecurity firm Mandiant to Moscow to investigate. Mandiant had a "working hypothesis" that the activity was "caused by email marketing/spam" on the Trump server's end, according to representatives for Alfa Bank and Mandiant. The private investigation is now over, Alfa Bank said.
> Computer scientists agree that such an explanation is possible in theory. But they want to see evidence.
> Alfa Bank and Mandiant could not point to marketing emails from the time period in question. "Mandiant has found evidence of an old marketing campaign, which... is too old to be relevant," Alfa Bank said in a statement.
> CNN reached out to the Trump Organization with detailed technical questions but has not received answers.
> Cendyn is the contractor that once operated marketing software on that Trump email domain. In February, it provided CNN a Trump Organization statement that called the internet records "incomplete" and stressed that they do not show any signs of "two-way email communication." That statement lends credibility to the spam marketing theory, because it says the Trump server was set up in 2010 to deliver promotional marketing emails for Trump Hotels. But Cendyn acknowledged that the last marketing email it delivered for Trump's corporation was sent in March 2016, "well before the date range in question."
> Spectrum Health told CNN it "did find a small number of incoming spam marketing emails" from "Cendyn, advertising Trump Hotels." But it pointed to emails sent in 2015, long before the May-through-September 2016 time period examined by scientists. Spectrum Health said that it "has not been contacted by the FBI or any government agency on this matter."
> Having the Trump Organization server set up for marketing also doesn't explain why Alfa Bank and Spectrum would stand out so much.
> "If it were spam, then a lot of other organizations would be doing DNS lookups. There would be evidence of widespread connectivity with devices," said L. Jean Camp, a computer scientist at Indiana University who has studied the data.
> Cendyn has also provided another possible explanation, suggesting a highly technical case of mistaken identity.
> Cendyn routinely repurposes computer servers -- like the one used by the Trump Organization.
> Cendyn's software, like its event planning tool Metron, sends email and thus relies on the 20 different email servers rented by the company. After "a thorough network analysis," Cendyn has said that it found a bank client had used Metron to communicate with AlfaBank.com.
> But Alfa Bank starkly denies "any dealings with Cendyn." And, it says, it's unlikely that it received any emails from that server. "Mandiant investigated 12 months of email archives and it found no emails to or from any of the IP addresses given to us by the media."
> On Wednesday, Cendyn provided another explanation to CNN. Cendyn claims the Trump Hotel Collection ditched Cendyn and went with another email marketing company, the German firm Serenata, in March 2016. Cendyn said it "transferred back to" Trump's company the mail1.trump-email.com domain.
> Serenata this week told CNN it was indeed hired by Trump Hotels, but it "never has operated or made use of" the domain in question: mail1.trump-email.com.
> Upon hearing that Cendyn gave up control of the Trump email domain, Camp, said: "That does not make any sense to me at all. The more confusing this is, the more I think we need an investigation."
> Other computer experts said there could be additional lookups that weren't captured by the original leak. That could mean that Alfa's presence isn't as dominant as it seems. But Dyn, which has a major presence on the internet's domain name system, spotted only two such lookups — from the Netherlands on August 15.
> Alfa Bank insists that it has no connections to Trump. In a statement to CNN, Alfa Bank said neither it, bank cofounder Mikhail Fridman and bank president Petr Aven "have had any contact with Mr. Trump or his organizations. Fridman and Aven have never met Mr. Trump nor have they or Alfa Bank had any business dealings with him. Neither Alfa Bank nor its officers have sent Mr. Trump or his organization any emails, information or money. Alfa Bank does not have and has never had any special or exclusive internet connection with Mr. Trump or his entities."
> Scientists now silent
> The bank told CNN it is now trying to identify the person or entity who disseminated this internet traffic. "We believe that DNS traffic in mainland Europe was deliberately captured - in a manner that is unethical and possibly illegal -- in order to manufacture the deceit," it said.
> Fear has now silenced several of the computer scientists who first analyzed the data.
> Tea Leaves refused to be interviewed by CNN and is now "hiding under a rock," according to an intermediary contact.
> Paul Vixie, who helped design the very DNS system the internet uses today, was quoted in the Slate story saying that Alfa Bank and the Trump Organization "were communicating in a secretive fashion." Vixie declined to go on the record with CNN.
> Even the skeptics have unanswered questions.
> Robert Graham is a cybersecurity expert who wrote a widely circulated blog post in November that criticized computer scientists for premature conclusions connecting the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank.
> But he's still wondering why Alfa Bank and Spectrum Health alone dominated links to this Trump server.
> "It's indicative of communication between Trump, the health organization and the bank outside these servers," he told CNN. "There is some sort of connection I can't explain, and only they are doing it. It could be completely innocent."


----------



## stevefox1200

glenwo2 said:


>


To be fair you also posted about CIA child sex trafficking


----------



## birthday_massacre

glenwo2 said:


>


So you dont find it odd some Trump computer in some random city just so happens to have 80% of all lookups to the Trump server and the other majority of the look ups are from Betsy DeVos's husbands company?

Instead of trolling with a stupid meme , why don't you actually give a good reason why this should not raise an alarm?


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> Yes its apples and oranges too
> 
> The people bitching about Kelly Ann and her feet on the couch were stupid No one should have cared. Plus pretty sure her shoes were not even on. Even if they were still it should have been a non issue.
> 
> Bill Clinton getting a BJ in the oval office is a bigger deal than Conways feet being on the sofa


Thankfully a line has been drawn as to how far left you are. Trump is more than likely using the power of the President to further his business relations with the Russians, but Couch-gate is a non-issue. It's refreshing.


----------



## FriedTofu

Miss Sally said:


> I've not voiced my opinion on this because I'm waiting for more information. Like just about everyone here I think what is proposed so far is dog shit.
> 
> That being said it makes me wonder if Trump was strongarmed by these Rinos and angry Republicans into setting out their own Healthcare plan while Trump waits in the wings. It's a few months into his Presidency and time is on his side.
> 
> My instincts tell me he let them do this to get exposed, to get the targets set on Ryan and the others by the Left and by the voters who voted for Trump. By doing so if Trump introduces his own plan which is superior, Republicans cannot fight him nor can they block it lest they are wiling to suffer an onslaught by Democrats and by the voters. He basically may have let them expose themselves as Trump seemingly has nothing to do with this plan. That alone makes me suspect Trump is working behind the scenes but I could be wrong.
> 
> If this is Trump's plan it's genius. Democrats would have no choice but to praise him and out of line Republicans would have to back him. He's been fighting both sides and really the Republicans are lucky they got voted in as not many Trump supporters like Ryan and his cronies. This could very well be what Trump needs, steal voters to vote for him and people allied with him and get rid of establishment Republicans. Doing it without open warfare of words or actions and letting these people hang themselves with their own words keeps Trump looking clean.
> 
> Again this is speculation but people have underestimated Trump and he's come out with some ingenious plans. If him and Rand come out with a plan that's actually great which wouldn't have passed by Republicans but now has to because of public outrage, it would be an amazing turnabout and a massive crotch chop to the faces of his Political opponents.


Why are you so sure Trump has any idea what he is doing? He has resorted to hyperbole throughout the campaign to make complicated issues seems easy to solve. Remember having a secret plan to destroy ISIS in a short amount of time? Remember having the best healthcare plan that provide coverage for everyone at lower costs? How about his initial budget plan during the campaign that was just tax cuts for the rich that had to be changed to a lesser tax cut to the rich? All his campaign pledges seem like promises that people want to hear with no thought on any actual policies, relying on conservative think tanks to come up with the actual plans that cannot realistically deliver on all the wild promises Trump is saying. If one is cynical, it is almost like Trump wants his plans to never be revealed so he can seem like not making any mistakes. He can use his blank slate of not having his policies hurting segments of the population to whack other politicians who try to make actual policy changes that invariably will hurts some people in the name of change.

Rand's plan and Trump's campaign promises do not go together. For one, pre-existing conditions coverage will differ under Rand's plan and Trump's promises. Also, Rand Paul wants to push those same people into getting aid from Medicaid, which will likely be cut by GOP's attack on the system leaving them prone to not getting any coverage at all. That's not exactly what increasing coverage to more people like what Trump promised.


----------



## birthday_massacre

TheNightmanCometh said:


> Thankfully a line has been drawn as to how far left you are. Trump is more than likely using the power of the President to further his business relations with the Russians, but Couch-gate is a non-issue. It's refreshing.


Oh I am by far the most leftist on this board. But giving Conway shit for having her feet on the sofa is not even left, its just stupidity.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

http://imgur.com/gallery/IyJzm

@DesolationRow @RipNTear @L-DOPA @Vic Capri @Pratchett @Miss Sally @CamillePunk @glenwo2 @Beatles123 , if it wasn't apparent already, I think it's all but confirmed that we have found a weapon to surpass Metal Gear: Weaponized autism.

:trump2


----------



## FriedTofu

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> http://imgur.com/gallery/IyJzm
> 
> @DesolationRow @RipNTear @L-DOPA @Miss Sally @CamillePunk @glenwo2 @Beatles123 , if it wasn't apparent already, I think it's all but confirmed that we have found a weapon to surpass Metal Gear: Weaponized autism.
> 
> :trump2


Melania would not be pleased. :troll


----------



## Reaper

I've been watching Last Man Standing last few weeks and it's an awesome show for conservatives. I'm surprised at how genuine it is and touchee on a lot of modern right wing themes.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

FriedTofu said:


> Melania would not be pleased. :troll


She's got more pressing things to worry about, like looking MILF-y as fuck and continuing to be a pristine example of how legal immigrants can achieve the American Dream.

:trump3


----------



## glenwo2

birthday_massacre said:


> So you dont find it odd some Trump computer in some random city just so happens to have 80% of all lookups to the Trump server and the other majority of the look ups are from Betsy DeVos's husbands company?
> 
> Instead of trolling with a stupid meme , why don't you actually give a good reason why this should not raise an alarm?


All I've read in that article are rumors, speculation, and innuendo. 

They even mention there is no ACTUAL PROOF. 

That's why I put up the Tin-Foil-Hat meme because the LEFT continue to dig and dig and dig and dig for any smoking gun(imagined or not) that would lead to Trump being impeached. I guess they get an A for effort. :shrug


----------



## FriedTofu

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> She's got more pressing things to worry about, like looking MILF-y as fuck and continuing to be a pristine example of how legal immigrants can achieve the American Dream.
> 
> :trump3


But there are only so many billionaires to marry and so many more legal immigrants out there. :/


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

FriedTofu said:


> But there are only so many billionaires to marry and so many more legal immigrants out there. :/


They could always aim for the healthy number of millionaires. :draper2


----------



## MrMister

RipNTear said:


> I've been watching Last Man Standing last few weeks and it's an awesome show for conservatives. I'm surprised at how genuine it is and touchee on a lot of modern right wing themes.


im currently stalking the middle daughter on that show. she will be mine. oh yes. she will be mine.


----------



## Reaper

MrMister said:


> im currently stalking the middle daughter on that show. she will be mine. oh yes. she will be mine.


She's definitely a babe. I liked the girl that played the eldest in the first season. Really don't like the one they replaced her with at all. 

Good show though. I find myself cheering Baxter on pretty much all the time. Great father figure. First time since the 90s I've been happy with a sitcom.


----------



## FriedTofu

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> They could always aim for the healthy number of millionaires. :draper2


That isn't enough if you want the American dream though. :draper2


----------



## MrMister

RipNTear said:


> She's definitely a babe. I liked the girl that played the eldest in the first season. Really don't like the one they replaced her with at all.
> 
> Good show though. I find myself cheering Baxter on pretty much all the time. Great father figure. First time since the 90s I've been happy with a sitcom.


Tim Allen is one of the very rare Republican types that has had any staying power. Kurt Russell is another one, but he's more of a libertarian.


----------



## Reaper

MrMister said:


> Tim Allen is one of the very rare Republican types that has had any staying power. Kurt Russell is another one, but he's more of a libertarian.


He had an interview on Fox on the subject of being a snowflake Republican in Hollywood. That's really what got me to watch the show. 

I love how free the show is with its jokes and political commentary. Great writing. Now I'm tempted to go back and rewatch Home Improvement to see if it was similar.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

FriedTofu said:


> That isn't enough if you want the American dream though. :draper2


Gonna have to disagree on the grounds that money talks and bullshit walks. :vince$


----------



## CamillePunk

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> http://imgur.com/gallery/IyJzm
> 
> @DesolationRow @RipNTear @L-DOPA @Vic Capri @Pratchett @Miss Sally @CamillePunk @glenwo2 @Beatles123 , if it wasn't apparent already, I think it's all but confirmed that we have found a weapon to surpass Metal Gear: Weaponized autism.
> 
> :trump2


That is glorious. :done Nimble navigators indeed!


----------



## Art Vandaley

Btw I loled at the rightwingers attacking Brietbart as fake news designed to manipulate dumb people. 

The person who runs Brietbart is Trump's top adviser.

If you really believe that about Brietbart how can you still support Trump?

Some more Brietbart goodness on Trumpcare, this time also from Palin:



> Palin expressed serious concern with the fact that Ryan’s healthcare bill does not eliminate Obamacare’s individual mandate. It just shifts the mandate—which requires all Americans to purchase a health insurance plan even if they do not want one. Under Obamacare, those who do not comply, pay a tax to the federal government. Under Ryan’s plan, those who not comply, pay a fee to the insurance companies.
> 
> “This 30 percent additional fee will be collected by some in the private sector, which will mean politicians are allowed again to pick the winners and losers, and it makes you wonder who’s lobbying hardest for aspects of this new bill because obviously there are special interests involved. Otherwise, certain private sector segments of our economy wouldn’t be rewarded as they will be with this fee, instead of going to the IRS going to private companies,” Palin said. “It would be really helpful if every single one of these politicians would do like the NASCAR drivers do—and it’s been said before—but let them wear their sponsors plastered all over their three-piece suits when they show up so we know what side they’re on and who they’re actually doing their bidding for.”


----------



## MrMister

RipNTear said:


> He had an interview on Fox on the subject of being a snowflake Republican in Hollywood. That's really what got me to watch the show.
> 
> I love how free the show is with its jokes and political commentary. Great writing. Now I'm tempted to go back and rewatch Home Improvement to see if it was similar.


Allen plays pretty much the exact same character except he was the father of three boys in Home Improvement. He battled with his liberal sons on that show as they grew older. It's actually a somewhat realistic depiction of a conservative father who still loves his liberal sons, similar to his character's relationship with his son in law on Last Man Standing. I mean he loves his daughter, so he loves his son in law by default. He's a good guy conservative, which is what most conservative men are in Murica. They all get a very bad reputation as KKK'ers when that is extremely far from the truth.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

CamillePunk said:


> That is glorious. :done Nimble navigators indeed!


They've got the technological savviness and psychological warfare down pat. Now all they need is to be surgically enhanced to the peak of human potential, as well as be trained extensively in weaponry, espionage and unarmed combat and then...voila! We will have achieved our very own Winter Soldier program. :mark:

Book it, Teflon Don Juan! :trump3


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> Btw I loled at the rightwingers attacking Brietbart as fake news designed to manipulate dumb people.


Thinking that _Sarah Palin _is right just now because she happens to agree with your confirmation bias. Think about that for a second :lmaoFunny thing is, even in her quote she didn't actually say that there would be collection of money without people buying the insurance. How the fuck are insurance companies even going to collect fees from people that aren't even in their system. That's like Pizza fucking hut sending you a bill to pay them for pizza that you never order. And then Dominos sending you another bill. And then Little Ceasers sends you another :lmao The fact that your brain thinks that it's even possible to do this makes me wonder just how the fuck did you ever become a lawyer. 

Also what makes you think that just because it's Brietbart _quoting _Sarah Palin means that that's what _Brietbart _thinks or that it makes what has been said right because it's Sarah Palin's _opinion _about the "_penalty_" when it's her opinion about a bill she probably hasn't even read. Sarah Palin isn't the smartest person around. She's actually very, very dumb. 

Yes, a "fee" will be collected by insurance companies but it's not a mandated fee. It's only going to be collected from those people who buy insurance outside of the enrollment period and it's price gouging. It's not a fine or fee for not buying insurance. 

And I'm surprised you take yourself seriously. I guess my comment about low IQ people is still justified. 
---

*Trump is going to be on Tucker on Wednesday btw. 

--

*


MrMister said:


> He's a good guy conservative, which is what most conservative men are in Murica. They all get a very bad reputation as KKK'ers when that is extremely far from the truth.


Well, given what I'm seeing in America right now with fresh eyes as a recent immigrant --- at least in the last 6 months it's become kind of very painfully evident that KKK fathers have done a better job raising their children than the antifa morons that attend Berkley and hundreds of other colleges across America. I know that the KKK are a piece of shit, but at the same time a lot of hippie fathers haven't done a good job either and raised a bunch of ideological terrorists of their own.


----------



## glenwo2

Trump is will be on Tucker's program this Wednesday? 

This should be fun. :lol


----------



## Art Vandaley

Still dancing around believing Brietbart to be fake news designed to manupulate low iq people yet supporting for President someone who appointed the person who ran Brietbart as chief adviser I see.


----------



## Reaper

glenwo2 said:


> Trump *is will be* on Tucker's program this Wednesday?
> 
> This should be fun. :lol


Really couldn't contain your excitement, could you :mj



Alkomesh2 said:


> Still dancing around *believing Brietbart to be fake news designed to manupulate low iq* people yet supporting for President someone who appointed the person who ran Brietbart as chief adviser I see.


I'll take that as a concession because I never said any of this and now you're dancing around ridiculous talking points that have nothing to do with my response in order to maintain your narcissistic belief that you got something right.

You keep doing this. It's now starting to look like I'm attacking low hanging fruit.


----------



## Reaper

@Alkomesh2 - Address my core argument about the penalty instead of jumping around hot coals that you really don't want to because that's not the discussion. The discussion is that *there is no penalty for services you've never purchased *and you simply cannot understand that that's my claim. Sarah Palin has not made a claim that the penalty will be *for not buying insurance*. Breitbart did not say that there will be a penalty for not buying insurance. 

What's part of the plan is a 30% surcharge for people who buy insurance out of the enrollment period. *This is not in any way shape or form the same kind of penalty that Americans were currently paying for buying nothing. *

I'm double posting because I'm pretty sure you're not going to address the core argument and claim and just go into histrionics that do not address the core issues at all.


----------



## Art Vandaley

RipNTear said:


> I really don't understand why people simply no longer have comprehension skills of their own and are just so easily led around by FAKE NOOS.





RipNTear said:


> He's only calling it a "penalty" because the media outlets have mischaracterised it in order to get low IQ people to spread FAKE NOOS. (Actually I'm tempted to call it Fake NOOSE from now on considering it's designed to get people twisted up into committing ideological suicide).





RipNTear said:


> I'll take that as a concession because I never said any of this


And there are the quotes were you describe Brietbart as fake news, one of a series of media outlets aiming to manipulate low iq people.

Brietbart, the organisation run by the person who is the chief adviser of the person you support for President.


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> And there are the quotes were you describe Brietbart as fake news, one of a deries of media outlets aiming to manipulate low iq people.
> 
> Brietbart, the organisation run by the person you support for President.


Lol. Had a feeling this wasn't about actually learning but as usual grasping at straws for a gotcha moment. Not surprisingly you've ignored all the arguments about why it's not a penalty. Also sure I called the news fake news as it implied a penalty and made you believe that there is one. That's a fair judgement on my part. However the second source you posted was clearer in actually proving that there isn't a mandated penalty at all and I addressed that point for point. A post you didn't even have the guts to read. Just like you're not reading this one right now.

You're not a serious person. 

There is no penalty. Anyone that suggests or implies it is putting out fake news. Even if it is a organization run by someone in Trump's organization. Lol. 

Also good job on making this discussion about something completely different from what it was about which was that this is not a penalty. 

This is why people like you don't learn anything at all. You're not here to learn at all. You're biased and you don't even read people's posts in their entirety. 

Maybe you simply can't read and can only skim read like the majority your liberal ilk.

You want an echo chamber. Therefore you canot and have not addressed my arguments about why this isn't a penalty. 

Unfortunately this isn't new for you. You lack basic reading comprehension skills and just want to pick apart things you believe you can argue while ignoring everything else that proves you wrong. It's very apparent now.


----------



## Art Vandaley

Still dancing around the fact that you think Brietbart is fake news designed to manipulate low iq people and yet support for President someone who appointed the head of Brietbart his chief adviser.


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> Still dancing around the fact that you think Brietbart is fake news designed to manipulate low iq people and yet support for President someone who appointed the head of Brietbart his chief adviser.


:mj4

Yeah, you're definitely not a serious person. 

I didn't dance around anything. I clearly and openly said that if they're publishing news articles that imply that there is any such thing as a mandated penalty then that is fake news :mj4 

Of course, keep ignoring the actual argument about the penalty. It just means that you've had that point completely shattered and have literally no rebuttal anymore. It's ok, you're suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome. 

The POWER of Trump to cause someone all the way in Australia to develop a mental disorder is absolutely legendary :trump3May God and Emperor Trump live forever so I can be entertained like this for the rest of my life.


----------



## Art Vandaley

Oh so that is the only article by Brietbart that can be considered fake news?


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> Oh so that is the only article by Brietbart that can be considered fake news?


There may be others too on that platform. There's no such thing as all or none. :lmaoTo think that I'd believe something without using my head is laughable at this point ... See, what this does is betray you where you want so bad to pigeonhole people into this charicature of them that you've cooked up in your deluded brain where all conservatives believe everything all conservatives say. But unfortunately, that's not how my mind works. 

Dude, I didn't even believe the Quran when I was told that I would burn in hell forever if I didn't :mj4
You can't even argue in its favor anymore even though I've invited you thrice now to make your counter arguments about if or why you still think that this is a mandated penalty for something people haven't even bought. You just want to distract and deflect. You're done. 

I don't think you understand rational thought because you yourself don't possess the ability. 

But yeah, keep up with the TDS. It's clear now that you don't even care about the penalty or the poor lives of Americans anymore - just want to waste everyone's time and virtue signal, or look for loopholes. There are plenty of things to criticize Trump and his administration for. You're latching on to the one thing that's clearly a creation :mj4


----------



## Art Vandaley

Yes that Trumpcare penalises people for not having insurance is just part of the vast left wing anti trump conspiracy.

A left wing conspiracy lead by Brietbart and Sarah Palin.


----------



## Reaper

Alkomesh2 said:


> Yes that Trumpcare penalises people for not having insurance is just part of the vast left wing anti trump conspiracy.
> 
> A left wing conspiracy lead by Brietbart and Sarah Palin.


Totally melting down here now


----------



## CamillePunk

Breitbart's fine. It has a very obvious bias but it tends to cover stuff mainstream organizations won't, even if it does put it into its own filter. If you are aware of biases and diversify your sources, I don't see the big deal with reading Breitbart, or HuffPo, or whatever.


----------



## Warlock

I dont know how goverment can mandate a 30% anything to be collected by a private company to be retained by that same company, i guess the govement would be able to collect taxes on that 30%? Idk. 

It would be like them telling pizza companies that they must charge $10 for delivery, but those pizza companies get to keep that extra profit that the govt just mandated.

Idk. Sounds dumb.


----------



## Reaper

Sweenz said:


> I dont know how goverment can mandate a 30% anything to be collected by a private company to be retained by that same company, i guess the govement would be able to collect taxes on that 30%? Idk.
> 
> It would be like them telling pizza companies that they must charge $10 for delivery, but those pizza companies get to keep that extra profit that the govt just mandated.
> 
> Idk. Sounds dumb.


It's basically just government "permission" to charge 30% extra - that's it. In a competitive environment (if one develops) an insurer may not even be able to charge it.

It's literally like the government telling grocery stores that they can charge $1.30 instead of charging $1 on eggs after a certain time period has expired. I'm pretty sure if I was a capitalist and given that kind of opportunity, I'd wait to see what my competitors were doing and if I realized that they were all going to charge $1.30, I'd just keep selling at $1 until and unless the government says that I HAVE to sell at 1.30 --- and then I'd have a serious problem as a capitalist with that kind of deal as it doesn't really benefit me as I'd rather have volume and increase my market share. And so the rest of the market would follow me and we'd have a nice little price war. 

I have no clue what they're expecting to happen with such a silly requirement.


----------



## Oxidamus

Idk what you guys are talking about exactly but from my view Breitbart is about the same, just on the other end, as left news like Huffington Post.

All biased sources intentionally try to feed propaganda to their readers.

All biased sources = :fakenews
@Alkomesh2 what state do you live in?


----------



## Reaper

Bannon is using Brietbart to paint Ryancare in a bad light in order to get rid of Paul Ryan and Ryancare!

:kobelol

PS. I'm actually kinda hoping that my conspiracy theory eventually turns out to be fact :trump2


----------



## Art Vandaley

Oxi X.O. said:


> Idk what you guys are talking about exactly but from my view Breitbart is about the same, just on the other end, as left news like Huffington Post.
> 
> All biased sources intentionally try to feed propaganda to their readers.
> 
> All biased sources = :fakenews
> @Alkomesh2 what state do you live in?


NSW


----------



## CamillePunk

RipNTear said:


> Bannon is using Brietbart to paint Ryancare in a bad light in order to get rid of Paul Ryan and Ryancare!
> 
> :kobelol
> 
> PS. I'm actually kinda hoping that my conspiracy theory eventually turns out to be fact :trump2


Well Ryancare is pretty bad and Breitbart has been posting anti-Paul Ryan stuff at least since he started talking shit about Trump during the primary, if not before then. Paul Ryan is a pretty slimy character in general, basically a "good-looking" Ted Cruz, so I support any efforts to shine the light on him and his brand of fake conservatism.


----------



## glenwo2

RipNTear said:


> Really couldn't contain your excitement, could you :mj


It's late and I'm tired, DAMMIT! :lmao :lmao :lmao


----------



## Reaper

CamillePunk said:


> Well Ryancare is pretty bad and Breitbart has been posting anti-Paul Ryan stuff at least since he started talking shit about Trump during the primary, if not before then. Paul Ryan is a pretty slimy character in general, basically a "good-looking" Ted Cruz, so I support any efforts to shine the light on him and his brand of fake conservatism.


Don't get my hopes up about my conspiracy theory. 

I do think that Trump's relative silence and lack of enthusiasm about Trumpcare is intriguing and feels out of the ordinary for him. I'm waiting to see what unfolds in the next few weeks/months.


----------



## FriedTofu

CamillePunk said:


> Well Ryancare is pretty bad and Breitbart has been posting anti-Paul Ryan stuff at least since he started talking shit about Trump during the primary, if not before then. Paul Ryan is a pretty slimy character in general, basically a "good-looking" Ted Cruz, so I support any efforts to shine the light on him and his brand of fake conservatism.


Ryancare/Trumpcare is set up to fail because they had no real alternative to the ACA. The ACA without the higher taxes on the rich to help fund it is really what the GOP wanted all along before the Obama label was slapped on it. Since the GOP campaigned hard on repeal and replace instead of fixing the ACA they are stuck at having to fulfil a political promise that doesn't make much sense. 

Curious what is 'true' conservatism? A lot of the rhetoric by Trump during the campaign is clearly liberal ideals yet he doesn't seem to be tarred with the same label. This kind of talk sounds a lot like Jihadists talking about who is a 'true' Muslim and who isn't.


----------



## glenwo2

Rip, I think Trump is taking a wait-and-see attitude here. Maybe he wants everyone's so-called "cards" on the table here so he can then act. 

Act and do what exactly....is the question. :shrug


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> Oh I am by far the most leftist on this board. But giving Conway shit for having her feet on the sofa is not even left, its just stupidity.


There's hope for you yet!

:flairdance


----------



## Mra22

So awesome that Trump fired 46 Obama-era U.S. attorneys :lol


----------



## Reaper

glenwo2 said:


> Rip, I think Trump is taking a wait-and-see attitude here. Maybe he wants everyone's so-called "cards" on the table here so he can then act.
> 
> Act and do what exactly....is the question. :shrug


I don't really like to make guesses based on limited information, but if I was going to really conjecture, I'd say that Trump has decided that the first phase of his presidency is going to be built around an attitude of "compromise" and bipartisanship. He made it pretty clear during his speech and with Flynn's resignation - one that can be argued was forced. 

The other issue is that Trump being an executive is getting work done and putting out stuff at a more rapid pace than ever. The government is simply not designed to work at that kind of pace that he wants it to function at. All the while fighting mischaracterization and blockages of his every step. 

Take this healthcare bill for example. Ryancare is the official first step. It's a draft. It hasn't even been argued over. It hasn't been approved. It hasn't been amended. There's a lot of work that needs to be done, yet every single person is acting like this is law and that it's unchangeable. It's almost like people have forgotten how things work. It's intentionally misleading to assume that this is the full and final version of Trumpcare and yet more than half the population firmly believes that this is. Divine biblical law that cannot be changed. It's incredibly disingenuous and seriously a result of incredibly low IQ people becoming political commentators. 

Despite being visibly hamstrung with an unsupportive opposition (we have to remember that during Obama's first term, the Republicans were more compromising and so was the media therefore he was able to do a lot of the same things Trump is attempting to do without as much backlash and opposition) Trump is pushing fast on his campaign promises. Much faster than the rate I remember with Obama. 

I think Trump is looking at a period of about 3-6 more months of blockages by the democrats in simply getting his team together. The other problem he faces is that there's opposition within the Republicans themselves. Trump is an unpopular president on both sides of the fence and while Republicans have openly supported in public, they're dragging their feet on approvals as well. Trump is still muscling through and doing a pretty good job. It's going to take him a year to get his feet firmly on the ground. 

Rome wasn't built in a day.


----------



## CamillePunk

I see Trump as playing the cheerleader right now - something he always criticized Obama for not being. He just wants to make the GOP look good which is kind of what you want from the leader of your party. I don't think he's as enthusiastic about Ryan's plan as he lets on, he's just letting Congress figure it out while providing cover from the opposition party's critiques, which is a refreshing change of pace for the executive branch. :lol 

Speaking of that piece of shit Paul Ryan, he's joined the leftist chorus in denouncing Rep. Steve King as a racist for this tweet: 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/840980755236999169 @DesolationRow 

It should surprise no one that I agree with Steve King's sentiment 100%, and see no racial content to the statement. I don't care what race you are, if you adhere to Western values I want you to out-breed people from authoritarian cultures who still hold those cultures' values. You can also make a much better argument for it being racist for people to say the comments are descriptive of "white supremacy", as many on the left have done. So only white people can claim to be a part of western civilization and seek to preserve it? Mighty racist, lefties, mighty racist indeed. :mj

Here's Steve King defending his statement on Tucker Carlson Tonight:






Must say I have a great deal of respect for King for speaking courageously and truthfully, and when met with the chorus of outraged pearl-clutching reality-denying adult children seeking to trade our entire civilization for limitless political power, he doubled down on what he said and what he believes. :clap Absolutely heroic and rare, in my view.


----------



## glenwo2

Well speaking of Rome, let's Hope that Trump doesn't end up like Caesar(figuratively speaking). Et tu, Pence?

(Not a fan of the VP)


----------



## glenwo2

CamillePunk said:


> I see Trump as playing the cheerleader right now - something he always criticized Obama for not being. He just wants to make the GOP look good which is kind of what you want from the leader of your party. I don't think he's as enthusiastic about Ryan's plan as he lets on, he's just letting Congress figure it out while providing cover from the opposition party's critiques, which is a refreshing change of pace for the executive branch. :lol
> 
> Speaking of that piece of shit Paul Ryan, he's joined the leftist chorus in denouncing Rep. Steve King as a racist for this tweet:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/840980755236999169
> @DesolationRow
> 
> It should surprise no one that I agree with Steve King's sentiment 100%, and see no racial content to the statement. I don't care what race you are, if you adhere to Western values I want you to out-breed people from authoritarian cultures who still hold those cultures' values. You can also make a much better argument for it being racist for people to say the comments are descriptive of "white supremacy", as many on the left have done. So only white people can claim to be a part of western civilization and seek to preserve it? Mighty racist, lefties, mighty racist indeed. :mj
> 
> Here's Steve King defending his statement on Tucker Carlson Tonight:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Must say I have a great deal of respect for King for speaking courageously and truthfully, and when met with the chorus of outraged pearl-clutching reality-denying adult children seeking to trade our entire civilization for limitless political power, he doubled down on what he said and what he believes. :clap Absolutely heroic and rare, in my view.



Tucker's expression in that vid-cap says it all. :lol :lol :lol


----------



## CamillePunk

FriedTofu said:


> Ryancare/Trumpcare is set up to fail because they had no real alternative to the ACA. The ACA without the higher taxes on the rich to help fund it is really what the GOP wanted all along before the Obama label was slapped on it. Since the GOP campaigned hard on repeal and replace instead of fixing the ACA they are stuck at having to fulfil a political promise that doesn't make much sense.
> 
> Curious what is 'true' conservatism? A lot of the rhetoric by Trump during the campaign is clearly liberal ideals yet he doesn't seem to be tarred with the same label. This kind of talk sounds a lot like Jihadists talking about who is a 'true' Muslim and who isn't.


Trump's more ambivalent about being a "conservative". I don't think he cares what you call him, or what ideology his ideas belong to, he just wants to solve problems. I think nationalist populist is far more appropriate than conservative for Trump. I don't consider myself a conservative at all (or a nationalist or populist for that matter :lol), btw, but I think I've written before about why I ally myself with conservatives most of the time pretty recently so won't repeat myself here.


----------



## FriedTofu

RipNTear said:


> I don't really like to make guesses based on limited information, but if I was going to really conjecture, I'd say that Trump has decided that the first phase of his presidency is going to be built around an attitude of "compromise" and bipartisanship. He made it pretty clear during his speech and with Flynn's resignation - one that can be argued was forced.


Compromise by insulting the opposition via twitter on a regular basis? It is more likely that his phase of the presidency is to identify the boogeyman he can most effectively hammer to distract once the honeymoon period with his supporters is over. So far he has tried liberals, the democrats, the media, Obama and even his own government.



> The other issue is that Trump being an executive is getting work done and putting out stuff at a more rapid pace than ever. The government is simply not designed to work at that kind of pace that he wants it to function at. All the while fighting mischaracterization and blockages of his every step.


Not sure about that when he isn't even filling up departments pass the secretary level, downsizing most departments leaving many of them in limbo.



> Take this healthcare bill for example. Ryancare is the official first step. It's a draft. It hasn't even been argued over. It hasn't been approved. It hasn't been amended. There's a lot of work that needs to be done, yet every single person is acting like this is law and that it's unchangeable. It's almost like people have forgotten how things work. It's intentionally misleading to assume that this is the full and final version of Trumpcare and yet more than half the population firmly believes that this is. Divine biblical law that cannot be changed. It's incredibly disingenuous and seriously a result of incredibly low IQ people becoming political commentators.


Why are you bitching about people complaining about the bill being shit and not bitch about Trump and Ryan putting up a half-arsed plan as a show of 'putting out stuff at a more rapid pace than ever'? I don't know, maybe people expect these things to be done behind closed doors before being pushed into public? If your 'first draft' presented to the public needs to be changed more than 70%, then it is a shit draft in the first place and deserve to be called out on it.



> Despite being visibly hamstrung with an unsupportive opposition (we have to remember that during Obama's first term, the Republicans were more compromising and so was the media therefore he was able to do a lot of the same things Trump is attempting to do without as much backlash and opposition) Trump is pushing fast on his campaign promises. Much faster than the rate I remember with Obama.


How were Republicans more compromising when their agenda after Obama's win was to stop Obama at all cost? They largely voted against a bi-partisan bill to revive the economy ffs.



> I think Trump is looking at a period of about 3-6 more months of blockages by the democrats in simply getting his team together. The other problem he faces is that there's opposition within the Republicans themselves. Trump is an unpopular president on both sides of the fence and while Republicans have openly supported in public, they're dragging their feet on approvals as well. Trump is still muscling through and doing a pretty good job. It's going to take him a year to get his feet firmly on the ground.


Is it the democrats fault that they were performing their duties as the opposition to check his nominees? Obama's nominees also got blocked but he had a deeper list to find quality replacements. Trump don't have the network or relationship to fall back on when many of his initial choices were deem disqualifying. He has to resort to the GOP for help and even then the people have to pass his loyalty test for him to feel comfortable to nominate them for approval. This is clearly taking more effort than what Obama went through. Instead of whining about democrat and republican opposition, how about act like the party of personal responsibility and acknowledge the responsibility Trump has in failing to screen his nominees in advance for a smoother approval process.



> Rome wasn't built in a day.


Trump is trying to destroy it in record time though.



CamillePunk said:


> Trump's more ambivalent about being a "conservative". I don't think he cares what you call him, or what ideology his ideas belong to, he just wants to solve problems. I think nationalist populist is far more appropriate than conservative for Trump. I don't consider myself a conservative at all (or a nationalist or populist for that matter :lol), btw, but I think I've written before about why I ally myself with conservatives most of the time pretty recently so won't repeat myself here.


I think Trump is more Nativist populism.  It is ironic to me that use the fake label on Ryan but couldn't care less about Trump not being a real conservative either. Seems kind of cherry picking the identity politics here.

Even if you don't consider yourselves those labels, you can't escape them.


----------



## Reaper

I will defend every white person's desire to preserve their culture and I pity the fools that call them racists. I'm actually even of the group that considers a lot of white people physical features as endangered and actually want them to be preserved. If all the flowers in the world were brown, we wouldn't have art. If the beauty of golden hair and red hair and blue and green eyes isn't preserved then I believe we actually lose diversity and not embrace it. I seriously hope that when I have a kid with my wife, her blonde hair and blue eyes are passed on. I see nothing wrong with that at all. I don't want my black hair and black eyes passed on cuz I have several nephews and nieces that have taken the traits of my paternal side :shrug 

I hate it when people say that white people have no culture. It just means that those people haven't actually spent any time even looking at pictures of what is white culture. Self-hating whites have devalued themselves to the point of become boot lickers. 

Being tolerant, accepting and wanting peace with neighbors is part of white culture too but we're now living at a strange point in history where even bootlicking self-hating whites are called racist. 

I hope that the culture war ends with those self-hating whites waking up and realizing that all this bootlicking nonsense is for nought and the majority of the different ethnicities that live with them only look at them like they're fools. I for one don't appreciate it. I think less of those whites that hate on their own race. I think they're scummy rats that want to curry my favor in order to make themselves feel better about themselves. It shows a lack of self-esteem and poor parenting. 

If you have pride in your race and your culture, I will respect you. If you don't, you're not worthy of respect. And that goes for all races. I'm proud of my heritage despite what it sounds like. We can be proud of ourselves and others without having to devalue ourselves in order to please others.


----------



## CamillePunk

FriedTofu said:


> It is ironic to me that use the fake label on Ryan but couldn't care less about Trump not being a real conservative either. Seems kind of cherry picking the identity politics here.
> 
> Even if you don't consider yourselves those labels, you can't escape them.


That's not what identity politics means.

I think I explained it pretty well? Trump doesn't make a big deal about being a conservative, Ryan does. Neither are conservatives, in my view. 


I can easily escape those labels by openly declaring my desire for the abolition of the state, which is incompatible with any of those labels. :aryep


----------



## DesolationRow

Steve King is doubly the king based on his first and last names. Thank you for the uncompromising candor in your commentary considering King's controversial civics criticism, @CamillePunk.


----------



## deepelemblues

> Originally Posted by FriedTofu View Post
> Ryancare/Trumpcare is set up to fail because they had no real alternative to the ACA. The ACA without the higher taxes on the rich to help fund it is really what the GOP wanted all along before the Obama label was slapped on it.


Do you mean what Stuart Butler of the Heritage Foundation wanted in 1989 and intermittently advocated over the next four years until he gave up on it? (Butler is the originator of the idea of an insurance "mandate.") What John Chafee, one of the most liberal Republicans in existence at the time, introduced in the Senate in what was was seen as a symbolic move and never became a full bill or came up for a vote? At the same time several other healthcare bills that were nothing like the ACA were being floated about Washington by other Republicans? That Chafee bill, that quite conservative Senator Phil Gramm and conservatives in the House indicated they would happily sabotage because they didn't like it? What Mittens Romney wanted? That's what "the GOP wanted all along"?

Seriously where do people come up with this stuff? It's the lie that will never die. "Mitt Romney" and "some guy at the Heritage Foundation, almost 30 years ago" are not synonyms of "the Republican Party."


----------



## FriedTofu

CamillePunk said:


> That's not what identity politics means.
> 
> I think I explained it pretty well? Trump doesn't make a big deal about being a conservative, Ryan does. Neither are conservatives, in my view.
> 
> 
> I can easily escape those labels by openly declaring my desire for the abolition of the state, which is incompatible with any of those labels. :aryep


Who is a true conservative and who isn't sounds like it to me. :shrug

Trump sure made a big deal about it when campaigning though.

There is a Chinese saying, the person on the spot is baffled, the onlooker see more clearly. You only think you can escape those labels easily.


----------



## CamillePunk

"Sounds like" and definitions aren't the same thing. 

You should really expand your posting style beyond sophistic nonsense.


----------



## FriedTofu

deepelemblues said:


> Do you mean what the Heritage Foundation wanted for like a month in 1993 then dropped and never mentioned again? Plus what Mittens Romney wanted? That's what "the GOP wanted all along"?
> 
> Seriously where do people come up with this stuff? It's the lie that will never die. "Mitt Romney" and "the Heritage Foundation, for a month, 25 years ago" are not synonyms of "the Republican Party."


There is a reason why Trumpcare is so similar to the ACA. 



CamillePunk said:


> "Sounds like" and definitions aren't the same thing.
> 
> You should really expand your posting style beyond sophistic nonsense.


Definition:


> a tendency for people of a particular religion, race, social background, etc., to form exclusive political alliances, moving away from traditional broad-based party politics.


Only true conservatives need apply sounds like it. Trump voters who voted for Trump only because he promise to give religious organisations more political say while ignoring his personal flaws that goes against their religious beliefs sounds like it too.


----------



## CamillePunk

That definition does not support your posts at all.


----------



## deepelemblues

> There is a reason why Trumpcare is so similar to the ACA.


That's nice, but :trump care isn't "so similar to the ACA." 

You didn't answer my question. How is an idea that got more Republican opposition than support when it was introduced 25 years ago what the Republican Party wanted "all along"?


----------



## Reaper

FriedTofu said:


> Compromise by insulting the opposition via twitter on a regular basis? It is more likely that his phase of the presidency is to identify the boogeyman he can most effectively hammer to distract once the honeymoon period with his supporters is over. So far he has tried liberals, the democrats, the media, Obama and even his own government.


I talked about his speech and the obamacare revision. As far as Twitter is concerned, I call that self defense, not offensive attacks as you're trying to paint them as. 



> Not sure about that when he isn't even filling up departments pass the secretary level, downsizing most departments leaving many of them in limbo.


I'm talking about key cabinet positions and you're talking about downsizing unnecessary departments he had already insisted that he would do. They're both different things. 

Your lack of understanding is incredibly sad. 



> Why are you bitching about people complaining about the bill being shit and not bitch about Trump and Ryan putting up a half-arsed plan as a show of 'putting out stuff at a more rapid pace than ever'? I don't know, maybe people expect these things to be done behind closed doors before being pushed into public? If your 'first draft' presented to the public needs to be changed more than 70%, then it is a shit draft in the first place and deserve to be called out on it.


I've already called the bill shit. But does that mean that I let low IQ individuals off the hook for making false claims and false statements. Lol. 

You're grossly over-estimating how good a first draft should be. Some first drafts don't even appear years into a government and we have a first draft within a few months. And that's still not good enough. Obviously it isn't. For someone as biased as you, even if Trump shat 20 trillion dollars worth of gold, you'd still complain that it wasn't silver. You're not a serious person. 



> How were Republicans more compromising when their agenda after Obama's win was to stop Obama at all cost? They largely voted against a bi-partisan bill to revive the economy ffs.


I specified that it wasn't during the first term. How else do you think Obama was able to sneak into all sorts of neoconservative war policies in. He was an executive order bully. Trump is at least trying to work with both parties here. 



> Is it the democrats fault that they were performing their duties as the opposition to check his nominees? Obama's nominees also got blocked but he had a deeper list to find quality replacements.


Not to the level Trumps' has and I've already mentioned that part of that blame goes to the republicans as well who are dragging their feet. In fact, I had already made that statement a week ago as well when it was exposed on Tucker. 



> Trump don't have the network or relationship to fall back on when many of his initial choices were deem disqualifying.


I guess you must be really good at creating rumors because there's no basis to make this claim. 



> He has to resort to the GOP for help and even then the people have to pass his loyalty test for him to feel comfortable to nominate them for approval. This is clearly taking more effort than what Obama went through. Instead of whining about democrat and republican opposition, how about act like the party of personal responsibility and acknowledge the responsibility Trump has in failing to screen his nominees in advance for a smoother approval process.


That could be part of the problem sure. But I also find it kind of cute that you're trying to use "personal responsibility" here and doing it wrong as well. 

You really need to get english lessons as CP also has pointed out. 

That said, for a guy who wouldn't even believe that I didn't watch a Benoit match after I claimed that I never watched one, I think your mental health might be seriously compromised. You're so used to assuming things that you can't even believe what someone says anymore. You're not a serious person. I mean you're so used to believing that everything is a lie that you've hardly got any real reason to be taken seriously in here.


----------



## FriedTofu

deepelemblues said:


> That's nice, but :trump care isn't "so similar to the ACA."
> 
> You didn't answer my question. How is an idea that got more Republican opposition than support when it was introduced 25 years ago what the Republican Party wanted "all along"?


The republican establishment then if you want to be specific. I await your views on whether Trump's budget should be allowed to pass if it increases the deficit.


----------



## Reaper

Just to add to my post. The republican government is in the majority. They can put in anyone they want. Also this idea that Trump should give in on every single pick and replace them because of opposition is just completely laughable :lmao Why not just hand the government over to the democrats. Do you even think before you speak? NVM. Don't answer that question as it's clear that you don't.


----------



## FriedTofu

RipNTear said:


> I talked about his speech and the obamacare revision. As far as Twitter is concerned, I call that self defense, not offensive attacks as you're trying to paint them as.


Things do not occur in a vacuum. So you are playing the liberal victim card for Trump's actions?



> I'm talking about key cabinet positions and you're talking about downsizing unnecessary departments he had already insisted that he would do. They're both different things.
> 
> Your lack of understanding is incredibly sad.


One person do not a department make. Nice try though.



> I've already called the bill shit. But does that mean that I let low IQ individuals off the hook for making false claims and false statements. Lol.
> 
> You're grossly over-estimating how good a first draft should be. Some first drafts don't even appear years into a government and we have a first draft within a few months. And that's still not good enough. Obviously it isn't. For someone as biased as you, even if Trump shat 20 trillion dollars worth of gold, you'd still complain that it wasn't silver. You're not a serious person.


Nice ad-hom attack. Didn't Trump say he had a brilliant plan during the campaign? Are we supposed to take his words seriously or not?



> I specified that it wasn't during the first term. How else do you think Obama was able to sneak into all sorts of neoconservative war policies in. He was an executive order bully. Trump is at least trying to work with both parties here.


Huh? What are you talking about. Republican platform was to make Obama a one-term president. Obama attempted to be bi-partisan, why do you think of his neglect of democrat party in down races.



> Not to the level Trumps' has and I've already mentioned that part of that blame goes to the republicans as well who are dragging their feet. In fact, I had already made that statement a week ago as well when it was exposed on Tucker.


Is it their fault that his nominees has so many easily uncovered issues?



> I guess you must be really good at creating rumors because there's no basis to make this claim.


 About as much basis as your claim that Trump is facing historic opposition.



> That could be part of the problem sure. But I also find it kind of cute that you're trying to use "personal responsibility" here and doing it wrong as well.


If my Daddy paid for everything I wouldn't know what this thing is either.



> You really need to get english lessons as CP also has pointed out.


Are you offering?



> That said, for a guy who wouldn't even believe that I didn't watch a Benoit match after I claimed that I watched one, I think your mental health might be seriously compromised. You're so used to assuming things that you can't even believe what someone says anymore.


Don't project your own mental health issue onto me. I don't think its crazy to be sceptical about a 30+years old wrestling fan not having heard about him or watched a single Benoit match until Benoit's death. The odds are against male fan in his mid to late 20's that started watching wrestling after 2007 or skipped the almost 10 years of wrestling only to return to watching in 2013. You are a unicorn in that regard.


----------



## Reaper

FriedTofu said:


> Things do not occur in a vacuum. So you are playing the liberal victim card for Trump's actions?


Are you saying that when democrats, their supporters and the liberal media constantly compare Trump to Hitler that he shouldn't ever respond. Yeah, that might be ok for weaker presidents, but stating that Trump's hitting back in self-defense doesn't mean that he's getting a "victim card" or that he shouldn't fight back. In fact, a victim card is something that someone uses when they're perceiving an attack that isn't an attack. Basically when feminists say that walking past a man triggered them and now they need help. When someone is being compared to Hitler, then they're not playing the victim card, they're being outright attacked. I'm not surprised you don't know the difference :lmao 

Another weird use of a phrase here that doesn't even apply. 



> One person do not a department make. Nice try though.


I'm talking about actual downsizing that was part of his program. Some jobs are not being filled intentionally, while others are being blocked. I'm surprised you can't tell the difference. 



> Nice ad-hom attack. Didn't Trump say he had a brilliant plan during the campaign? Are we supposed to take his words seriously or not?


"ad hominem". The least you can do to make yourself come across as intelligent is at least google a word before using it. Yes, and used car salesman says that he's got the best car in the world even if it isn't. You take the fact that this person is going to show you something that you might like and then be smart yourself and realize that the idea of its "greatness" as been implanted in your head giving you the leeway to create your own perception. You like the salesman, you don't have to like his product, but you have to accept that that's how he's going to sell it. You don't have to like it and then you can tell him that it's not so great after he shows it to you. 



> Huh? What are you talking about. Republican platform was to make Obama a one-term president. Obama attempted to be bi-partisan, why do you think of his neglect of democrat party in down races.


Pretty sure you really have no idea what you're talking about here. Obama wasn't a bi-partisan president. Trump didn't run on a bipartisan platform but he's trying to be. I don't want him to be bipartisan actually. I just conjectured that this is what I think he might be up to. But I actually want him to be fully partisan and steamroll the democrats and their shit programs to hell. 



> Is it their fault that his nominees has so many easily uncovered issues?


None of his nominees had any easily uncovered issues. What we have is a combination of misrepresented truths - something that I've debated over and over again in this thread, but you've got blinders on. You're an antitrumper for life so you haven't read any of the nuance and I'm actually beginning to realize that you might actually be incapable of it. His nominees are being blocked not because they have issues, but because democrats don't want to hand over power easily - and republicans aren't helping. Trump's nominees are all fine. 



> If my Daddy paid for everything I wouldn't know what this thing is either.


I'm sorry that your daddy was so poor that you're jealous of my lifestyle. I'll try to brag a little less from now on. 

And I'll take that as a conceded point. 


> Are you offering?


You probably couldn't afford it anyways. Work hard for what you can get. I'm sure if you had a rich dad to help you out, you wouldn't be so jealous of mine. I feel sorry for your and your dad's poverty. I can donate $25 bucks to your dad so he can give you something :draper2 



> Don't project your own mental health issue onto me. I don't think its crazy to be sceptical about a 30+years old wrestling fan not having heard about him or watched a single Benoit match until Benoit's death. The odds are against male fan in his mid to late 20's that started watching wrestling after 2007 or skipped the almost 10 years of wrestling only to return to watching in 2013. You are a unicorn in that regard.


It is absolutely crazy to be skeptical and others pointed that out to you as well.


----------



## FriedTofu

RipNTear said:


> Are you saying that when democrats, their supporters and the liberal media constantly compare Trump to Hitler that he shouldn't ever respond. Yeah, that might be ok for weaker presidents, but stating that Trump's hitting back in self-defense doesn't mean that he's getting a "victim card" or that he shouldn't fight back. In fact, a victim card is something that someone uses when they're perceiving an attack that isn't an attack. Basically when feminists say that walking past a man triggered them and now they need help. When someone is being compared to Hitler, then they're not playing the victim card, they're being outright attacked. I'm not surprised you don't know the difference :lmao
> 
> Another weird use of a phrase here that doesn't even apply.


So what did Obama do to trigger the wiretapping claim on Twitter? :lmao You are the one claiming Trump was acting out in self-defence with his tweets and purposefully conflating any criticisms on Trump as comparing him to Hitler. And I'm the one that don't know the difference?



> I'm talking about actual downsizing that was part of his program. Some jobs are not being filled intentionally, while others are being blocked. I'm surprised you can't tell the difference.


It is convenient that his inability to get things done is spun into it being intentional downsizing. You might as well say Trump shouldn't even nominate anyone so government can be phased out.



> "ad hominem". The least you can do to make yourself come across as intelligent is at least google a word before using it. Yes, and used car salesman says that he's got the best car in the world even if it isn't. You take the fact that this person is going to show you something that you might like and then be smart yourself and realize that the idea of its "greatness" as been implanted in your head giving you the leeway to create your own perception. You like the salesman, you don't have to like his product, but you have to accept that that's how he's going to sell it. You don't have to like it and then you can tell him that it's not so great after he shows it to you.


You choose to go that route of attack. Just admit it and move on. And wtf was that word salad reply to? Can I assume you are saying Trump is taking one position in public and having another position in private while selling the idea to the public with regards to whether one can take what Trump said about the topic seriously?



> Pretty sure you really have no idea what you're talking about here. Obama wasn't a bi-partisan president. Trump didn't run on a bipartisan platform but he's trying to be. I don't want him to be bipartisan actually. I just conjectured that this is what I think he might be up to. But I actually want him to be fully partisan and steamroll the democrats and their shit programs to hell.


Do you have any idea what you are talking about too? Obama reached out early on, even if it was just lip-service. Trump isn't trying to be bipartisan more than he is the president of the conservative party but has liberal beliefs in how to fix things. Welfare, trade protectionism, increased government spending are not conservative platforms.



> None of his nominees had any easily uncovered issues. What we have is a combination of misrepresented truths - something that I've debated over and over again in this thread, but you've got blinders on. You're an antitrumper for life so you haven't read any of the nuance and I'm actually beginning to realize that you might actually be incapable of it. His nominees are being blocked not because they have issues, but because democrats don't want to hand over power easily - and republicans aren't helping. Trump's nominees are all fine.


Which nominees were blocked due to misrepresented truths? Past nominees from both parties were blocked or withdrew due to technicalities like unpaid taxes or hiring of undocumented help. Seem like you are just crying foul when it happen to Trump's nominees as well.



> I'm sorry that your daddy was so poor that you're jealous of my lifestyle. I'll try to brag a little less from now on.
> 
> And I'll take that as a conceded point.


I'm sorry too that I couldn't profess to be ideologically pure due to my lack of privilege. Wait... are you seeing things again with me conceding a point?



> You probably couldn't afford it anyways. Work hard for what you can get. I'm sure if you had a rich dad to help you out, you wouldn't be so jealous of mine. I feel sorry for your and your dad's poverty. I can donate $25 bucks to your dad so he can give you something :draper2


I thought I could offer you the job so that you could stop living off of your rich Dad. :draper2



> It is absolutely crazy to be skeptical and others pointed that out to you as well.


Yes, and used car salesman says that he's got the best car in the world even if it isn't. You take the fact that this person is going to show you something that you might like and then be smart yourself and realize that the idea of its "greatness" as been implanted in your head giving you the leeway to create your own perception. You like the salesman, you don't have to like his product, but you have to accept that that's how he's going to sell it. You don't have to like it and then you can tell him that it's not so great after he shows it to you. :troll


----------



## Reaper

FriedTofu said:


> So what did Obama do to trigger the wiretapping claim on Twitter? :lmao You are the one claiming Trump was acting out in self-defence with his tweets and purposefully conflating any criticisms on Trump as comparing him to Hitler. And I'm the one that don't know the difference?


Are you denying that there haven't been any comparisons between Hitler and Trump. 

Attacking Obama was a poorly chosen target, but still self-defense. 



> It is convenient that his inability to get things done is spun into it being intentional downsizing. You might as well say Trump shouldn't even nominate anyone so government can be phased out.


Tossing out the word "spin" is a new game of people who've lost the argument. At least you're reading BM's posts. 



> You choose to go that route of attack. Just admit it and move on. And wtf was that word salad reply to? Can I assume you are saying Trump is taking one position in public and having another position in private while selling the idea to the public with regards to whether one can take what Trump said about the topic seriously?


What attack. I simply said that you're not a serious person. That's not an ad hominem. Where's the ad hominem in that? 

How the hell do you interpret this from what I said? If you can't even comprehend what's written before you you really shouldn't engage in conversation at all. Break down the analogy and tell me how that refers private vs public .. It means that he believed that his plan was great and we think that his plan isn't great. That's all that meant. 



> Do you have any idea what you are talking about too? Obama reached out early on, even if it was just lip-service. Trump isn't trying to be bipartisan more than he is the president of the conservative party but has liberal beliefs in how to fix things. Welfare, trade protectionism, increased government spending are not conservative platforms.


And I'm saying that Republicans met him half way. The fracturing of this presidential term is worse because it's not just democrats that are opposing Trump but also republicans from within playing delaying tactics. It's also interesting that bipartisan policies are now being chalked up to Trump's beliefs .. So if he's such a bipartisan politician, why are democrats having such a hard time accepting him and his cabinet? They should be chugging along. They're not because republicans aren't either. 



> Which nominees were blocked due to misrepresented truths? Past nominees from both parties were blocked or withdrew due to technicalities like unpaid taxes or hiring of undocumented help. Seem like you are just crying foul when it happen to Trump's nominees as well.


Delaying tactics. Announced as early as December. fpalm 



> I'm sorry too that I couldn't profess to be ideologically pure due to my lack of privilege. Wait... are you seeing things again with me conceding a point?


It was a point concession because you brought up my dad giving me money in a response to a completely unrelated argument. It indicates that you've run out of ideas so you're simply trying to say something without having an adequate rebuttal. Hence point conceded. 



> I thought I could offer you the job so that you could stop living off of your rich Dad. :draper2


And I said that you're too poor to afford me. And at this point, it's just getting to the point of you sounding really pathetic by harping on this for months. It must really bother you. I suggest you seek counseling to rid yourself of this obsession with how I live my life :lol 



> Yes, and used car salesman says that he's got the best car in the world even if it isn't. You take the fact that this person is going to show you something that you might like and then be smart yourself and realize that the idea of its "greatness" as been implanted in your head giving you the leeway to create your own perception. You like the salesman, you don't have to like his product, but you have to accept that that's how he's going to sell it. You don't have to like it and then you can tell him that it's not so great after he shows it to you. :troll


I see your problem. You didn't even understand my analogy at all so simply decided to copy paste thinking that this is referring to skepticism when in fact, it wasn't referring to skepticism at all. It was referring to a guy telling you he has a great car and you believing him but then not liking it after he actually shows it to you. It's literally the opposite of skepticism :lmao 

There is a serious language barrier here. One that you're not willing to admit. If only you were a serious person, you'd actually be a humble one as well. Your problem is that you think you know more than you do and that you're smarter than you are - which I'm sorry you're not. You want to hang with the big boys in these discussions, but you simply can't but the real problem is that you don't know that you can't. 

It makes you even worse of a debater than BM because at least BM will admit when he's wrong. You simply twist words, misunderstand things, say things that have no meaning and just make a mess of the entire conversation. At least with BM, you can eventually talk him down because usually with him it starts off with a knee-jerk reaction but he starts seeing reason. 

You simply can't. 

And yeah, that's a lot of big words for you to grasp. I suggest that before you respond that you read this post at least twice.


----------



## HandsomeRTruth

RipNTear said:


> Just to add to my post. The republican government is in the majority. They can put in anyone they want. Also this idea that Trump should give in on every single pick and replace them because of opposition is just completely laughable :lmao Why not just hand the government over to the democrats. Do you even think before you speak? NVM. Don't answer that question as it's clear that you don't.


I don't think he has to give any group anything but just as Hilary won a lot of White Collar anti Trump Republicans,he swung over some anyone but Hilary Democrats to vote for him in 2016. If he governs as a conventional Republican those anyone but Hilary Democrats will move back to the Democrats because there is no one else in the party with anywhere close to as much baggage as she had.


----------



## samizayn

Don't think it's worth dissecting what Trump says on twitter for any deeper meaning. He does not care.


----------



## Dr. Middy

I really don't put much stock into what Trump tweets, because he's all over the place at times and it's hard to figure out what his intentions are behind some of them. I'd rather just let the man actually take action and then judge that.


----------



## FriedTofu

RipNTear said:


> Are you denying that there haven't been any comparisons between Hitler and Trump.
> 
> Attacking Obama was a poorly chosen target, but still self-defense.


I am not denying there were comparisons between Hitler and Trump. Are you denying there were valid criticisms on Trump that were brushed off by using the above as an excuse?

Also, how is attacking Obama self-defence? Are you confusing self-preservation with self-defence? Maybe we can both go learn English together.



> Tossing out the word "spin" is a new game of people who've lost the argument. At least you're reading BM's posts.


What argument? You are the one that is avoiding to answer the question of why isn't his departments filling up vacancies beyond the cabinet level. If his appointments can't fill up the vacancies then Trump hasn't really 'hired the best people' to do the job asked of them isn't it?



> What attack. I simply said that you're not a serious person. That's not an ad hominem. Where's the ad hominem in that?


You tried to attack the person to avoid going into more details of the pathetic reasons for why you are excusing how shit the bill was because you realise how weak that position is.



> How the hell do you interpret this from what I said? If you can't even comprehend what's written before you you really shouldn't engage in conversation at all. Break down the analogy and tell me how that refers private vs public .. It means that he believed that his plan was great and we think that his plan isn't great. That's all that meant.


Used carsalesman know he is selling you something that isn't what he said it is.



> And I'm saying that Republicans met him half way. The fracturing of this presidential term is worse because it's not just democrats that are opposing Trump but also republicans from within playing delaying tactics. It's also interesting that bipartisan policies are now being chalked up to Trump's beliefs .. So if he's such a bipartisan politician, why are democrats having such a hard time accepting him and his cabinet? They should be chugging along. They're not because republicans aren't either.


When did Republicans meet him half way? The only thing that would be that case is they largely deferred to his cabinet nominations unless there were obvious disqualifying cases from standard background checks.

Again playing the woe is me victim card for Trump. Because his policies are incoherent and assumes the rosiest of estimations that leaves little to room for error. Are you saying Trump do not have liberal beliefs that form his so-called bipartisan policies?



> Delaying tactics. Announced as early as December. fpalm


http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/12/republican-party-obstructionism-victory-trump-214498 fpalm



> It was a point concession because you brought up my dad giving me money in a response to a completely unrelated argument. It indicates that you've run out of ideas so you're simply trying to say something without having an adequate rebuttal. Hence point conceded.


By your logic, you conceded the point first by attempting to shifted the discussion towards my alleged lack of understanding of the term.



> And I said that you're too poor to afford me. And at this point, it's just getting to the point of you sounding really pathetic by harping on this for months. It must really bother you. I suggest you seek counseling to rid yourself of this obsession with how I live my life :lol


But I'm too poor to afford counselling. Maybe I should start a gofundme instead of relying on public healthcare amirght? 



> I see your problem. You didn't even understand my analogy at all so simply decided to copy paste thinking that this is referring to skepticism when in fact, it wasn't referring to skepticism at all. It was referring to a guy telling you he has a great car and you believing him but then not liking it after he actually shows it to you. It's literally the opposite of skepticism :lmao


What exactly is your analogy meant to convey? I should take Trump seriously because he is always going to sell his plan as the best but it is up to me to decide whether I like it? Why isn't that also about having the right to be skeptical about the car or whether the salesman belief about the state of the car? 

How is it my problem when your analogy is a mess to the question of whether to take Trump's words seriously?



> There is a serious language barrier here. One that you're not willing to admit. If only you were a serious person, you'd actually be a humble one as well. Your problem is that you think you know more than you do and that you're smarter than you are - which I'm sorry you're not. You want to hang with the big boys in these discussions, but you simply can't but the real problem is that you don't know that you can't.


Funny this applies so much more to you. Seems like you are again projecting your insecurities onto whoever disagrees with you.



> It makes you even worse of a debater than BM because at least BM will admit when he's wrong. You simply twist words, misunderstand things, say things that have no meaning and just make a mess of the entire conversation. At least with BM, you can eventually talk him down because usually with him it starts off with a knee-jerk reaction but he starts seeing reason.
> 
> You simply can't.


Is this a form of self-defence or self-preservation?



> And yeah, that's a lot of big words for you to grasp. I suggest that before you respond that you read this post at least twice.


Sure thing. Maybe if things don't work out you can teach English to immigrants to America. Just remember to lower your price cause not all of them have rich daddies.


----------



## BruiserKC

L-DOPA said:


> Yeah I figured it would be something like that @DesolationRow but wasn't too sure :lol.
> 
> Thank you to @Tater for sharing this. Trump supporters + FED skeptics need to read this: http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/03/10/stronger-economic-growth-over-my-dead-body-says-janet-yellen/
> 
> 
> 
> So the FED are looking to raise interest rates and seems like a pure political move from Yellen. It will be both interesting and worrying to see what if any consequences come from this.
> 
> @CamillePunk @BruiserKC @Miss Sally @Goku @Pratchett @AryaDark @Alco
> 
> Business as usual in Washington as the Treasury once again looks to raise the debt ceiling to prolong the US defaulting on the dollar; all without taking necessary big steps to cut spending and reform the social programs. All of course in the wake of increased defence spending and a trillion dollar infrastructure bill that Trump will eventually look to push.
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...teps-to-delay-default/?utm_term=.3093bd59df9a
> 
> 
> 
> I have no faith with the house under the RINO cuck that is Paul Ryan that the necessary changes to spending and reform will take place. Yet another "fiscal conservative" who is a fiscal liberal in disguise in my opinion. Ryancare is an indication of this.
> 
> Another $560 Billion in debt is expected to be added at the end of the fiscal year, which is higher than Bush's last full year in office in 2008.


Trumpcare is the word as it has the fingerprints of the POTUS all over it. This is not going to work as you have removed the funding mechanism but not killed the ACA altogether. Not to mention Trump Ryan and McConnell are now going after the real conservatives in Congress who are against this and would rather take the time to do this right or just repeal Obamacare with no replacement.


----------



## Warlock

RipNTear said:


> It's basically just government "permission" to charge 30% extra - that's it. In a competitive environment (if one develops) an insurer may not even be able to charge it.
> 
> It's literally like the government telling grocery stores that they can charge $1.30 instead of charging $1 on eggs after a certain time period has expired. I'm pretty sure if I was a capitalist and given that kind of opportunity, I'd wait to see what my competitors were doing and if I realized that they were all going to charge $1.30, I'd just keep selling at $1 until and unless the government says that I HAVE to sell at 1.30 --- and then I'd have a serious problem as a capitalist with that kind of deal as it doesn't really benefit me as I'd rather have volume and increase my market share. And so the rest of the market would follow me and we'd have a nice little price war.
> 
> I have no clue what they're expecting to happen with such a silly requirement.


Well, i was so out of it.. I don't even remember making that comment last night. But I agree with what I said.

Government mandating a pricing strategy on something is ridiculous. Taxing something, sure. That at least makes sense that government would try to do cause its the goes into government funding. Mandating a charge that the private company gets to keep for themselves makes NO sense. 

What is to be expected from these companies? "Oh, I wouldn't charge you this stupid charge that just lines my own pockets, but the government says I have to. Sorry."


----------



## Reaper

:lmao 

Group think. Saw this happening in this very thread.


----------



## glenwo2

FriedTofu said:


> _"Rome wasn't built in a day." _
> 
> 
> *Trump is trying to destroy it in record time though.*




Spoken like a true LEFTIST that still can't let go of the fact that Hillary LOST and Trump WON. 

You are so entertaining with your doomsday proclamations of Trump. :sleep


----------



## Warlock

"Unqualified" is another phrase that is quickly losing its meaning.


----------



## Reaper

glenwo2 said:


> Spoken like a true LEFTIST that still can't let go of the fact that Hillary LOST and Trump WON.
> 
> You are so entertaining with your doomsday proclamations of Trump. :sleep


Well at least completely abandoned all his previous lies about being fair and objective and demanding that from Trump supporters. So there's some honesty here finally. Not a whole lot, but it's progress. 

----










Narrative, coincidence, conspiracy? 

Never thought I'd see the day when these two worlds would collide. The plot thickens.

Not to forget that there was a tape that was released exclusively by Brietbart where Ryan was quoted as saying that he'll never defend Trump. So I think there's definitely some merit to a potential take down being engineered by someone. Too many random coincidences to not make one at least entertain the possibility (however remote) of a planned takedown.


----------



## Dr. Middy

:lmao :lmao :lmao


----------



## Oxidamus

Sweenz said:


> "Unqualified" is another phrase that is quickly losing its meaning.


It still pisses me off how stupid it is to call someone unqualified in politics. It'd be harder to be a fucking advisor than the actual president.


----------



## Stinger Fan

Dr. Middy said:


> I really don't put much stock into what Trump tweets, because he's all over the place at times and it's hard to figure out what his intentions are behind some of them. I'd rather just let the man actually take action and then judge that.


He really should stop using twitter. Either that or only announce events he's at to speak or stuff like that.


----------



## Reaper

As promised since I have some time. I'm wired and slept poorly last night so at the moment my thoughts may not be entirely coherent, but I'll try my best. 



Dr. Middy said:


> Eh, I mean all those ice cores scientists have studied to better understand previous climate change have shown that the major proponent for that was carbon dioxide, so it is realistic to think that all of the CO2 emissions as a result of human interaction does contribute to it somewhat. I'd be more surprised if it does nothing at all. And theories like the Maternal Impression Theory is more kinda media driven nonsense science than anything to me :shrug


That's absolutely true. However, what climate skeptics (and I'm talking about that science community which has been labeled a pariah by the alarmists) have repeatedly pointed out that one of the core fallacies (and it's a big) in comparing historical data to current data is that the margin of error in determining CO2 levels historically is incredibly high meaning that we're basically comparing two different accuracies of data and trying to make an accurate prediction. 

It is akin to stating that we have some guesses as to what the human population was say 40,000 years ago and now we have much more accurate data today (7.2 billion) and therefore these two sets of data can be used to create a reasonable assumption about population growth. Meanwhile, in this case people are aware that this data is incredibly faulty and shouldn't be relied upon to make policy recommendations. 

At the same time, humans aren't the only ones producing CO2. We have a guestimate of how much CO2 humans create and we have another guestimate to say that there is a certain amount of naturally occurring CO2. Then we have a guestimate about CO2 levels in the past. You take 3 major data points filled with guesses and assumptions and you have people claiming that what we have now is absolutely factual and undeniable. 

The real answer here is that we don't know and we haven't been able to satisfy what is claimed to be objective truth and scientific fact. We have base calculations that don't give us an accurate picture, but the claims are that what we have is absolute truth. 



> http://www.npr.org/2017/02/28/517536333/a-carbon-tax-gains-traction-among-some-conservatives
> 
> I actually like the idea of a Carbon Tax, without spending any tax-payer money to drive it. You tax major corporations via their Carbon Footprint, and this money can go back to the taxpayer themselves if done correctly. Now I know it isn't that simple, cut, and dry and I don't have a ton of economic and policy knowledge to understand everything this would entail, but on the surface with a businessman in the presidential chair like Trump, I can't see why he wouldn't like this. You could also reduce some regulations as well with a plan like this, which I think he would be in support of as well.


Well, taxes don't solve anything. All they do is shrink economies and make them uncompetitive. The net negative of a carbon tax is far greater than the positive. If you want companies to go green then you'll have to leave that decision up to them and many companies have and are going green. What a carbon tax does is counter productive to innovation. (less money = less innovation). Taking money away from a capitalist is the best way to ensure that he will find other ways to replace it, but not innovate and move towards cleaner solutions. 

Also, we haven't even fully determined that a reduction in our CO2 levels will put a dent in climate change in and of itself so to add a carbon tax without an end goal/projection in mind is potentially the wrong kind of prevention ... It's also a prevention that doesn't work. It could just end up becoming the same as eating oranges to prevent colds. It's still within the realm of pseudo-science. 



> And realistically, to fight for policies that would inherently be good, even if the science they might use to back it is a bit questionable, seems okay. I mean, if you have a policy like a Carbon Tax that would work to lower emissions which would only be a plus to our atmosphere as a whole, even if it does work with the idea that climate change is mostly human driven (and an idea which could be wrong), is it a terrible thing? I don't like using pseudo science to back anything, but realistically aren't a decent amount policies using pseudo-evidence of some kind?


A lot of policies use pseudoscience. But not all of those policies are a massive drain on global resources based on fear-mongering at the same level climate change alarmism is. I don't think there's any reason to add to the polluted environment of policies that weaken economies and discourage innovation any further however. If you tax or regulate companies, they refuse to innovate and competitors also have less money to innovate. This is why in a decade we haven't had any major gains towards going cleaner. We still don't have adequate proof to say that we need to go cleaner ... 



> I think the difference we have in viewpoints in that you seem to be greatly against most government regulation and policy (And with what's been going on for years, I don't blame you much). I mean, yes to an extent there is corruption and problems associated with it, and corporations are allowed to just pay fines and be considered a-okay by the government, which I think is terrible. But government policies and organizations have worked in the past, hell look at the EPA before and after it's creation. Remember the dark skylines of cities like Pittsburgh?


It's not to an extent. It's a lot. The power and choice needs to be given back to the capitalist imo. I also see the crumbling inner cities that were once booming and prosperous turning into shitholes of human depravity. Manufacturing sectors shutting down. Moving to less regulated countries. So no, there are no benefits to regulation whatsoever. I don't think we'll be able to convince each other of that. 



> The thing with cleanup programs and having corporations be socially responsible for it, is how exactly do you place enforcement on this? I'm just curious really, because if currently it isn't being done and companies are allowed to simply pay off these fines, there should be enforcement instead where instead of fines being placed, companies should instead have to actually physically clean up the areas of pollution they cause.


You don't need to enforce it. I know that a lot of people think that capitalists are these evil money-hungry greedy monsters, but seriously, the entire organic industry that's now a multi-billion dollar industry exists today because it filled a need that was created. Until and unless there's an absolute need demanded by 100's of millions of people, no amount of regulation or enforcement will ever create "alternate" industries to what exists today. There has to be a demand and a growth in demand and only then will things become cleaner. 



> Fear mongering as a whole though is not great, I agree with that. And I also agree that there are plenty occasions where the whole "worse case senarios" bullshit and falsehoods have been wrong, and this shouldn't be the way in which you attempt to push the idea of protecting our environment to people. However, I still think that in the end the general idea is for protecting our environment for our own benefit as well as the planet's. It's just that there is a lot more bullshit being put in the way of this message, so it blurs it. It's like instead of having a Point A to Point B, you have a bunch of billboards and detours within the trip.


Fully agreed here. It's just the protection cannot and will not come or succeed if it remains in the hands of the government. There has to be a shift in demand in order to create the shift in supply.

---

I'm gonna throw this out here as well since it's very much related ... 

When you have fucking hippies pulling this kind of shit in the name of environmentalism, do you really think that they deserve to be listened to?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/13/dakota-access-case-army-finishes-11-million-cleanu/



> *Dakota Access protest camps cleared after $1.1 million federal cleanup; four more dogs rescued*
> 
> Federal contractor hauls off 835 dumpsters of trash and debris from protest sites
> 
> The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers wrapped up its $1.1 million cleanup of the Dakota Access pipeline protest camps on federal land in North Dakota, hauling away 835 dumpsters of remaining trash and debris. The site, once occupied by thousands of environmental demonstrators, is now vacant.
> 
> The federal cleanup at the last of the three camps, Sacred Stone, was declared finished Thursday.
> 
> A Florida sanitation company completed work that began Feb. 23 to hasten the massive restoration project started in late January by the Standing Rock Sioux.
> 
> Meanwhile, a local animal shelter rescued four more dogs found at the North Dakota encampment, bringing the total number of dogs found after the last of the protesters evacuated to 12.
> 
> “We are happy to report that all animals have been accounted for throughout the Dakota Access Pipeline protest sites,” Furry Friends Rockin’ Rescue of Bismarck-Mandan said in an online post.
> 
> The tribe, aided by state and local agencies as well as some protest volunteers, launched the cleanup over concerns that snowmelt would inevitably wash tons of garbage and waste left by protesters into the Cannonball River.


These kinds of entitled fucking hypocrite pieces of trash deserve no empathy imo and really should be tossed out with the trash they generate.


----------



## glenwo2

Stinger Fan said:


> He really should stop using twitter. Either that or only announce events he's at to speak or stuff like that.


^ But that would mean that Trump would have to change who he is and that's not going to happen.

Trump is an Anti-PC/Anti-Etiquette person who grabs Democraps by the pussy and makes them say uncle. :lol


----------



## Reaper

Speaking of how government regulations hurt competitiveness I experienced this personally myself where I was looking to get into the e-cigarette business. Apparently, it turns out that the tobacco lobby has made it such that on every single sale of an e-cigarette or e-cigarette related product, there is now an additional Tobacco fee ... A cleaner, safer product now has to pay the fucking Tobacco companies in a bid by the government to maitain their profits and market share. 

Governments are cancer and this is just example why.


----------



## Dr. Middy

@RipNTear Thanks for remembering to reply! I'll answer it eventually, it's just depends on when I feel like sitting down and really thinking about it, because it's gonna take a little while.


----------



## glenwo2

RipNTear said:


> Speaking of how government regulations hurt competitiveness I experienced this personally myself where I was looking to get into the e-cigarette business. Apparently, it turns out that the tobacco lobby has made it such that on every single sale of an e-cigarette or e-cigarette related product, there is now an additional Tobacco fee ... A cleaner, safer product now has to pay the fucking Tobacco companies in a bid by the government to maitain their profits and market share.
> 
> Governments are cancer and this is just example why.


nothing the government does surprises me anymore. :shrug


----------



## Reaper

glenwo2 said:


> nothing the government does surprises me anymore. :shrug


Actually, I was wrong. I double-checked. It's a patent dispute between e-cigarette brands. 

My mistake.


----------



## birthday_massacre




----------



## Reaper

^ :sodone 

I love it when it's a good joke seriously.


----------



## Beatles123

RipNTear said:


> ^ :sodone
> 
> I love it when it's a good joke seriously.


Mine are funnier and less tainted by globalism. :trump3


----------



## glenwo2

RipNTear said:


> Actually, I was wrong. I double-checked. It's a patent dispute between e-cigarette brands.
> 
> My mistake.


Nothing RipNTear posts surprises me anymore. >


----------



## Reaper

Yah. I make mistakes sometimes. No shame in admitting it :draper2 

I won't even argue that patents stifle industry because that's just a whole different can of worms that I don't want to dip into right now :mj

I'll just gracefully accept that I posted a falsehood :evil


----------



## glenwo2

^ Can you imagine dipping into an actual can of live worms? ewww!


----------



## Reaper

glenwo2 said:


> ^ Can you imagine dipping into an actual can of live worms? ewww!


I don't need to imagine it. I feed live worms to my Sugar Gliders using my fingers sometimes :shrug


----------



## virus21




----------



## FriedTofu

glenwo2 said:


> Spoken like a true LEFTIST that still can't let go of the fact that Hillary LOST and Trump WON.
> 
> You are so entertaining with your doomsday proclamations of Trump. :sleep


It's not that far-fetch when you read about what Steve Bannon's goals are. :shrug

But hey I wasn't part of the group that was saying Hilary winning would start WW3 or there was a secret pedo ring running out of a pizza place.


----------



## glenwo2

Spicer gonna Spice.


----------



## glenwo2

FriedTofu said:


> It's not that far-fetch when you read about what Steve Bannon's goals are. :shrug
> 
> But hey I wasn't part of the group that was saying Hilary winning would start WW3 or there was a secret pedo ring running out of a pizza place.


Well I would rather have Trump who actually prefers dialogue with a country that has nukes(like we do) than have a bat-shit insane woman who would further antagonize that country to the point where they use those nukes....ON US. 

And the PIZZAGATE thing? Is it real? I don't know but there's a LOT of talk about it so there has to be at least something to it. :shrug


----------



## virus21




----------



## TheNightmanCometh

I don't know how to post twitter pics, but there's this...

Rachel Maddow MSNBC‏Verified account @maddow

BREAKING: We've got Trump tax returns. Tonight, 9pm ET. MSNBC.

...So, somebody is gonna get in trouble for this and I doubt it's Trump.


----------



## FriedTofu

glenwo2 said:


> Well I would rather have Trump who actually prefers dialogue with a country that has nukes(like we do) than have a bat-shit insane woman who would further antagonize that country to the point where they use those nukes....ON US.
> 
> And the PIZZAGATE thing? Is it real? I don't know but there's a LOT of talk about it so there has to be at least something to it. :shrug


Dialogue or collusion? :troll

Do you believe in big foot too? What evidence do you need to prove that pizzagate thing is false? Everytime it is debunked someone like you would say there is more evidence out there waiting to be uncovered.

It is the whole birther thing all over again where no amount of evidence can change one's belief in the subject. But some photoshopped 'evidence' to prove the theory correct is taken as absolute truth.


----------



## glenwo2

TheNightmanCometh said:


> I don't know how to post twitter pics, but there's this...
> 
> Rachel Maddow MSNBC‏Verified account @maddow
> 
> BREAKING: *We've got Trump tax returns*. Tonight, 9pm ET. MSNBC.
> 
> ...So, somebody is gonna get in trouble for this and I doubt it's Trump.




^ Bet they're fake as fuck like her gender(that transexual-****** freak).


----------



## glenwo2

FriedTofu said:


> Dialogue or collusion? :troll


Dialogue so as to avoid an unnecessary War that would've turned catastrophic. But please continue with your use of stupid-as-fuck Troll memes. It demonstrates you have no interest in debate; only in getting the last word. fpalm




> Do you believe in big foot too?


Case in point.



> What evidence do you need to prove that pizzagate thing is false? Everytime it is debunked someone like you would say there is more evidence out there waiting to be uncovered.


Yeah but aren't you doing the same Tin-foil-hat thing with the Russian-Trump Conspiracy situation as well? :shrug




> It is the whole birther thing all over again where* no amount of evidence can change one's belief in the subject.* But some photoshopped 'evidence' to prove the theory correct is taken as absolute truth.


You're right about the bolded since you still believe that Trump is the Devil incarnate. You're the perfect example of a LEFTIST left grasping for straws. :lol :lol :lol


----------



## wwe9391

Liberals are gonna be very disappointed in Maddow tonight


----------



## glenwo2

^ They're going to be expecting something explosive that would help lead to Trump's impeachment.

But what they'll find is that everything is legit and nothing is illegal. 

Then they'll start throwing tantrums. :lol


----------



## FriedTofu

glenwo2 said:


> Dialogue so as to avoid an unnecessary War that would've turned catastrophic. But please continue with your use of stupid-as-fuck Troll memes. It demonstrates you have no interest in debate; only in getting the last word. fpalm


What debate? Again, your side is the one pushing the WW3 scenario with no basis. The anti-Trump side is pointing to Trump's recklessness in abandoning the norms exhibited during the campaign as a reason for concern in such matters.





> Case in point.


Your claim is there is a lot of talk about something so there has to be something to it. And I'm the one that have no interest in debate? :lmao




> Yeah but aren't you doing the same Tin-foil-hat thing with the Russian-Trump Conspiracy situation as well? :shrug


Trump's side was the one to push for easing of language against Russia during the RNC last year. What evidence has been debunked with regards to Trump-Russia ties? His business connections are still there. His ties to foreign banks because no American banks trusted him after his bankruptcies. :shrug






> You're right about the bolded since you still believe that Trump is the Devils incarnate. You're the perfect example of this. :lol :lol :lol


Don't project your views on Hilary onto mine on Trump. :lmao Do you still believe Obama is a secret Muslim? :troll

I simply view Trump as incompetent at running operations which will be a disaster if he doesn't delegate well. He is a better salesman than getting down to the real hard work of administrating.


----------



## FriedTofu

wwe9391 said:


> Liberals are gonna be very disappointed in Maddow tonight


It would be hilarious if it turns out to be some troll on the internet feeding Maddow fake information. :lmao.


----------



## glenwo2

^ "I simply view Trump as incompetent at running operations"

Question for you : Are you a businessman? Do you run your own business or know how to run one? Just curious.

Because if you don't or haven't done this, then that comment is pretty stupid to say, you know?


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

@maddow 
What we've got is from 2005... the President's 1040 form... details to come tonight 9PM ET, MSNBC.



> BREAKING: Donald Trump 'to release tax returns within MINUTES'
> 
> DONALD Trump is set to release his tax returns at 01.00am GMT (21.00 ET) this morning after previously refusing to do so, it has been revealed.


http://www.express.co.uk/news/world...ow-USA-Kellyanne-Conway-inauguration-business


----------



## glenwo2

^ Meaning that everything in the tax returns are LEGIT and LEGAL.


There will be NOTHING that the LEFT can use against him here. :lol


----------



## wwe9391

LOL she's already doubling down.


----------



## FriedTofu

glenwo2 said:


> ^ "I simply view Trump as incompetent at running operations"
> 
> Question for you : Are you a businessman? Do you run your own business or know how to run one? Just curious.
> 
> Because if you don't or haven't done this, then that comment is pretty stupid to say, you know?


No, I am not. I am merely going by the record of his casinos when he was running them compared to the record of his casinos when others were running it for him.


----------



## Mra22

Maddow just got trumped :lol


----------



## FriedTofu

So the tax return reveal was much about nothing. So why the hell doesn't he release them in the first place? Although it is only a few pages of a decades return that revealed nothing about his more recent dealings, releasing something similar during the campaign would put an end to much of the circus surrounding it.

Somehow feels like a stunt to pacify his core supporters and Maddow got baited into it for ratings. :lol


----------



## glenwo2

^ Maddow is so triggered now.


----------



## Headliner

Rachel Maddow should sit down somewhere and never host another broadcast again. She embarrassed herself. Her obsession with taking down Trump has turned her into Sherlock Holmes the last few months and it's resulted in this foolishness. When I heard about it before the show, I laughed because I knew it would be some bullshit. Then to actually see it was even more hilarious.


----------



## FriedTofu

Headliner said:


> Rachel Maddow should sit down somewhere and never host another broadcast again. She embarrassed herself. Her obsession with taking down Trump has turned her into Sherlock Holmes the last few months and it's resulted in this foolishness. When I heard about it before the show, I laughed because I knew it would be some bullshit. Then to actually see it was even more hilarious.


She's the Sean Hannity of MSNBC now. :lmao


----------



## wwe9391

What a waste from Maddow. Liberals were once again let down


----------



## MontyCora

Complete fuck up by MSNBC. Way to give Trump bullets in his gun.


----------



## deepelemblues

It's not that it's illegal to do what she did and :trump is probably going to at least scare the shit out of her by threatening prosecution. It's that she's so stupid to run the story at all. Nobody cares about :trump 's tax return from 12 years ago when all it reveals is that he paid a 25% tax rate on his income and literally nothing else relevant to anything. Whoop dee shit rachel, you broke the law and obliterated the little credibility you had left for a story that is basically a big nothingburger. Coming out and just making shit up would have been a better idea.


----------



## Reaper

Maybe Rachel Maddow is really a Republican pro-Trumper double agent who's taking down the MSM from the inside :lmao :lmao


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/841830020435787777
You know your credibility is so far down the sewer that pro-Illuminati conspiracy theorists can shit on you. 

:done


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/841828899923341313
Man, how prophetic this meme was


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/841828762488467456

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/841827034879950849
She even threw Bernie Sanders under the bus who's now getting shat upon for his 13% tax rate versus Trump's 25% 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/841826810266447872
:lmao 

This political theater is the best show on earth right now.


----------



## MontyCora

deepelemblues said:


> It's not that it's illegal to do what she did and :trump is probably going to at least scare the shit out of her by threatening prosecution. It's that she's so stupid to run the story at all. Nobody cares about :trump 's tax return from 12 years ago when all it reveals is that he paid a 25% tax rate on his income and literally nothing else relevant to anything. Whoop dee shit rachel, you broke the law and obliterated the little credibility you had left for a story that is basically a big nothingburger. Coming out and just making shit up would have been a better idea.


She did not break the law.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

:mase if she gets sacked and replaced with her clone / professional middle aged depiction of Justin Bieber known as Sally Kohn.



FriedTofu said:


> She's the Sean Hannity of MSNBC now. :lmao


*Now?* :lol


----------



## DesolationRow

Headliner said:


> Rachel Maddow should sit down somewhere and never host another broadcast again. She embarrassed herself. Her obsession with taking down Trump has turned her into Sherlock Holmes the last few months and it's resulted in this foolishness. When I heard about it before the show, I laughed because I knew it would be some bullshit. Then to actually see it was even more hilarious.


:lmao So true.

I squinted at the television screen, though, and it did seem as if Rachel Maddow transformed through sheer force of will into looking somewhat like Dustin Hoffman as Carl Bernstein in _All the President's Men_. Even with considerably shorter hair than Hoffman sported in the 1976 film. osey2


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

WOW, what a huge L for Maddow. All she did was make Trump look good. She earned that L, that's for sure. What a continued disaster since November for them. Jesus.


----------



## Reaper

Everyone on the left looks bad now. This country is built upon the taxes of the rich who are already responsible for the infrastructure we so enjoy. Many of them genuinely don't release their taxes for genuine privacy concerns and not because they're involved in shady shit. 

This is a huge L for big government tax the rich liberals and their entire platform. 










This country isn't built by the poor. The poor is merely labor and replaceable. This country is built by entrepreneurs and capitalists. Everyone else is just a cog in their wheel. And that's not a bad thing. To constantly shit on the hand that feeds you and trying to keep scraping/stealing from the capitalist only leads to ruin.


----------



## deepelemblues

MontyCora said:


> She did not break the law.


The First Amendment doesn't protect you from publishing certain kinds of information period, and other certain kinds of information without the consent of the subject of the information. Federal tax returns are of the latter. It is a violation of federal law to publish someone's federal tax return without their consent..


----------



## birthday_massacre

RipNTear said:


> Everyone on the left looks bad now. This country is built upon the taxes of the rich who are already responsible for the infrastructure we so enjoy. Many of them genuinely don't release their taxes for genuine privacy concerns and not because they're involved in shady shit.
> 
> This is a huge L for big government tax the rich liberals and their entire platform.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This country isn't built by the poor. The poor is merely labor and replaceable. This country is built by entrepreneurs and capitalists. Everyone else is just a cog in their wheel. And that's not a bad thing. To constantly shit on the hand that feeds you and trying to keep scraping/stealing from the capitalist only leads to ruin.


Come on dude you can't compare one person's tax return in 2005 and another 2014 you need to compare the same years.


----------



## Reaper

birthday_massacre said:


> Come on dude you can't compare one person's tax return in 2005 and another 2014 you need to compare the same years.


Sure. But I can say with almost absolute certainty that Bernie was poorer in 2005 or earned the same as he is now and it was Bush years so he was probably in the same or potentially even lower tax bracket at the time as there hasn't been any legislation I can think if that would put him in a higher tax bracket.


----------



## birthday_massacre

RipNTear said:


> Sure. But I can say with almost absolute certainty that Bernie was poorer in 2005 or earned the same as he is now and it was Bush years so he was probably in the same or potentially even lower tax bracket at the time as there hasn't been any legislation I can think if that would put him in a higher tax bracket.


And I can say with almost absolute certainty Trump is not paying 25% now, he used all the loops holes he can get to get it way under that. that is why he refused to share his current tax returns.

that being said isn't Sanders tax rate that year pretty much in line with what he earned?

Also this whole thing makes Maddow look like a fool, big deal she got Trumps 2005 tax return. This whole tax return thing is just another reason why the democrats lost. They should have focused more on why their plans are better than Trumps instead of focusing on Trumps tax returns and what he is a bad person.

speaking of that did you see how Hillarys favorable rating has taken a nose dive? Its at like 35%

LOL if the DNC would even be serious about running her again


----------



## Reaper

Neither government's plans are better imo. One government believes that you can build stuff without money while the other wants to fill up the deep end of the pool by dumping water from the shallow end into the deep end.

My support for Trump was based on 3 needs and those needs are being fulfilled.


----------



## FriedTofu

Trump's proposed tax reform would cut a majority of his tax burden from that return.


----------



## samizayn

ShowStopper said:


> WOW, what a huge L for Maddow. All she did was make Trump look good. She earned that L, that's for sure. What a continued disaster since November for them. Jesus.


Yeah. If Trump tweeting random crap he can't back up was actually a co-ordinated ploy to make the media look stupid (lol) then this """leak""" was also co-ordinated to dissipate the flack Trump was getting after the WH had to make a statement saying he was speaking metaphorically. lmao)

LOL at this fucking idiot either way.


----------



## Slickback

*L*












Nice try Madcow :trump2


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

birthday_massacre said:


> And I can say with almost absolute certainty Trump is not paying 25% now, he used all the loops holes he can get to get it way under that. that is why he refused to share his current tax returns.
> 
> *that being said isn't Sanders tax rate that year pretty much in line with what he earned?
> *
> Also this whole thing makes Maddow look like a fool, big deal she got Trumps 2005 tax return. This whole tax return thing is just another reason why the democrats lost. *They should have focused more on why their plans are better than Trumps instead of focusing on Trumps tax returns and what he is a bad person.*
> 
> speaking of that did you see how Hillarys favorable rating has taken a nose dive? Its at like 35%
> 
> LOL if the DNC would even be serious about running her again


I'm not a tax law expert, but there is no way that 13% is in line with Sanders tax rate.

I am gonna go out on a limb, though, and say the reason why they didn't focus on their plans are either a.) They didn't have any; or b.) they were terrible and they knew it. Nobody ignores their platform if they actually have one. If that is precisely what they did then they're freaking morons.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

Holy fuck, what an absolute blunder of Geraldo proportions!

As I said in October, the liberals' lack of self awareness and reflection is going to be their ultimate downfall on a national level and Rachael Maddow already has taken the biggest L from this administration so far.

And it's only *March*. ti


----------



## glenwo2

wwe9391 said:


> What a waste from Maddow. Liberals were once again let down


What did you expect from a LEFTIST? EVIDENCE? :lmao :lmao :lmao 

I knew she had nothing the moment they got his tax returns. 

I mean let's be honest here.

If there was something up(that could be damaging to Trump), you think he would've released the Tax returns AT ALL? No. 

I bet he had his lawyers go over his Tax Returns with a fine-toothed comb(figuratively) to make sure nothing in it would/could be used as ammo against him. 

What happened is the best case scenario(and then some) : Not only do the LEFT have nothing but as someone mentioned, Rachel has given our POTUS bullets in his gun against the Democraps. I am so :lol at this and at her.


----------



## TheNightmanCometh

The fact of the matter is, and MSNBC proved it tonight, is that political thought bubbles are cancerous. The idea that there wasn't a single person who said, "Hey, you know, tweeting out that you have Trump's tax returns, not specifying that it's from 2005 and then trying to spin the fact that paying $38 million in taxes is somehow a bad thing, isn't the best thing in the world to be doing" is preposterous and should really give them pause, but it won't and instead they'll continue to double down on "TAX RETURNS!" "RUSSIA!" and continue to destroy their non-existent credibility beyond repair.

As an anecdote, my cousin works in San Jose, for a fortune 500 company, and there were a handful of people he works with, that identify themselves as far-left liberals, who said, after tonight, that they can't support the Democrats anymore. They'll vote Green Party or Libertarian in the future. If you identify similarly, you have to be concerned about that.


----------



## glenwo2

^ Exactly. Though, to be honest, I am a bit curious what his 2015 Tax return looks like.


However...since it's...you know.....*NOT MY BUSINESS*, then oh well. So it goes.


The main point is that Rachel Madcow may have just torpedoed her Political-Media Career right there with this act and may be facing criminal charges for illegally providing Tax information without consent of Trump.


----------



## birthday_massacre

glenwo2 said:


> *What did you expect from a LEFTIST? EVIDENCE?* :lmao :lmao :lmao
> 
> I knew she had nothing the moment they got his tax returns.
> 
> I mean let's be honest here.
> 
> If there was something up(that could be damaging to Trump), you think he would've released the Tax returns AT ALL? No.
> 
> I bet he had his lawyers go over his Tax Returns with a fine-toothed comb(figuratively) to make sure nothing in it would/could be used as ammo against him.
> 
> What happened is the best case scenario(and then some) : Not only do the LEFT have nothing but as someone mentioned, Rachel has given our POTUS bullets in his gun against the Democraps. I am so :lol at this and at her.


You are such a joke when you say things like this and defend Trump and the right when they are always making shit up with no evidence. Trump just got embarrassed when he had nothing on the wire tapping thing. Or when Kelly Ann coined the phrase alternative facts for the right.

Trump watches fox news FFS and will tweet out anything they say right after they say it even when it's BS. But yeah keep defending that LOL

Trump lies close to 70% of the time in the things he says.


----------



## glenwo2

birthday_massacre said:


> And I can say with almost absolute certainty Trump is not paying 25% now, he used all the loops holes he can get to get it way under that. that is why he refused to share his current tax returns.
> 
> that being said isn't Sanders tax rate that year pretty much in line with what he earned?
> 
> Also this whole thing makes Maddow look like a fool, big deal she got Trumps 2005 tax return. This whole tax return thing is just another reason why the democrats lost. They should have focused more on why their plans are better than Trumps instead of focusing on Trumps tax returns and what he is a bad person.
> 
> speaking of that did you see how Hillarys favorable rating has taken a nose dive? Its at like 35%
> 
> LOL if the DNC would even be serious about running her again


BM, what I don't understand is this :

If they claim they have Trump's tax return, why did they risk such an utter FAIL when they saw CLEARLY that it was for 2005 and not 2015? It's incredible how utterly STUPID the LEFT are and how DESPERATE they are to find ANYTHING resembling a smoking gun to Impeach Trump.

They all might as well resign and move to fucking Canada with the rest of the snowflakes and whiners if that's all they're going to be doing in the government for the next 8(yes...EIGHT) years. :sleep :sleep :sleep


----------



## glenwo2

birthday_massacre said:


> *You are such a joke* when you say things like this and defend Trump and the right when they are always making shit up with no evidence. Trump just got embarrassed when he had nothing on the wire tapping thing. Or when Kelly Ann coined the phrase alternative facts for the right.
> 
> Trump watches fox news FFS and will tweet out anything they say right after they say it even when it's BS. But yeah keep defending that LOL
> 
> Trump lies close to 70% of the time in the things he says.













And Trump got embarrassed? I must've missed that part because I was focusing on Detective Madcow solving the case of the missing Tax returns. :lmao :lmao :lmao

(but I'm not so sure Trump is able to be "embarrassed", tbh. He just doesn't give two shits about what he looks like. He just proceeds to be....well...Trump)


----------



## birthday_massacre

glenwo2 said:


> BM, what I don't understand is this :
> 
> If they claim they have Trump's tax return, why did they risk such an utter FAIL when they saw CLEARLY that it was for 2005 and not 2015? It's incredible how utterly STUPID the LEFT are and how DESPERATE they are to find ANYTHING resembling a smoking gun to Impeach Trump.
> 
> They all might as well resign and move to fucking Canada with the rest of the snowflakes and whiners if that's all they're going to be doing in the government for the next 8(yes...EIGHT) years. :sleep :sleep :sleep


I already said Madow looked ilke an idiot for making that claim and showing the 2005 tax returns. 

And there is already plenty of things they can use to impeach Trump like all his conflicts. They don't need his tax returns.


Also i love how you use the term snowflake when Trump is the biggest snowflake of them all and is always having meltdowns on Twitter and all the leaks from inside the WH of his meltdowns. But yeah its the left that are the snowflakes LOL

I also think its funny how oh now they should all move to Canada because they are against Trump but for 8 years when the GOP was all against Trump you were loving all of that.

It just shows what a hypocrite people like you and most on the right are.


----------



## birthday_massacre

glenwo2 said:


> And Trump got embarrassed? I must've missed that part because I was focusing on Detective Madcow solving the case of the missing Tax returns. :lmao :lmao :lmao


Keep trolling with the stupid memes, if anyone is a snowflake its people like you, that is why you post them.

And yes Trump was embarassed because everyone said WTF he is Trump talking about there was no wiretap and Trump got that info from Alex Jones and Brietbart.

Oh and there you go again with your stupid names . But of course you would ignore Trump being embarrassed because he was wrong once again on something that was made up. that is the problem with you, you ignore all the times Trump is wrong which is most of the time and just make up stupid names for people on the left you dont like


But keep shit posting, it just shows what a terrible poster you are and that you cant even be objective.


----------



## MillionDollarProns

WRONG THREAD DELETE THIS


----------



## glenwo2

birthday_massacre said:


> I already said Madow looked ilke an idiot for making that claim and showing the 2005 tax returns.
> 
> *And there is already plenty of things they can use to impeach Trump like all his conflicts.* They don't need his tax returns.


List them, please. I want Rip to see this as well so he can easily debunk each and every one like he always does. It's an art-form, you know. :quite




> Also i love how you use the term snowflake when Trump is the biggest snowflake of them all and is always having meltdowns on Twitter and all the leaks from inside the WH of his meltdowns. But yeah its the left that are the snowflakes LOL


I call them snowflakes because calling them pussies is an insult to all pussies out there. Don't want to offend anyone IMPORTANT, you know. :shrug




> I also think its funny how oh now they should all move to Canada because they are against Trump but for 8 years when the GOP was all against Trump you were loving all of that.


Uhh...I wasn't even paying any attention during the 8 years that Obama was POTUS except when I was forced to buy fucking insurance or otherwise pay penalty for this fucking Obamacare. "Thanks", Barrak Osama-Bin-Bama. 

To be frank, I never even gave two shits about Politics until Trump came by and shook things up. Now I'm paying more attention to what's happening in our government than I have ever done before, thanks to the Donald. 




> It just shows what a hypocrite people like you and most on the right are.


No it doesn't because I don't remember EVER posting in a politics forum/thread when Obama was President. Sorry but Obama was just like the other Career Politicians who worked for interest groups. They gave no shit about Americans and getting stuff done.


----------



## glenwo2

birthday_massacre said:


> Keep trolling with the stupid memes, if anyone is a snowflake its people like you, that is why you post them.
> 
> And yes Trump was embarassed because everyone said WTF he is Trump talking about there was no wiretap and Trump got that info from Alex Jones and Brietbart.
> 
> Oh and there you go again with your stupid names . But of course you would ignore Trump being embarrassed because he was wrong once again on something that was made up. that is the problem with you, you ignore all the times Trump is wrong which is most of the time and just make up stupid names for people on the left you dont like
> 
> 
> But keep shit posting, it just shows what a terrible poster you are and that you cant even be objective.



Rip had an expression and I think I'll use it here :

You're not a serious person. >


EDIT : BTW, what was "made up" about the wiretapping? There WAS IN FACT WIRETAPPING GOING ON! Don't know what news(or fake news) you were watching.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

BM proving to be the personification of liberalism in 2017 America. Shocker.

*incoming passive aggressive post full of emotion and insults* :ti


----------



## glenwo2

^ Maybe we should start posting your sig in response to any of his posts..... :lol


----------



## Oxidamus

Idk much about tax, being NEET and all, but what I know might not even apply to the US. So I just want this cleared up. If he paid $38 million in tax, is there a chance he could've claimed millions of business purchases on tax? Or has that been covered?


----------



## SWITCHBLADE

glenwo2 said:


> ^ Maybe we should start posting your sig in response to any of his posts..... :lol


I'm not sure how using memes in discussions involving Trump are a bad thing considering Meme Magic won him the Election, more or less.


----------



## glenwo2

Oxi X.O. said:


> Idk much about tax, being NEET and all, but what I know might not even apply to the US. So I just want this cleared up. If he paid $38 million in tax, is there a chance he could've claimed millions of business purchases on tax? Or has that been covered?


^ No clue as I'm not a Tax Expert like Rachel Maddow is. :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao


----------



## Art Vandaley

I've heard it rumoured that the tax returns were marked "client copy" and therefore possibly leaked by Trump himself.

If so I'll applaud that as a genius move.


----------



## CamillePunk

Rachel Maddow. :banderas So rewarding to support a 4D chess wizard like Donald J Trump.


----------



## SWITCHBLADE

Alkomesh2 said:


> I've heard it rumoured that the tax returns were marked "client copy" and therefore possibly leaked by Trump himself.
> 
> If so I'll applaud that as a genius move.


This was my first thought when this was announced. Trump basically plays 4D chess and that was only confirmed after this "revelation" came about and if this is the case........ @ Regressives :trumpout


----------



## MontyCora

deepelemblues said:


> The First Amendment doesn't protect you from publishing certain kinds of information period, and other certain kinds of information without the consent of the subject of the information. Federal tax returns are of the latter. It is a violation of federal law to publish someone's federal tax return without their consent..


I'm a lawyer. To be totally 1000 percent clear, there's nothing illegal about publishing tax returns as long as the publisher didn't unlawfully acquire them or help someone who did. Do people really think MSNBC's legion of lawyers would let her do this if it was a federal crime? Sometimes what people need is common sense. It's Hillary's emails all over again.


----------

